Bloody Sunday ****

Writer/Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2002

Cinematographer: Ivan Strasburg

Rarely does cinema have a tangible impact on real life, making our world a little better. One's mind springs directly to a film like Errol Morris' "The Thin Blue Line" which saved an innocent man from prison.

But here is another example, a film that sets an example for filmmakers who want to make a difference in the world, but who would rather make a scripted, acted, kind of cinema rather than documentary cinema.

Here, a team of British and Irish filmmakers got together to make a documentary-style recounting of the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, Ireland in January of 1972, an event forever etched into the memory of the Irish, while the British (including the queen) have tried to forget the event for almost 40 years. Both sides have refused to take responsibility for the tragedy, and so the filmmakers stepped up to make a film that gives a reasonable, realistic retelling, painting the complexity of the conflict and the chaos of that day. It does not paint black and white guilt and innocence, it does not over-exaggerate the mal-intent of the British military, yet it does not act so naive as to show all as innocents.

It presents a version of the story that is more believable than the official reports made by the British military leadership, with the aim of bringing the topic up for renewed conversation, offering understanding, and asking very reasonably for an apology for an event that spurred 3 more decades of violence which ripped Ireland apart.

And the film seems to have succeeded, after raising social awareness to the event by bringing it back to the British conscience, a new report was made which more or less agreed with the film's interpretation of events, and was later followed by the first official apology by Britain's Prime Minister on behalf of the nation.

Does a great job of putting you in the moment, of explaining complexity and chaos without holding the audience's hand. Does what a great event documentary does, but without any distracting interviews, rather it keeps you in and among the series of significant moments and decisions that make the event what it was.

Bananas ****

Director: Woody Allen

Year: 1971

Writers: Woody Allen, Mickey Rose

Cinematographer: Andrew M. Costikyan

Woody Allen's outrageous satire in which he accidentally becomes the reluctant dictator of a small South American country. Does a great job at cutting jokes about the way the US has a habit of assassinating democratically elected leaders and installing lunatic dictators in order to "protect the people against communism". Woody of course does what he does best, make fun of himself and people like him. As always, a few references to Swedes, Swedish film, or Ingmar Bergman directly.

I love the opening scene with the Wide World of Sports reporting live on the assassination of the president of "San Marcos."

Woody Allen ends up as the new president of his own "banana republic". Good laughs all the way through.

Funny Games (U.S.) *****

Writer/Director: Michael Haneke

Year: 2007

Cinematographer: Darius Khondji

I haven't seen a lot of horror films, admittedly, because I usually laugh and am too annoyed by poor filmmaking to sit through them. I never find them truly horrific, just juvenile excuses to spill blood and guts, to shock through predictable methods and have some sexy young female actor strip down to almost nothing... and then they let her be the hero and save the day.

I also haven't seen the original version of this film (Made by Haneke in 1997, in German), but this is the most profound horror film I've seen. Haneke both uses some predictable horror film tropes, and also brings his own particular style and creativity... and that's what he uses as a base. He then dismantles and disobeys most of the rules of the horror genre, and in the mean-time criticizes his own audience for even watching the film... for being an audience that came to see a horror film. For that is the motivation of the torturers... to satisfy the audience's desire to see horrible acts of violence and abuse, while providing "plausible plot development."

Breaks the 4th wall of the theater several times, as one of the young men has little asides with the audience.

Many elements of the film remind me of Polanski's "Knife in the Water".

Excellently made, truly terrifying, and ultimately a rewarding intellectual film-going experience.

2001: A Space Odyssey *****

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Year: 1968

Writers: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke

Cinematographer: Geoffrey Unsworth

Innocent Voices ***

Original Title: Voces inocentes

Director: Luis Mandoki

Year: 2004

Writers: Luis Mandoki, Oscar Orlando Torres

Cinematographer: Juan Ruiz Anchía

Tombstone *****

Director: George P. Cosmatos

Year: 1993

Writer: Kevin Jarre

Cinematographer: William A. Fraker

Manhattan *****

Director: Woody Allen

Year: 1979

Writers: Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman

Cinematographer: Gordon Willis

An adult film. I can't think of a more adult, mature movie that I've seen recently. I love how Allen is constantly referencing people in the adult intellectual realm, and yet making fun of the way adult intellectuals are so pretentious and full of shit. He is himself, he makes movies about himself, and makes fun of himself in and through the film. Its very intimate because the audience can feel how personal the film is for him both as director and actor.

He is both himself and the caricature of himself. He adores New York, and paints the caricature of its intellectual culture of the time in which the film was made.

Toy Story 2 ****

Directors: John Lasseter

Co-directors: Ash Brannon, Lee Unkrich

Year: 1999

Writers: John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, Ash Brannon, Andrew Stanton, Rita Hsiao, Doug Chamberlin, Chris Webb

Toy Story *****

Director: John Lasseter

Year: 1995

Writers: John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen, Alec Sokolow

28 Days Later... ****

Director: Danny Boyle

Year: 2002

Writer: Alex Garland

Cinematographer: Anthony Dod Mantle

Admittedly, this is my first real zombie film. The only other film with zombies in it that I've actually sat down to watch all the way through is the very good comedy "Shaun of the Dead".

So I'm not an expert on zombie films, which seem to be able to count as their own genre considering how many titles have come out especially in the last decade which deal with zombies, presumably as an excuse for really gory violence which the audience need not feel uncomfortable about. (Because the first preoccupation of any director wanting to do a violent film is to come up with a way to de-humanize the victims so that we justify our ability to revel in the blood and guts.)

But here, in Danny Boyle's zombie film, we actually get more humanizing than de-humanizing... and not a lot of gory violence, well, until the last 15 minutes at least.

But then, the violence of the hero is aimed not towards zombies so much as the normal humans who are intent on raping two women. And while this is still a justification for violence (the choice to make the characters so evil as to threaten rape, as opposed to making the soldiers helpful) Boyle's choice is justified because it points out something interesting and valid. In a world where society has collapsed after a massive disaster, and where there is a shortage of women, and the only survivors are young, ruthless soldier types... it is more than believable that some of those men would be sexually violent towards two young, pretty women.

And the hero being one who wants to protect his friends more than someone who wants to save the damsel in distress (Selena having proven herself very witty and bad-ass previously in the film) proves that Boyle has more taste than most. There are some comic moments, and the gore really isn't too bad. Sure, the zombies who vomit blood are pretty gross, but the film never lingers on one of these bloody spectacles unless it is humanizing them, showing their suffering, or the hero's internal conflict over killing a zombie which he recognizes once was a human being.

So it wins points in that arena, in the humanizing of zombies, non-exploitation of female characters, and the choice to make normal, selfish humans the enemy rather than inconsequential zombies. But it does remember that its a zombie/action flick, and many zombies are shot, beaten, burned... you know.

Apart from that, the suspense is well built, and I really enjoyed seeing an evacuated England. It was cool to see so many diverse shots showing a vacant London.

Very well made, good flick. See it if you are in the mood for an action movie.

The Secret in Their Eyes ****

Original Title: El secreto de sus ojos

Director: Juan José Campanella

Year: 2009

Book by: Eduardo Sacheri "La pregunta de sus ojos"

Adapted by: Eduardo Sacheri, Juan José Campanella

Cinematographer: Félix Monti

Really good movie, but feels like it has a lot of beginnings and ends. There are about 4 scenes that are the beginning, and like 8 scenes that feel like an ending. It drags on a bit as it tries to draw out the suspense of its surprise ending, which isn't too surprising, and then to close the romantic frame of the Law & Order style detective story. Thankfully, the romance is interesting, the detective story is interesting, and the sidekick provides humor and emotional depth to the story.

Feels like a detective novel. Good use of special effects, because you don't see them, and a couple of ingenious camera tricks.

Very solid film, but like "The Hurt Locker", I still don't feel like very solid films should be given oscars. I think prizes should be reserved for GREAT films.

The Hurt Locker ****

Director: Kathryn Bigelow

Year: 2008 (2010 best picture, first best director to be won by a woman director)

Writer: Mark Boal

Cinematographer: Barry Ackroyd

Editors: Mark Murawski, Chris Innis

"Documentary style" photography, hand-held, constantly making little zooms in and out, drives me nuts in the first 30 minutes, and I'm not sure if I just get used to it and stop thinking about it, or if the style was just the right choice, because while I hate the little zoom adjustments and unnecessarily shaky hand-held bits, I ended up not being distracted by it. But maybe its just that the cameraman steadied his hand after the first 30 minutes.

Does a good job of just focusing on the difficulty of the job of being a bomb squad, and following 3 types of characters: the maverick, the by the book guy, and the younger guy trying to figure out if the way to survive the war is to be like the maverick or the by the book guy.

Very well made movie, but I didn't find it to be a great film.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou *****

Director: Wes Anderson

Year: 2004

Writers: Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach

Cinematographer: Robert Yeoman

I've recently heard Wes Anderson get a lot of critical drubbing for just being a quirk peddler, and I must admit that I myself had let reviews I have read and listened to change my own opinion about the works of Anderson. While its true he doesn't really hit the emotional buttons very hard, perhaps because of the way his characters are so cartoonish, yet upon rewatching The Life Aquatic, I am absolutely ready to defend Anderson as a cinematic genius, and not just for his great set design, music tastes, or dead-pan dialogue and camera style... I am blown away this time by the way he celebrates boyhood, and always depicts his male characters like Peter Pan and the lost boys.

Forever caught up in a world of secret hand shakes, nick-names, special uniforms (often jumpsuits), parental approval issues, wild imagination, selfish and immature behavior so common among young boys. For Anderson, Steve Zissou is an aging ocean explorer and documentarian who is grappling with the failures of his adult life, but Anderson depicts the story as if Zissou is just another lost boy acting out his passions, fears, anger, and insecurity on the playground.

Bill Murray's performance in this film is fun. I love watching Bill Murray be deadpan, and when he's not doing a Jarmusch picture, I can't think of anything I enjoy more than hearing him deliver Anderson/Baumbach deadpan sarcasm and cynicism. The movie is funny for me so much because of the fantasy, the film within a film, which always acknowledges that it is a film. Its fun. Bill Murray's character is melodramatic, who hams it up for his camera while acting in his nature "documentaries" and stays in this Zissou character not only for the film within the film, but the film itself, hamming it up just enough to make his deadpan ridiculous as a spoiled child's temper tantrum.

Does it matter that Owen Wilson's Tennessee accent is horrible? No! In fact, it works better that way. The whole film is wonderfully, intentionally bad acting... making the acting even more impressive for me. Wilson and Blanchett especially work great together hitting the same pitch of bad accent, deadpan comedy mellow-drama.

The whole thing is just so much fun, and when Murray walks down the stairs in the quintessential Wes Anderson slow-mo final shot... it is more than appropriate that a young boy is triumphantly perched upon Murray's shoulders... Long live boyhood!

Viva Zapata! ***

Director: Elia Kazan

Year: 1952

Writer: John Steinbeck

Cinematographer: Joseph MacDonald

Gorky Park **

Director: Michael Apted

Year: 1983

Book by: Martin Cruz Smith

Adapted by: Dennis Potter

Cinematographer: Ralf D. Bode

Buena Vista Social Club ***

Director: Wim Wenders

Year: 1999

Music documentary about some great rediscovered Cuban musicians, but the camera-work and editing is annoyingly hap-hazard and the American music producer who was the initiating force behind finding the musicians and putting them back together hogs too much camera time, becoming far too important to the film. He should have organized it and then stepped back, let the film and music focus on these great old Cuban musicians. He shouldn't have played on stage with them either, he distracts, as does his son, from the organic afro-cuban jazz that emanates from the 70-90 year old geezers.

Found myself very frustrated with Wenders film, although I was totally enamoured by the music, the musicians, and Cuba itself, its people, its architecture, its unique culture. Which says the filmmaking must have been really bad, if I was disappointed by the film although I loved its subject. Poorly made, but the music stands on its own, and its still interesting to learn a little about the players... feels more like one of those poorly slapped together behind the scenes documentaries that are extra features on a DVD, doesn't feel like a documentary feature film.

Z ****

Director: Costa-Gavras

Year: 1969

Book by: Vasilis Vasilikos

Adapted by: Jorge Semprún

Cinematographer: Raoul Coutard

A french-made political thriller made based on the true story of a political assassination and scandal that happened in Greece in 1967. The film takes place however, in an unnamed mediterranean city, with the actors speaking French, because the director wanted the people of democratic nations to take heed to the story and be warned that democracy can be threatened by nationalistic powers like the generals of this story, who squashed Greece's democracy from the inside out under the pretense of protecting national interests.

The scenes run together as they hurriedly reveal a broad assassination plot against a liberal leader put together by the nationalist military generals, and you'll cheer as the judge later investigating the case decides to defy the military authorities to stand up for justice... but then you'll be crushed to hear what later happened to the brave defenders of democracy at the hands of militaristic nationalistic leaders.

It is a great political thriller and will always be relevant to any democratic or democratically aspiring nation, there are those who do not want each individual to have a voice, and they are the ones who are rich and have power, those who lead militaries and police forces, corporations and governments. The enemies of democracies are the elite ruling class who do not want to see their power distributed among the masses.

Silent Light ****

Original Title: Stellet licht

Writer/Director: Carlos Reygadas

Year: 2007

Cinematographer: Alexis Zabe

Very good photography and sound design. A stripped down and simply told film, very carefully planned and therefore very impacting, even if you feel a little lost, especially at the end.

A great idea to tell a simple story in a simple setting, using simple characters. The minimalism of the spoken words of the script and the delicate directing pulls out powerfully naturalistic performances. According to the wikipedia page, all the performers are non-actors, they are real Mennonites, which brings up a whole lot of questions for me about how the director got these Mennonites to act so well, and in the case of certain scenes, to act at all!

A beautiful film full of images that pulled me in, mesmerized, like gazing at old impressionistic oil paintings.

The minimal acting is what makes it so emotionally true, and I don't know if that is due to casting actors who just naturally didn't try to act, or through long and hard training to get them to be so stoic in their facial expression of emotions. My hunch is that the director wisely chose people who were going to be stoic on camera whether he wanted that or not, people who just have no concept of hamming it up for the camera. Either way, the direction is clearly brilliant.

Beautiful film made in Mexico and deserves to be recognized along side the great contemporary realist directors from europe like the Dardenne Brothers, and a cinematic poetry like that of Terrence Malick.

Some compare this young mexican director to the likes of Carl Dreyer, Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, and Robert Bresson. One can certainly feel the connections. This is my first exposure to this director, but I am now eager to catch up with his other work and be on the lookout for anything else that might come from him in the future.

The Road ***

Director: John Hillcoat

Year: 2009

Book by: Cormac McCarthy

Adapted by: Joe Penhall

Cinematographer: Javier Aguirresarobe