Prometheus ****

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2012
Writers: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof
Cinematographer: Dariusz Wolski

I have never seen any of the alien movies. This gives me the perfect excuse to get started on the series.

I must say I really enjoyed this movie, I was thoroughly entertained, though I'm not sure it's a great film, I think I should judge based on my enjoyment, which makes it very good.

I like science fiction that focuses on the human questions more than technical stuff, and especially stuff concerning space exploration... it captures my imagination easily. That said, I loved the first half hour or so of exposition in which we find out who the characters are, what they are trying to accomplish, and where they are going. I really enjoyed the film as I knew monsters were coming, the tension was building, but it didn't rush... it was a slow build up and then crazy, horrifying monsters did horrible things to the humans. I like that the stakes were big, I like that we find out where humanity originated (kind of) and that we then have to protect ourselves from being destroyed by doing a suicide mission.

I loved the visuals, and I really liked Fassbinder's performance.

I didn't like the jumps through scenes. I felt like at least another 30 minutes of the film were left on the edit room floor as the slow build up in the beginning turned into a rushed climax. Although maybe the pace was intended, I think I could have enjoyed a little more suspense at the climax for example, when the decision is made to do a suicide mission, then again maybe its realistic that in that moment, they had to make a split decision.

I wish we knew why Fassbinder's character poisoned another character and then later seemed so helpful. I don't really understand his motivations.

Some of the dialogue was too direct, spelling things out like when the captain says "this is some kind of military base... they knew not to build their weapons of mass destruction on their own doorstep" maybe they could have done more show and less tell. Perhaps that was a decision they made to skip over a scene and instead opted for the line of dialogue to spell it out for the audience though I think we could kind of gather what was going on when we saw the arsenal of vases.

Anyway, I had fun watching this in the theater (saw it in 2D) and really want to see a movie where Shaw goes to the origin planet of the alien humans to ask her questions and/or release the nasty aliens on the original humans as punishment for trying to wipe out planet earth. I guess that is the biggest compliment I can pay this movie, that I want to see where that character goes next.

I walked out of the theater, got in my car, drove to the movie rental store and rented Alien and Aliens on blu-ray. I'm about to watch them, hopefully they are as enjoyable as Prometheus.

Haywire ****

Director/Cinematographer: Steven Soderbergh
Year: 2011
Writer: Lem Dobbs

Gina Carano is a female MMA fighter. Soderbergh says he saw her fight on TV and decided a movie should be built around her. What he built is a spy movie that breathes, takes its time more than the Bourne style flash edited, disorienting action sequences... here, the action set pieces are the focus. What the original Gone in Sixty Seconds from 1974 is to car chases, this film is to fight sequences. They are left pure, unadulterated by the editing. You see the characters perform their brutally choreographed fights and it gives you great pleasure as an audience to just be able to watch as if you were cowering at one end of the hotel room rather than be jostled around by editing. Gina's acting isn't great, but it's forgivable. This movie was just fun to watch for the way it follows her through fights and chase sequences. I like how Soderbergh even lets bad luck influence a scene, letting a plan be ruined by something completely out of anyone's control. This may actually be a kind of sleeper film. Not great now, but we may look back on it in the future with the kind of enjoyment I look back on Le Samourai.

Coriolanus ***

Director: Ralph Fiennes
Year: 2011
Play by: William Shakespeare
Adapted by: John Logan
Cinematographer: Barry Ackroyd

Very interesting production of Shakespeare. It feels more relevant and of the moment considering what is going on with the Arab spring and these military dictators that we realize watching this film that have risen and fallen like the tide especially around the Mediterranean since Rome.

I won't pretend I understood every line of Shakespeare's poetic dialogue, but the actors and the modernized context help you understand what is going on even when you don't understand the language.

The photography didn't win me over, and neither did the story, though I certainly appreciated the writing when I understood it. Can't exactly put my finger on a reason why I won't put this on my 4 star list, but something was missing or maybe blending the script with the time period didn't work smoothly enough for me. Certainly enjoyed the acting.... I don't know, I'm searching for what was wrong but I can't pin point it. It just didn't quite do it for me.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 ****

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 2004
Cinematographer: Robert Richardson

Vol. 2 is just what the title suggests, the second half of what really is one film. Somehow though, Vol. could be self contained.

It establishes her need for revenge better than Vol. 1, and then comes full circle by the end as we see the climax of her revenge. There is a fully resolved story arch in Vol. 2, but because of Tarantino's willingness to tell the story out of order, to get the tone to progress and to pull the viewer in, Vol. 1 basically has scenes that he couldn't fit into Vol. 2.

In other words, he had too many long scenes that he wanted to show us, but instead of cramming the bulk of plot in the first film, he actually gives you the bloodiest, least important scenes in Vol. 1, and then has room for the plot arch in Vol. 2.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 ****

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 2003
Cinematographer: Robert Richardson

Vol. 1 is not quite as rewarding as Vol. 2 for me, but really these can be reviewed as one film. Tarantino's anime kung-fu samurai revenge film takes a little bit of everything you can see Tarantino loves about Hong Kong and Japanese b-movies and puts it into a blender with American actors and locations, lending the concoction a bit of the old west shoot-out vibe. Fun, but you have to be able to stomach a lot of fake blood hyperbolically spewing and drenching the audience.

Pulp Fiction *****

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1994
Cinematographer: Andrzej Sekula

A modern classic. The greatest film of the 1990's. A beautiful, engrossing bit of entertainment.

Every scene is fun to watch, with tension, suspense, comedy, and cool. This is why we love movies.

If Tarantino's goal is to make a film that film-lovers will love, then this is his masterpiece. He is a cinephile, and he makes movies that he imagines that he would want to see. Fortunately for us, we want to see it too. Tarantino has this gift to make choices in his writing, directing, shooting and editing that both surprise the audience, while feeling right. He gets these scenes which are unlike any other scene, yet feel familiar because it is made up of elements from other films. And his dialogue is so much fun. It's completely engrossing and endlessly rewatchable.

Swingers ***

Director/Cinematographer: Doug Liman
Year: 1996
Writer: Jon Favreau

Took me a long time to get around to this movie, a classic low-budget success story. I didn't have extremely high expectations for Swingers, except that I wanted it to be funny and creative like Wes Anderson's first flick, Bottle Rocket or Kevin Smith's Clerks, and sadly, my expectations were a little too high.

First off, I don't like Jon Favreau or Vince Vaughn very much. Never met them, so I'm not sure if they are as they seem in their movies, but their characters in this movie are very similar to the roles I've seen them play elsewhere, and I've never liked those characters.

Not that they are bad actors, just not my kind of guys.

I don't relate to them well, or more well put, their characters are never guys I would want to spend time with. And that was my problem with this movie... while I appreciated the script and atmosphere, and the accomplishment for a low budget... for me it comes down to the fact that I wouldn't really want to hang out with these characters. To some degree, every movie I love has characters I love, maybe they're sleaze bags, but they are such interesting or cool sleaze bags that I would want to have a drink with them, or at least interview them. Here, I think if these characters walked into a bar I'm in, I would get up and leave. Mike because he's a downer and a loser, but more because of Trent, because he's an asshole. Let me say, some people will appreciate this film precisely because of the loser and asshole duo, and if you can enjoy that, power to you. I couldn't.

National Security ****

Director: Dennis Dugan
Year: 2003
Writers: Jay Scherick, David Ronn
Cinematographer: Oliver Wood

Steve Zahn and Martin Lawrence are really funny together in this. I caught this on TV by chance and really liked it. I loved the sense of humor.

Pleasantly surprising comedy. I say that because normally action comedies just fall flat for me and I feel like I can see the guy getting hit in the balls or the fart joke coming from the top of a pointless scene.

This had a lot of racial comedy, and that racial tension and the tension between black men and white police officers specifically is ripe for comedic use. I think the reason this works better than a silly comedy by Will Ferrell or the typical white rent-a-cop character comedy is precisely because of that Black and White tension. Silly comedy will never be as funny as comedy that takes place with a backdrop of satire of a serious issue. It is the tension that makes the audience need to laugh, and we feel the tension drop when we see the conflict presented in such a way that it makes it okay for us to laugh at it.

The Avengers ***

Director: Joss Whedon
Year: 2012
Comics by: Stan Lee, Jack Kirby
Adapted by: Joss Whedon, Zak Penn
Cinematographer: Seamus McGarvey

I swore to myself after seeing the horrendous "2012" that never again would I go see a movie whose trailer included the now obligatory summer blockbuster shot in which a monster, asteroid, or anything else chopped down a skyscraper like a lumber jack chops down a tall cedar. However, despite the felling of skyscrapers, I enjoyed myself. I never read comics growing up, which partially explains why I've missed most of the Marvel movie adaptations aside from Spider Man and Batman. Going into the movie I feared that due to the ensemble nature of the film, the story would be chaotic and not leave any time for character development... but somehow between all the action sequences and snarky comments, there was development for most of the characters. I followed who was who and most of what was going on even with no background, and I enjoyed when the team came together. Good summer fun. Not all that memorable, no images that will stick with me for a long time, so its shy of being Jaws or Jurassic Park (5-star blockbusters) and its even shy of The Dark Knight (my favorite super hero movie so far, a 4-star blockbuster) because it lacked the edge that Christopher Nolan has brought to the Batman franchise... but still, it was fun.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close **

Director: Stephen Daldry
Year: 2011
Novel by: Jonathan Safran Foer
Adapted by: Eric Roth
Cinematographer: Chris Menges

Well made but should have been more touching. I had one big problem with the movie, and I don't know if its just me or if others were turned off by the movie for the same reason... I've never met a kid so neurotic, so I found this character unrelatable. It pulled me out of the movie because the kid acted like Woody Allen. Maybe there are children who act so adult, but it didn't ring true for me. I found the character obnoxious, and unless its a comedy, I think it's near impossible to enjoy a film that centers on an obnoxious protagonist.

I enjoyed Foer's first adapted film, "Everything is Illuminated" because the neurotic jewish stereotype was played to more comic effect, and contrasted against the eastern-european pagan fool stereotype of the antagonist. And for some reason, in "Everything is Illuminated" the quirkiness of the search for a connection to the "Investigator's" family history is touching. I felt I could relate to the desire to know more about his family's european roots. EL&IC on the other hand suffers from a quirkiness overdose. The tambourine, the key-hole search, the neurosis of the child, Tom Hanks' annoying shoulder shrug tic... all of that made me resent the movie. I can imagine how all these elements might work in a literary sense... reading about all these things would seem like a consistent tone, repeating or echoing themes... but in the movie, it was too much.

I did enjoy Max von Sydow, Jeffrey Wright and Viola Davis... but even they couldn't save this movie.

The Godfather *****

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Year: 1972

Novel by: Mario Puzo

Adapted by: Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola

Cinematographer: Gordon Willis

Coppola's camera is so invisible, you don't really think about its placement, all you see is this incredible story of a crime family, so perfectly woven... much is due to Mario Puzo for designing the literary plot, but Coppola takes that story and portrays it so beautifully on screen. The opening scene at the wedding is impressive because in between mini scenes in the Don's office and among certain guests, the wedding feels real, like documentary footage of a real mafia wedding. Every actor's performance is solid, and every character is memorable. Absolutely a classic, tremendous craft and execution of film techniques. I think this is honored as one of the greatest films of all time because there are no weak spots, nothing to pull you out of the story and remind you you're watching a movie. It just flows as a compelling narrative.

Casa de mi padre ***

Director: Matt Piedmont

Year: 2012

Writer: Andrew Steele

Cinematographer: Ramsey Nickell

Silly Will Ferrell, plus Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal... funny, but not smartly written enough to be a great comedy. Mostly just silly mimicking of the American perception of Mexican telenovelas, with '70's aesthetics for some reason, though the film is set in present day. Not much laughter, mostly a few chuckles. Turns surprisingly violent. Silly is the one word descriptor.

Jackie Brown ****

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Year: 1997

Novel by: Elmore Leonard

Adapted by: Quentin Tarantino

Cinematographer: Guillermo Navarro

Pam Grier sinks her teeth into a great character. Great cast, great characters, and I think this might be Tarantino's most human work. By that I mean the characters don't feel like comic book characters, or just film characters, they feel more human than that, more three-dimensional. I just love Grier's portrayal of Jackie Brown, the middle aged flight attendant who isn't going to be pushed around by any more men. And I like the sweet little unconsummated romance between Jackie and Max Cherry. I just enjoy how the plot unravels. Fun movie.

The Artist *****

Writer/Director: Michel Hazanavicius

Year: 2011

Cinematographer: Guillaume Schiffman

Wonderful. A breath of fresh air. Delightful. A new classic that gives the contemporary cynical audience a reason to feel all warm and fuzzy about Old Hollywood. My #1 must see movie of 2011.

The Ides of March ***

Director: George Clooney

Year: 2011

Play by: Beau Willimon

Adapted by: Beau Willimon, George Clooney, Grant Heslov

Cinematographer: Phedon Papamichael

A solid political drama. Good movie, fun to watch that all-star cast.

Moneyball ***

Director: Bennett Miller

Year: 2011

Book by: Michael Lewis

Adapted by: Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian

Cinematographer: Wally Pfister

A good, solid movie. Not particularly outstanding or cinematic. The most impressive things about the movie are that Aaron Sorkin actually made this subject into a movie like he did last year's facebook movie, and that Jonah Hill did a better job in his role than Brad Pitt.

Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol ***

Director: Brad Bird

Year: 2011

TV Series Written by: Bruce Geller

Adapted Screenplay: Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec

Cinematographer: Robert Elswit

Fun, but not very memorable aside from the Dubai action sequence. Not special enough, but very capably directed by Brad Bird. Just not much there in the screenplay. Also, the denouement was slowed by a cheesy reference to a character who isn't known to the audience unless you've followed the entire franchise. Nothing here to make it fall as a bad movie, but not enough to make it stand out either.

Reservoir Dogs *****

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino

Year: 1992

Cinematographer: Andrzej Sekula

My favorite Tarantino film. Doesn't show you the heist, shows you the emotional build-up and fall-out of it. Classic dialogue. Great characters. Well acted. Sucks you in. More than the sum of its parts.