The_American_Dr eam

Under discussion:

Forrest Gump  (1994)

The English Patient  (1996)

A Beautiful Mind  (2001)

Hero  (2002)

Across the Universe  (2007)

Summer Palace  (2008)

There is not a great deal to be said for this movie. And it is not because of the sex which is what I was afraid of. But I hoped that this one would, in its epic standing, that it would pull a large amount of material across time and people to make it interesting. Unfortunatly "Summer Palace" is really more than a let down to the point of almost being a waste.

"Summer Palace" swings back and forth from what it gets made out to be. That being and political and sex charged drama spanning most of the dramatic periods in China's history. Well strictly speaking, it does that. This story of people does weave itself (or rather its characters) across distance and events rather completely. However, maybe only half way in or slightly more I was really wondering why I was supposed to care.

Frankly, this is something that can be done very well and in a manner where I really do care. "A Beautiful Mind" is an example of a movie about people that really does span events and changes very well. "A Beautiful Mind" is perhaps not as politically charged as a modern Chinese drama is bound to be, but that is not the point here. "Summer Palace" really wants to tell a story about people and less about a time, this is what ramps it up to its 140 minute runtime, and it is really uninteresting.

"Summer Palace" wants its audience to feel the trails and hardships, internal and external, faced by a small group over the corse of more than a decade. What is wrong with that? Nothing really, only that every time some little thing happens it takes several minutes of a character at sunset trying to work out why their friend stole a book from the library. Needless to say, you are in for far more of this kind of stuff when say someone throws them self off a building.

There is also the pretense that this movie actually captures something about the time. Although it might, between dates, locations, stock footage, and an epilogue, there is not so much the emotion that one feels when there is actual empathy for the situation from the actors. "Across the Universe" encounters this, but makes up for it by being visually stunning beyond use of colors or focus (and also being very trippy). "Summer Palace" does in fact maintain genuinely good photography. However the constant recycling of formulaic shots does not make the movie any more interesting.

With all this, what is there really to say is good? Well not allot. at the start, interesting camera moves and a heavy grit did grab my attention. But for its qualities, "Summer Palace" really falls short of expectations unless you came just for the sex (which is mostly buried under the afore mentioned lengths of sunset shots). "Summer Palace", perhaps grasping at the greats of historical fiction in film such as "Forret Gump", and the epic romance such as "The English Patient", does not impress. "Summer Palace" falls below the films of its county of origin as well, which often speak more volumes about China's history (as in "Hero") and create more connection between actor and audience (despite all the Kung-Fu hullabaloo). So I have to give this movie an overall negative review, not that I am the first it seems.

Under discussion:

The Libertine  (2005)

When this on came out, there was some amount of talk about it, everyone had to say that this was a mediocre movie. That is the very best of what I can say for it. Not that "The Libertine" is the worst movie I've seen, it is just not at all good. Furthermore, what gets me like with other movies I say bad things about, it could have been better or at least it gave the pretense that it was a better movie.

At its immediate opening "The Libertine" seems like a perfect sort of costume-drama as well as an interesting portrait of an interesting person. A film lover can enjoy for the first several minutes a decent amount of cinematic beauty, and a portrayal of several interesting figures. However, before long this stops being so great. After entering "The Libertine", a muck dominates the screen and basic frame of the movie.

Muck, a color in about every shot of the picture. Sometimes this can be used well to bring out a time, a feeling, or a place. Directors have used this forever, something tells me that it is not that hard to do, but really hard to do just right. Recently HBO's "John Adams" used muck very effectively, but only occasionally. When every shot of a movie is dominated by the same colors each time, I only find myself loving the fact that I did not see this on in the theater where this would have been too much. It is very clear what the director seeks to do, bringing out the tones from period pieces of art such as the work of Vermeer. I have seen Vermeer done well and it does not look like "The Libertine". How long can one look into the same muddy puddle? Well not 114 minutes which is more than enough running time for this mucky movie.

However, I am not going to say that that was the worst part of the movie. What did pain my eyes more than anything else in the movie was Samantha Morton's performance. I did not see "Mister Lonely" it looked okay, but it was her performance in the trailer that really turned me away. She looked painfully familiar when I first saw her in this, now I have more reason to not see other movies featuring her this prominently. Never has a performance been more dry and uninterestingly delivered as this one.

But I will try not to pin all the blame on her (only most of it), the rest of the performances is smeared among several of my favorite actors; Johnny Depp, Tom Hollander, John Malkovich, and even Jack Davenport. All make the best of what they are given (as I am sure that Ms. Morton did), but none falls harder than Depp who the movie leans on for support without giving its main character enough to hold it up. Where a tour-de-force would be, a struggling cast of top-notch actors is left. In the end, the is simply unfortunate.

However, I feel it necessary not to pin to much to one person or group. Obviously, at some point on the line, a writer has some blame in not being able to create enough for this movie. The best lines of the script seem to be prose from the Earl of Rochester's own works, something greater, although apparently not much greater, than this movie. Perhaps not the whole movie but certainly the last two acts.

At first, or rather, the first act of "The Libertine" seems good all things considered. There is good and lively character exposition, while not forgetting to point out what sort of disgusting people the movie revolves around. All this is generally very good, it could even be relished in a movie. But when the second act stumbles in, all there is is an amount of filth with nothing to balance it out, the movie looses sight of any kind of solid matter for the opportunity to show off its already evident themes. Any audience knows what the movie is about by the time "The Libertine" takes the opportunity to throw it in your face again and again. Finally, the brief third act steps in, with nothing more good to bring to the screen. The third act comes through in two of its own wakes, the first really really bad, the second only really bad. The audience suffers through the disgusting end of John Wilmot's life just wishing he had died sooner (which is a terrible thing to say, especially for Johnny Depp's role). Finally when he does die, an ending must be slapped on so that the filmmakers can feel like it actually was meaningful. Since deep down they knew it wasn't at all meaning full, they put another one in slightly earlier.

Unfortunately, I have nothing much good to say for this movie. I wish that it was mediocre. If it was, it would have been better than this. I did not like it, which, as John Wilmot made clear at the beginning, was exactly what he wanted. Damn him.

Under discussion:

War, Inc.  (2008)

After seeing this movie, and several of the comments bellow, I am forced to ask "Was this really that bad?". Perhaps "War, Inc." is not all the hype that it has gotten. It isn't, even to the point where I may feel betrayed by the trailer. But, in answer to the question, I would have to say that it wasn't that bad.

"War, Inc." brings several good things to the screen. This is a satire, that in itself is worth something to me. That the subject of gloomy documentaries can be humorous and poignant to the subject. This is a good thing, and it is something that is lacking in this world with gloomy documentaries.

Another point about this movie, it is not really indie; indie really is just some guys with a camera and little or no money, with the idea that they have something overwhelmingly important to say by not doing much at all with an audiences time (as in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", which itself isn't very indie anyways) and that can yield perfectly fine results as well. "War, Inc." differs from this in that, although it is in limited release, it has many of the blockbuster qualities, seeing it, one realizes that the production was hardly pressed for money. This movie also does have something to say to the world, maybe it is something that you hear everyday on NPR, but that does not make this movie any worse for what it is.

As for some actual reviewing, as opposed to simple opinions on what "War, Inc." is or is not, I would have more positive things to say for it than some of what has been said here. But not, however, glowing with endless lines of praise for it. As I have said, it was even a bit of a let down. But, Cusack does mount a tripled outfit as writer, actor, and producer which may be somewhat of a stretch, having some amount of control on almost every aspect of the film (except, I assume the streak of peroxide blond hair he sports). Never the less, this movie does not loose itself to John Cusack, which is one of the best things the movie does not do.

Also, as I said before, "War, Inc." brings something to the audience in that it allows a chance to have some amount of joviality over the ugliness of the truly grotesque world we happen to live in. This is not a problem, "South Park" is a masterwork of this and it, like "War, Inc." gives us pause for humor as well as self reflection on what we do. This is something to be commended. 

The point is that "War, Inc." although a let down, I found to be just fine for what it is. This cannot be said for some other movies, movies that fit into really another category all together or lack some vital part to them. "War, Inc." does not reserve itself to such halls. In its case, one should find an amount of middle ground for what it is as an existential work of satire which it lives up to perfectly, and a movie which is more second rate but not totally problematic.

Under discussion:

Paths of Glory  (1957)

Schindler's List  (1993)

Saving Private Ryan  (1998)

A.I.: Artificial Intelligence  (2001)

The Lost Battalion  (2008)

Black Hawk Down  (2006)

Kingdom of Heaven  (2005)

Sin City  (2005)

The Black Dahlia  (2006)

Munich  (2005)

Cloverfield  (2008)

FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more.

These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory.

Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach.

Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it.

But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence.

Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir.

To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view.

These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing.

Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. 

Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.

Under discussion:

The Fall  (2008)

I just got back from "The Fall". This is its first day in wide release (which means one theater in Chicago), I had been looking forward to it for months now. "The Fall" met my expectations and gave me a new look at movies and the world. That is really kind of a lame and formulaic intro, but I need something before I can get into the real review of this extraordinary film.

The trailer alone recalls to one the quotes you see on the DVD box of a movie. Quotes like 'visually arresting' 'a masterpiece' 'visually stunning' 'fantastic' and the like. But you really have no idea until you see the movie and then also know that everything in it, all the locations all the costumes et cetera, are 100 percent real. Suddenly you are seeing the world a new way.

The visuals are something I really do want to talk about. But the only real way to describe this movie in particular is to see it yourself. It is so off the charts of anything ever seen before that to see the whole thing is the only way. In addition, much as I would like to describe and discuss the visuals, there are other things about this movie that are important and interesting to discuss. This is a bit of a departure, as in previous reviews I have spent time on the style and colors of a movie. But "The Fall" offers its visuals so freely that, although equally important to a film as a whole, other themes get bogged down. At times in "The Fall", these themes are easy to over look.

Along with all the beauty the movie has, "The Fall" deals primarily with deep and existential themes of colliding experiences and interests. Throughout, there is a sense of two worlds, and a variety of categories the worlds fit in; imagination vs. reality, love vs. exploitation, life vs. death. These conflicts are central to "The Fall" and are embodied in many different ways. Also interesting, is that it is not entirely clear until during the climax that all these things are at work in the movie.

To begin, "The Fall" is almost totally between the two main characters, a crippled stuntman and an immigrant child. The stuntman wants to kill himself. The immigrant girl wants him to continue his story that embodies her life, his life, and the people around them. Already there is a conflict between the characters. And the both of them are always trying to get the other to maintain their agenda. This, the key factor to the movie, conflict between the two is actually symbolized in their dialogue. The two never quite understand what the other is saying and they often interrupt each other. Switching off on what the details of the story are.

The story that is being told, or rather the two stories that are being told to the viewer, are symbolic and represent a conflict. Here, although I did say that there were two, there are actually three. But the viewer does not know this until the very end, something I would rather not ruin (but probably will anyway). All three are congruent, tied together by one. There is the life in the hospital, characterized visually, by the same set of actions, places, colors and so forth. There is the life of the story, characterized, by an always changing set of the above. The world of the imagined ends up being divided between the two main characters, they fight over its presentation. This, however, is where the subtleties really begin.

I really have to ruin the movie at this point to talk about this in the most detail I can. The stuntman who is telling the story, as well as the girl, have agendas invested in how the story effects the world in the hospital. The stuntman wants morphine to kill himself, the little girl looks for the perpetuation of the story. Here is where the changes to the story play a part. The stunt man will make the changes the girl wants, so long as in the hospital she follows his requests. But, at the climax, these come into great conflict. The girl who wants to hear the story, ends up saving this man because, if the story ends happily so can his own life. But he resolutely wants his life to be miserable. This conflict comes when they argue over the events in the story. The voiceover shifts between the two of them. This had been foreshadowed with their person to person dialogue up to that point, some arguing and miscommunication.

Eventually though, the conflict is reconciled in keeping with basic dramatic structure. Order is restored. But the very end brings upon the movie a whole new meaning of their lives up to that point, what they had done, who where the players. I do not want to ruin the ending. Plus I am not entirely sure as to its meaning. It has many possible interpretations. It deals with love, the loss of imagination, the truth of mythology, all this is in the movie.

So to wrap up, and to actually give a review of "The Fall". "The Fall" is a very powerful movie. It has this existentialism and symbolism deeply rooted in it, but it couples it beautifully with only the most amazing visuals in a movie. "The Fall" has no failings in my opinion. Sometimes it puts the viewer in a position he may not like, but it lets one see and feel elements that are impossible other wise. I highly recommend this movie. It represents allot of things, a true marriage of a great film like beauty and plot and meaning. It keeps an amount of action and intension. And it is all real, a glimmer of hope that movies are not to be totally one with the computer. "The Fall" flies above other films as a true testament to the art of the cinema.

Under discussion:

Gangs of New York  (2002)

To review this movie it helps actually to try to figure what it is. And it is allot of things. Part of it is like allot of Scorsese films, particularly more recent ones, in that it is another attempt at getting an Oscar. It is also a costume drama. A classic style mob movie with murdered fathers and revengeful sons. And all this with a great cast and in a richly stylized setting.

Now I am going to do what I usually do and that is to work though what I set out in that first paragraph. Trying to allot a paragraph to each thing. All the while trying to bring out an honest dialogue about the good and bad, the weak and strong et cetera of the movie. And for this one, that is going to be a bit of a monster undertaking.

First, on Scorsese. I haven't seen allot by him. "Age of Innocence", "Taxi Driver" maybe some other works but not "The Aviator" not "Raging Bull" some but not all of "The Departed". All of these I want to see but that is beside the point in that you do not need to see all of what Scorsese has done to get a picture of what he is doing. And what he is doing is this; trying to get his fair share of Oscar which he deserves and got for "The Departed". But for the longest time, probably since "Taxi Driver" was nominated for four Oscars in 1976, he has been working for what "The Departed" got him. This becomes most evident in movies like "Gangs of New York" because he goes for moving drama set in some time past which he works very hard to bring in full life to the screen. He tried this in "Age of Innocence" and everybody hated that. Does this drive make this movie or his movies in general bad, no. This drive forces allot down the throat of a movie, and good stuff too, but it also loosens the movies spine and all that good stuff cannot work with out a proper backbone.

That being said, lets look at what this movie has to offer. I would like to say that what this movie offers, it does to the fullest. "Gangs of New York" is a costume drama in every way. It takes place in during the Civil War, so from soldiers uniforms to the various garbs of the different gangs this movie is covered. And it isn't just the costume that makes "Gangs of New York" as costume drama. There are three masted ships and elaborate upper-class parties and all manor of period picture things. Scorsese has done this before in "The Age of Innocence" and had every detail researched, the difference here is that this movie has at its center a basic plot that we know and love.

The mob movie. It is long, tried and true, plot line that Scosese has allot of practice in. This one is like allot of others. There is a mob war, one side looses and that sides leaders son goes into exile. He comes back and becomes friendly with his fathers enemy all the while plotting revenge. He tries and fails to kill his fathers enemy. Comes back after a long and hard recovery to do what he first set out to do meanwhile seducing a beautiful girl. Eventually he triumphs in a thrilling and violent war and life goes on. Guess what happens in "Gangs of New York". You have seen it but this is just as good as any other, even a bit different. Its 1860's setting gives a different feel while maintaining the styles of gangs (some wear prim blue cloths with stovepipe hats while the others are wearing more ragged red stripes). Again though, nothing really new just another spin on it. It is fine.

I have all ready talked somewhat on the look of the film. But it really does have a bit of its own life, worth spending more than a few mentions. "Gangs of New York" has a beautiful color pallet. Allot of warm colors periodically punctuated by colors more hot or more cold than your usual yellows and oranges. But it can seem almost overly so. How much this way or how much that way can people dress? It is very beautiful to watch and allot of the imagery seems to come from woodblock illustrations of the time, busy theaters, sculpted mustaches and the like. And even more, occasionally the video ramps to add dramatic effects to usually innocuous actions like door opening or around turning. All this is cool and works. But again it is more okay than really good. Looking at it it is a little more push on the action that does not need to be there. 

So what is a break down of all this. Over all, everything is good. Four stars, I liked it. But go back to what Scorsese is doing here, force feeding this to be a masterpiece. And it is but it comes off a bit over weight. By that I mean it is so loaded with trying to be great that it beaches it self like a whale to some degree. For a final word I would tell those interested to see it. It is a worth while and beautiful movie with great actors and great design. Just not exceptional enough on some level.

All the same four stars, I really want to end this one a positive note.

Under discussion:

Michael Clayton  (2007)

I am sitting in silence just trying to write about it still only minutes after seeing it. I had come to the conclusion that "No Country for Old Men" would have it but I can see now that "Michael Clayton" is a serious player in this years Oscars. It is a close race. But about the movie.

"Michael Clayton", as it says just about everywhere you look, is about a big law-firm's fixer who suddenly has to deal with a case that is so off the map that he has trouble dealing with it. But it is one of the most multifaceted I think that I have ever seen. Initially it is in the same line as "Citizen Kane" and "Network", a movie about corruption and how it prays on good people and why you have to get out of it before it is too late. But there are so many things that have to be seen looking at this movie that it is hard to fit it all just in your head.

Okay working from the most obvious. You see the body of the movie several times. There is the fixer story that is what the movie s about and what you see on the screen and it looks like almost all others do. But there is also this story about Michael Clayton and the trouble he has had running a restaurant and it goes under but really it seems to be the whole thing in some kind of miniature. There is also this underlying mythology to Tom Wilkinson's role which is absolutely crazy but really he is the only one who sees the case for what it really is until Michael Clayton gets it at by the end. Now I would like to talk about all that in full detail but first lets look at the skin of the movie.

On the outside, as I have said, this movie is like the other in the long line of these corporate corruption stories. This one is easily the best since "Network" if not of all time. This movie has allot of style to it. Nothing to win an award over but more than you see in allot of movies and I feel that that in part could ensure its win as Best Picture. It does not need to have the beauty that "Atonement" but it has it in just the right amount to make it all be very pleasing to the eye yet keeps you in the harsh real world the movie is talking about.

Now about the corporate corruption story. When watching the movie, "Network" and "Michael Clayton" the two have amazingly similar set ups and characters. But both are more for their time. In "Network" the crazy man gets blown up on TV for the ratings and then is killed over them. In this movie the crazy man has to be silent when he should be blown up on TV because he does need to bring down this corruption and he is quietly killed over that in this movie. The differences are with the movies of corse but also with the times. In the 70's "Network" showed us all the plastic that we are force fed and how it, as plastic, was bad. "Michael Clayton" now shows us what that plastic is covering up and why. Both movies speak very clearly to their now. And that is important cause that too could win the big prize for "Michael Clayton". 

Now there is also the story about Michael Clayton and his restaurant. The restaurant is one thing that he has more control over than any other thing and it still goes under. This reflects the corporate drama, when something tries to come up it has to get put down. One thing eats another. 

The last part is that of the crazy man getting shut down even when he sees things as they really are. And that comes out in an amazingly delivered monologue by Wilkinson, his nomination for Best Supporting Actor is not to be taken lightly, he stands out among supporting roles this year. This one also has a mythology about it. Because of the craze of the character it revolves around, the plot takes the chance to bring out dreams and childhood into the picture and into the real world.

These different points are something none of the other movies nominated have. Each and every other lacks that amount of folding and blending. "Juno" comes closest with its somewhat mythological characteristics. But the facets of this movie are far more deep and important, because they are not entirely by happenstance. This movie drives its points home in ways only seen in Victorian era writings like Great Expectations.

At the beginning of the movie we have a seemingly odd event occur. Michael Clayton sees three horses at the top of a hill and gets out of his car to see them. Then his car blows up. This scene is the turn as we find out after seeing the body of the movie and how these three plot lines all come together and how Michael Clayton sees them and everything else as it is, what this scene really represents is an enlightenment of sorts, and the horses represent the three stories. One is large and brown. One is small and brown. The last is small and white.

The large brown one represents what everyone sees this movie as, the corruption drama in corporate America. The small white one represents the crazy man and the mythology as the odd one of the three. But the most subtle is the small brown horse that is everything in miniature, the suppression of the crazy man and the corruption of the lives we lead. When you see this the first time it does not make sense at all, the horses only play a role as some kind of angels that save Michael Clayton from the exploding car, and they run off as soon as danger is gone. But when you see this you can have the rest of the movie dictated. You can better understand how to watch it. And that is a genius on par with Charles Dickens and the like and has not been matched like this for a very long time. And this goes through to the end which adds another fold to it all that without that the end could not happen the way it does. And not just for the physical meaning that he did not explode with his car. This movie is deep.

At this point can I say what will win, now only hours away from the big night? No. The other movies nominated this year are all very strong. And all very good each in some important and interesting way. But one thing I can say for this movie is that is does somethings that has never been done before and it has things that the other movies do not. Will that send "Michael Clayton" onto the big win is hard to say. What can be said is that this is an extraordinary movie in many respects and has my applause. 

Under discussion:

There Will Be Blood  (2007)

Oh my god the movie is amazing. I saw it like two weeks ago and have been mulling over it. "There Will Be Blood" is as epic as movies come. Not "300" epic, but the movie has a vastness about it that can only be described as epic.

The movie has a vastness about it? Yes. It is more than the vast, sprawling wide shots of open country (that is in there to). There is the vastness of the story. Starting in the very late 1800's and finally concluding in the mid 1920's. And there is almost three hours between there. There are the performances of the supporting cast. And there is Daniel Day-Lewis. The greatest living actor if not of all time (maybe thats to far, but probably not). Lets get through these.

Daniel Day-Lewis first. You have herd all about it so I am just going to be saying what others have said. I'll try to do this fast. But being brief will be hard. Daniel Day-Lewis is famous for his method acting. He spent the entire shoot of "My Left Foot" in a wheel chair I am told. Grew his hair out and learned to load and fire a musket for "The Last of the Mohicans". And spent time learning to make shoes in Italy for "Gangs of New York". Being around him for this must have been scary. I can't put it into words. Go see it. This is the hight of his career. It is impossible to tell it is him; the voice, the walk, the everything. You see a real person. Seeing this is amazing looking at it nest to his other movies is amazing, no matter how you look at it his amazing performance is matching to that of this amazing movie.

Day-Lewis's performance is a giant in this film, it towers above all else. But amazingly he does not drown out the other performances. They all stand their ground, Paul Dano is the best example. He has worked before with Daniel Day-Lewis and the two have some kind of dynamic. This is hard, always all eyes are on Day-Lewis, he is just so amazing. It is here that the key separation is between him and the rest of the cast. When I see Daniel Day-Lewis on the screen in this theater it is not him but his character he doesn't even look like Day-Lewis. Other actors fall short because they are to much themselves. But I say again, the acting in this movie is superb all around because each role has equal stature for its worth.

Landscapes. The design of this movie is really nice. It has a tactile nature to it. The oil derrick looks like it, and according to the production designer, could actually drill. The use of land is just fantastic. Places look like places. The Town of Little Boston is somewhat surreal but not far from the facts of the time. Other design aspects are also worth noting. The movie captures the period in ways few movies do. Kubrick comes to mind. His work on pictures such as "Barry Lindon" are similar. What allot of the movie looks like is real period photographs. From simply a man standing on a dusty hillside to a dramatic explosion, the movie looks like the real thing, that is cloths, houses, fires, farms, church's, oil derrick's, oil, everything.

When it comes down to it this is the best movie of the year. Period.

Well why does this review's title suggest that there might not be an Oscar in store for this movie? This movie is too much. I have spent weeks trying to figure out how to write this review. And it took several unused drafts and some of it still is not in this one. This movie is so much, too much to be voted on for best picture. "There Will Be Blood" has a fair shot at 6 of it's 8 nominations. Hands down the Oscar goes to Daniel Day-Lewis for best actor. And a minimal chance at best picture.

"There Will Be Blood" is amazing, devastating, and beautiful on every scale. See it. But at your own risk, it is so amazing that it may kill you a little bit. But it is worth it and deserves more than I predict it will get. 

Under discussion:

The Golden Compass  (2007)

When I went to see this movie yesterday I had my hopes set high having read the whole series of books and having seen the trailer which looked amazing. It was luck that I got there coming screeching in with only minutes before the movie started. And not to far into the movie my opinion of it was this; watch the trailer, it it better and free.

"The Golden Compass" is a hollow version of what the book is, an adventure with fantastic fantasy that layers gnostic beliefs with a myth from our time in another universe. The movie captures some of the world with dignity and faith and has its own stunning visuals but is otherwise unworthy as a movie and as an adaptation of a better work.

Lets take this movie apart. Good things would be its use of color. It was great, reds stood out and cold halls of white spread dotted with only the pale pigments of skin. There was one scene that I wowed at and that was when they walk into this room at this hospital place (Bolvangar for those who have seen it or read the books) and there are all these kids sitting in rows looking like comatose and there is the big palm tree mural on the far wall and it looks really cool, I wish I had a picture.

Another good thing about it would be the effects. They continue to go leaps and bounds with creature effects. They have always annoyed me because I don't think they really look real but it is amazing the things they can do. Maybe one day it will just be people in silly jump suites on a green screen and that will be how they make movies. I sure hope not. I kinda doubt that will happen.

Thats it really for the good things in the movie. there were some other good things like how when the daemons (the manifestation of the soul that walks side by side with the humans in the universe portrayed) die and the effect just kinda added to the chaos of any battle scene. But now for the bad things.

There were two categories for bad things mostly. There were righting bad things and there was the editing bad things (it's not really editing bad things thats just what I am calling it for now, it will be discussed in some detail later).

So the writing bad things. Well in the book it at first is hard to parse out wether or not they are in a different universe or not, allot seems the same, they start in Oxford (a very real place). They have all the geography that we have i.e. Norway is up, Texas is down and to the left of there. All this becomes clear over the corse of the book as you read. In the movie, however, they have to say it just flat out. It's like somebody comes up and just says "Hi this is who I am, this is how I got here." or "This is what you need to know before the movie starts and now I am just going to tell you in a monotone so that you know." This is called explication and is a necessary part of any narrative. But in this movie they go about it in such a way that it almost kills you to hear. Characters pause and take chunks of time just to explain everything to you. As opposed to letting the audience see it and let it flow.

This explication is really annoying just thats all. It shows that the writer didn't really know how to craft a movie. In a book he might get away with it, although in the series none of the explication is like that and it works well all the same. It slows down the plot of the movie so that the rest has to be rushed through so that we don't loose time. The movie could have been the same length and better all around if they had just left out the long monologs of people telling you their history.

Now for the other half of the problems. And this is far more subtle than the first. I would maintain that it is more problematic and shows a greater lack of ability from the writer than the first although the first problem lends him no credit.

Let me start by laying it down like this. If you are Dakota Blue Richards, Nicole Kidman, or a neat particle effect then you are good, you are set because you have more than two scenes. If you are anything else then woe is you your talent goes to waste since you only have two scenes in the whole movie. I looked forward to seeing Daniel Craig do his thing and since he was one of the first billed I assumed that he would have some cool things going on. Same was true for other actors like Christopher Lee and Eva Green, they are A-list actors that I would go to see in a movie and they only have two scenes cause they were not one of the three things that has more than two scenes.

Now there were other things in the movie that were of disappointment. As a fellow movie goer said to me after the movie "I felt the ships [the boats and balloons] looked fake, like they were just pasted there." All I could say was "Thats true, for all two scenes that they had."

What does all this tell one about the movie? That it is poorly done is the only conclusion. What is good in it is drowned out by things that curl the movie goers toes. It makes me not want to read the books. If that is the case with any adaptation then you know you have failed. So I give it its three of five stars, but in my red teachers correction pen, I slap a big F in a circle with the note see me after class on it.

Under discussion:

The Lion King  (1994)

"The Lion King". That movie is down right beautiful! I have to say. On the whole I am not a big Disney fan but this movie is such a work of art. It has everything that DIsney often prides it's self in; the best animation, the best art, and great songs and story that (as they love to remind us whenever they can) the whole family can enjoy. Personally that last one drives me through the roof. "Bambi" didn't have any musical aspect to it. Maybe there was that song with the rain but there is not what I am talking about.

But although "The Lion King" has all that stuff that I have said that I loath with a burning passion I say this to credit it. It finds a balance. It is one movie that an entire family could watch anywhere anytime forever and enjoy it. How often has Disney done that? Since "The Lion King", never. But this isn't really even what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is this; Disney, on several occasions has taken the movies we know, and presumably, love in their great pantheon of what they like to call "Classics". Movies only Leonard Maltin (supreme jerk spokes person for Disney and general advocate for bad movies, that is to say if you have seen a bad movie with a quote on the box proclaiming it a "masterpiece" or "an instant classic" chances are it is from Leonard Maltin). would actually call such. What I am talking about is movies like say "The Jungle Book". That is really not that good a movie. But is sure as shit is better than it's sequel made some thirty years later. This is disgraceful but not nearly as bad as "The Lion King 1 1/2". That movie sucked. And everyone out there knows it, especially the president of Disney (Robert Iger CEO) because he is out there profiting from it every day.

Well there is a little brief summation of what I would like to talk about here.So lets go back to the beginning and talk about it all over again, this time with more detail and thoughtful critique.

"The Lion King". There has never been a Disney movie like it. "Bambi", maybe. "Bambi" sure is something else, it was also made in 1942 where as "The Lion King" was made in 1994 making it really the best resent Disney movie. Allot of stuff makes it this. All the things the afore mentioned Leonard Maltin would say about are true. If you watch ten minutes of the movie you will see so much beautiful art it really blows your mind. And it carries through out the movie. And the animation is well done. On top of that it has a really good story with morals and just simple good plot with well developed characters. I could riff at length on these things and the other things that make this movie so good. So lets do that.

Allot of great movie pull bits from great movies that came before them. And here in a Disney movie we see them pull from "The Triumph of the Will" of all things. And it works so well because it is dark and scary and yet artistic. And then the movie could turn about and put in two characters like Timon and Pumbaa and still be good. That is amazing. Not every movie could do that. And through out there are some of the most beautiful pieces of art to be seen. Really those animators can actually animate. All of the movies esthetics are toped with an amazing cast that does such an incredible job of projecting their performance through lions and birds and the like. That is a good movie right there.

I have to this point put allot of emphasis on the balance of the movie. And the reason is I would like to contrast it to the lack of balance in "The Lion King 1 1/2". To do this I am going to have to go back to "The Lion King" briefly. There is the Hakuna Matata scene. And it is just a really great wacky scene. But when you take it and stretch it out 77 minutes it just can kill the whole franchise. And it is truly a gross spectacle of a film. They should not be allowed to get away with such a thing.

But it is not only the sequels that get made it is other stuff to. Apparently they cut the song "The Morning Report" for the theatrical cut and then re-animated it for the DVD cut. Let me say, that song number is really bad. Like REALLY bad. I wonder what they were thinking when I see that cut of the film. 

When I see Disney do these things I cannot stand it. There should be a Protecting Good Disney Films from The Disney Corporation fund. Unfortunately that cannot really be done. And that is all the more tragic to it.

Under discussion:

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome  (1985)

Well we have seen numbers one and two now. One was really not bad for a low budget film and it was the spark that ignited the whole series for there on. Two was amazingly good action all the way and good story too with a strong backing for it. But three...

SPOILER WARNING

We meet up with Max again as he wanders blindly out of the desert and into Bartertown; a place in the desert were people can trade for anything and where law is decided by Tina Turner's character who prances about the movie in a scanty chain-mail dress (unfortunately it did not help her character to say nothing for her acting talent not that is is needed for this movie). 

In Bartertown, Max is contracted to kill a man in the Thunderdome, a colosseum where "Two men enter, one man leaves." He is contracted so that the Turner character can regain her power over Bartertown (kinda amazing that she ever did have control as it would be impossible to take anyone with her hair seriously). Anyways I am gonna skip some here and move on to where Max gets banished form Bartertown.

Max gets banished from Bartertown.

After wandering in the desert with no water he is chanced upon by an adolescent girl who takes him to where all her comrades are who are also children. Here this movie turned from bad to worse. Anyway Max has to save the kids who think he is their savior from before the third world war. Well after quite some time with a lovable cast and tons of fun (this is sarcasum, the actual film is almost unbearable) we see the chase from the previous movie redone, this time with a train. SPOILERS END HERE

And somehow a midget works into all that too.

Now for the review. I really liked the second movie, but this movie was a total let down from that. We see the whole franchise just wiping out on what could have been a really good wave. And in that way it is an interesting snapshot of the death of a series. And well just to say it, it did not really die, it plummeted.

Why do I say that, I can't just say that right. Well here it is. If we are watching them in order we are going to have a very clear and set idea about Mad Max and that is that he is out there, some kind of cowboy defender of the innocent, protector of the weak and all around good guy although he is always somewhat two faced and always looking for his gain. And well we don't see this here. We see this character in what is almost a "Hook" like setting (and we all know what kind of movie "Hook" is). This movie lowers Mad Max into the league of movies such as "Mouse Hunt" the afore mentioned "Hook" and "Matilda" all of which are in their own right good movies but that is not where Mad Max belongs and yet this movie pulls it off with everything including throwing one of the bad guys in poop.

This movie also features a disconnected plot line. Sure you can have multiple stories in one movie "Sin City" is a great example of that. But one second Max is in Bartertown, the next he is hanging out with the kids? WTF.

Okay, I am ripping on this movie allot maybe even too much but I am gonna keep going with it.

We make it to the end of the movie with a chase as I have said is in almost every way like the one at the end of the second movie. Well if one has seen the second movie it makes this one almost a great time to nap. Just to throw a last thing at the movie I am gonna say this: Music for me does not always make the movie, but is sure as shit can ruin the movie like in this gem of a film, from beginning to end we our ears are ringing with the sounds of the 80's. Okay I'll cut it the slack that it was made in 1985.

In the end, the series was ended very poorly to say the least. As I have spent up to now describing. It is all disjointed not only in plot but also from the two movies before it. And at the end one asks "What was the point of the midget?"

Great way to leave the audience eh?

Under discussion:

Mad Max  (1979)

We meet Max, a cop in the future where motorcycle gangs run rampant across the country side. The most gangish and rampant of these gangs is headed by a man known as Toecutter. The movie in the end has a really simple story; Toecutter kills Max's friends and family and so Max has to chase him down and kill him which he does.

That is like one of the shortest summaries of a movie I think I have ever seen. That does not make this one bad. We have an action packed adventure with great characters and bad ass pyrotechnics. That is pretty easy to like. But this movie actualy gives more than what we see at first glance.

But below that there is allot more to the movie and allot more important and interesting things. This movie came out in 1979. And we see something that was just beginning to take force, a new way of seeing the future or at least the first time anyone had seen this on film. What I am talking about here is the distopia. A distopia is as you may know or have guessed is the opposite of a utopia, in other words, a world that is not attractive and is in every way imperfect. This is not the first screen distopia really, "Logan's Run" had all ready came out as well as "A Clockwork Orange" both of which are distopias. But what Mad Max is, is one that is not only a distopia but also one agains the times. In the sixties and seventies came the huge rise in plastic. And that is reflected often in movies of the time. But in 1979 in particular we see a huge move against that in "Mad Max" and also "Alien". In these movies we get more metal. And more grit, nothing is really clean in these movies, and although that might sound trivial it is not in 1979 this is revolutionary.

So "Mad Max" is really a very important movie by its self. As one can see it was truly revolutionary and opened the gates to other movies in the same style. It was also very culturally important. Here is a movie, made by people who's names have not really been herd, names like Mel Gibson. And they have put together a really good movie that makes allot of money. And after a few years they do it again. And that is really cool.

So there is the undeniable truth in the importance of Mad Max. And it is not only important, it is actually well done. For the most part. There are down sides to this movie. The greatest of all is the setting. Well I just spent a lot of time telling you about the setting and how it was important. I should not really say the setting I should say the time. It is obvious that it takes place in the future but the back story of why the world is the way it is shown is a mystery. And one not solved until the second movie.

Under discussion:

The Abyss  (1989)

I am not going to just say this movie sucked. Cause that would not be totally true. It would, however, be mostly true.

"The Abyss" is another James Cameron movie that is all in water. And once again he proves his mirth as a righter and basically puts a swear every other word. I have nothing really against swearing. But when the dialogue is along the lines of:

 "Sh*t, we on on this f*cking sh*t rig thing piece of crap down here and there is some god d*mn f*ucked up sh*t going on down here. Oh sh*t one of the crew people persons is dyeing, now we are really f*cked man." etc.

it just gets really annoying.

The movie is really not much to look at ether. Nothing really new or interesting happening in the art direction or photography (not that Cameron is really known for such pursuits in film). I will however mention the one really cool thing in this film. The one thing that made me really even know it existed. And that was the water worm monster Ed Harris face thing CGI whatsit. Lemme be the one to tell you... it was not worth it. Yes it was a break through at the time but you see it for like 2 minutes in 3 hour movie and in the end is seemed to have nothing to actually do with the movie. It was just kinda there.

Well here is the plot. They are down there. They just are. Some kind of submarine crash at the beginning that they are investigating. Anyways while they are down there they see some flashy lights (just so you know when you see it what to do the audance is at that point supposed to be all like "Oooh what was that!" or as James Cameron would have it "Holy f*ucking sh*t! What the f*cking sh*t was that sh*it?!?!"). And then there is 3 hours at the bottom of the ocean where all this rather random and unrelated shit goes down randomly without much explanation. And I am sorry but that is it. That is the premise of the story.

The ending is basically that there is the huge thing under the sea that has all these aliens on it. And that is what the flashing lights were all along but it took 3 hours to figure out that it would be prudent to check it out. But that wasn't even what they were down there for. at any rate at the end the spaceship (I am not making this up) comes out of the water and it is all purple and everything like that for some reason. And Ed Harris goes off with his former wife (in the movie).

The movie was really bad. Boring. Lame. Poorly thought through. And Just yeah. But I see it worthy of my review  and it is undeniably an important movie to see. Just know, those are relatively wasted three hours.

Under discussion:

A Scanner Darkly  (2006)

Defiantly not the best. It is worth seeing, and interesting to watch. The rotoscopeing is (as anyone could tell at first glance is cool). But did it add anything? Not really. I think I would be righting the same review if it was not rotoscoped. But it defiantly gives it a very interesting look.

What is this movie about? Well it is 100 minutes about being addicted to drugs. There are allot of movies out there like that. The ones that spring to my mind (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” and “Blow”) both star Johnny Depp and I liked both more than this. I know people are saying “Oh look at this movie and all its psychological aspects. Think of the depth of the characters and the deep performances.” Look I am sorry to say but it does not take allot of effort for a person to pretend (or not pretend) to be drugged up and say “It’s all in the mind dude. Think about it.” For most of it it is just regular drugged up people, they live in a trashed house and dope up every other chance on LSD or [as it was called in the movie] ‘Substance-D’.

I know the fans of this movie out there are saying “This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about.” And in some way, you are right. But I know what makes a good movie and I am sorry you fans, this is not it. It is not a very long movie and yet I found my self loosing interest after a while. It just kind of kept going over and over, rather like this review, and it is that that really makes the audience loose interest. It is still not a “Well I will never get those 100 minutes back” kind of movie. And the ending is very well executed, but still that did not save the rest of the movie.

There are a whole bunch of great actors in this and although it was not like their performances went to waste, this movie is sure not any high point for them. As for the rotoscopers, this movie took 18 months post production. And I think that the people who did all the rotoscoping for this should each get some kind of metal for their work. Again not that it went to waste but still I do not think it was totally worth their while.

By all means see this movie but it is not a great. And for me turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment.

Under discussion:

Chaplin  (1992)

I know that everyone says this about this movie, but I am going to have to say it again just for the record; Robert Downey Jr’s performance is truly one of greatness (as are those of the supporting cast). His transformation is (as I have said) striking to say the least. And people say all that rather often so I shall not linger on it and get right to talking about the movie...

The plot is vast, as plots must be with biographical films such as this and movies such as Wilde and MalcolmX, and as one can imagine this is always difficult for screenwriters. But this movie gives credit to the ability of filmmakers to take a whole lifetime and roll it into but 135 minutes. And then to maintain the detail needed to make such a film believable is again one of the great feats of film. One that is not found often. 

So, as I have discussed this is a film or rare quality. And yet, it received only three nominations at the 1993 Academy Awards and won none of them. To say the least this is a travesty for such a masterwork.

This does not mean that it was not without flaw. To name one that bugged me in particular; the way Chaplin’s early life is portrayed as one of almost Horatio Alger style. Now I have not read the book that it is based upon (so I cannot say that this segment of the movie does not capture the feel of the book) nor can I say that Chaplin’s beginnings were not miserable. But scenes such as the one after his mother is booed of the stage and he (presumably at age 5) wins the hearts of the tuff crowd with his charming [presumingly age 5] rendition of the same act are really to corny for me. This is not the only one but it was by far the most irritating (so I am decided to take the time to rat it out as opposed to the other similar scenes).

None the less,  Chaplin  is all and all a worthwhile 135 minutes of film to say the very least and I recommend it to all. There is really something great about it as a medley of comedy, drama, with (rather erotic) romances through out. There is something in it for just about everyone.