b1lskirnir

I'm a huge fan of the first "Paranormal Activity" but I love B-movies and especially horror films so I gave this a shot. Granted, it's of course no masterpiece, but The Asylum's more or less direct rip-off of the "found footage" hit has its moments.

The film begins when Thomas invests in a few small home camcorders to videotape the odd and supposedly paranormal events that have been plaguing the house ever since his mother's attempt at communicating with their recently deceased father. The entity has had a particular inclination for terrorizing his sister, Samantha, who bears an intolerable likeness to Katie Featherston in terms of hairstyle and large endowment (which also of course get more screen time in this film than P.A.).

Beyond that, the film is more or less a cookie cutter copy of the original's even most minute details: the night-time photography, the possession scenes, the cinematography, the "low rumbling" sound when the spirit is present, the title cards for the night scenes, the idea that leaving the house will do nothing as the entity will "follow" the cursed, attempts at contacting a demonologist, footprint markings, you name it.

With that said though, this film does have its gems. This film is definitely more visual and graphic in its depiction of the entities' activities, which is in a way good and also bad. It's nice to see that they didn't skimp on special effects as what you actually see on camera is more interesting and in a way, scarier (one night in particular). However, it's also a lot less subtle than "Paranormal Activity," as the long, patient scenes of waiting for something to happen are less common. A lot of the original film's subtlety is sacrificed for immediate scares and it works against it rather than for it.

The bigger issue with this film is that, while the acting is not nearly as bad as one might think given The Asylum is behind it, the characters are a lot less likable and developed than the original, if you can actually believe that to be possible. Beyond milking the loss of their dad and the direness of the situation for all its worth, the characters are completely one- dimensional and the beautiful and entertaining chemistry between Katie and Micah is nowhere to be found. The scenes add up more like a series of irrelevant moments and transitions are far less smooth. The ending in particular is fairly abrupt and leaves you with a sense of complete and total confusion.

Also, the camera-work and editing in "Paranormal Activity" was far more subtle in the ways that it made you feel like it was legitimately a 'found footage' film (while the sequel did indeed break that formula). Beyond the fact that the multiple cameras break the laws of the film not feeling "edited," there are multiple scenes where any audience member could discern that there is legitimately no reason for the camera to be running at that given time and that certain angles feel very forced or deliberately edited, which unfortunately takes you out of the moment and works against the "mockumentary" style.

Overall, it's not bad, but it's certainly not as good as the original. Good for fans of the genre and style but not much else.

My biggest recommendation to the movie-watcher interested in seeing Paranormal Activity is to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do yourself the service of knowing as little about it as you possibly can before going to see it. I know that we live in a society where trailers basically give away the movie before it is even in theaters and where film industry executives will exploit this to try to connive as many people into spending their money on a movie as possible, but there is something to be said for being pleasantly (or frighteningly) surprised. I had the pleasure of being one of a select group of people who knew almost nothing about this film before seeing it and if you go in with an open mind and an active imagination it will be a rewarding and supremely fun experience.

Paranormal Activity is a faux-documentary about Micah and Katie, a young couple living together in San Diego who begin videotaping their daily and especially nocturnal activities in an effort to try to capture some bizarre, possibly paranormal occurrences that have been plaguing their picture-perfect suburban home. The film is shot entirely by the characters themselves and the audience is led to believe that this is entirely "found footage" after the events in the film (a la Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, etc.). What begins as an investigation of the unknown spirals downward into a truly terrifying and powerful film of relentless suspense and beautifully slow-paced shocks that send shivers up your spine.

The film is an exercise in the old virtue that "less is more." While this technique has been used by countless films such as Jaws, Alien, and Blair Witch where the trick is to show as little of the antagonist as possible, Paranormal manages to perfectly utilizing the audiences' imagination to fill in the gaps with what they really don't see. Consequently, what you DO see is just enough to make it plausible and more than enough to scare the hell out of you.

There are any number of things I could say about this movie- how likable the characters are, how completely convincing these performances by complete no-name actors are, how it is one of the few "found footage" movies where it is entirely believable that the characters would've actually shot everything in the film, how it was made for less than $20,000 and in a few weeks became the most profitable film ever produced, and how this incredible little movie with its low budget effects managed to make it onto my very short list of films that completely, legitimately freaked me the hell out. This film is evidence that even in our over- saturated market for blood-and-guts slasher films that try to scare us with cheap shocks, stock sound effects, and CGI, this is one movie that, with its old-school creeps and chills, can make the most inane thing- a bedroom, a hallway, a suburban American home at night, legitimately frightening in a way that is more personal and disturbing than many other films have ever dared to go.

So that's it. And please... watch it in the dark, with the sound turned up and lots of bass, for maximum enjoyment ;)

I saw The Messenger (as well as Oren Moverman and Ben Foster luckily) at the 2009 Philadelphia Film Festival and can say sincerely that I was captivated and moved by it for the majority of its runtime. No matter what your background or stance on the war, you need not worry because it is not a movie that attempts to have an opinion, but merely one that captures a different kind of war- one between civilians and the military, between following procedure and following what you believe.

In his last three months of service, Officer Will Montgomery (Ben Foster), is assigned to be a messenger to next-of-kins who have died in Iraq alongside the elder Lieutenant Anthony Stone (Woody Harrelson). He struggles with being the bearer of bad news to heartbroken parents and wives, delivering the messages to people of all ages, ethnicities, and social classes. His work becomes compromised, however, when complications with his girlfriend arise and he becomes involved with one of the widows, challenging his ethical and moral considerations. He plays the younger, more vulnerable to Harrelson's gruff, uncompromising, and often cold ethic.

The film is, in a word, compassionate, as it is almost entirely character-driven. The chemistry between Foster and Harrelson is incredible, demonstrating talent beyond the range of what one would expect for both actors. I would be very surprised if either one of these two were not nominated for an Academy Award. The cinematography is also very unusual, filmed in long takes, letting scenes unfold, rather than wide/medium/close- up/reverse formula, and heavily based on improvisation.

All in all, The Messenger is a touching story about the differences we can make in others' lives simply by being the right person to break the news and having an open heart. It's a tribute to the men and women in arms without letting political differences get in the way. A story of the war at home shared alike by civilians and military, it's hard not to feel emotionally affected.

Previews and marketing for The Soloist give a very different image of what the film actually is about. Watching the trailer, one would think, "Oh, here's another 'feel good white-guy- meets-black-guy movie where the black guy is sincere but troubled and the white guy wants to help him but can't relate to him and has a short temper but it's okay because in the end they both learn from each others' differences' with a musical backdrop thrown in just for artistic interest- lovely! Exactly what I need to watch to feel better on a Saturday evening!"

The reality is in fact the opposite- the story ends on a somber note, occasionally plunging into melodrama, but the 'feel-good' market is indeed misleading. This is a movie that wants, tries desperately, to touch on some very serious issues, but unfortunately causes itself to become undone as a movie.

The story revolves around an LA Times columnist named Steve Lopez who stumbles across n eccentric and mentally ill homeless musician, Nathaniel, who is a musical prodigy and a Julliard dropout. At first obsessed with the story, Steve inevitably becomes involved in Nathaniel's personal life while dealing with his own issues with his ex-wife and his job.

That's all you really need to know, but even if I wanted to try to explain it further, that would prove rather difficult because the film itself doesn't even really know what it's about- is it about finding the kindness to be someone's friend, the homeless crisis in LA, dealing with people with schizophrenia, pursuing your dreams, coming to terms with not living your dreams, or even more basic, is it about Nathaniel or is it about Steve? The movie doesn't know as it bombards you with as much information as you could possibly need to know about any of that, whether its via flashback sequences about Nathaniel's past, moments where "the voices" invade Nathaniel's head and freak him out, overly dramatic scenes involving policemen arresting homeless people, an excessive amount of really irrelevant time in Steve's office and about a head injury of his, and multiple musical montage scenes to Beethoven, one involving helicopter shots and pigeons, and another involving an uninterrupted three minutes of color splashing across the screen rhythmically.

With that said, it's very well-acted. When director Joe Wright isn't throwing as many different things together in the editing room as he possibly can, Robert Downery Jr. and Jamie Foxx put together a fantastic on-screen duo that actually manages to defy the clichés that one might expect. Jamie Foxx especially makes the character his own to the extent that he is almost unrecognizable, both in speech, mannerism, and physical appearance from anything else he's ever done. The two of them together make the film memorable and it is their lack of ability to understand one another that essential makes the best drama of the film. Without it, everything else going on in Steve's life- the quest for the next big story and the problems with the ex-wife, falls flat of any real dramatic significance.

The film wants to be so much. It wants to be so much so badly it feels like it doesn't even care if it's a movie at all. It has moments of ingenuity, but it could've been so much more powerful if it were just a story about either one man's love for music or one man's choice to change someone else's life rather than trying to throw as many different punches as possible.

For adults and children alike, WALL-E is an absolute necessity. This is proof that Pixar is not losing their touch and still has the ability to make a beautifully animated, sweet, fun, socially relevant, and laugh-out-loud funny piece of visual storytelling.

The story revolves around a small robot, a showtunes-obsessed and sentimental WALL-E unit, designed to clean up and organize the trash on the completely lifeless planet Earth hundreds of years in the future. His curiosity for life in the past leads him to discovering a lone plant specimen under a pile of trash. Soon enough, a robot unit from the stars falls to Earth to research and retrieve it and WALL-E finds himself partaking in a strange, intergalactic adventure that determines the future of planet Earth and mankind.

All of the digital characters are immediately lovable, actually the robots more than their human counterparts (adding to the insightful but not condescending social commentary about a possible future for the human race) and there isn't a moment wasted on any of their screen time. The Pixar team has an unmistakably spot-on eye for great detail, humor, and just downright cuteness in virtually every scene. There's something for everyone: comedy, drama, action, science fiction, even romance. I'm a big fan of animation and cinema from all over the world and I sincerely think WALL-E stands out as possibly the best film of the year thus far. It's definitely a must-see.

My biggest complaint with Morgan Spurlock's last film SUPER SIZE ME was the inevitable feeling that you always got when a director narrates/stars in his own work: the risk that what he says and does can intentionally or unintentionally come off as really presumptuous, sometimes resulting talking down to an audience rather than educating or inspiring. This is even harder when making a film to appeal to a broad demographic as you often have to entertain rather than provide strict facts and it is a problem that documentary filmmakers from Werner Herzog to, most obviously, Michael Moore have faced. However, Morgan has found a fantastic balance: WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? is a near-perfect mix of style.

In the beginning of the film we learn Morgan's wife is pregnant, prompting him to ask himself, "How can I allow my child to grow up in such an unsafe world?" Though definitely tongue-in-cheek, this average and perfectly legitimate question leads him to the question of global terrorism and he decides to do what anyone in any big budget American action film does: a stupid ordinary guy fights back. Using his wife's pregnancy as a backdrop, he travels to Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and finally Pakistan to attempt to come to the conclusion of where Osama bin Laden is.

As an American college student, I can safely say that I am aware that the United States' foreign policy has not exactly put us in a good image for the rest of the world. Morgan Spurlock investigates what seemingly completely different cultures think of us and attempts to break the barriers of what common American propaganda has taught us about the Middle East. He interviews civilians, military officers, poor people, rich people, various relatives of Osama and other known al Qaeda operatives, government officials, heads of departments, and just people on the street to try to understand why the so-called "war on terror" is really as ridiculous as it appears to be. He tries to dispel common stereotypes about Americans while at the same time learning more about cultures and religions that we ourselves grossly stereotype to learn that we're really not all that different.

The film's greatest strength is the fact that Morgan learns with the audience. It does not feel like he is preaching to you, but you and him are both on this journey, from speaking to the Jews about Palestinians and the Palestinians about Jews, to finding relatives of known terrorists who watch professional wrestling and having dinner with farmers in the ghettos of Iraq while discussing raising kids.

It helps illuminates one of the world's greatest disappointments: how the people who are the most extreme and the most negative are the only people we care to think about, how the moderates majority's opinions are not represented, and ultimately how people are alike all over despite cultural barriers and popular stereotypes. All we are asked to find out if Osama bin Laden really is the most dangerous man in the world? Is Osama really the problem or is he the symptom of a bigger problem? Do the people we think like him even really like him?

It is a very good balance of an entertaining, mass-appealing film that neither dumbs down its material nor treats its audience like idiots or the director like a genius. It is also a very humanistic film, showing how the many good people are all too often overshadowed by the few evil ones who just happen to have more power and influence. I hope that more Americans, particularly ones constantly fed gross stereotypes and lies by their government get to see this film.

The general formula for getting a new movie recognized in America nowadays tends to be by means of a clever gimmick or craft in advertising and hype (Cloverfield, The 300, etc.). Teeth is an interesting addition to this formula, as it is a B-horror movie that is generally marketed to an indie comedy audience. Iif you're interested in seeing it it's almost guaranteed you know what it's about before walking into the theater. Unfortunately for Teeth, it manages to give you just that and absolutely nothing else for 90 minutes, and I mean that in the worst possible way:

The movie is about a teenage girl who discovers teeth in her vagina.

That's it. You can basically write the rest of the story yourself.

Yep, there's pretty much nothing else to the movie beyond that. The film milks its premise of the audience knowing what's going to come for nearly 45 minutes before anything involving the plot actually happens. By the time she discovers her problem, half of the movie is gone and any opportunity for interesting character development, sexual commentary, dramatic tension, or remote intelligence is thrown out the window.

Teeth milks as many plot devices for cheap comedic payoff as possible as well: the young, innocent Christian girl who takes a vow of chastity, the boyfriend who wants her to break that vow, the difficulties between being either a prude or a slut in high school... without ruining whatever story there actually remains to ruin. There's a subplot involving her negligent and completely cookie-cutter character of a brother being a jerk to her parents as well, but it fails to develop that at all for the sake of throwing in more jokes about biting and vaginas than Mr. Freeze has jokes about ice in Batman & Robin.

By the time her character is thrown any interesting development and drama in the way of this bizarre plot, it's already turned into a generic rape/revenge B-movie and the credits have come up the screen. I've heard some women say they felt "liberated" by this movie and to those women I would advise them to seek therapy as soon as possible. To say that is no better than saying as a sexually frustrated male I felt "liberated" watching pornography, which of course cannot be said due to political correctness.

It could've been an interesting study of womanhood, of growing up, of men's sexual fears and the relationship between loving someone and having sex with them... but it's not. It's a sleazy, stupid exploitation flick that doesn't spare any opportunity to show its violent acts in gory detail. It also proves, sadly, that indie movies suffer from the same marketing gimmicks and worn-out clichés as mainstream movies. If you want something better but along similar thematic lines, I would recommend Hard Candy, Lady Vengeance, and of course the classic Virgin Spring. But please, avoid this at all costs unless you just enjoy dumb, sick thrills.

'I Will Avenge You Iago!', a debut feature from director Zhenya Kiperman, is at once an entertaining, intelligent, heartfelt, and highly original study of how art can change peoples' lives. Simultaneously it is an interconnected drama and a quirky comedy, with some very notable acting, editing, and cinematography to boot.

The film is centered around a disillusioned and slightly psychotic young man who takes Shakespeare just a little too seriously when he attempts to murder the actor playing the villain Iago in Othello after the show. Meanwhile, the actor's wife returns to her home to find a mysterious woman in her apartment as the play director rehearses his newest work.

The humor is subtle and well-delivered while the overall message is quiet and meditative, but never failing to surprise. For those seeking good character-driven humor and a very original look at the art of theater and what it really means to 'act,' you will not be disappointed.

While the premise is clever, the cast is great, and the trailer gives all indication of a highly amusing ensemble, middle-aged comedy I was not really impressed with Wild Hogs overall. This is one of those comedies where they save almost all of the good out-of-context humor for the trailer and practically give away the plot to draw you into the theater, but never really offer much more.

More or less the basic premise is your four, suburban, middle-aged men who have had a bike "gang" for a number of years coming to the revelation of the total monotony of their lives. They decide to take a few days away from their families and inhibitions to relive the dreams of their youth, and thus a classic road trip comedy ensues.

First off, if I have to give the movie any praise it should go towards the four leads. William H. Macy, John Travolta, Tim Allen, and Martin Lawrence, despite being limited by some terrible dialogue and cookie cutter characters, for the most part give hilarious performances and have great on-screen chemistry with one another. In the end this helps work it towards the classic "Don't let anyone get you down" message, but that's really all I can say on the positive side.

The script is downright terrible. Through a large percentage of the movie I was trying to determine whether it was edited by 50 people with totally opposing ideas and no skill in writing dialogue, or if it was never edited and no one noticed it was written by someone with no skill in writing dialogue. Many times characters' motives for certain actions are either completely unfounded, or instantly noticeable, yet still pounded to the point where "obvious" becomes an understatement. Many minor characters fail due to the disappointing platter of lines they've been given, a contributing factor to why this may be the worst performance of Ray Liotta's career.

It rakes in some laughs, sometimes pushing the PG-13 envelope to its limits in a fashion quite unusual for a film that could've easily gotten a PG rating, if not for its intentional marketing to the 30-55 demographic (the same as its characters) its intended to reach; not daringly offensive to receive an R, nor kiddie enough for a PG, but trying its hardest to be as watered-down PG-13 as possible with its share of aptly fitting racial remarks, homosexual undertones, crude sex humor, and sporadic profanity.

The movie has some very good comedic moments, however, some of which are surprisingly clever and well-executed, but many that fall victim to many Hollywood comedy stereotypes, such as the "One main character who does something that only he and the audience knows about and we will milk humor from this for the entire middle act" syndrome and various others including the romantic redemption for the geek and the token black guy.

Overall, if you want a socially acceptable, moderately funny, assembly line comedy with the inspirational message you will see in about 20 other mainstream releases this year, you won't be disappointed. If you're looking for absolutely anything more competent, you've come to the wrong place.

Earlier today I got into an argument on why so many people complain about modern films in which I encountered a curious statement: "the character development in newer movies just isn't nearly as good or interesting as it used to be." Depending on the film(s) in question, this can be attributed to a number of things, sometimes generic special effects and plot-driven Hollywood garbage like War Of The Worlds, but in the case of over-the-top, uninteresting attempts at social commentary and a desperate struggle to put "art" back into cinema, it's movies like Dog Days that are to blame.

I normally have a very high tolerance for movies, no matter how dull or pointless I find them (ranging from good, long ones like Andrei Rublev and Dogville, to ones I've considered painful to sit through a la Alpha Dog and Wild Wild West). I shut this movie off 45 minutes in, which is 30 minutes more than I actually should have. I wasn't interested in any of the characters whatsoever and found nothing substantial beyond a thin veil of unfocused pessimism. In an attempt to say something about the dregs of society, this film too easily falls into being self-indulgent, trite, and exploitative in a very sincere sense. Granted, I've seen many disturbing movies on the same subject, but there are so many better films out there about depressing, pathetic people (Happiness, Gummo, Kids, Salo, Storytelling, Irreversible) that actually contain characters of great emotional depth and personality. Dog Days had none more than an eighth grader's distaste for society, choosing to ignore any true intelligence about the way people actually are, and instead choosing to be a dull, awful, and hopelessly unoriginal attempt at a work of "art." This isn't a characterization of the unknown or a clever observation into the dregs of society, it's just boring and nothing worth caring about.

I had a chance to catch this at the International House in Philadelphia and even had the luck of meeting the director/writer, Mr. Nick Cassavetes, afterward. He seemed like an intelligent man and had no difficulty answering the questions by the audience, particularly when I told him that I hated it and thought the film condoned the same sort of behavior it attempted at first to portray negatively. He thanked me for being honest and seemed like an intelligent man, whose views I will incorporate into this review.

Before saying anything else: if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the entire movie, no exaggeration. Alpha Dog is more or less the story of a young boy Zach Mazursky caught up in the rich, white, gangster lifestyle of middle California in the late 90s. As a sort of "ransom" for rivaling parties, he is held hostage until his brother pays a debt of $2,500 to boss Johnny Truelove. However, he develops a bizarre case of Stockholm Syndrome and begins to identify with the lifestyle of his captors, not wanting to go home to his overprotective, Conservative family.

From the beginning of the film, you may want to start counting f-bombs because this could seriously be a rival for the top 10, if not the top 25 most-used list. The film is filled with different sorts of flashy editing, particularly a lot of awkward split-screening for no particular reason other than to maintain the audience's interest. The dialogue feels extremely unnatural, even for kids who normally have no sense of English, a lot of the stereotypical screaming women are very over the top and many of the actors behave like they've never even been drunk or high, much less seen a real gangster, or even a poser gangster before (except perhaps Ben Foster and Sharon Stone, who both have at least one very competent scene).

Mr. Cassavetes seemed to disagree with me, particularly with regards to Justin Timberlake. On that note, it is surprising that this is such a low-budget movie in light of his other works (The Notebook, John Q) and contains so many well-known actors. For achieving his artistic dream in the face of a small budget and little production sponsorship I will give him credit, but back to the movie itself.

Early on we see a heavily exaggerated archetype of a rap music video that one might find on MTV or BET these days that is being viewed at a party. Everyone is drunk, high, and either having sex or wanting to, showing in a rather obvious, if not efforted fashion that the film disagrees with this lifestyle. Throughout the movie, the people at the screening who came for the free show laughed at the violence and the stupidity of some of the characters' dialogue, not because of irony, but because it seemed funny, almost normal. The message was not being made, especially in the very over-the-top scene where Zack gets in a swimming pool with two very attractive ladies who find it "hot" that he's been abducted.

Practically the entire lifestyle away from Zach's overprotected parents is glorified in the babes, booze, and pot. On one very unexplained level, it attempts to say that this lifestyle is stupid and too many kids are leading it and it should be dealt with. On another, it's saying that this is a dream-come-true for Zach, a way for him to rebel and that this is a positive thing that he was abducted. Further on, in a situation I will not reveal, he suddenly comes to an almost laughable epiphany in the process of thanking his captors and stating how he should all of a sudden, "be better to his mom" because she's his "best friend" or do something productive like "learn guitar." This is a revelation you get from boozing it up and enjoying it!?

What do I think? I think the movie needed a whole different viewpoint and marketing. The audience it is intended to reach will not understand anything except the futility of the real- life story itself. They will not understand, "No, this is a stupid way for a person to live and this is what happens;" they will merely find something comical to enjoy while the characters are wasted out of their skulls, condoning and laughing at it rather than being affected by it. There are far better movies that have presented these types of negative lifestyle's as-is (see Kids, Gummo, American History X, Trainspotting, Finding Forrester, etc.) as well as ones that have come off relatively preachy (On The Waterfront, Requiem For A Dream, Blow, Leaving Las Vegas, etc.) but still manage to have a consistent vision.

Many audience members will be affected by the fact that this film is a true story. I am a firm believer in the fact that this should not change one's attitude toward its artistic quality. This film, while an interesting true story, needed to be manipulated as a work of fiction more. No matter the outcome, this is merely another tragic and stupid story of what happens with kids with too much free time and too much of their parents' money; had the main character not been on the FBI's Most Wanted list for 5 years or rather had the victim not been white, rich, and in a suburban setting, this story would've never caught anyone's attention. It is for this, among other reasons, that I find it to be a rather self-undoing movie, one whose purpose may at the core be divine and intelligent, but whose writing and overall execution was as nebulous as a train wreck.

Mr. Cassavetes, you seem like an intelligent man, and I apologize for not enjoying your film.

After being grossly disappointed by Last Days, I was recommended to give Gus Van Sant another shot with Elephant. Let me first say that this is a movie that will have some bored to tears, some unable to sleep at night, some engrossed deeply in its mesmerizing images, and some sitting down for a cup of coffee afterward to discuss it, and yet some all of the above.

The movie itself focuses on a Columbine-esquire tragedy occurring at an Oregon high school. The ending itself is revealed within the last 30 minutes and all of the characters are already established as we see them. There is no evolution or profound change in anyone or anything throughout the movie. There is no narration and little to no self-referrentialism. We are completely isolated from these characters and meant to sit back and watch. What we do see is some gorgeous cinematography and camera work as a long still shot of a ominous clouds above overhead suburban road light appear for the opening credits with the faint dialogue of a teenage football game in the background. I thought to myself, "This is a movie where anything could happen."

The story is cut up and explained by the days of each character. We have our neutral main character, our jock and gorgeous girlfriend, our three-pronged dose of teenage prep girls, our disturbed criminals, our artsy photographer, our under-appreciated ugly girl, and several others. Each character overlaps with one another by the use of long panning shots where the camera makes amazing use of focus and changes its subject slowly and poignantly. The world falls into place around the camera and not a moment feels unnatural or uncoordinated.

The movie has its noticeable flaws, however. Given the wide cast of characters, many events and conversations are repeated from various perspectives. Quite often, certain events become over or under-explained for little reason, sometimes to the point of being extremely annoying. With the long tracking shots used to set the mood and atmosphere of an American high school, we are sometimes left wondering what there is to look at. More than once you wish the camera ran low on battery during certain parts. Sometimes this becomes purposeful and interesting, sometimes you can't help but wonder where he's going. One or two shots entirely could've been left out.

The last 20-30 minutes of this reasonably short movie are its most rewarding. They truly get under your skin and stay there long after the credits. This is an unsettling terror that never resolves itself at any point. The movie is strictly observationalist, but of something that needs to be understood. Gus Vant Sant succeeds by creating archetypes of high school teenagers that we all know and showing each of their perspectives, flawed by nature. I recommend it enthusiastically in spite of its noticeable amateurisms and difficulties.

If someone has told you that "you need to see this movie," then they're not far off. They're probably in their 20s or 30s and lived through that time when Starbucks was the next big thing, companies were starting to ditch dial-up for DSL, Casual Friday was the only motivation they ever had to live through the week, and their parents were too busy getting divorced to force them to go to graduate school.

When it comes to periods within these eras of self-reflection, satire movies like Office Space come to mind. However, Fight Club goes a step beyond and then some, taking a look at how this lifestyle obsession invades every aspect of life, sinking into our personal lives, making it impossible to find a woman who doesn't despise your guts outside of the physical side of your relationship, where being clever and funny are the only things you have to keep yourself sane, and where a generation of MTV-raised, Saturday morning cartoons, post-Reagan politics, Hollywood-worshiping, McDonalds and 7-11 Slushees men are being turned into demasculated raving psychotics trying to find any escape from their misery.

Fight Club comes along at a time in history where it's perfect. We have our narrator and his miserable insurance salesman life with a job he hates buying all the useless crap he doesn't need to fill his apartment to satisfy himself with what he thinks makes him perfect and socially acceptable. He becomes so sick of himself that he seeks any escape. He finds hope in support groups for men with testicular cancer and starts to regain his sanity, only to have his hopes shattered when he finds another faker in the group... a woman. Things spiral out of control when he finds a strange soap salesman on a business flight and starts to take great interest in his life. He then leads him to a path to hit rock bottom, to live among the dregs of society, redefine his masculinity and prove it to others. What begins as a weekend hobby soon collapses into a downward spiral of complete and utter destruction and a seemingly hopeless struggle to put the pin back in the grenade.

The film contains line after line of brilliant writing and takes twists and turns where you least expect. Every character is acted perfectly and not a frame of film is wasted. Some have claimed this as quite possibly the least predictable movie to ever come out of Hollywood. I would completely agree. However, this is not its only strong suit. Fight Club incorporates elements from almost every genre: drama, horror, thriller, action, suspense, mystery, and romance just to name a few. It tackles so many subjects and has so many messages it's really hard to know what to look at first. This is one of those movies where everyone has a favorite scene and no one has the same favorite quote. A film that speaks for an entire generation of men and the future of our lifestyle obsessed society, Fight Club is an all-time favorite for me and I would recommend it to absolutely anyone. Just sit down and watch with an open mind and you will not be disappointed.

Even if you're not a fan of documentaries, hell, even if you're not a fan of folk/country, Be Here To Love Me is a beautiful and well-directed story of the life of singer/songwriter Townes Van Zandt. More than just a movie for hardcore fans of the genre and the artist, the impeccable visual style of the movie keeps the average movie-goer enthralled within it's heartfelt and hilarious interviews of friends, family, and musical contemporaries give dialogue almost too good for a movie.

But then you're reminded that it's a documentary; it's fairly easy to forget. The only narration is the actual audio, be it phone calls (such as in the amazing opening sequence to "At My Window"), home movies, live performances, or the music itself. The camera pans across montages of midwest scenes: old men in the old mens' bars, truck driving, wandering through the desert, and so many others that play like one gorgeous, intermittent music video. Some of the dialogue is unforgettable, be it Townes discussing his addiction to airplane glue, Guy Clark laughing at him hitting on his wife, or his own mother expressing sorrow for exposing him to shock treatments early in his life.

The overall pace of the movie becomes disrupted near the last 20-30 minutes, as the overall flow of themes in Townes' life unfold less and less precisely and with as much organization as the beginning, but that's basically the only flaw to an otherwise brilliant documentary.

Not knowing much about Townes as a person, I can say that this movie helped me fall in love with his music and find new respect for the genre. I recommend it to anyone who loves this man, loves these kinds of quirky stories, loves country/folk, or... well, I recommend it to anyone!

Having never seen the original Italian movie The Bicycle Thief on which this film is based, I am unsure of how to compare the two, but Beijing Bicycle, remake or not, is very good. Camera-work and images so gorgeous that almost every individual frame is worth hanging on a wall, this movie captures you with its beautiful visual style and exceptional pace. The music adds to the overall beauty of this movie and the acting, though amateur, is nearly flawless. The story of a triangle of thievery and survival is the motif played with here, as a youth confronted with frustration with his own father seeks out a bicycle of his own. The cinematographer plays with his beautiful atmosphere of Beijing to express the characters' emotions and frustrations in a very realistic sense and very often either slight ambient noise or the brilliant original score is heard in the background. A movie that is just as much felt as it is seen, it's a good choice, but I can't speak for fans of the original. Recommended.

I'm not too familiar with David Lynch's films, but I saw Eraserhead a few months ago ( voted 8/10 by the way, very good movie ) so resources told me that Mulholland Drive is often considered his best work. After viewing it, my recent energy has been diverted into inventing a time machine so I can go back into to warn myself not to ever consider doing so.

Now why would I make such a blanket statement? Several reasons.

The movie has no redeemable artistic value. Now while I understand the value of cinema as a form of beauty and artistic expression and that some films can be great films simply because they are absolutely beautiful ( 2001 A Space Odyssey, Underground, most Tim Burton movies, even The Cell ). This movie is clearly an exception. The cinematography is merely above average. Scenes such as the one in which the film director is seen behind the glass ominously masked in shadow has absolutely no relevance to the background of his character nor to anything really at all. This could also be said for the weird guy behind the coffee shop. Much of the writing follows this same pattern.

There is only one scene that I could truly say is beautiful and that would be the Club Silencio scene. However, the filmmaker's complete lack of development of this ideal leads ultimately to its failure as a scene, which absolutely angers me because it could've had so much more significance if put in basically any other situation.

This movie feels like David Lynch wrote three scripts, shot five movies, two of which were completely improvised, then put the clips into a non-linear editor and clicked a button labeled "Create Movie." It lacks any sort of control, explanation, or human sentiment for any of the characters. In fact, one of my favorite characters in the movie ( Cowboy ) was butchered by complete and total negligence to his character after his initial appearance.

Let me say that in all honesty, I DO have, in some small amounts, respect for the quality of craftsmanship put into the production of this film and the obviously thorough work that was done in writing and filming it. But I hate this film primarily due to the amount of frustration and aggravation it has put me through and the number of times I told myself "Don't stop watching it, something's bound to make sense soon enough" or "I can't back out now." If David Lynch's intention was to frustrate me to that extent, I congratulate him on succeeding beyond a shadow of a doubt. But until signs tell me so, I will continue to loathe this film. I generally try to avoid saying that a movie "tried to hard," considering I believe that everyone should always try their very best when making movies ( because no one actually goes "I'm going to go make something... mediocre. Just ordinary. I'll let the critics do the rest." ) but this tried and failed. FAILED. FAAAAAAAILED.

How is it possible that David Lynch, a man who, according to the development of this movie, has the attention span of a fish when it comes to his writing, can at the same time create a movie so unbelievably boring and inane that not even a classroom of super-intelligent lab dolphins on Ritalin would be able to focus or learn anything from it? There have been plenty of people who have dissembled this movie and dissected bits and pieces, determining which parts are "real," which parts are just the characters' various "dreams," who's switching identities with who, etc. Why bother? What could possibly be gained by over-analyzing this movie? So many scenes are completely unnecessary, so many plot lines irrelevant, and so much time wasted, that any pieces of chicken in Lynch's broth have sunk to the bottom and are not worth fishing out.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Do not bother wasting your time with this movie, especially if you are like me and were so frustrated that you wanted to stab yourself in the armpits with forks repeatedly until you passed out from blood loss.

2/10

I found this at the West Coast Video in Pittsburg in the middle of a shelf marked "Five Seconds To Live." The synopsis on the back seemed interesting and the guy behind the counter highly recommended it. If I ever see him again, I will shoot him in the throat for saying that.

SUMMARY: This cult B&W Japanese film from the 1970s analyzes the result of a colony in which children overthrow the control of their parents and attempt to form a new society. Their plan spirals out of control and they are soon lost in a web of sexual deviation and violence.

At least that's what I'd like to think it was about.

OKAY NOW, forget what you've seen on Mystery Science Theater 3000; this is quite simply the worst movie I have ever seen. If you have ever wondered what it would look like if you took a bunch of random video clips of absolutely ANYTHING, put them together in an editing program, and pressed a button called "Create Movie," you would get something along the lines of Emperor Tomato Ketchup.

I do not mean to say that this movie is not interesting, by all means it absolutely is. I mean, if you consider the dancing old woman in the field who has about 20 minutes of uninterrupted screen time from a single camera shot, the naked children stuffed into closets, a midget decapitating a chicken, two men playing Rock-Paper-Scissors and physically injuring the loser in various ways over the course of another 20 minutes, and the disgusting abundance of child pornography, it is quite possibly the most interesting video I've seen in a while. But bear in mind that "interesting" and "good" are not synonymous. On many levels, the directors, actors, and all involved, regardless of whatever socio-political significance this movie attempted to create, should be physically abused for making this movie.

If you have the patience, enjoy it in whatever way "enjoy" applies to anything involved in the viewing of this bizarre film, though I recommend making use of your DVDs scan rate to watch this in AT LEAST 8x speed for maximum enjoyment. If not, then you're probably better off that way.

Note: For the record, there are two versions: only black-and-white which is under 30 minutes, another just under 60 in poor-quality sepia tone. They are both equally bad, though it's best to watch them back-to-back starting with the B&W one.

Interesting quirk though: my friend's West Coast Video account got revoked shortly afterward for returning this and another video late, in addition to renting this movie which was marked "Over 21 only" on the cover, despite how one of the clerks recommended it. Unfortunately, the "Who cares if you're 21? Child pornography's illegal for everyone!" argument didn't work.

A relatively simple plot about a bored married couple takes a turn for the worse when Mr. and Mrs. Smith find out that they were made to assassinate one another.

A decent movie that saves itself from being mediocre primarily due to an effective plot twist at the end and the high production values, Mr. And Mrs. Smith can easily provide effective entertainment for a night at the movies.

Brad Pitt and Angeline Jolie have decent chemistry on stage and the use of music, editing, camera techniques, CGI, and such are notable, but the film's biggest problems lie in its impracticality, and at times, its predictability. The plot leaves something to be desired, especially in terms of its simplicity and originality, but the style and offbeat humor, especially Brad Pitt's, can almost make up for it.

Overall, if you're going to see one movie this summer ( so far ), see Batman Begins. If you're going to see two movies this summer, see Star Wars or Cinderella Man. If you're going to see anywhere between 3-6 movies this summer, try to make Mr. And Mrs. Smith one of them.

Based on the amazing novel by Ken Kesey, Randall Patrick McMurphy is an antisocial and dangerous man no different than a petty criminal, placed in a mental ward to have his behavior studied. He makes friends with lunatics and starts his own circle of admiration within the hospital, much to the dismay of Nurse Ratched, the central authority figure in the story and one of the greatest movie villains ever.

The movie exists to show not only how corrupt and poorly-constructed society's approach to the "mentally unstable" is, but it creates characters that we have all met in life and shows how the McMurphy-like figure that we all wish we had fights for freedom of choice and basic human rights. In addition to the movie's great spirit, the acting is fantastic. Jack Nicholson is at his best and Danny DeVito can be seen in his very first acting role ( which he absolutely triumphs in ). And of course, there's the unforgettable Chief Bromden. The directing by Milos Forman is very well-done, as the camera-work is excellent and follows the pace of the movie perfectly in how it is used. What really impressed me was the editing, especially as far as the use of audio goes: some parts just made me go "...wow."

My only complaint is that I believe the movie could've been slightly more effective if it were based more closely on the novel at certain points, but the modified point of view of the film does make a great point; anyone who has ever hated their job, been accused of something, had some person so self-righteous and convinced of their own authority and dependency on order get in your way, or attended the American public school system at any point in their life should be able to identify with this movie.

I saw this film on a high school French field trip to the French Institute in New York. I had heard good things, but I must say that this movie does have its good moments, but overall there is not much to be gained.

Plot summary: Two men, a high-strung taxi driver and a smooth-talking painter, team up as an unlikely pair smuggling black market pig's meat in four suitcases across Paris to be sold for a large sum of money during the German occupation of France in WWII.

The camera-work is generally excellent as well as the acting, especially Borville ( after all, they're French ) but the biggest problems are the minor details. There are a few scenes that leave you feeling that they could've been planned, executed, and/or edited more effectively. Then again, there are a few scenes that are excellently planned, executed, and/or edited effectively.

Then there's the ending. Oi, if you thought The Return Of The King could've used some trimming, even if this ending is nowhere near as long, you'll know what needs to be removed when you see it. It's illogical, historically incorrect, and almost ridiculous. But it's French, so maybe it works.

From a modern perspective, it's a difficult movie to connect with. Although it does function as a period film, much of its relevance to today is virtually nonexistent. And much of the dialogue is cut during the English subtitling, so unless you're fluent in French, it'll be difficult to pick up on certain details. Overall, it's not a bad movie by any means, but it does leave much to be desired.

For decades, until this movie was discovered by the show Mystery Science Theatre 3000, ( a small cult comedy show that forces its lead character to watch really, really, REALLY bad movies ) no one was aware of the absolute horridness of this movie. But now, cult film fanatics, fans of the show, and film critics alike have almost unanimously dubbed this film "the worst movie ever made."

But what makes it so bad? Let's see: corpse-like emotionless acting ( except perhaps Torgo who is the best character the movie has to offer ), the worst editing I've ever seen ( and I've been editing high-school DV videos for 4 years ), audio dubbing reminiscent of old Godzilla movies, and a script that makes "poorly-constructed" seem insignificant, for starters. I gave it a 2 just because of the possibility that the filmmakers weren't serious and that it has maybe one or two good transitions/ideas.

Plot summary: you know the drill, lost family in the desert winds up at a house where they need to spend the night with a weird housekeeper named Torgo who guards the place while the "master" is away. Things get worse and worse until they discover that it is home to a dark cult who worships a deity known as Manos. Throw in some bad plot deviations such as teenage romance and feminine competition... it's so fragmented it's impossible to do an accurate plot summary.

Bad? Definitely. Fun to watch? Absolutely. I recommend the MST3K version though, or else you might just consider suicide, as that is exactly what 4 of the people involved in the making of this movie, including John Reynolds (Torg ) did after its release. No, I'm not kidding. Oh, and not to mention, the commentary is hilarious. In the case of a worldwide nuclear crisis, all United States missiles and those of friendly nations calibrate their weapons on the town of El Paso for allowing this movie to be made in their town.

The End ?

No, this is not just another idiotic stoner movie with no plot or good acting ( cough cough Dude Where's My Car ): this is in fact one of the best movies I've seen in ages. Perfect casting, well-written plot details, and amazing humor. Do not be discouraged from seeing this movie, no matter what your elitist friends say.

Basiclot summary: Harold ( that Asian guy ) is an overworked investment banker who frequently gets the raw end of the deal from the guys at his company, who perceive him as a dorky number-cruncher, which also causes problems in his love life. Kumar ( that Indian dude ) is a twentysomething stoner who has the potential to do great things with his mind, but chooses an ignorance-is-bliss path. He persuades Harold to join him for a night with the finest marijuana he could obtain, only to get the massive munchies for some White Castle burgers. To say that they embark on a quest would be an understatement. Their journey, taking at least 12 hours total, takes them all over New Jersey for their beloved burgers. Possibly the greatest attribute of this movie is that it is so ridiculous and outlandish, yet is has just enough social commentary and reflective dialogue to keep it down-to-earth and understandable, even cathartic. Throughout the night, they run afoul of dirtbag white trash skaters, a geeky Asian club, a mad raccoon, a lunatic country couple, more than a few car accidents, Neil Patrick Harris, corrupt policemen, a cheetah, and so much more.

I can even begin to describe how well the story unfolds. It's a definite feel-good movie in the end, but it's much more. You really need to see it to understand it and what it's really about. There are few things I could complain about in this movie: excellent screenplay, appropriate music, the only thing stereotype-wise it could've used was some DDR or K-Pop to complete it.

Once again proof that things from New Jersey, such as the Numa Numa dance, The Dillinger Escape Plan, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and myself, are completely amazing.