critic-at-large

End of Watch is a movie for people who cherish movies that are intelligent, believable, well-scripted, acted by men and women who love their characters (or at least love acting them); and filmed and edited by people willing to take chances in order to express their vision - to do something unique, even if the audience doesn't like it or "get" it. Such movies aren't just movies; they're works of art.

End of Watch is such a movie. Watching it you can tell that every single person on the screen is putting their heart into it. That's rare.

The script of End of Watch is intelligent. Really intelligent. It never for a moment plays down to the audience. Instead it brings the audience up to it's level. While in places the dialog is so fast that it's hard to catch what's being said, the writers pick you up later to let you in on it so that you're never left out for long enough to lose the story. They don't coddle you but they take care of you. It's a treat to be treated this way - like an intelligent viewer.

And the photography - sometimes you only get a suggestion of what's happening, like a painting that hints at figures, so the viewer isn't sure where the figures begin and the background ends. Or figures are cut and pasted like collage onto the moving screen. The rationale for these effects is that the movie is being filmed by a cop, or sometimes a pair of cops, who are documenting their work shift, sometimes openly, sometimes surreptitiously. What we get is a cop movie that's not just a cop movie, but also a work of art.

End of Watch is movie for people who like to care deeply about the characters in the story they're watching. It's a movie for people who care also about details but who don't need every story thread to go through a needle - as long as it's able to. It's a movie to watch again, and probably again and again; to keep in a permanent collection and bring out, like a bottle of very good wine, to watch with good friends.

I saw this movie at the 2011 Santa Rosa International Film Festival. It affected me as few films ever have. I felt that I had just witnessed a labor of love as rarely comes to a screen. The story of a family under attack who witness and become part of a fantastical event grabbed me from the first moment and riveted my attention. But this is not just a movie; it is a work of art. As such, every detail is beautifully constructed; every frame is a memorable photograph.

In addition, Silent Sonata is actually silent, even more silent than The Artist, which won the 2011 Golden Globe for best foreign picture. It is a shame in fact that Silent Sonata did not get the opportunity to be seen by the wide audience that The Artist did. Of the two, I feel that Silent Sonata is far superior, a movie that could be seen again and again, with ever more details to discover and appreciate at each viewing.

I have been trying to find a copy to purchase for my private collection. If I am able to find one, I'll return here to post the source. This is a film not to be missed by dedicated film buffs.

I love documentaries. I love them because they show a face of truth that we too often don't see.

Or do they?

Recently I saw a documentary film I loved. I loved it so much I applauded at the end. I loved the film and I loved the subjects of the film.

A few days later I read that one of the film's subjects was suing the filmmaker for giving a false idea about him in her film. The article described some scenes that had made the subject angry, and explained how they gave a wrong impression, which was why the subject was suing. Having just seen the film, I had to agree; it had given me a wrong impression.

I tell this because 5 Broken Cameras, while it is a heart-breaking and harrowing look at the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli army, left me with questions about it's veracity as a documentary. One question, for example, is where did the last three cameras come from? We are never told. Another is, when and how did the filmmaker stop being a farmer, as he tells us he is at the beginning, and start being a reporter, as he identifies himself to the Israeli soldiers? Reporters are people who get paid to cover stories. Is he or is he not a reporter? If he is, who does he work for?

Another problem I had with this movie was the discrepancy between being told that the Bil'in demonstrators are nonviolent and later seeing them throw rocks at an Israeli army truck. Granted, the truck was extremely armored and the throwing of rocks was as David throwing rocks at Goliath. I have no argument with the extreme imbalance of power between the two sides. But, having grown up with the voice of Martin Luther King enjoining American demonstrators to behave peacefully regardless of the behavior of their oppressors, I cannot agree that the demonstrators shown were behaving non-violently.

Am I biased? I hope not. I did not go to this film in order to object to it. On the contrary, I went to be informed by it. As I said earlier, I love documentaries. I love them because they show a face of truth that we too often don't see.

Or do they?

Bag It is a documentary clearly in the style of Michael Moore's filmmaking. With humor and charm, Jeb Berrier investigates the path taken by plastic bags as they journey from the market where a clerk puts our groceries in them to the air, ocean, creeks and shipping containers where they become a source of suffering and ugliness.

Cut to cheerful Mr. Berrier walking through a supermarket, holding up other examples of plastic packaging. He manages in a moment to make these items appear ridiculous as he looks into the camera and asks why we need all this plastic. Does it really serve a purpose? If so, then why do we throw it away? Not just a little bit of it, but collectively millions of tons each year.

I confess that I have been one of the millions of people who, though I know better, have continued to shop without bothering to bring a bag. I justified my sloth by telling myself that the bags get recycled, so what does it matter? After seeing Bag It I can no longer think this way. Bag It is an important movie that I believe will have important consequences, both for those who see it and for the environment.

But most important of all, Berrier, like Michael Moore, pulls off the coup of making his point while making us enjoy watching him. See it to be entertained, informed and enlightened.

The Music Never Stopped is based on a book, The Last Hippie, by the renowned neurologist Oliver Sacks. It is not the first of his books that has been made into a movie. A 1973 book by Sacks called Awakenings was made into a movie of the same name. That movie, which starred Robin Williams and Robert De Niro, was nominated for an academy award.

While both movies are based on actual people and events and are about people with neurological disorders who somehow were able to respond beyond their limitations when stimulated in specific ways, The Music Never Stops does not come up to the production values that made Awakenings a riveting experience.

For one thing, actors J.K. Sawyer and Lou Taylor Pucci, while they put their hearts into it, still falll short of being entirely believable in their roles as Henry and Gabriel Sawyer. Cara Seymour as Helen Sawyer Is so wooden she is almost ridiculous. In two scenes that called for her to be saddened by the events unfolding she responds with such ridiculous expressions that the viewer wonders if she cares at all.

I could go on about the many ways in which this movie falls short of a quality experience. Children and young teens might enjoy it as the story is easy to follow and progresses over time, uncomplicated by a few flashbacks that add context to the events. But those who consider movies an art form will not find this picture rewarding.

Only one thing gives this movie a hint of quality. When, in moments of animation, Gabe explains to his father the meanings of songs like The Grateful Dead's "Truckin'" or Bob Dylan's "Gates of Eden", his interpretations hit the mark with the accuracy of a mystical poetry scholar.

If only this movie were made as thoughtfully!

I had heard this movie was good, and some eminent movie reviewers lauded it. So I was looking forward to seeing it. Within twenty minutes however the first implausibilities began to appear. For me that was the suddenly shorter hair of Kym, the young woman coming home for her sister's wedding. From there the implausibilities slowly snowball until even the fine performances of the actors, especially Bill Irwin as Paul, the gentle and infinitely loving father of two self-absorbed adult daughters (Anne Hathaway as Kym and Rosemarie DeWitt as Rachel) could not rescue this overdone drama from its flaws: an over-dramatic plot, ridiculous costuming, excessive make-up, theme music that whacks you up side the head with obviousness, and if that's not enough, hair styles from hell.

If you are looking for fine dramatic acting coupled with great movie making, see Revolutionary Road, or Another Year, or A Single Man. See a movie with depth and subtlety and refinement. If on the other hand you want your sensibilities bludgeoned, Rachel Getting Married is not to be missed.