peterbonilla1029

first of all, let me say that I liked Zach Braff's film. It is definitely an impressive first film, and we should all pay attention to whatever he does next. It generally had good production values, and I thought the camera-work was impressive, and its simplicity helped add to the overall drearily-comic effect of the movie. Braff was good, Sarsgaard was great, and Natalie Portman was phenomenal, by far the most engaging character I saw in a film this year, and probably one of the most instantly likable ever.

But good lord, it's not THAT good. An 8.4 rating out of 10? You have to be kidding me! It definitely has its problems, most of them having to do with the script, which is at points underdeveloped. A good third of the movie is spent on a quest, looking for what we don't know, and once the goal is reached, we are only left to wonder why they spent so much time searching for it. It could have been very sweet and moving, but came out as confusing and anticlimactic. And the ending was completely botched, taking the easy way out in my opinion and completely ignoring the development of their characters up to that point.

It's good, but it is nowhere near the icon of indie film-making many say it is, nor is it anywhere near the cultural landmark and ballad of the depressed 20-something generation they want it to be.

Around a 7 is what this film deserves, and that is what it gets from me.

Michael Moore is a talented filmaker, with a talent for using humor as a way of making the bluntness of his points plainly apparent. His films I often find disagreeable, sometimes highly so, but I often find myself laughing during them anyways. He is also someone i would call an ambulance chaser, taking issues out of the spotlight and using them to push his radical political agenda.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film which does this to an eggregious, shameless extent, to the point where he goes against his own credo as a documentarian. Though his films often leave out much of the other side of the argument, they generally do a good job at educating the public on issues they are not well aware of. His latest film takes advantage of the fact that most of us are not well-educated on certain events in order to be able to make the ridiculous points of the film sound well-founded.

Working on the assumption that most of his audience is A: liberal and B: ill-informed, Moore takes what is actually not the most confidential information and puts a radical spin on it, making the Bush administration look like it much more control over the events of 9/11 and beyond than it, or any administration, could possibly have had. It demonizes the president way beyond the point to which he is able to be legitimately criticized for his mistakes, which are legion. What he doesn't want you to remember is that our government is every bit as responsible for deciding on the actions taken since 9/11 as our president and that John Kerry, his party's chosen one, was behind the agenda every bit of the way until it went wrong.

Michael Moore is a person that people look to when they are disillusioned at the current state of things, whether the rest of us like it or not. However, in the case of Fahrenheit 9/11, he uses the growing resentment of the bad state of things to hoodwink the public, and the resulting film has way more holes in it than in other Moore works. The film is ultimately a cheap shot at the right, which Moore made because he knew he could get away with it. It is not really documentary, and something worse than yellow journalism. It's sensationalism, and it's success has cheapened the value of the Palme D'or.

American Splendor is a well-made and very interesting film, but I must confess that I have a hard time relating to these kinds of films. No knocking the film itself, but I don't typically respond well to movies that probe the gloomy, working class world and bring out its dreariness. You have to dig deep to find the humor in these kinds of movies, and in the end I couldn't get there, the same way I couldn't get there with movies like Ghost World, which I couldn't stand and absolutely could not find the humor in. This was far better, at least. Paul Giamatti is definitely Oscar-worthy with his role. Having the real Harvey Pekar as the narrator gave the film a fresh and very human feel. The screenplay was very clever and overall the production values were good. In the end, something just didn't really sit well. Maybe it's just not for me, but it was definitely worth the look. 8/10

Good lord was I disappointed with this movie. I had been waiting for months to see it and absolutely abhorred it almost from the first five minutes on. All style, no substance, filled with ridiculous, glitzy gimmicks and detours which ring as some of the most self-indulgent I have ever seen in film. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs were great films, but Quentin Tarantino was so high on himself making this picture it makes me sick. And once you get through all the gimmicks it's really a very boring movie. I probably would have fallen asleep if it weren't for the fantastic amounts of gore. The cliffhanger at the end was pretty cool, I'll give it that. At least good enough to make we come back and see Volume II. But this movie was terrible. I know i'm in the minority on this one, but it was just utter crap. Crap! CRAP!!!!!!! CRAP CRAP CRAP!!!!!!!!! Peace.

1/10

Yep, I said it, and if you've seen it, you should understand why. The fact that a movie this good could not even take home one oscar out of ten nominations is unfathomable, and is indicative of the huge flaws that go towards deciding these awards. I understand that Gangs was an unpopular movie because of it's incredibly violent themes, but the sentimentality the Academy has towards movie-musicals is a ridiculous justification of how trite films like Chicago can win Best Picture.

And i'm not saying Gangs should have won either. In my opinion, Gangs of New York, Lord of the Rings, The Pianist, and The Hours were all far superior to Chicago in terms of artistic merit. I am even willing to concede that as a movie, Gangs is far from perfect. It doesn't always stick to the plot, and sometimes abandons the story entirely and gives a historical perspective on the era from a documentarian's point of view, sometimes good, sometimes lagging.

But I think we can all agree on the artistic elements of the movie. How could the costuming, set design, and overall artistic direction of the film go so overlooked?! Artistically, it was one of the most beuatiful things I had seen onscreen in a long time. No doubt.

I hate the Academy.

Not collossally so, but enough that I left the theater with somewhat of an empty feeling, like I wanted to be affected by it more. It is all the more regrettable that I say this because the individual elements of the movie are all so good.

Clint Eastwood hits a home run as director, giving us his best work since Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and probably since Unforgiven. This film demonstrates a particular gift he has for probing the darkest depths of man and exposing what he will do when pushed too far. His style is simple and elegant, and his ethic uncompromising.

You won't see a better ensemble this year than the one lined up for this picture. Sean Penn gives the performance of his life, one that certainly should not be overloked at the Oscars next March. Tim Robbins's performance is his best since Shawshank. The emotional fragility and coldness of his character and the delicate balance between hate and misery he feels are utterly real and unrelentingly harsh. Marcia Gay Harden is also stellar, far outdoing her Oscar-winning role in Pollack.

Brian Helgeland's script is also excellent, and his dialogue poetic, though I think that some of the rawness of Dennis Lehane's novel was compromised in the transition. This may be where it went a little awry for me, as I felt the nagging feeling that I wanted it to challenge me more, that I wanted it to be more brutal, more unforgiving, more REAL.

And I say this while completely recognizing the fact that Clint Eastwood has made an excellent film. The film is difficult to take the whole way through, and as in real life a lot of the time, the characters find no easy answers to their questions. Mystic River does not go easily, but I would not have minded if it had gone even less so.

8/10

I usually don't say this about a movie, but I actually think this one was too short. Especially when you consider that the movie this follows up, Magnolia, was twice as long. The whole thing felt too fast, like everything just happened in one big whirlwind. The film was lacking in a lot of areas, particularly in character description. At the end, I really just didn't have much sense of who these characters I was watching actually were. Part of Paul Thomas Anderson's charm is that he can string an audience along for three hours and keep them spellbound the entire way through. With this film the opposite happened. I felt like I was bombarded by the whole thing, and think that 90 minutes was far too short a time to tell this story in. I wouldn't have complained if this movie was thirty or forty minutes longer.

On the upside, I was extremely impressed by Mr. Sandler's acting, and pleasantly surprised by his ability to carry a straight film. Emily Watson is great as usual, though I wish they spent more time on her character. Ditto for Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Mixed review, but still see it. If P.T. Anderson leaves anything to doubt, it certainly not his incredible gift for film. 7/10

Couldn't believe my eyes at this shameful, pathetic excuse for a movie. It isn't even a movie, just an excuse for the producers to squeeze a few extra dollars out of last year's American Idol finalists. I feel sorry for director Robert Iscove; not because I think his films are any good, but because this movie will permanently discredit him as a director. 1/10, and that's only because there's no '0' option.

Couldn't believe my eyes at this shameful, pathetic excuse for a movie. It isn't even a movie, just an excuse for the producers to squeeze a few extra dollars out of last year's American Idol finalists. I feel sorry for director Robert Iscove; not because I think his films are any good, but because this movie will permanently discredit him as a director. 1/10, and that's only because there's no '0' option.

I have seen this movie probably 15 or 20 times, and each time I finish it I remain convinced that it deserves consideration as one of the best all-time crime dramas. Certainly it is one of the better assemblages of screen talent you'll see in any movie. Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, together onscreen for the first time since Godfather II, electrify the screen with their roles as cop and thief. The conflicts they face, both with each other and in other areas of their lives, relays to us the great human drama that lies at the heart of the movie. Both actors shine as they try to find balance and stability in their singleminded endeavors. If you don't care to analyze it that deeply, Pacino and DeNiro are simply phenominal actors.

Let's not forget the rest of the crew, either. Val Kilmer, in my opinion, gives us the greatest role he has ever played. Tom Sizemore, a perennial supporting player, gives a fabulous performance, one which reminds us of how underrated an actor he is. Jon Voight, Ashley Judd, Amy Brenneman, Jeremy Piven, Natalie Portman, and Henry Rollins (among others) all do their part to add to this masterwork. Michael Mann has solidified himself as a player in American Cinema with his stunning direction of this film. The film owes much of it's effect to Dante Spinotti's cinematography, which includes one of the most intense and impressive shootouts in all of movie history.

I can't say enough good things about this film. It is a true classic, possibly the vehicle in which we see the last truly great performances from Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, two giants of the American cinema.

10/10