conlaw

I was left in awe after watching Margin Call, This movie is Glengarry Glen Ross on steroids.

The movie portrays the high rollers of financial management at their psychopathic best. Human concern and emotion is replaced by greed and the desire for an extra step up the corporate ladder. Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey) seems to be the only character with any sense of human concern or emotion and then that is for his dog. In a way Sam is his dog in the corporate machinations. Therefdore the final scene and the sound effects as the credits roll provides an unsuspected emotional impact.

This movie is exceptionally well written, directed and edited. The ensemble cast is amazing.

This movie will join my list of all time favourite pictures. I will be highly disappointed if it and several members of the cast do not appear on lists when Oscar nominations are announced.

This is a documentary that captures movie history on the run. The film tells the story of the much maligned movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein but in so doing tells us about the current state of Hollywood production. The thesis of the movie is that Harvey Weinstein with his brother has changed the face of Hollywood but leaves open the question of whether the change is for the better or the worse. It gives kudos to Weinstein for popularizing Indy films but points out present-day criticism that Weinstein's impact has been to kill independent productions an to inflate costs such that low budget arty films cannot now be made. It also begs us to consider whether the genius of Harvey Weinstein was in his sharp business acumen or whether he is a misunderstood artiste. Can he be both? It never suggests he was anything other than a genius whatever label we attribute to him. The movie may be "unauthorized" but in the end it is a love story for Harvey Weinstein. The movie audience will come away believing that Harvey may lack tact but he has been a force for good ultimately in flavouring our appreciation for all varieties of film

If this were not a TV movie I would expect it to be listed as an Oscar nominee. The movie is captivating not only for the exceptional acting but providing us with a glimpse into the world of autism. Everything about this movie points to excellence: the writing, the direction, the cinematography and the acting of a superb cast featuring Claire Danes in what must be the role of a lifetime.

The movie is moving in its emotional impact without becoming maudlin. The pace of the movie is quick and takes us through a number of years in the fascinating life of Temple Grandin without losing us or boring us.

Temple Grandin describes herself in the movie as "different not less." I would describe the movie as "different and great."

The cast and the crew may well be in line for Emmys and Golden Globes. If so, let no one say it was because of sympathy for the subject matter. It deserves any awards it wins for the excellence of the production values.

This is TV at its best!

For special effects and make up, this movie is incredible. However, the length of the film causes one to believe that there is a lack of overall substance. Its message is cluttered by a series of life moments that are reminiscent of Forrest Gump without the humor.

As advertised the plot of the picture is both simple yet intriguing. The movie traces the life of the main character Benjamin Button born as an 80 year old and growing younger every year and his life's intersection with Miss Daisy first seen as a young lass who recalls the story in flashback form as a dying elderly invalid. The intersection of their lives when both are substantially the same age forms the tension in the movie.

The ending is the strongest part of the film. One should try to stay awake for the first hour. I was underwhelmed by Brad Pitt's performance. Given his incredible acting ability as shown in the earlier Burn After Reading movie, Pitt relies on the special effects and make up to carry his role.

The elderly Daisy character recollecting her past is reminiscent of the elderly female character in Titanic. The story telling devices used in this flick have been used before in more memorable movies.

I just returned from seeing the North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. As I watched I noted that the movie was extremely well-crafted in terms of cinematography, editing, music score and exceptional performances by a very talented cast. Why did I leave the film feeling disappointment? I think it was due to writing that was well below par.

Egoyan wrote and directed the film. It was a masterpiece of character development but the script was inordinately complex. Trying to make nothing seem as it is, or trying to have a plot twist (a la Hitchcock), Egoyan settles for lying to his audience and thus overly complicates the plot. He leads us down one path and then simply takes a side road that makes the first half of the movie irrelevant. Further there are details that are simply inaccurate. The movie is unashamedly shot in Toronto but one of the subtexts (why the main characters live in poverty)simply ignored the Ontario law of wills and estates. To people not trained in law this may seem unimportant. However,surely a director with the genius of Egoyan could have had his script proofread by a lawyer to enhance realism.

Film students will love this movie for its artistic value. Just don't expect it to get the box office that a tighter and less contrived plot could have delivered.

This was a good movie but falls short of being great. The problem was that it tried to do too much while failing to get to the heart of its central core. It purports to tell the story of siblings in the struggle to cope with and parent their father in his final days suffering from dementia. However, the movie also tries to cope with childhood abuse, siblings personal struggles and sex lives. It is a comedy that also strives to be drama. Sometimes this works; but unfortunately this movie is all over the map as to what it is trying to achieve.

One suspects that this was in an earlier form a much more substantial piece of work that has suffered the brutality of bad editing in an attempt to get a more reasonable length. The performances by Linney and Hoffman are superb but at the cost of diverting the focus from serious social issues that are seldom touched upon by Americam movies.

I saw the trailer for this movie months ago. I came with great expectations. The trailers suggest a comedy. However, after being introduced to much meatier subject matter, the comedy seems out of place. There are some very funny elements in the movie and life does have its more casual moments. My concern is that as we baby boomers are now aging and parenting our parents is becoming an increasing public concern, a movie as novel as this should focus more on narrative than plot.

I would recommend the movie however that I am told will have wide release around Christmas, 2007. Despite my misgivings it will be an adequate antidote to the usual syrup poured on us at Christmas.

There is jerky camera action

This movie is a psychological thriller focusing on the emotional crises created by pedophilia. While the subject matter may be distasteful, even disgusting, to some, this movie is an important contribution that depicts there is a very fuzzy line between good and evil. The movie rightly points out that the pedophile is not the only villain. He shares that platform with people who by not caring aid and abet the crime. Largely absent parents who don't care enough to screen who babysits a child, community services that turn a blind eye to what is obviously there, our social control mechanisms such as schools, police and child welfare organizations that are perceived as punitive all share responsibility for child abuse.

The title "Sons" tells us how children become emotionally trapped in what their adolescent mind perceives as love and consent. How with years the torment builds and explodes shows us the tragic consequences. The movie through its characters traces the destruction caused by molestation and reveals the toxic shame that emerges in adult life because of it.

The director is brand new but if future works are as cleverly crafted as this, he has a bright future. The cast is entirely believable.

This movie does not (nor does it intend to) delve into the mystery of pedophilia nor its possible treatment. It does give one pause to re-examine the knee-jerk attitude of moral indignation when we hear of its happening and asks us to examine if we care enough to watch what is going on about us.

I attended the first Canadian screening at Reel Talk (a monthly screening event sponsored by the Toronto International Film Festival) on October 21, 2007. I was utterly disappointed by this film. I ascribe my disappointment to its director from whom one should expect considerably more.

The movie seemed unsure how to present itself: it is billed as a drama but slips into comedy, song and dance. Ultimately it ranks as a film one would expect to see as a low-rated TV soap opera.

All the characters are wooden. There is no character development. Emotions are displayed by mimed movement rather than dialog or body or facial expression. Ultimately the film is simply boring. One does not care for any of the principals.

The thrust of the film is when the leading actress finds need to pay homage to the late great American jazz artist Nina Simone. However, this actress who I understand is a critically acclaimed Czech chanteuse never offers up her musical talent. I am sure with such a big name musical artist the Czech viewers will leave the theater disappointed. It is not so much that she fails to sing; it is that had she displayed her real talent the movie would have been much more engrossing.

Directors can't live on their laurels and their reputation is only as good as their last picture. This director's reputation deserves being at rock bottom.

I found this movie largely disappointing. The main character is an Israeli woman trying to fulfill her dream by becoming a noted author but her dream is appropriated by the self-interest of her professional counselor Sound familiar? I sensed it was a re-telling of "Running With Scissors" from the mother's perspective: Mother wants to be a writer; dream stymied by professional adviser; gay son; dysfunctional family.

By telling the story from a woman's perspective, the male director allows himself to explore a feminist perspective. But is it truly feminist? As a male viewer, I was insulted by the depiction. All male characters, without exception, are weak and act like jerks. Isn't this the kind of stereotyping that the woman's movement found so offensive in its argument for equality. If the tables were turned and the movie was about a male protagonist stymied in his attempt for advancement by foolish females, woman would rightfully heap scorn on such a portrayal as sexist gibberish.

The ending seems contrived. Without being a spoiler I simply suggest the ending doesn't match the rest of the story.

This movie, though rather long, is well directed such that every frame is important. The musical score of the Prague Philharmonic Orchestra enhances the movie rather than dominating it.

The acting by all cast members is excellent - no one overacts. It all seems terribly real.

The movie's theme causes us to focus on how fragile our freedoms really are. The historical background is East Germany in the early to mid-1980's. The Stassi reigns supreme with the enlisted help of a multitude of informants such that no one can be trusted. One can easily imagine how North Americans have cause to worry if we continually give up our liberties for the sake of combating terrorism.

It is also a movie that speaks to a European culture that is now forced to assimilate the old USSR bloc. We get new sympathy for the hell that the East Germans and for that matter the citizens of other totalitarian regimes had to endure.

Yet, like in Schindler's List, the good in a man's heart ultimately triumphs. The juxtaposition of "good man"/ "bad man" plays heavily throughout the film.

Without any chase scene or over-the-top special effects, the film pulls off what is arguably the best thriller of the year. It is well-deserving of its Academy Award nomination for best foreign language film.

This movie on the surface seems like a Thomas Hardy novel but in execution it is more akin to the TV series "Dexter". Although the main theme of the movie centers on a character with a canine sense of smell, the symbolism is that of the Anti-Christ. It starts with the nativity and ends with the seeming crucification and the descent rather ascent to glory. It is a remarkable and difficult adaptation from a best selling novel.

The acting is superb: Dustin Hoffman, Alan Rickman and the entire crew take us where we very much do not want to go. The cinematography is beautiful in juxtaposition to the gory narrative.

It will be a weird but wonderful antidote to all the usual Christmas schmaltz.

It is indeed unfortunate that many movie goers will be put off by the title to this truly great movie experience. Seldom do we have a movie that has it all: great writing, direction, sound, editing and most of all acting. But Snow Cake has all these in spades.

The screenplay by first-time writer Angela Pell gives us a bittersweet character-driven plot that has us totally convinced it could happen. Her characters are human to the core and we become absorbed in their lives and really care about them.

The movie centers on the fine acting of Alan Rickman as Alex Hughes, Carrie Ann Moss as Maggie and most importantly, Sigourney Weaver as Linda Freeman. Any of these performances are Oscar worthy. However, Ms. Weaver must be delighted with her superb performance that is on a par with any of the acting greats of the past, male or female.

This movie has been a great hit on the film festival circuit. However, I hope it is not reduced to an art house offering. This movie has mass appeal. I truly hope the distributor's marketing plan makes this movie known and available to a wide theatrical audience. Of, if they would only change the title!

The title of the movie is the spoiler. Set in 2008, we witness the assassination of George W. Bush and view the aftermath. With the numerous precedents for killing US leaders, the premise, however shocking, sets up what could be a cornucopia of possibilities. Such imagination is never exercised. The movie is not a commentary on US or world politics but a tired re-telling of the problems with what happens when the justice system investigates with blinkers.

The use of CGI techniques is clever. However, if the movie let imagination run wild we would have a memorable commentary rather than a boring CSI botch-up. If you are in the market for a cutting edge political expose, don't bother going to this turkey.

I had been looking forward to this movie's release but after seeing it, I was extremely disappointed. The movie is essentially about 3 of six soldiers who hoisted the flag on Iwo Jima that was captured on film and became an icon of the US WWII bond drive effort.

It is a story that was told on TV and earlier screenplays but less hectically. We have the mini-stories of the 3 soldiers, the battle itself and a young man's search to know his veteran father patched on top (seemingly as an afterthought). Perhaps with more focus and better editing the movie would have the emotional impact it sought yet failed to achieve.

There is enough computer generated images to suggest the movie was aiming for best animated feature. Except for a superb performance by Adam Beach who portrays Ira Hayes, there was adequate but non-stellar acting by the rest of the cast.

My recommendation is see the movie but wait for the video

Director Todd Field satirizes western society and exposes our fundamental flaw as a society. We are a country of self-righteous hypocrites who band together to crush evil wherever it may be found but overlook our own weaknesses.

The story on one level is exceedingly banal: it shifts from scene to scene exposing the triviality of day to day life. Yet there is that haunting sound of an approaching train. Are we witnessing a train wreck? The brilliant use of a narrator lulls us into the belief that this is just a children's story and nothing bad will happen. Yet our eyes are glued to the screen as we await the crash.

Jackie Earle Haley as Ronnie exposes everything that is wrong with our modern world and everything that is right about character acting. He gives a stand out performance definitely worthy of Oscar consideration. The character represents an unknown evil in our community, one that must be sought out and destroyed. His character at times is sympathetic, even lovable and other other times hideous and menacing.

But who is more detestable? Is it Ronnie or is it those infinitely boring (but beautiful) adulterers, Sarah (Kate Winslet) or Brad (Patrick Wilson)? Is it up to us to judge? If we do, are we not being like the suburban community that is the metaphor for our society? In that way, Director Todd Fields includes us in the movie whether we know it or not. This is a wonderful (train) ride that will keep us talking for days. It is one of this year's great movies.

Superb acting by the lead stars, Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock turn what otherwise might be a Twilight Zone knockoff into a splendid thinking person's love story. The movie is set in Chicago and shows off the city's incredible architecture without becoming a travelogue. Character development is clever and believable so that the movie does not bog down into becoming just another sappy love story. The musical score adds to the overall satisfaction so much so that at times it goes unnoticed - it blends that well with what is going on visually. One has to wonder why a film of this quality was released during the summer when we expect a plethora of action films and romantic fluff. This movie could well be remembered for Oscar consideration this fall. This is a movie I would recommend to my friends without hesitation.

Forget Hannibal Lector. Anthony Hopkins playing Burt Munro becomes the character. He is crusty but lovable. Hopkins and the rest of the cast take us on a road trip spanning New Zealand to the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah and the audience can experience the entire ride and the intriguing characters that we meet along the way.

This is a movie of one man's passion and his quest for immortality. Think of Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea" but with lots of characters.

The writing is so good that there is not a dull minute in the film. The cinematography and the music score add to the experience.

Its too bad that the movie is scheduled for limited release. It will truly be an enormous crowd pleaser. Don't miss it!.

Maybe life is tedium. But when I spend good money to watch 2 hours and one minute where tedium is sold as art, I just want my money back. If this movie keeps you on the edge of your seat, its a good possibility that you just want to get up and leave.

The acting is unimpressive: The argument about "trust" is so banal that it becomes laughable. Does anyone really care about the characters or that they experience some unexplained dread in their otherwise yuppie existence? The movie needs a solid editing job. Minutes and minutes of screen time where nothing happens rapidly becomes infuriating.

Unfortunately I watched the subtitled version. This meant that I could not nod off as I sorely wanted to do. Can anyone explain why the critics are so kind to this waste of celluloid?