billybobwashere Reviews

The Social Network (2010)

The very definition of a modern masterpiece

[10/10 · 1 October 2010]

What I think is going to make The Social Network such a sensation is that it can be experienced in a number of different ways. On one hand, it's an extremely intriguing look at a fascinating 21st century event that people don't really know much about, moving at a pace that matches the wits of the film's brilliant protagonists. On another level, it's a movie that absolutely sums up the way the world has changed during the Digital Age; you don't have to be likable, persuasive, or forceful (like the Winklevoss twins who Zuckerberg duped) to succeed in an era where nerdy little college students can become billionaires from their computers.

If you aren't particularly interested in the founding of Facebook or the film's representation of the Digital Age, you can still view it in a totally different context. It's a movie about youth in the 21st century, people who think they're "connected" via Facebook and texting but really live in a state of disconnect. The film deals with a wide variety of main characters - most of whom are college-aged - and each of these characters is in some way "deformed" Zuckerberg cannot relate to others, Parker is morally corrupt, Eduardo cannot properly run his business, Eduardo's girlfriend is literally insane, and the Winklevi are almost inhumanly strong creatures yet somehow can't handle the scrawny kid who stole their idea. Viewed as nothing more than a study on America's current generation (which isn't nearly the focus of the film), The Social Network is already an incredible accomplishment.

And while each of these pieces plays a significant role in shaping this film into something great, what makes it for me an extraordinary film - a masterpiece, even - is a radically different aspect of the movie. Through the pen of Aaron Sorkin, the eye of David Fincher, and the performance of Jesse Eisenberg, the character of Mark Zuckerberg stands as one of the most tragic figures of loneliness in the history of film. Every single frame of the movie complements this notion. In the opening scene, Mark sits at a distance from his date, with her final words being "It's because you're an as.shole" before storming off. Mark runs home alone and essentially crafts Facebook out of his anger and seclusion; while other Harvard geniuses party, he works at his laptop. As the film progresses, the camera almost always catches him standing alone, sitting alone, away and apart from other people (often people with whom he is interacting). He can't even feel close to his friends. His hands are often contained within his sweater pockets, burying him within himself. Sorkin's harsh words and the blistering pace at which Eisenberg recites them frame him into somebody by whom we are fascinated but to whom we could never truly relate. Despite all that money and success, he isn't somebody we wish we were.

This portrait of desolation and heartache (which is often powerful enough to move one to tears), paired with an entertaining depiction of Facebook's creation (which is often hilarious enough to move one to tears), as well as an incredible ensemble cast, gorgeous cinematography, pitch-perfect musical work by Trent Reznor, impeccable editing, and a poignant ending that brings the themes of the story full circle, The Social Network is a film that makes conversations cool again (something that hasn't been true since Pulp Fiction ), a film that defines our generation and times in a way that a film hasn't done since possibly The Graduate, a film that can be enjoyed by virtually anybody above the age of 13, a film that I know I will watch a few more times in theaters, and an experience I (and soon to be you) won't forget for quite some time. In fact, it will probably resonate with us longer than will Facebook itself.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

Here we go again.

[6/10 · 17 July 2008]

Surprisingly, "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" isn't as bad as both its marketing and the long period without an installment suggested.

Despite a seven-year hiatus and the loss of one of its leads, the 'Mummy' franchise jumps right back into the action without many problems. It's willing to change up the story a bit, giving us a new Mummy character and setting as opposed to one featuring that Egyptian guy from the first two, but it also manages to retain all the things about the earlier films that made them popular - that is, a proper mix of action-adventure and a light-hearted tone.

Brendan Fraser is back as Rick O'Connell, the Indiana Jones-inspired hero from the original films, and by this point, he really has his character down. In fact, I think he was much more comfortable here than he was in the original films, maybe because he has improved as an actor over the past seven years, or maybe because he doesn't try to make his character any more than it should be, and it's a refreshing thing to see. Returning to the role of Jonathan Carnahan, Rick's brother-in-law, John Hannah is just as strong a source of humor (and in reality, that's all that his character is supposed to bring to the table) as he was in the past.

Which leads us to the big third member of the party: Rick's wife, Evelyn. As you may know, Rachel Weisz was the actor who portrayed her in the old films, but because she was unwilling to make a third film, they had to replace her, something that often has awkward results in movie franchises. However, I must say that Mario Bello truly rose to the occasion, capturing a nearly identical voice to Weisz's, and playing the part like she isn't new to it at all. And when we first see her character, a clever joke about feeling 'like a completely different person' eases the change. There is nothing about this trio that I could find any real faults in, and this helped make the film very enjoyable.

Another bonus to waiting seven years in between installments in our digital age brings another advantage to the film: much better special effects and action sequences. And believe me: this film definitely capitalizes on this, as both a chase sequence in China early on in the film (sorta reminiscent of the Shangahi sequence in 'The Temple of Doom') as well as the final battle at the Great Wall blow away any action sequences you saw in the first two movies. So in terms of action, you'll definitely get your fair dose of awesome effects. They definitely put that reported $175 million to good use.

Sadly, everything else about this movie doesn't begin to compare to the returning stars and the action sequences (luckily, these two components make up much of the film). The Mummy in this movie is played by Jet Li, who isn't at all as cool as one might hope he'd be (he's basically Jet Li's usual martial arts master, with some occasional superpowers thrown into the mix). The film crafts his story so similarly to the background story in the first 'Mummy' movie that there's even a point where the dialogue overlaps ('Nobody is to touch her'). It was disappointingly obvious that his story existed purely to create conflict for the protagonists and to set up some awesome action moments.

But the disappointments don't end there. Joining Rick, Evelyn, and Jonathan on their quest to stop the Mummy are Rick and Evelyn's son, Alex (Luke Ford), and an immortal woman named Lin (Isabella Leong) whose job is to protect the contents of the very tomb that Alex inadvertently helped bring back to life. These two characters form a romance along the way, setting up some great moments for both Fraser and Bello as their son's curious parents. The only problem is that these two lovers are played by some very weak actors, especially Lin. Alex comes across as more of a playboy than an adventurer (which doesn't make sense when characters comment on how much he reminds them of his father), and every time Lin spoke, my friend and I had a bit of trouble holding back the laughs.

Another problem the film faces is that some of the time, things just don't make sense. I won't get into details, but there is a scene where Lin calls upon some yeti-esquire creatures to help them fight the Mummy (who conveniently come in handy later on in ways that she couldn't have foretold), Lin speaks of giving away her immortality for Alex's love even though they have known each other for a day or two, and the characters continue to think that simply shooting a mummy with a gun will destroy him, even though past experience has been evidence enough that there's no use.

So while on one end we have a film bringing back three very enjoyable characters and upgrading the action sequences to fit modern-day standards, we also have a movie with a boring general plot, weak supporting characters, and a few too many 'WTF' moments. However, this is mindless summer entertainment, and you ultimately have to forgive such problems to an extent, as long as it delivers on the right levels, which this film does. It's much better than 'The Mummy Returns,' and just as enjoyable as the original. Even though there are a lot of things I would have changed, I can't say I was expecting it to turn out as well as it did.

Winged Creatures (2008)

A very effective and accurate ensemble piece.

[8/10 · 28 June 2008]

It's hard to be an ensemble drama in a time when the other films in this sub-genre have a very sturdy track record, with "Crash" being a Best Picture winner, "Babel" and "Traffic" being Best Picture nominees, and "Magnolia" being a cult favorite, among many other popular multi-storied films. Yes, these ensemble pieces all are quite distinctive from one another, but it's very hard to not compare them to each other, as their common goal is the same: to tell many stories and convey one focused message.

In my opinion, films like "Crash" and "Babel" are hurt by the fact that they are forced to cheat the viewers in order to come to the film's end message, whereas a film like "Magnolia" or "Traffic" arrives at it through brilliant film-making and storytelling.

Luckily, this adaptation ensemble piece manages to land itself far closer to the likes of "Magnolia" or "Traffic" than "Crash" or "Babel." While I consider that a very good thing, some may not. Some may want a film that focuses on leaving a strong emotional impact more than telling its many stories as well as possible, and they may in fact be disappointed by "Winged Creatures." But if you appreciate low-key films that are effective without hitting you over the head in any way, this film is definitely a must-see.

One of the first things praise-worthy in this ensemble film is, of course, its terrific ensemble cast. Many of these actors provide performances that prove they have more potential than I had previously thought. The film is about numerous characters who witness a murder, and the PTSD that follows them around afterward, and most of the actors have to portray a different PTSD side-effect with his or her performance, and all of them do it very well.

I never believed that Kate Beckinsale had anything to her name besides hot looks, but she plays a stressed-out mother very convincingly. After his ridiculous over-performance in "Vantage Point," I thought that Forrest Whitaker's fabulous performance in "The Last King of Scotland" may have just been a fluke. But his portrayal of a man whose luck is all over the place after the event is spot-on. As Dakota Fanning moves towards adulthood, she handles a particularly tricky (and religion-heavy) performance with ease. Heck, even Jennifer Hudson (how the hell did she win an Oscar?) gives a performance that indicates some talent, even though her role is small.

Then you get to the direction, and all that goes with it. The film moves between its stories just as well as the higher-budget, more mainstream ensemble pieces, transitioning very well without ever killing the mood with a sudden shift. The film's score adds to this , as it keeps the same feel throughout the movie, giving the film an unchanging pace and mood, so even though you're watching a bunch of stories at once, it's one wholesome experience.

I don't know if this will get recognition come Oscar time, but frankly, it doesn't need to. This is a movie that shows talent out of a lot of actors about whom you may have been skeptical, and is a very worthy addition to the ensemble piece genre.

The Savages (2007)

A humane film about human experiences.

[10/10 · 12 November 2007]

To put it simply, "The Savages" is the most human look at life I've seen in theaters this year. It's incredibly easy to relate to if you have ever ever seen some relative or family friend of yours get old and then forget who you are due to some sort of elder person's disease. It features three of the year's finest performances from Laura Linney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Phillip Brosco, all of whom radiate on the screen as real, ordinary but complex, people. Linney and Hoffman play brother and sister, two writers who have an argumentative but loving way of getting along. Brosco plays their father, who has done something really, well, "dirty," and has drawn the attention of the family that had been caring for him, who no longer wish to do so.

From there, Linney and Hoffman's characters meet up with the father whom they haven't seen in years, and who was never very compassionate towards them. However, their father has dementia, and slowly begins to forget who they are. Instead of their main concern being whether or not he's kind to them, the kids are afraid they won't be able to communicate with him at all. The way Tamara Jenkins handles this, from both the perspective of the kids and the perspective of the father, is brilliant. She really understands the way family relations work, as her film is spot-on in that aspect.

The three performances are all great for their own reasons. Linney plays a woman who is really confused with her life: she's having an affair with a married man who's ten years older than her, she lies to everyone she knows about things that aren't worth it, and she is having a lot of trouble getting produced as a writer. Hoffman, her older brother, has a really relaxed humanistic side to him, always countering Linney's loud worrisome actions with a calm, mind-processing technique. The chemistry between this brother-sister duo - probably the only opposite-sex-adult-aged-duo that doesn't have any romantic elements (for obvious reasons) - is one of the most realistic works of chemistry you'll find in a theater this year. Throw in Phillip Brosco - who absolutely conquers the dementia that his character has (my aunt has dementia, so I see her all the time and know that his face and way of talking and mannerisms are all spot on) - and you've got three characters who are so strong alone that they're enough reason to see this movie, funny-touching script and story aside.

While all three performances were incredible, I'd have to say that my favorite performance came from Hoffman. Linney played the confused-wreck card very well, but it's not like she's the first actress to confront or conquer that territory. Brosco was astoundingly realistic as a man with dementia, but his role doesn't carry very far beyond that. Hoffman's performance, while not "loud" in any way, is simply the best portrayal of an ordinary human being I've seen in years, if that makes any sense. Everything, from the way he reacts to what people say, to the way he talks, to the way he expresses emotion when he's feeling it - all of it is executed so well that I can't believe that he was actually acting.

The ending of the film is very humane. It doesn't have any major twists or bangs, but it doesn't end on a nothing-note either. It teaches us that the lessons we learn from one experience can help us deal with the next, and it's the many small messages like this and the very life-like feel of the film's craft that make it one of the most special films I had the experience of seeing at a theater this year.

Southland Tales (2006)

Extraordinarily original, even if slightly murky.

[9/10 · 3 November 2007]

Summing up "Southland Tales" is a really, really hard thing to do. If I had to use a word to describe it, I would have to go with "art." Art is something that can spark a lot of debate without being very political, and can be viewed from completely different perspectives and get completely different reactions. Art means that some people will flat-out adore this film, and some will flat-out despise it.

To be honest, I think I only understand about 20% of what I saw on-screen, if that. This film is WAY more complex than Richard Kelly's directorial outing, "Donnie Darko." And I absolutely respect it for that. In a time when the most popular movies are the most simple, this movie was made knowing that its audience would not be a large one, and threw away all movie norms and was willing to be one of the most original, intelligent, creative, and complicated movies that I've ever seen.

The plot is difficult to follow, because there is a lot going on, and a lot of characters make it even harder to follow (even if nearly everybody is played by somebody you've heard of or seen before). The main plot follows Boxer Santeros, played by the slightly unconvincing but still solid Dwayne Johnson, a man who returns to Los Angeles from the nearby desert with amnesia, unable to remember anything about who he is. As we learn throughout the film, his ties to Hollywood (he's an actor) and politics (he was married to the daughter of a Senator) make him a huge target for a lot of people, and everybody seems to be keen on finding him. At the same time, nuclear explosions in Texas, brought upon by terrorists, caused the War on Terror to get elevated to the next level, beginning World War 3, which gets very little attention here.

Then, everything gets set in motion - as we are informed by our narrator Justin Timberlake - when we discover that "this is the way the world ends. Not with a whimper...but with a bang." And that's exactly how this movie functions; from its political satirical commentary to its apocalyptic feel to its very close resemblance with the "Revelations" section of the Bible (as it is quoted throughout the film numerous times) to its science-fiction-y style, Richard Kelly is the absolute master of this film, giving us no whimpers, but one huge complicated bang. He could have had somebody like Will Smith play the part of Boxer Santeros, but instead he went with a less-talented Dwayne Johnson, because he wanted the story to tell itself instead of relying on an in-depth performance.

The movie is a little slow at times, and even though it's a hell of a lot shorter than the version shown at Cannes, it could definitely have used another twenty minutes of trimming. However, the plot is so confusing and it's so hard to dissect everything that's going on that maybe if it was shorter, this would have even been more of a problem. There are so many characters with their own agendas and so much who-is-doing-what-to-who moments that you should value every image and second of footage that you can, because these are all the clues Kelly has left behind for the people who will spend years figuring this movie out, just as they did with his brilliant "Donnie Darko."

A part of the film I particularly enjoyed - and which were commonly shown throughout - were the futuristic television broadcasts, there to give you a little hint of what was going on in the world. If you just stare at the screen and expect some text or voice to pop out at you and tell you what you need to know, you won't figure out anything from these little broadcasts. But if you look very closely at all the different headlines and images popping up across the screen, this is when you see all the many different brilliant elements of the film coming together, from explanations of what's going on outside of Los Angeles in the War on Terror (which has now elevated itself to World War 3) to little clever patriotic puns to little details regarding the characters we have been following. They give the film a much broader scale than one would otherwise take away from it.

I think that what Kelly has accomplished with "Southland Tales" is incredible, even if he did go a little overboard with all the elements of the story. With this and "Donnie Darko," he really has proved what a brilliant mind he has, and how he isn't about telling simple entertaining stories, but rich, complex, and textured stories with deep metaphorical content and plot twists that can be up for interpretation instead of attempting to explain everything. The only very obvious message that can be taken away from this picture is its very anti- Patriot Act ideas, as it takes place in a world where the government watches and controls everything. It's also very beautifully portrayed because, as you will notice as you watch the film, nearly every single camera shot features an American flag, showing how America wants Americans to think that it's the best country of all, especially in a terrorist world such as the one in this film...and in our world today.

I don't understand everything that I saw in "Southland Tales;" in fact, there is probably a lot about it that I have no idea about, and that anyone who simply goes out and sees it won't be able to pick out on his own. But what I do know is that I saw a film that dared to be different, and even though it didn't succeed on every level, it was so intelligently made and so well thought-out that calling it a "failure" would be an absolutely incorrect thing to say. Cheers for the most original film of 2007!

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

A less soapy, more plot-driven Haggis drama

[8/10 · 15 September 2007]

There are many people out there who hate the way Paul Haggis made his directorial debut, "Crash," an overly soapy and stupidly-tied-together drama (at least, that's what it felt like to them). Those people don't have to worry. His second major directorial outing, "In the Valley of Elah," avoids both of the "mistakes" (although I'd hardly call them that, seeing as he won Best Picture for what he did with "Crash") that he made last time around. Instead of mixing together multiple stories and having them all connect at the very end, this movie revolves around one main story, a story that seems a lot like the modern-day war version of "Chinatown." Instead of going for simple emotional tugs that he did with "Crash," this film focuses on its understated performances, namely from Tommy Lee Jones, who is superb in this film. It is truly courageous of Paul Haggis to be willing to make some serious changes to the style that won him a Best Picture Academy Award, and even more impressive that he pulls it off very well.

The story revolves around an ex-military officer, Hank Deerfield, who is told that his son, a soldier returning home from Iraq, has gone missing. Jones plays the character in such a quiet way that makes you feel like he thinks he shouldn't be showing emotion, but has a lot of it bottled up inside of him. When he arrives at the military station, people don't seem to want to tell him what happened, and say that they expect he'll come to the base anytime soon (this is portrayed especially well by James Franco, who you may know as Harry Osbourne from the "Spider-man" movies).

Refusing to believe that it's as simple as that, Deerfield is relentless in getting information out of people as to what really happened. It's the way he functioned in the army, and it benefits him greatly as he has to get any information he can out of people. Enter Detective Emily Sanders (played by a very strong Charlize Theron), who at first just wants to get through her job for the day, but soon gets wrapped up in also discovering what really happened to Deerfield's son. The two of them have great chemistry together, as their two different personalities give two different perspectives on what's happening.

The movie works because although it does have quite a few negative things to say about the current war in Iraq, the entire film isn't a two-hour tirade against it. It only makes that message part of the story, and does it in subtle ways (aka the soldiers don't just go "War...it...destroys...you..." but take a lot more time expressing their emotion). Much of the story works like a mixture between the great film "Chinatown" and a much better-acted, better-written version of a really good episode of "CSI." Although there may be a few too many twists and lies circling about, it comes to its conclusion very well in a satisfying way for the audience.

Paul Haggis has an uncanny way of bringing out great performances from all of his actors. The performance of Tommy Lee Jones could be the best of his career, he brings out a much more emotionally quiet side in Charlize Theron than we've before seen, the short performance of Susan Sarandon is particularly powerful, and all of the soldiers are played with a feeling of sincerity. The acting is probably the strongest element of the film, and if there's any "weak part," it would have to be the way Haggis forced out some of the plot twists to make the film as long as he wanted it to be.

Regardless of its few problems, "In the Valley of Elah" is both a very well-mannered look at the war in Iraq and its effects on the people involved, as well as a very interesting crime thriller. At the heart of it is Haggis's quietly powerful directing style and the cast's powerfully quiet performances. I don't see this picking up a Best Picture nomination as Haggis's past three Oscar hopeful screenplays ("Letters from Iwo Jima," "Crash," and "Million Dollar Baby"), but I would not be surprised to see it pick up a few acting nominations as well as possibly a screenplay nod. If it does...it would have definitely earned it.

Zodiac (2007)

David Fincher yet again proves his brilliance as a filmmaker.

[8/10 · 3 March 2007]

It doesn't matter whether you've seen all of David Fincher's films or none of them. He is a director who manages to take traditional storytelling and twist it so much that it becomes fascinating just to watch the plot itself progress, even if every single other thing about the movie is weak or poorly done. However, with his latest very eerie work, "Zodiac," that is simply not the case. He is also a director who will never do the same thing twice. That doesn't mean that he just doesn't make sequels. If you were to watch two of his films, it would be nearly impossible to make any connections between the two in terms of style. He loves to shake things up and, despite having a large cult following, is willing to risk it all to do things the way he wants to.

After a great wink-wink to the way that film studio logos have changed (he uses the old logos for the studios that were used back in the '60s instead of the more elegant ones used today), the film starts out with a very intensely filmed scene in which we are introduced to the way the Zodiac killer kills as he shoots a young couple that sits in their car. After this scene, the viewer will probably make the presumption that they know exactly what they're in for: a violent thriller that has a cops-versus-killer style and involves a lot of gunfire and killing. Think again.

After hitting you hard with the opening scene, Fincher then takes an almost relaxed route in introducing us to two of our main characters, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhal), a cartoonist, and Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), a journalist, both of whom work for the San Francisco Chronicle, the news station gets a letter from a man who claims to be the man who killed two couples; one on July 4 (the one I described), and one on the previous Christmas. From this moment on, the rest of the film follows the lives of three men, Graysmith, Avery, and Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) in their hunt to catch this Zodiac killer, and how it ultimately drives them all to madness.

In the acting department, a terrific ensemble each adds to the film in his or her own way. However, the three main performances are in this case the three strongest. Jake Gyllenhal adds another strong performance to his résumé, which includes lead performances in "Jarhead," "Brokeback Mountain," "Donnie Darko," and "October Sky." Mark Ruffalo is an actor who I have not been a big fan of in the past. Here, he brings both a sharp personality and occasionally quite funny wit to the screen as an inspector who is thrown into this whole mess near the middle of the story. But the greatest acting accomplishment of the film comes from Robert Downey Jr., who is nothing short of Oscar-worthy in his performance as a drunk and drugged journalist who owns every scene he's in (think Jack Nicholson in "The Departed," but not as sadistic). His performance is not the largest in the film, but it definitely was my favorite.

You'd think that a movie that was two hours and forty minutes long and doesn't feature any action or slapstick humor would have quite a hard time holding a viewer's attention. I don't know exactly how he managed it, but Fincher has such a natural ability to hold a viewer's attention regardless of what it is that's happening on screen that you are as entertained and interested by this as you would be by a "Lord of the Rings" film, minus all the fancy effects and silly hobitses.

I wasn't alive when the Zodiac killings happened. It happened quite a long time ago (during the late '60s and early '70s). For me, it was a fascinating experience to see what was going on with California and how they were responding to this threat both in terms of its people as whole and its small fragments that tried to piece this whole thing together. For my dad, who was around at the time and aware of the situation, he loved watching a film that followed the three perspectives of three different people largely involved in a situation that he could only watch from afar.

I have seen most of David Fincher's work (However, I have yet to see "Se7en," which greatly upsets me). Although I think it is pointless to compare films that are so different in every possible way, I would rank this as the second best work that he has done, after the masterpiece "Fight Club." The reason that I found "Fight Club" to be a better film was that it simply had the opportunity to take more risks and do more things than "Zodiac" could, because this was based on events that actually happened, whereas "Fight Club" was a complete work of fiction.

There are going to be a lot of great films that come out in 2007. However, if you truly consider yourself a moviegoer who plans on seeing the best of the best, David Fincher's exciting masterpiece "Zodiac" is a film that you definitely should not miss.

Bridge to Terabithia (2007)

Wonderful family fare that captures emotion better than many films do these days.

[8/10 · 24 February 2007]

Boy, what a wonderful experience I just had.. It's not very common for great films to come out in the first couple months of the year, but Disney's latest is one of the most wonderful family films I've seen in quite some time.

If there is any way I could briefly describe this film, I'm very surprised to find myself saying that it's basically a family-friendly version of "Pan's Labyrinth." In "Pan's," Ofelia is a girl who escapes the troubles she faces in the real world by traveling into the woods and letting the magical world she discovers take her over. In this film, Jesse and Leslie escape the problems they face both at school and at home by traveling into the woods to a magical world where they are capable of anything.

Like with "Pan's Labyrinth," the viewer will probably be surprised by how the majority of the film takes place in the real world instead of in the fantasy world that you expected to see lots of. However, the scenes that involve reality truly are the most magical parts. Josh Hutcherson and Annasophia Robb may not get Oscar recognition in the near future, but their two personalities flood on screen and are very impressive for kids their age. They give very relatable performances as kids who want to know that there is more to the world than what they are forced to stare eye and eye with every day.

The rest of the cast is wonderful as well, including some very nice performances from the other school kids (although the school scenes sometimes get too unrealistic as some things that happen at that school just don't happen in real life), Zooey Deschanel as the music teacher of Jesse and Leslie (you may remember her as the love interest of Will Ferrell in "Elf"), as well as the four parents of these two children. Nothing here is close to extraordinary when you compare it to some of the performances that are competing at the Oscars this year, but for a family film they are definitely all the film needs.

This film is not as good as "Pan's Labyrinth," as that film really touched me more and had a more realistic touch when you consider the very unrealistic and fantasy plot, not to mention some of the fantastic performances from the cast, but this truly is better than many of the family movies out today (I can say without hesitation that this is much better fantasy family fare than the likes of recent films such as "Eragon" and "Happily N'Ever After," two films that exploit action and comedy, respectively, to entertain the viewer). This film touches base with real emotions and has some moments that will at least make you teary-eyed. For a family film, it has some very serious plot material.

There may be enjoyable family films that come out later in this year, such as "Shrek the Third" and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," and I know that I'll definitely be seeing both of those movies. But if you want to see a film that truly moves you in the way that movies rarely do, "Bridge to Terabithia" is a film that you should not miss.

A-

Notes on a Scandal (2006)

Step aside, Meryl Streep, Judi Dench is the Real Devil.

[8/10 · 19 January 2007]

Who would have thought that Judi Dench, who is known for always playing classy and witty English women, could shake things up as much as she does here? She goes from the normal role we usually see her in ("Shakespeare in Love," "Mrs. Henderson Presents," and Q in "Casino Royale") to a very messed up and sadistic woman, who slowly lures an unknowing Cate Blanchett into her tangled web.

Some movies are defined by their directors, some by their visuals, some by their scripts. And of course, there are some movies that are defined by the performances of the cast involved. Like other films from 2006, including "The Pursuit of Happiness" and "Bobby," "Notes on a Scandal" completely feasts off its remarkably talented actors, all who add a dark layer to this twisted and intense drama.

Judi Dench plays Barbara, a woman who has taught at a poor public school for years. When Sheba Hart (Blanchett) comes to the school, we soon discover that Barbara is a lesbian and is very much attracted to this new teacher, and the two of them become very strong friends right away.

However, Barbara gets her "chance" to keep Sheba near to her as much as she wants. While she is waiting for her companion to arrive at a school play, she is upset that the woman had not arrived yet, and goes outside to check up on her. Inadvertently, she discovers that Sheba is having sex with somebody. Even worse, she discovers that Sheba is having sex with a fifteen year-old student of hers.

Although the film is a little slow leading up to this point, this huge turn in events sets in motion the intensity, the betrayal, and the absolutely glorious acting that Dench, Blanchett, and Nighy (who is refreshing to see in a more serious role after his turn as Davy Jones in the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" film) are all capable of. The three of them (as well as Andrew Simpson, who plays the student whom Sheba is having an affair with) provide the film with performances that capture this ugly situation as well as I can possibly imagine it being portrayed.

The film contains no action elements, and doesn't provide too many laughs either. The plot does not involve an epic journey of any kind, so it probably seems like this is a movie that gets boring thirty minutes in. Although many films like this may suffer that, "Notes on a Scandal" somehow manages to not only maintain its fierce intensity the entire way through, it manages to gain momentum and forcefully charge towards its splendid conclusion.

Throw in a fantastic score from Philip Glass (who is soon becoming the new John Williams after his score for this and "The Illusionist), and you are left with a spectacular film, that would have been even better if it could have set its twists and turns into motion a little bit sooner than it did. A very well-made movie that is as intense as you could make such a film, and a performance from Judi Dench that I believe could be the best of 2006, all in a film that anyone who considers themselves a true moviegoer cannot go without seeing.

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

One of the Greatest War Films Ever Made

[10/10 · 31 December 2006]

In the second half of "Letters from Iwo Jima," a group of Japanese soldiers find an American who has been badly wounded and take him into their cave. Their general speaks English, so he begins talking to this soldier, whose name we later find out is Sam. Although the two men should be sworn to kill each other, they are able to have a connection in the one conversation they have. A while later, the general comes back into the room only to discover that Sam's wounds have killed him. He searches him for a while and discovers a letter written by his mother. The letter is full of words that truly come from the heart of this kid's mother, and by the time the general finishes reading the letter, every soldier in that cave has realized that Americans aren't these savages; these hate-driven murderers. No, they all realize that Americans are exactly like they are, and that they don't want to be there and want to return home safely just like their enemies. I believe the point that Clint Eastwood is making with his Iwo Jima saga is just this: these two enemies were far more alike than they had imagined and they were both fighting only in hopes of returning home safely to their family.

As for the specific film itself. In just about every way imaginable, this absolutely brilliant film is a step up from "Flags of our Fathers" (which is not something I say easily, as "Flags" is a terrific film in my opinion). From the acting of the incredible ensemble cast (most notably from Ken Watanabe's Oscar-worthy performance), to the film's delicate but powerful script, to the beautiful imagery of the film (the color distortion could not be any more brilliant than it is here), to Clint Eastwood's absolutely perfect knowledge of film and what works in a film like this.

Many people are wondering whether this will be able to compete for Best Picture at the Oscars this year. It is true that just about all of the film is spoken in Japanese, but the truth is that Eastwood has created nothing short of a masterpiece with this work, and a foreign language doesn't even come close to making that extremely obvious. I think that this film is very comparable in quality to Steven Spielberg's (who is one of the producers of the film) "Saving Private Ryan." Although Spielberg's film has more entertainment value (as it features more action) and has an opening scene that cannot be contended with, Eastwood sends out an even more powerful message about war than Spielberg did, as it turns out that watching soldiers battle with no way out makes you feel the pains of war more than watching the soldiers on the invading side of the army. The fact that "Ryan" was able to strongly compete for Best Picture (and just about win the award) makes me very certain that this film has great chances, even if Martin Scorsese seems to be tough to beat at this point. What I think allows this to compete with "The Departed" is the fact that this film doesn't take the "cool" route that Scorsese took, which isn't something that the Academy has honored in the past.

The score, written by Kyle Eastwood (Clint's son), captures the feel of the movie better than any score written for any movie this year. It is very quiet music, but listening to it makes you think about all the people that die as victims of war.

To sum it all up, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is one of the greatest war films ever made, and is easily does the best job of depicting war as something that harms all involved that I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has, with this achievement, engraved his name as one of the greatest American directors in film history.

For Your Consideration (2006)

Guffman's take on Hollywood is all you could ask for.

[7/10 · 24 November 2006]

If you have ever seen a Christopher Guest film, you will know exactly what to expect from his latest work. What it consists of is his troupe of elite improvisational comedians all playing small parts in one bigger picture, each having their own quirkiness and oddities, each of them supplying you with enough laughs to keep you going as long as the film does. "For Your Consideration" is a complete send-up of what buzz (online, ironically) can do to change everyone's perspective on a film, and on himself or herself.

Although nobody is on-screen for more than twenty to twenty-five minutes, if there was a "lead" for this ensemble work, it would have to be Catherine O'Hara in the best work of her career. She plays Marilyn Hack, an elderly actress who is not used to publicity and who has never been glamorous or gorgeous in the way that most celebrities are. She is one of the leads in Jay Berman's (Christopher Guest) drama called "Home for Purim." In this film, she plays a chronically ill mother wanting her daughter to come home before she dies, but when her daughter does come home, she discovers that she has a female lover, making things even worse.

Anyone who knows anything about film can tell that this overly dramatized and extremely- stereotypical-of-Jews picture would make a disaster of a film in real life, but thanks to somebody sneaking on set and proclaiming that he smells Oscar nominations in favor for this film, everybody involved in the film tries to do things differently to prepare it for its much-anticipated release. The studio executives even go so far as to, when wanting to draw audiences outside the Jewish community, ask for the film's title to be changed to "Home for Thanksgiving," a holiday film that you don't have to believe in the Ten Commandments to enjoy. It needs to "tone down the Jewish-NESS," as they put it.

Here, we see how a little bit of buzz completely changes who some of these people are, as Marilyn Hack goes from a shy, unglamorous woman to an outgoing, "sexy" female who has had a ridiculous number of face lifts since receiving buzz for her film. As all this happens, we are faced with hundreds of very clever wisecracks about the film industry as well as many other forms of entertainment such as the internet and movie talk shows (Fred Willard and Jane Lynch are perfect imitations of this in their morning show "Wake Up, Los Angeles!"). Basically, if you enjoy Christopher Guest's style of having simple set-ups and putting wacky characters in a bound-to-go-wrong situation, you are definitely going to enjoy this film.

This is not quite at the level of humor that his masterpiece "Best in Show" reached, but I can firmly state that it is funnier than his other two works, which are "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind." It is not aimed to be grand comedy with hilarious slapstick humor (for it has none of that), but for a great bit of irony and a mockery of a form of American culture, "For Your Consideration" is all that you could ask for. I also hope to see Catherine O'Hara land a Best Supporting Actress nomination, for it was definitely deserving of one.

Summary: One of the year's funniest films with great ensemble work and a very cute and clever touch. It is also a film that people who didn't love Guest's other work could enjoy more because the humor isn't as subtle as it is in his other work.

American Splendor (2003)

A down-to-earth, splendidly acted story about an ordinary man whose life is really interesting.

[10/10 · 10 July 2005]

"American Splendor" deals with normal things like getting a cold and paying rent seen through the eyes of a normal person.

If you thought Paul Giamatti was great in "Sideways" and "Cinderella Man," just wait until you see him in this...he deserved an Oscar® nom, if not a win!

Harvey Pekar (Giamatti) is a man who lives a life that seems to be going no where until he realizes that it is actually hilarious, and begins a magazine about the simple things going on in his life, which is called "American Splendor."

By some people's standards, Harvey would be considered a "nerd," (the people he knows and the way he acts) but he is a person you really come to care for and wish the best for.

In short, it's a simple story about a man's life, told and presented in a magical way.

Minority Report (2002)

Spielberg's at the top of his game in this spectacular sci/fi flick

[9/10 · 7 July 2005]

In "Minority Report," Steven Spielberg combines a very realistic vision of the future with an interesting story about the limits of social engineering.

The result is another extremely well-done science fiction film, which is comparable in quality to "E.T." and "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind."

The movie is mainly about the controversy over whether any social system can be without flaws. Cruise gives one of the best performances of his career as a chief of a "pre-crime" department that prevents future crimes foreseen through the eyes of half-human/half machine triplets known as pre-cogs.

Colin Farrell, of whom I'm no fan, delivers in this film as a man working for the government, and so does Samantha Morton, who plays one of the pre-cogs.

This was one of the most interesting movies I have seen, and one of the best films of 2002.