The Proposition 4/5 Reviewed by Mike

I've got to give Chris props for telling me about this movie a few days ago. If not for him, I probably would not have known about it. And I would have missed out, because this is a great piece of film, and deserves a high place alongside the most classic films in the western genre.

The basic plot revolves around a proposition (hence the title) given to Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce): His younger brother Mikey will be hung in a matter of days, unless Charlie kills his other brother, Arthur (Danny Huston, son of the famous director John) who is responsible for some horrific crimes. The story spends most of its time exploring the inner workings of the police captain who gives this proposition (Ray Winstone) and his relationship with his troubled wife (Emily Watson).
This is a western film, but unlike any you've seen before - because it's not the romanticized american west of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood - it's a gritty Australian outback in the 1880's. The film is permeated with the constant buzzing of flies, the dry dirt, and the beautiful and deadly landscape. It's the west in a way you've never seen. In fact, the landscape and environment of the Austrailian outback is so key to this film that it becomes almost a character unto itself.

The reason this film is so amazing is that nothing is simple. In the first few scenes, you think you've got it all sorted out--who the "good" guys and the "bad" guys are, and whats going to happen. But just like life, nothing is that simple. The Police Captain is an incredibly complex character, struggling through moral dilemmas, a drug problem, and a need to protect his wife from the disturbing requirements of life in the outback. His wife is also an incredibly complex character, who is dealing with her own crises, getting lost and losing her grip in a troubling world.

In addition to creating realistic, intricate characters, writer Nick Cave boldly explores some pretty deep themes--racism, family blood ties, loyalty, honor, and justice to name but a few. What does it really mean to have justice? How far does loyalty to a family go? When is violence justified, and to what purpose? The relationship of the aboriginal peoples to the British colonists is a constant reminder of the pain of racism, and what can happen when cultures clash. The explorations of these themes are deeply layered and sophisticated, without ever weighing the film down.

Technically, this movie is nearly flawless. One aspect of the film that really stands out is the music, by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis (no, not the comic book genius). It's experimental and odd, but masterfully done. There is never a traditional western score--instead, odd sounds, clashing violins, and an incredibly intelligent use of a few musical themes create a a soundtrack that brings new things out of the film--forcing you to look at certain elements differently. The acting in this film is absolutely brilliant. Ray Winstone and Emily Watson create here some of the most powerful acting I've seen in a long time. Thats not to say the rest of the cast isn't amazing, because not once in the film did I think that I was watching "actors." They embodied these characters. Guy Pearce is almost unrecognizable, he so completely takes on his role. In fact, I think my only complaint about the film is that not enough time was spent on Guy Peace's character. He was the only character that I feel like I didn't get to know well. Although we know he is going through some tough decisions, and feeling the weight of deciding what is right and wrong in such a twisted world, we don't really get to see him struggle with those ideas in the way we see the Police Captain do the same.

I feel like I should warn you about the violence in this film. In most westerns, there's a "coolness" to the violence--the gunfights, bar brawls, etc. In this film, the violence is never cool. I would compare the level of violence here to that of "The Passion." It's horrid and wretched, and there a few points that I felt that even I might not be able to take this level of violence and gore--but I wouldn't use the word "gratuitous" to describe it, because every ounce of the violence is done on purpose. This movie slaps you in the face with how real and terrible violence can be. But be careful--this movie isn't for everyone. Don't you dare bring kids to this, and if you know violence bothers you, you may want to pass.

All in all, "The Proposition" is a brilliant, powerful, and moving piece of work. It's images and themes will stay with you long after you see it.

See this movie if:
-You think all westerns are the same
-You like movies that really make you think about emotionally complex issues
-You're already tired of summer movies

Don't see this movie if:
-Graphic violence disturbs you
-You're looking to relax and want some good fun escapism
-You're under 17. This one's rated R for a reason.

X-Men 3: The Last Stand 3/5 reviewed by Mike

The X-Men are very dear to my heart. I grew up reading X-Men comics, and loving the characters, and I've been waiting for good X-Men movies since I was in elementary school. Having loved the first 2 X-Men films, I was very worried about this third one. When I heard that Bryan Singer and David Hayter were not involved, and that Brett Ratner had taken the directing chair, then I got incredibly worried. This film could have been like what happened when Schumacher took over the Batman franchise. Thankfully, it's not that. The film isn't as bad as it could have been, but neither is it as good as it should have been.

Anyone attempting to make an X-Men film is in for a tough time. With almost 50 years of detailed history and dozens of great characters and storylines, how do you choose what to do, and what to leave out? Herein lies one of the principal flaws with this film: too many characters. There's just too many people. Granted, all the characters are cool--you've got Shadowcat, Angel, Beast, Colossus, Iceman, Juggernaut, Multiple Man, Callisto, Pyro, in addition to the main characters from the last two films--but the sheer number of characters involved keep you from getting to know ANY of them. There is almost zero character development in this film. You have to go off what you know of these characters from the previous films, or else you're lost, because you never get to see who these characters are, or what they're about--which is sad, because the characters are so cool.
Another key ingredient thats missing is a good story. This plot is so cluttered, that it just barely makes sense. They try to follow the Phoenix story, but it feels really tagged on, and really distracts from the rest of the film. Plus, their treatment of Phoenix is wierd, creepy (I wouldn't take young kids to this) and downright odd. It's not what I think Phoenix could be or should be. The whole Phoenix story is clearly an add-on that doesn't fit with the rest of the film at all. The rest of the film is still very problematic in it's structure, and full of logic problems. Granted, we're dealing with a movie where people have super powers, but Singer showed us that this doesn't mean you have to ignore good story structure and logic.

One thing the movie does really well, however, is action. This is an action film, in it's purest sense--the story is an excuse for action. It has the pace of: action--exposition--action--quick explanation for why the next action scene is going to happen--more action! Regardless of the fact that I don't think thats a good way to make a movie, or tell a good story about real characters--the action is awesome to watch, and is much better done than the previous films.

Overall, this movie feels like a collection of really cool scenes, rather than a cohesive, powerful story. All the individual scenes are done very well, and there's plenty of fan service. It's great to see the "Fastball Special," Shadowcat fight Juggernaut, a Danger Room fight involving Sentinels, etc. But although there's a lot of "coolness," going on, the movie doesn't come together very well.

One thing that does stick out to me is this level of "fan service," but also a blatant need to screw with X-Men lore. I think this movie goes way too far in messing with things. People start dying left and right, and theres a really messed-up sex scene (no one actually has sex, but they get close, and it's way over the top). What I see in this, is a lack of respect for the source material, and a lack of respect for the first two films. There's a blatant disregard for certain canonical elements of the books, and a blatant disregard for some of the rules and continuity set in the first two films. It's almost like, they wanted to turn X-Men into something that it wasn't, really messing with it, and then placate the fans by giving all these "nod nod, wink wink" cheesy moments and refrences. Bryan Singer and David Hayter were able to mess with the continuity in a way that was true to the spirit of the books, and showed a respect and love for them. I don't feel that this movie does that. I don't think Brett Ratner loves these characters the way I do, and it's almost like this movie was a notch in his belt. He takes my beloved X-Men and reduces them to an action movie full of cheap thrills (that are genuinely thrilling, though). This movie is much more "Comic Booky" in it's tone and I don't mean that in a good way.

Bottom line on this one? It's still a good X-Men movie with plenty of coolness. I'll probably see it again. And it's a great action movie. But it's definitely the weakest of the three X-films. No, Brett Ratner is not Joel Schumacher, but good is definitely more than the abscence of bad.

See this movie if:
-You're an X-Men fan.
-You like really cool action scenes, and a lack of character development doesn't bother you
-You want to see the awesome new trailer for "Superman Returns"

Don't see this movie if:
-You like deep emotional dramas with realistic characters
-You're still bitter about how different Rouge was in the first two movies than she was in the comics. This movie treads on a lot more than that.
-Phoenix has always been your favorite, and you've always wanted to see her on screen. Whatever you're imagining is way cooler than the Phoenix this movie presents.

Art School Confidential 2/5 reviewed by Mike

Sometimes there are movies that are so much more dissapointing than a regular bad movie, because you know that with just a little bit more effort, it could have been really great. Thats kind of what happened with "Art School Confidential." It hurts me to give this thing a 2, because it was almost really good, and I really wanted it to be good. The trailer held so much promise...

The basic idea is that this young kid named Jerome (Max Minghella) goes off to art school to become the next great artist. On the way he has girl problems, wierd roomates, and all kind of wacky hijinks, with cameos from cool people like Steve Buscemi and John Malkovitch. Sound fun?

The first third of the movie was hysterical. If you've ever studied art, the jokes were so spot on, and accurate to what the art community and especially art school is like. I felt like I was back in my art classes, listening to the same rediculous conversations that took place. The big problem with all of this was that there wasn't anything going on. It was just a bunch of funny anecdotes. Yeah, it was freakin' hilarious, but I kept waiting for the movie to start. There just wasn't any story at all. I felt like I was watching a much longer trailer for the movie I was already watching. Again--it was super funny, but had no substance.

Eventually a love story starts, but it's really weakly done and it rarely makes sense. I'm supposed to believe that this kid is totally in love with this girl (who is kindof dense and wierd) who he's talked to like 3 or 4 times? The characters don't even know each other at all, but they're making huge decisions based on these gigantic emotions that just weren't there. I mean, what kid (no matter how depressed) tries to kill themselves over a girl he's barely even talked to? I just never felt there was any real emotional motivation for what the characters were doing.

In the last twenty minutes or so, they finally realized that, "Oh wait, we should probably start having a plot," so this cop story about a murderer comes in. It was eluded to earlier in the film, but even then, it still seems to come out of nowhere. On top of that, the ending is one of the cheesiest moments in all cinematic history. I cringed so hard that my face froze in a grimace for like 15 minutes.

Parts of the movie were so badly done that I figured it had to be parody. Surely, someone wouldn't take this seriously. But if it is parody, it's a very weak one. It seemed like the director and writer weren't sure themselves whether or not this was parody or a real story. It's either a really weak parody, or a really weak story. I wish they had picked one and went with it. Because this could have been a really emotional, touching story (even loaded with comedy) or it could have been a hilarious mockery of what hollywood films are, but it just couldn't decide. And that makes me sad. I will reiterate though, if you've ever been to art school or have studied art, this might be a low 3 for you, just because some of the jokes are so spot on. I just wish they had really taken an honest look at the script, and recast a few parts, because this movie could have been so awesome.

See this movie if:
-You've been to art school and thought it was rediculous and stupid
-You haven't seen Ethan Suplee since he played Frankie on "Boy Meets World" and you really miss him.
-You're just like the girls that sat behind me in the theater, who constantly talked about how hot Max Minghella was, making little "mmm!" sounds to emphasize their point.

Don't see this movie if:
-You're looking for a good emotional love story
-You're opposed to seeing naked shlongs in the first ten minutes of a movie
-You've got something better to do, like play Final Fantasy games for hours on end.

Mike's Old Favorites: Unbreakable 5/5

Me and Punchface thought, since this whole revolution in movie critique is just getting underway, that it would be beneficial to spend some time writing reviews of old movies that we love. This will help give you a better sense of the kind of things we love, and maybe show you some cool flicks you've overlooked in the past. Plus we just love talking about great films. In that vein, here's my review of a great movie: Unbreakable.

I had forgotten just how awesome this movie was. Basically, the plot revolves around two characters. One is David Dunn (Bruce Willis) who is the sole survivor of a horrible train accident. The other is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) who has a rare disease causing extremely low bone density (he suffers injuries all the time). While David is in the midst of a struggling remnant of a marriage, Elijah (who is a little out there, and has an extremely strong affinity for comic books) comes into the picture, thinking David is the living archetype of what gets exaggerated into traditional comic book superheroes.

The plot may sound strange, but at it's heart is a powerful story of a broken man coming to terms with who he is, the choices he's made, and what his life is about. The film is written, produced and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, the man behind "The Sixth Sense," "Signs," and "The Village." Despite what you think of his other work (to be discussed later) it's obvious that the man knows how to use a camera. The cinematography here is amazing, creative, and symbolic. The movies themes are represented and developed even in the camera movement--there are themes of upside-down images, as well as constant use of reflected images to reinforce certain ideas. This is not at all ground-breaking, but it's just that it's done so well. The script is nearly flawless, never overbearing, never cheesy, and never unbelievable. The actors bring it alive in incredible ways. The movie is perfectly cast in all places. Bruce Willis is an amazing actor, and this movie shows him do things that prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a far cry from the action hero in the Die Hard series. This is a distanced, troubled, yet emotionally vulnerable broken man, played wonderfully and ever so believably by Willis. Jackson is superb as well. In fact, even some of the side actors (Robin Wright Penn and Spencer Clark) bring so much to the story. I have to admit that I got teary eyed at multiple times during this film. The actors make you feel exactly what the character feels, in powerful and moving ways.

The score was done by one of my all-time favorite movie composers, James Newton Howard. Check his IMDB file to see the never-ending list of great films he's worked on. He is in top form with this film's score, which, just like the film itself, is powerful, emotional, strong yet vulnerable, and extremely memorable. The use of color in this film is also brilliant. Most of the movie has a particularly dark blue feel, but different characters bring different colors to the movie's palatte in ways that never distract from the story, but enhance it's themes.

Perhaps the reason I go straight to giving it a five (because for many people, it may be a high 4) is because of it's theme of comic books (which I am slightly partial to). Understand, this is NOT a "comic book movie." But there plot revolves around the idea of what comics might represent in the human psyche. It deals with the themes and archetypes of comic books without ever becoming a "comic book film," despite what that classification may mean to you. The Special Edition DVD set contains a documentary where several prominent comic creators talk about the film and its themes. Included are such greats as Frank Miller, Scott McCloud, Will Eisner, Alex Ross (who created some great promo art for the film), Dennis O'Neil, Dave Gibbons, and others. For anyone interested in what comics are, and what they might mean behind the surface, this is a great special feature.

I had forgotten just how great this movie was. I'll be watching this one long after I get old and grey. And to me, thats the definition of a "5". Enjoy!