Thursday, June 14, 2007

In Case You Missed It: City of God 5/5 reviewed by Corey

I recently rented Ciudade de Deus (City of God) again and felt compelled to tell anyone who reads this that this is, for all of my practical purposes, a perfect film.

Once again: I cannot find a single legitimate flaw in this movie.
In the 1960's, Ciudade de Deus, a Brazilian slum in the Rio de Janeiro, is one of the most dangerous places on earth. The children learn at an early age how to run with a gang, and when the changing of the guard takes place, a brutal crimelord, Li'l Ze, takes power. Gang warfare rips families apart and incessant violence spills innocent blood. Things spin out of control as Li'l Ze begins to weed out the opposing gangs and raise up a new generation of murderers.

Rocket, a bright teen with an eye for photography, wants out.

City of God documents Rocket's journey from playing soccer while his brother robbed gas trucks to his timeless quest to get laid and on into adulthood. The history of the war receives a lot of screen time, told in a series of episodes.

The story is entertaining without sacrificing authenticity. The actors are so talented that you swear you're watching a documentary. It's emotionally draining without being depressing. It's physically exhausting while retaining your interest. It's a brutal and ugly place, which makes the jaw-dropping directing and cinematography even more ironic. It's numbing, but it's one of the few movies I always "feel." The dialogue is often hilarious and just as often heartbreaking. Some parts will make you cry, others will make you laugh, a few will just leave you with your mouth hanging open.

The production and direction is stylish (I'm talking Pulp Fiction stylish, the real deal), the ending is unforgettable, the villains are reprehensible. You will be engrossed. This is a perfect film on every single level and I'm sorry I forgot to do this much, much earlier.

My God, Ebert is right. It really is one of the best movies you will ever see.



SEE this if...

- You're a member of the CriticCrew or respect our opinions at all.
- You consider yourself an intelligent, contributing member of society.
- You love a good gangster flick.


DON'T see this if...

- You hate reading subtitles with a fiery, hellish, Hot Tamales-esque passion.
- You are under the age of 16.
- You... hate good movies? I can't really think of anything else...






Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Ocean's Thirteen 2/5 reviewed by Mike


Whew! Look at us crankin' out reviews like we're so cool!

Before you see "Thirteen," ask yourself: Have you seen Ocean's Eleven? Have you seen Ocean's Twelve? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then you have already seen Ocean's Thirteen and been bored by it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the other two films (the second one is pretty lacking, but had some really fun parts). But this one is very flawed.

The plot is about the good ol' gang getting revenge on a Vegas Tycoon (Al Pacino) for the financial backstabbing and hospitalization of one of their friends. It takes all of about 3 minutes to set this up and you're instantly off and running on planning and executing the con. Herein lies the first problem. In the other two films, there was pretty decent motivation for the characters to do what they did. In this one, there isn't. It never makes you care about doing this con job, so everything just feels empty. Also, as far as twists, this movie just doesn't have them. You see everything coming ten miles away, especially if you've seen the other two. Nothing will surprise you here. I could go on about how ludicrous it is that not one, but two drills big enough to dig the English Channel can be hauled all over Vegas without raising an eyebrow, and how the writers thought the best use of the incredible Don Cheadle was to put him in a musty equivalent of the Star Trek engine room for the whole film... At every turn, the script pretty much says to you, "well, we need another one..."

This attitude carries over into how the actors play their roles. They just seem bored. Yeah, there's some one liners, there's some wit, but it's not as sharp as what you've seen before. The writing and the acting screams, "Are we DONE yet?" at every scene. Pacino phones in one of the worst acting jobs of his life. He does nothing to make his character interesting, scary, creepy, or cool in any way. Your sister could have played his part just as well. Even a Super-Dave Osborn cameo, which was set up to be hilarious, doesn't take advantage of any of the set-up, and ends up being pathetic.

The camera work is trying desperately to make you think it's cool, but it never knows what kind of movie it's in. Is it shaky-camera? Grainy action? 70's overlaid images? Comic book panels ala the Hulk? Documentary style? Slow pans ala Star Trek? (stand back for this! It's a forbidden casino!) It doesn't matter, because the director (Steven Soderbergh) was just throwing together little clips of every over-stylized "stlye" that exists. I mean, at least be honest with yourself and rip off Guy Ritchie's cinematography, and be consistent, instead of this begging-us-to-think-you're-innovative. Oh, and I can do without the 70's, Grindhouse style title cards and credits.

To the movie's credit, the acting isn't bad, it's just not good. The music is quite awesome, though, the sweet growls of upright bass slides are awesome, and another cool cover of Ellington's "Caravan" makes an appearance. The sets and costumes are great, and there's enough funny moments to make it not horrible to sit through. If you absolutely love just looking at these actors, or if you were fanatic about the first two, then you'll probably enjoy it more than I. There are certainly much worse films lurking around this summer. Spidey 3 this isn't, but if I were you, I'd put in a DVD of The Sting, Snatch, or even Ocean's Eleven instead.

See this movie if:
-you REALLY love the other two films--I mean REALLY LOVE
-you'll take any excuse to see Pitt, Clooney, or Damon. I gotta say, they look pretty good here... (but man, George is gettin' old...)
-You love any and all heist movies. It's a heist movie, just not a good one
-It's actually probably a good date movie, so have at it

Don't see this movie if:
-You like heist movies only when they're surprising and clever
-You only kindof liked the other two
-You don't like an obscene amount of self-referencing celebrities in your movies

In Case You Missed It: The Fountain 3/5 reviewed by Corey

This perfectly represents what I mean when I give a movie a 3/5. It's a flawed film that you should still catch on DVD.

The Fountain is the third directorial baby of Darren Aronofsky, the guy responsible for confusing you in Pi and making you suicidal in Requiem for a Dream. If Pi aimed for the head and Requiem aimed for the gut, then The Fountain aims for your heart. And it misses on a couple really key levels.

Aronofsky is known for his experimental directing, and this is no exception. Here, however, the experiment is in the penmanship of the story and not behind the lens. You shouldn't know what is going on for about the first thirty minutes of the film (one third of the running time of this unusually brief film), but when you find out the general plot, which focuses around a man struggling to save his wife from death, a key flaw rears its ugly head: there is simply way too much going on for this movie to be an hour and thirty minutes long! The plot focuses on three parallel stories (one of which is completely nonsensical and unnecessary), but never seems to cover much ground in any one of them. I know it seems like "too much going on" and "don't cover enough ground" are paradoxical statements, but you'll see what I mean if you sit down and watch this.

The acting is nothing to freak out about. It's not good. It's not bad. It's just there. A couple haircuts are probably the most variety you're going to get out of the two main characters here. The music is frequently moving and impactful, much like Requiem for a Dream. The visuals complement the score wonderfully, even if they frequently seem to be overly artsy and ridiculous. I will say the finale is quite aesthetically pleasing, if nothing more.

Overall, a good movie that went unnoticed in the theatre and in the Academy. The theatre (and the innumberable drones that would have called this the best movie of the year had they seen it) probably should have noticed. The Academy did well to avoid it.

SEE it if...
- You're Ryan Hildebrand.
- You don't need too much story with your eye candy.
- You liked Aronofsky's other stuff. This is just as good.

DON'T see it if...
- You're expecting an epic hunt for the tree of life. It's hardly epic.
- You thought it looked kinda sci-fi from the front cover. It's not.
- You're deciding between this and Epic Movie. You're hopeless.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Day Watch 3/5 reviewed by Mike

This might sound weird--but although I'm giving this film a 3, and I might seem overly critical of it (I have a lot to say about this film), I want most of you to add it to the top of your list of movies to see. It's so worth seeing, and so utterly different than what Hollywood is going to throw at you this summer, I highly urge you to see it. Remember, it's a sequel, though.

Some of you might remember Last year's brilliant piece, "Night Watch." I gave it a 4. I loved it. Bloody brilliant. This is the sequel, "Day Watch." In case you don't know--these movies are Russian films that broke every box office record that exists in Russia. They're loosely based on a series of 4 novels (only recently have the first few been translated into English) and they're awesome. But, you have to see Night Watch first. Go rent it. It's out on DVD. What are you waiting for? There's a voice over at the beginning of Day Watch that will explain the first movie, but you really need to see Night Watch first. Trust me, it's worth it. It'll seem weird at first, but go with it. Its a crazy fantasy story set in modern-day Moscow. It's a weird amalgamation of LOTR, The Matrix, and X-Men, with lots of other cool stuff thrown in the mix. And a car drives across the side of a building.

As for this sequel, parts are incredible, parts are disappointing. In the sequel, back are the mysterious "Others," powerful beings who have fantasy powers (turning into animals, spell casting, vampirism, future-seeing, etc.) who can choose the side of Light or Dark. Back are all the main characters: Anton, a Light Other, whose son Yegor is a super-powerful Other, Gesser and Zevulon, the leaders of the Light and Dark (respectively). Remember the witch Svetlana who almost accidentally destroyed the earth in "Night Watch"? Turns out she's an uber-powerful Light Other, to rival Yegors power, and she's now being trained by Anton. Olga, the Owl-woman with a secret past is back as well, and the rest of the supporting cast. Also, back are the cool subtitles that interact with the action on screen in really cool ways. Props to whoever did these subtitles, it really adds to the experience of the movie.

First, the good: When it comes to tone, mood, and ambiance, this film is unmatched. This thing pulls you into an incredible visceral world of awesomeness, right from the first frame. The feeling of immersion is incredible. The characters are interesting, and differ greatly from typical Hollywood action stereotypes we're used to. The acting is awesome and perfect. The story is multi-faceted, and you have to pay attention. The special effects are freakin' sweet, and way different that the way American films approach special effects. Go see it!

Now, I do have some nitpicking to do. Apparently, Fox has taken both of these films and edited them down somewhat. In Night Watch, about 20 minutes was cut, in this film, I think over 30 minutes or so has been cut, and some parts have even been re-written. This only confirms that Fox is the most evil, vile corporation that exists, and their entire purpose for being is to screw over artists and audiences worldwide. If you wish, view the evil vampires in this film as representations of Fox executives. On the other hand, there are sections of this movie--nuances of writing and staging--that loose their effect on a non-Russian audience. Apparently, if you're familiar with typical Russian lifestyles, politics, and products, then this movie is much funnier and incredibly nuanced. It's cultural specificness is not a detriment to the writing, though, it just shows that we're not educated enough.


On the other hand, there are some problems with the writing--namely, the fact that this movie isn't nearly as character driven as it could be. I really wanted to get into these characters heads, explore their motivations, but that doesn't really happen unfortunately. So much plot is going on that there's not much time to explore the inner workings of the characters, which is a shame. Even though there's not time, the movie feels pretty long, mostly because of the incredible amount of subplots they're weaving. There was so many 'B' stories and subplots going on that I assumed they were laying groundwork for a third movie (more on that below). But lo and behold, they wrapped up everything. I mean, everything. I guess we're left to fill in the blanks of WHY these characters were doing what they were doing (particularly Zevulon, I was fascinated by him and wanted to know what his real agenda was, but alas...) and why certain characters were in love with each other.

Seriously--so many ideas and concepts are introduced, that you could make a living off exploring just a few of them through a dozen films, books, etc. I hear there are plans to make a TV show, which I think would be great, because I think these characters and concepts would probably work MUCH better in a serialized format, taking its time, rather than trying to cover so much ground in a big fat movie. This world is so awesome, I'd love to spend several seasons of TV exploring it, or read serialized comics about it, or whatever else they wanted to do (although it'd be real hard to separate these characters from the actors that portray them). There will be a third movie, but there is talk of filming it in America with an all English cast, which is pretty much the worst idea I've ever heard.

Although the ending provides ultimate resolution to the plot (and the ending is pretty freaking cheesy, look out) I was left with a lot of questions about the plot, and the more I thought about it, the more giant holes it appeared to have. It's not that the gaping plot holes couldn't be explained (with a world like this, it'd be easy to explain some of the problems) it's just that they didn't. Also some really big concepts (like the impartial Inquisitors between Dark and Light, and the breif mention of the "Greater Powers") were glossed over and not explored at all. I don't know how I would have preferred it, though. There's so much exposition already that more would have been overwhelming, but there's just so much I wanted explained--and so much I wanted to see that I didn't get to. For example, Tiger Cub and Bear, two of my favorite characters from the first film, have I think 2 lines here. And you still don't get to see Bear turn into a bear. Also, the idea of "The Gloom" is barely used at all.

Yeah, this movie has some problems, but the fact remains that this film creates one of the coolest worlds I've ever seen. Go check it out (after seeing Night Watch first) and get immersed in something you've never seen before.

Let's see if I can make this section more useful:
See this movie if:
-You like fantasy films, especially dark fantasy (vampires, etc.)
-You like films like LOTR, The Matrix, X-Men, Constantine, etc.
-You like lots of weaving plot, and don't need large character exploration.

Don't See this movie if:
-You like things ultra-realistic, and you don't like fantasy
-You absolutely hate the idea of reading subtitles while the movie is spoken in a foreign language
-You haven't seen "Night Watch"