Star Wars

Film#36 - The Phantom Menace, 1999, dir. George Lucas

So, watching these films in chronological order really separates them apart. This film for example, really focuses on the 'cool' aspect of the Force. The Jedis are so superior in combat to everyone else it's just ridiculous. It's as if people watching this film have forgotten what Luke and Obiwan were like in the original series. Sure, they could lay the smack down when they needed to, but were still fairly vulnerable. In this film, everyone is just so overpowered it doesn't even make sense. Literally every blast is not only deflected by a lightsaber, but deflected right back at who shot it. The original trilogy is not like that. But anyways, This is a fairly enjoyable film. Some bad acting on the part of certain child actors, and some poorly written dialogue that seems forced, but all in all it's pretty good. The podracing scene really stands out, it's just so fun. One thing that bothered me was the lack of consequence to violence. There is only one instance where blood is actually drawn, and it's just a slight hint of a red mist. It just seems toned down intentionally so they could open this to a broader market of youth.

7.5/10

Film#37 - Attack of the Clones, 2002, dir. George Lucas

The problem with this film is many of the action sequences are just plain boring. When Obiwan and Anakin are chasing down Padme's would be assassin, it's just a drawn out chase sequence where very little actually happens. It's action for the sake of action. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman have literally no chemistry and their entire relationship seems unnatural. not to mention he is fairly unbelievable as a character in the first place. The entire thing seems awkward and uncomfortable.

6.5/10

Film#38 - Revenge of the Sith, 2005, dir. George Lucas

This film really just blends with the last one. It's much more about bridging the parts of the story than it is actually telling it's own story. Anakin switches to the dark side a little too easily, and along with several poorly acted scenes makes this film almost unbearable. But I say almost, because after all it is part of a series that defines a genre, however this particular film is fairly ineffective on it's own. It would be just as good as episode 2, except scenes like Darth Vader's infamous "NOOOOO" scene just takes it down another notch.

6/10

Film#39 - A New Hope, 1977, dir. George Lucas

So going back to this film after so long, it really does still hold true even today. The special effects (minus the updated George Lucas abominations, which I had to endure since I couldn't get my hands on the original films) are clearly faulty by todays standards but are in a way more respectable. Whenever a lightsaber goes on, you can see a cut in the film, which I would assume would be where the actors would freeze while someone ran in and attached a rod to the lightsaber to later add the glow effect on, which in some ways is a little jarring but still very innovative for the time. It's a good film, I just can't say it's amazing. Much of the dialogue is weak and relies on the style and 'cool' aspect to carry it at times, but still very good.

8/10

Film#40 - The Empire Strikes Back, 1980, dir. Irvin Kershner

This is my favourite Star Wars film. Despite what people may think ,these films are fairly different. This one combines what I think is more effective acting (maybe the 3 years between films gave the actors the chance to really develop their characters) with more natural and often witty dialogue (Han is truly hilarious) and a more diverse range of beautiful scenery, making the most effective of the film series. At this point in the series, the whole idea of the Force and the galaxy it takes place in has been established, allowing the film to focus on the narrative and character development. We see a real depth to Han and Luke in particular, with more exposing narrative structure.

9/10

Film#41 - Return of the Jedi, 1983, dir. Richard Marquand

Not too much actually happens in this film. There are basically only two large scenes: rescuing Han, and the attack on the new Death Star. There is a real lack of plot points compared to the previous films, which take place over multiple planets and solar systems, with all sorts of changes in scenery. Despite this change of pace, the film is still pretty good. The developments with Luke and Vader are interesting but somehow out of character and forced at times. Leia and Han have almost lost the chemistry they had in the previous film, even though this film tries to make it seem as if their bond is stronger. The film starts out incredibly cinematic, something that is still such high quality today, but seems to deteriorate as it moves on, giving up on creative and stunning camera angles and scenery (I would discuss mise-en-scene but that's too pretentious) in favour of just presenting the story (camera angles for the sake of showing the action rather than constructing something artistic). An interesting end to the series.

7.5/10

31-35

Film#31 - When Harry Met Sally, 1989, dir. Rob Reiner

Perfect. I didn't know what to expect with this film, and wasn't all too excited to see it. It's a real shame I've missed out of something like this for so long. Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal have such intense onscreen chemistry you just wish they would end up together in real life. A story spanning over a decade, where I honestly had no idea where these two would end up. I assumed from the title it would be an immediate love connection, and maybe it was, but the way the movie goes about telling this story is just something not to be missed.

10/10

Film#32 - As Good As It Gets, 1997, dir. James L. Brooks

Another perfect movie. There isn't much to say here, other than this is an absolutely flawless film. It has such genuine moments that truly inspire I just can't give it anything but a perfect score.

10/10

Film#33 - Friday The 13th, 2009, dir. Marcus Nispel

Here we have one of the most appalling movies ever made. I've seen the original, which I wasn't a big fan of, but this is just an embarrassment. Jumping on the "let's revive an old franchise" band wagon (think Halloween, Nightmare On Elm Street, even the upcoming Scream 4), this movie is just trash. What really got me was the opening scene, which traditionally has a single or maybe pair of murders, instead did a full 20 minute lead up of stereotypical young, sexy stoners out for a camping trip, where surprise surprise: they're all massacred. Then we get to the real meat and potatoes of this movie; a second group of sexy youth are out to the lake for the weekend, while Jared Padalecki is searching for his missing sister. Not to ruin the movie but I'm sorry to say not many of them make it out alive. It's so poorly written, not to mention they've thrown out the whole red-herring fake-out since every time the music becomes dissonant someone WILL die. Not to mention my outrage with these kids for of course making the stupidest mistakes ever, some that don't even make logical sense i.e. "Well the killer is outside the house, so let me, a half naked helpless girl, go upstairs alone to check things out, leaving the strong, athletic and capable members of the group downstairs with all the lights and weapons. Good idea." Not only that, they just had to leave it open ended just to leave the possibility for another terrible sequel. When will these teenagers learn that when facing an unstoppable abomination of a man, when you finally weaken him, just finish the job. Don't be scared to get a little dirty, after all, you've already got half a dozen of your friends blood and gore in your hair. Horrid.

2/10

Film#34 - Hot Fuzz, 2007, dir. Edgar Wright

I've seen this a few times and I must say it is just superb. Quirky, well paced, wonderfully acted, plus a storyline just full of twists and turns, this film is just fantastic. Combing genres (think cop drama + comedy + horror/slasher) leads this film to a truly original place in a sea of films that all seem the same. Funny and self-referential, this film is an unbelievable cinematic experience, and is one of my favourites.

10/10

Film#35 - Chinatown, 1974, dir. Roman Polanski

My impressions of a lot of movies tend to be way off before I actually see them. This, just like Polanski's The Pianist, has little to do with the title in a literal sense. Instead there's a winding story of private investigator Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, as he is tied up in a grand scheme with LA's water supply. This film almost seems to be timeless, not in the sense that it's value lasts over the years (although it does) but more so in the way that its reminiscent of something I might expect from a 1950s film (possibly due to its film noir look and feel but more so from its tone) while at the same time seeming ahead of its time. I can't place this film very well, I'm just unsure how I feel about it. The story is complex, and Nicholson plays a role unlike anything I've ever seen from him, yet I feel impartial towards it overall.

7.5/10

26-30

Film#26 - 101 Dalmatians, 1996, dir. Stephen Herek

I don't fully understand why I had fond memories of this. This is simply an atrocious film. The acting (not to mention dialogue) is just so horrible, I'm constantly aware I'm watching actors. It's like sitting in on a grade 8 drama class, but less funny. Hugh Laurie is actually semi decent, letting out his full accent, and this is a man I generally have no patience for. This film would be getting a 1/10, but honestly the animals are by far the best part. I had real hope for the movie as the scene where the dalmatians see each other for the first time in a slow motion pan, but the movie just couldn't keep that quality up. Honestly, Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson get engaged hours after meeting, and have no chemistry whatsoever. What is this. With lines like, "You may have won the battle, but I'll win the wardrobe," this is one of the worst films I've ever seen.

2/10

Film#27 - eXistenZ, 1999, dir. David Cronenberg

I must say my first impression of this movie was it was like reading a video game manual. You got the game, it looks so cool and you can't wait to get into it, and on the ride home you read the manual. It tells you all sorts of stuff, controls, specific moves, how the gameplay works, the interface, and has a little teaser of story. This movie is the same thing. The spend almost the entire film trying to explain the concept that they live in a future where video games are played on organic game systems that tap directly into your body. The strange part is once they get into the game, they find another game 'pod' and plug into that, going into even stranger alternate realities. This film took a stab at where video games might be going, and I respect that. The problem is they assume that in a world where technology is so advanced that only organically grown tissue similar to the brain can hold all the data, that somehow game characters are all mindless avatars, with linear storylines and incredibly narrow paths of gameplay. Aside from my fury with the video game aspect of the film, it has its charms. Philosophically it says almost too much, and has some interesting quirks (I'm a huge fan of what I call film quirks). Something like Jude Law's character is in a chinese restaurant, and the transition from that game world to the previous one is the table turns into a giant pillow for a split second before he awakes on a bed in the previous world. Some weak acting and implausible storyline elements even for the premise they put forth are balanced out with a cast of capable actors playing bit parts, which somehow made it a decent film in the end.

7.5/10

Film#28 - Wall Street, 1987, dir. Oliver Stone

My last Oliver Stone review got a dismal 5/10, but this film is radically different. Well, maybe not radically. Style wise, Stone tones down his over-the-top-ness and presents a fairly compelling story. I half expected the story to be winding towards a brutal shootout, but instead it chose to stay with the drama of love, money and family. Charlie Sheen is superb, except in his 'weak' moments, which tended to be a little melodramatic and out of character. Michael Douglas is phenomenal as Gordon Gekko, with such a powerful performance he keeps the film going. Highly enjoyable.

8/10

Film#29 - Far From Heaven, 2002, dir. Todd Haynes

Now, we watched this in film to show relations between this and Douglas Sirk's 1955 All That Heaven Allows. Sirk's film is a major pass for me. This however, is incredible. Stylistically, the film is beautiful. The colours just jump out of the screen, going from stunning bucolic scenery to unnaturally oversaturated scenes. The characters are all so unique yet hauntingly familiar to things I think everyone can relate to in some way. The film challenges values and morality in such an obvious way, while at the same time touches on the subtleties of social issues. A very engaging film, drawing you in in such a way that you're unsure of what character to root for.

9/10

Film#30 - North By Northwest, 1959, dir. Alfred Hitchcock

I had been meaning to get around to his for months after my dad gave me a copy. This is my eighth Hitchcock film, and I generally enjoy his style. This was one of his more direct and engaging stories I think, especially for modern audience and the stereotypes concerning our attention spans. However I found this one actually lost me a little by the end. However, the story picks up so quickly and takes so many twists and turns I really had no idea where it was going. I must say, it had been suggested to me that this was more or less the basis for James Bond films, from a Hitchcock style of course, and it definitely swayed how I saw the film. It really does seem like a precursor to the Bond film series, despite being made years after the Bond novels first started circulating. I would even say this is a perfect movie for the time, as I can't imagine how back then this could have been any better. However it just doesn't have the kick to it to make it something that really sticks with me. As a side note, the iconic scene with the cropdusting plan chasing Cary Grant was far too exciting, from the moment I saw the plane in the distance I just couldn't contain myself.

9/10

21-25

Film#21 - (500) Days Of Summer, 2009, dir. Marc Webb

10/10

Film#22 - The Pianist, 2002, dir. Roman Polanski

I can't say I've seen much by Polanski, so I'm unsure what his style is usually like, but this film does have a definitive style to it. Spanning the entire Nazi occupation of France and Poland, the story follows Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody), a Polish Jew forced from his home. His family travels through a gauntlet of situations, separating as they go. There is very little piano to be played in a time like this, but the way it ties into the story was sensational.

8.5/10

Film#23 - Adventureland, 2009, dir. Greg Mottola

As the film ended, I imagined it was a 6/10. I looked at it as a failed comedy, something I expected to be in the vein of typical teenage comedies due to the way the film is first presented. I found myself looking for the jokes and overlooking the serious drama unfolding. Some characters are weak, as well as a few plot points that are illogical, but this movie succeeds where I didn't expect it to. A coming of age tale, it was much more enjoyable than expected, as well as the acting was often superb (namely Kristen Stewart, a pleasantly surprising performance).

7.5/10

Film#24 - Dead Reckoning, 1947, dir. John Cromwell

I believe this is my first Humphrey Bogart film, and was fairly decent. Some overly complex plot points, (not to mention that particular articles on this film focus on underlying homosexual and hypermasculine portrayals) really detract from the heart of this film. With all that happened in the film, I'm still somehow at a loss for words, but not in the 'speechless' sense. It was middle of the road; a fine film, nothing I'd care to see again.

6/10

Film#25 - The Mist, 2007, dir. Frank Darabont

I was absolutely thrilled to get a chance to watch this film, especially after I realized it was not 2005's The Fog, which is quite terrible I must say. Instead, The Mist is a phenomenal story, based on a Stephen King novella, done by a man I consider to be one of the best filmmakers today. Darabont, who continually makes Stephen King stories into extraordinary films, makes no exception with The Mist. I somehow think this film was overlooked compared to his past hits with The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. However, The Mist is definitely in the same caliber, bringing fantastic acting by Thomas Jane and an ensemble cast together with a story of a town thrown into the unknown horrors of an enveloping mist. Nearly all of the film takes place inside the local grocery store, where the movie chooses to focus less on the abominations roaming outside and focus more on the tensions inside the store. As the film progresses, you can clearly see several characters become increasingly entrenched in their own views while others sway in uncertainty. Beautifully executed, this is one of my favourite movies of the year already.

10/10

16-20

Film#16 - Drugstore Cowboy, 1989, dir. Gus van Sant

I had high expectations going into this. The synopsis really set up what sounded like a thrilling heist-type movie, a sort of Natural Born Killers but good. Instead I got an uncomfortable movie about drug addicts. This was a middle of the road experience for me. It wasn't fantastic, it wasn't too bad. Nothing really stands out though, which is it's major flaw. It has no defining moment or quality. However, for an early van Sant film, you can definitely see a connection to his later films, to the point where I would even say a film like this bridges together such opposing styles as Elephant and Good Will Hunting.

7/10

Film#17 - The King Of Comedy, 1982, dir. Martin Scorsese

I don't even know what genre this film fits into. It has what could be a very serious story of psychotic fans struggling to find happiness, but at the same time has so many hints of humour that I just didn't know how to take it. Beyond forming genre labels, this film was quite good. A real character-driven narrative that relies so heavily on the spectacular performances, which works all too well.

8/10

Film#18 - Life Is Hot In Cracktown, 2009, dir. Buddy Giovinazzo

Absolutely brutal. This film has a cast of familiar stars you just can't exactly name (like Quinn from Dexter) and is highly overlooked. It's understandable as the content is difficult to stomach. From the opening rape sequence, you can quickly get the tone of this film, and it truly never lets up. Moving from rape to drug abuse, ruthless domestic disturbances, murder, and unbearable racial, sexual and gender issues, this film is as serious as it gets. This film is immensely significant in the way it addresses so many cultural issues in an interweaving narrative of hopeless characters and situations.

7.5/10

Film#19 - Up In The Air, 2009, dir. Jason Reitman

Delightful.

10/10

Film#20 - Race To Witch Mountain, 2009, dir. Andy Fickman

Although this is a major change of pace from what I usually watch, this film was actually fairly enjoyable. Maybe this is bizarre, but I imagine this would be a great film for parents to take their kids to. Full of clean action sequences, Dwayne Johnson's occasional one liner and a pair of teen actors you just can't help but hope will never find work again, this film has all the elements of a mindless late night movie experience. I'm sure most people already have some sort of bias towards any movie starring The Rock, or even from the title alone, but I believe this movie accomplished what it set out to do. It doesn't for one second pretend to be anything more than a fun hour and a half of silly plot twists that often make no sense whatsoever. You probably don't need to see it.

6/10

11-15

Film#11 - The Hangover, 2009, dir. Todd Phillips

This film made me completely rethink what I said about I Love You, Man. If that was a step in the right direction, this is, I don't even know. It's driving a car, that's how much better this is. Right from the start this film is just so cinematic and beautifully composed. I would think everyone has the basic premise of the film from the title alone, but it's basically three men trying to remember what happened the night before. Zach Galifianakis' character was actually shocking at first, as he was nothing like I expected from whatever promo material I had seen. The story is winding and unlikely, but the unique characters and truly hilarious dialogue carry this film beyond good comedy but just a good movie.

8.5/10

Film#12 - The Devil Wears Prada, 2006, dir. David Frankel

It's only fitting I review this film, for obvious reasons. I considered do this last but I couldn't help myself. This is the first film of the year that I've already seen, but I find it absolutely fascinating. I couldn't resist. To be honest, I could talk about this film for hours, but I won't get into that here. First and foremost I find it strange when people consider this a 'chick flick' or tease me for liking it. This has led me to believe this may be one of the most misinterpreted films of recent history. People seem to think this is a movie about fashion, and while it in some way it is, it's more of a story critiquing fashion, but more importantly it uses fashion as a means to explore larger questions. I find it difficult to understand how people consider this film about fashion when the antagonist (Meryl Streep) is the largest advocator for fashion. Anne Hathaway loses everything that matters in her life the deeper she falls into the ideology of the industry. How that doesn't translate to audiences is beyond me. I admit I've seen this many times before, and during this last viewing I found myself changing my views on various aspects quite dramatically. I had previously thought Simon Baker's character was pretty much a dick, but now I see him as more of a regular person dealing with the situations he's put in. The entire art show scene is possibly my least favourite part, mostly because every character acts so illogically and overreacts to a point that it would seem the entire scene was written just to bridge sections of the film, without much though as to character motivations at the time. This is a great movie though, taking a fairly unique backdrop to tell a compelling story.

8.5/10

Film#13 - The Fisher King, 1991, dir. Terry Gilliam

I can't say I'm a Gilliam fan. I hated Brazil, Monty Python and Fear and Loathing, which probably throws up flags for a lot of people right there, but I honestly think those films rely too much on bizarre aesthetics, characters and dialogue to carry the film along. I did however like 12 Monkeys, but that's neither here no there. The Fisher King started out in typical Gilliam style, which I'm sure many people love, but it loses me right off the bat. However, it was as if he toned down the over-the-top-ness as the film progressed and began a phenomenal tale unlike anything else. Robin Williams plays an eccentric homeless man, while Jeff Bridges is a failed radio personality. Through coincidence the two meet and strike up an unlikely friendship, although Bridges pretends to only be interested in paying Williams back for a debt he feels is owed. A strange story, but one that inspires all sorts of optimistic ideas.

8/10

Film#14 - Mildred Pierce, 1945, dir. James M. Cain

Again we have an old melodrama I wouldn't expect to like, and once again my expectations are wrong. A fragmented story that expands from the first scene, exploring the aftermath of a murder as well as the events leading to it, Mildred Pierce is almost like Slumdog Millionaire, except I enjoyed this film while I hated Slumdog. Jack Carson constantly hits on Mildred in a way I would expect her to slap him from the moment he comes on screen. His sexual advances are constant and completely uncalled for, which on one hand makes me hate seeing his character, while on the other hand makes the film somewhat more realistic as the plot continues and gives a clear distinction between characters.

7/10

Film#15 - Barton Fink, 1991, dir. Joel Coen

One of the more 'arty' films by the Coen brothers, in the sense that I feel critics enjoyed this film more than audiences did, or would as I imagine. I almost feel like not much happened in the film, but at the same time that shouldn't take away from it's value in the slightest. John Turturro plays a playwright commissioned to write a 'wrestler picture' without any knowledge of what it should be. Living in a rundown hotel, he meets his intensely friendly neighbour, played by John Goodman, who simply lights up the screen (to be cliche). I'll be honest, I never considered Goodman to be a serious actor, as my impression of him was almost solely based on Roseanne, but in the past little while that opinion has drastically changed. I also must point out I was sure John Goodman had been dead for some time, when in fact that was just an internet rumour. Anyways, this film has all sorts of motifs flying around (the mosquitos, the peeling wallpaper, the shoe shining, etc) that I must admit have gone right over my head, although I'm sure they must have some sort of significance. Just like the ending speech to No Country For Old Men, this film leaves much up to interpretation, taking quick turns in plot that are often unexplained. Maybe I'll change my opinion of the film when I figure out what these things mean, but as of right now, I throughly enjoyed this movie and would love to see it again.

8/10

6-10

Shockingly, people have expressed interest in reading the absolute drivel that spills out in this here blog. The pressure is just immense to write some kind of acceptable prose so I'll try my best. With that being said, these next few films have been arguably one of the most eclectic selections to be paired together. Enjoy.

Film#6 - Now, Voyager, 1942, dir. Irving Rapper

I must be honest; I would never ever thought I would see a film like this in my life. The title and DVD cover image such the stage of boredom in my mind before I even have any idea what the plot could be. To further shock my preconceptions, I actually loved this film. A classic melodrama with one of the 'biggest' movie stars of all time, Bette Davis, who until this film had never even heard of. The general story revolves around Davis as an 'ugly duckling' of a rich bourgeois family in Boston, living at home under the strict leadership of her mother. She has serious mental problems, at least we are meant to think at first. This film really speaks to the way society labels people and put people into boxes so quickly that may or may not have been true to begin with, but just because the label is there the treatment will continue. If someone says you're insane, how do you prove your sane? This just one of the motifs in the film, along with cliche (at least in our time) tales of forbidden love and rebellion. Fantastic story and what I would assume to be a fairly controversial set of characters at the time make this film highly recommended.

8/10

Film#7 - An Education, 2009, dir. Lone Scherfig

This straight up blew me out of the water. At this point it is my favourite film of the year. An English story of love between generations accompanied by an undeniable charm and wit alone make me love this film. Featuring relative newcomer Carey Mulligan, who for you star-crazed celebrity fanatics is dating Shia LaBeouf, alongside Peter Sarsgaard (think the friend in Garden State) and Alfred Molina (Dr.Octopus), you can tell quite simply from the title what it's about. Life isn't learned in a classroom. Groundbreaking concept. Where this film stands out is in the bizarre way it chooses to convey that message. Mulligan (age 24) is playing a 16 year old prep-school girl, while Sarsgaard is her late-30's lover. From a Western point of view it seems wrong, yet the film doesn't in the slightest try to make that an issue. The idea of sexuality doesn't even overtly come up until weeks (maybe months) into their relationship. Morality plays a big part, but more importantly the film challenges the idea we need to be working towards our future as fast as we can, we need to take every opportunity to advance in the eyes of society and our parents. It may seem like a common theme these days, but this film approaches it from a new perspective. A film like this is far too commonly overlooked by today's moviegoers.

9/10

Film#8 - Youth In Revolt, 2010, dir.Miguel Arteta

I wouldn't consider myself a huge Michael Cera fan, although he does have his own appeal. However I still thought the trailer looked fairly decent when I saw it a few weeks before the movie came out. As a big fan of trailers, I really do tend to sift out what's good from the bad before I even see the films and as bad as that may be, I have to have some sort of guidance in what to watch. Better than judging them by their names or cast. This film, sadly, let me down. Cera plays the same character he always does. I can't even call it acting, he's basically the next Ryan Reynolds of type-cast stars. Youth In Revolt casts Cera as a wimpy, socially-challenged teen just trying to 'get the girl', throwing out his little one liner comebacks left and right. It completely relies on his I-don't-even-know-what-to-call-it style of 'acting' to get any laughs from the audience. As the film wrapped up and the lights came on, there this air of "do we clap?" which quickly faded as people shuffled out in near silence. It was reminiscent of seeing Inglourious Basterds opening night, which decided to go the other way and have a standing ovation for a absent cast and crew. This film is not worthy of such praise. That said, it has it's high points too. I could speak to all the positives about the film (which are few and far between) but I find the film attempts to be another Cera comfort film people could watch over and over, even if they don't laugh out loud anymore. I admit, I've seen Superbad at least half a dozen times. This one I won't be seeing again anytime soon.

6/10

Film#9 - Antichrist, 2009, dir. Lars von Trier

I recommend this film, first and foremost. It's got a style unlike anything I've ever seen, and has such a depth of beauty that could make you sick to the stomach. However, it could make you sick to the stomach from much more than the beauty. This film is disturbing. It is highly controversial. It is straight up disgusting at times. I struggle to imagine a person who wouldn't at least mouth "what the eff" at points, namely a certain bloody 'happy ending', and in no way do I refer to the ending of the film. Putting it's scenes of mutilation aside, this film is like a brick in the face. Willem Dafoe and his in-movie wife Charlotte Gainsbourg, who remain nameless characters throughout the film (not to mention there are no other characters), explore grief to such extents that it doesn't feel like acting; this is actually happening. Following the death of their only child, these parents struggle to move on, namely Gainsbourg. Dafoe plays a therapist who chooses to treat his own wife, who only finds salvation in rough and spur of the moment sex. I'm quite serious. She frantically transitions from sobbing to grasping at Dafoe's crotch like it's going out of style. Where the beauty of this film shines through is not only in their powerful performances, but the visual style is overwhelming. Many extreme slow motion scenes with highly constructed scenery set an erie backdrop to the lives of these poor people. This film is not for the faint of heart, obviously, and is truly brutal. However, I've never been one to shy away from watching something just because it's morally disgusting or hard to stomach. If you're looking for a quality film, this should be a serious consideration.

8/10

Film#10 - I Love You, Man, 2009, dir. John Hamburg

A bit of a change of pace from Antichrist, here we have a film I'm sure many people are already familiar with. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel by no means give exceptional performances. They do however light up the screen with the way they vibe off each other. As the film started, I found my interest dwindling at the poor narrative reminiscent of someone Rob Schneider might have written (no offence to his incredible artistic repertoire). The moment Jason Segel appears, and I do mean the moment, the film just took off. Although not as witty as other films in the same vein with these men, it has it's charm. I can't imagine having much to say about this film; it accomplishes what it set out to do. Straightforward jokes paired with well-executed awkward situations make it a run of the mill comedy, at least what I would like to imagine to be a standard comedy. The genre has become a joke in itself, rarely being taken seriously in the eyes of critics, and comparably to other genres, is much less recognized as an art form. 50 years ago this would not be the case. Films like this are a step in the right direction, although it being a small one, in regaining the genre as a respectable medium.

7/10

1-5

Hello friends and future lovers, welcome to the worst blog you may ever read. This is where I will attempt to butcher the English language as much as possible as I set out on my conquest.

The goal: 365 films in 365 days

As someone with a slight interest in film (being enrolled in several courses with regular film screenings) as well as a fairly large stock of films attained through questionable methods, I figure I might as well make a daily screening for myself.

The rules are simple enough: a film a day. Short films don't count, just as a stipulation for keeping myself from taking an entire month off watching Pixar shorts. Each film can't have been watched in 2010, but I have some leeway in being able to view movies I've seen before, although I'm leaning towards keeping them as fresh as possible.

For anyone who actually keeps up (so no one) my general tastes in film will be apparent quite quickly I would think. Also, as it may not always be possible to take a couple hours from the day to see something, I'm allowing myself time to catch up, just as long as by December 31st 2010 I've seen 365 movies.

Now, as clearly it's already January 7th, I have some catch up to do, not in terms of watching but rather putting down my thoughts on what I've seen. So in the spirit of getting this thing going, here are my first few reviews.

Film#1 - Natural Born Killers, 1994, dir. by Oliver Stone.

What a way to kick off the year. Honestly, a major let down. With Quentin Tarantino writing the original script, and starring such charismatic actors like Woody Harrelson and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie didn't cut it for me. The opening scene, a diner-massacre if you will, at first seemed as if it was just a highly stylized bait to grab your attention. But no, the entire movie went on in this twisted-angle, bizarre narrative structure that leaves what may have been a compelling story in a disjointed heap of scenes. The colors are so highly saturated and skewed it almost makes the film unbearable at times (namely the grocery store shootout in so drenched in pea-green it could make you sick to your stomach). I must admit the acting is at times very well done, with unique characters and dialogue, but is completely glazed over in over-the-top aesthetics. Overall it was a decent movie and I'm sure many people have much to say about it, but for me it gave up too much to achieve far too little.

5/10

Film#2 - Jackie Brown, 1997, dir. Quentin Tarantino

Now here is a phenomenal film. After this I've now seen ever major Tarantino to date and I must say he just knows how to make a movie. Simple as that. After watching Inglourious Basterds again just a few weeks ago, Jackie Brown quickly reminded me of a similar narrative structure, much like Pulp Fiction as well. I see a clear development of a type of story that revolves around exploring stories of multiple sides to an upcoming event and how these characters meet through chance encounters, often focusing on strange hiccups in plans along the way. Opposed to Quentin's first Reservoir Dogs which focused on the immediate aftermath of a heist gone wrong, these films show the lead up, the event itself and the dwindling aftermath. Jackie Brown seems the least stylized of all Tarantino's films and rather focuses on dialogue and acting more to create an equally effective film. Well written characters, recurring Tarantino stars (namely Samuel L.) and of course those jaw-dropping moments of unexpected brutality (honest to God I couldn't help but stare open-mouthed at one point or another). A great film I highly recommend, especially to those who dislike Tarantino's overly violent style in his more popular movies.

8.5/10

Film#3 - Swimming With Sharks, 1994, dir. George Huang

Now this was a required class screening so not something I would have probably watched otherwise. Walking out I said the film was basically the same scene over and over. And it is. Kevin Spacey berates his new assistant in a Hollywood production studio. He's an ass, the world revolves around him, blah blah. In between these scenes of harassment and belittlement is a sequence taking place afterwards, where Frank Whaley aka Guy the assistant is torturing Kevin Spacey in his home with no real goal in mind as to what he hopes to accomplish. This is an entire plot summary. It presents Hollywood as this horrid world where shells of human beings continually hunt for ways to hoard more for themselves while completely ignoring the needs of others. It's all about looking out for number one and it all too pessimistic for my taste. Mediocre acting (lets be honest, yelling does not equal passion or conviction) and all too noticeable audio flaws (bad dubs just throw me right out of the experience) make this film an attempt to be something it can't.

6/10

Film#4 - Dracula, 1992, dir. Francis Ford Coppola

As soon as the film started I had a major realization: we all know who Dracula is, but who actually knows his story? This film is based on Bram Stoker's notorious telling of the Dracula myth and is really quite interesting. However, I had major complaints with the film. With what I would consider an eclectic cast with the likes of Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder alongside film-heavyweights Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins at times makes it hard to take seriously. Even Anthony Hopkins plays a somewhat eccentric Doctor Van Helsing, while Keanu Reeves tries to break away from his very "ehhh dude" type look of the time and pretend to be a serious character. The style of the film what somewhat disappointing, especially to have the Coppola mark of approval on it. It clearly was extremely well thought out but still lacks a real depth of scenery, where everything is just slightly too obviously constructed for particular purposes. Character shadows often move with a mind of their own which while it may be a good idea is also too clearly seen before it's supposed to be. However, the film is still very enjoyable, telling a wonderful story with interesting characters. A mix of violence and sexuality really gets the film going with some of the most effective sequences, although a certain red-head seems to have trouble keeping her breasts under control. A good movie, just not on par with my Coppola expectations.

7/10

Film#5 - Carnal Knowledge, 1971, dir. Mike Nichols

Another class viewing, but very interesting. I struggled to understand if the views in the film where actually how people thought back then (or even now for that matter) or if it was an exaggeration to criticize male chauvinism. Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel head this up with a narrative spanning several decades, from early university, through several relationships and eventually leaving off during their mid 40s. Garfunkel on one hand is under the impression you date a girl, kiss her, feel her up, and go from there, which quickly leads to marriage. Nicholson on the other hand, while still going through the same step-by-step process, isn't too comfortable with marriage. In this sense, they are practically the same character. Girls are objects. The boy does this, and the girl does this for them. They never stray from this idea, no matter how old they get. Whether the intent of the film, I feel that people watching today can agree these men are socially backwards. What I do wonder is if someone watches this and in the end, when we see that for both of these men that searching out beauty over depth doesn't always work out, if someone can say "damn, these dudes are living the life". Truly a sad perspective. Anyways, this film is not anything special aesthetically and rather simple, but not simple in a "oh I love the simplicity" but more of a "we have nothing else to show". However the redeeming quality is the way these characters become so real even in their surreal perspectives.

7/10