Change Your Image
Good_Will_Harding
2018
1. Eighth Grade
2. Leave No Trace
3. Won't You Be My Neighbor?
4. Thoroughbreds
5. First Reformed
6. BlackKklansman
7. The Death of Stalin
8. Private Life
9. The Miseducation of Cameron Post
10. Hereditary
2017
1. Loveless
2. The Shape of Water
3. Lady Bird
4. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
5. Split
6. Good Time
7. Personal Shopper
8. The Other Side of Hope
9. Wonder
10. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2016
1. La La Land
2. Manchester by the Sea
3. Moonlight
4. The Witch
5. Hell or High Water
6. Paterson
7. The Light Between Oceans
8. The Handmaiden
9. Elle
10. Silence
2015
1. Carol
2. Spotlight
3. Inside Out
4. Taxi
5. It Follows
6. Steve Jobs
7. Our Little Sister
8. When Marnie Was There
9. Creed
10. Crimson Peak
Rough top 50 favorites:
The Night of the Hunter
Fantasia
It's a Wonderful Life
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Seventh Seal
Princess Mononoke
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Godfather Part II
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
American Graffiti
25th Hour
The Trial
Casablanca
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Fargo
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Vertigo
Crimes and Misdemeanors
The Best Years of Our Lives
Stalker
The Last Temptation of Christ
Schindler's List
Lucky Star
Singin' in the Rain
Take Care of My Cat
Barry Lyndon
Amadeus
Citizen Kane
The General
Make Way for Tomorrow
The Great Dictator
La Dolce Vita
Lawrence of Arabia
Gojira
The Wind Rises
M
Paths of Glory
Watership Down
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Eyes Without a Face
Seven Samurai
Unforgiven
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Anatomy of a Murder
Shadow of a Doubt
The Sweet Hereafter
A Separation
Late Spring
Duck Soup
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Respire (2014)
Someone pick this up for North American distribution right now!
After years of missing out and the repeated back and fourth of "ok-yes-definitely-maybe-probably not-too late" excuses, I finally made my way down to the Philadelphia International Film Festival. I was just visiting the area this past weekend and figured that I'd finally swing by the festival after years of hoping to get around to it. That said, I only had enough time for one film, and while there were a lot of heralded festival heavyweights I could've picked from, I figured I'd opt for something that – while it's gotten my personal attention – hasn't garnered much interest elsewhere and probably won't be getting a legitimate North American release for quite a while. The film in question here of course being Melanie Laurent's positively riveting teen drama Breathe, or Respire, if going by its original French language title.
The information pamphlet for the festival summarizes the film as follows: "Charlie is an average French suburban teenager, but when she becomes fast friends with Sarah, the rebellious new girl at school, she discovers there's nothing average about how she feels in Melanie Lauren't sexy sophomore film." Sounds about right.
What that description didn't have enough time for was to really go into detail regarding the story, which depicts a seemingly fleeting instance of young lesbian love gone miserably awry, transcending typical teenage girl drama and winding up taking a serious emotional and psychological toll on both of those involved. But if this film is starting to sound like a certain other French lesbian drama that came out last year blog, I can assure you that the similarities stop there. Putting aside the country of origin, subject matter, and age group of the protagonists, the two films hardly have a great deal in common (more on their similarities later). In fact, this film's generally understated tone makes it more akin to something like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a similarly melancholic portrayal of young adults grappling with difficult life situations, rather than Blue is the Warmest Color.
In the leading role of Charlie is Josephine Japy, an alluring young French actress who, along with director Melanie Laurent, has created the single most sympathetic female protagonist of 2014, with Japy being able to express an extremely raw vulnerability with little more than her body language and facial expressions, instilling an immediate sense of empathy upon the viewer. However, that's not to suggest that she is depicted as a flawless saint or a mere innocent victim herein. In fact, both of the leading ladies' most defining internal character traits – Charlie's near crippling shyness and Sarah's rampant possessiveness – begin to manifest themselves externally over the course of the runtime, for better or worse. And while certain early details hint at Charlie's lesbianism (her preference of the more masculine nickname Charlie over her birth name Charlene; the story of her underwhelming first sexual encounter with a boy), it becomes less of an abstract and a more identifiable part of her personality as the film goes on, which culminates in the most significant dialogic exchange regarding her feelings for Sarah, which also happens to be spoken in the English language.
Another thing the film manages to perfectly capture is the hotheaded, whirlwind nature of the excitement of being a part of a brand new friendship and/or romantic relationship (or in this case, somewhere in the middle). And if the aforementioned Blue is the Warmest Color was a depiction of a young woman's self discovery of her own budding sexuality and subsequent first love gone all's well, then Breathe offers the flip-side version of that scenario. This could be attributed to it providing a similar narrative foundation, and almost identical first ten minutes to Blue's, before things peak early and begin to crumble quickly for our young heroines.
And from a technical standpoint, the film also impresses. For an actor turned director, Melanie Laurent has a striking visual sensibility, which proves to be perfectly matched for this subject matter, with several individual shots and/or sequences vividly highlighting Charlie's isolation, and it also has one hell of an effective long-take.
Festival or not, Breathe is one of the single best films I've seen from 2014. Hopefully it gets a more prominent release soon, or I'll distribute the damn thing myself.
Funny People (2009)
Brief scattered thoughts
Earlier tonight, I saw Judd Apatow's new film 'Funny People' with my cousin and uncle. Now, this article was written last minutes and may seem a bit disorganized and unfocused, but that's because I kind of wasn't planning on doing a write-up about the film. I also wasn't expecting to be blown away by it, but there you go. Honestly, I've always been lukewarm to projects with Apatow's name attached to them. Now, I did like both of the films he wrote and directed himself, those two being 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' and 'Knocked Up'. But the films he's produced never held much appeal to me. They all seemed like cheap imitations of Apatow's own, much more accomplished and matured films.
Now, the film does have a very lengthy and complicated plot, but I'm going to try and sum up the main points in a nutshell. What 'Funny People' tells the story of is a famous comedian named George Simmons, played here by Adam Sandler, an old friend of Judd Apatow. Within the first couple minutes of the film, we (and George) film out that he has an untreatable form of Leukemia and is pretty much going to die in an unspecified amount of time. Around the same time that happens, George also befriends a rising young comedian named Ira, played by Apatow regular Seth Rogen. When George finds out that he may have overcome his disease, it makes him reevaluate his whole life. Motivated by his near death experience, he reconnects with his ex-fiancée Laura (Leslie Mann, Apatow's wife), and winds up getting involved in an affair with her. While George thinks he's doing everyone a favor by freeing Laura from a troubled marriage, the film makes clear that he's really just breaking up a family out of his own selfish interest in reconnecting with his ex. By the end of the film's two and a half hour run time, George manages to alienate not only his ex-fiancée but his only friend as well.
Where most films would get either too corny or too sentimental, Apatow finds a perfect balance between the two that not only fits the atmosphere of 'Funny People', but works very well in the entire sub genre of comedy he seems to have created just for films with his involvement. The material here is handled in a very authentic and honest fashion, thus making the situation and characters that much more relatable. The seriousness of the disease is also handled on a very small scale. Neither the audience nor the characters know what they're up against until it starts affecting George and his life. Throughout the film, I couldn't help but be reminded of F. Scott Fitzgerald's literary classic 'The Great Gatsby'. Whether the similarities between the two are intentional or not is irrelevant, to describe the film as such would be pretty accurate, considering this is not a straightforward comedy as the title or Apatow's involvement may lead you to believe. In short, I really liked this film a great deal more than I thought I would and while I don't except many future Apatow comedies to follow in its example of "characters and story before humor", 'Funny People' is at least a step forward for the genre, which is all any film fan could ask for.
Well, I guess that wasn't very brief now, was it?
Frost/Nixon (2008)
"I'm saying that when the President does it, it is *not* illegal"
In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned for suspicion of his involvement with Watergate. Soon after, T.V. personality David Frost decides, seemingly out of thin air, that he would like to interview the ex-president. It goes without saying that things get interesting, or at least I hoped they would. Ron Howard may not be the most celebrated director currently working today, but he does deserve some credit for flatteringly capturing this project. Give him something like 'How The Grinch Stole Christmas', you know he'll f_ck that up. Give him 'Frost/Nixon' and he'll fit right in.
Most of the actors here did a fine job. Michael Sheen was alright as David Frost. Nothing exceptional, but serviceable. The supporting cast was all very good as well, with Kevin Bacon (stepping out of the spotlight for a little), Toby Jones, and Sam Rockwell. Frank Langella I did have a problem with, however. Maybe it's just me, but his performance as Nixon appeared forced. It wasn't very convincing at all and the film suffered for it.
'Frost/Nixon' does take its good old time getting to the interviews, which are indeed the highlight of this film. We spend almost an hour of plot and character development before anything of interest happens. At first, Nixon rambles and wastes time (like I do with these reviews). But it's when Frost fights back when things really get interesting. But by that time, I don't expect many people will care anymore. I barely did.
Like Nixon starting the interview, 'Frost/Nixon' spends way too much time on useless information that means nothing to the film as a whole. Perhaps, a little more time spent with the tenser parts of the interviews and less exposition would have benefited this film a great deal. There is a certain level of enjoyment to be found in 'Frost/Nixon', just not nearly enough for a recommendation. As it stands, the film spent too much time leading up to the interviews that when we finally got there, it was too little too late. There's just nothing special here. The directing is plain, the actors seem rather bored to be honest, and the script just appears more interested the journey rather than the destination.
Watchmen (2009)
"Why should I save a world I no longer have any stake in?"
You know you're in trouble when one of your biggest selling points is labeling Zack Snyder as a visionary.
Surely, quite a few people already know the basic idea behind the 'Watchmen' phenomenon, but for those who don't, allow me to fill you in quickly: It's basically a darker version of 'The Incredibles'. It takes place in 1985, and superheroes used to be all that and a bag of chips, but have since then been outlawed. For the film's opening sequence, we're treated to a beautifully choreographed fight/murder scene of The Comedian (one of the original masked heroes), whom is later shown to be quite a douche bag, which really takes away from the impact of his death. That event leads to another retired hero, Rorschrach, trying to solve his murder, which leads to him uncovering a whole other plot to destroy humanity or some crap like that. Unfortunately, the opening murder is the high point of the film.
You know you're in trouble when the best scene in the film is the first one.
The acting in this film isn't exactly 'The Dark Knight' caliber, but it's much more preferable to the inaudible shouting of '300'. The performances here are serviceable. Nothing exceptional, but the actors do their jobs well. Patrick Wilson leads the film as Nite Owl. Jackie Earle Hayley also has a major role as Rorschrach, whose face is hidden under a mask for a large portion of the film. Matthew Goode has a smaller, yet equally engaging part, portraying Ozymandias, the world's smartest man (not really sure how that makes him a superhero
). We also have a glob of blue C.G.I. pixels, voiced by Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. Last but not least, newcomer Malin Akerman plays as the obligatory female foil to the cast, although she does so with much more personality than her character was written with.
From what I've heard, some 'Watchmen' enthusiasts have been claiming that the graphic novels this film is based off of couldn't be done, or done well at least. As far as I'm concerned, they're yet to be proved wrong. Alan Moore, the writer of the graphic novel series, is notoriously known for not liking what Hollywood has done with any of his other works prior to 'Watchmen', and I quote: "I'll never watch the f_cking thing". But I can't really blame him for that, because what we have here is not what he made at all. It lacks the emotional depth, the message, or anything he intended with the graphic novel. Now, having said that, I do think 'Watchmen' works to a certain extent, as it's own film, if you don't really have any connection to the source material, or just don't associate the two with each other. Now, I've only read about half of the original graphic novel, but I'm willing to bet none of them contained an uncomfortably drawn out and oddly boring sex scene. One of the advantages of reading the graphic novel is not having to listen to "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen while the two lead actors awkwardly hump each other for two minutes.
You know you're in trouble when a sex scene with somebody as unbelievably hot as Malin Akerman is boring.
Overall, this is not the faithful adaptation the graphic novel deserves, but it's still pretty entertaining. Is this as good as the comic without comparing the two side by side? No, it's not even in the same league. But I have to commend Zack Snyder for reflecting the tonality of the source material, even though he tried to make it his own, which is where the film falls short of being a satisfying experience. It's not a must-see, but it's decent enough to at least give it a try.
Watership Down (1978)
Not as good as the book, but still fantastic.
Well, I just summarized my entire review in the heading, so I'll basically have to B.S. the rest of the time. The animation is gorgeous. For being produced over 30 years ago, it still looks great by today's standards. Also, it hasn't aged badly at all, unlike some of Disney's films. The voice cast all did well, although the bird did get annoying on occasion. It is a great stand alone film if you haven't read the book. But I did, so I have a few minor gripes. It's not a matter of things in the film I didn't like, it what's in the book which was left out of the film. For example, there is more than just one origin story of El-ahrairah in the novel. There are actually quite a few, as opposed to the film, where there is just one. I also felt that the film could have been a bit longer. The ending also left much to be desired. There isn't much closure and the film just lets the narrator end the film rather than letting the characters themselves do it. But, all that aside, this film is still a masterpiece and should be seen by any fan of animation or fans of British literature. It is a film you won't regret watching.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
An unfortunate disappointment
Out of the various sequels getting released this summer, Prince Caspian is the first. It seemed to me like this could be the film to put the Narnia series on the map based on the various means of advertisement (not that the first one didn't give it a little nudge). I really enjoyed The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe for what it was: an enjoyable, surprisingly original family adventure that didn't take itself too seriously. Instead, I got quite the opposite. This film is a fantastical failure only comparable to the likes of Eragon. I wanted to like this film, honestly. I admittedly had high expectations for this film. Now, I didn't go in expecting Return of the King, but I sure as hell wasn't prepared for this. The first hour of the film consists of three central story lines. The first is the one of Prince Caspian. Apparently, the birth of his cousin motivates his uncle to try and assassinate Caspian (the motive is never really explored, like many other things as you will find out). The second brings us back to the Pevensies. We spend about a total amount of two minutes in London before getting rushed back to Narnia. They haven't been to Narnia in about a year, which equals 1300 years for the Narnians. But, how do we know for sure? It says so in the trailers, but doesn't mention that at all in the film. For all we know it could have been a week for both of them. The third branches off from the first and we spend some time with Caspian's evil uncle, Miraz. With this third of the film comes it's most interesting moments. Miraz is a truly interesting character and a great bad guy. These sections of the films are cleverly written, well paced, and professionally executed. It's his little moments of villainy that made sitting through this big, ugly mess worthwhile. It's when all three of the story lines collide that the film actually seems like it's going somewhere. But, it ends up stumbling over its big, clumsy feet. Within the same five-minute time-span, this film manages to steal something from all three Lord of the Rings films. There are also a fatal amount of small errors (character development, anachronisms, plot holes, etc.). One of the various under-developed plot lines is a romance between Caspian and Susan, if you even want to call it a "romance". Their interest in each other wastes about five minutes, which could have been devoted to some filler between the three central story lines, rather than just having them float around with no relevance to each other. Even the craft leaves much to be desired. Unlike the first film, which exercised very basic direction and scene execution, this film tries to go above and beyond, and fails miserably. About 75% of the actions scenes were in slow motion, ruining potentially interesting moments and making the film even longer. Aside from a few moments of interest, Prince Caspian was a total disaster. Maybe I had too high hopes, but I would probably feel the same even if I wasn't expecting much. I fear for The Dark Knight.