Change Your Image
funzo333
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Anger Management
The epitome of gadget flashing, women seducing, bad guy busting masculinity is back, in Marc Forster's latest installment in the 007 saga. But this time it's different. Daniel Craig returns as James Bond (and we can expect him in at least three more) in the first ever sequel to a previous Bond film. He is still mentally reeling from the loss of his love who died in a death worthy of a Bond film as she drowned in an elevator as a building collapsed into the sea at the end of Casino Royale. And it shows. In the darkest, deepest, and most personal (and most expensive) James Bond film in history, we get an insight into a battered and tormented 007; and get taken on a journey that bring him across the globe as a rogue agent looking to avenge Vesper's death and while stopping the world from ending once again.
In this film, Bond's foe is the organization QUANTUM and 'environmentalist' Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who plays the part of man who is working with the CIA to stage a coup in Bolivia to restore its previous dictator in effort to gain control of a plot of land. Through this story line, Forster and the producers (Barbara Broccoli, Callum McDougall, and Brian Miller) bring Bond into a presently pertinent political battle, to the lengths of which Bond has never done before. We are introduced to a CIA that backs this genocide in hopes of obtaining oil. We see a Bolivian government privatizing the country's water, and in essence killing its own country in favor of big business. These are issues that cause this film to be more reflexive than the normal Bond films. It is not a happy-go-lucky romp like we got too used to in the hair mouse Brosnan era, but rather a gritty look at how does one deal with revenge, and how can that control our lives.
Craig seems to be tipping off of the deep end right from the start. He kills more people and more brutally than any Bond before him. We see this right from the get-go when we see him chase an MI6 mole down and end his life in an acrobatic finale which had them flying off rafters and through plate glass, to the subsequent scene in an apartment when he slices and kills a would be assassin for his beautiful counterpart Camille (played by the lovely Olga Kurylenko), to the end of the film where he sends Greene off into the dessert with a gunshot wound and a canister of oil to serve as his own little cyanide pill. M (played by a film saving, stone cold Judy Dench) even attempts to stop her prodigy child by stripping him of everything and attempting to bring him into custody. Bond, being the tunnel-visioned rogue that he is, escapes custody, and confronts M again, and it is in this moment that we understand what the film is really trying to tell us. M lets him go, but expresses that she can not and will not help him. We see that there are some things that can not be completed within the system. The world and people who control it are so corrupt at every level (remember the slimy CIA and the traitor in MI6) that to get true justice (vengeance and peace) it must be done alone, and with the world biting at your heels. Dark Knight anyone? The tormented hero is not something that is new to us. Perhaps a sign of the changing layman, who desires a hero not from the fables of yesterday, but from the minds of a today. Someone who could fit in a Bush/Darfur/Global Warming age, and who would be willing to go against the untouchable powers that be, in pursuit of justice.
The Bond girls in this film are different too. The cold Camille parts with 007 in the end of the film with not more than a kiss; which seems more like a peck of release, than of one stemming from any sexual tension at all. The only love making we see in the film at all is when Bond beds Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton) in an action that seemed coldly doomed from when they first met earlier that day. Subsequently, the completely innocent Fields ends up drowned in oil (in respectful homage to Goldfinger) and stifles any fun or lighthearted sexuality that we may have thought may have been able to slip in. Quantum brings sex and violence into one for Bond. Both are primary drives for him, and when the most powerful sexual pull of his life (Vesper) is killed off, Bond swings to the other side of the see-saw and is motivated and driven by violence and aggression.
Quantum of Solace doesn't bring the smoothness and comfort that we come to expect from Bonds, but maybe it's not supposed to. Maybe this is the grittier side of Bond that will make him real from now on. He will probably slide somewhat back into his suave and free-flowing ways of before, but now he's a real man. A man who can be affected and is driven by the evils of a modern era. A man who is no longer a superhero of the past, but a real live hero who can change things today.
The New World (2005)
A new view of the old world
In his fourth film, Terrence Malick once again takes poetic liberty in delivering us a story which like his previous three films, Badlands, Days of Heaven, and The Thin Red Line causes us to ponder our own existence and current state of mind. The New World brings us on a beautiful journey from the first landing of the English in Virginia, to the current Powhotan Indian settlements, and all the way back to England. Each place is a new world of its own kind. In this film, we do not get another revisionist take of history, but rather an exploration into nature, innocence, and modern culture. Emmanuel Lubezki beautifully crafts every shot with purely natural lighting to truly bring us back to the age of Eden in America. The New World is a film that's meant to be felt and understood.
After some voyeuristically tranquil establishing shots of the still untouched nature in America, the movie opens with John Smith (Colin Farrel) and 100 other Brits landing on the beaches of America. They are looking for gold, but end up staying and setting up Jamestown as the ships head to back to England for more supplies. In a searching expedition, John Smith gets captured by the Powhatans already living there, and seconds before he is to be killed, the young Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher) throws herself on him and begs to have his life spared. We see here both the beauty and the fatality of the innocence of the natives, or 'naturals' as they are called in the film. Just as in the first contact scene, they are very wary of the invading Brits, but ignorant to the corruption and greed that they bring with them, and the ultimate fate that they face. In a showing of mercy that will ultimately add a nail to their own coffins, they spare Smith's life, and allow him to live with Pocahontas in order for them to learn each others languages and learn from each other. Smith and Pocahontas bond, and become as one in the following months. There is very little dialogue, but many monologues, streams of consciousness, and a melding of energies. She represents nature, and purity, and innocence. And he represents someone who never even knew these things, but is learning. They are not two lovers as we think of lovers today, but rather two energies, flowing seamlessly together with each other and the earth. Through cinematography that makes us believe in the purity and spirituality of nature again, and the lack of dialogue, we as viewers really connect with who the Native Americans are and what they represented. Malick presents us with a counter-argument to the revisionist history that we hear so often.
Through Pocahontas' transformation, we embody the feelings that Malick is representing in the film. Smith ends up heading back to England, and leaves Pocahontas all alone and thinking he is dead. She is left in the dystopia that is early Jamestown; trapped as a bargaining chip to prevent them from being attacked by the naturals again. In the settlement, she lives in the mud, with little food, and wearing traditional English clothes that not only seem ridiculous, but sad because they work to cover her and prevent her connection with nature. She says her favorite thing is grass, yet, she can't even walk or move, much less frolic and feel the tall grasses like she used to because of her new clothes and lifestyle. She ends up marrying and having a child with a new English settler named John Rolfe (Christian Bale). She consents to him because her feeling of loss not just from Smith, but from nature, her old way of life, and her tribe overtakes her and numbs her. The English have cut down all the trees within a half a mile of their settlement, so that they might build large walls, watch towers, and a large Christian cross. Their presence becomes too big for the naturals to drive off, and they begin the wheels of history in conquering the entire new world with lack of respect or understanding of what was there first. Eventually, Pocahontas returns to England with a crew to meet the king and queen, and once again we are thrust into a new world. The geometry, lines, and order of everything we see is almost sickening. The bushes are all sculpted perfectly, the grass is all shaved down, and the buildings are all elegant and massive. Pocahontas and the other naturals who came along on the trip barely even know what they're looking at. Modern man does not embrace nature and beauty, but rather tries to control it and redefine it. Nature is beautiful because is it pure chaos at its core, yet it works in perfect harmony. When we try to order it, define it, cut it down, and rebuild it in our own imperfect image of what true beauty is, we lose something undefinable. When Pocahontas dies at the end, we feel a sense of bittersweet happiness. Pocahontas has lost most of who she was through her journey to her new world, and we see this as the future for all the naturals.
This is a film that does not take patience as long as you know that you are going to a jazz show, and not a rock concert. It is beautifully crafted and thought provoking, but it does not dangle a twinkie in front of your face, but begs us for conversation. You must realize that Malick doesn't necessarily want people to think a certain thought, he just wants them to think. And if the heartfelt cinematography and Malick's unique directing can help you grasp onto the paradise and the connection with nature lost in this film, you will have found a piece of art that has the potential to change your whole frame of mind
Election (1999)
Voter Fraud
Often in our lives we are faced with decisions: what to wear to work, how to ask that cute co-worker out, what to wear on the date, or what movie to go see. But some decisions carry more weight than others. Election deals with the morals and ethics we try struggle with in our everyday lives in a way that causes us to truly reflect on our own decisions: present and past. Alexander Payne has created a film that through great character development and the unraveling of a universally adult message becomes something that is both humorous and smart. Ultimately, it makes us understand what it takes to reach (or crush) a dream.
What's the difference between morals and ethics? We are first introduced to Mr. McAllister (Matthew Broderick) as the teacher of his US History class as he is asking them this question. He struggles with the answer himself all the way through the final scene in the movie where he throws a slurpee at Tracy Flick's limousine in rage and bitter disgust. When we see Tracy Flick's (Reese Witherspoon) hand shoot up in the air in the classroom and hold it high as if she knows that no one can answer this question better than she can, we know we are in for a clashing of titans that can only end in disaster. Tracy is running for president, and is the kind of girl that is so over zealous and over motivated that it tends to make those around her who aren't, either hate her, or feel bad about themselves. We see both. Mr. McAllister has a loving wife and a modest job, but through a series of flashbacks where we see him teaching the same thing every single year, we begin to think that he is lying when he tells us he loves his job. He drives a small hatchback that looks like it probably ran him about a thousand dollars and came off the line in the early 70s. Immediately, he enlists Paul Metzler, (Chris Klein) the injured star quarterback to run against Tracy. He can't bear to see her get what she believes is her 'destiny' just because no one is opposing her. This underhanded partnership will bring to foresight Mr. McAllister's shadowed misogyny and deep unhappiness he has for his life. He along with others in the film will be forced to a moral and ethical crossroads of which the implications for the decision will undoubtedly be big.
Tracy's other nemesis to world domination is Tammy Metzler (Jessica Campbell), Paul's sister, who is just running because her previous bi-curious girlfriend is just dating Paul to get back at her. She takes a stance during their auditorium speech that fuels the fire of moral decisions to the brink of ruin. She tells the whole assemble that she doesn't even care about the election, and that nobody should vote. This brings to light the true importance of school-run extra-curricular activates, and in foresight, even our modern day government. Who really has control and who are we supposed to think has control? What kind of social order are our schools teaching our students, and then how does this play out as we become adults? We see Tracy with a Nebraska senator near the end of the film, which really ties this line from a dysfunctional fake school organization to real life. Something that we, as CNN-watching Americans become unaware of too quickly.
Because of this hotbed of events, each character is set out to confront a moral dilemma. This is set up at the beginning, because we hear about Dave Novotny, (Mark Harelik) a teacher who flew too close to the sun on wings of an underage student (Tracy) and ultimately lost his job and family. Tammy must decide between allowing Tracy to win and ultimately causing her brother to lose, or creating her own happiness by taking credit for Tracy's sabotage of Paul and getting herself expelled. Paul, the overly nice, innocent jock must decide between voting for himself, which will win him the election but he believes it is 'wrong'; or voting for Tracy, which will lose him the election but he believes it is right. Tracy must choose between stepping on everyone around her to accomplish her dreams, or risk being number two. And Mr. McAllister must risk losing his job and family for something that 'feels' right to him, or do what he knows is right and continue with his mundane existence. All very difficult decisions for our not-so-simpleton Nebraska high school. Payne puts a magnifying glass and a jury to the decisions we make everyday and the people they effect.
Election will make you laugh and cringe, because it is so dark and goes so deep into the insides of what our own lives may very well be like, and ultimately how that translates into how we live and what decisions we are constantly confronted with in life. You will see moments of yourself in one of the broad spectrum of characters, and ultimately contemplate your own drive and what lines you set or cross to get where you are going.
Marie Antoinette (2006)
A Life Misunderstood
In Marie Antoinette, Sofia Coppola's latest character exploration delves deep into the mindset of one of the most misunderstood females in history. As this eloquent variation on a period piece progresses, it becomes clear that much of Coppola's own life and torments are projected onto the screen. What we get then, is not a vanity piece by Sofia, but rather an attempt to be understood through the story of another tormented female of her own time's aristocracy. Kirsten Dunst plays the part of Antoinette beautifully; straddling the line between lost teenager, and burdened royalty. She is countered by another of the Coppola's in Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman), who plays the male version of an overly-burdened youth who is thrust into the golden circle of leading his country far too soon. Its not until the third act comes around and we see the consequences of their actions (or inaction) that we really solidify our identification with Marie, and see the true subtle beauty of this film.
The film opens with a shot of Marie in a tub, surrounded by delicacies, and being pampered, as she turns and gives a defiant look straight into the camera. It is a needed segway from our own realities into the film, as it is a blatant self-reflexive shot, and causes us the viewer to become aware that we are seeing a study into the character of Marie Antoinette, and not a typical period piece or historical epic. There is one other such shot in the film that keeps our minds on this track. We are truly introduced to Marie's life when she is being exchanged over to France to be married to Louie. In the first of many ridiculous rituals, she meets the Comtesse de Noailles (Judy Davis) and is required to exchange all her clothes and possessions for new French clothes and possessions. When she asks if she can keep her dog, the Comtesse replies, "No, but you can have all the French puppies you desire." The scene is followed closely by the bedroom scenes, where Marie learns the strictness and absurdness of French custom; which leaves her naked in front of 10-15 people while they figure out the order and the hierarchy of who gets to put her clothes on. It is here that we start to get the feeling that Marie is stifled with tradition, and must wear the burdens of history, which will eventually wear her identity thin. Her next encumbrance is to bear an heir to the throne as soon as possible. But seeing how her boring and drab husband is too insecure to face his 'male' problems directly, he avoids it and holds off consummating their marriage for years. This not only brings shame to Marie Antoinette's royal Austrian family (who's mother is played to cold perfection by Marianne Faithful) but an increased sense of entrapment, as she takes the brunt of the blame for Louie's difficulty. Her trapped state of affairs, along with the immense burden of helping to lead a country Louis XV (Rip Torn) dies prematurely of smallpox, - breeds her desire for an outlet. She can't eat alone, (she and Louie eat at the same times everyday in the same seats at the table with 4 or 5 servants standing around them waiting for orders) she can't go out unattended, (she is only allowed to go to official events. She manages to sneak out to a ball one night, but only because it is a masquerade and they can wear masks), and as we see time and time again, she can't even dress herself. This causes her to utilize the only outlet she can; money. She begins to spend exorbitant amounts of money on clothes, parties, food, and anything her whim of the moment desires. But she is not the spoiled party girl of her time, she is a trapped and inexperienced little girl with no real father figure who is thrust into a position based on no qualifications except who she was born to and who she married.
The final act of the film brings the character study together, as we come to realizations about the consequences of her lifestyle, at the same time Marie does. The county is starving, partly due to Louis irresponsibly sending large amounts of funds to help fund America's revolutionary war. When Marie first hears the rumor that she responded to the peasants cries for bread with the quip, "Let them eat cake." we realize the pit of distrust that she has unwittingly dug for herself. It becomes painfully apparent that the country has been a lot more concerned with her life than she has with theirs. In her struggle to find somewhat of an individual identity, she had neglected to help her country hold on to it's own. Just as she probably felt at the time, it seems that out of nowhere, there is an angry mob with pitchforks at her door demanding her head. Marie Antoinette had already passed the point of no return as she addressed the crowd with bow of humility that is met with boos, as is unfortunately too little too late for a starving nation. The last shot of this tragic film comes with a still shot of the royal bedroom, ransacked and destroyed, with birds flying in through the shattered windows. This serves to represent a broken royal system, that not only failed Marie by disallowing her to have something of her own to live by; but also failed its country by thrusting two teenagers who aren't nearly suited or fit to run a country, into power. The tragedy of her life resonates with our own knowledge of how her life ends. We don't need to see the beheading, because the most tragic part of Marie Antoinette her lonely lost life has already been shown.
There Will Be Blood (2007)
The Rise of a Nation, The Fall of Man
In Paul Thomas Anderson's newest feature based off the Upton Sinclair novel Oil!, There Will Be Blood, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) and Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) show us how the West and hearts of early Americans were really won. Not by the fairy-tale sweat and hard work of honest workers, but with the blood and deceit of those who possessed a hunger that drove them to succeed at any cost; whether it be the lives and land of those around them, or the hopes and faith of people just looking for something to believe in. Part way through the film, Daniel turns to his imposter brother Henry (played by the believably slimy Kevin J O'Connor), and says to him, "I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people." It is at this moment that we realize we are looking into the eyes not of an American pioneer, but the devil himself, who feeds off oil like blood, and is frighteningly aware of exactly who he is.
There Will Be Blood is a story of the American West, it is a story of the dark underbelly of capitalism, and it is a story of religious fanaticism. All interwoven into a tale about the insatiable oilman Daniel Plainview, and his son HW. Daniel encounters many obstacles to his success: HW's hearing loss, the religious fanaticism of Eli Sunday, the 100 miles of pipeline to the coast he needs to build, and the presence of Henry, the man pretending to be his brother. But through the evil-doing and toe-stepping, we are able to glimpse and remember the beauty of what America was, and still could be through the cinematography of Robert Elswit, who draws us in hypnotically to the energy-filled barren landscapes much like he did in Syriana.
This is a movie that is just as beautiful for its form and imagery, as it is for its clear allegories that ring too true for us as Americans in this infant of a country. Nearly the whole film takes place outside in the plains and hills of the American West at the turn of the century. We see expansive images of the land, all shot with natural light, as most of the film is outside. But what really brings the latitude and beauty of this natural light approach (up until the last scene in the film which is shot in the basement of Plainview's new mansion built from oil money) to the forefront is the opening scene of the film. We see Daniel down in a hole that he has dug as he is mining for precious metals. There is light delicately floating down from above, but for all intensive purposes he is working in the dark. Other than his dark figure chopping away with a pickax, all we see are the sparks flying off the wall from each hit into the earth. They are the sparks of his career, but also the sparks of the fire he is about to ignite on the country. This fire imagery picks up in possible the most beautiful shot of the movie when we see a silhouetted Plainview staring at a geyser of oil that is burning 80 feet high against a backdrop of a classic American sunset. The story is elegantly paced as it covers nearly 30 years in time, but gripping and intense on almost a shot by shot basis due as much to the presently pertinent subject matter as to Day Lewis' fearfully realistic performance. After humble beginnings as a lone silver miner, Daniel eventually makes his way to the oil industry. He makes his way to a town in California 100 miles from the coast called Little Boston. He is sent here by Paul Sunday (also Paul Dano) who is the brother of Eli, who leads a congregation in the town called the The Church of the 3rd Revelation. The dichotomy between these two bothers one who sells out his family for money, and the other who is a false prophet, spreading the word of God goes hand in hand with the dichotomy between Daniel and Eli. They counter each other on opposite sides of manipulation and extremism. One side makes no apologies for their pursuit of wealth; and the other makes the ultimate apology for his manipulation by claiming divine right by God. It all comes together in the last scene of the film where there is a confrontation between Daniel and Eli. This is 25 years, some lost faith, and millions of oil dollars later. When Eli comes to Daniel to ask him to buy a lease because he has no money, Daniel humiliates him by forcing him to yell that he is a false prophet and God is a superstition. This is eye for an eye vengeance from earlier in the film when Eli humiliates Daniel in front of his congregation by forcing him to yell that he has abandoned his son. Minutes later when Eli lies dead on the floor and Daniel likes exhausted and says, "I'm finished", we realize that they are the same person, and they are both dead. One conquered the West with the blood and manipulated sacrifice of others only to end up in a dystopia sess-pool of his ideals; while the other led countless astray only to end up broken, faith doubting (a line referring to the looks of a fellow parishioner bring up imagery of the modern catholic crisis), and miserably poor enough to come pleading to his arch nemesis.
The film is heavy, but rightfully so, and the relationship between Daniel and HW gives it balance. It is a modern look at the social underbelly that lies so deep in the creation of this country, and can be viewed just as much as an American historical epic, as it can a social and religious allegory of our time.
Grandma's Boy (2006)
Typical Adam Sandler humor
You can go into this movie expecting the same thing you get from most movies with Adam Sandler involved, (who was a producer for this movie, which is a Happy/Madison production). You don't actually see Sandler in this movie, but you see all of the Sandler gang and you get ALL the Sandler antics. It contains many forced sex and fart jokes and fruitlessly attempts to make you sympathize with its loser main character. Some of the jokes are so bad that you can only wonder how a grown adult wrote this movie. That's not to say that you can't be entertained, because some of the jokes are pretty darn funny; you just need to know what you're going in to. The movie claims to be about a 36 year old game-developer who lives with his grandma, but it focuses more on his work, his relationships with his co-workers and friends, and their utter love of pot. Although the jokes are juvenile and unclever, the characters at the video game developing firm, (where the main character ,Allen Covery, works), are fairly entertaining. If you liked Napolean Dynamite, then you will find JP, the head developing "genius" pretty entertaining. They are all nerds, and pretty easy to laugh at (or with! :-/ ), and probably the main reason to see the movie. There are enough critics out there to dis on this movie. I can leave most of that to the "experts". The truth is, if you go in to the film, knowing what you're getting, and with a good attitude, you can have a good time!
Fever Pitch (2005)
As much as can be expected - offers something for everyone.
Fever Pitch was a light-hearted romantic comedy that offered something for everyone. I saw the preview of it at my college campus and people of all different types seemed to be coming out of the theater with something. I was thoroughly entertained by the baseball aspect of it. I thought the end lacked a little bit, but other than that, people who appreciate sports should be able to appreciate this movie for that aspect of it. Jimmy Fallon did a nice job as well. He and Drew Berrymore had a nice and innocent chemistry. The jokes were not roll-around-on-the-floor-funny, but they were good enough to keep you entertained and attentive to the movie. Those of us who appreciate romance in a movie will find that the romantic parts of this movie are cliché, but cute none-the-less. It is enough romance to officially make the movie a romantic comedy. Overall, it is a lighthearted movie that I would suggest to anyone, who is open-minded enough to appreciate a movie for what it is.