Reviews

What is so captivating about "Half Nelson" is not that it's a story so much as an incredible character study of a school teacher, Mr Dunne played by Ryan Gosling. I can't recall the last time I was so captivated by a performance that seemed so true and so effortless. Throughout the film, I kept thinking: "I know this guy. I've known teachers like him." And there is something all too familiar about the social, political dynamics between the teacher and the school's society".

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe said that this is an example of how the American left has failed in this country. The message (if there is any political message) is very subtle and in some ways, not so newsworthy. We've all felt and questioned a sense of hypocrisy from the baby boom generation of the sixties. But the film suggests reasons for this that are far more complex than we can even put into words. I have not even mentioned yet that Mr. Dunne is a crack addict. How did this happen and what is it that drives him to teach these kids in the first place? Mr. Dunne says "my students are what keep me focused". This line could not have sounded more true but we know that in retrospect, it is completely false. I believe it is the foreign and racial environment that is the key to his failings. He has a way of connecting and being hip to his students but he can't really relate to them. We can imagine how tough these kids from poor environments can be but Ryan Fleck does not show us this. In fact, quite the opposite is true and the responsibility is all up to Mr. Dunne. There is a contrast in his relationships with women and we see how easily he is capable of earning respect.

I think one of the important questions to ask from watching this film is not so much how Mr. Dunne fails or becomes a crack addict but why he chose the path that he did. There is something ironic about Mr. Dunne's fascination with black history and Drey's drug dealing father who collects racial artifacts that hang on his bookshelf. Does the drive to teach these kids in this specific environment come from something as superficial as nostalgia? Mr. Dunne does not like to go by the book and he is attracted to the theory of dialectics but if he cannot relate to the kids or his relationships in a sincere, down-to-Earth and honest way, then there is not much hope for the future. That is just one take on the film, I'm sure you'll have others.

Wim Wenders has done it again. The authentic German American filmmaker has recaptured the nostalgia of the American West influenced by photographer Robert Frank and feeding off plot themes by his contemporary, Jim Jarmusch. But much like all of Wenders films, his plots are not the central focus. He is interested in details, symbolism, existentialism and the process of creation. What I always liked about Wenders was his taste in music. I always hear something new that I get very interested in. Don't Come Knocking has a wonderful score.The Buena Vista Social Club is an obvious example, but there is also the music of Madredeus in Lisbon Story or the Stewart Copeland country score in "Kings of the Road'. speaking of "Kings of the Road", there is an interesting detail that is repeated in this film: At the end of Kings, there is a cinema with a broken neon sign that only has two letters lit "WW" which is the signature of Wim Wenders. This film, has a bar called the "M&M". which is the same only upside down. The story of this film by the way is co-written by Sam Shepard who collaborated with Wenders on "Paris Texas" . This time, he also stars in the film as a cowboy movie star on the search for his ex and his son who he never met. The landscapes reflect the ghostliness of an Edward Hopper painting. Few people exist in the town where he shows up. There are beautiful shots that are very memorable such as the view from the health club looking out the window where Shepard and Jessica Lange are fighting. Another great scene involves a trade in identity where a guy on a horse gets pulled over by a cop and ....well you'll see. Alhough this film symbolizes the transition to reality, it looks as though reality does not appear to be as real as one expects. This is a refreshing film by one of the great filmmakers of our time.

There should be a periodical published on when critics are wrong. Dead Man is a film that was long overlooked upon its release. This was partly due to the fact that Miramax did a lousy job at distributing the film, but only a handful of critics like Jonathan Rosenbaum recognized this film as a masterpiece. I saw Dead Man on the first screening of its premiere. After my first viewing, I had various problems with the film. I thought the film seemed too heavy on poetry and symbolism and I also felt that things didn't seem real or authentic enough to be part of a historical period. Other times, I felt the film was confused about its mood. Sometimes it seemed deeply serious and other times it seemed silly and absurd. Not until repeated viewings did I discover how appropriate these observations were to the film.

The first line of dialog in the film comes after a long uneventful journey on the train. The train conductor comes in and says to William Blake: "Look out the window. Doesn't this remind you of when you are on the boat..and when you look up at the sky you ask yourself 'why is it that the landscape is moving but the boat is still?'" This line is a key element of the film because it questions the essence of reality. Dead Man is not a film that deals with reality in any conventional sort of way, at least not in the narrative sense and certainly not in our preconception of history. Dead Man is a film that deals with a man's journey through a series of death experiences. Blake's destiny was originally to be an accountant for Dickinson Metalworks in the town of Machine. After some unfortunate events, William Blake is suddenly caught laying in the woods with a bullet next to his heart. A Native American named "Nobody" becomes his new mentor for his ill-fated journey.

The film feels fragmented with fades between scenes and a loose narrative structure. At times we feel the clock ticking and other times, we feel unconscious of what just happened. This was my experience anyway, when I first saw the film I remember Nobody telling his life story about traveling East. Something about how a whole city of people could move so quickly and then the rest of the story slipped my mind because it seemed too overwhelming and absurd. The key line to this moment however, was the name given to Nobody:"He Who Speak Loud Say Nothing". Nobody's life story is a reflection of the Allegory of the Cave written by Plato. Someone has traveled to another dimension but once he returns home and talks about his experience, no one believes him. The story told by Nobody also reflects the rise of capitalism and America's shift toward a more homogenized society. Dead Man takes us on a psychedelic journey through Western and Native American culture. We've come to understand through previous Jarmusch films that cultural influence is an inevitable part of life. Dead Man expands on this fact by demonstrating what happens when cultures clash. There is a hierarchal conflict with reality. Part of this is due to politics but it is also due to religious consequences. I've read reviews by critics who seemed puzzled by the reference to the poet and artist William Blake. There is a reflection to the poet's Christian background and his influences with other mystical beliefs. There is a famous poem sited in the film: "some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night." As one culture dies, another is born.The film comes full circle when Blake ends on the boat looking up at the moving sky. This is a great film. I can still see this today after repeated viewings and always find something new.

I rented this film about four years ago and watched it late one evening when I was tired. I didn't remember much about the plot but the scenery and atmosphere had a long lasting resonance which years later, drove me to rent it again only to discover that the video store closed down and the film was nowhere to be seen from again. That was until now, when I had the luxury of seeing a brand new print of it on the big screen.

Like all of Antonioni's films, the scenery is more engaging then the characters or the plot. One can get so absorbed by the environments that they feel they are actually there. We feel at peace by our wandering eyes, looking at the background and turning our heads when we want to look the other way. This of course, is the illusion captured by the amazing cinematography. In "The Passenger", we meet David Locke, a reporter played by Jack Nicholson who is somewhere in North Africa trying to get to a guerrilla base of some kind but fails when his tour guides abandon him and his Jeep is left stuck in the desert. Once he finds his way back to the Hotel, he finds Robertson, a businessman he previously met, lying dead in his room. David decides to exchange identities with Robertson and plans to follow his destinies whatever they may be. He goes from London to Munich and soon finds out that Robertson was a gun dealer. He knows he is being followed but his plans lead him to abandon Robertson's appointments and run away. He meets an architecture student who runs with him through Spain until their journey leads to a dead end. There is a mesmerizing final climax that involves one of the most tedious tracking shots I've ever seen on film. Some may see this film as a thriller but there is also the existential angst that resonates with all Antonioni films. We are left to ponder on which road to travel. Is it safer to be so sure and determined like Robertson? Or is it worse being a reporter who documents the political world but cannot draw any conclusions in their work? There are a number of details that deserve attention for their symbolism and it is definitely worthwhile seeing it again. Those who find the film too slow, need to take some Ritalin and stop watching so much t.v.

Werner Herzog's Stroszek intrigued me because of the film's journey from Berlin to Wisconsin. I am always fascinated when directors take on other cultures to present their point of view. Wim Wenders' "Alice in the Cities" came to my mind when I rented this film. Knowing Herzog's other ambitious and strange films, "Aguirre the Wrath of God" and " Even Dwarfs Started Out Small" it was no surprise to me just how bizarre this film was going to be. Bruno, a man who some might assume is mildly retarded is released from prison. His first destination is a bar and meets a prostitute who is being mistreated by her pimp. He offers her a place to stay which is looked after by an elderly man, Mr. Scheitz. All of these characters by the way, have an amazing look about them. They are not your typical looking actors, they have a rough and odd look that can be found in a Fellini film. We know they are not professional actors but they fit and play the roles perfectly. Mr. Scheitz announces that his nephew in Railroad Flats Wisconsin has invited him to move there. Bruno then takes the leap in deciding that they must all start new lives there. We already feel baffled at the idea of these people getting off the boat to live in such a rural and remote part of the US. Nothing goes well for these characters. The prostitute runs away because of financial and domestic problems while the other two decide to become robbers and fail miserably. This, mind you, is only a general plot summary but it is the details and occurrences that are fascinating. I particularly loved the scene where the mobile home is being auctioned off. We get a glimpse of how alienating and strange America is for these people. There are other fascinating scenes that I don't want to spoil for anyone. This film is a must see for any fan of Herzog and anyone who loves films period. Some critics have described Stroszek as an attack on America but I believe it is an equal attack on Germany. These characters fall into a predicament of taking their sorrows with them wherever they go. They are unfortunately very naive. The final scene with the dancing chicken was a bit over the top and disturbing but it fits with the absurdity of the film as a whole.

I loved this film and I cannot believe how so few critics liked it. What were they thinking? Apparently one critic thought since it was based on a short story that the film should be shorter. Of course, once one critic says its too long, every other critic has to agree. I guess David Mamet is an exception to the rule. Bartleby is not too long. It deserves it's running time so that we can absorb the story more closely. When we hear Bartleby repeat the same words: "I'd prefer not to" we are not given any explanation for the comment but yet it becomes extremely poignant. Eventually everyone in the office begins to use the word "prefer" and we see how Bartleby has affected the workplace like a disease. The film is very bizarre particularly because of the way the boss reacts to Bartleby. Instead of just firing the guy for not doing his job, he tries to reason with him. Eventually Barlteby gets in an even more bizarre predicament that has even more to do with just "prefering not to" work. The boss is obsessed with Bartleby and the film turns very Kafkaesque. We see a capitalist scenario where people topple on another for greed, power and respect. The film is based on the short story "Bartleby the Scrivener" by Herman Melville. It was appropriate to mention the source because the story seems very relevant not only to our modern culture but also to what Melville went after writing Moby Dick. The film also has a wonderful score with a Theramin instrument and a brilliant cinematography.

Like most film biographies about artists, I was skeptical about Walk The Line. I thought the film would try to make a big spectacle by glorifying Cash's life and by having to show every detail of his career so that all you get is a big convoluted opus. I was basically worried it would turn out to be something like The Doors or even Ray. Walk The Line is not one of those films. It focuses on a specific story revolving between Johnny Cash and June Carter. It has a similar structure to Alex Cox's "Sid and Nancy" where the film is about the relationship and the music follows in the background. People who know a lot about Johnny Cash might be disappointed only because they may want to see more behind the man in black. I on the other hand, am glad they did not exploit his dark side or try to unravel any big mystery behind the legend. We don't need to know the myth behind this man. Johnny Cash was a monumental figure in American music. His devotion to playing music and staying alive was depended so strongly by his relationship with June Carter and that is what makes this film interesting. The performances are superb. Joachim Pheonix delivers all the way through the end. His singing is great and at times, he really looks like Cash. I can't speak as highly about Reese Witherspoon but she carries herself as a believable strong and self protective woman. She does not mimic or try to replicate June which is actually good. I hope most people who don't know about Johnny Cash will see this film and will then be tempted to buy his music. He is without a doubt, one of the great treasures of American music.

I can't think of a cuter pair of animated characters. Wallace and Gromit are among my favorite. Nick Park has a one of a kind talent that surpasses all of the contemporary animation directors I know. He gives us characters that make us laugh and genuinely cry. Drama does not come easy in a cartoon visualized world but Nick Park pulls it off with his innocence and sensitivity. What else makes Wallace and Gromit films special is their odd sense of storytelling. We can see how the stories get carried away to such bizarre levels. Audiences might ask from time to time "how did they come up with that?" I believe the magic of Park's creative ideas relies heavily on his traditional stop motion approach. Creating a film with that type of technique forces the animators to take directions they did not exactly predict. A move might go somewhere else and once it is shot, it has to keep going. When that happens, new ideas come up that are infinitely more interesting then the ideas that are preconceived on paper and designed on the computer. I am so happy Nick Park made another Wallace and Gromit and I am even more happy that there are still animators working today that don't use computers. This film proves how authentic this style of animation really is. I highly recommend this film.

When you see a documentary film with the word "Punk" in the title, you really can't have high expectations. It's tempting to watch but you know you are going to miss a lot when a film tries to strip down a huge movement and make it so concise. Granted, the film is about attitude as it states in the title but somewhere along the film, it feels as though the point gets a bit lost. We know early on that being punk was about being different and being able to express yourself without any current influence. There is only one documentary I know of that makes this point clear and that is the Sex Pistols documentary film "PIST". "Punk: Attitude" seems to focus chronologically on the New York scene, The British scene and then the L.A. scene which is fine but the problem is that we only see the punk artists that fit the status quo (which is totally contradictory of what punk was all about.)

What the film should have done was emphasize more closely the importance of being different and how that idea transcended new directions and movements in the world of punk. The film suggests that punk seemed to die in the 1980's as far as the mainstream was concerned but this is absolutely false. It is also a bad direction from the point of being different which had nothing to do with catching on to the mainstream. As one of the interviewees said, "you only need 5% to really get people to think in a new way". But as far as popularity is concerned, there were a good number of punk musicians that were visible at least within the margins of the mainstream during the 1980's. There was Devo, Brian Eno, Elvis Costello, Fishbone, the Pogues, Dinosaur Jr., The Cure, The Butthole Surfers, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tom Waits and Jonathan Richman among countless others. (Yes, Jonathan Richman, former Modern Lover who influenced the Sex Pistols with his infamous song "Road Runner".) (I'm sure there are plenty of people who would challenge me on some of these artists as being labeled punk but punk is really only a paradime of many styles of music like hardcore, new wave, no wave, grunge and my favorite "alternative".)

Despite the overemphasis of punk on the mainstream culture, the film does include some artists that are probably not so well known to the average punk fan. Bands like "Suicide" and "Slit" were a delightful surprise. But as far as bigger bands were concerned, why was X never mentioned or the Descendents or the Minutemen? Or Fugazi or Husker Du? I guess the film would just have to be a bit longer. I didn't really appreciate the bands that were mentioned in the end like Rancid and Limp Bizkit. That really gave a blow to the authenticity of punk. However, I was happy to hear the interviews with Legs McNeil author of "Please Kill Me" and Bob Gruen as well as Mary Harron, former Punk magazine writer and current independent filmmaker (I Shot Andy Warhol) as well as filmmaker Jim Jarmusch. These guys helped us to see the world of punk in a bigger light that has more to do with just the music. Its the ability to change ideas and keep things new and different in a postmodern world.

We've seen these types of people before. I used to work at an old movie theater where one of these "cinemaniac" types was a regular customer. He would arrive very early between shows, waiting in the lobby and eat popcorn. Occasionally he would strike up a conversation and repeat a lot of the same stories like "you know, one of my best friends is William Shatner's personal secretary!" This man and the people documented in "Cinemania" are not people we want to pay much attention to. When we hear them, we may be amused by their quirkiness but eventually we just want to get away from them. We feel pity for them because they seem so oblivious. One minute of looking at these people and we know what their problem is. They need to get a life.

Instead of investigating their inner demons, the filmmakers decide to show the attractive qualities of these characters which is that they all love films. These are not the typical film buffs who obsess over Star Trek or Lord of the Rings. These are the types that are obsessed with "art" films. Despite their obsessive compulsive behavior, it is nice to see Americans who are passionate about films by Wim Wenders, Jean Luc Godard, Tarkovsky, and Truffaut. Their taste in films is rare in this country. One of the characters, Roberta takes film culture so seriously that she feels it is an insult to serve popcorn and snacks at the theater. Eric calls a theater and asks if the film playing that day is being shown on a new 35-mm print because otherwise, he won't see it. Another guy has a business card with a title like "philosopher, French New Wave, Godard expert". At one point in the film, we see him writing a blurb for an online dating service and one of his other film geeks is critiquing it. Unfortunately, we know he's not being very objective. The problem I had with this documentary was that it seemed to be mocking these people to the point where it was disturbing. There's not much we learn about these people other then the fact that they all share a form of obsessive compulsive behavior. One of the most depressing scenes was when two friends were sitting in a messy apartment watching an old movie on the VCR. The scene runs too long and the camera zooms right into their faces to show off their twitches and creepy expressions. It seems as though the film was trying to be therapeutic to these characters. At times, there are bits of revelations that we hear. "I watch these old films of Greta Garbo because it's a better alternative to watching porn all the time". That was a positive sign but by the end we just get a hopeless feeling about them. They're living as if they were in a movie, stuck in fantasy and never able to get out. Maybe, that's good for them but this film didn't make me think so.

I did not know much about Yasujiro Ozu's films prior to seeing Early Summer. I knew he was as big an influence in the West as Akira Kurosawa. It is not difficult to understand Kurosawa's influence since his films were largely influenced by John Ford and his stories were occasionally based on Shakespeare. Ozu, seems to take a quiet and simple approach to the cinematic experience.

"Early Summer" is about a time when families extend and break apart. We are introduced to the Mamiya family, a typical family of 1950's post war Japan, who we see going about their daily life routines. The protagonist is the daughter Noriko, a 28 year old girl whose parents believe is ready to get married. One day, Noriko is recommended a man Takako, who is an associate of her boss. Noriko considers the offer but does not spark much interest. Her parents try to encourage her daughter to marry this man but after learning that Takako is much older, Noriko becomes even more reluctant. One day, their close neighbor Kenkichi, has been offered a job outside of Tokyo and has decided to leave. It is Kenkichi who Noriko suddenly decides to marry. The Mamiya family becomes upset because Kenkichi is not only moving away from home but he is also a widower with a child. The parents soon realize that they will have to accept and nothing will be the same again. The story has a somewhat similar structure to a documentary in that we sometimes feel as though we are witnessing real life as it happens. Much of what occurs throughout the film is not directly connected to the story. There is no surprise or ironic conclusion. Everything seems inevitable and there is no major surprises or conclusions. "Early Summer" helps us think about the essence of selfishness in the Japanese nuclear family. It is uncommon for Japanese families to leave the family because independence is looked down upon. At the same time, it is inevitable that things change for better or for worse. There is a wonderful scene with the grandparents contemplating on Noriko and their lives. "Things couldn't be better" says the grandfather. "Well they could" says the grandmother. The grandfather replies,"please, we must not expect too much from life" This seems to be an important awareness of the film and one that exists between the Mamiya family. Noriko accepts who she's in love with not because she seeked him out but because it occurred when she least expected. She tries to read into her future and accepts that marriage will be difficult. There is another wonderful moment after she has accepted Kenkichi's mother to marry her son, she is seen walking home and passes by her soon to be husband. Their exchange is very subtle and brief and yet we know they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. This scene is presented in an ironic way that helps us to pay close attention to the mundaneness of our lives. These are the moments that help us see the world in better light. Ozu has a great eye for timing, atmosphere and above all, humor. There is nothing pretentious about this film. It is an examination of family unity and the passing transition of marriage.

When I first heard that there was going to be a film about the Brothers Grimm, I was excited with anticipation. The two German brothers are responsible for publishing some of the most famous and earliest known fairy tales in history; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Little Red Riding Hood, Rumplesteelskin, Cinderella, Pinnochio and many others. Most people today are only familiar with the Walt Disney watered-down version of these stories but when they were originally published, the stories were often too dark and too creepy for most children to read. Modern psychologists theorized that these stories, often read to children during bed-time were about emotional angst, fear of abandonment, sexual repression and parental abuse. How these stories came to life and what influenced the Grimm brothers to publish these stories might have been an interesting biography.

Terry Gilliam who is known for his wildly hallucinatory imagination did not want to take a documentary approach to this subject. I would not expect this from the retired member of Monty Python. "The Brothers Grimm" is an absurd fictional tale that uses the Grimm brothers as traveling con artists who journey through villages in Germany to show off their hokey magic tricks. The con artists are unmasked by Delatombe, Napolean's man in Germany and instead of punishing them he sends the Grimm's to a haunted forest to become ghost exterminators and find the missing children that have disappeared. Gilliam is not interested in showing off the fairy tales although some of them do show up in the movie, the point is really just a fragmented and non-sensical film. There are a lot of great ideas that could have been promising but the overall thread seems too sloppy and convoluted. It is not clear what Gilliam intended the Borthers Grimm to be. Are they a bunch of clowns? Are they supposed to be romantic heroes? They seem like phony magicians and other times their magic seems real. All in all, it does not seem clear.

When I think of Terry Gilliam, I think of an ambitious director. He has created some of the most spectacular fantasy films of his time. His worlds are surreal labyrinths that take you on a crooked and sometimes dizzy adventure."the Holy Grail" "Brazil" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" are all amazing. I applaud him for his wild and creative imagination. This time, I think he needs to take a step back from the expensive production and concentrate more on giving us a cohesive story...even if it involves some biographical truth to the Grimm brothers which I would have preferred. That's just my opinion.

"The Big Chill" was a classic film of the 1980's. It was the film which identified the 1960's baby boomer's as modern contemporary "yuppies". Throughout the 1980's, yuppies were spotlighted in the media as the generational trend in post-Reagan era living. After "the Big Chill" people turned to Doonesbury and "Thirtysomething" to find out what the baby boomer's were up to. What once became a generation of free spirited hippies soon changed into a lifestyle revolved around corporate jobs, wearing suits and driving Volvo's.

"The Big Chill" is a simple story that involves a group of old friends who reunite after hearing the news that Alex, a close friend has committed suicide. After the funeral, they spend a long weekend at the house of one of their friends, a married couple played by Kevin Kline and Glenn Close. They get together and spend time talking and trying to make sense of their lives by questioning the death of Alex and what's become of themselves. There is a sense of confusion about who they are and what they've become. "I always feel like somebody wants something from me" says a friend played by Tom Bergeron whose turned into a famous Hollywood actor. He feels guilty about his fame and the wealth that's earned him his paranoid suspicion's of other people. How could a group of friends like this go from "tuning in an dropping out" to living this corporate lifestyle? "I hate to think it was all just...fashion." says a confused Glenn Close. Kevin Kline offers reassurance that they "accomplished things". The 1960's did change a lot for the civil rights movement, the women's movement and protesting to help stop the war in Vietnam. What I always wanted to know, was Kevin Kline speaking on behalf his friends or his whole generation?

Both of my parents who lived through the 1960's never became yuppies. I tried watching this film once with a close friend who was heavily involved in the drugs, protests and road trips of that period. After a half hour or so into the movie, he was incapable of watching anymore. He did'nt believe that these characters actually lived through the same things that he lived through. It sort of falls into this notion that if you grew up during the sixties and listened to the Beatles and had somewhat shaggy hair, you were instantly considered a hippie. It's a way for people to identify with something they had little or nothing to do with. The number of people who actually did experiment with drugs, sex and other aspects of life were really far few from the mass culture. This is why I feel suspicious of "The Big Chill". How involved were these characters in the hippie movement? There is one character Nick, played by William Hurt who seems like the most believable character. He has a great performance as a bitter man who is tormented between the past and the present. He still has some of his naive and youthful instincts. He also seems like the most likable because he doesn't seem to hide any emotions like the rest of his friends. The other characters like the lawyer, the writer for People magazine and the movie star...how genuinely involved were they in the 1960's movement? We see these characters trying to relive the past by doing drugs and even sharing sexual partners. As my friend said "It seems so phony. I don't know anyone who turned into this".

A lot of baby boom audiences have responded bitterly about this film because it seems so personal and yet they cannot relate to the characters, and therefore they feel fooled, tricked or envious of these characters." The Big Chill" does not speak for an entire generation and that is the problem. William Hurt may have been stuck in the past, but for crying out loud, he shouldn't be wearing a suit and driving a Porsche!

Ferris Beuller's Day Off is a strange film. At the time of its release, everyone loved it and praised it for its slick and original style. Having a main character talk to the camera was a pretty fresh idea for mainstream movies. This doesn't mean it never happened before. This film has been influenced strangely enough, by Jean Luc Godard's "Breathless". Who would have thought that John Hughes even paid attention to the French New Wave? Maybe he didn't and it's all just purely coincidental. What else is bizarre about this film is its dated and exaggerated use of technology. Ferris Beuller uses his computer to hack into his high school transcript and alter his attendance record. And this was 1986..? Ferris Beuller's Day Off is a funny movie and it has a very sweet side to it but the upper class atmosphere of this movie is really annoying. Ferris and his friends take a day off from school to live the high life in the city of Chicago by going to expensive restaurants, going to a Cubs game, visiting a museum and as Ferris puts it" we saw priceless works of art!" and they also sit in a booth by the Chicago stock exchange. What were they doing there? Before going home, Ferris and his friends spend an hour at someone's swimming pool and jacuzzi. All of this just wouldn't be enough without Ferris friend's car, which happens to be a Ferrari. Now there's nothing wrong with being rich and granted, this is a comedy which is not supposed to be totally realistic. But the theme of the film seems to suggest that in order to really have fun, you need to have money and spend it. These kids just cannot see through the superficial and material world they live in. At one point Ferris's sister is heard complaining to herself about Ferris. "Maybe it's not so bad. After all, I got a car and he got a computer". Ferris Beuller's Day Off is a light comedy and if there's anything to learn from the story, its that its that getting a little support from your friends goes a long way. In some ways, "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" was the 80's version of Forrest Gump. They don't exactly have the same story but both films deal with how success can be earned even if you don't play by the rules. Forrest Gump had a learning disability but he became very successful. Ferris Beuller slacked off from school but everyone thought he was sick and was rooting for him. This theme has a strong resonance with today's standard of living. Look whose running the country! And isn't it ironic that "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" uses George H. W. Bush as a reference when the boring teacher played by the conservative, Ben Stein "something o-o economics. Voodoo economics." Well I guess you could say that John Hughes is a true visionary. Every plot and detail has a purpose. That I applaud him for. As for the spoiled kids, I could care less.

A few years ago, the New Yorker magazine wrote a fascinating article on Star Wars. It explained the whole phenomenon of Star Wars and how it happened. I was like other 5 year old "Star Wars" fanatics in 1977 and when I saw the Millennium Falcon zap into hyper-drive, it was an overwhelming stimulation of the imagination. Suddenly every 4 and 5 year old child was teleported into a future that existed long ago and in a galaxy far away. "Star Wars' gave reason to why we see movies in a big and darkened theater. Yes, Star Wars was a phenomenon but it was not THE film changed the movie industry. That was Jaws.

Star Wars's greatest achievement is that the film was such a grand and ambitious project and yet, writer, director George Lucas was able to realize it. No other science fiction film has had so many creatures, planets and special effects as Star Wars. It is a universe in and of itself. Looking back on "Star Wars" many year later, I can see problems that seemed to permeate in the other films from the saga. Don't get me wrong, Star Wars is a masterpiece, that is up until the story leads Luke and the others into the Death Star. By that point, the film turns into an exaggerated cartoon. When Han Solo is chasing after an army of stormtroopers, we get the idea that he's really not that scared. Okay, he's scared but not to the point where his life is at risk. We see this type of problem in all the Star Wars films (with the exception of "The Empire Strikes Back"). Characters are running around shooting each other like a bunch of kids playing tag. Where's the suspense and drama that leads us to believe that this is supposed to be real? It worked for the first half of Star Wars.

The first hour of Star Wars is beautifully written. One of my favorite scenes is when Luke and Obi-Wan are sitting at Obi Wan's home. Obi wan is talking about the past and also talking about Luke's father and the "force" which is an "energy field created by all living things." This conversation is one of the moments of the film that always enhanced my imagination for the film. I not only believed in the film, but I also believed that there was all of this history and supernatural elements that existed prior to this film. Too bad, the history was later realized into another series of cartoonishly dull adventures in the Episode I, II, and III. Oh well. It is after all the imagination come to life that makes all of these films important. That's what counts. The rest is mediocre.

There has been a lot of talk that "Broken Flowers" is Jim Jarmusch's most commercially accessible film to date. One can almost hear Jarmusch muttering something reactionary like "commercial? That's just a label." It's a label that some Jarmusch fans might associate with "selling out". But selling out does not apply to Jim Jarmusch. He still has complete control of his work and is still the only American filmmaker who owns his own negatives. If "Broken Flowers" does break into the mainstream, it is nothing overly deliberate. Jarmusch makes familiar films that seem intimate in their tone. He toys with old themes while still leaving his films open to interpretation.

"Broken Flowers" is a travelogue and like most Jarmusch films, the story is more concerned with the journey but not so much about the destination. Bill Murray plays Don Johnston, a man who we know little about. We know he's single and we know he's had some flame's in the past. The last one just walked out on him. When Don receives an anonymous letter from one of these old flames, he learns that he has a twenty year old son who might be looking for him." Don thinks this is a joke but takes the advice from a friend to unfold the mystery by tracking down his past flings. He flies somewhere to a generic American place, rents a car and begins his investigation. Each ex has an individual personality but most of them share something similar. They are content and have moved on from the past. One of the ex's we meet works in real estate and decides it would be a good idea for her to get into the water business because "one day in the near future it will be more valuable then oil." The atmosphere is awkward and rather then care whether this woman is responsible for the anonymous letter, we just feel like getting out of there. The film's journey is absurd in many ways because we are never sure what the real point is. What is Don going to do if he does find his son? This where Bill Murray's credit as an actor shines through. We see from his small facial gestures that he is empty, and sad. There is a sense of longing as if life took a wrong turn somewhere and it is only now that he is realizing it. The ending of "Broken Flowers" is what really makes the film special. Don't expect too much or too little. Just see it. Its inspiring, hopeful and better then any other movie this year. The film also has a great soundtrack by Ethiopian musician, Mulatu Astatke. And we see in the credits that Jarmusch dedicated the film to French filmmaker Jean Eustache. Jean Eustache made a phenomenal film in the 1960's titled, "The Mother and The Whore". He had an influence on John Cassavetes and likewise both had an influence on Jim Jarmusch.

If there was one word to describe this film for me, it would be "inspirational". And I think anyone who practices art or appreciates the process of art, can find this film enjoyable to watch. The film's title speaks for itself. We are engaged in an experimental documentary watching a prodigy at work and trying to unravel the magic of how it all happens. In the beginning there is a voice-over narrated introduction to the film, "Nobody knew what Rimbaud thought of when he wrote the poem "the drunk boat"." And then we realize that we are in for a real treat. Who would ever guess that the master of cubism would allow us to see his creative ideas at work? Most artists are very stubborn about this sort of thing, but then again most famous artists are also pretty ego-centric. The film places the camera behind a canvas that leaves the image transparent so that we can see the painting process without looking over the shoulder. There is a beautiful classical score along with this film and as the drawings progress, Picasso then takes on bigger challenges with paintings. The pacing is just right where the drawing process starts slow and then the strokes become faster with time-lapse photography. There is an amazing moment where the cameraman warns Picasso that he is about to run out of film. Picasso asks how many feet is left and calculates the timing of his painting and just at the last second, Picasso transforms the entire piece into something unexpected and radically different. We can see the spontaneity and playfulness in his work. The end is a mural shaped painting that evolves through many stages until Picasso says something like "its ruined. I have ruined the painting and yet at the same time, its improving." This is an indication of Picasso's fearless drive. When he paints, he is on fire. He works diligently for hours. Its fascinating to see little figures that he will paint over and over with more detail or more color. He wants to emphasize details that seem so ambiguous and its as if he's saying to the audience "look at this" "keep looking at this" "this is important." I first saw this film in the theater when I was about ten or twelve years old. I'm glad my family friends took me to see this. It has inspired me throughout the years. I saw the film again when I was twenty-four and it was just as I remembered it. After it was over, I did the same thing I did when I first saw the film; I pulled out a sketchbook and started drawing. This film is a real treat.

Michael Spurlock is a brave man. Who would ever dare to eat nothing but Mcdonalds food for two months straight? Well actually, a lot of people do. If its not with every meal, it may be every other meal or every other day. With over one billion people served all over the world, you can only imagine what kind of diets people have especially here where there's almost as many McDonalds locations as there are trees. And ever look at the obesity rate in this country? I've heard people criticize this film because they think its a cheap way to attack one fast food out of many many others. That is a pretty idiotic attack if you think about it. One crook does not get off the hook just because there are so many others of them out there. Other critics also put down this film because they feel that the message is as simpleminded as saying "Eating McDonalds from time to time is bad for you." There is some validity to this argument but the reason I think it does not measure against the overall thesis of the film is because McDonalds never tries to say that they ever bad for you. Their only message is to advertise and say that McDonalds is good for you. The president of McDonalds will go so far as to defend that drinking a coca cola is part of a healthy diet because....it has water in it. That's how screwed up this corporation is. And why should this surprise anyone? Well it should'nt but has it stopped billions of people from eating it? A logo that boasts of serving over a billion people...? Is that not a little shall we say..insecure? Mathew Spurlock has made a very insightful, funny and entertaining and well informed documentary. His vision is very clear and if he wanted to, he could have taken many different directions with the premise. Healthy food is not the only problem with McDonalds. Keep your eyes out for the new film "McLibel" about a couple that had their freedom of speech threatened by Mcdonalds and after years of trials and undercover spies, the case was finally over. Yes, McDonalds is the mafia of the fast food industry. Also check out the book: "fast food nation".

Thank you Mathew Spurlock for educating America and helping to put an end to the next worst thing from the tobacco companies.

Tom Waits once described Jim Jarmusch's films as "that little piece of hair that's projected on the corner of the movie screen." Tom Waits does have a way with words and Jarmusch certainly has a way with consciousness. "Mystery Train' is the third film by director Jim Jarmusch and as he describes it: "its the third film of a trilogy." The other two films were "Stranger then Paradise" and "Down by Law". The connection that links these films together is the theme of cross-cultural influence and miscommunication. It is probably more accurate to observe all of Jarmusch's films as one continuous thought process much in the same intuitive style as Wim Wenders's films.

"Mystery Train" is one of the most poignant films of Jim Jarmusch's career because it suggests a little of everything in his world of metaphors: Religion, rock and roll, racism, being cool, and cultural politics. Who is the king? Elvis Presley or Carl Perkins? Why is Elvis so famous when all his music came from black artists like Junior Parker and Rufus Thomas? These questions are not answered in "Mystery Train" but they are addressed like random thoughts which pass by like cars on a train. In fact the film does not feel serious like most drama's are. Its more of an off beat comedy. The film is set up like a journey on a train divided into three separate stories that find their way in the same location. The first story involves two Japanese tourists who plan on visiting Graceland but instead get sidetracked by wandering into Sun Studios. They smoke cigarettes and contemplate on Elvis Presley and the birthplace of rock and roll. The second story is about a neurotic girl who complains about her boyfriend "Elvis" and a dreamy Italian widow who see's a ghost in the middle of the night . The last story "Lost in Space" is about the boyfriend Elvis and two other friends who drive around drunk and later get in trouble with the law.

As with all of Jarmusch's films, the plot is never as important as the details and nuances. It is not difficult to miss these elements as Jarmusch plays with them in very ironic ways. We also get a strong sense of atmosphere where much of the landscape in this town is demolished and shabby like the photographs in Robert Frank's "The Americans". There is also an amazing cast of musicians from Screamin jay Hawkins, Joe Strummer, a guest appearance by Rufus Thomas and a disc jockey voice by Tom Waits. This sounds much like the same disc jockey Tom Waits played in Down By Law. And Screamin Jay Hawkins's put a spell on Jarmusch's first film "Stranger the Paradise" as his presence does here. There are all kinds of details one can ponder on or shrug off. The beauty of this is that Jim Jarmusch never pulls you by the hair to tell you what to think about. It is left for the audience to interpret it and to allow the chips fall where they may. For many viewers that can be an irritating ordeal but on the other hand it can also be totally refreshing. Mystery Train has a strange rhythm but as far as the story goes, it moves at just the right beat.

I can respect any filmmaker that steers away from typical Hollywood conventions. It's not hard for a minimalist film to look so enticing when the majority of films produced are laced with big budgets of eye candy and formulaic plots.

The Brown Bunny should be admired for its risky non-narrative style. It caused furious reactions at the Cannes film festival which obviously helped generate lots of press and attention. Fans of the avante-garde will have to think "Oh! Its one of those films! The critics didn't get it. It must be ahead of its time!" That may be true but what's unsettling about the reviews is that they influenced director Vincent Gallo to cut the film in half leaving it more concise and marketable for mass audiences. Well I don't like to form opinions based on unnecessary gossip but I can't help but be bothered by it. If Gallo were a visionary filmmaker why would he drastically re-edit a film just after its premiere? I know this has happened many times with other directors but there is a part of me that has a hard time taking Gallo seriously. It's not his acting. I can see he has a quality that is rare and unique to most other contemporaries. His beautiful acting range is evident in his previous film "Buffalo 66". I just sense from his egocentric attitude of being the star, writer, director, producer and the fact that he's in 95% of every shot in the film, that he is just being creatively oblivious.

Most artists will tell you that self-portraits are the most difficult subjects to tackle because they involve erasing your preconceived notions about who you think you are to showing how everyone knows who you are.

Nobody said that "The Brown Bunny" is autobiographical but it certainly feels personal. This film reminded me of Dennis Hopper's "The Last Movie", an unfinished existential sequel to the 1969 film "Easy Rider". Hopper and Gallo seem similar in their egos and their American cowboy persona's but there seems to be a void here. I'm not sure a longer movie would be the answer. All I know is that Vincent Gallo's character Blake should look more pathetic and less cool to his audience. I may see this again and see something different. For now, I am tired of seeing another road movie that really looks rehashed and broken down for its artistic value. This just doesn't feel self conscious. It feels clueless and arrogant.

There is something confusing about Tim Burton's films. When a filmmaker has a weakness, shouldn't he take it upon himself to fix and improve that weakness in their following projects? This is after all, what critics are for: to offer criticism about films and explain what works and what doesn't. Sometimes the director will be ignorant and shrug off the review with a "screw you" attitude and other times it may be a misunderstanding of the critics. "No mister critic, I don't care so much about plot or characters and it's really about the visuals." Is that Tim Burton's excuse? And if so, what's the point?

Tim Burton's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a visually spectacular film but it's not enough to make a good film. The story is about Charlie Bucket but then its about Willy Wonka and we forget about Charlie. There's not one cut away of Charlie's reaction while being in the factory tour. The other child characters are obnoxious as Dahl intended them to be but they have no depth. They overreact on cue when it is time for them to fall into a trap and leave the others behind. There is no build up to their selfish frustrations. Its as if they see the moment where they wish to escape and die. The last twenty minutes of the film feel rushed and we have to think fast as to how Willy Wonka was so quickly welcomed by the Bucket family.

Critics can see why Tim Burton chose to film this story. It centers on "eye candy." But eye candy is not interesting for a feature if there is not much else to care about. Its like having sex without love. We get dazzling images of chocolate dripping waterfalls and strange looking Oompa Loompa figures and irritating breaks of songs and dance. I especially did'nt care for the background imagery of Oprah Winfrey and Stanley Kubrick's film, 2001. These kinds of visual details ruin the imagination by reminding you what the real world is all about.

There has only been one film where Tim Burton's use of storytelling and character development received critical success. That film was "Ed Wood". Ed Wood is the movie about the late B-movie director from the 50's who made his films from the heart without conforming to traditional narrative styles. The critics did not catch on with him and coincidentally critics have not caught on with Tim Burton' style. The film"Ed Wood" is the only exception. One cannot help but see the irony in this.

It's not everyday when you come across an "out of body' experience. The last time I felt it at the movies was when I saw Star Wars. That was before I saw Taxi Driver. I rented Taxi Driver with some friends seventeen years after its theatrical release.I was blown away. My friends and I didn't say a word until ten minutes after it was over. How was it that a movie like this could have such an impact?

The film stars Robert DeNiro as Travis Bickle who takes on a taxi career after serving in the Marines in Vietnam and suffering from some horrible discharge. From the beginning we already feel something unpleasant about Travis. We can see that he's lonely, reserved and a bit socially awkward. We sense something more intense underneath but we don't really know what it is. Wandering into porn movie theaters makes him seem even more lonely and perverted. This is his quality time after long days of witnessing a violent atmosphere of pimps, prostitutes and homeless drug addicts.Taxi life sure isn't the solution to his miserable and solitary life. Bur one day, Travis spots a girl played by Cybil Shepard who works at a campaign headquarter for a presidential candidate. We watch Travis trying to flirt and ask her out and although it seems charming to an average bimbo, it comes across as totally awkward. There are long pauses of silence and observations that sound creepily insulting. "I can see the way you carry yourself that you're not a happy person" he says. When he takes her out to lunch, we see Travis's loneliness amplified with a a mild sense of paranoia. This scene is utterly ironic in how we see a typical first date as sounding nervous and alienating. Who is this guy? Cybil seems intrigued by him and is reminded of a Kris Kristoferssen song: "he's a poet and a pusher, partly truth, partly fiction, a walking contradiction." It's a great description of Travis but he immediately gets insulted. Rather then analyze the song, he just gets defensive." "I'm not a pusher and I never have pushed." He proves himself wrong. After a bad date of trying to take her to a porno movie, he can't take "no" for an answer. We start to see more of Travis's creepy personality unfold as he obsesses over her by sending flowers and finally bursting in the office to yell and scream at her. Why does'nt he get it? After all the drunks, weirdos and psychos he picks up, could'nt he learn something ? No, instead, he is driven to a plan of madness. We don' know exactly what but its definitely building inside him. We see this in an amazing scene with Peter Boyle outside a cafeteria. Their interaction reinforces the loneliness and alienation between these characters. Its a quiet scene but its so true in its portrayal that it seem scary.

The film looks like a documentary at times because we see street action in the background that weaves in and out of the foreground giving you a sense of real life drama. Some of the shots are particularly shocking and so matter of fact. When an encounter with a pimp turns bloody, we see it from a distance as if we were pedestrians witnessing a crime. The violence in this film is anything but glorified. It puts the film in a gritty and dirty atmosphere that we don't want to participate in. But its not just the violence that hooks us in, its the bizarre and psychological mysteries that carry the story. How did Travis get infatuated with Cybil Shepard? Was it coincidence that she worked for the presidential nominee? How events happen and get traced in this film is utterly disturbing. I still can't explain how a film could have an impact to the magnitude that it did. One thing I do know is the director (Martin Scorsese), the screenwriter (Paul Schrader) and the main actor (Robert DeNiro) were all going through similar experiences during the making of this film. That is rare in a field that involves a lot collaboration. When it does happen it as it did, it becomes truly magical. This is without a doubt, Scorsese's best film to date.

This is a superb film. It's so good that Ray Carney called it one of the best films of the nineties. If you know Ray Carney, you know that's a rare and big compliment coming from someone like him. The film is based on the comic by Daniel Clowes. The story involves two girls who just graduated high school and try to figure out what to do with the rest of their lives. They seemed eager to finish high school but they also don't seem ready for the real world. They are the types of girls who are inseparable and do nothing but gossip and secretly insult people. Although they are insulting and unapologetic, you feel apathy for them because their fears and insecurities are bare naked and they seem to know how to enjoy laughing at people not so much for their freakyness and stupidity but probably because it helps to see something familiar about their own personal traits. Other times they show true disgust for people but this is defended in one of the film's themes that nobody lives without prejudices. As we can see in the sneaky eyes of this film, life is pretty unfair. "Good" art is in a restricted category. Authentic blues legends are opening acts to cheap rock and roll in sleazy dive bars and historical 50's diners are transformed into contemporary looking mini malls.

There is also sense of change taking place in this town and yet not much happens. With the exception of Scarlet Johansen's character who can't wait to grow up, Enid and Seymour have an emotional attachment to the past. Enid doesn't want to get rid of her toys and dolls from childhood and Seymour is obsessive about collecting old artifacts and 78 rpm records. This film is about the underdogs of society who struggle to adapt and to love and yet can't seem to adjust. This is a perfect film, a masterpiece...(even though I hate that hiearchal word)

the Fantastic Four was one of Marvel's longest and most successful running comics. Unfortunately this movie killed it. Maybe this film was not guaranteed any success because the popularity of this comic started sagging over the years. What we get here is a desperate attempt to make an old team of heroes come across as slick, sexy and hip. Man are they hip. You get to see the Thing sport a nice pair of Nike's. Great product placement. In fact, this movie is loaded with so much product placement that I had a hard time distinguishing it from an actual commercial. The Burger King billboard so beautifully displayed behind the action. The American Express line "catching one of your friends looking silly...priceless." Yes, these subliminal ads should'nt matter. Its the movie that counts. Right? This movie is so desperate for attention that it needs to sell you a Whopper and some Nikes in order to make you happy. The characters are awful. They act like puppets from a reality show. Where's the depth and complexity? Hey, I know its superheroes but who says you can't have a serious superhero film? Remember Christopher Reeve as Superman? these guys are not even from the same world. They belong to an American Gladiatiors event sponsored by Mountain Dew. What does Stan Lee care anyway? He's got a couple of other comics he can destroy on the big screen. They're just hot cakes waiting to be sold. That's what this is. Money hungry, blockbuster hits with nothing underneath.

This is the documentary that gave meaning to the term "cinema-verite";

a term used to describe films that looked as if they were happening in real time. This is one of those films. It is a gritty black and white documentary that follows the legendary Bob Dylan during a tour in England. This is not a conventional rock documentary where we are shown endless concert footage and interviews with musicians talking about their philosophies and the meanings of their songs. Instead, the camera follows Dylan in a frenzy capturing every detail of social interaction with his fans, entourage, and the press. Dylan appears arrogant but it is no surprise when Pennebaker allows us to see the hypocrisy and greed of the outside world. A memorable moment in the film involves a fan whose invited himself backstage to meet Bob Dylan. He asks him absurd questions such as "what is your attitude on life?" Dylan decides to tease him and the conversation gets pretty ugly. Nevertheless, it is an important scene to the film because it shows us how difficult it is for a superstar such a Dylan to keep a smile and act nice to everyone. Do we gain sympathy for Dylan? We do because we see how alienated he feels among even his closest friends. We also feel a sense of envy for his ability to be so unapologetic and rebellious about his attitude. He is honest but he also has to protect himself from the public. After a Time magazine reporter asks him whether or not he cares what he's saying . Dylan attacks him and then tries to give him a straight answer . "Do you think anyone who comes to these concerts is looking for anything other then entertainment?" The next day, Dylan hears a quote from the papers that describes him as an anarchist. The sequence of these events show clearly how Dylan is at a loss with the public's perception of him. He can't just be himself. He wants to come across as a guy like anyone else but his sarcastic and meaningless interaction with the press only makes things worse. The film also includes appearances with Joan Baez, Donovan, Allen Ginsberg, and Dylan's sleazy manager Albert Grossman. I've seen this film dozens of times and I still see something new with every viewing. It is a true masterpiece.