The Seventh Seal

The Seventh Seal

“A Knight and his squire are home from the crusades. Black Death is sweeping their country. As they approach home, Death appears to the knight and tells him it is his time. The knight challenges Death to a chess game for his life. The Knight and Death play as the cultural turmoil envelopes the people around them as they try, in different ways, to deal with the upheaval the plague has caused.”

4.5 stars

If you consider yourself a movie buff, this is a movie you have probably seen. If not, you need to put it on the top of your list because you don’t know shit about the history of cinema until you have experienced this film. The fact that this move was made in 1957, literally dumbfounds me. Everything about it from the cinematography to plot elements are light years ahead of its time. It is the calling card and first major success of the legendary director Ingmar Bergman. If you don’t know who that is, then I suggest you go sit quietly at your desk and put your head down until the bell rings.

This movie literally wrote the book on the use of lighting and shadows for all subsequent films. I’m serious; you would be hard pressed to find any film school worth its salt that doesn’t show this as an introductory requirement. The film comes off (like its director) as very pretentious, but in a good way. The story is very straightforward, but it tries (successfully) to be so much more. A disillusioned Knight returns from the crusade angry and confused. These feelings are further manifested by the fact that he is returning to homeland ravaged by the plague where people are dying by the thousands. He then engages in a lengthy game of chess with Death (both figuratively and literally). And that’s really the entire story; there is not much more meat to the plot than that. But it’s Bergman’s exploration through the human condition and dissection of the human psyche that leave you thinking about the movie days after you’ve left the theater.

And the themes really are timeless. How many different generations can identify with the questions about the futility of war and the morality questions that go hand in hand with it? Or the inevitability of death and, to an extent, life’s own inherent futility? Even the most opinionated amongst us would find themselves at least thinking twice about their own beliefs on life and death. Most of the time you go to the movies just to be entertained, but every once and a while you see a film that really makes you think. THIS is one of those movies.

SPOILERS: The Knight makes his journey home and, along the way, meets a wide array of characters that facilitate him reexamining his own purpose in life. He really does come full circle from a person who believes in nothing to a person that believes in the most powerful of human ideas . . . hope. Unfortunately not even his transformation can save him from an inevitable end. So, he shares a ‘Last Supper’ with his new found brethren and accepts his fate. The last scene is beautifully eerie and ends with the only words spoken the entire movie by a mute girl. She looks into the eyes of death and chillingly whispers, “It is finished.”

It really is a tale that, again, we can all identify with. I say this because, as much as we try to avoid losing our own game of chess with Death, in the end it seems Death wins . . . as it always does.

The Lookout

The Lookout

“An admired high school hockey player (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) with a bright future foolishly takes a drive in the night with his girl friend and two other friends with his headlights off with devastating results. The former athlete is left with a brain injury that prevents him from remembering many things for extended periods of time. To compensate, he keeps notes in a small notebook to aid him in remembering what he is to do. He also lives with a blind friend (Jeff Daniels) who aids him. Obviously, with the mental incapacitation, he is unable to have meaningful work. Thus he works as a night cleaning man in a bank. It is there he comes under the scrutiny of a gang planning to rob the bank. The leader (Matthew Goode) befriends him and gets him involved with a young woman (Isla Fisher) who further reels him in. After they get close and after reeling him in with his own failures, the bank plan unfolds. Confused but wanting to escape his current existence, he initially goes along with the scheme. After realizing he is being used, he attempts to stop the robbery, which of course immediately goes awry. Bruce McGill and Alberta Watson also co-star as the young man's parents, who still search for the person that was there before the tragic crash.”

4 stars

Let me start out by saying that this is a good movie. Scratch that, this is a really good movie. If you’ve seen the great movie that is ‘Memento’, then you will identify with this movie immediately. They have very similar feels and plot lines. But it’s not fair to say that this is a ‘Memento’ knock off because this film has a personality all its own. We open up with Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and three of his friends driving down a country road the night of prom. It’s a really beautiful scene in which Chris turns off his headlights so everyone can see the wave of fireflies that lines the countryside. His arrogance is obvious, though, and eventually causes a wreck with a stalled combine in the road that leaves two friends dead, Chris’ girlfriend without a limb, and Chris with major brain damage.

The story really begins a few years later with Chris living in a dump of an apartment with a sage-like blind roommate played by Jeff Daniels. Chris is functional and his memory loss is not as prevalent as the protagonist in ‘Memento’, but he has a major problem with sequencing. Because of this, he must write all of his daily routine down in a notebook so he can remember how to get through the day. The good news is that he does seem to be progressing, but the internal conflict is gut wrenching. In an instant he went from being a smart, charming, promising athlete to a guy who can only handle the monotonous job of being a night janitor at the local bank. Further layers are added when we learn that Chris’ family is very rich and his father VERY demanding. Chris has chosen to live in squalor, however, as penance for his selfish actions which also include him visiting the site of his crash every week to remind him (as he puts it), “. . . just how big a piece of shit . . .” he is.

Enter Gary Spargo, a supposed former classmate of Chris’ older sister. Unbeknownst to Chris, Gary knows absolutely everything about him, the way he feels about himself, how the injury has affected him, and the routine he repeats daily. Gary (played by an astounding Matthew Goode) uses all of this information to masterfully manipulate Chris into becoming an unwitting accomplice to their planned bank robbery.

The performances really stand out in this movie. Gary makes his manipulation effortless, so much so that I almost wanted to join up with his bank crew. His ability to make all of the people around him do exactly what he wants is impressive and a bit unsettling. Jeff Daniels also did a spectacular job of playing a convincing blind man. So many time people turn a blind person into a cartoon and it really detracts from the movie. This is not the case here. Last, but not least, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is just awesome. Apparently he would deprive himself of sleep and work out intensely right before scenes in order to give the character a very disoriented feel. Needless to say it worked because we totally buy Chris as a mentally damaged young man.

As with any movie, it is not without its drawbacks. To me the heist itself and the ensuing actions by Chris lack the intelligence that had been prevalent in the entire movie leading up to that point. There are also several storylines that are left open ended regarding Chris’ father, Chris’ love interest (Isla Fisher), and the police officer who brings Chris donuts every night during work. But when you look at the film as a whole, these are only minor critiques and shouldn’t detract from the film’s effect. Ultimately the movie is about anger, remorse, and eventually redemption, and it’s one of the better ones that I have seen in a while.

Wristcutters: A Love Story

Wristcutters: A Love Story

“Despondent over his breakup with Desiree, Zia slashes his wrists and goes to an afterlife peopled by suicides, a high-desert landscape dotted by old tires, burned-out cars, and abandoned sofas. He gets a job in a pizza joint. By chance, Zia learns that Desiree offed herself a few months after he did, and she's looking for him. He sets off with Eugene (an electrocuted Russian rocker) to find her, and they pick up a hitchhiker, Mikal, who's looking for the People in Charge, believing she's there by mistake. They're soon at the camp of Kneller, where casual miracles proliferate. They hear rumors of a miraculous king. Can Zia find Desiree? Then what? Where there's death there's hope.”

3.5 stars

Hmmmm, I’m still thinking about this one. It was definitely not your normal movie, but then again what is? From the beginning I was pretty into it. Tom Waits is one of my favorite musicians. So, when the main character Zia leans over and starts playing his record in the opening scene, I’m starting to have high hopes. Then, not shockingly at all based on the name of the movie, we make a hard left turn as we see Zia dead on the floor from slicing his wrists open. Then everything starts to open up and we’re introduced to this world of Limbo-esque Purgatory. But it’s not the boring Purgatory that we all think of. This world works just like the living, except that everyone is dead. And not in the creepy zombie way where people are rapidly decaying, people have jobs, live “lives”, and (for some very fucked up reason) have families that have also off-ed themselves. Because you know what they say, the family that commits mortal sin together, stays together.

But the concept was really interesting and it really stimulated the part of your brain that deals with outside thought. What if this whole other world were possible? What if it exists and we don’t know it? And the real burning question for me ‘What happens in this world if you kill yourself again?’ The director does a phenomenal job with the details. Everything from color to clothing to the most minute prop has been thought out to remind us that this world is NOT the one we live in, it is something completely different and not fully understood by anyone “living” in it.

Another big plus for this movie was Mikal (Shannyn Sossamon). If you look up “sexy” in the dictionary, there is a picture of Shannyn. Ever since ’40 Days and 40 Nights’ I’ve been in love with her look and her style of acting. She really becomes the driving force of the movie that really makes the other character’s relationships work. She embodies the naiveté and innocence that makes this bleak and desolate world bearable enough that the viewer doesn’t want to slice his own wrists (yes, I get the irony).

And if I was excited that the movie had Tom Wait’s music in it, I got even more into it when the man himself showed up to play a major role. His character Kneller runs a camp for people who have lost their way. But there is something magical about the camp because everyone keeps performing tiny miracles, but only when they aren’t trying. This is the point in the movie where I had my 10th grade English Literature class flashback. It seemed like there was real genius in this move that I was missing, like the broken headlights, and starless nights, and color changing fish were actually a motif or metaphors for something much deeper. I guess I just wasn’t open minded enough to get the true meaning, or maybe I just hadn’t smoked enough pot.
So, ¾ of the way through the movie I’m still digging it. It’s weird, but good weird. And then . . . Will Arnet shows up (think Gob from Arrested Development).

And that’s the point where it completely went off the tracks for me. Up until then things worked, especially the casting. I thought everyone fit their role very well and had just enough weird in them for the scenes to really work, but Wil Arnet’s casting as the Messiah was a body blow to this movie. Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy and find him very funny, but he is almost too well known as playing a certain type of comedic character that there was no way for me to take him seriously as ‘The Messiah’.

The funny thing is, once his scene was over, everything went back to normal (well as close to normal as this movie can get) and the movie ends with a smile . . . literally.

If you’re going to watch this movie, you have to check your morality questions about suicide at the door. The movie is not about that, and if you cloud your perception by making it about suicide you’re going to miss out on a good flick. As much as I want to give the movie 4 stars or maybe even more, the Gob scene just won’t let it be so.

Management

Management

“Mike works at his parents' motel in Kingman, population 27,000, on old Route 66. Sue sells art for a Baltimore firm to corporations for office walls. He takes one look at her from behind as she registers at the motel and determines to connect. He's sweet, but hapless, with no ambition other than spending time with her. She's enigmatic - rarely smiling, occasionally impulsive, committed to helping homeless people, feeling the clock tick after a breakup with a boyfriend who could have provided security. Is there any way he stands a chance with her? What can he offer?”

3.5 stars

This is not your typical romantic comedy, and that's clear from the very beginning of the movie. Mike (Steve Zahn) is a quiet, lonely guy working as the night manager for his parent's rural motel. But when Sue (Jennifer Anniston) shows up looking for a room for the night, he proves that he's got more cajones than we might initially expect. He knocks on her door one night to offer her the "complimentary bottle of wine" they give to all guests . . . yeah right. It's clearly a line, but he delivers it with such honesty that Sue plays along . . . for a little while bit before politely kicking him out. This is where the movie really could have gone one of two ways. It could have been the romantic comedy it turned into or it could have easily taken a Norman Bates turn and become an awful horror flick. Luckily it was the former. After checking out of the motel, Sue doubles back to find Mike in the motel laundromat. In an inexplicable moment of desire Sue jumps Mike and they, um, 'do some laundry'.

On the surface the movie seems pretty predictable, and for the most part it is. We're left to assume that Sue is tired of the fast, somewhat fake life in the big city and is intrigued by this humble small town guy. However, she thinks it is a onetime fling but Mike, just like a puppy, decides to follow her back home leading to some obviously odd situations.

Even though the story may not knock you out of your seat, it does send a pretty good message. There is a constant theme of persistence and going after what you truly want, but the bigger message is shown through the evolution of Sue's character. She comes to realize that she has spent so much of her life focusing on other "causes" that she has neglected her own self and sense of purpose. And that can be true for many of us who may focus on the outside world as a way to avoid exploring own inner selves.

A high point of the movie, though, is casting. It is spot on. No other person could have pulled off this role other than Steve Zahn. He has to walk a very fine line to keep his character endearing and affable because it could easily slip over to creepy and weird. He also has to chops to complete Mike's transformation in the end into a much more strong and capable person. As actors go, I think he's pretty underrated. Woody Harrelson also does a good job walking a tight rope as the man who is competing with Mike for Mike's affections. He's enough of a jerk that the audience pleads for Mike to win, but he shows enough heart that we actually feel for him in the end. I also think Sue has another really good performance. In the big picture, I think she has done a good job in selecting roles since Friends. She is not completely trying to go to the opposite spectrum of Rachel Green, but she has picked parts that inch farther and farther away so that eventually, she will be considered in the class of actresses that really can run the gambit from dramatic to comedic.

In the end, the film isn't anything to write home about but it's another one of those that you could put on your list for watching on a Sunday evening.

Notting Hill

Notting Hill

“Every man's dream comes true for William Thacker, an unsuccessful Notting Hill bookstore owner, when Anna Scott, the world's most beautiful woman and best-liked actress, enters his shop. A little later, he still can't believe it himself, William runs into her again - this time spilling orange juice over her. Anna accepts his offer to change in his nearby apartment, and thanks him with a kiss, which seems to surprise her even more than him. Eventually, Anna and William get to know each other better over the months, but being together with the world's most wanted woman is not easy - neither around your closest friends, nor in front of the all-devouring press.”

1.5 stars

Why are so many people high on this movie? I don’t understand. I mean, I like Julia Roberts and the only thing I really know about Hugh Grant is that he likes to get BJs on Sunset Boulevard from skanky prostitutes. But they seem like they should put forth an enjoyable movie. And the writer, I’m told, was supposed to be very good because he did 4 weddings and Funeral. All of these ingredients coupled with the fact that this film was such a commercial and critical success when it came out should mean that I would enjoy it right? Guess not.

Both of their characters just bothered me. Anna (Julia Roberts) is basically a stereotypical spoiled actress who treats William (Hugh Grant) like a toy that she occasionally like to play with while she’s in London. She comes off as an incredibly self involved person with no regard for William’s emotions. But it’s not just her fault. William is one of the biggest pussies I’ve ever seen on screen. He never calls Anna out on her shit, and when he finally gathers up enough testosterone to say “No” to her, he ends up caving about 5 minutes later. I gotta say I had high hopes during the first few scenes of the movie, but when Alec Baldwin made his cameo as Anna’s American actor-boyfriend things got about as screwed up as a phone call Alec would make to his daughter.

And don’t get me started on the soundtrack. We’ve all seen movies that had soundtracks which helped the film (ie Almost Famous), but it takes a lot of shittynes to have the music hurt a film. Separately, the songs in the movie are all pretty good and some of them are classics. But they are used in such places that they almost describe exactly what is going on in the scene. It’s ridiculous. At one point Anna leaves England after she and William have an argument. I was just waiting for them to use another blatantly obvious track like “Ain’t no Sunshine When She’s Gone” . . . AND THEN THEY DID!!!

I’m not sure what’s going on. Romantic Comedies are my guilty pleasure, but I can’t like this one. Maybe I’m missing something but the movie just comes off as frustrating, predictable, and a little bit sad. And just to put the final nail in the coffin, the movie inexplicably spends an extra five minutes at the end showing the two characters getting married and then Anna being pregnant. Really?! Excuse me while I got throw up.

Sita Sings the Blues

Sita Sings the Blues
"India's ancient epic Ramayana gets a fresh, funny makeover in this award-winning animated film. With song and humor, director Nina Paley juxtaposes the split between Rama and Sita with her own divorce to tell "the greatest break-up story ever told." Original 1920s recordings of singer Annette Hanshaw give musical voice to Sita, while amusing shadow puppets provide the narration for the colorful story."

4 stars

You have to pay attention when watching this movie, especially if you aren't at all familiar with the Ramayana. The storyline is told four ways, each with its own distinctive style. The visuals are really beautiful, and when paired with the music (a combination of traditional Indian music and 1920s tune by Annette Hanshaw), the movie is really breathtaking.  The director tries to lighten up the movie a bit, and the story is told with some levity that helps to lighten the rather dark story of Sita. "LOLspeak" is even a caption option! Overall, this movie is fun to look at and listen to, but it helps to do some research first or else you'd be really lost.

Layer Cake

Layer Cake

“The successful drug dealer Mr. X plans his criminal career intermediating business with drugs without calling the attention, working with a small gang and honoring his payments with the suppliers. On the day planned for his early retirement, the powerful mobster Jimmy Price gives two assignments to him: find Charlie, the addicted daughter of his associate Eddie Temple and negotiate um million pills of high-quality ecstasy with the stupid smalltime gangster Duke. Mr. X hires two acquaintances crooks in a night-club to find Charlie, and he unexpectedly meets Duke's cousin Sidney with his sexy girlfriend Tammy and flirts with her. But Mr. X discovers that the ecstasy was stolen from the dangerous and wild Serbian drug lord Dragan that wants the head of Duke and the drugs back. Further, Eddie shows a tape proving that he has been double-crossed by Jimmy, and also wants the ecstasy. The smart Mr. X plots a scheme to resolve the situation and meet Tammy.”

3.5 stars

This film ain’t easy; you really got to pay attention because there is a lot going on. It has a feel of Snatch, but with a little more reality. By this I mean that Snatch, to me, is very tongue in cheek. The deaths are very over the top so they don’t have as much weight to them, but that’s intentional. This movie is much more down to earth and gritty.

It’s kind of odd to see Daniel Craig play this kind of role. As an American, I am very much a Johnny-come-lately to his career so I have really only seen him in the Bond films. Obviously in those movies he is the epitome of cool and always seems to be in control of the situation. But in this film, that is not the case. While his character is intelligent, he constantly seems to be adapting to outside factors that keep throwing him off his game. The feeling that his character is “in too deep” crosses your mind several times. Just when you think he is a step ahead of his antagonists, the plot will take a hard left turn.

There is one glaring problem with this movie, and I am not even going to pretend that my argument is unbiased or has any intellectual validity at all, but here goes. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SIENNA MILLER!!! For me, she is one of the ten most beautiful women in Hollywood today and the fact that her screen time is limited to a combined 10 minutes is almost a crime against humanity. Granted, she does take full advantage of her all-too-tiny amount of screen time. In one scene she seductively dances with a cigarette just dangling from her lips and in another we get the great pleasure of seeing her change in to a black teddy with attached garters and askldjhsfdah;sd;asjk;ghd; . . . sorry, I passed out on the keyboard.

Anyway, in the end I think most people would be satisfied with this film. I didn’t think it was the greatest, but it did a well enough job of keeping my attention for the 105 minutes. And the ending will probably feel refreshing to those of us that are tired of the dull way that most of these shoot ‘em up flicks conclude. As the boss puts it, “Welcome to the Layer Cake.”