The Purple Rose Of Cairo

The Purple Rose Of Cairo (PG)

Grade: A+

• Directed by: Woody Allen
• Produced by: Robert Greenhut
• Screenplay by: Woody Allen
• Starring: Mia Farrow (Cecilia), Jeff Daniels (Tom Baxter/Gil Shephard), Danny Aiello (Monk), Edward Herrmann (Henry), Milo O'Shea (Father Donnelly), Dianne Wiest (Emma), George Martin (Movie Audience)
• Cinematographer: Gordon Willis
• Music by: Dick Hyman
• Distributed by: Orion Pictures
• Released: March 1, 1985
• Running Time: 82 minutes/1 hour and 22 minutes
• Language: English

"I want what happened in the movie last week to happen this week; otherwise, what's life all about anyways?"
-Moviegoer

Roses are red, violets are blue, but in Woody Allen's film, "The Purple Rose Of Cairo", the rose is purple, and being searched for by an archaeologist named Tom Baxter in Egypt.  He's a cheerful guy, liked by everyone, so he is brought to the states where the film commences.  But that's not what the film is really about.  That's what is happening in the film Cecilia is watching.  She's a nice girl, but she's clumsy and naive at work, always dropping dishes and daydreaming.  While at home, she constantly faces the abuse and ridicule of her husband Monk.  There's no good situation for her, so she goes to the movies to find solace, only to one day have Tom Baxter leave the screen to join her in the real world, causing all sorts of trouble for Cecilia and Gil Shephard, the actor who plays Tom.

Woody Allen's films always touch close to real life because his films are about themes we deal with, whether it's love, friendship, sex, etc, but in this film, he is literally having the character in the film of a film come out into the real world of his film (sorry if that didn't make any sense).  It's genius because of the idea and the fact that isn't done very often.  We all dream that we could connect more with the film we're watching, but how often do we see that happen?  Never, which is why this film is so refreshing.  In "Zelig", Woody Allen went into his film, but in this one, he has a character come out of his.  It's a testament to how much Woody Allen loves films because we want to truly feel them, but "The Purple Rose Of Cairo" shows the negatives that can occur if that happens, which is very true of real life.  Films have that power, which Woody shows us on an artistic level, but through Cecilia, he is simply showing us how watching films can bring so much enjoyment to a person, which they have for me as well.

In terms of what doesn't work in this film, there isn't much I don't like besides the ending, but I'm not going to say what happens because then I'll spoil in.  As for the positives, I loved the set design of certain scenes because they set the mood for the film, which was very old school, and reminiscent to the time of cheap black and white films.  Mia Farrow as the main character deserves praise, as does Danny Aiello for being memorable and simplistic in such little screen time, but the true star of the film is Jeff Daniels because he is so believable as the character who leaves the film and the actor he portrays.  He shows anger and happiness, but his actions are so subtle that you don't even notice he's just acting.  Not to mention, he's hilarious, and his dialogue is fantastic.  But then again, it's always like that for a Woody Allen film.  And lastly, I can't forget the music from the film, which was a mix of classical, jazz, oldies, and classic songs from film like "Cheek to Cheek" with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, one of my favorite songs ever from film. 
  
There's been a lot of unfortunate publicity in the news recently with Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, and their family, which is understandable, but I hope people don't judge Woody Allen without first knowing all the facts.  But I won't judge you if you dislike him.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  Just know that this man is a true artist, who like the quote above says, wants to show real life in movies.  What would happen if the same thing happened all the time or the way we expected?  Life might be better, but it'd be boring, which "The Purple Rose Of Cairo" truthfully shows, a reality that all of us are afraid to face at times.  It's tough to see, but that's what makes the film amazing.

After watching "The Purple Rose Of Cairo", and realizing how much I enjoyed it, I'm disappointed I put it off for so long because my dad bought it for me months ago, but other things in life got in the way, and I had the preconceived notions that even if it was good, it couldn't touch Woody's best films for me, which are "Manhattan", "Hannah And Her Sisters", and "Crimes And Misdemeanors", but this is close to being one of my absolute favorites.  It has all the charm of his best films, and high repeatability factor.  I'm not much of a flower person, but give me a purple rose, and I'll go to the movies with you any day.

That's My Boy

That's My Boy (R)

Grade: F

• Directed by: Sean Anders
• Produced by: Adam Sandler, Allen Covert, Jack Giarraputo, and Heather Parry
• Screenplay by: David Caspe
• Starring: Adam Sandler (Donald "Donny" Berger), Andy Samberg (Todd Peterson/Hans Solo Berger), Leighton Meester (Jamie Martin), Susan Sarandon (Mary McGarricle), Ciara (Brie), Vanilla Ice (Himself), Milo Ventimiglia (Chad Martin), Rex Ryan (Jim Nance)
• Cinematographer: Brandon Trost
• Music by: Rupert Gregson-Williams
• Studio:  Happy Madison Productions, Relativity Media
• Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
• Released: June 15, 2012
• Running Time: 114 minutes/ 1 hour and 54 minutes
• Language: English

I've been meaning to do this film review for awhile now, but I put it off for so long because of how terrible the film is.  Back in the day, as a child, I loved Adam Sandler films from "Big Daddy", "Happy Gilmore", to "The Wedding Singer".  And while they definitely weren't the best films critically, at least I could always get a few laughs from it, and some quotable material.  Not this time, though.  Like the past few Sandler flicks, which have had a lot more adult humor, this film reeks.  Thankfully, I didn't buy this film, I saw it on my friend's house on demand, but I wish I didn't because now I can't get it out of my mind.

The plot of this film starts with young Donny Berger in 1984, a big shot student who's got the hots for his teacher.  He's living out every kid's fantasy, but gets a welcome surprise when his wish comes true, and he has a sexual relationship with his teacher, getting her pregnant.  She goes to prison, so he is punished by having to raise the child, who grows up being a boy he names Hans Solo Berger.  Fast forward to 2012, Donny is a broke alcoholic, who has to raise $43,000 to the IRS.  Otherwise, he will go to prison like his teacher.  He has no means to get the money besides his son; the problem is, he's changed his name to Todd Peterson, and now they're estranged, so he'll have to find a way to get back into his life.

As I sit here typing, there is nothing positive I can say about this film.  It made me laugh, but lots of terrible films do that, and it didn't make me do it in a good way; it felt dirty throughout.  There was obscenities, terrible dialogue, violence, and cameos from famous people that should have given me a hint that this film was going to stink.  It's disgusting; I don't ever give spoilers, but if you find a guy having sex with a grandmother or his sister funny, then you'll find this film entertaining.  If I had to say anything positive about this film, it's that Leighton Meester, the actress who played Jamie, was attractive.  But other than that, use your brain on something more useful.  I wish I could say more, but there's nothing else to say.  To quote the late great Roger Ebert, Mr. Sandler, "Your movie stinks!"

The Room

The Room (R)

Grade: D-

• Directed by: Tommy Wiseau
• Produced by: Tommy Wiseau
• Screenplay by: Tommy Wiseau
• Starring: Tommy Wiseau (Johnny), Greg Sestero (Mark), Juliette Daniel (Lisa), Philip Haldiman (Denny)
• Cinematographer: Todd Barron
• Music by: Mladen Milicevic
• Distributed by: Wiseau Films
• Released: June 27, 2003
• Running Time: 99 minutes/1 hour and 39 minutes
• Language: English

"YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, LISA!"

-Johnny

Everyone has a moment in their life when they say WTF?!  Sometimes it can be said for something positive, but more than likely, it's said for something negative, which was the case for me, when I first heard and saw the film "The Room" by Tommy Wiseau.  The first time I saw it, I was with my friend Danny, who hyped it up as one of the greatest films of all-time, and said it was so bad, that it was good.  I could tell he was being humorous/sarcastic from his tone of voice, but naturally, I was intrigued since I saw the trailer, which was ridiculous to say the least.  After seeing it though, it's safe to say I was blown away by this film, and not in a good way.

I'd try to describe the plot of this film, but it's so inconsistent and poorly written that it makes no difference if I mention anything about it.  All I will say, is that there's a guy named Johnny who loves his girlfriend Lisa, but she's really manipulative, and cheating on him with one of his closest friends.  Add a drug bust, breast cancer, and people playing football in tuxedos and you have "The Room", whatever that is.  It's an independent romantic comedy/film, but most of the time while watching it, I question how it even got made, or if it's really a film.

There's not many redeeming qualities of the film besides that fact that it's funny.  And even after watching it twice, I'm still not sure if that's because the lines are actually that funny, or if I'm laughing because of how ridiculous it is.  It's negatives include the actors, the screenplay, the fake background in most of the scenes, as well as the music in the film that is borderline criminal.  It's so bad in sex scenes and other scenes, that it made me contemplate muting the whole film, which looking back, wouldn't have been the worse thing in the world.

Despite everything negative I've said about "The Room", I recommend that everyone see it at least once.  Why?  One reason is for my friend Danny, who vouches that the film is a classic.  Another reason why you should see it is just to experience how terrible a film can really be.  I don't know if it's as bad as 'Freddy Got Fingered" or "Gigli", but it will make you appreciate films you like or dislike even more.  Lastly, I think you should watch the film just to see a filmmaker at work.  Tommy Wiseau made a crap film, but he directed, produced, and wrote wrote the entire film with his control, showing the type of auteur he is.  I don't like this film at all, but I have to respect that he made the film his way.  And if you love films like I do, you just have to see it to say you did.  It'll change your life.

I posted "The Room" trailer here, just to give you guys a peak of this film's ridiculousness

Frozen

Frozen (PG)

Grade: B+

• Directed by: Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee
• Produced by: Peter Del Vecho
• Screenplay by: Jennifer Lee.  Based on "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Andersen
• Starring: Kristen Bell (Anna), Idina Menzel (Elsa), Jonathan Groff (Kristoff), Josh Gad (Olaf), Santino Fontana (Hans), Alan Tudyk (Duke of Weselton), Ciarán Hinds (Grand Pappie The Troll King), Chris Williams (Oaken), Maurice LaMarche (King of Arendelle)
• Music by: Christophe Beck
• Studio: Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios
• Distributed by: Walt Disney Studio Motion Pictures
• Released: November 27, 2013
• Running Time: 108 minutes/1 hour and 48 minutes
• Language: English

"Why do you shut me out?  Why do you shut THE WORLD out?  What are you so AFRAID of?"

-Anna

Everyone feels or says what's above at least once in their lives.  If we didn't, then we wouldn't be human.  The same applies to the characters in "Frozen" as well, the newest film from Disney, that is perfect for the Winter season.  I saw this film recently with no expectations and knowing nothing about the plot.  And besides a few things I personally disliked, I think this is one of the strongest Disney films in quite a long time.

Seeing the film in the theater made it a sight to behold and kept me warm, but that changed instantly once the film started.  The film opens with two young sisters named Elsa and Anna (Elsa is older, while Anna is younger).  One day, while playing late at night, tragedy strikes when Elsa accidentally does something to Anna.  It causes great distress for their parents, who seek help to fix the problem.  The solution is not one Elsa approves of, but she has no choice but to accept it for the good of her family.  By accepting it though, her close relationship with her sister changes.  They don't see or talk to each other anymore, and they especially don't play in the snow, which they used to love to do.  Flash forward to a few years in the film, when both sisters are older.  It's a special day in both their lives because Elsa is having her coronation, and the castle gates will be open for the first time in years.  But by doing so, both of their lives are put in danger in ways they don't see coming.

Now, when I said that there were a few things I disliked about this film personally, I mean things that probably didn't bother others, but bothered me.  For instance, the music in the film film was below average to me.  Some critics say that this has been Disney's best musical film since the Disney Renaissance era, and while I agree with that sentiment, that's not saying much, since Disney hasn't tried putting memorable songs in their films for years.  And when they have, they've either been in Pixar films, or songs by other artists, like in "Wreck-It-Ralph", where you know the music wasn't solely made for the film.  "Frozen" has some of the same problems.  I enjoyed a few of the songs, but others were badly placed, and sounded too much like pop music on the radio.  Also, some plot events moved too fast and were never fully explained or referenced again.  This is nothing new for Disney, but it would help to give more depth to the characters, which I feel many Disney films often lack.  Lastly, I feel as though "Frozen" suffered from what some people call the "Full Metal Jacket" effect, where one half of the film is good, but the other half stinks.  The first half of this film wasn't that great to me, but the second half blew me away, which really made it spectacular.

While the negatives of "Frozen" seem like a lot, they do not outweigh the positives I saw from the film.  Like I mentioned earlier, the second half of the film really surprised me because its plot twist, that changed the film in a way that I didn't expect at all.  I thought I could predict what was going to happen since I've done it before in so many other films, but I couldn't predict anything at all this time.  The interaction between characters, the humor, how the film ended; it was fantastic.  The cast also deserves credit.  Only one actress was known, yet they all did a good job, regardless of whether they had a major role or not.  The main reason I think the film appealed to me though, was because of the theme's that I thought it instilled.  The theme's that you should really get to know a person before making a decision with them, or that there's more than one way to show love to somebody.  They're things that we all know or believe, but to see how it was portrayed on screen was fascinating.

The animation of the film was something I marveled at, like I always do when I see how animation is done now.  It's changed so much for me, like it has for everyone who grew up with hand-drawn Disney films.  Whenever I see new HD animation for TV shows, I hate it because I think it takes away from the show and makes it look worse, but for films, such as this one from Disney, I think the new technology works since it does it gradually, and it's more consistent and realistic compared to some films and shows.  I'm surprised my stance on animation has changed, since usually when it comes to films, I'm pretty stubborn, but it's time to accept technology and what it can now accomplish.  Personally, I don't think I'll ever be used to it, but it's amazing to think it can make animation look that realistic, making me wonder what's in store for the future...

In the end, despite a frigid first half to the film, "Frozen" is a great film from Disney.  I don't know if it's better than "Wreck-It-Ralph" was (which had similar animation), but since it's about issues that relate to people, I think it was a bit more memorable and stronger.  Regardless of how I feel though, if you enjoy animated films, you'll like this film.  And if you love Disney like I do, I don't think you'll be disappointed.  Yes, some things are poorly tied together, and some songs sound like Carly Rae Jepsen, but it's great to see Disney go back to their roots, and do a film based off a fairy tale so well (even if it is loosely done).  "Frozen" isn't up their with some of the best from the Disney Renaissance, but it's safe to say it has stood out from the pack of recent Disney films.

Film Reviews Beforehand

Yesterday, I talked to one of my friend's I hadn't talked to in ages.  The first thing we did was catch up, but afterward, we immediately talked about what we should do the next time we saw each other.  We both agreed on eating, but he wanted to see "Anchorman 2" once it came out, while I was hesitant.  I like Will Ferrell films (which might surprise some people), but I was low on money, and not as high on this film from what I saw from the trailers.  Because of that, I told him I wanted to see some of its reviews first, but he said he didn't want to do that and would see it regardless.  I respected his motives, but didn't really understand that blindness to films.

When it comes to films, people are split on whether you should read reviews beforehand.  If you read the reviews before you see a film, the plot could be spoiled or your mind could be made up before you even see the film.  But if you don't read the reviews, you run the risk of wasting your money on a potentially terrible film, or being misled by the title.  I suppose it's up to preference what to do, but I wonder how other film critics/viewers feel since we take films seriously.  Artistically, you don't want to be influenced, but as a viewer, you want to know what you're getting yourself into, especially if you have limited funds and rarely see films in theaters like I do.

Of course, whenever conflicted, you can always do what I do and look at the Rotten Tomatoes score, which comprises the ratings of all critics and audience members.  The nice thing here is that while it tells you how others feel about a film, it doesn't spoil things for you, and gives you a percentage of how many people like or dislike a film.  It may feel wrong to leave the choice of seeing a film up to a number, but it seems even worst leaving it blindly to chance.  I don't know if I'll see "Anchorman 2", but I know what I'll be doing beforehand.

Question: How about you guys?  Do you ever look at other critic's reviews or a site like Rotten Tomatoes, or do you just wing it?

The Lion King

The Lion King (G)

Grade: A-

• Directed by: Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff
• Produced by: Don Hahn
• Screenplay by: Irene Mecchi, Johnathan Roberts, and Linda Woolverton.  Based on "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare
• Starring: Matthew Broderick (Adult Simba), James Earl Jones (Mufasa), Jeremy Irons (Scar), Johnathan Taylor Thomas (Young Simba), Moira Kelly (Nala), Nathan Lane (Timon), Ernie Sabella (Pumba), Robert Guillaume (Rafiki), Rowan Atkinson (Zazu), Madge Sinclair (Sarabi), Whoopi Goldberg (Sehnzi), Cheech Marin (Banzai), Jim Cummings (Ed)
• Music by: Hans Zimmer
• Studio: Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Feature Animation
• Distributed by: Buena Vista Pictures
• Released: June 15, 1994
• Running Time: 88 minutes/1 hour and 28 minutes
• Language: English

"You must take your place in the circle of life."

-Mufasa

Father's give advice to their children all the time, but when Mufasa speaks, that's when you stop and listen because he isn't just some regular lion; he's the king of the jungle, brother of Scar, and father of Simba in "The Lion King".  "The Lion King" is arguably one of the most acclaimed and well-known Disney films of all-time, up there with Snow White, Dumbo, Beauty and the Beast, etc.  But for the Disney Renaissance era, there's no doubt it's the top film on most people's list.  I used to feel the same way about it as a child, watching it endlessly and crying and laughing at the same parts, but as I got older, my taste shifted.  And while I appreciated "The Lion King", I wanted to make my own decisions on what I liked.  Not just like it because the majority did, which they did when it came to "The Lion King".  Because of that, I hadn't watched it in years and watched other Disney films in the meantime, but recently, after at least 6 years, I've watched it again and enjoyed it so much, it's like nothing ever changed.

Because "The Lion King" is based off of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet", the plot should be very well known.  Hell, even if you've never read the play, I've never met one person on Earth who has never seen the film.  But I'll still sum it up.  The film starts off with a majestic shot of Pride Rock where Mufasa and his wife Sarabi have given birth to their first son Simba.  As he grows into his youth, he is adventurous and energetic.  Typical for anyone his age, but his uncle Scar on the other hand is miserable.  His life is boring and he despises Mufasa, dreaming of taking his throne for himself.  These are all impractical thoughts by Scar, until one day he plots the ultimate plan with the hyenas, staging a wildebeest stampede to try and kill Mufasa and Simba at once.  He is only half successful though, and Simba runs away to a new life, eventually meeting some new friends along the way.  He's happy where he is, but realizes he must go back and take his place in the circle of life as king like Mufasa said.

"The Lion King" has many highlights as a film overall.  The animation is the first thing I notice because of the drawing of the animals and the environment (which I think is always difficult to achieve).  Plus, researching a little about the film, the animators animated the characters to match their voice actors, which I thought was pretty cool as well.  Credit has to go to the voice cast though.  Animated films always want to get a good cast for publicity, but this film cast roles that fit their character perfectly.  James Earl Jones had the commanding, magnificent, thunderous voice as Mufasa, Matthew Broderick had the innocence he had in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" as Adult Simba, and Johnathan Taylor Thomas had the same youth he had from TV as Young Simba.  Everything worked as a whole.  While, I love James Earl Jones though, I loved Jeremy Irons voice as Scar.  His accent was so diabolical which made his character so cunning, memorable, and twisted.

This film's popularity makes it seem as though it has no flaw's, but it does.  The songs everyone loves such as "Hakuna Matata", "Circle of Life" and others are very entertaining, but they don't touch me the way some other Disney songs do such as "Part of Your World".  No fault of it's own, but that's just my personal taste.  I like funny and whimsical songs, but the memorable, touching songs are ones I enjoy, which I don't think this film has much of.  Also, the characters change, but their action's don't seem too believable because of the pace of the film.  It's too fast, which I expect from a Disney film, but I wish it was longer (like I wish most Disney films were), so we could see more depth to the characters and plot, such as what really happened to Simba when he was with Timon and Pumba.  And lastly, I know the film shouldn't be taken seriously too seriously at times because it's Disney, but I have a hard time believing that all the animals live in harmony when they all eat each other.

But while that may seem unrealistic, one thing that's real is the emotion Simba feels.  He feels sadness when tragedy strikes with his father, anger towards Scar, and friendship with Timon and Pumba who teach him a life with no worries is a wonderful thing.  To me, he might not change that much in the film, and pales in comparison to his dad as a king, but he's so relating as a character, which makes us understand what he's feeling.  Depending on taste, "The Lion King" may or may not be your favorite Disney film, but there's no doubt it changed Disney forever critically and financially the way "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid" did before it.  And as time has gone on, it has become a timed classic, quoted and beloved by all.  Even though it isn't my favorite film, there's no doubt it's the king of the Disney Renaissance era.  Long Live the King!   

The Little Mermaid

The Little Mermaid (G)

Grade: A-

• Directed by: Ron Clements and John Musker
• Produced by: John Musker and Howard Ashman
• Screenplay by: Ron Clements and John Musker.  Based on the novel, "The Little Mermaid" by Hans Christian Andersen
• Starring: Jodi Benson (Ariel), Christopher Daniel Barnes (Prince Eric), Pat Carroll (Ursula), Samuel E. Wright (Sebastian), Jason Marin (Flounder), Kenneth Mars (King Triton), Buddy Hackett (Scuttle), Rene Auberjonois (Louis, The Chef)
• Music: Alan Menken
• Studio: Walt Disney Pictures, Silver Screen Partners IV
• Distributed by: Buena Vista Pictures
• Released: November 14, 1989
• Running Time: 82 minutes/1 hour and 22 minutes
• Language: English, French 

"If only I could make him understand.  I just don't see things the way he does.  I just don't see how a world that makes such beautiful things could be bad."

-Ariel

Renaissance is a word that doesn't resonate much when I first hear it.  Hearing it, I think of art or the Harlem Renaissance, but when I hear Disney Renaissance, it's hard not to think of something because they're the films I grew up on (the way the original Disney films were for the adults before me). The Disney Renaissance, for those of you who don't know, is a time period from the late 1980s to early 2000s when Disney films returned to success by basing films on well-know stories, restoring interest in the genre.  Everyone I know has their own favorite film from this era, but no matter which one we think is our favorite, we all have to agree that "The Little Mermaid" started it all.  As a child, I couldn't stand the film because I hated Ariel, and it seemed too girly, but after revisiting it, I have to say the film pretty much delivers on all accounts if you're a Disney fan.

Like I said before about the Disney Renaissance, they're based on stories we've all heard before.  Even though that's the case, I'll still describe the "The Little Mermaid", which is about a 16 year old girl named Ariel.  She's the princess of King Triton and can have everything she wants, but is dissatisfied with underwater life, and wants to explore the human world.  She goes with her friend Flounder to the surface daily, but when the king and his adviser Sebastian find out, chaos ensues and he has a fit.  After that, Ariel has had enough of her father's rule, so she makes a deal with the Ursula, the sea witch, to become human for 3 days to win the love of a neighboring prince.  But the deal comes at a terrible price for Ariel, and if she doesn't succeed, she stands to lose what everyone loves about her most.

"The Little Mermaid" came out in 1989 so many years ago, but seems so fresh now.  The animation is fresh and vivid, even compared by today's Disney standards, and the characters come to life off the screen.  I liked the Sebastian character because he seemed to have a voice of reason, even though he was indecisive.  But the real star of the film is Jodi Benson, of course, who plays Ariel.  Usually when Disney casts a person to do the voice of a main character, they just do the main voice, and not the singing voice, but I loved the fact Benson got to do both because it helps the audience connect with her more.  Her voice has all of Ariel's desire and innocence in it, which is why "Part Of You World" is one of my favorite Disney songs.

With this film, comes a few flaws I have.  One being no fault of it's own, which is that it's too short.  I wouldn't mind that usually, but since I was so invested in the film, I wish it had been a little longer.  Another thing I couldn't stand was the villain Ursula (a complaint I have with many Disney films).  She's a worthy adversary to Ariel, and tries so hard to get what she wants from her, yet when she is eventually beaten, the way it's done is so quick and unsatisfying.  She's a sea witch, but goes down that easily?!  C'mon!  It seems very hard to believe.  Also, even though I love "Part Of Your World", I didn't really like any other songs from this film.

All in all, "The Little Mermaid" is quality entertainment if you're a Disney fan or just a fan of good films.  That may seem hard to believe for some, but even adults like it (It was on Gene Siskel's Top 10 for 1989).  Like a lot of Disney films, you'll like this film depending on your taste, but I think this film is worth seeing for the sole fact that it accurately represents a way we've all felt before in real life; that desire to grow up and be accepted in the world, which isn't easy, yet "The Little Mermaid" shows these things effortlessly.  It's not my favorite Disney film, but after watching this, it's not hard to see why this is one of the the film's that helped jump-start Disney in the 1990s.

The Social Network

The Social Network (PG-13)

Grade: B+

• Directed by: David Fincher
• Produced by: Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca, and Cean Chaffin
• Screenplay by: Aaron Sorkin.  Based on the novel, "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich
• Starring: Jesse Eisenberg (Mark Zuckerberg), Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin), Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker), Armie Hammer (Winklevoss Twins/Josh Pence), Max Minghella (Divya Narenda), Brenda Song (Christy Ling), Rooney Mara (Erica Albright)
• Cinematographer: Jeff Cronenweth
• Music by: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
• Studio: Relativity Media, Trigger Street Productions
• Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
• Released: October 1, 2010
• Running Time: 121 minutes/2 hours and 1 minute
• Language: English

"You have part of my attention, you have the minimum amount.  The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing."

-Mark Zuckerberg

The statistics on Facebook currently are staggering when you look at it.  As of 2012, it has over 1 billion users (about 9% fake), and recently raked in 5.1 billion dollars.  Not bad for a company started by a group of Harvard students less than a decade ago, which "The Social Network" wanted to show.  The film seems ridiculous based on it's concept (a film on Facebook, really?), but after watching it, I have to say the film is as close to a masterpiece as can be, besides a few minor flaws. 

When we are introduced to "The Social Network", we encounter a young Mark Zuckerberg sitting in a bar with his current girlfriend Erica.  She's interested in his conversation at first, but is put off by his attitude towards exclusive clubs, so she dumps him, a decision he doesn't find favorable.  Because of this, Mark and his friend Eduardo Saverin create a site called "Facemesh" to rate girls based on their appearance.  The thing is, it gets so popular that it crashes parts of Harvard's network, getting Mark in trouble.  On the upside, he gets notoriety, which leads him to the Winklevoss Twins, two people who can potentially help him start Facebook, but what leads from their helps drive the film to its core.

There are so many things I love about "The Social Network" that I don't know where to begin.  First off, I love the cast from Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, all the way to Justin Timberlake, which surprised me since I'm not a fan of his, but he and everyone did a fantastic job in this film.  Eisenberg was the cold, deadlocked person I expected a businessman to be, Garfield was the vulnerable friend I had most sympathy for, and Timberake was just an obnoxious asshole.  Any performance can leave an impact on a person, but everyone interacted so well as a whole, and when they had a scene together that was joyous or gut-wrenching, I felt it.  Secondly, I love the attention to detail they gave to things like the look of Harvard even though it really wasn't.  And lastly, I give praise to the screenplay because I never thought a film about Facebook would be an interesting film, but as usual, Aaron Sorkin just writes great screenplays.  

The only flaws I had with "The Social Network" relate to Aaron Sorkin though.  And while he does write terrific screenplays, there are some flaws I noticed with it.  Although they seem more personal to my taste, such as the film seeming to be misogynistic.  Also, he made the characters the strength of the film, but I wish he focused more on how Facebook was actually built, since I don't think he spent as much time on that, and everything he did show seemed simplistic.  I'm not complaining since I enjoyed the film, but as a everyday person, it would be interesting to see how everything is really done.

With everything I've said about "The Social Network", the pros outweigh the cons.  If you see it once, I think you'll be impressed by it, but after seeing it a few times like I have, its lost its luster like a lot of Aaron Sorkin screenplays (i.e, Moneyball).  The reason why I think everyone should see the film though is because everyone is basically on Facebook now, so I think people should at least see how something they use got created, even if it is loosely based.  Also, I think it accurately shows that Facebook may keep everyone connected online, but it doesn't necessarily serve it's purpose of keeping people friends.  Cyber friends can never be a substitute for real ones, which this film poetically shows, and is the reason why I don't have a Facebook anymore.

No Country For Old Men

No Country For Old Men (R)

Grade: C

• Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
• Produced by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, and Scott Rudin
• Screenplay by: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen.  Based on the novel, "No Country For Old Men" by Cormac McCarthy
• Starring: Tommy Lee Jones (Sheriff Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Kelly Macdonald (Carla Jean Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Garret Dillahunt (Deputy Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Beth Grant (Agnes), Stephen Root (Man Who Hires Chigurh)
• Cinematographer: Roger Deakins
• Distributed by: Miramax Films, Paramount Vintage
• Release Date: November 9, 2007
• Running Time: 122 minutes/2 hours and 2 minutes
• Language: English

"What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?"

-Anton Chigurh

When I see a question like this posed to me, my instantaneous thought is to trading card games, such as Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh, since those are the things I've lost the most on when it comes to coin tosses.  Of course, when it comes to "No Country For Old Men" by the Coen Brothers, it's a completely different story.  Coin flips lose more than battles, they can cost you your life, but I'm getting ahead of myself. 

In the film world, few directors are more acclaimed and respected as the Coen Brothers.  They may not be a household name to the casual fan since they're not Spielberg or Lucas, but their films are just as good as there's.  Of course, it depends on genre and personal taste like everything.  The Coen Brothers films are usually a mix of being comedy, satirical, or thriller.  But then occasionally, they do "No Country For Old Men", which is a western, but really isn't since there are no saloons, no cowboys like John Wayne, and a villain unlike anything Texas has seen before.

Trying to describe a Coen Brothers plot to a film is like trying to have a quick walk through a maze; it just isn't going to happen no matter how hard I try because their films are hard to figure out.  Their plots start off making sense, but what their characters do during their films has you scratching your head, and saying "WTF"?!  This film is no different.  It starts off in 1980 with Llewelyn Moss coming across a drug deal gone bad.  Everything that went down there is over with, and he's about to leave, until he finds two million dollars in a satchel.  Like any normal person, he takes the money, but doesn't know that hitman and murderer Anton Chigurh is after him.  And on the trail of Chigurh is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, leading to a chase that will lead to an epic climax.

My praise for the film starts with Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, who portray good vs. evil so well.  Jones is the sheriff who will do everything in his power to stop crime, while Bardem, who is Chigurh, does everything he can to wreck havoc, sometimes intentionally and other times not.  Bardem doesn't need an introduction since he's an accomplished actor, but this was the role that American audiences first really saw what he was capable of.  He was dangerous, yet an enigma at the same time.  And it's hard not to pay attention to his charisma and looks, especially with what he deemed "the worst haircut of all time".  Yet, we did pay attention, and because of that, Chigurh is one of film's great recent villains and performances, giving Bardem his much deserved Oscar.  Along with that, there's humor and tension in many scenes, keeping you on the edge of your set.

Even though I loved the performances in the film and the dramatic tension, there were many things I didn't like about it.  For one thing, as excited as I was for the film, I thought it dragged on a lot during certain scenes.  And when Llewelyn leaves the film for a time, the film just seems less interesting because the main character you've been following now is gone.  In a few films, like "Psycho", it worked cause Norman Bates was just as important and interesting, but as great a job as Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem did, I don't think you can say any of their characters answered questions.  They just left me more confused, which was okay, but it left me feeling empty at many points during the film, especially the ending, which I won't even get into because it was such a letdown.

I know I'm in the minority giving the "No Country For Old Men" a C, but I'm doing it based on all the things I didn't like about it, and the fact that I have seen so many Coen Brothers films that I thought were better, such as "Fargo", "The Big Lebowski", and "The Hudsucker Proxy".  My grade is based only on the fact I didn't enjoy it, which is rare for me since usually I take everything into account when judging this film.  But you shouldn't think you won't enjoy this film, because if you enjoy the Coen Brothers, or just good, well-made films, this might be the one for you.  For me, this just wasn't, but it's clear the Coen Brothers are still on top of their game.

Finding Forrester

Finding Forrester (PG-13)

Grade: B+

• Directed by: Gus Vant Sant
• Produced by: Sean Connery and Laurence Mark
• Screenplay by: Mike Rich
• Starring: Sean Connery (William Forrester), Rob Brown (Jamal Wallace), F. Murray Abraham (Professor Robert Crawford), Anna Paquin (Claire), Busta Rhymes (Terrel), April Grace (Ms. Joyce)
• Cinematographer: Harris Savides
• Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
• Released: December 19, 2000
• Running Time: 136 minutes/2 hours and 16 minutes
• Language: English

 "Not exactly a soup question, now is it?"

-Jamal Wallace

To some, writing may just be words on a page, but to others who take it seriously, it's much more than that.  Writing can be the key to a person's future or their escape, which is the case with Jamal Wallace, the main character in the film "Finding Forrester".  The film may be simple with its presentation, and the plot may be something we've all seen before, but it's still touching for me, as an aspiring writer who has never been able to fit in with my surroundings well.

"Finding Forrester" begins with 16 year old Jamal Wallace being awakened by his mother to go play basketball with the friends he's grown up with his whole life.  He's so good that he breaks his friend's ankles on a daily basis.  But that's not the only thing that happens daily.  Jamal and his friends are constantly watched by a presence called "The Window' from an upstairs apartment.  No one knows who he is, but there are crazy stories going around about him.  Jamal's friends are scared, but he isn't, so he's dared to break into the apartment.  Problem is, that "The Window" finds him, and chases him off, causing Jamal to run and leave his book bag.  When he gets it back, we find out that he's really a writer at heart, not a baller, and "The Window" has more of a reputation than what Jamal's friend's say.  What happens from there helps jump start the film.   

The film's strength starts with the chemistry of the cast.  Sean Connery is a master and pro, but he gets along so well with newcomer Rob Brown, which I found particularly surprising, since I've seen so many young actors struggle with well-known actors, but Brown held up his demeanor well with Connery, and all the other cast members.  The film, with a mentor-student plot, is something familiar, especially when talking about Gus Vant Sant, but for me, it's reassuring since very few films like this can be made now without it being stale. 

Although I have my praise, there are a few minor things I thought took away from the film.  I liked most of the characters, but there were some, such as Claire that I thought served no purpose.  Sure, she's supposed to be the love interest of Jamal, but their time together is never expanded on, which I wanted to see out of her and other characters.  Also, the film felt like it dragged on, which may help for a film like this, but for someone who isn't patient, 136 minutes is a lot to ask for.  Lastly, I thought this film reminded me too much of "Good Will Hunting", which isn't a bad thing, but if you're director Gus Vant Sant, you should try to make two of your films as completely different as possible.  Otherwise, that seems like lazy film-making. 

In the end, "Finding Forrester" has more cons than pros, which may have you on the fence of seeing this film or not.  To me though, you should see this film because it accurately depicts life.  I'm not talking about how it depicts urban life.  I'm talking about how it shows the struggle young people have making decisions in life.  Whether or not they should leave their friends for a better life or whether or not they should follow their dreams?  These are all problems we must deal with eventually, and I think this film gives an honest depiction with it.  Along with that, since I'm an aspiring writer, it's nice to see a film about us that makes us seem human for once.  Everyone sometimes thinks writers are special people, but we're regular people just like everyone else trying to make it in the world.  We just talk and write more.  

Groundhog Day

Groundhog Day (PG)

Grade: A+

• Directed by: Harold Ramis
• Produced by: Trevor Albert and Harold Ramis
• Screenplay: Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis
• Starring: Bill Murray (Phil Connors), Andie McDowell (Rita), Chris Elliot (Larry), Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned Ryerson), Brian Doyle-Murray (Buster Green), Harold Ramis (Neurologist)
• Cinematographer: John Bailey
• Music by: George Fenton
• Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
• Released: February 12, 1993
• Running Time: 101 minutes/1 hour and 41 minutes
• Language: English 

 

The 4th of July was yesterday, but the only day on my mind is "Groundhog Day".  NO!  Not the day itself, the film with Bill Murray.  I'll be honest; I had no expectations coming into this film because I had never heard of it, and the fact my friend bought at a store in a CD case for $2, but man, was I glad he did.  This film is great!

"Groundhog Day" has a premise we're all familiar with (which is ironic considering what the film is about).  What would you do if you woke up and relived one day over and over again?  To some, that would be a dream, but it's a nightmare for Phil Connors, a TV weatherman who has that happen to him on Groundhog Day.  He already hates his job, and the people he works with, so when this happen, he wants to kill himself, but eventually he makes the best out of the situation, leading to hilarious and touching results.

For a film this good, there's lots of praise that can be spread around.  The film has a great plot, it's well written, and the jokes are a riot and memorable (if/when you watch it, you'll see what I mean), but the winner of this award has to go to Harold Ramis and Bill Murray.  Ramis deserves praise for obvious reason.  He directed, produced, wrote, and even starred in the film, but he was the one who cast Murray as the lead, a pivotal decision which put the film over the top.  To be honest, I'm haven't seen Bill Murray in many films besides his classic films like "Ghostbusters", but I knew from his previous roles he would be funny and sarcastic.  I was right about that, but I didn't expect him to show the range he'd end up having in this film.  Yes, he's an a**hole at times that you don't root for, but as you delve deeper into the film, it's obvious Phil Connors is more than he seems.

"Groundhog Day" is a film with so many strengths, but the one reason why I now love it and recommend it is the connection it has to real life.  We all wish or at least contemplate what our lives would be like if we could relive one day constantly.  Now, our dream/fantasy is finally on the big screen, and it doesn't just show the joy and humor some of us would have; it shows the sadness, and loneliness we'd have knowing that we could never see the people we love again or move on from situations.  At the same time, the film shows that any person can change, even the bad ones for the better. "Groundhog Day" may of been made 20 years ago, but it's messages still apply, and it's worth seeing if you're a fan of films.  And that's something I don't need a groundhog to know.

Man Of Steel

Man Of Steel (PG-13)

Grade: B+

• Directed by: Zack Snyder
• Produced by: Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, and Deborah Synder
• Screenplay by: David S. Goyer
• Starring: Henry Cavill (Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (General Zod), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), Antje Traue (Faora), Ayelet Zorer (Lara Lor-Van), Harry Lennix (Lieutenant General Swanwick), Christopher Meloni (Colonel Nathaniel Hardy), Richard Schiff (Dr. Emil Hamilton)
• Cinematographer: Amir Mokri
• Music by: Hans Zimmer
• Studio: Legendary Pictures, Syncopy, DC Entertainment
• Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures
• Released: June 14, 2013
• Running Time: 143 minutes/2 hours and 23 minutes
• Language: English

"You're not just anyone.  One day, you're going to have to make a choice.  You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be.  Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world."

-Johnathan Kent

Superman is the most famous superhero of all time.  And when it comes to his powers, few are equal to him, but when it comes to films though, Superman has had his share of hits and misses.  "Superman I" and "Superman II" were great, but all the ones that followed after were duds.  As time passed, the films and actors have changed with the times.  We've gone from Christopher Reeve, to Brandon Routh, to now, Henry Cavill, in the newest Superman flick "Man Of Steel".  I didn't have many expectations coming into this film since the original trailers didn't show much, and I'm generally not a huge fan of the superhero genre, but "Man Of Steel" was a film that I thoroughly enjoyed, despite not being perfect.

"Man Of Steel" doesn't present anything new to us.  Instead, it combines the plots of "Superman I" and "Superman II", focusing on Jor-El /Krypton, General Zod, and of course Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman.  The film starts off showing Kal-El's birth, then shows how closely Kyrpton is to destruction because of it's unstable core.  Jor-El has a plan to save it, but General Zod has a plan to save it too, that doesn't involve everyone, leading to mass violence.  He murders Jor-El, but not before he sends his son off to planet Earth, with something he wants.  For his crime, General Zod and his accomplices are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone, but they eventually break out, vowing to find Jor El's son.  The rest of the film shows Kal-El, who is now Clark Kent, and how he must adapt to life on Earth with his ever-growing powers, enemies, and life problems.

The praise of "Man Of Steel", starts with Henry Cavill, who played Superman in a way I haven't seen since Christopher Reeve.  He's handsome like Reeve was, pulled off a decent enough Clark Kent, (which is always difficult in the Superman films), and he brought sensitivity to the character, which was rare to see, since Superman is basically indestructible, yet Cavill showed with his acting that even a superhero has emotions he must deal with.  Cavill wasn't alone though; I thought Russell Crowe did a great job as Jor-El too because he was a strong, knowledgeable male figure, with an actual important role in the film, which is something I couldn't say with Marlon Brando in "Superman I".  Along with the acting, the fight scenes are fun to watch.  Some of them may drag on, or be Dragon Ball Z/video game-like, but if you're like me, then you just like watching Superman beat the crap out of people.  It's good triumphing over evil.  What can be better than that?      

Of course, with the praise, comes criticism, and "Man Of Steel" has that.  Like I said before, the film doesn't present anything new in terms of plot, which isn't a bad thing, but if you're an old school Superman fan, I can see why that would be boring, like in the flashback scenes for instance.  They may be helpful, but we all know the story so well, that it's distracting, and interrupts the flow of the film.  Another flaw I saw with the film, which may just be something I feel, is the lack of excitement for the cast.  Amy Adams is good looking, and I like Kevin Costner and Laurence Fishburne, but they didn't fit their parts or do much in the film at times, so to me, they were a waste, and just a ploy by the film to sell tickets.

With everything I've just said though, "Man Of Steel" is a good film that I recommend worth seeing if you're a fan of the original film, animated series, or just Superman in general.  It has a few flaws, but they don't take away from the work Henry Cavill did, or the achievement "Man Of Steel" is.  Sure, you could argue it's like "Superman Returns", but this film pays homage to two of the original films, instead of one, and it just looks better, let's be honest!  I know reception to this film is varied, but give it a chance.  It might surprise you like it did me.  Or I may just like it because I'm still a kid inside, and part of me just loves seeing Superman return, looking the part, kicking butt, and saving the world.  Superman is back everyone, and he's here to stay!

(500) Days Of Summer

(500) Days Of Summer (PG-13)

Grade: F

• Directed by: Marc Webb
• Produced by: Mason Novick, Jessica Tuchinsky, Mark Waters, Steven J. Wolfe, and Scott G. Hyman
• Screenplay by: Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber
• Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tom Hansen), Zooey Deschanel (Summer Finn), Geoffrey Arend (McKenzie), Chloe Grace Moretz (Rachel Hansen), Matthew Grey Gubler (Paul), Clark Gregg (Vance), Patricia Belcher (Millie), Rachel Boston (Alison), Minka Kelly (Autumn)
• Cinematographer: Eric Steelberg
• Music by: Mychael Danna and Rob Simonsen
• Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures
• Released: January 17, 2009 (Sundance), August 7, 2009 (US)
• Running Time: 95 minutes/1 hour and 35 minutes
• Language: English

"You weren't wrong, Tom.  You were just wrong about me."

-Summer Finn

He wasn't the only one; I was wrong too.  Zooey Deschanel's character, Summer Finn, says the quote above when she's talking to Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, Tom Hansen, after revealing the truth to him following their breakup.  You may think that I'm spoiling some of the plot to you by revealing some of this, but I'm not.  The plot of this film is predictable.  Unfortunately, that's not the only flaw "(500) Days of Summer has".  It has many flaws, and that's what makes it a terrible film.

"(500) Days Of Summer" is about two people: Tom, an architect at a greeting card company, and Summer, a woman who doesn't believe in true love.  The film shows their time spent together over 500 days (like that's clever) in non-linear format, showing the ups and downs of their relationship.  We see them go through the ups and downs all couples go through, from their happiest moments to their arguments, which eventually lead to their breakup.  What happens from there is anticlimactic.

I realize I didn't say much about the plot, but that's because I don't think this film has much plot.  To be honest, this film doesn't have much of anything in it, besides a lot of fluff.  "(500) Days Of Summer" received acclaim from critics and audiences alike, but I can't see why that's the case.  The film has unlikeable characters, music blaring throughout the film (which is distracting), with a plot that is completely predictable and humorless.  When it comes to romance films, usually people hate them because of their predictability and cheesiness, but they give this a pass?  It doesn't make sense! 

Even looking at some of positive things people had to say of the film, like "it was realistic" or "Tom and Summer look good together", how could they think this?!  Sure, it's realistic that relationships are looked back on in non-linear format, but it's not realistic for a grown man to ask for love advice from his kid sister!  As for the characters, they're not realistic because they're both attractive, so I have a hard time believing they would struggle meeting somebody like real people would.  Also, their personalities made them completely unlikable.  Tom's a cynical asshole, while Summer is a fickle woman.  I honestly wish neither of them found happy endings, but we all know how these types of films have to end.

As you're reading this, you probably think I'm a monster and cynical, but watch the film, and I think you'll agree.  Personally, I've tried numerous times to ask a woman out, and have failed many times.  I saw things I did duplicated in this film, but I didn't feel sorry for the characters for the reasons I stated above.  When a film has this much wrong with it, it's hard to give a damn about it, which is how I feel about "(500) Days Of Summer".

In hindsight, "(500) Days Of Summer" never had a chance to succeed for me because I had high expectations of the film, as well as my own preconceived notion of love.  If you come into the film with an open mind, and believe love is what's shown on the screen, then you may like this, but I think anyone who's like me won't like this film because there are just better films and love stories.  Some of the critics said this film was like "Annie Hall" or "When Harry Met Sally", which are two classic love/romance films.  "(500) Days Of Summer" is like them, but only because it copies scenes from them.  It isn't original, it's just actors and actresses re-acting the scenes hoping to get some reaction.  The way this film is, I'd rather see a "Twilight" film for romance because at least Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson fit together in terms of paleness.  It's harsh, but it's the truth.  "(500) Days Of Summer" is titled what it is, but it should honestly be called (500) Days of Crap or (500) Days Of Hell because I never want to spend 95 minutes watching this film again for any reason.  If you want a real romance watch "Annie Hall", "Casablanca", "Manhattan", "When Harry Met Sally", etc, cause this film should hibernate for all seasons forever. 

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop (R)

Grade: B-

• Directed by: Rodman Flender
• Starring: Conan O'Brien, Andy Richter, Jimmy Vivino, Scott Healy, Mike Merritt, James Wormworth, Jerry Vivino, Mark Pender, Richie Rosenberg
• Studio: Pariah
• Released: June 24, 2011
• Running Time: 89 minutes/1 hour and 29 minutes
• Language: English

Very rarely will I ever review a film that I haven't fully seen all the way through, but in the case of "Conan O'Brien Can't Stop", where I missed about 10 minutes of the film, I couldn't pass up the chance to review it after finishing it.  Why, you ask?  The reason why I had to review it is because I was fascinated with Conan O'Brien like many people were when the fiasco at NBC happened, and he got kicked from The Tonight Show by Jay Leno.  I only knew what I knew about the situation from information online and on TV, but now through this film, I was able to get an inside look on how Conan felt about everything.

The film, which is really a documentary, follows Conan after getting axed from The Tonight Show.  It shows his thought process dealing with what happened, then shows what he plans do with his life now that the network he has called home for years betrayed him.  Knowing about his education and background at The Simpsons, I knew Conan was an intelligent man, but what I was amazed by was how quickly he improvised and thought of ideas for his tour, which a majority of the documentary follows.  It was interesting to see the master at work, but at the same time, it was a bit sad because on the surface, he seemed cheerful, but behind closed doors, you could see the frustration and anger he had at NBC for what they did to him.  He lashed his feelings at friends and coworkers, which was surprising, but completely understandable considering the situation.  Even though Conan was depressed, we see glimpses of happiness, like when he's with his family, which to me was the highlight of the documentary, besides the ending, which ends when Conan starts his new gig on TBS.

So why did I give this documentary only a B-?  Some of my reasoning is because I missed some of the film, but my other reasoning is because I found parts of the film boring.  Don't get me wrong, everything with Conan glued me to the screen, but the documentary focused too much on the people he worked with.  And while it's nice to see all the people behind the scenes who don't get the credit they usually deserve, when I see something with Conan O'Brien, I want to see more Conan O'Brien.  Also, I think Rodman Flender, the director, tried too much to integrate humor into the film.  There were instances when I thought the humor was necessary, but other times when it wasn't.  It's good to see Conan O'Brien can't stop working and making people laugh, but I honestly wished their was more time when he was alone and venting because that showed a side of Conan that we as viewers rarely see.  I may be in the minority on that, but it's what I wanted.

"Conan O'Brien Can't Stop" isn't a bad film or a bad documentary, but if you're not into his work, then I don't think you'll be interested in the film or like it.  If you are, then enjoy another piece of work involving Conan.  It's not the best thing I've ever seen with him, but this is the closest I'll ever get to seeing the real Conan, which is honestly what makes this worth seeing.

From Russia With Love

From Russia With Love (PG)

Grade: A+

• Directed by: Terrence Young
• Produced by: Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli
• Screenplay by: Richard Maibaum and Johanna Harwood.  Based on From Russia With Love by Ian Fleming
• Starring: Sean Connery (James Bond), Daniela Bianchi (Tatiana Romanova), Pedro Armendariz (Kerim Bay), Lotte Lenya (Rosa Klebb), Robert Shaw (Donald "Red" Grant), Bernard Lee (M), Walter Gotell (Morenzy), Vladek Sheybal (Kronsteen), ? (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny,  Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Eunice Gayson (Sylvia Trench)
• Cinematographer: Ted Moore
• Music by: John Barry
• Studio: Eon Productions
• Distributed by: United Artists
• Released: October 10, 1963 (London), October 11, 1963 (UK)
• Running Time: 115 minutes/1 hour and 55 minutes
• Language: English

"There's a saying in England: Where there's smoke, there's fire."

-James Bond

When James Bond says the quote above, he's in a speedboat being chased by bad guys.  Things don't look good for him, until he shoots a flare gun at oil drums he dropped, causing a fire, which engulfs the surrounding water.  Yes, the scene has all of that, but "From Russia With Love" has so much more compared to the previous Bond film "Dr. No".  It has love, introduction to gadgets, and best of all, memorable villains who are worthy to our hero.  The first time I saw "From Russia With Love" as a child, I didn't like it, but now that I'm older, I think it's one of, if not, the best James Bond film.

"From Russia With Love" is about revenge, at least in the beginning.  The villainous organization SPECTRE has a plan to get back at James Bond for a past vendetta.  Number 1 is the leader of the organization, and hires Number 3 and Number 5 for the assignment.  Number 5 (Kronsteen), is a chess master who has planned out every possible outcome, while Number 3 (Klebb) has to run his plan.  Their plan is to lure James Bond with a Lektor decoding machine, which is an object the British Secret Service and CIA have wanted for years.  As expected, Bond takes the job, but when Tatiana Romanova is set up as well, sparks fly and things get difficult, especially with a killer following them.

Sean Connery is still top notch as 007, but he's not alone.  In my opinion, the whole cast is great in this movie.  Vladek Sheybal looks the part of a chess master, Lotte Lenya really looks like an evil old woman, and Number 1?  Well, we don't see his face in this film, but his presence is felt by his actions, and of course, the white cat he always holds.  Along with the villains though, there's Daniela Bianchi and Pedro Armendariz as Bond's allies.  They get significantly more screen time, so we see their relationship with Bond evolve, which is a strange, yet wonderful sight to see.  

That's what I think is so great about "From Russia With Love".  Yes, it came out a long time ago, but it set the early standard for what Bond films would eventually have.  It has a pre-title sequence, gadgets, stunts, and villains, but the plot isn't ridiculous or video gamey like some of the later Bonds will be.  The relationship with Bond and Tatiana is also wonderful because we see how much they care for each other, which makes us root for them, and keeps us glued to the screen.

Bond fans everywhere will have different opinions on who the best Bond is, and what the best film in the series is, but if you ask me, it's "From Russia With Love".  Like I said before, it's not something I always thought, but re-watching it again, I saw myself being caught up in the love affair the was 007.  I may not know all there is about films, but I know what I like, and "From Russia With Love" is one of those films.

Dr. No

Dr. No (PG)

Grade: A-

• Directed by: Terence Young
• Produced by: Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli
• Screenplay by: Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, and Berkley Mather.  Based on Dr. No by Ian Fleming
• Starring: Sean Connery (James Bond), Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder), Joseph Wiseman (Dr. No), Jack Lord (Felix Leiter), Bernard Lee (M), Anthony Dawson (Professor Dent), John Kitzmiller (Quarrel), Zena Marshall (Miss Taro), Eunice Gayson (Sylvia Trench), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) 
• Cinematographer: Ted Moore
• Music by: Monty Norman
• Studio: Eon Productions
• Distributed by: United Artists
• Released: October 5, 1962
• Running Time: 109 minutes/1 hour and 49 minutes
• Language: English

"Bond...James Bond"

-James Bond

The first time I remember being exposed to James Bond 007, was when I was a child reading Ian Fleming's novels.  My dad had a huge volume of his works, so I read them all at school, or whenever I had spare time.  I didn't understand anything since the dialogue was too intricate for my young mind, but after being exposed to James Bond, I knew I would never forget the name.  Then one Saturday night, out of nowhere, I saw "Dr. No" on ABC.  I was confused because the film was nothing like I pictured it, but I watched it anyways, starting a love affair that still continues to this day.
  

"Dr. No" starts off with a British Intelligence Station Chief named Strangways, who gets ambushed and killed in Jamaica.  After British Secret Service gets news of this, they send their best Agent, James Bond 007, to Jamaica to investigate what happened.  He doesn't find much at first, but with clever tactics, he finds that everything leads to Crab Key and the mysterious Dr. No. 

I realize that I didn't say much about the plot, but that's only because not much happens in the "Dr. No".  I know that seems hard to believe, considering what all the recent Bond films have been like, but that's really the case.  It's the first film, so it's likely the filmmakers were just trying to get a feel for the series, and the Bond formula we're all so accustomed too.  Despite being unlike modern Bond films, there is a car chase, fight scene, and beautiful women, including the beautiful Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder.

The star of the film though is Sean Connery.  No doubt, we all know what a great actor he is now, but back then, he was basically unknown besides a few roles.  In fact, he was so unlike Ian Fleming's depiction of Bond, that he was almost passed over until fate changed things.  Everyone has their own preference of Bond, but true fans will always know Connery is the best.  He's sexy, suave, smooth, charming, but at the same time, you know he's knowledgeable and can kick your ass.  Not to mention, his dialogue and accent play well to the character, and he has unbelievable chemistry with everyone in the cast as they'll tell you.  "Dr. No" has some memorable moments, but none more memorable than this one (which reminds me of how Alfred Hitchcock introduces characters in some of his films).

The immortal introduction and soundtrack

So overall, "Dr. No" is a good Bond film.  Not great compared to "From Russia With Love" or "Goldfinger" because the villain doesn't appear much in the film (among some other small flaws), but it's a good introduction to the franchise.  I know some of you are wondering why I gave such a high grade to a "good" film, but my answer is because of the way the film made me feel then, and how it makes me feel now.  After seeing "Dr. No" as a child, I was obsessed with Bond to the point that I played James Bond at the playground more than tag.  Because I'm older, I'm not as addicted to Bond as I was then, but I still love it, and wish I could be him (or at least Sean Connery for that matter).  I know that's impossible, but I can still dream, and "Dr. No" was the first film to get me started on that.  The James Bond franchise may be 50 years old now, but "Dr. No" shows the attraction people have to him, and why he still matters to film lovers everywhere.    

Last Tango In Paris

Last Tango In Paris (NC-17)

Grade: D+

• Directed by: Bernardo Bertolucci
• Produced by: Alberto Grimaldi
• Screenplay by: Bernardo Bertolucci, Franco Arcalli, and Agnes Varda (French Dialogue)
• Starring: Marlon Brando (Paul), Marie Schneider (Jeanne), Jean-Pierre Leaud (Tom), Massimo Girotti (Marcel), Veronica Lazar (Rosa), Maria Michi (Rosa's Mother), Catherine Allegret (Catherine), Darling Legitimus (Concierge), Gitt Magrini (Jeanne's Mother)
• Cinematographer: Vittorio Storaro
• Music by: Gato Barbieri
• Distributed by: United Artists
• Released: December 15, 1972 (US)
• Running Time: 129 minutes/2 hours and 9 minutes
• Language: English, French

I know what you're thinking as you look at this poster with two people being intimate with each other.  What the hell is this film about, am I right?  Well, whether I'm right or not about how you feel, that basically describes how I felt after watching "Last Tango In Paris".  The film, which is described as an art house film, stars one of the greatest actors of all time, Marlon Brando, in a great acting performance, but even he can't save this film.

Brando plays a man named Paul, who mourns the death of his wife after she has committed suicide.  He goes to rent an apartment, where he meets a woman named Jeanne.  They have an instant attraction to each other, causing them to have sexual relations.  It's supposed to be a one time thing, but they like it so much, they want to keep on doing it.  The only catch is that they can't tell each other any personal information about themselves, not even their names.  Because of that, the film explores their relationship, and the difficulty trying to maintain these rules. 

The only positive I saw in this film was Brando's performance, which was enigmatic and polarizing.  We see two sides of Brando in this film, which are very interesting.  There's a positive, sexual, aggressive side that we see whenever he's with Jeanne, and we see a man in true agony when he mourns the death of his wife.  It's no surprise Brando nails it since the man was/is a legend, but it's a shock seeing the extent to which his feelings are magnified.  There's a great scene where Brando gives a soliloquy of sorts to his wife's body.  He pours all his emotion into that speech, and even though he's acting, it feels like everything he's saying is real.

In terms of the negatives, I don't know where to begin.  The pacing is long, which always bothers me for any film, but for this film especially, I could feel it.  I know the film had to give time to develop relationships and to show the past, but it didn't have to be this slow, especially when most of the dialogue is confusing.  The thing that really hurt this film though, and I mean REALLY hurt this, was the Jeanne character.  Marie Schneider did a good job acting and had good chemistry with Brando, but as a feminist, I was appalled at one scene that had sodomy in it.  I won't go into any more detail, but I was really offended by it, so this film took a huge hit because of that.

Bernardo Bertolucci is one of the most intriguing directors I've ever seen.  A film like this is really personal and focuses on relationships and psyche, but I've seen other films by him like "The Last Emperor", which is made on the grand scale.  The latter film is more my type compared to this which is art-house and misogynistic in some ways.  I'm not one to judge though.  Even though I didn't like this movie, and was disappointed in it because of all my expectations doesn't mean I don't think you would enjoy it.  It's just not for everyone as the rating and poster suggest. 

The Wizard Of Oz

The Wizard Of Oz (G)

Grade: A+

• Directed by: Victor Fleming
• Produced by: Mervyn LeRoy
• Screenplay by: Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allan Woolf.  Based on the novel "The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz" by L. Frank Baum
• Starring: Judy Garland (Dorothy Gale), Frank Morgan (The Wizard,  Professor Marvel, Doorman, Cabbie, Guard), Ray Bolger(Hunk/Scarecrow), Jack Haley (Hickory/Tin Man), Bert Lahr (Zeke/ Cowardly Lion), Billie Burke (Glinda The Good Witch Of The North), Margaret Hamilton (Miss Almira Gulch/The Wicked Witch Of The West), Clara Blandick (Aunt Em), Charley Grapewin (Uncle Henry), Pat Walsh (Nikko The Head Flying Monkey), Terry (Toto)
• Cinematographer: Harold Rosson
• Music by: Herbert Stothart, Harold Arlen, and E.Y. Harburg
• Studio: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
• Distributed by: Loew's
• Released: August 25, 1939
• Running Time: 101 minutes/1 hour and 41 minutes
• Language: English

"There's no place like home."

-Dorothy Gale
 

It seems fitting to me that the first classic film review for my blog is "The Wizard Of Oz", arguably one of the best and most watched films of all time.  I first saw the film as a child, thinking it was just another run of the mill film, but as I got older, I started to realize what a masterpiece it was.  I'm 21 years old now, and have seen my share of film's, but few move me and bring me back to my childhood/home as much as "The Wizard Of Oz".

We start off in Kansas, where a young farm girl named Dorothy is running from Miss Gulch because she wants to take her dog Toto away for biting her.  Dorothy doesn't want to give her dog away, so she tries telling her aunt, uncle, and the farmhands about her problems, but they are too preoccupied to pay any attention to her.  When she finally does get attention from her aunt, she tells Dorothy to "find herself a place where she won't get herself into any trouble".  Dorothy doesn't know if such a place exists, but she sings about going over the rainbow because she thinks that might be the place.  After singing, Dorothy decides to run away from home with Toto because she knows that Miss Gulch will be back.  As she tries leaving Kansas, she meets Professor Marvel, who has a crystal ball telling her that Aunt Em is sick.  Dorothy rushes back home after hearing the news, but in the midst of it, gets caught in a storm and hits her head.  When she awakens, she finds herself in Munchkinland, but has to deal with The Wicked Witch Of The West, who wants revenge on Dorothy for killing her sister, and because she wants her ruby slippers.  The only way to get home, follow the Yellow Brick Road to Emerald City and visit the Wizard Of Oz, who can grant any wish.

The film has many strengths as a whole, but the thing I always remember from it is Judy Garland and her immortal performance as Dorothy.  Yes, her singing of "Over The Rainbow" is wonderful and brings tears to my eyes, but she's so much more than that song.  She's wonderful because of the innocence she has, and the fact that she's so realistic, we feel what she's feeling.  We want to leave home when she wants to leave home, and when she meets all her friends, we want her to succeed even more.  

"The Wizard Of Oz" is Judy Garland's defining role in film history, which is a shame cause most people haven't even seen some of her other film's like A Star Is Born or her movies with Mickey Rooney, which I highly recommend.  She was one of the most beautiful actresses and singers of all time in my opinion, which is why it's shame what her life was like with the drug and alcohol abuse, that really started because of the film industry.  I'm disappointed in what films did to Judy, but I'm glad she has at least one film and song that will last forever.  Not many people can say they have that.

In the end, "The Wizard Of Oz" is a simple plot, with old special special effects, sets, etc, but that's why it's a authentic.  As adults, we notice how cheap it looks now, but as children, it plays to our imagination and looks real, which is why despite it's minor flaws, the film is perfect.

"The Wizard Of Oz" is a timeless classic because it's a film that you see as a child that you will never forget.  It's a film that you couldn't bear never seeing again.  And most of all, it's a film that no matter how long it ages, it's something we relate to because of the lessons, and the fact that it always brings us back home.

 Judy Garland as Dorothy, singing her immortal song "Over The Rainbow"

The Artist

The Artist (PG-13)

Grade: A+

• Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius
• Produced by: Thomas Langmann
• Screenplay by: Michel Hazanavicius
• Starring: Jean Dujardin (George Valentin), Berenice Bejo (Peppy Miller), Uggie (Jack The Dog), John Goodman (Al Zimmer), James Cromwell (Clifton), Missi Pyle (Constance), Penelope Ann Miller (Doris Valentin), Malcolm McDowell (The Butler)
• Cinematographer: Guillaume Schiffman
• Music by: Ludovic Bource
• Distributed by: Warner Bros (France), The Weinstein Company (US/AUS), Entertainment Film Distributors (UK)
• Released: May 23, 2011 (US), October 12, 2011 (France)
• Running Time: 100 minutes/1 hour and 40 minutes
• Language: French

Before seeing "The Artist", I had never seen a silent film before in my life.  I had always wanted to see the films by Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton, but I never had enough money to buy them.  By chance when I was with my dad, he bought "The Artist" because he heard rave reviews about it; I had heard all about the rave reviews and Oscars it got too, but I was skeptical because I didn't think a silent film could hold my attention the way a talking film could.  After watching "The Artist" numerous times though, it's safe to say I was wrong.

"The Artist" starts off in 1927.  George Valentin, the most popular silent film star of his time, has just done another smash-hit film.  As he is posing for pictures one day, he is bumped into by a young woman named Peppy Miller.  George laughs off what happens and takes a picture with her, only to have it posted as a front page tabloid, which causes friction in George's home and workplace.  Eventually, Peppy gets a job as an extra at Kinograph Studios, where George works.  She doesn't start out as much at first, but George offers his help to her.  Unfortunately, that decision doesn't help George, who has to deal with Peppy's rising stardom, and talking films, which may jeopardize his film career.

For an Oscar winning film, "The Artist" has a plot that we've seen before, yet the film is wonderful because of the presentation of it.  It's presented in black and white, which gives us a dreamlike sequence, and helps us focus on the acting in the film, instead of the distractions we'd normally have. The acting in the film is good from everyone, but Jean Dujardin steals the show.  His look and charisma makes him look like he really could have been a successful silent film star of this time, and he's quite convincing with his facial features.

The thing that really puts "The Artist" over the top for me though is the soundtrack by Ludovic Bource.  His soundtrack sets the tone for how effective this film is, from the scenes involving dancing, to the scenes of heartbreak.  My favorite song from this film is "In The Stairs".  I won't give too much away, but when this song is used, it's hard to not to shed a tear or feel for what's happening on screen.  Soundtracks aren't usually huge pluses for me, but because this is a silent film, it was more necessary, which stood out to me more.

"The Artist" can be categorized as a lot of things: drama, comedy, tragedy, but it's really a romance in my mind, which is probably why I like it so much.  I've been watching films for well over fifteen years, seeing good and bad romances, but I have never seen love presented the way it was in this film.  Love was shown as simple, and the people cared about each other the way I think people in real life should, just wanting the best for someone.  It's something I look for in my own life, which is why this film means so much to me because I didn't think a film like this could be possible now.  Not just a good romance film, but a silent, black and white romance film, that captures elements of old Hollywood.

I know "The Artist" isn't "City Lights" by Charlie Chaplin, but no film is.  This film is wonderful for it's time, and a film I hope stands the test of time because it really does educate people on how film's used to be.  Some people have said that "The Artist" only won the Oscars it did because it was a silent film, but I don't think that's the case because if that was true, then why aren't there more silent films out now?  It just goes to show that not every film can be that way, which is why I say, give "The Artist" a chance.  If you see the film and dislike it, fine, it happens, but don't judge it without seeing it.  Otherwise, you'll be missing one of the best films and love stories I've seen in a long time.  If you're looking for a movie encompassing a lot, this movie is it.