I Love You, Man (9.5/10)

When was the last time you felt this good watching a movie? Actually don't answer that, I can think of some other movies I know that are this beloved ("The Hangover", "Zombieland", "Kick-Ass", and what I hear from "Bridesmaid") What I know is this one of the greatest movies I ever saw in theaters. I had a big goofy grin from beginning to end that was only broken by laughter. It's one of the best comedies in years and "the best Apatow movie Apatow never made". 

So Peter Klaven (an easy going, charming and awkward Paul Rudd) is newly engaged to his now fiance Zooey Rice (the gorgeous Rasida Jones). The wedding is coming up and Peter has a major realization, He has no male friends. He has family, a fiance, fencing partners and business associates, but no friends. So he goes looking for one to fill his best man role. It at times is disastrous for Peter but hilarious for us. It seems he may never find the one. Enter Sydney (the devilishly awesome Jason Segel). Sydney lives the carefree life Peter and all men secretly wants. The two are perfect for each other. It's bro-love at first site. The two start hanging out and so starts the greatest bromance of our time.

Peter and Sydney are a dynamite comedic due. They have laughs, heart-felt moments, charm and great chemistry. Sounds like a romantic comedy where he meets she and they have laughs and fall in love. Well it sort of is, just now it's he and he. Now there's no sexual tension, but the two are still a match. The two are like soul-mates in that they so similar. The supporting cast is great too. Probably the best I've seen in a comedy also in years. This is one stellar cast and characters.

The comedy in this movie is perfect too. It's the awkward kind. Paul Rudd as Peter does it better than anyone. It's so embarrassing that you want to look away, but you can't and won't ; It's just too funny.  What's best about the comedy is it's "real laughter". Roger Ebert wrote this in his great review of the movie and many other critics spoke of similar things. Your not just laughing at big planned out moments (they're still there, but there's a good mix to balance it out) but just so entertained you eat up any little joke the characters say. It plays out like a romantic comedy so the pair will have a fight. I once thought they wrapped the issue too fast to end it, but now I love it. We all know it's going to end on a happy note, let's keep it as upbeat as possible. You'll love the characters, the cast, the comedy, the plot and really just everything about it. I and you should love "I Love You, Man".

9.5/10

Recommendation: One of the best comedies in years, see it!

Somewhere (9/10)

Depression is a strange thing. It comes in several shapes and forms and our lead suffers from one that doesn't seem to foreign the audience. He is stuck with no direction. He has no thrills anymore, no joy, no hate and majority of emotions. He's not dead inside, but he's not to sure of that himself. "Somewhere" won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival (think best picture at one of the big 7 film festival). It truly is a work of art.

I say art because that's the best way to describe it. Think of a painting, some will look at it see the beauty of it and try to understand the artist's mind. Others will look at and say "That's it?" "I don't get it." "I can do that." Anyway I saw what Sofia Coppola was trying to get at, I think, you never see what the artist truly is getting out.

The film starts off showing a Ferrari driving in a large circle, it does this 4 times, it stops and a man gets out and looks at the dessert around him. I already see a metaphor. Our hero (or sorts) is actor Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) and is depressed. He has no direction over his life and is just doing circles. He drives around a lot because it's the small control he has in life. He drinks alot, smokes more and drifts from woman to woman. Johnny lives in celebrity hotel of sorts. It's a nice apartment where they will send anything up to your room (pole dancers and a weird male masseuse included). He sits around in silence with a stale face, he doesn't know what to do after he is done sitting there. Johnny doesn't want to be alone, but can't stand somebody's company for to long. Johnny drives around one day and see's an upper class woman driving too, he follows her. Does he know her or does he think she is like him?

Soon Cleo (Elle Fanning) enters his life in a pivotal moment. Cleo is his self-substaining daughter. She has raised herself in her in a sense through sheer will. Cleo is upbeat but has a sadness in her eyes and smile. Cleo's mother runs off and leaves her in Johnny's care. He needs to take care of her until she goes to camp soon (seems like 2 weeks or so). They could have made it a comedy or the movie where Cleo lets Johnny see his errors. It's kind of like the second, but there's more to it. Cleo isn't trying to fix Johnny, she's a kid with her own problems. Johnny needs to see what others mean to him and what they think of him. He needs to find a straight road (metaphor).

There are scenes of pure charm here. You'll come to care for Cleo and Johnny. You can look at many scenes and examine it like a piece of art. My favorite scene is done with a Strokes song playing in the background, You'll see the characters connecting in a lovely way.  Stephen Dorff does wonders with his role. A huge step forward and away from his action heavy films ("Blade" and "Felon", but those are still good movies, just different). He needs to let the neutralness of his expressions come through. Every emotion and gesture seems genuine. Elle Fanning is a talented young actress with a bright future. She's Dakota Fanning's little sister and has already so much more to offer (I still need to see "The Runaways" to confirm that though). "Somewhere" is a movie that is close to the heart.

9/10
Recommendation: Like my art analogy, be prepared to do some studying and thinking. It's very slow but is easy to love if the light shines through.
Side Note: The character Johnny Marco is an actor like a young Colin Farrell ("S.W.A.T", "Phone Booth", "The Recruit")

The Hangover Part II (7/10)

"Bangkok has him now", I'd say it has us too. "The Hangover 2" is the sequel we all knew would be made. The first was well... the biggest movie in years. Remember the hype when it came out. Everyone was talking about it, it's the highest grossing R rated comedy ever, and the catchphrases were a hit. It made over $400 million in the box office and would have made $500 million if you count kids sneaking in. To quote Alan, the most uncool person ever, was the cool thing to do. Audiences ate it up, critics were shocked and raved about it, and is now a cult classic. So only two years later we got a sequel which is more or less made just like the first.

So Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married to Lauren (Jaime Chung) and the wedding is in Thailand. Phil (Bradley Cooper, the guy is going to be top dog in hollywood soon) and Doug (Justin Bartha) are going. Alan (Zach Galifianakis, the funniest yet again) is not invited. It makes perfect sense, they guy is weird, creepy, babyish, and caused Stu the worst day of his life (but we still love him). Alan is a "stay at home son" which is perfect. I'd watch a movie just about home ordering his mom around over intercom. Well anyway Alan will get invited and all will head to Thailand. So the four and Lauren's brother Teddy have a beer on the beach to celebrate. Phil, Stu, and Alan wake up in a filthy Bangkok hotel room (pretty nice sized room for Bangkok though). Well "it" happened again and Teddy is missing. So once again the three must retrace the heinous and insane things they did the night before to find him. 

The movie is good, but there's things to consider as well. Fans of the first will enjoy the movie, but will leave not feeling the same. I laughed a lot, there are some great thing here, but it's just hard to compare it to the original. I can't judge it as a stand alone movie because it's hard to forget this is not the first time we've seen these beloved characters. So to think of it alone would mean the crazy things Alan does are strange and not as hilarious as it is with comparison. For those who have seen this, think his crying scene, it's funnier because we love his character. I didn't have the big goofy grin by film's end as I did with the first. There was a smile, but it wasn't as captivating. The jokes are more less interchangeable with the first. It's like they mad lib'd the script to make the sequel. I know many that thought the first was a let down on a rewatch, this one is probably worse. It's a good movie, but damn if they couldn't live up to it's original. I say enjoy it for what it is, A decent comedy with great characters, I sure as hell did.

7/10

Recommendation: It's funny and I loved see the Wolfpack back, I can see fans of the first divided on this. Some liking it for what it is and others saying it's a failure to the first (It's not)
Personal Favorite Joke: Bag of Fanta

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (6/10)

I'm not to sure what being on stranger tides exactly means, but I will say the movie is on a stranger note. It's the 4th Pirates movie and like every sequel, it's a fail in comparison to it's fantastic original. Since the first we have had some weird movies. The third one made no sense and only thing to take away from it is that "if you bring a woman on a ship, you'll get crabs". "On Stranger Tides" may be the best of the other three, but that's not huge accomplishment.

So the plot is over the top, like that's a shocker. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is back and he has a new mission, or like everyone he's thrown into. Jack is on his way to the fountain of youth and in a race of sorts. Blackbeard (Ian Mcshane held back) with his long lost daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz, also held back), now privateer Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and a spanish fleet with a captain you shouldn't care about are the competition. Anyway they need a couple things in order to have the fountain's power to work. One is a mermaid tear, the second is the chalices of Ponce De Leon (the historical figure who looked for the fountain) and the third I'll leave a mystery. Anyway the plot isn't that great, things drag on (in the shortest film of the series), the fight scenes become tedious and the new minor characters don't make up for the ones lost.

It's a decent movie, but nothing special. Like I said earlier it's the best since the original. Jack Sparrow is fun as always, and I see why the made this movie. The movies are box office gold and they wanted to see Sparrow on his own. However it doesn't mean that it will be anything special. The movie does look awesome and everything is made to perfection. Too bad the plot/characters/acting/and a couple other things don't match the great production values.

6/10
Recommendation: If you like the series, you'll be fine. If not then your not missing anything.

I'm Not There (9.5/10)

This is it! A biopic that is made with anything but biopic feel, but still has that touch. It transcends the genre and becomes one of the most unique films you'll ever seen. It's like 6  movies by itself that tie together perfectly. Those 6 movies are not just 6 stories, but everyone has it's own little magic. I feared I would like some stories better than others, but they all make one story. It's a style all it's own. Bob Dylan is the inspiration for it all. He is the man, the legend, the poet, the outlaw, the fake, the seer, the folk king, the death of folk, the priest, the prophet, the lover and one the greatest musician of all time. I could even debate that he is the best of the 20th century. Even if you disagree you know his name is somebody to mention in that debate still. Bob Dylan may not have been there but he'll always be welcomed in our hearts.

So to describe this movie is like describing nothing I've done before. I'll try but if my point doesn't come through clear, just watch it. So the 6 stories are Bob Dylan in 6 different phases of his life. I wouldn't call it 6 different ages, but really just 6 stages of mind. I'm not going to bother with names (Each Dylan has his own name) so i'll go by actors name, but know that each name is a distinct person. Christian Bale plays Beatnik and Religious Dylan. His story is told like a classic documentary. They have interviews with actors  portraying real people. It's the flash of kinetic images that will mesmerize you here. Bale may just have the best voice of the bunch. Heath Ledger plays the romantic side of Dylan. His story revolves around the ups and downs of his relationship with his french girlfriend Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). This segment contains marvelous camera shots and genuine emotion. You'll never come close to bored. It's brilliant every time we see this section. We have Marcus Carl Franklin in a great breakthrough role. He plays the vagabond Bob Dylan. He is lying and telling the truth in everything he does. The scenes here are fantastic. You'll see Bob Dylan in all new light and it has so much charm. It's the only story without a well known actor, but you won't care because it works so well. Richard Gere plays Bob Dylan in his Billy The Kid phase, or his hiding life. His scenes have a symbolistic feel to it and are majestic. it's a whole new look to this legend in music. Cate Blanchett (in a oscar nominated role) plays Bob Dylan in his culture phase. He moves through famous figures and people (David Cross as Allen Ginsberg, brings a smile to my face). He (I say "he" cause Cate is playing Dylan as a man) feuds with journalist Keenan Jones and has a "troublesome"relationship with Coco (an almost unrecognizable  Michelle Williams). These scenes show alot about Bob Dylan, the person he was and wasn't. Blanchett may just give the best performance of the bunch. I loved it all. However the last is something beautiful. We see the mind of Bob Dylan. Ben Whishaw plays Bob Dylan in what looks like a interview or disposition of sorts. We almost only see his face and listen to his philosophy. His words have merit and things to take away from the film. 

The film is not straight forward and jumps around a lot, but that's why it's great. It doesn't let one story drag on to long and get boring, it stays fresh though out. It's a larger than life movie. We may learn some things but never truly understand Bob Dylan, neither does he though. We see the ideas he brings to his day to day life. You'll leave with knowledge not just about Dylan but learning something about yourself and how you see life (the "seven rules to live life in hiding" is a eye opener). It's as as much a trip as it is factual. As much a film as a documentary. We see and hear Bob Dylan for what he was and like this film it's a wonder.

9.5/10

Recommendation: The biggest "watch it" I can give (but I've meant it before with others). There's no way you won't like this movie. 

Season of the Witch (4/10)

Oh God! This movie SUCKS! I think I have a new worst movie of the year. I was expecting bad, critics were giving it on average 1.5/4 and 2/4 stars. That doesn't bother me. "Kick-Ass" and "Watchmen" were getting average to mediocre reviews upon release. Days later those reviews were balanced out though and both now have large fan bases. The reviews didn't change here and I see why. Speaking of critics, 3/5 said they lost count of the number of sieges they show at the start of the movie. I laughed then, but now I understand, I had to stop and think about it after. This is not a good movie, it's bad.

So Nicholas Cage and Ron Perlman (not even bothering to look up character's name) are knights? Crusaders? Big guys with swords.... yea that one. So anyway they are captured for being deserters or being famous fighters. I'm not to sure and neither will you. Anyway they say for your freedom you need to bring a witch to a monastery to perform the proper "send off", I don't know what to call it. They want to read from special bible to break the curse they believe she casted (that being the black death) So those two along with a priest (don't care who), a alter boy who wants to be a knight (BJ or the gay prostitute from the "Red Riding Trilogy") and a con artist (Stephen Graham, fire your agent) set off to the monastery with the witch in a cage. However there is a rigidly bridge and and a pack of wolves in the way. God help us all! The witch does have some promise at first to see if she is real or not. I thought that was interesting for 5 minutes before they ruin it. The final battle sucks and the ending sucks. I gave "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" a 4.5/10, don't think this means their similar because of the rating. "Vengeance" was just made poorly, they create a boring mode instead of a dramatic one. It's still miles better. "Season of the Witch" just sucks. I'd give it a worse score but they could have done a poorer job. It's not a compliment, but that's the nicest thing I'll say about this movie. Talented actors are wasted, plot ruined, director... well he sucks anyway, and it all equals a awful movie. I saw this on a plane, that may change how some watch movies, but I've seen movies I loved for the first time on planes ("The Savages" being the best). Anyway I get air sickness alot and often land feeling awful. It may not plane this time (haha I joke, but still... this movie is terrible).

4/10
Recommendation: DON'T SEE IT!!!

Green Hornet (7/10)

It's a pretty standard movie. Nothing bad nor great. I enjoyed parts but wasn't thrilled. I could end this here, but that seems rude. It does have things worth talking about.

Britt Reidd (Seth Rogen), awful name but that's not important, what is important is that he is a child at heart who's father dies. His dad was a newspaper tycoon (love using the word "tycoon") who always said Britt was doing nothing with his life. He pummeled Britt's heroism dreams as a kid and is "kind of a dick". So Britt along with handy man Kato (Jay Chou) look to take on crime to show what they are made of. However let's throw in a hook to spice things up. The Green Hornet (as he'll be known) and his masked accomplice will pose as bad guys to avoid all the bad things you see happen to heros (think "Dark Knight"). To be honest you won't see much of that. You'll see them run from cops and make vague comments, but never live up to their promise.

Michel Gondry directed this, I'm glad he did. I feared his style might of been blocked out like Kenneth Branagh with "Thor. They're scenes of bizarre and surreal nature that are puzzling at first. Go with it, it's really fun if you lose yourself in Gondry's mind. The movie has some outrageous moments, and the final fight takes it to a new level. I personally loved it, it's tense and action packed. Those 15 minutes or so make this film worth it. It's not a great movie, but I don't think it's bad in any sense. Seth Rogen may be  boring with playing himself, but Christoph Waltz makes up for it. Just go for it if you have the chance.

7/10
Recommendation: Pretty descent and over the top. I wouldn't say rush out for it but it's still enjoyable and worth seeing.

No Strings Attached (5/10)

Time to answer the age old question. The one that has troubled men and women for centuries. Can two friends have continuous sex without bringing feelings into it? The whole friends with benefits thing... which is iconically the name of a movie coming out this summer with the exact premise as this one with Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, I'm expecting a flop. However back to the eluding answer of this question, the answer is yes. I've known several people who did it. So what now about this movie? We all know how it will end. The thing is with romantic comedies is people don't care so much if the people fall in love or not. They want to see the kiss that seals the deal, we got all the physical attention here before they barley recognize each other. This movie does a lot of things wrong.

So the plot, surprisingly it's there with such a low rating, feels empty. Adam (Ashton Kutcher) meets Emma (Natalie Portman) at camp when they're kids and meet at several times through out several years (exact time doesn't matter). After something horrible happens to his love life (It's funnier then it should be because Kevin Kline wins, but more on that late) he drunkenly calls around until some woman will agree to have sex with him, Emma answers and skipping some things the two become sex buddies. Then as you can guess, hijinks and problems a rise (Oh No!).

The problem here is lack of interest. The interest is then broken down into comedy, personal involvement and characters. The comedy is... really lacking, probably more so than any movie I've seen. The movie is rated R... this most childish R ever. There's like 7 F bombs, 3 sex themed jokes, two 30 second sex scenes and worst of all... no nudity. I'm not asking for it, but the theme of your movie is sex and they tamed it down as much as possible. Why not go further with the rating if they planned for the R. If they wanted PG-13 but got over turned by the MPAA board (they're complicated) then you fight for it. "Blue Valentine" was rated NC-17 but fought for an R and won, rightfully so. If "Machete" is rated R, then what the hell is "No Strings Attached" doing in the same rating pool?

Then there is personal involvement. The movie kind of just floats on the surface of the water, never sinking. It has the material too with great actors, a beloved director and a R rating, it should be a hit. However the movie just floats around and never gets you caring. I tried to like the leads, I enjoy the actors. Their mismatch is already cute, but the characters make you think, who cares? That leads to the third problem which is characters. Really more or just all Emma. Many critics hated Elisha Cuthbert's character in "The Girl Next Door" to the point they couldn't like the movie. I'd like to debate them on that, but I know there are more cons than pros there. Emma has almost zero pros, I say almost because while I can't think of any there probably are some. Emma's actions are bizarre, selfish, rude and makes you cringe instead of laugh. Natalie Portman is to blame for most of it (once again most). She has a producing credit and helped make this film. I love her as an actress but she does not work in this field. She should stick to badass comedy (think her rap) and avoid this where she is boringly bland. Ashton Kutcher... he does fine. I just expected him to read his lines and not screw up. A tip of the hat to him for that, it's sort of a compliment. 

The saving graces to the film are Kevin Kline and Greta Gerwig. Kevin Kline is one of the finest actors out there. Watch "My Life As A House" and "A Fish Called Wanda" and you'll see what I mean. The guy knows how to work drama and comedy like the back of his hand. He won an Oscar for "Wanda" in one of the most deserving awards ever. He plays Adam's dad, a retired actor and is a delight. When ever Kline is around he steals the show. His scenes are the highlight of the movie. Then there is Greta Gerwig. She plays one of Emma's friends and like her, she too "playing the field". She is funnier then her counterparts and I enjoyed it every second she was around. Gerwig has a bright future ahead of her. I've only seen three films with her and she is distinctive and unique in each. After seeing "Greenberg", I believe she can have a bright future. Some have called her "America's next sweetheart" and I agree. Watch some of her interviews and you'll see it too.

So to end this off with a pun of sorts. "No Strings Attached" will never get you attached. It's a shame cause I really was looking forward to it. Ivan Reitman... the director of "Ghostbusters"... I expect more from you.

5/10

Recommendation: You may like more than I did, I'm just saying personally I didn't like it.

Thirst (9/10)

I'm very glad I watched this movie, it restored my faith. Not in religion but in director Chan-wook Park. I reviewed not to long ago the movie "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance", I was incredibly underwhelmed. However his film "Oldboy" is a masterpiece that giving a 10/10 is easy to do. I may choose to review that one too later, it's worth it. So I've seen movies on opposite sides of the fence with Park and "Thirst" helps confirm he is a talented man.

"Thirst" is bleak, scary, suspenseful, provocative, darkly funny, oddly romantic and just original all around. All the points come across fantastically in this mesmerizing movie. It's a vampire movie... but hear me out. This one is not some "Twilight" thing, nor is it "30 Days of Night" either. Here is an original and off the top of my head, the best vampire movie ever (if you can think of another, tell me, I feel I'm forgetting one). It's the story of a priest who wants to do some good in the world, so he volunteer's for a experiment. He will be infected with a virus and given medicine to see if he is cured. Things go bad for him and he is given some mysterious blood for a transfusion. The priest becomes a vampire in classic sense of the word. He however is not rejected by his friends. His mentor pities and helps him and a child hood friend Tae-ju wants to be like him. I don't want to say much and ruin the shocking things but there are themes of faith, greed, envy, loneliness, making one a monster, acceptance and freedom.

The best trait in the film is how far it goes. Chan-wook Park is a director who does not backdown. He will take you on a mind-bending and exhausting trip. I applaud him for that. Movies that take you to the edge are a nice change of pace. "Antichrist", "Oldboy" and "Pulp Fiction" are unwavering pieces and are better for it. "Thirst" is a great movie.

9/10
Recommendation: It is dark and violent. Something to make the hairs on your neck stand up. It's foreign but I saw watch it.

A Prophet (10/10) Revisited

This review will have major spoilers. Read ahead at your own discretion. I hope it inspires you to see one of the best movies I've ever seen and my fourth favorite film of all time.

This was the best movie of the decade! There isn't a doubt in my mind. Know why? It is the most interpretive, realistic, and beautiful movie I've seen in years. Some movies just have one of those qualities. This one is a masterpiece in all of them. "A Prophet" is truly a wonder of a film. It should (and does look this way) be a future classic. It's been compared to 'The Godfather" and is being called the best crime drama in years. Not just prison movie... but any form of crime movie. I believe every word of that because I was swept away watching this movie. I saw this movie I believe in January 2010, It changed the way I see movies.

Malik (Tahir Rahim in a masterpiece of a breakthrough performance) is entering maximum security prison under a six year sentence. He has no friends nor family and has spent his entire life in "the system". He is half french and half arabic making him a stranger to both worlds. The worlds are gangs that are the arabs and Corsicans, they run the prison. They get what they want and when they want, the guards give rules but have no way to enforce these people. They are demons among this world. Evil instincts and looking to achieve power any way possible. Malik has a hard time adapting. One day his life changes forever. Cesar ( A riveting and terrifying Niels Arestrup. He wasn't nominated for a Oscar but believe me when I say he was just as excellent as Christoph Waltz in "Inglorious Basterds) asks a favor or more of orders Malik to do something. Cesar wants Malik to kill his cell neighbor or be killed himself. Malik is taught by the gang to conceal a razor blade in his mouth to get at his neighbor Reyeb. Malik can't go to the guards or the warden, the gang controls all. All he can do his kill this man. Reyeb is a nice enough guy but in a brutal and gut retching scene Malik kills him. He shakes afterwards, but why? Is it because he is safe now or because he killed a man? We don't know and it's better that way. It allows the audience to build their own conclusions.

Malik spends the next few years in prison building his reputation and wisdom. He continues to work for the Corsicans working his way up the ranks. He befriends a arab named Ryad, his prison school teacher and the two become partners in crime. He works with a man named Jordi and gets deep into the drug trade. He makes connections in and out of prison that makes him a force to reckon with. All this while seeing visions of Reyab and having weird dreams. That's right... while this movie is gritty and unbelievably realistic, it has surreal scenes as well. It never seems far fetched and compliments the film in great ways. Malik will build his way to the top and become a kingpin of extreme power.

What is great about this film if not perfect, is that it allows interpretation. So you can come up with all the crazy and brilliant analogies you want. I sure have and because it's my own viewing, it works so well. The film encourages you to watch in a myriad of ways. Straight forward prison movie, political and religious examination, or in my way... what the title implies. This is that Malik is a prophet. He is a higher power sent to rule the prison and the gangs in and out of it. He comes from no family with no friends. Has spent his whole life in prison and has almost no education. Sounds like he had no life before this and it's his purpose. Malik has wild visions that help him secure his place at the top. He has a gun pointed at his head at one point during one of his leaves (In France you get leave days from prison... crazy, right?) He panics in the back of a car seat as a heavenly chant plays over the film. He looks up and his eyes look beyond this plane of existence. He sees a sign of a deer crossing up ahead and he warns everyone and indeed they hit a deer. He had a bizarre vision of sorts the night before of deer running in a road. It's a sign to keep him going so he can lead his people to a brighter future. There are so many references to his almost holy identity as a chosen vessel. Other things I saw was the idea of Frankenstein. Cesar is the mad scientist who creates a monster in his perfect image. This is Malik and like Frankenstein he will become out of control. There is the Oedipus complex here as well. Malick was born though the prison, it is his mother then. His father raised him and that is Cesar. So to go along with this complex, Malik wants to kill his father and sleep with his mother. Malik wants to become more powerful than Cesar and rule the prison. I think that makes sense.

"A Prophet" is a brilliant and perfect movie. It is my fourth favorite film of all time and I rank it as the best film of the last decade (2000's). It is a classic in every sense and will always have a place with me and in the film industry.

10/10
Recommendation: About two and half hours in french, but it's dark, violent, wonderful, gritty, trippy, fun, entertaining, though provoking, and a masterpiece. Take the time to not just watch it, but live it.
 

The Departed (9/10) Revisited

Note: I'm writing this on a whim, I may edit it a bit more later, but I feel it should be represented here at least a bit.

'The Departed" is probably the favorite movie (or at least crime drama) of our generation. I've yet to meet a person around my age who has not loved it. I should say more than "love" even. It's in the all time favorites of many people I know and for good reason... It's brilliant. Martin Scorsese is the king of mob movies and here he moves it all in a whole new direction for a today's generation. The film is paced majestically and is enthralling to the audience. It whole leave the viewers in a drained state. They just saw something masterful. It may not be perfect, but it deserves to be a favorite among many if not everyone.

Two officers fresh out of training look to join the police department of Boston and Massachusetts. One is Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio in a personal favorite performance of mine), he has a family with a dire past and goes DEEP undercover to infiltrate the mob in this area. He is no longer protected by the police (except by two oficers) and is a criminal in all sense of the law. The other officer is Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon showing off his natural Boston accent) and he is a rat in the police. He deceives the department and is working directly under a godfather figure of the mob, Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson still showing he is one of the all time best actors). The two live lives of deception and lies and at points can't tell which way is up and which is down. Costigan is in the more dangerous situation, he'll die if he makes one bad move. Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen, portraying likable character in the film) and Staff Sgt. Dignam (Mark Wahlberg with a foul mouth that helps to make it one of his all time best performances) are the only ones who know of Costigan's operation and they all but can't help him work out his problems.

What makes this movie so good are the performances and the chase. As you can tell I love the actors in this film. they truly made this a memorable movie. Alec Baldwin, Vera Farmiga, Anthony Anderson, James Badge Dale and last but certainly not least... the heinous Ray Winstone. Then there is the thrill of the chase. It's a cat and mouse sort of movie of the highest proportions. Who will get caught  and who will help their organization first, Costigan or Sullivan? The tension is high and Scorsese does a great job of building it up all throughout. However the best element of this chase is the whole natural/realistic presence. The movie takes its times and doesn't try to make things standard. It's got a class and style of all it's own. I wish I knew what to call it, those who have seen it can agree with the previous statement. Scorsese doesn't make second rate movies. He won the Oscar for this and I can see why. Well there was whole "lifetime/body of work" thing he had going for him (he makes a fantastic film in his later years with no previous wins... it's not unheard of to reward him). However he won a constant amount of awards leading up to it. It's some of his best work and may be the best direction of the year (It's close but I still can't make up my mind for that year). He should have won it for "Goodfellas", but of his recent movies... this was his best. William Monahan does wonders with the script. Many may not know that this is a remake of a 2002 Hong Kong film "Internal Affairs" (Andy Lau and the brilliant Tony Leung star in that one). Monahan made an adaption taking a movie based in Hong Kong and moved it to Boston. The guy captured a great sense of the area and truly deserved his Oscar for Adapted Screenplay for this one. "The Departed" is a wonderful movie, and deserves a place in your home, mind and heart.

9/10
Recommendation: Really just watch it, ask your friends cause I'm sure one of them has a copy.

We Don't Live Here Anymore (8/10) Revisited

This could have been a movie that shook my soul. It didn't but that doesn't mean it's bad. Hell the message I was looking for was still there. It just came through in small portions instead of dominating the film like it should of. Instead there was some new messages that only know did I realize were quite good. However that main theme... god was it good!

The title should say it all. The film shows traces of what happens when you no longer live in your life. You still go through life the same, there's no turning back on what you have at this point. However your mind is wandering and distant. You can't abandon your current life so you move through life in a melancholy haze. I say glimpses of this in the movie. However at times I couldn't tell what I was watching. That is John Curran's fault. As I thought when watching his other films "Stone" and "The Painted Veil", he is a very jumpy director. He can't find a middle ground to make scenes good. Most his are either average to bad but then there are a couple of great to fantastic ones. The mix is pretty bad, but those great scenes stay with you more than those bad ones. I don't know if replacing Curran would solve it, he does have a thing for this type of genre. However if there is a name that is eluding me right now it may have been better.

The story revolves around two couples. Mark Ruffalo and Laura Dern live in one style of life. Peter Krause and Naomi Watts occupy the other. They are all best friends but there is a dark secret there. Ruffalo and Watts are having an affair. They are by far the most interesting characters in the film and give the best performances. Ruffalo plays an intellectual who thinks he can out wit all those around him, it's interesting to see him try. Watts is in love with Ruffalo more than her husband and maybe her kid. Her obsession is strong and entertaining. Dern and especially Krause are the weak links. Dern is a fine actress but either she played her character a bit nuts or it was already that way and could not be saved. Peter Krause... he just sucked...no emotion at all and there were times he should be showing at least some. I'd have replaced him with Sam Rockwell and maybe Dern with Laura Linney. This movie is still very good, but could have been better. I will say the score... is absolutely haunting. It's some of the best work I've ever heard really. here it is and let it build till the strings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKv6lWWSgZQ

8/10
Recommendation: Good thinking mood piece. No need to rush to see it, but it has alot of potential to build followers

Stranger Than Fiction (9/10) Revisited

This is a great movie... fuck that... it's fan-fucking-tastic. I said I gave myself a mental slap after watching "Away We Go" because I underestimated that film. Here I should just hit myself because boy does this movie pack a punch. It's the best work Will Ferrell has ever done and is his best movie easily (although not his funniest). Ferrell has a future beyond straight comedy. Like Jim Carrey, Steve Martin, and Robin Williams; Ferrell showed his brilliance before it was to late. I adore Ferrell comedies but I would love to see more like this from him. "Stranger Than Fiction" is a strange but marvelous film.

Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is a man living in a routine. His life is based more off keeping to schedule rather than emotion. However this changes when he hears a voice in his head. The voice narrates his life but with a little bit more too it. It's not just a voice about his life, but a third person who knows all about him and his future. The voice is Karen Eiffel (The brilliant Emma Thompson) and she is a depressed author with writer's block. She is writing a book about Harold Crick not knowing he is a real person. She plans on killing him and Crick hears this and does all he can to figure out what is happening. The thing is that it's all a story. What Harold does is a part of a story, if he does nothing then the story goes no where (he thinks). He enlists the aid of Pr Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman) a literature expert. He tries to help him figure out not only the who the narrator is but also what kind of story is he in. Crick is infatuated by Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and they way his relationship builds with her tells if the story will be comedy or tragedy (once again so he thinks). "Stranger Than Fiction" has a lot of depth and symbolism.

The movie is parable for one meeting his destiny and his God. The film has little hints to the fact Karen is fact the god of Harold's life. It sure does play out this way. What's more important is whether Harold will accept his story or not. Will his life become part of something greater or will he life "his" life? It's handled fantastically and is one of the best ways to handle a story I've ever seen in a film. Will Ferrell gives the best work of his career. It's a performance and film very similar to Jim Carrey with "The Truman Show". I loved that movie and I love this one as well.

9/10
Recommendation: If you like "The Truman Show" and Will Ferrell than this is perfect for you. It's deep and upbeat. Something to cherish.

Interview (9.5/10)

Warning: this review will have slight spoilers. I'll try to avoid specifics but it will give away themes better left to discover on your own.

Lying is a interesting thing. I mean how normal it comes to people. Sometimes a lie can be so convincing that your unsure of whether one is convincing themselves or the other party. Then there is the reason for lying too. Is it to keep things on a even keel or just for the fuck of it (from "The Departed"). "Interview" is a movie about two people lying among other things. They converse, tell stories, share sexual tension, show emotion and truth, but in the end still despise each other. It's all in style of "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf". Just cause your talking to someone and expressing yourself... doesn't mean your friends or even like each other.

Steve Buscemi plays Pierre Peders, a war correspondent/ journalist. He is now doing people pieces or as he calls them fluff work. He is to interview Katya, a celebrity sex icon. Katya is played Sienna Miller in a performance unlike anything she's done before. He doesn't want to be there even less than her. He despises women like this. Those who are valued for looks over brains (She'll prove him wrong). Pierre knows nothing of what Katya does and she is shocked by this. Not so much the fact he doesn't know anything, but because he plans to minimize the interview, almost fake his way through it. She leaves... he too plans on going home, but after a car accident cause by her celebrity (her looks causes disasters) and takes Pierre to her apartment so he can ice a nasty bump. The film is 84 minutes long and I'd say 70 of those take place in the apartment.

Here the two engage in a battle of wits each trying to disarm the other and leave victorious. They lie to each other in a manner of ways. Some is straight forward, some subtle and other is not telling the whole truth. The little pauses and tiny looks say a whole lot more than the two characters actually say. You don't know where the truth is or if it will ever come through. Will a character leave tonight the winner or will they both hurt each other so much that life will change for them? Maybe even that this battle is just another notch on their belts. However some things that they will tell each other will wipe the floor with you.

Steve Buscemi is a great actor, to bad his looks aren't great. My dad and I liked to talk about how he and Paul Giamatti are actors who are casted for talent and not looks. They won't be dashing heros but they'll show more talent then most the good looking actors today. Buscemi hasn't been this good since "Ghost World". However I felt Sienna Miller stole the show. Buscemi is already a established actor, many in the business have great respect for him. Sienna Miller is a fresh young and very pretty face. She has to establish herself as an actress or fall into the work a pretty face gets you (a reflection on her character as well). She gives a tour de force performance and is even harder to pick apart her character then it is for Buscemi. I really hope she does more ambitious work like this in the future. She picked up a Razzie for her work in "GI Joe". It's a shame because here she has more talent the majority of pretty talent currently working. Buscemi and Miller play their characters to perfection because their attitudes come through. They show some reflection on their characters in the smallest of ways. You'll never see them break character, but they do so much more for their characters with their real selves. It's truly first rate work form both leads.

It's hard to rate this movie because it does everything to sets out to do. They're making a talking piece in one room, a battle of wits. They did that and it was fantastic. However I loved every step of it. The war the two have is fantastic and so entertaining. It's not original but does wonders with it's material. The film is a remake of a part of a trilogy of films from Theo Van Gogh. Van Gogh was killed after making a film showing mistreatment of women in Islam. However his work was renowned worldwide and the trilogy was remade by Buscemi, Stanley Tucci and John Turturro. I've not seen the others but they are known to me but now I'm much more interested. "Interview" is fantastic take on a genre. Buscemi and especially Miller make this a movie worth seeing

9.5/10
Recommendation: If you like movies like "Closer" and "Before Sunrise" or plays like "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" this is for you. It's a fantastic movie in the simplest of ways. I definitely say watch it.

Away We Go (8.5/10) Revisited

After seeing this movie I gave myself a mental slap, I didn't think it would be this good. Two things about this movie tell me something about my life. One is if I sat down and wrote out a screenplay, one would probably look like this (Others would be like 'Garden State", "Atonement", "Revolutionary Road"and "Dark City") I like that fact. It's closer to the heart already. The second thing is if you told me there were five my ways my life would turn out, and this would be one. Well I would agree and would be happy. Why? Burt and Verona are happy and have found their special one. I could live with just knowing that as the motivation for my life.

Let's start off with casting. Burt and Verona  are played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph perfectly. It's the best work I think the two may ever do, and I'm fine with that cause their wonderful here. Not only do they act great, but are casted to perfection. The two have such a normal vibe (John sporting a fantastic beard) that I wouldn't want it any other way. Say if you had Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams as the leads, two great actors, but they wouldn't be as good. You need to go as normal as can be. This creates charm and this film definitely has it.

Burt and Verona are living like children, without purpose or stability. They have a child on the way and with Burt's parents leaving they look for a new city to raise a child. It's almost childish thinking they need someone else in their lives to help raise their kid. They visit many people with actors including Paul Schnieder, Maggie Gyllenhall, Melanie Lynskey, Jeff Daniels, Catherine O'Hara, Jim Gaffigan, and Allison Janney. They travel the USA in a whimsical matter and see all types of parenting the others treat. Janney and Gaffigan and funny and weird. Maya's sister is nice (there is a scene where Burt is on the phone and Verona and her sister look at him, she says to Verona "You got lucky", it's heart warming). Gyllenhall is strange and a hippie freak. Lynskey and he husband are happily depressed. The story the husband tells is pretty powerful. Schneider also has emotional baggage, his wife just left him and he's not worried about himself, but how his daughter will now grow up. Burt and Verona are scared but their love is strong and in this case it will actually see them through.

"Away We Go" is a fantastic movie and a gem. It's a film about good people for good people. Sam Mendes made this movie, that's all you should need to know. The guy has yet to make a bad movie and this proves he'll probably never even come close to that. The film is just fantastic and is something to feel rather than just watch.

8.5/10"
Recommendation: It's got that quirky indie feel "Juno" and "Adventureland offer and is the best work by the two leads. If you like those two movies or the two actors it's something to love.

The Shape Of Things (8/10)

Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz make a good couple. The two have chemistry and they also share that with the film's other couple Gretchen Mol and Frederick Weller. The movie is set up like a play (because it's based off one). Just characters interacting in several locations and times as they move through the relationship Rudd and Weisz share. It's funny at times, emotional and has an ending (like "Buried") that will stay with you. It's devastating and will leave you feeling wounded in some ways. Rudd and Weisz share some blissful times at the beginning of their relationship but that changes as the film progresses. We see the characters talk like normal people, as stupid as it sounds. It's almost like just watching two people talk about their lives at point. With interesting characters and good performances it works. Rudd's character goes through some changes and when you see what happens at the end, you won't know what to feel. It's brilliant.

8/10
Recommendation: Those who have seen "Closer" will love this. It's set up in that few and dialogue based scenes. The ending is something I recommend watching, but you need to see the full movie to understand and feel what pain there is.

Buried (7.5/10)

I think most women (and some guys) would love to be stuck in a small space with Ryan Reynolds. The fact you'd be in a coffin won't deteriorate some. 'Buried" was the other trapped movie of the year, next to "127 Hours". Danny Boyle's made the better one but "Buried" is still pretty good.

Paul (Ryan Reynolds) wakes up in a coffin underground without knowing what's happening. He was a truck driver for a reconstruction company in Iraq but was ambushed and woke up here. He has a phone, a zippo, a pen, and a little bag filled with some things I'll let you find out on your own. He calls several people trying to get aid and the kidnappers often call him demanding he pay them millions of dollars. Paul does not have a lot of time to get free either through having the kidnappers free him, the army finds him, or he escapes.

The entire movie takes place in a coffin. Unlike "Exam" this won't keep your attention throughout. I mean 1:30 hours in a coffin with one actor is pretty hard no matter who made the movie. I'd say the political aspect of the film is much weaker than the claustrophobic theme. They should have just focused on the latter. Ryan Reynolds is a good actor, but I'm still waiting for when he is truly fantastic. "Buried" comes closest and shows it should happen one day. It's suspenseful and the ending is one to remember

7.5/10
Recommendation: If you love (not just like) Ryan Reynolds, this is his best performance yet. However it all takes place in a coffin. You need to be into it to make it though the entire thing.

Fast Five (7/10)

What did you expect? Honestly I should just give it a great rating cause it achieves it's purpose so well. Great chase scenes, adrenaline fueled fights, hot chicks, and chaos in a car. It has it all and is probably the best of the series. It's not original but any means, but it's "Fast Five"... not "The Godfather".

Paul Walker, Vin Diesel, and Jordana Brewster are back and are better then ever (not much to compete against). The plot revolves them putting together a team to steal $100 million from Reyes, a Brazilian crime lord. However The Rock (he'll always be that to me) is a tough son of a bitch federal agent hunting down our heros believing they killed three DEA agents (Reyes is really responsible, hardly a spoiler). The film is very similar to "The Italian Job", actually it's almost the same thing in the end. However because I like "The Italian Job" I was bound to like this movie too. It's over the top but I'm glad it was. The Fast and Furious has gone out on a high note (I hope, this was suppose to be the last and very well should be).

So the American public, the movie critics and I are in agreement. "Fast Five" is fun. It's not a great movie, but once again... what did you expect? I watch all kinds of movies. I mean I love movies like "Wall-E" and "Ponyo" but also love "Oldboy", "Pulp Fiction" and "Machete". I'll give anything a shot if I think it has potential. So "Fast Five" does what it sets out to do. Those who think your too smart for such a movie, have fun with whatever your watching. We'll be watching Vin Diesel and The Rock throw each other through walls and love every second of it.

7/10
Recommendation: Fans of the series need to see this and just anyone who wants near mindless mayhem.

Thor (7/10)

I've never seen a bad super hero movie. Nor are they all great though. I'd say they rank from descent (Both Hulks) to perfect ("The Dark Knight"). "Thor" would come down in the middle of the spectrum. It's the most middle ground super hero movie out there. It's a good movie but could have been so much more.

So let's begin with the plot. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to be crowned king of Asgard with the stepping down of his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins, always glad to see you). However after threatening the peace with the frost giants, he's banished from his home and arrives on earth. He wakes up too Jane Foster (the easy to love Natalie Portman) and is stuck to live his life out as the strongest mortal... or does he. What follows is his retaliation to get back his powers (through his hammer Mjolnir) and learn a little about respectand his brother Loki's (Tom Hiddleston) attempt at the throne and ultimate power. The plot isn't that bad but seems kind of rushed. What leads up to his banishment is longer than it should be for such a short yet in depth film.

"Thor" is better than most super hero movies with characters, but is weaker than others in development. Let me explain a little bit. The supporting cast is a delight. Sif and the warriors three are great supporting heros. I'd like to see a lot more of them in them in the more than likely sequels. Jane's accomplices Erik and Darcy (Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings) provide some bouncing off points and humor. "Thor" is probably the funniest super hero movie yet, not sure if that's a great thing. "Iron Man" was the thing to get away with it, "Thor" is up for debate. The cast is dynamic and do their job's fantastically (Jeremy Renner's cameo while small is awesome) However due to the time constraints the characters never really become what they should be. The actors make up for the weak development, it's a fair trade, but I'd rather just have both. The fights scenes aren't bad, but lack the connection "Iron Man" and Batman Begins" had. Thor is quick to start and end a fight but you won't leave upset.

The two biggest strengths come from the leads Thor and Loki, played by Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston respectively. The two are fresh young faces that need to build your acceptance from near scratch. Try to say that about Edward Norton in "The Incredible Hulk", there it felt like watching the actor overcome his obstacles. Hemsworth kicks ass and looks good doing it. His portrayal as Thor is tough, likable and has alot of backbone. He and Sam Worthington are the two emerging Australian actors worth talking about right now. One may become the next Russell Crowe and the other the next Mel Gibson. Either way it's a pretty good future. Worthington has the advantage but Hemsworth is one great project away from being #1. Tom Hiddleston is the show stealer here. He does such a great job as Loki, he makes it one the best super hero villains yet. Tom has a evil and creepy look already (not his fault, his eyes are made for it) and his acting really furthers it. Tom has three other movies coming out this year. "Midnight In Paris" and "War Horse" will be his big ones, "The Deep Blue Sea" may be his best though. He could very well be the next Ralph Fiennes, his future has no limits.

"Thor" is a good movie but it could have been better. Kenneth Branagh is marvelous director and I expected a little bit more. I think the producers held him back a little. For those who don't know him, he's  the prominent Shakespearian actor/director working today. His "Henry V" is a true classic (I still haven't seen the beginning which is why I won't rate it, but I know the majority). If they gave Branagh full creative control, I'd of expect a 3 hour shakespearian style super hero movie. To me that sounds great, others will like "Thor" as it is now. My expectations weren't quite met so I can't love it.  It's a damn good movie, but it could have been damn great.

7/10
Recommendation: Typical super hero movie, I'd say see it in theaters rather than waiting for dvd, it looks fantastic. I expect "X Men: First Class" to be the best super hero movie of the year after seeing this. "Captain America" looks all right. "Green Lantern"is questionable, won't be be bad but it may be low on my scale.

Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance (4.5/10)

God! I don't remember the last time I was so bored watching a movie. Perhaps never this bad. It's like watching the most sadistic, crazy and disturbing paint dry. That still means it's still just paint and is boring as hell.Let's just say that reading the wikipedia entry after I saw this was more exciting than this movie. I recommend doing that.

See here's the plot... it sounds great, but pulled off awfully. Ryu is deaf and mute. He has a sister who is dying of kidney failure and Ryu desperately wants to help her. He isn't a match and the hospital has nothing for her at the time, something she is running out of. Ryu decides to go to the black market and they takes his kidney and alot of his money before skipping out on him. Now he and his anarchist girlfriend look to kidnap his former employer's friend's daughter to get the money they need to buy one from the hospital (one shows up just afterwards, Irony!). However the dad isn't about to just sit around and goes on a mad chase to find her but mostly those responsible.

That sounds like a amazing plot, to bad it wasn't pulled off well. You're often left confused and bored. From the director of "Oldboy" one of the most fascinating movies ever, I expected so much more. the acting isn't bad, just never get a chance to shine. There is lots of violence in some interesting methods, that was the best part. I can't believe how much I didn't like this movie, it sounds great on pen and paper. However just cause it sounds cool, it doesn't mean it actually is... and this one is not good. Pretty poor in fact.

4.5/10
Recommendation: It drags and is so god awful boring. However maybe you'll like it better, it's gotten a lot of mix reactions out there. I personally would say this is something to pass by and just google the plot.

Exam (9/10)

This is what I've been waiting for. A smart, psychological, thrilling mystery. It's "12 Angry Men" for a new generation, a more sadistic and impatient people. "Exam" shows that big budget and big actors aren't the requirements for a great movie.

The entire movie takes place in one room... it's much more interesting than that though. Eight candidates are applying for a  dream job. They have made it past all the other fierce competition and here they are at the final level. They enter the room and sit down, they each have a desk, a chair, a paper and a pencil. They are given three rules and as long as they don't break any of them in 80 minutes then they can do whatever they want. One question is there and only one answer to it. They begin and on the other side of the paper is... nothing (dramatic drum roll). So now the eight have 80 minutes to figure out the answer to a question they don't know. The eight all have distinct attributes and personalities that lead to very different conclusions throughout. Finding out what they need to know is so entertaining to watch that it's surprising that it's all about one answer, one question, and one room. Honestly look at the description I posted at the top of this. If that looks interesting to you you'll love it. I sure did. It'll keep you guessing to the very end.

9/10
Recommendation: It's a great psychological battle of wits. This is one hell of a ride.

Notes On A Scandal (6.5/10)

This is what happens when you take something that should be good and screw that up. Honestly I don't know what they were thinking. I rarely say I could do a better job, Michael Bay is even better at his job then I would be. Yet I know if I had the chance to edit or direct this movie I guarantee that I would have done better.

See here is why it should be great. Judi Dench, Cate Blanchett, Bill Nighy star in this film. They all do a fantastic job, there is no problem with them or the characters. The plot is interesting too. It's all about a story of the relationship between two teachers (Dench and Blanchett). While the two begin two build a friendship something terrible will drive a wedge between the two. Blanchett's character begins to sleep with a 15 year old student. Dench's character uses this information to hold over the other to become more than just a friend. There is definite themes are even talk about it in the film. However Blanchett's character is so sweet she would have been her best friend anyways, if that was enough. Once again the plot is great.

The problem lies in director Richard Eyre and score writer Phillip Glass. The two seem like they're building a thriller when it's anything but. The tone and mood is so much more dramatic and suspenseful then it should be. It's so distracting it really takes you out of the moment. The two create such a wild pace that the film follows that is brings it seriously down. The music isn't bad which is why Glass went on to receive an Oscar nomination for his work. However the it's suited for a Bourne movie, not one about a teacher and student affair.

While the film has it's negative qualities, it does shine in acting. Dench and Blanchett do give some the best work they have ever done and it's fantastic to watch them. Nicholas Hoult auditioned for the role of Stephen (the boy in question), I'd prefer him. I didn't mind the current actor but Hoult is already one of the best of his generation. I"d like to see him take on this role. This is the first time I've seen the whole movie, before I saw only half of it. All in all, this is a good movie that has some big problems.

6.5/10
Recommendation: Maybe you'll like it better than I did (tempo wise), however Dench and Blanchett do make it something to check out at one point or another.

Black Swan (10/10) Revisited

I'd like to start this review off with two quotes. One fits the film, the other describes it in ways I can't.

"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted"

"And now we leave technology and even reality behind, and enter a world where the cinema has always found an easy match: Fantasy. That movies were dreamlike was understood from the very beginning, and the medium allowed directors to evoke the psychological states of their characters. "Black Swan" uses powerful performances by Natalie Portman and Vincent Cassel to represent archetypal attributes: Female/male, young/old, submissive/dominant, perfect/flawed, child/parent, good/evil, real/mythical.

Tchaikovsky's "Swan Lake" provides a template for a backstage story that seems familiar enough (young ballerina tries to please her perfectionist mother and demanding director). Gradually we realize a psychological undertow is drawing her away from reality, and the frenzy of the ballet's climax is mirrored in her own life. This film depends more than many others on the intensity and presence of the actors, and Portman's ballerina is difficult to imagine coming from another actor."

The first comes from Assassin's Creed... weird but it works. The seconds is taken from Roger Ebert.

Watching "Black Swan"is like watching a dream. It contains Nina's (Natalie Portman) hopes and aspirations but it slowly turns into a nightmare showing off what she fears most. To say that she is going crazy is simplifying things. Look at this film with logic and you'll lose the intoxicating spell it casts. Watch it as more of a dream Nina lives in. Don't try to bring logic to that either, I could go on and on about it, but that's not the point. What I'm trying to say is that everything that happens on screen really happens to Nina, but not all of it's true. Nina is stuck in a dream she has about what she wants in life and a nightmare will show her what evil happen. I will say this to prove my point, it's little and stupid but I quite like it. The film opens with a dream of Swan Lake. Nina is shown in bed saying she had the weirdest dream... you never see her wake up. Her eyes are open and the dream-state continues. Hell the movie is more dreamy than "Inception", a movie about dreams.

I won't go into the plot much here. it should be experienced. Nina is a ballerina living in a small apartment with her mother ( a caged bird reference seems plausible) and works in a ballet company in New York. Thomas (Vincent Cassel, look at my "Derailed" about him, it works even better here) the director plans on putting on Swan Lake, Nina wants the lead and she is not alone, Lily (Mila Kunis showing she is so much more that a gorgeous face) stands in her way. The film deals with a myriad of genres, all equally great.

Darren Aronofsky has been building up to this movie all his life. It has all his previous films best elements. The grittiness of 'Pi", the idea of obsession in "Requiem For A Dream", The beautiful style of "The Fountain" (Black Swan is Aronofsky's best work, "The Fountain" may still be my favorite) and the details of a unknown field seen in "The Wrestler". Fincher and Aronofsky were the only two director nominees at the Oscars this year that were above and beyond. Then speaking of Oscars one must mention Portman.

Natalie Portman went on to win the Oscar for "Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role". Notice "performance", that's why she won. Portman gave the best performance of the year, she did not give the best acting. I'd say Michelle Williams in "Blue Valentine" did the best acting this year. Losing yourself in the character was not it either. Annette Bening in "The Kids Are Allright" gave the best lost in character performance then. Portman however gave the best overall performance. Her bathroom stall scene where she tells her mother good news his the best acted scene for actresses of the year. However there are scenes where it's painfully obvious she wants to show an emotion (look at the scene where Lily interrupts Nina, It's kind of funny how much Portman show's she was just hurt.) Portman however has an incredible physical performance. The ballet she does (when it was her and not her double) was wonderful. If Jennifer Hudson and Catherine Zeta-Jones can win Oscars for singing, why not Portman for dancing. However overall Portman turns in a tour de force and is performance only she could pull off. She deserved that Oscar. In fact everyone in the movie is award worthy.

"Black Swan" was my fifth favorite film of the year and was easily one of it's best. Everything in the film was perfect in the end. I wouldn't have it any other way. It plays off the strength of the real play Swan Lake and the little analogies you'll see are wonderful. "Black Swan" is going to be a future classic.

10/10
Recommendation: I've yet to meet a person who didn't love it. It's that majestic.

Elegy (7/10)

Ben Kingsley is one of the best and most versatile actors ever. Mad dog gangsters, inspiring pacifists, quite accountants, strict fathers and mysterious doctors. He's done it all and now he's plays a womanizing teacher, a Mr. David Kepesh. The women he gets are his college students, he waits until after grades are in to be safe. His next prey of sorts is a cuban american student Consuela (Penelope Cruz). However unlike all his other students (except one, Patricia Clarkson plays a student who still visits him years later for no-strings sex) she returns after they sleep together and the two begin a relationship.He came looking for sex but got more than he bargained for. David has a formula for the rest of his life and it's all changed by someone who will be very special for him.

Their relationship isn't whats interesting, it's the wit that the characters bring. For a movie that seems so elegant and poetic at points it seems slow at others. Maybe it was lack of interest, but it's rather unexciting at points. However when it is good... it's beyond that, it's fantastic. However that mix makes things just decent, not favoring great or bad. The supporting cast (Patricia Clarkson, Dennis Hopper and Peter Sarsgaard) all play well to support the change we see in David. Each character has a full life of their own, but still act as almost different personas of David. It's good, but slow progress may not be everyone's interest.

7/10
Recommendation: Like my last sentence, I liked it, but it's nothing great. Still worth a shot if your in for a thinker.

Derailed (7.5/10)

"Derailed" is not a original movie, but it plays to it's smarts. It carefully builds up characters and atmosphere before the plot really kicks in, from then on out it's a thrill ride. However that ride that starts off so smart turns into something far fetched and chaos prone. The film ends as a different one then the one it started as.

Charles (Clive Owen) is a married man with problems. His child has type 1 diabetes and needs alot of care. There's actually a fantastic scene when Charles helps her daughter study but something will happen where it shows that the family doesn't live a normal one because of the disorder. His wife (Melissa George) is becoming distant, he thinks so at least. I'd say they're some other things on their mind that has priority over their deeper connection. They still love each other, but the spark is gone. Enter Lucinda (Jennifer Aniston) who he meets on a train. The two build up their relationship hell bent on a affair. I don't want to say much more but a violent blackmailer and criminal (Vincent Cassel, when isn't he playing his character to perfection) that will tear apart the lives as the two.

The movie is seems believable for the most part, but the ending will ruin that. The twists and turns though are quite exciting and while may be guessed before hand, their nature may be more than you expected. I found myself more interested in the criminal LaRoche then the Charles and Lucinda. I don't know, Cassel brings a charm to all his performances, he makes things better. Vincent Cassel, Peter Sarsgaard, Sam Rockwell, Cillian Murphy, Jeremy Renner, Daniel Mays and John Hawkes have that quality. Anything they touch is better for it. "Derailed" may not be something new, but it works well with what it has for a while.

7.5/10
Recommendation: Pretty standard movie, fans of the actors (this includes a supporting role by RZA) will like it. It's not great but I don't see any reason not to give it a shot.

All Good Things (7/10)

"All Good Things" is either a good movie with negative attributes or a bad one with redeeming qualities. I can't quite make up my mind on it. However that does not mean this movie is not something unwatchable, some things here are really captivating.

I'll spoil a little of the plot here, not because I want too, but it's better if I do. David Marks (Ryan Gosling) was a rebel child, but end up joining his father's (Frank Langella) retail company. He marries Katie (Kirstin Dunst) and for a while they live in bliss. However the longer he stays with the company the more they resent each other. One day Katie goes missing and still is a missing person to this day, yes this is a true story. The movie isn't telling so much about the mystery but how the two changed over the years and what lead to the disappearance.

This movie tends to drag at times, so much so I considered putting it down and continuing it later. The story is interesting at points, but things just fall flat. Gosling, one of my favorite young actors doesn't know what to do. He seems wooden and stale but is it his character or just the way he acts? Dunst is a delight, her best performance thus far (besides "Interview With A Vampire" but she was a kid, it seems different). The supporting actors are fine and the film looks good. However I'd say the director and screen writers want you to know a little about the real David going in, his transformations seem sudden at points. I wish this movie came out in 2011, it would be a building block for Gosling and Dunst Oscar campaigns. Gosling has some good work this year with "Drive" and "The Ides of March" and Dunst has several projects with a possible Oscar chance for "Melancholia". This would have helped their chances here. That says something about this movie I'd guess, it's only there to help the actors with other movies. The movie really builds up by the ending, but it's a pain getting there.

7/10
Recommendation: It's decent, but don't rush out for this one. Watch "Blue Valentine" for Gosling's A game (his better movie last year) and wait for any of Dunst's movie this year, I expect all good things for her then( haha pun).