PaleyFilms

Director Pedro Almodovar’s film Broken Embraces is an interesting one. In it, many different genres, such as drama, romance, crime, film-noir, and thriller are explored. To be more confusing, the film plays out of chronological order, through a series of flashbacks and video clips.

Broken Embraces is a movie about movies. Mateo Blanco (Lluis Homar) is a screen writer who, after becoming blind, changes his name to Harry Caine. Harry’s agent Judit (Blanca Portillo) has an adult son (Tamar Novas) who Harry tells his life story to. There the flashbacks begin. Harry recounts the drama and deception that happened during the making of a film he wrote the screenplay to, called Girls and Suitcases. He becomes romantically involved with aspiring actress and Magdalena (Penelope Cruz) at the same time that Magdalena is involved with someone else. From here on the film becomes almost full blown melodrama, so I won’t get into plot spoiler territory. Needless to say, deceptive, happy, and tragic events all occur at a fast moving pace.

The best thing about this film is its acting. Penelope Cruz stands out among all others, but Homar, Portilla, and the rest of the supporting cast give fine performances. Because the film contains so much melodramatic and noir-ish dialogue, good acting is a must, and these actors definitely deliver.

Additionally, when the movie decides to focus on being about movie-making, we see a strong visual style. There is one scene where something happens while a character is holding a video camera. Almodovar cleverly cuts between regular point of view, and the point of view of the video camera. When characters sit down to edit Girls and Suitcases, focus will often switch from Broken Embraces‘ narrative, and show full scenes from Girls and Suitcases instead.

No film comes without its flaws, though, and Broken Embraces has more than its share of them. For a movie with so much talking, it does not contain much stand-out dialogue. A melodrama should have good dialogue, but the conversations in this one are nothing special, and often go on for too long. In fact, the movie itself is at least 20 minutes too long, and begins to feel drawn out and boring, just like some of its exchanges.

As a movie about movies, the film uses some very interesting visual flairs. However, it does not use them often enough. For a movie that should be really visual, it does not fully deliver. I would have liked if the film had used more camera techniques. Normally this is not a problem, but it seems as if Almodovar only uses them sporadically, to sort of be artsy. If a director wants a movie to be artsy and visually strong, he/she should make it more consistent, especially here where the story calls for it. Earlier, I mentioned a scene with cross cutting between points of views. That scene is brilliant, but I wish there would have been more of them. Visions should be carried out all the way, not feel slight.

In the end, Broken Embraces is a good film, that could have been great. It is definitely worth checking out, especially if you enjoy modern noir movies. Although I have not yet seen Almodovar’s other works, this one definitely makes me want to check them out.

In addition to being made for less than $2 million, Bubble, directed by Steven Soderbergh, features a cast of non-actors. Its dialogue is sparse, and is spoken in non-histrionic, naturalistic tones. This is an experimental film through and through. Making such a movie is a huge risk on a filmmaker’s part, as a low budget and unknown actors are sometimes associated with lower quality movies. The ultimate question is, does Soderbergh’s experiment pay off? The answer would definitely be yes.

The film follows a group of individuals living in a small town. Martha, a middle aged woman, and Kyle, a very young man, work together in a doll-making factory. Day after day, things go on in a dull boring matter. People go home and just sit around; there is nothing to do in this town. That is, until a young woman named Rose begins to work at the doll factory. Rose, whom Kyle finds himself attracted to, is a single mother who has to deal with her bothersome ex-boyfriend, her daughter’s father. One night, a tragic crime is committed against someone in the town, and the police begin investigating.

Although technically a thriller, the film offers very little suspense. It is not difficult to figure out who committed the crime. In fact, I don’t think the point of the movie is to be a thriller, but rather to show us a slice of small town life. Soderbergh does a brilliant job at showing the boredom of everyone in the town. The doll factory is a center of mass production. Each doll that is processed shows about as much emotion as any town member. Martha goes home every day, takes care of her sick father, and watches a little television. Kyle, who still lives with his mother, goes home after a day at the factory, plops down on his bed, and just goes to sleep. This is the process of each of the characters day after day. In fact, when Rose comes into the picture, change occurs, and bad things happen. These are people destined to always be the same.

Praise for this movie would not be complete without mentioning its actors. Each and every one of them gives a first time performance. For example, Debbie Doebereiner, who plays Martha, was discovered at a KFC drive-in. The performances feel extremely natural, because they are. These are normal people acting like normal people, with improvised dialogue. Everything feels like it would in real life, making the casting one of the film’s most brilliant choices. These characters feel so real, they are painful to watch.

Soderbergh is smart when using such a minimalist film style. Bubble runs only about 70 minutes, but manages to hold your attention all the way through. With only a small budget, non-actors and a very simple plot, Steven Soderbergh shows that it does not take much to make a great movie. He should be an inspiration to all independent film makers. Although Soderbergh also makes mainstream stuff such as Traffic and Ocean’s Eleven, his independent movies stand out the most, because they say so much with so little.

In Tron, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is a video game designer, whose ideas have been stolen by Ed Dillinger (David Warner). Flynn is forced to open a video game arcade to make money, while Dillinger rakes in cash from the game ideas that he stole. Software programmer, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) helps Flynn break into Dillinger’s workplace, in order for Flynn to find evidence that Dillinger stole the game ideas from him. What Flynn doesn’t know, is that Dillinger has an artificial intelligence computer system called the Master Control Program. While Flynn attempts to break into Dillinger’s computer database, Master Control Program sucks Flynn into the world of computer files by “digitizing” him. As a computer file, Flynn meets Tron, a program written by Bradley, and must attempt to take down the Master Control Program and recover evidence of his video game creations.

As always, I will start with what I liked about the film. Released in 1982, Tron featured state of the art special effects for its time. Writer/director Steven Lisberger cleverly uses early computer graphics to make the world of the computer visually interesting. This film was no doubt influential in the special effects department, and one can see why. For the time period in which it came out, it can be called a visual feast. I also give Lisberger credit for not taking the movie too seriously. Instead of trying to hit the viewer of the head with messages, Tron realizes that it is not a deep movie, and does not attempt to be. At only an hour and a half, the film does not add in multiple plot lines to try and be as confusing as possible.

All that said, the bad in this movie greatly outweighs the good. We get a wafer thin plot, uninteresting characters, and zero drama. The first fifteen minutes or so of the film is live action, and contains the interesting setup. However, once Flynn actually enters the world of the video game, the movie becomes a light show. Yes, the special effects are good, but instead of adding to the story, they become the story. Take away all of the (pretty terrible) dialogue, and the movie would be exactly the same. It is almost as if the director is trying to give a special effects demonstration. Unfortunately, after the “cool” factor wears off, the movie becomes dull and downright boring.

Don’t even get me started on the acting. That is because there barely is any! One of the film’s only saving graces is that we rarely get to hear its poorly written dialogue. Bridges is fine, for the most part, but everyone else is pretty bad. It’s not that they are bad actors. Neither depth, nor good lines are given to anyone. There are a few moments in the movie that try to be emotional. These moments fail, because they have not been earned by the characters. In fact, I found myself rarely caring about any of the movie’s players. The film’s ending struck no emotional chords, as I didn’t care about anything that happened prior to it.

Action lovers might think this is at least a fine action film. That is not so. Since there is no emotional buildup in the film whatsoever, action scenes don’t feel intense, nor do they put you on the edge of your seat. Additionally, since the sequences are all computer generated, watching them feels like watching an arcade game move by itself for an hour and a half. Tron would have been much better suited as a five minute demonstration video.

If you are a special effects junkie, and want to see how technology in film evolved during the 80s, you may want to check this movie out. As an attempt at an involving (action?) story, Tron falls as flat as the video game characters which inhabit it.

When one thinks of director Paul Thomas Anderson, epic films such as Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and There Will Be Blood usually come to mind. If not, he is known for his romantic comedy, Punch-Drunk Love,  a huge departure for both Anderson and its star, Adam Sandler. What he is not known for, however, is his debut film, Hard Eight. Originally titled Sydney, then later changed to Hard Eight against Paul Thomas Anderson’s will by the movie studio, it is not only an interesting first film, but a good one, too.

John (John C. Reilly) is a homeless guy struggling to raise money for his mother’s funeral. Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) picks John off the streets, and treats him to a cup of coffee. While talking in the coffee shop, Sydney finds out that John had gone to Las Vegas to earn enough the money to pay for his mother’s funeral, but only broke even. Sydney then takes John under his wing, and teaches him tricks to make money at casinos. John meets a young waitress, Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow), who he falls in love with, and makes friends with Jimmy (Samuel L. Jackson), who Sydney distrusts. When John and Clementine get into a troublesome situation, bad things begin to unfold.

Although Hard Eight doesn’t carry all of the trademarks of a PTA film (large ensemble cast, epic feel, etc.), many of Anderson’s later attributes can be seen in it. The film has at least one fantastic tracking shot , strong central performances, and a great scene between Philip Seymour Hoffman and Philip Baker Hall that feels similar in tone to Magnolia. As a whole, this is a well directed debut, and shows you where Anderson will go in his later films.

Gwyneth Paltrow, and Samuel L. Jackson both give really nice performances. Reilly generally acts his best in Paul Thomas Anderson films, this one being no exception. Although more of a supporting character, Reilly gives a great, heartfelt performance. The standout, however, is Philip Baker Hall. He brings an emotional depth to Sydney’s character that would probably not have worked with a different actor.

The movie has only a couple of flaws that bothered me. The pacing is sometimes poor, especially near the beginning, something which I attribute to the film’s editor. Also, a few of the plot points aren’t fully fleshed out, though this is more of a minor flaw. To a degree, character backgrounds and extended plot points are unnecessary, as the film’s screenplay is strong enough to make the viewer focus chiefly on the displayed story.

In relation to Paul Thomas Anderson’s other films, Hard Eight definitely holds up, and is one of the most remarkable debuts of the past 20 years. In addition to being really solid, with great performances and direction, it is a severely neglected film, and is definitely one to check out.

In Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio gives a fantastic performance as Dom Cobb, a man haunted by his wife’s death, and a thief who specializes in extracting memories from people. Although he is stationed away from home, Cobb is given the opportunity to return to his family if he completes one final job. Cobb and a team of experts attempt to weave their way through people’s dreams and sub-consciousnesses. Needless to things become get more complicated than anyone involved has bargained for.

At first, this may seem like a departure for Christopher Nolan. So far he has made two (narrated) mind-benders, two thrillers, and two superhero movies. A closer look will tell you that Inception is actually more or less a union of genres that Nolan has been working towards for over ten years.

In addition to being skillfully directed, the film features a brilliantly penned script. In fact, this review’s opening paragraph reveals less about the plot than the back of a DVD cover. It is definitely a movie that you should go into knowing as little as possible about. Nolan creates his own set of rules, and follows it to the tee, no matter how convoluted and crazy things may get. None of this would have been possible without the film’s great supporting cast, which includes (but not exclusively): Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, and Marion Cotillard. Although Ellen Page is the only standout of this bunch (as a college student being trained by Cobb), the actors all play their respective roles impeccably.

Visual masterpiece is another way of looking at the movie. The film’s camerawork is fantastic, and often accomplishes things you would not expect. Whether it be an action scene or a complicated visual maze, the movie is great to look at and contains some out-of-the-world shots. Nolan relies more on beautiful imagery than he does CGI special effects.

A film this long and complex does not come without its flaws, though. While for the most part, the movie contains a great screenplay, some of its situations feel a little too polished for such a complicated plot, such as rules being clearly described to the viewer, and Cobb’s not-too-convincing relationship with his wife and kids. Another problem with the film is its use of music. Almost every scene in Inception features a fine Hans Zimmer score, which partially takes away from the visual weight of (thankfully only a few) scenes. Fortunately, the score begins to really pick up during the action scenes, which I felt worked even better with the music, so this is only a minor complaint.

Christopher Nolan has managed to successfully merge the mind-bender, thriller, sci-fi , drama, and action movie into one intense picture. This film definitely warrants multiple viewings, and is one to check out, as long as you are a fan of any of the aforementioned genres. Just make sure to bring your thinking cap into the theater.

Andrew Jarecki’s 2003 documentary is an intense one. It documents the events leading up to, and after a father and his son are convicted of child molestation. Not only is Capturing the Friedmans a well made documentary, it is also one of the very best portrayals of a dysfunctional family.

When child pornography is found in the possession of Arnold Friedman, the head of the Friedman household, nasty things begin to unfold. Arnold and his son Jesse are arrested for committing multiple sexual crimes against young boys, who regularly come to the Friedman’s house to take computer lessons. As more and more information is revealed about the Friedman family by various friends, relatives, and police officers, one begins to see just how messed up the family really is. Capturing the Friedmans is a truly disturbing film.

Director Andrew Jarecki does not need to re-enact discussions between members of the Friedman family. Almost all of them are captured on video or sound recordings, mostly by the family members themselves. Therefore, arguments and conversations between anyone and about anything, sound natural (at least amongst unnatural people) and extremely real. The realism of such footage only serves to add to the disturbed nature of the entire Friedman family. We hear all about Arnold’s alleged sexual fascination with young boys, his failed marriage, and his relationships with his children. Just when you think you have heard it all, another allegation always manages to find its way in.

I give Jarecki a lot of credit for the way he deals with this picture. Instead of taking a clear stance (something very easy to do in such a controversial case), he does a wonderful job of documenting the family during a difficult event. The viewer may even become frustrated with the film, as it offers no clear cut answers. Did Arnold and/or Jesse actually commit child molestation? The film does not answer that question, but nevertheless remains a thought provoking, disturbing, and unique documentary.

As a huge fan of Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Once Upon a Time in America, I simply had to check out Duck, You Sucker. Generally considered his most overlooked Western, Duck, You Sucker is probably the most uneven Leone film. That does not, however, mean that I did not like it.

Juan, a bandit, meets explosives expert, John, during the Mexican Revolution in 1913. While Juan is interested in traveling to Mesa Verde in order to rob the city’s bank, John is more intent on helping the revolutionaries, who are constantly being executed by authorities. During an attempted bank robbery, Juan accidentally frees a large group of imprisoned revolutionaries. They subsequently hail Juan as a hero, forcing both John and Juan deeper into the bowels of the revolution.

Although the film’s two leads give fine performances, they are tremendously miscast. Rod Steiger plays Juan, in a role originally intended for Eli Wallach. Such a fact becomes all too apparent when Steiger’s character comes off as almost a second rate Tuco (from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly).  James Coburn gives a decent performance as John, a role which would have been a better fit for someone like Clint Eastwood or Paul Newman. Also, the movie is not paced as well as other Leone films. There is no consistent tone throughout the film. Some scenes are very funny, while others are deadly serious. Leone is usually able to properly blend the two, but somewhat fails here. I don’t blame this on the direction, but rather on the screenwriting. To add to this point, the dialogue is not very strong, and often just lays there.

Nevertheless, the movie has a lot in it that I really liked. Leone’s direction is spot on, as is the film’s cinematography. Flashback scenes where John remembers how a friend of his betrayed him, are both touching and poignant. They are shot in slow motion, and feature tremendously moving music from Ennio Morricone (as does the rest of the movie). Although they do not progress the film forward, the flashbacks add emotional depth to John’s character that is not apparent in the rest of the movie.

Although this film carries more political content than Leone’s other films, it does not try to manipulate you by making many political statements. As in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, war is simply a way to further the plot, not the main focus. Duck, You Sucker is more about the friendship between Juan and John than it is about the Mexican Revolution. Everything does not necessarily add up, but this is a solid piece of film-making by one of the greatest directors of all time.

Directed by Federico Fellini, La Strada is a beautiful tale. It is about a young woman, Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina), who is sold by her poor mother to the traveling performer, Zampano (Anthony Quinn). Zampano is a strong-man who puts chains around his chest, and then breaks free using only his pectoral muscles. He is a brutish and abusive man, who treats Gelsomina with little respect, hits her, and drinks too much. Along the way Zampano and his “protege” join a circus, where they meet a tightrope walker nicknamed “The Fool” (Richard Basehart). Watch as tensions mount between Zampano and “The Fool,” whom Zampano strongly dislikes and considers annoying.

La Strada is beautiful in the way it is shot, the simplicity of its dramatic performances, and its soul (something which not many movies have). While Anthony Quinn is very good as the brutish Zampano, and Richard Basehart acts “The Fool” with a certain playfulness that makes his character extremely likable, Giulietta Masina’s Gelsomina is the real spectacle. Not only does she have one of the most wonderful faces in cinema, her performance is truly a wonder to behold. The movie also features fantastic direction from Fellini, and a top-notch score (by Fellini regular Nino Rota).

Viewer beware, this is not a happy, feel good film. It is a movie about real human feelings and emotions, and a splendid one, for that matter. For any fans (or non-fans) of Fellini films, La Strada is one to definitely check out.

After seeing Michael Cera’s performances in both Juno and Superbad, I just had to check out more of his work. When the friends I went to the theater with suggested we see Youth in Revolt, needless to say, I was very satisfied with the choice. First of all, let me just say that Youth in Revolt is no great movie. It excels in story concept and humor, but when it comes to writing and direction, falls kind of flat.

Michael Cera gives a wonderful performance as Nick Twist, a nerdy teen, who creates an alternate persona (complete with mustache and cigarette!) to help him get the girl of his dreams, Sheeni. Many of the situations which are presented are very humorous, and are enhanced by Cera’s point on comic timing and line delivery. The rest of the cast members give decent performances, with the exception of Adhir Kalyan, who gives an especially terrible performance as Vijay, one of Nick’s high school friends.

The concept of creating an alternate persona is one that is clever and performed very well, but much of the dialogue felt out of place and contrived. The film is based on a series of teenage books, a fact which becomes very apparent while watching the movie. Miguel Arteta’s directing is pretty flat and does not add much to the story, with the exception of some scenes featuring Nick talking to his alter ego. Without giving away too much of the story, Arteta manages to make the conversation flow perfectly on screen during these scenes. One can totally buy that there are truly two different people onscreen, when in reality camera tricks are used to simply double Michael Cera.

Youth in Revolt  is nevertheless a fairly smart comedy, with some very funny stuff in it including a drug trip (involving the very funny Justin Long), an attempted fake suicide, and some really witty dialogue between Nick Twist and his omnipresence. Do see this if you enjoy Michael Cera movies, and want a funny, smart, and occasionally hilarious film watching experience.