PaleyFilms

Humor is not something one would normally associate with murder. With Delicatessen, however, directors Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro are intent on doing just that. It tells a darkly funny tale of a group of people living in an apartment building in post-apocalyptic France. The landlord, Clapet (Jean-Claude Dreyfus), hires employees to do work around the building, and murders them in the dark of night, so he can chop them up to sell as meat in his delicatessen. One day, Clapet hires Louison (Dominique Pinon), an unemployed circus clown. Louison begins to fall in love with the landlord’s daughter, Julie (Marie-Laure Dougnac), who hires a group of underground vegetarians to save Louison from the fate of her father’s butcher knife.

Let me start off by saying that this is one of the funniest films I have seen in a long time. Instead of taking the “disturbing” route by showing us numerous violent scenes, the directors keep this, for the most part, a comedy. Humor is whimsically found in the most mundane of things, such as musical instruments, human mannerisms, and rhythm. To add to that, we also get great laughs in the form of running gags and slapstick, as well as great sitcom.

The thing about this movie, however, that makes it as great as it is, is its characters. They’re all so damn likable! Our main protagonists, Louison and Julie, have lots of chemistry together, while the antagonist butcher is so overblown, you cannot help but feel for him, too. Additionally, we get to see other occupants of the apartment, each with their own unique personalities. One clever running gag features a suicidal woman, whose increasingly creative attempts at killing herself keep getting foiled by accident. Because she is such a well-written character, the woman makes you feel for her, and flows nicely into the tone of the story. Possibly the most commendable decision of the filmmakers, however, is that the apartment itself is one of the film’s strongest characters. Little things such as plumbing flaws, echoes, and bed-springs are very characteristic, and lend themselves to the movie’s ingenious set and sound design.

This is both Jeunet and Caro’s first feature film, and their direction is unrelenting. You may know Jeunet as the director of 2001′s Amelie, a film different in tone, but similar in whimsy. Here he and his co-director stylishly paint an uncompromising picture of a dystopia, aided by some of the most thoughtful art direction and cinematography I have recently seen. Everything is tinted by a rusty hue, which creates a feel like no other. The mood is bleak, but not in a depressing way; there is enough hope and humor here to keep the viewer involved and happy. Inside the confines of the apartment, the writers and directors trust their characters enough to make this film likable, instead of dark and dreary.

Delicatessen, in addition to being an artistic work of genius, is an extremely funny film. It is a movie that will make you both laugh and admire the directors’ brilliance at the same time. Although this uniquely dark, yet funny tale will fill you up, you’ll still wish for another course.

After the huge successes of his out of sequence movies, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, director Quentin Tarantino did the unexpected; he made a chronological film. For an even bigger change of pace, Tarantino decided to adapt Elmore Leonard’s novel Rum Punch, rather than write an original screenplay. The final blow, however, is that the finished product had fairly toned down violence, unlike the graphic bloodiness of his previous films. Luckily for Tarantino fans, though, Jackie Brown holds up perfectly fine in his canon of work, even with several trademarks missing. It features a great script, on-the-nose direction, and a great ensemble, including Samuel L. Jackson, Pam Grier, Robert Forster, Robert DeNiro, Bridget Fonda and Michael Keaton, just to name a few.

Ordell Robbie (Jackson) is a weapons dealer, who bails out flight attendant Jackie Brown (Grier) after she is caught carrying some of his illegally earned money in an airport. Jackie gets caught up with bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Forster), as they try to steal money being used by the feds to catch Ordell. What ensues is a ridiculously fun and immersing series of events, finally leading up to a thrilling climax that is shown from multiple points of view.

Out of the huge list of directors working today, Quentin Tarantino is one of the best. This film proves that the same was true back in 1997. From the opening shot (a clever homage to The Graduate) we sense that a confident director is behind the camera. Tarantino doesn’t stop there, and delivers cinematic greatness throughout. Additionally, he does a brilliant job (as always) with the screenplay, creating witty dialogue and unique situations. The characters feel real and human, and not at all caricatures. Although I have not read the original source material, I cannot imagine the script being completely faithful to it, as this feels as original as Tarantino’s other works.

Without its actors, the film wouldn’t have been as good as it was, so I’ll give credit where credit is due. Pam Grier gives a first-class performance as the title character, while Robert Forster matches, and possibly exceeds her. The supporting cast is fine, especially Keaton and Fonda. I was, however, a little let down by Robert DeNiro, who plays Louis Gara, a friend of Ordell’s. His performance, while understated, is a bit too understated. Nevertheless, DeNiro changes that near the end of the film, so it isn’t that big of a flaw. If I had to choose the best performance, however, it would have to be Samuel L. Jackson’s. Jackson is extremely unpredictable here, someone disturbingly deadly. What is this film’s most suspenseful aspect? Waiting for Ordell Robbie to act out on something comes to mind.

One notable flaw, though, is the movie’s length. While the endless conversations are mainly entertaining, they do get a little excessive, and the film dawdles a bit in the middle. At over two-and-a-half hours, this should have been edited down by at least ten or fifteen minutes. On a happier note, this is the only big problem, as the rest of the film is mostly brilliance.

Saying that Jackie Brown is not as good as most of Tarantino’s other films still gives it room to be phenomenal. Any fan of the director’s work, or crime movies in general will probably like it. This movie has all there is to offer by way of characters, writing, and direction.

A courtroom drama can either be a recipe for success, or the blueprint for a disaster. Interesting conflict between lawmen relies so heavily on strong dialogue, that it can make or break the movie. Anatomy of a Murder certainly falls under this rule. At nearly three hours long, with at least half of its running time consisting of courtroom “back-and-forth,” it is already taking a giant risk. To top that, the viewer does not get to see any of the crimes that lead up to the lawyer taking his case. Think about it for a moment. Not many people would want to sit and watch a three hour film that consists almost entirely of dialogue, unless the said dialogue is refreshing, entertaining, and engrossing. Thankfully, director Otto Preminger teams up here with screenwriter Wendell Mayes to create the best kind of courtroom movie: one that captivates the audience, and offers sheer entertainment in the form of words and characters.

James Stewart plays Paul Biegler, a tough lawyer who agrees to defend convicted murderer Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) in court. Frederick’s plea is that the murder was committed during an involuntary fit of anger, after finding out that the to-be victim had raped Laura (Lee Remick), Frederick’s wife. The first half of this movie consists mainly of interplay between Biegler and the Manion couple, where Biegler learns details of the murder, and agrees to take on Frederick Manion’s case. While the first part of the film manages to play out very interestingly, it is the second half, the courtroom scenes themselves, which takes off at a breakneck pace and refuses to stop.

It’s extremely fortunate that James Stewart was cast in the part of the tough yet humanistic lawyer, because he plays his part to a tee. Stewart often plays the everyman in his films, making it really nice to see his versatility here, in a very different role. We also get to see the great acting chops of George C. Scott who plays the court-case’s prosecutor, as well as a pretty good supporting performances from Arthur O’Connell, Eve Arden, Kathryn Grant, and Ben Gazzara. The only role I didn’t really buy was Lee Remick’s, which I found unconvincing and too self-aware. Nevertheless, even Remick doesn’t do a terrible job, making the overall acting in this movie realistic and satisfying.

As previously mentioned, the movie’s main victory comes from its writing, which is absolutely phenomenal. In addition to being smart and witty, it also feels very real. Due to the film’s length, we get to see full, long courtroom sequences, as well as hear realistic questions to witnesses, objections by lawyers on both sides of the case, and frank terms that had rarely been used in Hollywood cinema at the time. In very few mainstream American pictures had rape and sex been so bluntly mentioned and alluded to. Much respect should be given to the filmmakers for being such ambitious risk-takers and game-changers.

If law-related movies interest you in any way, this is one to definitely go and see. James Stewart is especially strong in the leading role, as is most of the supporting cast. Otto Preminger and Wendell Mayes make a great director/writer team, and take big chances which cause this movie to pay off. For a film that is all dialogue, and little, to no action, Anatomy of a Murder manages to be a riveting entry into the courtroom genre.

Child actors are huge pet peeves of mine. Whether it be the annoying kid in The Blind Side or the brat from the original The Blob, their performances can often ruin a movie for me, especially if the child plays a major character. Of course, there are notable exceptions, such as Jean-Pierre Leaud’s brilliant turn in Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows, or even Chloe Moretz from this year’s Kick-Ass. Paper Moon is notable for containing a team up between Ryan O’Neal and his real-life daughter, Tatum. The young Ms. O’Neal won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this film, at the age of 10, the youngest person ever to do so. However, I won’t try to pretend that she actually gives a supporting performance; enough screen-time and plot development is allotted to Tatum for her to be considered a lead actress. So it all cuts down to the chase. Did the youngest ever Best Supporting Actress winner actually deserve her win, or more importantly, was her performance even good? I am ecstatic that I can say “yes” on both counts.

The acting in this movie is absolutely top-notch, and in fact is the main driving force behind its success. Ryan O’Neal gives an astounding performance as Moses Pray, a con artist who sells Bibles under false pretenses, with help from Addie Loggins (Tatum O’Neal), a young girl who may or may not be his daughter. Normally, one would think that a grown man’s acting would dwarf that of a ten year old, but no. This ten year old doesn’t give a normal performance at all, and manages to match her father’s acting quality act for act, word for word. I cannot recollect ever hearing banter go on between two unlikelier people, but it really pays off here. Instead of coming off as incredibly annoying, Tatum O’Neal gives a mature performance that many seasoned actresses would kill to pull off.

In accordance with the movie taking place in the 1930s, director Peter Bogdanovich made the wise decision to shoot the picture in black and white, instead of color (the latter had already been the norm for many years). Coupled with gorgeous, sweeping cinematography, the black and white manages to feel both nostalgic and beautiful at the same time.

Praise for this film would be incomplete if its writer, Alvin Sargent were not mentioned. Sargent (who later went on to write the great script for Ordinary People) does a wonderful job on this screenplay, adapted from a 1971 novel of the same name. Not only does this movie have wonderful back and forth dialogue, it also presents entertaining and original scenarios for the viewer’s intense pleasure. In fact, I may even go so far as to call it my win for favorite adapted screenplay of 1973, over the Oscar winner from the same category, The Exorcist.

Paper Moon  is easily one of the best films of its year. The movie hooks you in with its witty screenplay, which is only improved by the two O’Neal leads’ acting. Bogdanovich takes nary a misstep in its direction, and crafts a winner. It’s kind of hard not to like such a clever and heartwarming movie, one that I can wholeheartedly recommend to anyone.

Although I wasn’t particularly enamored with the trailer for Dinner for Schmucks, one thing gave me hope that the movie would be good: the two lead actors. Steve Carell is great in NBC’s show The Office, while Paul Rudd shines in the 2007 rom-com Knocked Up. Okay, just because you put two funny people in a room together doesn’t mean they will make you laugh. However, Carell and Rudd also played side by side in 2005′s hilarious The 40 Year Old Virgin, and had tremendous on-screen chemistry, leading me to believe that the movie I am about to review would at very least keep a consistent smile on my face. Unfortunately, in addition to not making me laugh once, Schmucks caused me to frown for nearly two hours.

The plot is fairly simple. Tim Conrad (Rudd) has just learned that his workplace is throwing a dinner party for all of the staff. Each person must bring entertainment to the party, entertainment meaning “an idiot whom everyone can laugh at.” This is where Carell comes in, as Barry Speck, a socially awkward IRS employee and taxidermist. While Barry is trying to grab a dead mouse from in middle of the street, Tim accidentally hits him with a car. Through conversation, Tim sees potential in Barry as a “party idiot” and invites him to his office dinner.

Comedy films only have one qualification to be watchable. They should be funny! Not only does this movie end up having one of the most messily put together plots I have ever seen, it doesn’t even offer any good comedy to compensate. The “dinner” in the film’s title doesn’t begin until at least an hour into the movie (actually, probably closer to an hour and a half), and even when it does begin, there are still no laughs to be found. The first half of the plot contains some very poor (not to mention predictable) situational and physical comedy revolving around a misunderstanding between Tim and his girlfriend, while the dinner party itself plays out in a stupid and mean-spirited way. The script calls for us to laugh at Carell’s witless character, who acts as if he legitimately has some sort of mental issue. If screenwriters David Guion and Michael Handelman needed to rely on such a cruel and cheap way to generate laughs, they could at least have made the dialogue humorous. It’s been quite a long time since I have seen a film with so much talent wasted this much. Heck, the whole product is so messy that it could have been put together by a bunch of schoolchildren.

If there was one film that should have succeeded this year but failed, it was Dinner for Schmucks. Its insanely talented cast is completely misused, while its painfully bad screenplay contains at most a chuckle or two. Perhaps one who finds every comedy funny will find something here to like, but I cannot help in that department. This is an offensively bad movie, as it should have flourished, but didn’t. All the ingredients are here, they’re just thrown into a blender.

I must admit that video games are not my thing. In addition to finding them repetitive, they do not make me think as much as a good movie, book, or even television show does. It’s not that I dislike video games, I just don’t play them often enough to really care much about them. That being said, I had a small amount of trepidation going into Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. After all, the story follows Scott Pilgrim (played here by Michael Cera) as he attempts to defeat the seven evil ex-boyfriends (well, sort of) of Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the girl of his dreams. Although I have enjoyed Cera in everything I have seen him in, so far, this film’s style may have put me off a bit. It is an action movie, but with video game style fighting. In addition to displaying every “Pow” and “Kaboom,” characters also earn level ups and extra lives during fights. This movie is a classic example of where “style over substance” is expected, and I was hoping there would be a plot that was not paper-thin, that had interesting characters, instead of stereotypes. Well, although there was definitely more style than there was substance, Scott Pilgrim succeeds as a good movie, and I shall explain why.

Not only is this an action movie, it’s also a comedy, and let me tell you, at the very least it’s an entertaining one. While the script is decently funny, it’s the actors who really make you laugh. Cera is better than usual, playing a much less geeky character than usual, while Anna Kendrick is delightful as Scott’s sister Stacey. The notable comedic standout, however is definitely Kieran Culkin, who plays Wallace, Scott’s gay roommate. Culkin steals every scene he is in, but hey; what can you expect from the same person who proved himself as a fantastic actor in 2002s Igby Goes Down?

Lots of credit should go to the film’s director, Edgar Wright. He uses a ton of style, but uses it well. This movie is one of the most consistent visions I have ever seen on screen. It doesn’t matter whether the scene is funny, romantic, sad, or action packed. Wright doesn’t miss one step with his comic book/video game display. The fight scenes, for example, are so cartoonish that they don’t have any stakes. However, the style is so much fun to watch, that lack of human vulnerability will be the last thing to cross your mind while watching this movie.

In my opinion, this film only has two major flaws. The first is that many of the video game-esque sequences go on too long. We see similar stylized action repeated over and over again during some of the fights. Thankfully, most of the violence is used to service the plot and/or humor, not detract from it. However, when it’s overused, time seems to go by a little slower than usual. Secondly, some of the drama is predictable or poorly written. Every time the film tries to slow down its pace and work on character development, it gets dragged down. These characters are interesting enough as they are, and any real character development is achieved through their actions, not conversations.

Edgar Wright, Michael Cera, and everyone else involved with this project brings his all to the camera. In addition to being pretty funny, the action scenes are cleverly crafted and extremely fun to experience. Even though some of the fights may be a little long and tedious to sit through, they are some of the film’s most original sequences. The characters, though they could have had more consistent development, are extremely likable, even the villains. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is uncompromising filmmaking to say the least.

2009 was a great year for movies. With ten Best Picture nominees instead of the usual five, more films were allowed to get a nod they normally would not be able to have. That brings me back to my original statement. Why do I think 2009 was such a good year for film? Well, with an expanded Best Picture category, the fact that such great films as Moon and (500) Days of Summer were not afforded a slot seems to be proof that the ten nominees must have been pretty darn good.

One of the ten films that made the cut as a Best Picture nominee was The Blind Side, starring Sandra Bullock and Quinton Aaron. The Blind Side is an inspirational true story, about how real life NFL star Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron) was rescued from a hard childhood by Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock). After leaving a home full of drugs and neglect, Oher finds himself in and out of foster homes. One day, Tuohy finds Oher homeless, having run away from his foster home, and allows him to live with her family. Leigh Anne ensures that Michael gets a good education, and helps him find sports training, which eventually brings out a great football player in Oher.

The Blind Side starts off very promisingly with an interesting step by step breakdown of a football game, narrated by Sandra Bullock. I must say, although I am not particularly a sports movie fan, the opening scene intrigued me, and drew me into the movie. The first half-hour or so held my interest very well, and although it was not anything special, was still a fun, entertaining movie. I am sorry to say, after that first half-hour the movie began to get very annoying, very fast.

Unfortunately, the film falls into territory that I like to call “saccharine”- that is, sacrificing a good story in order to please the audience, and filling the movie with cliche after cliche. Although there were a few brief mentions and flashbacks about Oher’s childhood, I could have done with more of it. Even though we see a young man seemingly helpless and traumatized, the movie never really focuses enough on the cause. Either put more of it in, or just don’t mention it at all. If the film-makers wanted to make a movie simply about a nice family taking in Michael Oher, they should have just made it about that. However, if they wanted to make it more of a character study (which the first twenty minutes or so seems to be trying to do), then they should not have held back. Would putting intense family issues in the movie have made it less kid-friendly? Possibly. But the story would have been a lot more interesting.

Furthermore, The Blind Side is not even a great sports movie. Given the promise of its opening scene, focus is not put enough on Oher’s love for football. We get maybe one or two so-so games, while most of the story focuses on the kindness of Leigh Anne Tuohy and her family. It really is a shame, because Michael Oher’s personal storyline is a lot more interesting when his caretakers aren’t involved.

Another issue I had was its predictable dialogue. Many a time, I found myself correctly predicting the next line, as the dialogue was going on. While it is based on a true story, I highly doubt that in real life the people in this story had cliched, ready made speeches for everything. In fact, the movie becomes so predictable that it grows wearisome and uninteresting. As is the pratfall of many films, The Blind Side goes on far longer than it has to, and could easily have been cropped of a few unnecessary plot points.

Finally, most of the characters are one dimensional. From Leigh Anne’s husband, to the school teachers, to Michael’s coach, the characters seem cliched and lack any emotional depth. Out of all the one-note performances, however, the one that sticks out like a sore thumb is Jae Head as S.J. Tuohy, Leigh Anne’s young son. He perhaps fights for the top spot as the most annoying child actor ever. Every time S.J. is on screen, I wanted to reach out and throttle him, for being so cliched and irritating. To his credit, though, I do not think this was a problem with the acting, but rather with the screenplay. The script asks every character to be so unrealistically stereotypical, that the actors cannot save the roles. Bullock’s performance has been praised, and even won the Oscar for Best Actress, but the fact that it is one of the stronger performances in the film is not saying much. She acts her character well, but lacks any humanistic vulnerability. Quinton Aaron is the only one given any acting to do. He probably gives the strongest performance out of anyone, though manages to keep the same exact facial expression for the majority of the movie.

Nevertheless, the movie does have its saving graces. For the most part, the directing is pretty tight, as most of the film’s pacing problems come from its script. If you are one of the thousands of people who enjoy cliched inspirational movies, or just want a fun family romp, you will love and adore The Blind Side. The film is based upon a true story, so the plot does seem a bit stronger than others of its kind.

While The Blind Side did not deserve its Best Picture nod, I do understand why it received it. The movie is the definition of a crowd pleaser. Unfortunately, that very aspect is where The Blind Side derails, and becomes cliched and unrealistically sentimental. I won’t tell you not to see it, as most people will probably enjoy it, but it is a movie that I simply cannot recommend.