Reviews

45 Years, directed by Andrew Haigh, is a film about a long-wedded couple, Kate and Geoff Mercer, who are coming upon their 45th anniversary, for which they're having a special celebration in the English town of Norwich near the more rural area they live. The reason for that odd year number is it being a make-up event for their not having been able to celebrate their fortieth anniversary, due to circumstances that prevented them. Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay star as Kate and Geoff. Both performances are really strong, especially Rampling who was nominated deservingly for an Oscar for the role (the first, surprisingly, of the legendary actress's career); in the role she shows such powerful emotion, expressed both in her times of silence and when she's asserting herself vocally.

During their extensive preparations and interactions with friends in the lead up to the party, a letter arrives pertaining to discovery about the past: the long-lost body of a girl, with whom Geoff once long ago had been on romantic terms, has been found. She was who Geoff might have married if a tragedy hadn't struck some fifty years before in the Alps. Initially, the revelation does not appear to have a dramatic effect in their relationship-more a topic of conversation, if one of personal nature. But as the subject is delved more deeply into and more is discovered, at first subtly then more noticeably, they feel a change and the tension is raised-and this amid their outer lives, specifically centered on the planning for the anniversary party. Eventually, a discovery even more stunning is made by Kate that leaves her with a choice: to confront Geoff about it or to try to let it go. That leads to a mesmerizing sequence in which Rampling, at her absolute best, expresses so much without words.

45 Years is a great film that includes wonderful performances and the enveloping atmosphere of an English small-town life, placed inside a story that on its face appears simple, but is really layered with substantial emotional complexity. A must see for film fans who enjoy brilliant, realistic, and personal human stories.

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom is a 2015 Netflix-produced documentary, directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, which focuses on the ninety days of protests, referred to as the Euromaidan Protests, that spanned from November 2013 to February 2014, which eventually toppled the government of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. It was set off when this leader of the Eastern European country, a former Soviet Republic, refused to sign a trade agreement with the European Union, which the people wanted and which he had said he would sign, in order to pay favor to Russia and Vladimir Putin. The people see the cronyism and the corruption, and are determined to peacefully show their displeasure, in the streets, eventually numbering in the thousands. The government doesn't take kindly to this popular uprising, feeling threatened easily by public opposition (as autocratic regimes often do), and sets about to repress and squash their movement. The response from the people is, as has occurred with authoritarians doing similar oppression, is to not cower but step up harder and louder and grow their movement.

Putting the politics aside--though I don't think it should be in any way be considered a controversial statement that the government acted in a very bad way--this is a fantastic, disturbing, and beyond all a riveting documentary, including amazing footage placing you in the heart of these heart-stopping scenes and put together well. It shows very well how the movement started and how it grew. I think I even liked this better than another really strong Netflix doc about a similar kind of revolution in Egypt earlier in the decade, the award-winning The Square, though this is many ways is a slighter film. I believe the narrower focus, putting it on these specific protests and the governments overreaction, works to its benefit. Afineevsky received both Academy Award and Emmy nominations for the film, which on the one hand I find strange, because the two award shows are clearly in separate entertainment entities, and a work probably shouldn't be eligible for both; on the other hand, I can't say he wasn't deserving for both nomination (the same thing happened to the director of The Square Jehane Noujaim, won some Emmys for it). I highly recommend seeing this documentary.

Mountains May Depart, directed by Zhangke Jia, is a very fine Chinese drama, whose timeline spans some twenty-five years from the past, to the present, to the future, representing China in the modern age and possibly where it's headed. It is something that's quite unique and interesting. Jia was also the director of a movie I saw a few years ago called A Touch of Sin, and while I remember admiring that film (which is of a considerably darker subject matter than this one), it left me feeling a little cold, while I enjoyed the experience of Mountains May Depart more.

The main character in story, who is connected in one way or another to almost every other prominent person, is a woman named Tao Zhao, played by Shen Tao. She is the heart of the film even during much of the parts she's not in, playing it with empathy and truth in her journey, a very fine performance. There are two other good performances by Yi Zhang and Jing Dong Liang, and these three main character evolve significantly through time. But the main strength is a story dealing themes of class and materialism, and the cost of progress, put together in a way worthy of these universal human subjects.

Mountains does have some issues in the final of the three acts as it becomes a little odd--odd in a way that that might have worked with different material, but doesn't quite fit with the rest of this film. Still, this is an overall fascinating and moving experience, well-acted and written, making itself very relatable and is an impressive way to view these people over time.

"From One Second to the Next", by the renowned documentarian Werner Herzog, is a powerful short on the most tragic consequences resulting in people texting while driving. Herzog takes the subject that while serious may appear too general or simplistic a topic, and makes it a really personal, moving experience, showing both side of several very sad incidents. The interviews of both loved ones of victims, and of those whose texting caused tragedies (those who were willing to speak) are very powerful and moving.

Beyond all this is a dire warning to anyone who has this reckless habit to get away with it right away, and those haven't garnered it to make sure they don't start. No words which you can wait to say later—it can only take one word, an abbreviation of a few letters—can ever be worth the needless taking of a human life.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is the rare animated sequel that both goes deeper and is just as exciting as the original. The story takes place some years after the events in How to Train Your Dragon, the kid characters notably having matured to about their mid-teenage phase, and notably more experienced in their flying-dragons trade. From the beginning, it accepts the cooperation between Viking and dragon, flying and diving through the air, and we never doubt the logic of it.

As the characters are more mature, so is, appropriately, the story, being more complex and darker than the original, without ever feeling like it's trying too hard to accomplish that. Hiccup and his loyal dragon Toothless are back, doing more impressive feats, going further and further from their home, exploring beautiful new environments and encountering new things, some friendly and many not. Our other Vikings and giant flying lizards in all their varieties (and solid voice work) are back from the original, and we see some new ones, including terrific sinister villain. But I hold back on telling too much, for to give much beyond the premise, and early scenes of discovery, would be a disservice to viewers coming to see it.

This is an exhilarating, creative, and gorgeous piece of work, with hardly a dull moment to be found. It's not quite a perfect or near perfect animated film, with some tired humor and a bit of a rushed ending. Still it's one of DreamWorks' best efforts to date, so definitely see it.

Of all the many, many foreign language films I have seen, only a sparse handful are from Romania, but every one of them has impressed me with their rich detail, and their sensibilities to the lives of people in their country. Beyond the Hills, directed by Cristian Mungiu (who also did the masterful 2007 film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days) continues in that pattern. It tells the story of two young women, longtime friends who grew up together in an orphanage. Their lives have taken very different paths while they've been apart. One, Voichita, played by Cosmina Stratan, has found a calling as a nun in a Romanian convent; the other, Alina, played by Cristina Flutur, has lived in Germany for work, and once they reunite there's a tension from the start. The person that each has become, conflict with the relations they used to have to each other—relations of a deeper sort at least one of them wants to rekindle once more.

While both young ladies staying at the convent, Alina is impatient with her friend's Orthodox piousness, and angry with the other nuns and the head priest there, and she acts outs erratically and at times violently. Voichita meanwhile tries to make Alina find her way in God. Both these performances, of almost polar-opposite tones, come in vivid believability. Flutur's wildness is extraordinary to see, but Stratan's emotive restraint is nearly as impressive. The pace of the story builds gradually but never uninterestingly, rich with the Romanian setting and character interactions, making scenes of even apparent mundane tasks compelling (a scene of Voichita getting her friend a document reminded me a lot of a scene in Mungiu's, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, where one the main character tries to register a hotel room for her friend to get an abortion in). It's has a gritty realism that doesn't typically shock (though there is at least one big shock) as much as it gets under the viewer's skin.

Beyond the Hills is not an easy film to watch, particularly in the turn it takes towards the end. I won't say much about it other than it concerns very much how the push and pull conflict of the two protagonists comes to ahead in a sequence of ignorant decisions based on superstition (in addition to the lack of interest of people outside the convent). At the end, there's a shot of somebody's face that will not be easily forgotten. This is a film which rewards patience and appreciation of detail, and though at nearly two and a half hours it is not a slog at all if you let it draw you in. It's not quite at the level of 4 Month, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, but, thanks in large part to the two strong leads and the director's building of their story, it comes quite close.

12 Years a Slave, directed by Steve McQueen, is, if not a perfect film, among the very important pieces of modern cinema. It's based on a true story of a man named Solomon Northup, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, a free black man in New York state, who one day is tricked and kidnapped and sold down south into slavery in the early 1840's. Seeing his life, and then seeing it suddenly ripped away is truly disturbing and heart-wrenching. It's not that we should feel worse for him than those who were born into slavery, who treated as bad or in many cases much worse; but telling the tale through the contrast highlights, extremely effectively, how inhumane this slave culture was.

Northup, after the terrifying transition into confinement, is shuttled from his kidnappers to slave traders to a plantation, and when that doesn't turn out so well to another plantation, the last where the majority of the movie takes place. All parts of the journey tell the struggle he goes through in different ways, and show the injustices of the era—all obviously awful—came in a variety, not a picture that can be drawn with a broad brush. It's unflinching in its brutality, to a critical and real purpose. Ejiofor is outstanding, as is Lupita Nyong'o, Michael Fassbender, Sarah Paulson, and the host of supporting roles; included are some well-known actors who never come across as cameos but as very human pieces of this story that fit exceptionally well into the history, and never distract. Good and bad guys and those in-between, no one is typified by clichés or with complete simplicity.

Slavery is the United States' greatest sin. It's unfortunate it took nearly 100 years for our cinema to get from Birth of Nation to 12 Years a Slave, but now that it's here it's something that must be watched—watched by all Americans to further understand their history as this movie forthrightly displays; watched all film lovers for its powerful, exquisite craft on screen; and watched by all people to stress what can occur when a group of people is dehumanized in a culture. Slavery, or things not that far from slavery, still occur in too many corners of the world, we as a species are not past this completely still, and that is something we can be reminded of with this informative, tough and quite masterful drama on the subject.

Mad Max: Fury Road is the sort of fascinatingly original movie-going experience that one almost never sees from an existing franchise. And when it comes to "part 4s" in the history of all of cinema, I can't think of one I've ever liked more. George Miller, who directed the series' other three entries, is back to do the job again here almost 30 years after the last one, and he proves to be cinematically as sharp as ever. The fine accomplishments of actors and all the technical people notwithstanding, this is a director's film more than anything, with a sweeping vision of a post-apocalyptic world that, however crazy it gets, sells itself all the way through. You don't question what you see—you feel you are there.

It stars Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa, and Tom Hardy as Mad Max—that's in order of importance. Max is a good character, the continued tortured soul trying survive, and yet finding the humanity in himself; but with all respect Furiosa is the real soul of this movie, the best performance (I'd put it Theron's best character since her Oscar winning turn in "Monster") a woman strong, cunning and skilled, yet also at points vulnerable, as she leads a troop of wives away from their powerful, malicious husband who chases them basically from one end of the movie to the other. Max gets caught up with them along the way, in an interesting evolving relation towards Furiosa and the wives. These wives, five of them, don't get a lot of lines, but the qualities they bring in something different from both Max and Furiosa is important to the film's success. Vital too are the host of villains, who come in such variety of interesting dark flavors, from the head evil master, down the hierarchy of his lower-ranked cohorts, to the followers convinced of the glory of self-sacrifice for their leader.

This movie is marvelously thick with post-apocalyptic atmosphere. It is also thrilling, and so varied with every action or chase sequence that rolls brilliantly off of the previous one. There are moments of slowdown, so to speak, where there is verbal interaction more than a couple words at a time, but as far as character building there's as much during the action as in the less hectic times. This is a constantly surprising, original film, frequently exciting, sometimes funny, sometimes touching, and absolutely never for any minute stretch uninteresting. The technical expertise to create such wild, high-flying (figuratively and literally) things as are shown here is just mind-boggling, but creativity is where it really excels. It's one captivating experience, not quite like anything else that's been made before. It must be seen.

"The Act of Killing" is one of those few documentaries that you can watch once (and most who see it will prefer to watch only once) and never, ever forget. It is the best, most powerful, and one of the most unique documentaries I've seen this decade, and maybe in the 21st century.

In Indonesia in 1964 & 65 occurred what can only be called a genocide of presumed communist communities, caused by death squads which were at least tacitly backed by the West. Nearly fifty years later a number of those who participated in massacres of unthinkable horror talk about what they did. It's truly unsettling what they describe, in the form of beatings, strangulations, be-headings, rape and other forms of sick barbarities. But what's arguably more disturbing is the casual way these abhorrent crimes are talked about, and the lack of repulsion or remorse by many about what occurred, partially due to the fact there's little risk anyone will be punished for it, ever. Millions in the country still celebrate the military style rule of the time, they serve in elected office, and have propaganda talk shows to congratulate themselves (though many I'm sure also have little idea about this dark chapter in their country's history).

The filmmakers here did something pretty brilliant, which probably produced more insight and history than any number of hours of interviews would have: they ask those who participated to reenact violent scenes of what happened during those purges. And these former thugs (they often proudly refer to themselves as "gangsters") are only too happy to oblige, putting in surprising effort to accomplish the cinematics. The scenes they act out, with some "Hollywood" stylization, range from darkly comical in a few instances, to absolutely grotesque and very hard to watch. Seeing them act out scenes they presumably partook in is chilling, but it's also where we see some humanity come out: in a few scenes the emotion of certain "actors" is overwhelming. As cold as these people might seem to the pain they've caused, no one deals with the situation in exactly the same way. And it all comes to an ending scene which will be etched in my mind probably as long as I'm alive. "The Act of Killing," tough watch as it is, needs to be seen, both for its important history on an under-reported atrocity of the 20th century, and for what it says about us as a people when we lose our soul and convince ourselves the worst acts are justified.

I find it both interesting and a little pointless that they've now released a director's cut version that's a half hour longer. I have to think that version must be either for film students, historians, or for masochists. I won't sugarcoat it, this is one of the most grueling, uncomfortable movie experiences I've ever had in a long time. I'm glad I've had it, and I'm of no two minds in calling this film a masterpiece, but enduring an extended version is not something I plan on partaking anytime soon.

The BBC has proved time and again that they are of the highest caliber in the world in the creation of nature documentaries, especially when the program is accompanied by the narration of the legendary conservationist David Attenborough. Fantastic series from "The Life of Birds" in the 90's to the more recent "Life" and "Frozen Planet" show their exceptional consistency over time. Of course "Planet Earth" is legendary. But I think my personal favorite is "The Blue Planet" which concerns the life in and around the world's oceans that covers over two-thirds of the Earth's surface.

The series has eight parts, and while everyone is bound to have their favorites—mine are "Coral Seas" and "Frozen Seas"—all eight are informative, fascinating, with wonderful cinematography, engaging music, and near perfect commentary. I can give no complaint about the fabulous pacing which never seems to focus on anything for too long or not long enough. From sharks in a wild feeding frenzy, to penguins shooting out of the water onto an iceberg, to majestic whales and dolphins, to some of the strangest creatures you will ever see in the ocean deep, there is something here for everyone regardless if you're a big nature lover or not. Narrator Attenborough is second to none in expelling information with an authentic passion for the life on screen.

I've gone through this series beginning-to-end twice, and have seen individual episodes more than that. It may not have the ultra-high definition of later BBC Nature series, but it's every bit as wondrous and impacting as any made before or since that I have seen. It holds up well and is a must see for people who care about ocean ecosystems and for those who just admire the beauty of this blue planet of ours.

Mulan came out towards the end of Disney's peak era of animated musicals, which began in 1989 with The Little Mermaid and ended in 1999 with Tarzan. The company released 9 major feature films of that genre in that period, and I rank Mulan is somewhere about 5th or 6th in that pack; that's no insult given how strong most of the films were. This is a quite entertaining, beautiful film, with very good musical numbers, which only lacks in a few story elements and a central heroine not quite as well-rounded as the likes of Ariel, Belle or Jasmine from past films.

Mulan, voiced by Ming-Na Wen, can't seem to act as a "proper" Chinese lady and find a husband. She decides to take her physically ailing father's place when every family must give a man for war that has come upon them by the Huns. Dressing and acting like a man she's awkward in the training at first, but she eventually becomes one of the most impressive of all the soldiers, while the man leading her and the squad is one she admires and finds quite dashing as well. Along the way she gets some much needed help from a small but determined dragon voiced by Eddie Murphy.

The film has a nice combination of comedy and action, although they are within a story somewhat clunky at times. This is no doubt a gorgeous film, from ancient Chinese villages to snowy mountain peaks to the Forbidden City. The title character is certainly a strong willed female hero, and mostly it is not by chance but by the choices she makes which determines her fate. Unfortunately she just didn't engage me as a person like any number of other Disney leading ladies; as much as I admired her strength her character basically swung in two modes: awkward bumbling girl and super-brave hero woman. It's a good Disney heroine, but not a great one. The songs are nice, with a couple being fairly memorable.

On balance the good stuff in this film far outweighs the minor issues I had. Mulan, even if it isn't one of the best Disney animated musicals, is certainly one that should satisfy those of all ages looking for a rousing and inspirational tale.

One last thought: What the heck were they thinking with that first song in the ending credits? It doesn't fit movie at all.

Chasing Ice is as strong a documentary as I have ever seen concerning the issues of global warming, and that includes Al Gore's terrific Oscar winning Inconvenient Truth. It centers on a man named James Balog, a National Geographic photographer, who with a team sets an array of advanced cameras focusing on various glaciers in Greenland, Iceland and Alaska in order to see the change in the ice coverage over periods of months and years. At first the complex and fragile nature of such a program leads to great technical difficulties, but eventually they do get the program on track, and the results are no less than stunning.

The film is not overtly political. It begins with a montage of "skeptics" of human caused climate change. Balog, who claims to have himself once been a skeptic, ends up getting deeply involved in the project to the detriment of time with his family and the numerous surgeries he gets on his knees. Throughout the film the science of global warming and it's general effects on the planet is tiptoed into, but primarily it lets the visuals do the talking. This film is beautiful and disturbing literally at the same time with treks across ice sheets viewing the melting in real time, images of glaciers breaking off into the sea, and the main focus the time-lapse footage.

I'm not going to say exactly how these years-long images turned out, but just mention they are insightful, gorgeous, and certainly do not contradict the science which in at least general terms has been settled for many years. The highlight of the movie for me is not however seeing the glaciers shrink over a long period of time, but an instant of change after a couple of Balog's colleagues have sat on a vulnerable piece of ice for a few days; it's a spectacular break off of ice like you've never seen before—I was horrifically captivated.

Chasing Ice is fascinating on a personal and scientific level, and in my opinion has to be considered one of the most important documentaries of this decade. This film rightly doesn't try to find solutions to the problem as it's beyond its scope, but it clearly states that there is a problem; one we can't ignore.

Three years after Kathryn Bigelow, after a relatively quiet few-decade-long film directing career, really showed what she was capable of with the Iraq war masterpiece The Hurt Locker, she comes with a movie far more ambitious, and also quite a bit more controversial, about the decade long search for Osama Bin Laden starting from 9/11, called Zero Dark Thirty. It absolutely lives up to, if not surpasses, her previous Oscar winning effort.

Bigelow's passion for this subject is in just about every shot, with immense detail, cold bluntness, and enough humanity to keep it from being too oppressing. Actually for a two and a half hour film it's quite efficient filmmaking, jam-packed with numerous interrogations and investigation tactics (the torture stuff that has garnered controversy is only a very small part of that) shaking real life terrorist attacks, and political wrangling, yet it's never confused or disjointed. Even towards the end with the recreations of the raid on the compound in Pakistan done very deliberately, the pacing is never betrayed, maintaining consistent movement and direction; it's a scene that plays out as much mystery as suspense as the seal team goes from room to room blowing out locked doors and not knowing for certain if the main target is there.

The movie's structure, with one main character, Maya a member of the CIA played brilliantly by Jessica Chastain, taking a part in virtually every aspect of this manhunt, with other people revolving in their various tasks around her, was the perfect choice. If one person really did have this much impact on the manhunt we'll probably never know for sure, but in this film it's played out believably and compellingly, and though no one can match her neither is anyone else insignificant to how it plays out. Characters with only a few scenes have noticeable impacts. But with Maya is the emotion, determination, the sassiness and intelligence of a woman who evolves in nuanced but never uninteresting ways.

Zero Dark Thirty is an incredible achievement, and in my mind candidate for best film made so far this decade. It has brought about an important debate, but more significantly it covers ten years of the war on terror in prime fashion. Bigelow plays for high realism but she also knows how to create great drama by stretching but never breaking those confines. Every scene belongs for a purpose and never does it feel like one is missing; that in itself is an incredible achievement. Credit her, the cast, and, not to forget, the great script by Mark Boal.

Slither is one of the better examples of its kind from the last ten years or so, which may not say a whole lot because movies about ugly creepy crawly things that do disgusting things more often than not are not very pleasant to sit through; not to me anyway. But this one has enough humor, thrills and neat tricks to make it worth sitting through for non-hardcore horror fans, in spite of a somewhat weak ending.

The basic setup is not a new one. Someone gets infected by a foreign thing that turns him into something very creepy, and then he in turn infects others and suddenly large numbers of people are no longer human and others have to survive and to try to put an end to it. But how it all goes about it is fascinatingly strange and there are some very tense sequences. Without giving too much away, there is an element involving all the movie's creatures all being linked in a certain way that does have some unique payoffs. It's disgusting, as one would expect for this kind of film, but it nicely balances the grossness with solid humor, some of the best which come from a guy who plays the incredible jerk of the mayor of the town in which the film is set.

Unfortunately the finale is pretty standard for this kind of film and didn't really thrill me. The actors are serviceable for their roles, but nothing much more than that. But overall it's a frightening, funny, and twistedly-sick good time most of the way, for those in the mood for this kind of thing. By B horror film standards it's one of the best modern ones I've seen.

The Rape of Europa is a fascinating documentary that tells of the story of the theft, destruction, and in some cases saving of art during World War II. Narrated by Joan Allen the film takes you through the Nazi plundering of paintings in Poland, France and other countries (especially by Nazi art collectors like Hitler and Goering) to the efforts by citizenry to save museum pieces in Paris and Leningrad, to the unfortunate destruction of Renaissance architectural wonders during allied bombings in Italy and the German army demolishing various important Russian structures in the east. It also goes into efforts that are still going on to track down pieces since missing, and tells of the work to give back personal effects to families of Jews, items the Nazis stole without thinking twice from people they considered inhuman.

All this is told with a delicate balancing act, reminding the viewer of the far greater tragedy of the war: the tens of millions of lives lost, most of them civilians. The misfortune of art during the war is not even close to that level of tragedy, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Art is part of one's culture and means a lot to great number of people. This is a story that deserves to be told, and though maybe this documentary goes in a few too many directions I found it quite interesting to see this perspective of the War that people rarely talk about.

Inarritu, in the last two films of his that I have seen, is clearly fascinated by two things: intercontinental relationships, and tragedy, though perhaps a bit too much so. Both films are in my opinion flawed pieces of work saved mainly because of their haunting images and strong performances. I actually prefer the more recent Biutiful over the Oscar nominated Babel because it seems to have a stronger center, or should I say it's at least less all over the place.

In Biutiful Bardem gives maybe his second best performance to date as a suffering hustler in Spain who deals with immigrant populations trying to provide for his family, and whose decisions aren't aways the best for others. Other performances are strong as well, and it's because of all this fine acting work that it's a shame the story and pacing isn't at the same level. It's an uneven films to say the least, and probably a good 20 minutes too long, but it is one worth watching at least once because individual scenes that are terrific raises the potential of a director who can get back the more impressive work of his past like 21 Grams with clearer narratives and more engaging plot lines. Biutiful is a fine film, powerful at times, but ultimately kind of forgettable.

Farewell My Concubine is a glorious epic about two friends over the span of many decades. Together they go through the horrors of opera school as children in the 1920's, and then Opera stars during the Japanese invasion of China in the 30's, the Communist takeover in the 40's, and the Cultural Revolution of the 60's. Between them is the wife of one and a former prostitute, Juxian, played by Gong Li. The relationship among the three is often very complex, and goes through plenty of turmoil, but Dieyi and Xiaolou and the Beijing Opera somehow stay together.

This movie to put it simply is beautiful, particularly during the opera scenes. It's one of the most pleasing movies just to look at that I have seen in some time. It's also beautifully told. With so much ambition it could have been way too complex for someone not familiar with the history to understand, but it's actually quite direct and flows fantastically from one section to another.

The two acting leads do good jobs, but it's Gong Li that stands out. Her character evolves greatly at first from dislike of Dieyi to sympathy and even tenderness. In her marriage to Xialou she wants him to quit Opera, but eventually accepts it and sees it as a necessary part of his life. Gong Li is the main heart and soul of the film, and this is the best acting work I have seen from her.

This certainly stands as one of the five best Chinese language films I have ever seen. It's not completely flawless, some of the earlier scenes I think are a bit heavy-handed, but overall this epic and tragic story for friendship and love is a must see.

The Killing, by legendary director Stanley Kubrick, is an engrossing if conventional noir thriller. It's about a man that sets up one last heist in an elaborate scheme involving multiple subjects with various parts. The film creates some terrific suspense and has a visual style that's simple but appealing. The acting all round is pretty strong, though no one really goes that much beyond what their required to for the plot.

When watching the movie I was waiting for Kubrick's unconventionality of storytelling, but other that a small non-linear sequence I never really saw it. It, probably along with Lolita, is the most straightforward film I have seen from him. It's about what it's about: schemes and intrigue, double-crossing and violence. It was the early bloom of a director that became masterful, but at this point he had yet to be in his prime or really discover his style. Still, The Killing is more than worth watching because as entertainment and suspense it does its job very well.

Braveheart is the story of William Wallace and his vengeance of a love one, uniting of the Scots against the English in the fight for vengeance and freedom. The acting is good all around, but the antagonists of the film are played too much as evil English stereotypes. The heroes, Wallace and his band of Scottish warriors, you cheer for, in spite of the brutality, but I can't help feel at least a bit of manipulation that pulls me in that direction.

The best part of the movie is the battles. They are brutal, graphic, and believable. Braveheart isn't something you'll want to get a history lesson from though. It sells the story well enough, but after researching on the internet the history is apparently quite bad even by Hollywood standards. Still the bad history does nothing to diminish the effect of the amazing battle scenes that hold up superbly 15 years later.

Braveheart can't be mentioned in the same breath as Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur, or Gone With the Wind, as masterpieces of epic storytelling. What it is is a bloody, rousing, entertaining, exciting, and romantically delightful film. Nothing more and nothing less. No it did not deserve to win Best Picture, but hey it's 3 Hours that are never dull, and that are sometimes rather impressive.

Just recently I sat down in my bedroom and watched the Ratatouille DVD on my surround sound system. It was my third time watching the film, and for some reason it may have been the most enjoyable. Well the first time viewing it was at a drive in movie theater, which is not really the best way to enjoy a film, but still I don't think that has anything to do with my appreciating it more in later viewing. Something clicked in my in my third viewing and I said to myself, "Man, this isn't just a great film, it's a Disney Classic like Beauty and the Beast and Snow White".

Ratatouille does one thing only the brilliant duo of Disney and Pixar could accomplish: not only does it make rats cute, but it makes them enduring characters in an animated film, every bit as much so as the fish in Finding Nemo and the Toys in Toy Story. Remy is a rodent with charming qualities, a great sense of smell and taste and a love of food which leads him to become a chef master. On the line of my belief that this is a classic Disney film, Remy is really the classic Disney animated character.

A similar classicalness could be said of Linguini, a somewhat geeky awkward human who befriends Remy after he takes credit, accidentally, for one of the rat's delicious dishes. Linguini needs Remy so he can repeat the recipe or he'll lose his job. The way the human and rat communicate is fascinating, and the way that they arrange how to work together in the kitchen is hilarious and dazzling. The food looks so great here that it makes one hungry while looking at it.

And along the way there great supporting characters including Rats like Remy's dopey brother Emile, and humans like Linguini's feisty mentor and love interest Collette, and his insensitive selfish boss Skinner. And there's Gusteau, Remy's imaginary friend, a deceased Chef that guides his journey, and Anton Ego a great representative of a real critic with harsh critiques. But really it's Remy and Linguini that dominate the film, and appropriately so. They have a chemistry that's strong, funny, awkward, angry and joyful; sometimes many of those things all at once.

What was true for other Pixar masterpieces is there for Ratatouille. It's a great story, full of well developed characters that are fantastic creations of art, has hilarious and wildly entertaining sequences, and great conflicts between the good and the not so good. But the main goal for the protagonists in this film is not to beat the bad guy; it's for them to produce great food. It's a simple pure idea taken to extraordinary height.

I'm doing something I have not done for many films here on IMDb. I'm changing my original rating for a movie. What once was a 9 now is a 10. I believe 20 years from now Ratatouille will be looked at as one of the finest animated achievements of this computer animated era of films. I'm not quite ready to call it a Snow White or Beauty and the Beast (my personal favorite animated movie of all time) but it comes quite close. A Disney Pixar Masterpiece.

United 93 has no major stars, and not really any truly amazing performances. It just has everyone doing what they're supposed to adding up to a piece of work that's unquestionably one of the most emotionally gripping in modern cinematic history.

The film basically follows a three viewpoints through the tragedies of September the 11th: the air-traffic controllers, the military, and foremost the passengers of United Flight 93. In my opinion the film should win the Academy Award for best Film Editing for moving back and fourth so fluidly between one viewpoint to another, showing how and when certain people learn what's going on, and how and when they make the choices they do. There's not a wasted second of screen time. There is not a lot of character development, and there's absolutely no back stories, and the movie is better off for it. It's about people caught in a tragic situation, about people doing their job, and about people stepping up even when there's a great chance of no great outcome. There are no Hollywood heroes, and even in the case of the terrorists there are no villains, just people being people. We know what's going to happen, and that makes watching the film often nerve-raking, but everything is done with respect and honesty in what happened that day.

Director Paul Greengrass deserves a lot of credit for putting together this masterpiece, but ultimately it's the accuracy that holds it together. I'm sure almost endless research was done to keep this film as true as possible. Sure it's not exactly how it happened, which would have been impossible, but it feels like it's exactly how it happened. Not one moment feels phony and the intense sequences don't make you say wow they did that great, they just leave you silent because you're practically experiencing the tragedy from a perspective few other have ever. This film did fair but not great at the box office understandably because many think this is a little too soon. Whether it's too soon to see something like this is up to each individual. For me it wasn't. I would encourage anyone on the fence to see this because it's a movie to experience; just unlike anything in modern film.

I read the book beforehand, and it's by no means a great book, but I think certain things work better for literature than they do on film, and this is one of those cases. Without spoiling anything the whole back storyline about the Knights and the Grail and the bloodline and whatever else is pretty absurd in both the book and film, but in the film the plot line in the present is greater exposed. For instance in the book the constant chase sequences were pretty exciting, but in the film it becomes more clear that the cat and mouse game lacks imagination and more or less is an elaborate version of peek-a-boo. And the changes they make in the movie version, while I understand some had to be done for time constraints, for the most part do not seem to help it, and only make it a lesser experience. One last thing about the movie book comparison: the weak character development in the book is also greater exposed in the movie. That last one is this movie's greatest failure.

Now judging the movie by itself it just comes off as dull: dull dialog, dull characters, and for the most part dull action sequences if one even wants to call them that. Tom Hank's performance as Dr. Robert Langdon, the main character of the story, is one of the most underwhelming and dry I've ever seen him do, and Audrey Tautou as Agent Sophie Neveu falls flat right from her weak introduction, with her motivations hardly ever being clear. What one is left with are some nice plot twists, and Ian McCellen's worthy performance of historian Leigh Teabling.

I have to admit stories like this just aren't my thing. I just don't get enticed by these silly treasure hunt stories, as would be clear from me disliking the movie National Treasure as well. But I think I like this movie even less because Nation Treasure knew it was being silly, while this film tries to take itself a little more seriously and the results are less entertaining. I can understand how one could come to saying this is a passable experience. However I would recommend this to no one. Like I said at the beginning of this review it works better as a book. As a film the story flaws are exposed more clearly, and it's unfortunate a great director like Ron Howard couldn't have done more with it.

Grizzly Man deals with Grizzly Bears, and beautiful Alaskan scenery, but more than anything it's a human story. It's about two different worlds colliding, and how that collision amounts to one man's obsession and tragedy.

Timothy Treadwell finds passion in the Grizzlies of Alaska to the point of spending time up close to them, without weapons, and living in their habitat for months at a time. He really isn't crazy about the human world, and feels lost in it, but with Grizzlies he's happy, and he's determined to strike down human-animal boundaries unlike perhaps anyone in the county's history. Eventually he and his girlfriend succumb to death by one of those beasts he had come to love so much. Narrator and director Wermer Herzog does a masterful job exploring Treadwell's life both inside and outside this passion, though basically all the footage we see of Treadwell is among the over 100 hours of footage he shot during his last five summers with the bears. Some of that footage is more astounding than anything one could see on Animal Planet. He interviews a number of people congruent to Treadwell's missions and life, and no interview seems wasted. It's one of those rare documentaries I think that just about every interview subject is interesting, partly due to Herzog's allowing the subject to speak while asking few questions.

More than anything this movie is made stunning by the waning down the 100 hours plus of footage to about an hour or so we see in the movie. There are scenes of beauty, scenes that astound, and scenes that disturb, but the film never feels jagged and is always entertaining. Treadwell is one heck of a fascinating subject. He loves the bears, but owns to the fact that he could possibly die from one. He gives the bears names and recognizes them years later. According to a friend he does drugs, but according to himself the bears cured him of alcoholism. That's just a taste of what makes this character so compelling to watch, and it often seems eerie watching the guy talking about bears, in their habit, as we know his eventual fate is death by one.

Herzog gives both a compassionate and harsh approach. Different people will watch this and come out with different opinions of Treadwell. The narrator's final conclusion is something he builds to and I think supports quite well. I have minor quibbles: some information is repeated multiple times when it really doesn't have to be, and it would have been nice to learn more about a younger Treadwell and his path to Grizzly-obsession. Those are very minor flaws in what is a film with one astounding scene after another.

Bernardo Bertolucci is one of those great directors most American's don't know the name of. The Italian is arguably one of the best living directors of any language. And in my opinion his most masterful effort is the The Conformist, a tale of a man just wanting to belong to something so much that he gravitates to fascism which he really doesn't believe in, and gets engaged to a woman he may not really love. This need to belong is in some way connected to a traumatic childhood event.

Jean-Louis Trintignant exceptionally plays Clerici, an assassin of Mussolini, who is conflicted between love and friendship on one end, and his duty on the other. It's really one great, complex role, that I gather few could even of come close to performing as well. Two female characters also give great performances: Stefania Sandrelli who plays his fiancé, and Dominique Sanda who plays the wife of a Professor Clerici is hired to assassinate. The screenplay is superb, and no scene is uninteresting, though a lot of people will have to see it twice to truly understand it. It's a classic psychological story in the same league of Crime and Punishment. Fascism is a backdrop, it's not the main theme. The main theme is how a traumatic event early in life can cause one to wallow into darkness many years later, to the extent where the need to belong, even to something they don't like or believe in, is more important than anything else.

Fallen has a cast including Denzel Washington, John Goodman, and Donald Sutherland, and in most cases that quality of a lineup would lead to a good movie. Unfortunately the serial killer thriller is bogged down by an incomprehensible plot, a mediocre script, and sequences that are just not that interesting. The last third of the film picks up from some of those flaws, and the last fifteen minutes is certainly a fascinating, well done suspense sequence. Still there are too many unanswered questions for me to get my head around it, and it's better in its style than it is in its substance. If you watch it or rent it you may not feel ripped off, but don't expect to feel like you've watched a good movie either.