Reviews

Another nine years have passed in the lives of Jesse and Celine, and here we are, revisiting these characters once again. Its absolutely wonderful that Linklater and co. have managed to make these characters live on over the course of three decades, and in doing so they have left a distinct mark on the world of independent film. One thing that puzzled me before I even started the film was, why Before Midnight? Was it implying that one of them had to leave before the end of the day? And boy, I hoped that wasn't the case.

This film, much like the other two, does not hold back in portraying these multi-dimensional characters in such an honest way. Here we are exposed to the entire spectrum of the relationship between these two characters, from their most romantic moments to their most wise observations. But just how honest could a story like this be told if we weren't exposed to the darker side of it all.?The realistic side, where relationships and commitment aren't all hunky-dory. Jesse and Celine are married with twin daughters and are in their early 40s. If this were a true fairy tale we wouldn't worry about them. But this isn't a fairy tale, and it may as well be real life.

Everything about this film relies on the performances of its main characters, but luckily Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy absolutely nail it and give what may be the finest work of both of their careers. They make the material completely work, from beginning to end. They make us laugh and they both charm us much like they have before. They can fill our hearts, break them and put them back together in a single conversation, and that is true chemistry. Films of this nature only dream of capturing what they manage to capture here.

All of that being said, this film is the most difficult to endure. For reasons I will not mention, both the characters and the audience are being tested with this film, mostly with choices and how our choices effect the lives we create for ourselves. We want nothing more than these two to work it out because they have that magic that some of us only dream of getting. And even they realize that keeping it together over the course of a lifetime is no easy task, for the walks of life like their jobs and their children only complicate what was once a much more simple matter.

At the end of it all, Before Midnight is a film with a lot to say. It is full of delight and charm and emotion and connection as well as agreement and disagreement. My only hope is that we can revisit Jesse and Celine in nine more years to see where they are. It doesn't matter if they're in a good place or in a bad place, if you've seen the previous two films, you're in for the long haul with these characters. I think Mr. Linklater, Ms. Delpy and Mr. Hawke are as well, for not only have they created two fantastic and loving films, they hit a home run with this beautiful and mature third film, and continue to leave us fully satisfied yet also wanting more.

If Drive was brought to life by its style and color palette, Only God Forgives sends us straight to Hell with its style. It evokes a kind of dream-like feeling that echoes the work of Gaspar Noe. It burns images and scenes into our brain and dazzles us with an effective slow burn technique. Drive was an art-house film that made its way mainstream and critics and audiences all over loved it, but this film will be extremely divisive among those who liked Drive.

The film follows Julian (Ryan Gosling) a soft-spoken criminal who manages a kick-boxing arena. Julian is a drug smuggler but that doesn't matter, we just know that he's a criminal in some way and that he has his hands dirty. Once his brother gets killed after committing a horrible and dark act, his mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) flies to Bangkok and tries to get Julian to track down his brother's killer. In the midst of it all is a mysterious cop named Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm).

The film is set in a dark criminal underworld in Bangkok where nearly every single character seems to have their hands dirty. The film is completely covered in darkness from its very first frame. Bright neon colors soak the environment and illuminate all of the characters. If Refn wanted to make a version of Hell on Earth, he successfully did that with Bangkok. We are completely drawn into this world from the very beginning and we are never let go. Its hypnotic and mesmerizing and dark with strange moments of real beauty to it.

There are a few moments in the film when the camera focuses on the characters hands. Julian sometimes looks down at them, his hands are tied by a chair to a woman while he lays eyes on temptation that he can't touch, and Chang cuts off the hands of men with his sword. If Bangkok is Hell, then the people living in it are led to temptation by their hands. The hands take what they want and reach for what they can't have. They pull triggers and get you into trouble. If this is Hell, then Chang is God, by being on the right side of the law and ridding people of their temptation. He is an unstoppable force and is wonderfully played by Pansringarm.

Kristin Scott Thomas is wonderful in her role, and even though her character comes from America, with her bleached blonde hair and her long fingernails and the way she holds her cigarette, her hands are every bit as dirty as the inhabitants of this hellish nightmare. She has a nasty look in her eyes and has a kind of control over Julian. There's incestuous vibes at play, in the way that she touches him and some of the things that she says and it clearly has a large influence on Julian as a person. Nothing is said but subtle things are implied and we're left to draw our own conclusions. She says that Julian can leave this place with her and come home, only if he kills his way out.

Aesthetically the film is a knockout. Its absolutely gorgeous with vibrant colors enriching each and every frame. Cliff Martinez, a composer who I'm quite a fan of, accomplishes what may be his best work yet. Say what you will about Refn, he's a very visual director and he has his own voice that reflects upon his work. A lot may say that this is a misstep for Refn, but if you ask me, Refn stepped up his game.

Usually when we're subjected to a film about love, we enter the film with a certain realm of expectation. We expect to see the two meet, fall in love, get into a fight and either reunite or not at the end. We've seen films recycle those motions time and time again, and that is what makes Before Sunrise such a compelling watch. This is no Nicholas Sparks adaptation. There is no Celine Dion song on its soundtrack. Its a film about love, through and through.

The film begins on a train, when Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other while talking about fellow passengers that bothered them. After hitting it off on the train ride, Jesse convinces Celine to spend the entire day and night together before he boards a flight and they move on with their lives. They spend their time in Vienna, a city that works as a perfect setting for the love between these two characters.

What is so compelling about this film is that it defies convention. This film at its core is about these two characters and how they spend what is probably one of the best days of their lives together. They wander around the town, from place to place, doing activity to activity while engaging in natural and insightful conversation. The conversations they have are a deep look into who these characters are and how well they work together.

Richard Linklater's unique vision shines through in this project, as the camera follows them around as they wander a city completely foreign to them. It intensely focuses on the development of these two characters and it also documents a realistic connection between two human beings over the span of one day. It shows what can happen when you take a risk, and that love can bloom in any situation, when you don't expect it. Hawke and Delpy completely become these characters, and we hardly ever feel like we're watching a movie. We hope that we can go to Vienna and see Jesse and Celine walking around together.

Before Sunrise is a terrific accomplishment with its minimalistic production. If it were book it would be a fascinating one because the characters are richly detailed, but they're brought to life by the actors through the way they look at each other and talk to each other and walk together and it makes for a touching and thoughtful experience. Jesse and Celine are two people to genuinely root for, and though I feel fulfilled in having watched it, I'd be upset if their story wasn't continued. Boy, its a good thing the film has spawned two sequels.

The greatest thing that can be said about Drive is that it would have been a completely different film if it were not helmed by Nicolas Winding Refn. The film takes a story we're familiar with in movies, a guy gets mixed up with the wrong kind of people and has to take matter into his own hands. Its a rather typical plot, but the film doesn't try to be anything different than that. Instead, Refn chooses to give each moment such life and style that it draws us in.

Ryan Gosling stars as a man simply known as Driver, because we don't find out what his name is. We don't know anything about the man for he maintains this constant aura of ambiguity. We only know a few things about this character: He experiences joy when he's around his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, he has an intense burning hatred inside of him and he's very good at his job. Gosling is wonderful in keeping his character mysterious, cool, collected, meticulous and intense.

Driver and his partner Shannon (wonderfully played by Bryan Cranston) get themselves involved with a couple of mobsters, delightfully played by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman. Brooks's Bernie Rose makes for an interesting villain. He isn't afraid of anybody, he cares about his money and his ego and he has a thing for knives and other stabbing weapons. The film takes an interesting stance in down-playing the use of guns, only using them in a couple of key scenes.

The film is technically very impressive, nearly every frame of the picture contains blue and orange hues, which Refn must have visioned for this film. Even the green street lights have a blue tint to them, and the glow of the orange street lights reflect off of the character's faces in a wonderful fashion. Cliff Martinez uses a wonderful somber score which adds to the quiet moments of the film, while more pronounced moments feature synth pop songs which adds to the allusion to 80's crime films.

Refn deservedly won the Best Director prize for this film at the Cannes film festival. He creates a wonderful vision to a rather standard crime film and appreciates the quiet, personal moments of the film while brutalizing the violent aspects of the film in Tarantino fashion. Violence can erupt from a moment of quietness, much like the boiling intensity can seep through the innocent gaze of Driver.

Writing a review for this film is difficult, just as watching it is. With Harmony Korine's Trash Humpers, you get exactly what it sounds like you would get. A gang of old people (but it doesn't try to hide that its young people in masks) go around humping trash. They also destroy things and dance and laugh and defecate. There is no plot, it is just scene after scene of these characters who we don't even know having a blast. But how does this translate into film?

Korine shot the entire thing for VHS, and not only that, the film feels like some sort of tribute to it. The film is edited to be viewed as one of your old VHS tapes that you have laying around, collecting dust on your shelf. Sometimes as the film moves along from scene to scene (from one trash can being humped to another) the occasional screen will pop up, like the VCR is telling us that its about to play the movie or that its rewinding. It certainly makes us feel a tiny bit nostalgic and it was an interesting choice for Korine to use.

However, the actual film itself is difficult to dissect. Its Korine's most poorly received film and there's no way that he didn't expect that while making it. He clearly didn't make this film with audiences in mind, and it appeals to his sense of humor. But is there a message he is trying to get across here? Or is this nothing more than the fun this crew is clearly having in making this picture? Does it exist to spit in our faces or is there no point at all? With Harmony Korine, you just never know.

I would say that nothing happens throughout the entire film only at some point, they do kill a couple of people. At first they're just juvenile, but then these killings happen and your opinion starts to change. Oh, they're not just being juvenile, they're completely psychotic. It doesn't make sense in terms of the story, since there is none, so why have it there? Though I suppose asking that is pointless. Why have the funny but creepy little kid hit a doll with a hammer and laugh repeatedly? Why have an old man lay down and talk about his penis while the camera zooms in on his crusty toenails?

Korine seemed to be going for the shock value here, and juvenile humor. The film is an act of indolence and shatters any expectations even fans of Harmony's work would have. Not only that, it spits in the face of its viewers. This film got accepted into the Toronto Film Festival and I wish I could have been there to see the reaction of everyone in the theater. Even though the film is a piece of trash, I'm only calling it that because it seems too appropriate. Being about people who hump trash and made like a VHS tape, its quite possible someone would find this film in the trash. But perhaps the film could be viewed as a statement. In today's day and age, with all the action blockbusters that make millions and even billions of dollars, we now have a film like Trash Humpers, which couldn't be any more different. And that's precisely why people rush to call this film filth, but I'm sure they don't forget it. I'm sure Korine had a few laughs about this.

It seems that whenever a dwarf is in a film, not only does the audience recognize it but so does the film. It is not often that an actor who just happens to be a dwarf is playing a part where their height isn't mentioned. In Thomas McCarthy's feature film debut, Peter Dinklage plays a dwarf named Finn who doesn't have the easiest life. After his only friend passes away, he moves to away to a small town and plans to live in solitude. Whenever he walks in public, everyone notices him and you can tell that he doesn't like it.

There are only two characters in the film who doesn't seem to react towards it, enter Joe (Bobby Cannavale) and Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), who after several attempts finally succeed in befriending Finn. They all meet each other at vulnerable parts of their lives where they're all extremely lonely and have nobody else to turn to. The three of them hit it off and develop a friendship that's enjoyable to watch. Throughout the course of the film they run into a little girl who they engage in brief conversations with, perhaps to show the audience that the trio's friendship in childish in nature and not necessarily in a bad way. This type of elementary friendship is exactly what they need.

The town that they live in is a reflection of their lives. Its desolate, and run down and reeks of loneliness. Joe works as a hot-dog vendor and sits inside his truck all day, serving the occasional customer. He often talks about his father and gets phone calls from him and speaks in his native tongue and sometimes cancels plans because he has to take care of his father. His job and his father are controlling his life and damaging his social relationships. Olivia has relationship problems which take a crippling effect on her state of mind and she pushes people away. It makes sense to watch these characters befriend each other because their problems act as their solution.

However as nice as the subtext and characters are, the film contains an emptiness which leads to a lack of captivation. Even though the characters are grounded and perhaps slightly relatable, true realism isn't extremely well captured and unfortunately realism works for a film where there's no plot and only story. Therefore the film fails to strike any chords within the viewer. However it is far from a regretful watch. Its well acted and contains a nice story, but a few key elements prevent The Station Agent from achieving greatness, or even true good. Its simply good.

Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009) serves as a prime example of a reboot done right. With a younger cast full with both rising and established stars, Abrams et. al managed to bring Star Trek to a wider audience, encouraging both old and new fans along for the ride. It was fun and it was smart and it opened up a wide door of possibilities for this rejuvenated franchise. So now that the sequel has been released, did the momentum carry over? The answer is yes, for the most part.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens up on some of our favorite Enterprise crew members running for their lives on a beautiful, exotic world. Already our attention is firmly grasped. One thing I appreciate about this series thus far is its humor is often established before or shortly after the action. It pleases to entertain and not just in the Michael Bay sense. These films have the pleasure of such rich characters and the talent of the actors who portray them that really allow the viewer to becomes lost in their world. And that's really something to admire.

In this film, the Enterprise are chasing after one man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) who is labeled a terrorist who wishes to incite war. Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) signs up to catch him after not only losing his status as Captain, but gaining it back quickly in a short period of time. He and his crew, such as Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho), Bones (Karl Urban) and Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) team up once again for this adventure that we know will not go uncomplicated. And although he opts out of the crew early on, we all know that a film won't have somebody as pleasing as Simon Pegg and not do anything with him.

The action doesn't fail to please and the film hasn't lost the series' humor, which are good things I suppose. But one thing Star Trek Into Darkess does not do is it does not attempt to me any more ambitious than its predecessor, nor does it attempt to break any new ground. It recycles a major plot line we have seen before (the villain purposefully gets caught and tries to destroy the good guys from inside) and in the end, appears a little less epic than the first film. And while it may seem comfortable for the writers to go this route, it can also go unappreciated by the viewer.

Cumberbatch steals the show and commands the screen as Harrison. He transcends any sort of cliché' because he's just so badass and that's hard to deny. As unoriginal as the film is (and unfortunately that's the case) Cumberbatch still makes for a compelling villain and he brings his cards to the table. Chris Pine steps up his leading man game and delivers even better work this time around, bringing charisma and charm and effective comedic timing to James Kirk.

So while the film contains a lot of good elements, such as a talented cast and a large and creative fictional universe, it fails to attempt to rise above the viewer's expectations and delivers a merely serviceable, albeit entertaining ride. Perhaps next time around the writers should raise the stakes a little bit. And not only that, they should provide their female characters with more depth and action. Alice Eve is easy on the eyes, but why include a full view of her body in her underwear for the sake of pleasing the film's male audience? The crew behind this film are smarter than that, and hopefully they learn from this.

Gus Van Sant has always been an interesting filmmaker. He cares about character and story and through the process, his artistic integrity is able to shine through his work and that is why he's considered a prominent director in independent cinema. My Own Private Idaho is more of is more well known independent features and is often viewed as a triumph of independent cinema from the 1990s.

The film follows Mark Waters (River Phoenix) an aimless, misguided young man who hustles on the streets and is yearning to find his way in life. His best friend is Scott Favor (Keanu Reeves), who is also a young man and and a hustler, but who instead is running away from his life in the hope of finding something better. Scott comes from a lot of wealth but chooses not to live that lifestyle because when he's this young and wild, he just doesn't believe that its right for him.

However the film is centered around Mark, who is played with such brutal honestly by the late River Phoenix. River is completely dedicated to the character and brings a wonderful vulnerability to a lost soul and it makes him relatable. We watch him go from scene to scene, leaving us as unaware of his future as he is. We watch him make many mistakes and we want him to better himself but such a task is not easy. Because that's the way life is.

Mark hustles because its just who he is. We don't know how he got here, but we know that he has fallen into this lifestyle and it has consumed him. He needs the money. All of his friends are hustlers, too. He has dreams but its tough to say if he ever truly wants to leave the lifestyle. It seems that getting clients and often falling asleep during it (due to him being narcoleptic) doesn't seem to take as much of a toll on him as does his thoughts about his mother, or his feelings for his best friend.

Gus Van Sant crafts a very fine film here that focuses on such a lifestyle that we're not exposed to in our every day lives and turns it into something we can all relate to. It all comes back to that road, the road that we're all on. Does it really end? Probably not. Much like in the way that Mark is shown standing on that road, staring out into the nothingness. Its really about our lives. We live and we're happy, and we're sad, and we're lonely, and we're lost, and we've found ourselves, all of these things happen on the very same road that never ends.

Shane Carruth must at least be acknowledged for his uncompromising artistic vision. He must have known that making a film like this meant that its audience (however large or small) would be divided on it. After making the highly-praised Primer, his next effort focuses on a different direction.

Upstream Color is a sensory overload for both the audience and its characters. The film features a lot of takes and quick glimpses into an assortment of fragmented shots. Colors are vibrant and realized and the soundtrack is full of life. The film starts and it doesn't let go of the viewer until the very end. The opening scenes are hypnotic and engaging and it draws you in immediately, despite not having any kind of idea of what's going on.

The film follows Amy, who spends the first portion of the film experiencing an unusual and perhaps symbolic trauma, and then the film subsequently shows her dealing with said trauma. With so many things happening at once in this film, things that seem unconnected to each other, we can't help but attempt to dissect it all. It appears abstract on the surface but in the eyes of Shane Carruth, it probably makes perfect sense. Perhaps its a story As the film progresses, we come to realize that the film isn't about its plot. What even is its plot, you ask? I'm not so sure. A lot of viewers need a plot to engage them, and that's where this film may lose them. I applaud any filmmaker who doesn't need to rely on a plot to engage the viewer. Film doesn't always have to be about a story that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Carruth has a style that echoes that of Terrence Malick and Harmony Korine, which displays a series of visuals and sounds that stay with us long after the film is over. The film seems to focus on the sights and the sounds.

I can't tell you exactly what it was that I just watched, I can only tell you how it made me feel now that it's over. I felt engaged, I felt wonder and confusion, but I was also moved. The film has done what it sought out to do. Now should I sit here and think about it all? What the pigs and the worms symbolized, who the 'thief' was and where the characters go from here? Or do I simply let it be and remember the beauty of it?

A vast departure from anything Harmony Korine has done, Mister Lonely is certainly a film one has to think about. Like all other Korine films, there is a lot going on. Sometimes we have to accept that certain decisions of his have meaning and certain ones do not, the just exist. This film also simply exists, but we can't watch it without getting curious as to what it is actually trying to say.

The film is about a lot of ordinary people who are celebrity impersonators. The film mainly follows Michael Jackson (Diego Luna) and Marilyn Monroe (Samatha Morton), but there are other ones, such as Charlie Chaplin, James Dean, Little Red Riding Hood, Abraham Lincoln, The Three Stooges, so on and so forth. And they all live together in a desolate mansion and they own sheep, who eventually get infected.

The impersonators live on their own and clearly have aspirations about what they're doing. They don't have much of an audience, although they like to think that they do. Since this is a Harmony Korine film, we can't expect the storyline to carry the film. There are a lot of other elements at play here and the story is merely the background or the canvas for which he uses to paint all over. There is clearly some Malick and Herzog influence at work here and its nice to see dashes of the Harmony Korine we've all come to know.

Unfortunately when the film concludes we're not exactly sure what to take from it, or we felt while we viewed it. While there were certainly some gorgeous shots and some haunting and lasting images, its difficult not to feel that as a film, not everything worked. With a film like Gummo, Korine was able to explore a vast amount of characters and dialog among the backdrop of a fictionalized Xenia, Ohio. Here, we have the celebrity impersonators as well as a priest and a group of nuns in a plane.

What seems to be at play here are a combination of Korine's views of famous American figures, his brief thoughts on religion and fate and who we are as people. As Roger Ebert pointed out, there is this tragic feeling beneath the surface in regards to humans. Are these impersonators going nowhere in life or is this all they can get out of life? Should they learn to love this or shall they die seeking more? These questions are evoked but not completely answered and its nice to think about these things.

Werner Herzog, who actually plays the priest in the film, has the brightest presence and elevates the film whenever he's in it. The actors don't have too much to do, other than stand there and impersonate whoever it is they're impersonating. We can't relate to the characters themselves but merely just the idea of them, and perhaps that makes the viewing experience a little less pleasant. Why is Chaplin acting the way he is towards Marilyn? Why does Buckweat pretend to raise chickens? Do these things have meaning or do they not? What stops this film from being a complete mess are the ideas behind it and the images contained within it. While this can safely be acknowledged as an original and provoking experience, it offers little in entertainment value to the viewer and if anything, complicates our ability to process the film. It is worth watching just for the beautiful moments, such as a nun falling out of the sky and Marilyn Monroe standing in the forest, holding her dress down. But does that shape an entire experience? Not necessarily. There are things to admire here but it's hard to completely admire the picture as a whole.

Often referred to as a cult classic, Dazed and Confused lives up to its name in every way. After his excellent directorial debut, Richard Linklater, who was considered an important up-and-coming director hit every right note in his second feature, cementing his status as one of America's most exciting filmmakers. Even today, the film holds up really well and makes for a non-stop entertaining picture.

The film takes place in the 1970's over the course of one day, the last day of school. Seniors have now officially finished and they are looking for new freshman to 'initiate' which they usually do by means of bullying. Its something that would not fly today but very easily could have been tradition in the past. Where the film strives in its realism is in what these kids do on this last day of school, they party. And a filmmaker like Linklater is perfect for this because of his gift to let characters just walk in and out of the frame and follow a collective group instead of just a few characters. He doesn't just make a few characters stand out, he gives the whole school character.

The film stars some actors that are a lot more well known currently than when this film was released, such as Ben Affleck, Matthew McConaughey, so on and so forth. The entire cast turns in serviceable performances and it makes for one of the more entertaining ensembles to come out of the 90s. With a cast as large as this, it could be easy to make the film too clouded and unfocused, but this is one of Linklater's specialties. He captures an important human connection on film that resonates with us viewers and its part of the large voice he has in American independent cinema.

Linklater appropriately uses music in this film. He chooses songs that we're all familiar with and plays them amongst parts where they're most appropriate; such as playing School's Out by Alice Cooper when school is actually out. Its obvious but fitting since these songs were huge during this time period and it accurately captures the feel of that era. Here we aren't exposed to over-the-top 70's clothing and disco-influenced culture, but we get familiarized with a setting where we could easily see our parents growing up in. The film thrives with realism.

This may be Linklater's most mainstream-appealing independent feature as a director. Slacker could be pretty divisive, its lack of plot could throw off a lot of viewers. Dazed and Confused also doesn't have much of a plot but this film appeals to a large group of people because of how well Linklater captured a familiar experience onto film to which we can all relate to. It makes for one of the most enjoyable films to come from the 90's and stands out as one of the director's most accomplished features.

After struggling to find a home to find a home for several years, Steven Soderbergh's long-talked about Liberace has finally graced our screens after a wonderful reception at the Cannes Film Festival, only this time it was brought directly to our small screens in the form of HBO. Soderbergh claimed that studio executives chose not to finance the film because they deemed it "too gay". Its a shame that such a thing would occur in this day and age. Instead of the possible Academy Award recognition the film could have received, it will now compete amongst television. Though that's better than nothing.

Any awards consideration this film would have been for its acting, which is the most appealing feature of the film. Behind the Candelabra is a well made film that follows Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) and how his life changes after he engages in a complicated relationship with famous musician Liberace (Michael Douglas). The film does a wonderful job at education those who are unaware of who Liberace actually was, thanks to Michael Douglas's terrific performance. Every once in a while, we see an actor we are this familiar with completely disappear into a role. Douglas brings Liberace to life and is fully convincing in the role. While watching him, we get a great sense of how Douglas actually understands the man, that there is heart and reason behind the physicality of it all.

The film, although about Liberace, is not a biopic. It merely follows Liberace the same way that Scott Thorson does and from that time period only. Damon plays Scott as a complicated and misguided young man. He maintains throughout the film that he is bisexual and not completely gay, yet we have to decide for ourselves just how much he loves Liberace, if he loves him at all. When they first meet, Scott's eyes are wide open and he absorbs everything that the man is. Clearly he is fascinated with him, but it's easy to determine that Scott is quite confused, and not just with his sexuality. As he befriends, and slowly but surely starts dating Liberace, we wonder if this is what Scott truly wants as much as he wonders it.

The relationship between the two main characters is bizarre to say the least. Liberace wishes to not only be with Scott and have a sexual relationship with him, he decides he wants to legally adopt him. He wants to be his father, his brother, his best friend, and his lover. He wants Scott to get surgery to look more like him. Exactly what makes Liberace desire this? The film doesn't explore any territory that Scott doesn't get exposed to and it uses him as a means of trying to understand Liberace. However the audience starts to lose sight of Scott when he gets dragged in to the 'California' lifestyle.

The film holds your attention throughout but never attempts to dazzle the viewer. The story almost steps aside and lets the acting take command of the screen, and the film does not disappoint in that aspect. However, relying on acting alone to completely engage the audience is not an easy task. Even with actors as wonderful as Douglas and Damon, its hard to not watch a film such as this and wish it just had a little something more to make it more memorable. Soderbergh claims that this will be his last film in quite some time, although he has claimed that before. I hope one day he returns and reminds us that he's the same director who brought us Traffic.

The events that took place at Columbine shook the US and made for an infamous massacre in American History. It spawned widespread fear and melancholy and it has been the subject of many films that have come after it. In 'Elephant', auteur Gus Van Sant tackles the uneasy subject, which makes for a memorable entry in his self-proclaimed 'trilogy of death'.

Elephant is not flashy in its nature and it doesn't appeal to your average moviegoer. Running at only 78 minutes long, Van Sant spends most of the feature on the setting and the kids that inhabit the high school. It follows these students as they roam the hallways and the students come and go in Linklater-fashion, observing these kids and grounding them. His camera angles are effective in establishing the setting, and priming it up for what's about to come.

Once the massacre actually happens, which is at the end of the film, its disturbing and unsettling and downright powerful filmmaking. Even in a society where are desensitized to violence and cheer it in its glorious fashion, Van Sant disturbs us by highlighting the sensitive nature of it all. After establishing the setting of this school and the kids who are going about their day here, we feel violated at watching such events occur. It makes for a powerful experience that certainly leaves an impression.

Van Sant made a smart and alienating choice with this film. Choosing to spend so much time on the students as opposed to the action or even the perpetrators is why the film has its detractors, but he realizes that this story isn't about the shooters and their mania. Its about the students, the faculty, the school, the city its set in, and about humans.

When Van Sant does focus on the murderers, he portrays the two boys as gay and features them playing a first-person shooter video game. Were they bullied and does Van Sant blame violent video games? One of the shootings features an angle that's eerily similar to a video game. Whether or not Van Sant was trying to understand why these kids did what they did, he doesn't focus on these kids any more than he does the people who were directly affected by these horrible events.

If there was one word I would use to describe Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, it would be visceral. The entire film is loaded with rich and honest detail, in its setting and in its characters and in its emotion. You can look at the characters in their environment and see many things you can relate to, and Gondry succeeded with this intention, because love is something that we can all relate to and it helps make this story more personal.

The concept is ambitious, despite it being centered around something we are all familiar with; heartbreak. What if you had your heart broken and you wished that all of those memories would just go away? So you don't have to deal with the unbearable emotional pain that comes with it? Well in this film, such a business exists. Joel (Jim Carrey) signs up to get his memories of Clementine (Kate Winslet) erased because he's far too damaged from the turmoil.

The film's narrative is told through a unique structure, which should be no surprise when you find that the brilliant Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay. The movie exists in the present while Joel is enduring his procedure, and in the memories inside his head, which include events that already happened and a lucid Joel who is aware of what is happening inside these memories and tries to run from it with Clementine. These sequences in particular are brilliant because they really capture a dream-like aura to them that are quite appropriate. It's like when you're trying to tell someone something but it's just not getting through to them. Then there's the frustration and the desperation that comes with trying to change something that feels out of your grasp.

The bad memories are the ones to go first, the ones we don't hesitate to forget. The arguments and the fighting and the crying, the memories that we don't want to remember when they're associated with such good. It's only when the good memories start being effected that Joel tries desperately to hold onto those. He doesn't want to forget, he just wants to relive them and he wants to stay there forever. So he and Clementine hide in memories where they can't be found to hold onto the love they used to have. Yes, its as touching as it sounds. Kaufman made a smart choice in his screenplay in not completely setting the movie inside Joel's mind. Instead, actors such as Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood and Tom Wilkinson, who are the people carrying out the procedure on Joel, are going through their own experiences involving love and heartbreak. This is important because it represents how this kind of love is something that we all go through. It wouldn't make sense for just the main character and his love to be going through it, then it wouldn't seem so real. When you have such skilled actors playing these parts, it does not derail from the story or the excitement in any way, it strengthens it.

But the stars of the show here are Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, who share a magnetic chemistry. Carrey is shy and vulnerable and introverted, his soft-spoken narration is reflective of his personality. With Clementine, Joel's personality opens up and with her he feels the way he's never felt before. And the emotional journey he goes through as he tries to save his love with her is played quite well by Carrey. Its a wonderful dramatic turn from him that's different from his unique style of comedy he's known for. Kate Winslet is a tour de force, completely disappearing into her character's skin. She gives her charm and enough quirks to make her unique and alive but also very human. All of the actors in this film make it work.

All of these things mentioned, along with the outstanding camera work and visuals and locations, even the use of its soundtrack all help craft what is one of the most memorable films to emerge from the 2000s. Its very well crafted and smart and encourages the viewer to think and feel. And what more can those of us who appreciate movies ask for?