Reviews

Larry Charles, the countercultural writer whose work includes episodes of the sitcom Seinfeld and the anarchistic hybrid documentaries Borat and Religulous comes out with yet another piece of iconoclasm, this one more crude and offensive than the rest. Bruno is like Borat, the innovative mockumentary Charles made with Cohen earlier in 2006, where people are teased into believing Cohen's outrageous actions are true and that Bruno is a real character. As horrible as it may be to more light-hearted audiences, I find this obnoxiously satirical style to be plain funny and in many ways, intelligent. Here, people are made to believe Cohen as a flamboyantly gay Austrian reporter seeking fame by just acting like his tasteless and immoral self. This works into satirical bullets at both Bruno and homo-phobics. In this film, we obviously see satirical pokes at Bruno, whose caricature is as relevant in contemporary Hollywood as any, but the real punches Cohen and Charles are aiming at are the conservative communities who reject Bruno upon sight. Charles and Cohen, being the usually nihilistic pair they are, creates a world of discomfort for the audience as genuinely awkward situations play out in crude but hilarious manners. This film will shock and offend viewers, but it is all in the name of satire.

The Manchurian Candidate is a splendid film in total, a provocatively relevant thriller. The film is all in all, one of the first to take on the risky subject of mind control and this one remains one of the best in that genre. Used in surreal effect, the film builds for us an air of bizarre mystery, we are shocked not by what is seen on-screen, but the proposition of the film altogether. That is what makes this film more effective, it is not gruesome, but its notions to mind control and government coverts are as frightening today as they were fifty years ago. In perspective, the film acts as a commentary on American and korean politics while providing a shockingly relevant thriller.

George C. Scott's performance as General George Patton is by far, one of the greatest in cinema history and fortunately, he gets a script that matches his prowess in acting. The script (co-written by Francis Coppola) is well-written, focusing on a small portion of the general's life in pure detail, underlining both the positives and the negatives of the eccentric man. But though everything in this film is just nearly perfect, it is Scott who truly wins over his audience. Malden also puts on a notable effort as General Omar Bradley and the battle scenes are perfectly choreographed by an expert crew, but then again, it is the on-screen personalities who win this one over.

Speed is what every non-stop action film should be like: a fast-moving and intense ride (in this case, quite literally). The film's pacing is spot on, never losing a minute of our attention as it continually accelerates faster and faster. Getting Dennis Hopper to play the madman was also spot-on, Hopper plays the role with obnoxious precision and Reeves fairs rather well against him too. The premise is genius and allows the audience to be on the edge of their seats throughout the movie. Of course none of this could happen in real life, but do we care? Not really. We are just propelled onward by the intensity of both the direction and the actors paired with some incredible stunt/ action scenes.

Rupert Wyatt's prequel to the legendary 1968 film has its moments, but inconsistently shifts into boring and overlong passages too often and is rather pretentious in its CGI work. The finale is gripping and inviting, with heart-pounding action, but Wyatt's film plods too long, not reaching its punchline fast enough and loses our attention from the truly good parts of the picture. The film features some convincing special effects but lacks the thrusts it needs to propel itself. Fortunately enough, the film does manage to salvage some of my respect I saw from the boring action-filled advertisements. A mediocre action flick at best.

Bernardo Bertolucci would become a more well-known director with films such as Last Tango in Paris and The Last Emperor, but this 1970 Italian film is what really put him into serious contention. Bertolucci's stunning work with a camera plus powerful cinematography make this a visual delight through the slow stretches, keeping our attention well. This film is not one of Bertolucci's greatest, but for a director of 30 years, Bertolucci already shows the signs of a fully developed director able to use both visual and metaphoric symbolism to tell his points. His ending commentary on fascism and homosexuality is certainly proof of such a capable filmmaker.

Jean-Luc Godard has been known for his intellectual observations and criticisms. This film is no exception, it is one of the director's masterpieces, a film of unique intellect and style, a movie in which feels almost like a documentary with many characters narrating their actions, along with Godard who whispers personal opinions and observations into the camera. The film is miraculous in its acute social observation along with its discussion of almost every facet of Paris life given both a realistic context by Godard and his pseudo-documentary approach and a fictional context by the actors, creating for us a sort of double-sided film of both fact and fiction, of satire and drama, and of love and hate. As with almost all Godard films, subjective to those not familiar with his sense of structure, but an essential viewing for the intellect.

Akira Kurosawa's 1950 study of murder and lies is a thundering moral statement. The film builds for us an atmosphere of lies and deceit in our world, showing the cynical mechanics of Kurosawa's old soul. The film plays out four separate stories, each of which are false in someway. Not revealing the true plot to the audience is Kurosawa's metaphor of how we all lie to ourselves and to others and how we barely know the truth in so much deception. Then, at the end, Kurosawa provides a moment of beauty and belief, sharpening our faith in human kind rather than fading it. This moral statement is among the best of all films and remains one of Kurosawa's greatest works of art. It is conceivable that Kurosawa made better films, but this early gem is still hard to beat.

Red Desert is a film that I believe is not a simple character study, it is an apocalyptic notion of the future in shockingly contemporary terms. That aspect of Antonioni's purely other-worldly and futuristic filmmaking is what makes the film so shocking in its moral statements and so provocative in its overall design. Antonioni uses color masterfully and creates for us a world of industrial mechanics, bleakly emphasizing his apocalyptic terms through a simple woman looking for love in her loveless environment. The characters are merely symbols and rather than the images emphasizing characters I believe that the characters are merely human identifications of his world of doom, which is shockingly contemporary in even today's modern world.

M is one of the most controversial films of the 1930's, a film that explores the power of the human spirit and the depravity of it as well. The film works because it shows us the mind of a serial killer and the beauty within the killer as well. This haunting picture also shows us the similarities between police and criminal, showing how both have hearts in the same image. The film is a great moral statement, it's not excessive or exploitive, nor is it under-played and sentimentalized, but somewhere in-between. It's as scandalous as any slasher film these days, but it boasts greater moral intention, more creative camera angles, and more of a lasting impact than any modern horror-thriller.

William Burroughs is one of the most controversial artists of the century, his book "Naked Lunch" still disgusts and repulses some readers. Here, Burroughs is examined as a man with little emotion who refused to be loved, but inside the intellect and the anarchy lies a man of much sadness and alienation. The film shows Burroughs and his influence on the counter-culture, revealing his influence on films such as "Blade Runner", bands such as Steely Dan, and the punk movement of the '70s. It also explores his personal life, such as his homosexuality, drug addiction, guns, and his guilt over the accidental shooting of his second wife. Although Burroughs has been examined in documentary features many times, here he is given a more personal look.

Blue Velvet is altogether a juxtaposition, a working of normal Rockwellian America into the bizarre and the macabre. That element is what makes Lynch's film so original in its approach. Most films relish small-town America, this film shows us the hidden world just underneath its surface. The film possesses the raw violent and erotic energy of a locomotive, with some shocking scenes with enough energy in them to power a town. Hopper gives one of his greatest performances and Rossellini takes the biggest risk of her career in her role as a masochistic singer. Lynch creates for us two perpendicular worlds in the same plane and when he intersects them, his artistry is profound and the hypnotism of his film is unmatched.

Pier Paolo Pasolini is a filmmaker noted for his daringness and audacity both within his films and his life. This filming of the life of Christ is certainly both of those. This highly-moving masterpiece is one of his finest creations, a work of harmony and beauty. The reason the film works so well is its faith in images rather than sound. Pasolini conveys the beauty of the scripture through the movement of his actors and the very expressions of their faces. When they do speak, it feels true rather than contrived. Shot in Southern Italy on a low budget using the Italian Neo-realist style of non-professional actors, Pasolini creates for us the greatest portrait of Christ in the movies and a thundering statement of morality and faith.

The career of Terrence Malick has been one of visual poetry and philosophical metaphors. His most metaphoric and symbolic film yet is The Tree of Life. The Tree of Life shows the growing pains of the '50s with little dialogue contrasted with images from the formation of the universe. Malick's symbolism has never been as poetic, but it can also be viewed as a bit pretentious. Nevertheless, Malick has created a wonderful work of art filled with uncanny visual power and his usual originality. All in all, it is not Malick's biggest success as a filmmaker but it is a success for cinema. Love those images from the universal and physical passages.

The Killing is one of the best pieces of filmmaking; it's short and sweet, thrilling and chilling, and most importantly artistic and thought-provoking. The film creates a web of stories for us in the beginning and later ties them together, subsequently revealing the character's intentions. The psychology is what brings the thriller to life though. The film is intensely dependent on psychological motivation and manipulation other than stylized violence and likewise. The mixture of artistic psychological storytelling with the constant non-linear storytelling makes this a shining accomplishment for the then young Stanley Kubrick.

The debut for Terrence Malick is a moody and philosophical piece of American cinema. It is a look into violence and love simultaneously told on the backdrop of the badlands of South Dakota. The quiet and gut-wrenching thing about Badlands is how Malick shows us how such a good-intentioned man ends up becoming a serial killer in the end. Based off a true story, the film provides the poetic filmmaking that would characterize Malick's career. The trick to watching this and the other films of Malick is to interpret the symbolism, tie this into the setting he places it in, and understand how the two tie so perfectly together.

Quentin Tarantino's shocking but nevertheless fluid thriller set the stage for him to become one of America's most original directors. The film starts off with the classic Tarantino side-talking routine, that he would later explore in Pulp Fiction. It slowly develops into a violent thriller in the vein of The Killing (1956). There is something compelling and original about all the violence and destruction in this film that separates it from other thrillers like it. It's hip and cool but it also has the same artistry that made The Killing such a successful film. Keitel is great and he has a good cast to give him back up.

Throne of Blood is a Japanese filming of Macbeth with Kurosawa changing the mechanics of Shakespeare's scenery and language to his own willing. What he creates is something as symbolic as the original, but a creation all his own set in a mystical setting of forest and fog. Kurosawa pays homage to Shakespeare however and that is what grounds his film the most. He fully respects the first masterpiece, but puts equal respect in his own art, creating a work of perfect symmetry and a complete fusion of the geniuses of William Shakespeare and Akira Kurosawa. The poetry remains just where it is at in the play only with a different setting.

John Cassavetes returned from his artistic successes in A Woman Under the Influence and The Killing of a Chinese Bookie with this fascinating study of an actress whose life falls apart on stage and off. It certainly is a dense and frustrating experience, but Cassavetes keeps the whole thing personal and adds his usual improvisational elements to his handling of the stage business. Rowlands gives a terrific performance as the struggling actress on the verge of a mental breakdown, flirting with the same mannerisms that made her an actress to beat in A Woman Under the Influence. Certainly for fans of the director alone. An original piece of experimentation.

Degrassi is a box of stinky cliché cut out of the side of every teenage melodrama ever made with ignorant one-sided caricatures lacking any form of depth or complexity. However, despite its shallow nature and laziness, Degrassi has a strong appeal that manages to grip us with honest observation. It takes the sex and status that defines high school and displays it for us. The fact of the matter is that it reveals no insights but preys off the human need for dramatics and that is the shallow but gripping appeal of this program. It also lacks social prejudice and openly deals with drug use, homosexuality, and exclusion that happens in high schools. Watching it will give teenagers insight into their lives by giving insight to others like them and that alone is a good reason to watch this.

There seems to be every Hitchcock element present here: irony, humor, thrills, false accusations, psychopaths, and most importantly suspense. Somehow, they all seem to come together well. The film is a dazzling show in every way and though it lacks the artistic punch of many of Hitchcock's thrillers, it is a powerful piece of entertainment and a great ride until the very end. The power of the movie is how both funny and thrilling it is at the same time. I suppose that is quite artistic and what adds to this masterpiece of set pieces and Hitchcockian thrillers. Great performances add to the experience of this incredible movie.

Not only is this the best of the Potter films, but it made me overall appreciate the films and Rowling's novels with much more appreciation. The biggest problems with the other Potter films was over-length and ineffective juxtaposition, but this chapter suffers from neither. Yates is as fast-paced as ever and he blends multiple elements together effectively. The movie is spellbinding and grabs you from the start, not wandering like its precursor and gets us pretty much on every level. The special effects are as good as always and seeing the story go full circle is a comforting event that leaves us satisfied with the saga.

E.M Forster's groundbreaking novel would have made a great film had Lean's style payed any homage to its characters over its visual indulgence. Unfortunately, this one is less about the characters but about scenic beauty. The beauty and the look of this film is certainly masterful, but what divides it from Lean's masterpieces is the predictable character studies. He has a great team of actors under his direction though and that does help the movie out a lot, especially Guiness who sports an excellent performance and Davis in her breakthrough role. As a peaceful reflection of one of cinema's great masters, it works, but as its own epic creation, it fails gloriously.

The Life and Times of Allen Ginsberg-***1/2- A Must-See- Directed by: Jerry Aronson, Written by: Jerry Aronson.

Writer-director Aronson builds a heartwarming and interesting documentary of one of the essential artists of American history and one of the key founders of the Beat Generation, poet Allen Ginsberg.

Ginsberg's art is reviewed in the film, with the notable works of Ginsberg such as Howl coming first. Yet what really makes this portrait of the artist so captivating is the way it uncovers Ginsberg's beliefs, mannerisms, and sexuality in an affectionate way. Without a doubt, this is what the Ginsberg documentary should be like in order to honor the man.

Not only does the documentary present archive footage of Ginsberg,but it also presents interviews and commentary by his various friends and fellow writers. These range from his Beat friends such as William S. Burroughs, but also his admirers from the 1960's such as Ken Kesey and also weaves in an honorable portrait of Jack Kerouac along the way. A must-see for any of those interested in Ginsberg or either the Hippy or Beatnik movements.

Dial M for Murder-***- Must-see- Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock. Written by: Frederick Knott (from his play), Starring: Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Robert Cummings, John Williams, Anthony Dawson.

Perhaps Hitchcock's talkiest thriller deals with a former tennis star (Milland) who hatches a pitch-perfect plan to kill his wife (Kelly). Yet when she kills her hit-man attacker, Milland must go to great lengths to cover his tracks from his wife's lover and an investigator.

Frederick Knott adapted his play for the screen, which is perfect fodder for Hitchcock's suspenseful interest in murder and wrong accusations. The marvelous thing about the film is the fact that Hitchcock is able to conceal the fact that the whole movie takes place in virtually one room. The quick and engaging dialogue by Knott and a stellar performance by Milland are the key attributes that hold the film together when it threatens to expose the theatrical approach other than cinema-tics.

Hitchcock already reveals the clues to the picture yet we are still fascinated over the course of the investigation because of how effective he is as a storyteller. The talky aspects and the limited cinema-tics of the picture may not appeal to everyone, but Hitchcock still crafts a noteworthy thriller worth discussing and re-watching like most of his pictures.