83. L'Atalante (1934)

Running Time: 89 minutes
Directed By: Jean Vigo
Written By: Jean Guinee, Albert Riera
Main Cast: Jean Daste, Dita Parlo, Michel Simon, Gilles Margaritis, Louis Lefebvre
Click here to view the trailer

30s = DONE!

Yep, that's right. With the watching of "L'Atalante", I now have officially watched everything from the beginning of THE BOOK, all the way up to 1941! It also means that within the span of two movies, I've completed both the 21st century and the decade of the 1930s!

Jean (Daste) and Juliette (Parlo) have just been married. While her weepy eyed family bid her adieu, she follows Jean to a barge, which he's the captain of. Aboard the boat, Juliette meets Jean's crew: his second-in-command Pere Jules (Simon) and the cabin boy. Pere Jules is a simple minded fellow, who's seemingly spent his whole life on the water, an uneducated sort. He has a thing for cat's and aboard the L'Atalante, he houses many. Jean and Juliette seem a happy couple...at first, but Jean shows a troubled side early, when he catches Juliette harmlessly chatting with Jules and goes into a jealous rage, smashing plates and breaking everything in site. He apologizes swiftly and the honeymoon is back on, as the L'Atalante docks in Paris. Juliette, having never been to the big city before, can't wait to go ashore and see the bright lights of the big city. Jean promises to take her out, but when Jules disappears for a little while, he claims he can't leave the boat alone and cancels their plans. Eventually they do go out, but when a peddler flirts with Juliette, Jean goes into another jealous rage and when the peddler shows up at the boat, once the couple are back aboard, Jean gets even more furious. Realizing that she could never be content with such a jealous man, Juliette leaves and heads into the city on her own. Once gone, Jean vows to cast off that night, leaving her behind, thus ending their marriage.

Boy, I guess I just don't get Jean Vigo. I can remember way back when, when I'd first started this journey and when I reviewed "Zero for Conduct". I remember hating it and telling what I thought in my very amateur, early review. Following that, I remember going onto the IMDB message boards and further sharing my thoughts with some of the users there. I wasn't a confident critic then, so when the other users "tore me a new one" for not loving "Zero", I headed for the hills and since then, my presence at those message boards has been scarce. I've become more confident in my own opinion since then and today, I always stand behind what I say, when it pertains to film. I feel that I've seen enough movies to watch and understand them and especially to speak about them intelligently, without being ashamed of my opinion.

Anyway (I got off topic there, didn't I?) I didn't like "L'Atalante" in the slightest. To me, it was a nothing film and I just don't get all the hubbub over this one. I'd heard some pretty amazing things about this picture, however, it really failed to deliver the goods and I was left with a fairly hollow story about a newly married man and woman aboard a barge, heading to Paris. Big whoop! I mean, was I missing something obviously outstanding here? I guess, from my brief bit of research, it was a big pioneer in what would later become the French New Wave, so there's that, but as a story it's really nothing to get too excited over. Michel Simon is pretty great as Pere Jules, but that's about the extent of my enjoyment, which includes him playing a phonograph record with his index finger...a great moment! Otherwise, this is as forgetful a film as I'll watch or have watched on my journey and I'm sure in a month I won't even remember the characters' names. End of rant.

RATING: 3.5/10  I'll give it a few notches, because it was more forgetful and meaningless than outright bad and because Michel Simon is quickly becoming someone I'm realizing I need to keep my eye on and he was pretty good here.

MOVIES WATCHED: 674
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 327

May 3, 2013  11:51pm

April 2013 Recap

Let's do it...

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in April 2013
1) Shoah (1985 - Claude Lanzmann) 7/10 - I gave it an '8' initially, but a '7' seems more suitable. I'd say it's TOP 20 chances are nil, but it's still a powerful experience and definitely belongs among other "must see" movies.
2) 1900 (1976 - Bernardo Bertolucci) 5/10 - Still boring as hell, but I have to give it SOME credit.
3) There Will Be Blood (2006 - P.T. Anderson) 8/10
4) Artists and Models (1955 - Frank Tashlin) 7/10 - I'd like to somehow squeeze this one into the TOP 20, but with the recent influx in great movies, I can't see it happening.
5) Open City (1945 - Roberto Rossellini) 2.5/10 - Honestly, I barely even remember this one and that's bad considering I watched it in the last month. Thumbs down!
6) Paisan (1946 - Roberto Rossellini) 5/10
7) Europa '51 (1952 - Roberto Rossellini) 5.5/10 - These Rossellini flicks just weren't for me and that's that.
8) Voyage in Italy (1953 - Roberto Rossellini) 6/10 - My opinions have definitely changed, as I'd call this the best of the Rossellini lot, as opposed to "Paisan".
9) Akira (1988 - Katsuhiro Otomo) 2/10
10) Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957 - John Sturges) 6/10 - Barely a '6' and just not a very great western, at all.
11) A Star Is Born (1954 - George Cukor) 6.5/10 - '7' was just too high, so I had to knock it down a peg. James Mason was brilliant. Judy Garland...not so much.
12) Pulp Fiction (1994 - Quentin Tarantino) 10/10 - As of today, this is just slightly beating out "Le Trou" (inside my head) for the top spot of the TOP 20. That will flip flop back and forth hundreds of times before TOP 20 time though, I'm sure.
13) My Fair Lady (1964 - George Cukor) 8/10 - All the songs were good - great and Rex Harrison was outstanding. Big thumbs up!
14) Ariel (1988 - Aki Kaurismaki) 6.5/10
15) La chienne (1931 - Jean Renoir) 7.5/10 - Really good stuff and I stand by my previous quote, as saying this IS the best Renoir film in THE BOOK.
16) Me and My Gal (1932 - Raoul Walsh) 6.5/10 - Can't quite go '7', just because, but a really good flick, funny and Tracy is great. I had a good time with this one, no doubt!
17) Las Hurdes (1933 - Luis Bunuel) 4/10
18) The Baker's Wife (1938 - Marcel Pagnol) 4.5/10 - As hard as it was to find, it sure was a fruitless search.
19) High Sierra (1941 - Raoul Walsh) 2/10 - Worst movie of the month? Maybe...or at least it's right behind "Akira".
20) The Departed (2006 - Martin Scorsese) 7.5/10 - I thought about it and this just isn't on par with Martin's best work, so I lowered the rating a bit. Still a great movie, filled with suspense and great acting and all that jazz.
21) Apocalypto (2006 - Mel Gibson) 9.5/10 - I just can't, in good conscience, stick with the original '10' rating, but still damn good and one of the best action-adventure flicks I've ever seen. The images of this film are still fresh in my memory.
22) Gladiator (2000 - Ridley Scott) 4.5/10
23) Talk to Her (2002 - Pedro Almodovar) 9/10

Aaaaannd

NON-1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in April 2013
1) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012 - Peter Jackson) 7/10 - Now, don't misunderstand that '7' rating, as I was EXTREMELY disappointed in "The Hobbit". Tell me Mr. Jackson, how do you plan to stretch a 300 page book into three, three-hour films? Ugh. Anyway, yeah, this just wasn't anywhere near the caliber of film that any of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was. WAY WAY WAY too much goofy and down right bad looking CGI only helped to mar the quality of this film. I honestly think the only reason I'm giving it a '7' is because it is related to "The Lord of the Rings" and I do love those movies. I kind of look forward to the other two "Hobbit" flicks, but I REALLY hope the quality goes up, otherwise this trilogy will only end up soiling the greatness that is Jackson's LOTR trilogy.

Gonna' probably keep these write-ups on the short side...just so 'ya know.

2) The Artist (2011 - Michel Hazanavicius) 7.5/10 - Okay, so I finally got the chance to see last year's Best Picture winner, "The Artist" and it was pretty good. Of course, being introduced to silent cinema via the 1001 BOOK, I appreciated this a lot more. I remember when this first came out and reading Ebert's review where he mentioned that in certain theaters, people actually got up and walked out when they realized that no one was going to say anything. That's just silly America!! Could it have been better? Absolutely! You had the chance to, not only make a silent picture in 2012, but add some 21st Century flare to it. All they really did here was make a cookie cutter silent picture in the modern age and didn't utilize anything to give it a special twist, considering the fact that in 2012, Hollywood has plenty of special twists up it's sleeve. The story is basic, as are the characters, but the acting is top notch and...hey, it's a silent movie in 2012 and that's pretty cool. On a final note, I just knew someone was going to end up talking at the end, but couldn't they have come up with something a little more poignant to be said? Just seemed really random and unnecessary.

3) Lincoln (2012 - Steven Spielberg) N/A - I mentioned this in my "There Will Be Blood" review, but I'll mention it again here. I rented "Lincoln" this month, but after about an hour decided that since I have to sit through so many bad movies for THE BOOK, I wasn't going to sit through one when the option to bail was right in front of me. I watched for literally one hour and after hearing everyone blather on about the 13th Amendment, I decided to check out before my pulse stopped. Boring. As. Hell. Sure, Day-Lewis was fine as usual and maybe he even deserved a gold statue for his work, but damn this was coma inducing.

4) Django Unchained (2012 - Quentin Tarantino) 8/10 - I'll be damned if this one isn't growing on me...just a little bit. I talked a lot about this one in my "Pulp Fiction" review, so I don't really have a whole lot else to add. The Tarantino of the past ten years just isn't the same as the QT from the 1990s or even the QT that directed "Kill Bill". Feeble attempts at comedy and more of the same schtick that got him recognized in the early 90s, makes this a mild disappointment. Listen, if you show me a trick once or twice I'm gonna' be thrilled with it and remember it. However, if you keep showing me the same trick, eventually the magic is gone.

5) From Dusk Till Dawn (1996 - Robert Rodriguez) 6/10 - So after watching a bunch of newer stuff, the wife and I decided to take to our DVD shelf and watch some stuff that we hadn't seen in a while. First up: "From Dusk Till Dawn" - a film I introduced into our DVD collection, because I USED TO love it. Now? Not so much. Okay, so it's still a really good story, with very nice character development and as a horror flick, it's pure gold. But overall, it certainly gets goofy at times and some of the horror in there is just downright laughable, as is the acting...by some. It's a keeper on the DVD shelf, because you always need to keep a few good horror flicks around, just in case.

6) Matchstick Men (2003 - Ridley Scott) 7.5/10 - Another one that I introduced into the DVD collection, because when I worked at Movie Gallery (circa 2003 - 2005), I literally saw everything that came out on DVD and this came out during that time period and I loved it. It's a con-man story, starring Nicolas Cage as an OCD patient and veteran con-man, who, one day, realizes he has a 14-year-old daughter. Obviously I haven't forgotten it, since it's been sitting on my DVD shelf, but I bet for most people this is really a forgotten picture, because I never hear a peep about this, sometimes, brilliant movie. Sure, at times it also comes off as very artificial & plastic, a product of the Hollywood machine. However, everything works, there's a very cool, very unexpected (I think) twist ending and it all comes together for a very fine film. I'm also quickly beginning to realize what a fine actor Nicolas Cage is. I know, I know, he doesn't really ooze the aura of the great actor, but he has a really nice catalog of work under his belt. Sure, there's some shit in there too, but a lot of his movies are, at least, fun, if not quality films.

And that's it. Same time next month? I am so there!

May 3, 2013  12:26am

948. Dut yeung nin wa/In the Mood for Love (2000)

Running Time: 98 minutes
Directed By: Wong Kar-Wai
Written By: Wong Kar-Wai
Main Cast: Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung, Siu Ping Lam, Rebecca Pan, Lai Chen
Click here to view the trailer

UNRELATIONS

The first time I saw "In the Mood for Love" I gave it a '4/10'. Of course, you should also be informed that I'd just returned from the dentist, from having a root canal and that could have played a part in my grumpy demeanor and ultimately lackluster opinion of this 2000 Wong Kar-Wai film.

The film is set in the 1960s (1962, I believe) and begins with a meeting between Mrs. Chan (Cheung) and a landlady that she plans to rent off of, Mrs. Suen (Pan). They seal the deal over a bevy of pleasantries and as Mrs. Chan steps out, Mr. Chow steps in and asks if Mrs. Suen has a room for rent. She says that it's just been rented, but right next door there's another room for rent and so Mr. Chow takes that. Both Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow are married; Mrs. Chan's husband is away on business and Mrs. Chow works long hours at her job. After a while of living in the same tenement house, Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow begin to suspect their respective spouses of infidelity. They meet at a restaurant and after exchanging some pleasant conversation, they surmise that, yes indeed, their spouses are cheating on them and with each other. At first, they want to know how it got started, so they begin to meet and roleplay what their respective spouses must've said to one another to get the ball rolling on a sexual relationship, even going so far as to dine together, with Mrs. Chan eating what Mrs. Chow would normally eat and Mr. Chow eating what Mr. Chan would normally eat. They decide that despite the time they spend together, they're not going to become like their spouses and vow not to submit to the temptations of infidelity. They continue to spend time together and Mr. Chow even moves out, to another apartment building, so that all the time he spends with Mrs. Chan doesn't start to arouse suspicion. 

THE BOOK is quick to note that when you think "In the Mood for Love" is going to zag left, if zigs right. It's not your run of the mill movie and it's next to impossible to deduce whats going to happen, from one moment to the next. The characters are a little on the odd side, or is it the whole picture that just has an outer-worldly feel to it and the characters are perfectly normal? I don't know exactly. What I do know is that I liked it a lot more than I did on that day, following my root canal and it certainly intrigued me more than anything. The film is a living, breathing poem committed to celluloid and it's such a beautiful picture that it was really hard for me to dislike it. Literally every aspect, except for the story itself, is perfect: The music is spot on, utilizing a Nat King Cole song ("Quizas, Quizas, Quizas") and a waltz (Yumeji's theme) to maximum effect. The photography is great, as literally EVERY SINGLE shot seems to be plotted and planned before they even turned the camera on, making sure that every single frame in the film was flawless. The atmosphere and mood were great and personally pleasing. The acting is spot on, as Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung have a really good chemistry. It's just that the story is told in a way that isn't conventional and therefore it's a little harder to adapt to.

I used to think I liked films that used unconventional tactics, but as I grow older, I'm realizing that I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to my movies. I don't mind filmmaker's going a little off the beaten path, but make sure your story definitely calls for that. I felt that this was an original, genuine enough story to hold its own merits and didn't need the tricky character reactions and unconventional tactics. Anyway, I'm going to keep stewing this one over in my head and come to a definitive opinion by TOP 20 time. I'm not sure how it will fair, but for now, having read back over what I wrote, I can say that my opinion isn't set in stone yet.

RATING: 7/10  It's at least a '7' and honestly, this is the type of movie that begs for a re-watch. Also, with the watching of "In the Mood for Love", I've officially finished the 21st Century!! Hooray!

MOVIES WATCHED: 673
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 328

ON DECK
L'Atalante (1934 - Jean Vigo)
How Green Was My Vally (1941 - John Ford)
Ossessione (1943 - Luchino Visconti)
Meet Me in St. Louis (1944 - Vincente Minnelli)
Laura (1944 - Preminger, Mamoulian)

May 2, 2013  8:32pm

970. Hable con ella/Talk to Her (2002)

Running Time: 112 minutes
Directed By: Pedro Almodovar
Written By: Pedro Almodovar
Main Cast: Javier Camara, Dario Grandinetti, Leonor Watling, Rosario Flores
Click here to view the trailer

WATCH OUT FOR THAT GIANT HOLE!

Yes, that's the best subtitle I could come up with - sorry if it's too low brow.

In high school, I took Spanish, because you were forced to take a language as one of your electives (with Spanish and French being the only two choices) and I can still remember seeing a picture of Pedro Almodovar in my Spanish text book. At the time, I had no clue who he was, only what it said beside his picture. Now, looking back, I think it's kind of cool that they'd include him in the text book. I wonder if Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg show up in any English text books, in foreign countries?

"Talk to Her" revolves around four different characters. First up, there's Benigno (Camara), a male nurse at an institute specializing in coma patients. Benigno is a little confused about his own sexuality, but admits that (he thinks) he sways more in the direction of being sexually attracted to men, rather than women. Benigno's main patient is Alicia (Watling), a patient who has been in the hospital for four years, after a car accident left her in a vegetative state. Benigno stays with Alicia most days and nights, reading to her, doing her nails & hair, massaging her, bathing her and talking to her, in addition to countless other tasks. We learn through the use of back story, that Benigno may not be as homosexual as most people think, as it seems he actually knew Alicia before her arrival at the hospital. Alicia was a dancer and the dance academy where she trained was directly across the street from where Benigno lived. He used to watch her from his window and was completely infatuated with her. In fact, he was so infatuated with her, that he booked himself appointments with her father, the psychiatrist, in hopes of having an encounter with her. The other two characters in the story are Lydia (Flores), a bullfighter who gets gored & is also put into a vegetative state and admitted into the same hospital as Alicia, and her boyfriend Marco (Zuluaga), a journalist. Since he's at the hospital everyday anyway, visiting Lydia, Marco begins to strike up a friendship with Benigno.

SPOILER ALERT!

Movies have a way of really messing with you, if you think about it. Some of you may remember a while back, when I reviewed "The Celebration", I mentioned how odd it was that I actually felt sympathy for the pedophile, rapist father at the end of the film, when his family drives him away from the table. It was such an odd feeling, which is why I spoke about it and Almodovar kind of does the same thing to me again, with "Talk to Her". If any of us were to be watching the news and hear a story about a male nurse who raped and impregnated a coma patient, we would be disgusted and appalled. However, in "Talk to Her", that very same situation plays out and at the end, we're almost in tears for the Benigno character, feeling for him...at least I was. That's one of the really special things about cinema - when done right, it can totally twist your emotions, feelings, opinions and personal stances and make you totally second guess how you would normally view a situation. Did Benigno have issues? Certainly, however, the way Almodovar unfolded the story and told it to us, it wasn't that bad of a thing that he did. The sign of a truly great filmmaker, when they can literally play with your emotions and then make you wonder why you viewed something the way you did.

After the film ended, I asked myself: Should they have filmed the rape scene - between Benigno and Alicia? It only took me a moment to denounce the idea, thinking that anything they filmed would've come off as despicable and would've totally shattered our opinion of the Benigno character. I have to assume that the moment that took place between Benigno and Alicia was actually, probably a beautiful one (at least from Benigno's point of view) and I think it would be impossible to film a male nurse raping a female coma patient and make it look beautiful and touching. Instead, Almodovar tells us a short story, within the movie, about a shrinking man...must be seen to be believed, that's all I'll say.

Anyway, enough theorizing and idea slinging. The film was really great and the two hours seemed to fly by. The entire cast turned in fine performances, especially Javier Camara. The story was magnificent too; very down to earth, dealing with normal people but with a little twist, which I liked. I'm given to understand that this is Almodovar's most normal film, which is disheartening, because that leads me to believe that his other films are a little oddball-esque, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. I'll be watching "All About My Mother" soon, so we'll see how that goes. I think this would be a REALLY good film for anyone wanting to get interested in foreign films. If you're like I used to be and you don't watch a lot of foreign titles, this one is really easy to follow, really good and I think it would appeal to an audience of purely domestic moviegoers. The only thing I really didn't like about "Talk to Her" was the end. Am I really to believe that after all that's happened, now Marco and Alicia are going to have their own little part of this story? I mean, why else flash their names across the screen and elude that the end of the film is only the beginning for these two. It wasn't awful or anything, just a nitpicky thing, but I would've preferred it if they'd just tacked on ten or fifteen more minutes and did a scene with Marco and Alicia talking...about everything.

RATING: 9/10  Can't go all the way, just because, but a '9' is good too. I really can't wait to see "All About My Mother" now and see what it's like.

MOVIES WATCHED: 672
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 329

April 30, 2013  3:44pm

947. GLADIATOR (2000)

Running Time: 155 minutes
Directed By: Ridley Scott
Written By: David Franzoni, John Logan, William Nicholson
Main Cast: Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi
Click here to view the trailer

GLADI-HATER

I'm watching things from the new side slightly out of order because my wife and I happened to both be off today and she wanted to watch this with me. I'd only seen "Gladiator" once before and I've never been as gaga over it as others apparently are. This viewing didn't do much to change that either.

The plot revolves entirely around Maximus Decimus Meridius (Crowe), a Roman general, who pledges his allegiance to Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), emperor of Rome. The film opens during the end of Rome's war with the barbarians, at Vindobona. Maximus successfully leads his men against the barbarians, with his famous battle cry to "unleash hell". Following the battle, Maximus has only one goal: to go home to his family (wife and son) and his farm and live a peaceful life. Before being granting his release, Marcus Aurelius tells Maximus that he's the son he never had and asks Maximus to take the throne when he relinquishes it. Maximus is hesitant, but it doesn't matter because when Aurelius breaks the news to his son, Commodus (Phoenix), he is so upset that he kills his father and assumes the throne. Having knowledge of his father's plans to appoint Maximus as new emperor, Commodus has Maximus removed from the city and killed. However, Maximus gets away, but not without injury. He rides toward home, but when he gets there he finds his family murdered. He is then captured and sold to a gladiator trainer, where he must fight for his life in dingy arenas, alongside other slaves and makeshift warriors. When Commodus announces his intention to hold gladiator games, Maximus sees his chance at revenge, realizing that his chance to come face to face with the man responsible for his family's murder is upon him.

SPOILER ALERT!

You know, I really wanted to like this movie. With yesterday's glowing review and 100% acceptance of another epic, action-adventure movie ("Apocalypto"), I thought that maybe "Gladiator" had a chance to get into my good graces. I won't totally bash it, because there are aspects of it that were quite good. Mostly the aesthetical elements: set pieces, costumes, glorious camerawork. Furthermore, you also have Joaquin Phoenix in their pouring his heart out and further making a name for himself and the supporting cast was all fine too, I guess. However, the majority of this review will probably be a negative one, so if you're a fan, it's nothing personal. 

For starters, I hate Russell Crowe. I just don't see talent in him and any movie of his that I have liked, it's most likely not been because of him. Okay, maybe "hate" is a strong word, but I just don't care for the guy. In "Gladiator" there were far too many cheesecake shots of him and at times, the film came off simply as fodder for the women in the audience; giving them something to gawk at and dream about. Also, he just has this air of cockiness about him, that just isn't appealing. My other major criticism is the extreme length and lack of story to back up such an extended running time. You've got a movie that's twenty minutes shy of being three hours and what have you got: Maximus is general, Maximus is exiled, Maximus is gladiator, Maximus is vengeful, Maximus is dead. The end. When you hand me a film called "Gladiator", I expect there to be a prevalent use of battle scenes, and while there was, I think the feeble story really bogged them down and ultimately buried them. Speaking of the gladiator/battle scenes, those were good too and the sight of the Roman Coliseum, filled with spectators was a nice sight to behold.

Ultimately, this is yet another film to add to the "not for me" pile. If you're a fan, I have nothing against your opinion and honestly, I can understand why this film has so many fans. It's something that IS going to appeal to the majority of audiences. However, it didn't work for me. At times, it just came off as a desperate attempt to create a "Spartacus" for the 21st Century and we all know how I felt about that movie. If you're not into this kind of thing, but trying to watch it anyway (perhaps, for you BOOK doers), then drink a few Red Bull's beforehand, because "Gladiator" has that unique ability to bore it's unwilling viewers into the lulls of sleep.

RATING: 5.5/10  Like I said, not all bad and if you're a lover of great visuals, then you'll go ape for this. If you like good stories and movies that DON'T make you snooze, then take a pass.

MOVIES WATCHED: 671
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 330

April 29, 2013  3:17pm

988. Apocalypto (2006)

Running Time: 138 minutes
Directed By: Mel Gibson
Written By: Mel Gibson, Farhad Safinia
Main Cast: Rudy Youngblood, Dalia Hernandez, Jonathan Brewer, Mayra Serbulo, Morris Birdyellowhead
Click here to view the trailer

THE GREAT GIBSON?

I was hesitant to watch "Apocalypto", because...well I don't really have an acceptable "because" - I was just skeptical, that's all. One thing that may have led to my skepticism is the lack of faith I have in Gibson as a director. Despite turning in a near masterpiece with "The Passion of the Christ", I felt as though that work was ready made to succeed and didn't really chalk the success up to Gibson's direction. With "Apocalypto", I now have no choice but to give Gibson the credit he's due.

As far as I could tell, the film is segmented, quite nicely, into four distinct pieces. We start out with the introductions and establishing the characters. In this case, the characters are members of the Mayan civilization and more specifically, in this case, a small Mayan village, where the residents know one another, respect their boundaries and are grateful for what they have. This particular Mayan community is a civilized lot, where families live and flourish and ancestry is respected. One morning, however, all of this is disrupted when the village is attacked by a band of outsiders. The outsiders kill some, capture and hogtie the rest and burn the village to the ground. With their captives, the raiders tie them together and lead them through the forests, bound to a bamboo pole. The captives have no idea where they're going and most are tied and beaten. Having just seen members of their family killed, most are also emotionally drained, not knowing where they're going or who's taking them there. It is eventually revealed that the captives are being taken to be ritually sacrificed to the God of the sun, Kukulkan. After killing two of the captives in brutal fashion, the crowd that has gathered and everyone else witness a solar eclipse and therefore, the men doing the sacrificing declare that Kukulkan is satisfied and to "dispose" of the rest of the captives. The final part deals with the escape of Jaguar Paw (Youngblood), one of the captives, as he tries to escape the band of original captors and get back to his pregnant wife and son, whom he hid in a pit before being captured.

It took a little bit before my skepticism was quenched. When the film started, several feeble attempts at comedy were made and they were those kinds of feeble attempts at comedy that, kind of, make you roll your eyes - the very unfunny kind. However, Gibson didn't waste any time and quickly put the kibosh on the comedy and started rolling the ball on an absolutely FANTASTIC movie. For me, the skeptical one, it was a film that built and built and built until I couldn't help but embrace the film that was being laid out before me. At first, as I mentioned, I wasn't crazy about it. Then, the village is attacked and I start to get a little more into it, but not too much. The mini war scene when the village is attacked was some pretty great stuff, but I still wasn't sold. Then we started walking and I began to wonder when we'd stop walking. Was the entire film going to be the leading of the captives to their destination or were we going to get there in time to see what happens and then some? That question was quickly answered though, when we did arrive at our destination and the cinematography started to pick up a notch. Immaculate sets,  thousands of extras, camera angles that squeezed every drop of beauty out of the surroundings and the blues of the painted bodies, the sacrificial lambs being led to their slaughter. But it was too soon for all of our main characters to die and if the sacrificing wasn't enough to get you "oohing" & "aahing" and gasping & groaning, you still had the whole final act to go - the escape of Jaguar Paw and to see whether or not he'd survive a band of worthy hunters. By the end, I was exhausted. Going from a skeptical viewer to a 100% hooked one is hard work, ya know?

So with all this glowing praise, I'm forced to ask myself the question: Is Mel Gibson a great director? Well, I'd have to say he is. Now, I'm as surprised as any of you to hear myself say that, because up until about an hour ago, I wouldn't give have dared to lump the terms "Mel Gibson" and "great director" into the same sentence. But, if you look at his directing career (with the exception being "The Man Without a Face"), you see some very passionately done stories. Gibson is one who gets an idea in his head and either goes whole hog with it or doesn't do it at all. I mean, Gibson (once an A-list Hollywood actor), with his last two pictures, has broken the cardinal rule of a Hollywood filmmaker and that is: never make a film with subtitles. Gibson could've just as easily had his actors speaking English, in this and "The Passion", but he went whole hog, used Hebrew and Mayan dialects and did it right, lest he didn't do it at all. I applaud that. All I know is this, if it was announced tomorrow that Gibson had announced his next big directing gig, I'd be excited to hear the details, see the trailer and eventually see the movie. He has officially crossed that threshold of directors, where I'm literally looking forward to his next project and speaking of his projects, as you can tell, they're few and far between. I'd call that another credit to his abilities, as he doesn't simply grasp at anything that's thrown at him, but rather waits for something that he wants to do, that he feels passionate enough about to direct. Gibson is one who obviously directs just as much with his heart, as he does with his mind.

RATING: 10/10  Screw it, I'm going all the way. This was a great, great movie. Great action, beautiful cinematography, great direction, perfectly acceptable acting and a fantastic story...this is what going to the movies is all about.

MOVIES WATCHED: 670
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 331

April 28, 2013  9:45pm

989. The Departed (2006)

Running Time: 151 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: William Monahan, Siu Fai Mak, Felix Chong
Main Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen
Click here to view the trailer

ON MY JOURNEY I MET A MAN NAMED MARTIN

This is kind of a special review, because it's the first time on the blog that I'm going to get the chance to talk about Martin Scorsese - a favorite director of mine, one that I discovered slowly, on my own, without any real coaxing by anyone else. It's also the first time I'll be discussing the work of Leonardo DiCaprio, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors.

To detail the full plot of "The Departed", would take far too long because there are too many tiny intricacies that discussing every character, their motivation and specific role would be ridiculous. However, just covering the basics may be too short, so I'll try my best to find a happy medium. The film is set in Boston and revolves around big-time mob boss Frank Costello (Nicholson). Frank is a made man and at his age, he still reigns supreme over the criminal underworld of the Irish-American communities of Boston. At a young age, Colin Sullivan (Damon) is hand-picked by Frank to be one of his number one men, with the mindset being; treat him well at an early age and he'll always be on your side. Fast forward a lot of years and Colin is all grown up and being planted into the police force, via Frank, to be his man on the inside. Colin goes through the years of training that it takes to become a police officer and is almost immediately promoted to a plain clothes Sergeant. Meanwhile, William Corrigan Jr. (DiCaprio) is legitimately one of the good guys and is also going through police training. Coming from a sketchy, ghetto frequented background and a family with a pride-less history, William hopes to shake away the bad examples set by the family that came before him. Once a member of the State Police, William is approached with the opportunity to go undercover, into Frank's organization. His superiors figure that with his tumultuous past, Frank won't think twice when William approaches him about becoming a member of the criminal underworld. Now, we've got two rats: one good rat mixing with bad company and one bad rat mixing with the boys in blue. It all heats up very fast and provides the audience with one intense movie going experience.

SPOILER ALERT!

I feel like I was born to nitpick, so let's go with that first and then segue into the good stuff. My biggest complaint, and I really hate admitting this, is that, at times, the film is a LITTLE too confusing. It's not the fact that you've got to keep everyone's roles in order: Matt Damon is a bad guy pretending to be a good one, Leonardo DiCaprio is a good guy pretending to be a bad one, etc, etc. It's more when they start talking about micro processors, deals between Frank and the Chinese and all this mumbo jumbo. In a perfect world, Frank's specific activities would've been kept as simple as possible, because the real meat of the film lies with the two moles. The other thing that confused me a little bit...just a little bit, was the ending. Matt Damon's character opens his apartment door to find Mark Wahlberg standing with a gun pointed on him. Dignam (Wahlberg) is dressed in shady attire, complete with shoe covers on his feet. What's that all about?? Is it supposed to be implied that Madolyn gave the envelope to Dignam, which contained the truth about Colin, and therefore Dignam went, on official police business, and murdered Colin? Why wouldn't he just arrest him? Or are we meant to assume that Dignam was also working for Frank and because Colin killed Frank, Dignam was there to kill Colin? The rat at the very end of the picture would signal that the latter is very possibly true - the fact that rats exist everywhere. My other nitpick is SOME of the acting. Here's the rundown on the acting in this movie:

DiCaprio - shines, stands head and shoulders above all of the other talent. I truly think that when I'm older (much older) Leonardo DiCaprio will be the actor that me and my elderly peers talk about, much like people today talk of Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.

Nicholson - good, but showing some wear & tear. This SHOULD HAVE been Nicholson's swan song, as he passed the great actor torch onto brighter stars, namely Leo. It pretty much was, but he did "The Bucket List" and one other movie since, so technically...not a swan song.

Damon - Good and almost great, but not quite. I think if he hadn't been opposite DiCaprio, his star may have shined a little brighter. 

Wahlberg - Well I always give credit for trying and Wahlberg certainly tried to shine next to the big boys, but proved he's destined and probably much more suited for Michael Bay films.

Sheen - Proved to be just as good a veteran actor as Nicholson. I was impressed that this old dog still had a couple of good tricks up his sleeve.

Baldwin - I love Baldwin when he's a supporting player. If he's the star, he usually fails, but he does great when the pressure's off and he was fine here.

Farminga - I think she's a pretty decent actress. I think she's been given some big opportunities, early in her career (this and "Up in the Air") and has done well with that. I think she'd benefit by doing some smaller roles and honing her craft.

So that's the acting scorecard and you really can't sneeze at much of that, as it all ranges from good to great, with Leo outshining the lot of them. Of course, the story is the real star of the show, as you've got a truly original idea (other than the fact that this IS a remake of a Hong Kong film, thus deeming it quite unoriginal...but I mean the original, original idea), that people are going to obviously get into. At the very same time mob decides to put a mole in the police force, the police force decide to put a mole in the mob and the intensity and suspense of it all is, sometimes, to much to bear. "The Departed" comes complete with those "sit on the edge of your seat" moments, not to mention those moments where you just cannot help but try and communicate with the fictitious characters, through your T.V. If you're watching this movie and not yelling "Get out of there!" or "Oh my God, he's gonna' catch him!!", then you're not getting into the full experience that this motion picture has to offer. Martin wants you to have fun and he knows how to make an audience have fun, all the while making a high quality movie. That's what I love about Scorsese, because first and foremost, he's a fan and knows what we want to see.

RATING: 8/10  So a pretty good score, but I've seen Martin do better and we'll get the chance to review some of those better outings, down the line. By the way, "The Departed" really SHOULD be Scorsese's swan song to the gangster genre, as I think he's said everything he needs to say, with the use of blood and excessive violence.

MOVIES WATCHED: 669
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 332

April 27, 2013  10:15pm