New York Screenings Not To Be Missed

Hello readers.

I am no longer residing the Brooklyn as I have been for the last eighteen years, so of course this website will not be as current and up to date as it normally would have been. I will only be seeing a movie every now and then in the theatre, and when that happens it will probably be something very banal and trite-I have "Vantage Point" and "Semi-Pro" as two things I will probably see in the theatre-but on breaks and visits home I will be catching up with a few things. I will be taking a film class while being in school here, and so if I see anything interesting in those events, then I will gladly post here. The weekend of the 15th of next month I will be going home for a couple of days, and in that span I intend on catching the crime comedy "In Bruges," as well as the 2007 Academy Award Nominated Short Films, which will be playing at the IFC Center.

Looking at some websites, there are a few screenings in the NYC area that I wouldn't want you to miss.

Over at MOMA

Feb 7th-Lady Chatterley (2006) at 7pm
Feb 15-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) at 8pm

Feb 23-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) at 4:00pm

Over at The Museum of the Moving Image

Feb 3-The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936) at 5pm

Feb 23-How Green Was My Valley (1941) at 2pm

Feb 24-How Green Was My Valley (1941) at 6:30pm

And over at the Walter Reade:

A few good films are going to be playing at the Walter Reade in the middle of February for a couple of weeks that I saw at the Toronto Film Festival. I can recommend three of them-none of them anything remarkable, but your dollar won't be wasted seeing them.

The first is a special sneak showing of George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead, which is playing Feb. 14th at 10:30pm. Be warned, though, that the very next day the movie will be opening in select theatres all over Manhattan, so you probably do not need to spend the extra few dollars on the ticket unless you really want to.

The second is Import/Export, a bizarre and sometimes sexually explicit comedy/drama that I found rather interesting and even sometimes riveting. Granted it was several months since I saw it, and I've seen tons of films in between, but I did find it rather interesting to watch. That is playing Feb 17th at 1:30pm, and Feb 20th at 8:15pm.

And the third is the Russian epic The Banishment, which plays like an epic Russian novel. The film is playing Feb 18th at 6pm, Feb 20th at 3pm, and Feb. 25th at 2pm.

If I had the chance to see any one of those again, it would be a toss between the last two. Import/Export had lots of visual gags and strong silent moments to tell the story, while The Banishment has some more dimensional characters that certainly warrents several more viewings. 

2007 Academy Award Nominations Commentary + If I Picked the Winners

The awards anticipation is slowly rising as the nominations for the Academy Awards have been announced. Glossing over the list of nominees there is still no frontrunner in any of the major categories, and even the smaller ones are up for grabs. The favorites at this time are the two neck in neck films according to quality-"There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men," but movies like "Juno," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Atonement," and "Michael Clayton" all have their shots as well. Before reading my commentary on the nominations, I will allow you all to be reminded of my Ten Best Movies of the Year list.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

George Clooney-Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis-There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp-Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones-In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen-Eastern Promises

The five choices here are all quite good, but there are two performances that I just think were tragically overlooked in any awards show. Michael Douglas' work in King of California brought an unexpected force of charisma and energy, and John Cusack playing against type in Grace Is Gone went underseen as well. I would have replaced Mortensen and Depp with those two- both of those fine work by the respected actors, but Depp's work in his film is not a stretch for him at all, while Douglas and Cusack brought new spins to their charatcers. I am quite happy with the surprise inclusion of Tommy Lee Jones, whose film was underseen by almost everyone, despite it being made by award favorite Paul Haggis.

If I Picked the Winner-Daniel Day-Lewis
My Prediction for the Winner-Daniel Day-Lewis

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Casey Affleck-The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem-No Country for Old Men
Phillip Seymour Hoffman-Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook-Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson-Michael Clayton

As always, the supporting actor category is packed with worthy choices, and the five that the Academy finally picked are all fine candiates for the winner. I could even name so many other choices that I would have been content with to be nominated- William Hurt in Mr. Brooks, Steve Zahn in Rescue Dawn, and even Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, who work in the film is close to Daniel Day-Lewis.

If I Picked the Winner-Javier Bardem, although I would be content with Hoffman, Affleck, and Wilkinson
My Prediction for the Winner-Javier Bardem

Best Actress in a Leading Role

Cate Blanchett-Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie-Away from Her
Marion Cotillard-La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney-The Savages
Ellen Page-Juno

A rather blase list of nominees, with two spots somewhat wasted in my eyes. Blanchett is good in her film, but nothing award worthy. I forgot that she had even been nominated until I reviewed the nominees a second time. And Marion Cotillard probably has one of the most overrated performances of the year, in one of the more overrated films of the year. I am content with Christie getting the nomination for her film, which was pretty good, and I am happily surprised with the inclusion of Laura Linney. Ellen Page was quite obviously in there, and she has a pretty good shot at winning. Her interpretation of Juno took a script with many odd word phrases and dialogue, and yet she made it perfectly believable. But I would have been very happy with a few others taking the places of Blanchett and Cotillard- mainly Amy Adams in Enchanted, or even Helena Bonham Carter in Sweeney Todd.

If I Picked-Ellen Page
My Prediction-Julie Christie

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Cate Blanchett-I'm Not There
Ruby Dee-American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan-Atonement
Amy Ryan-Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton-Michael Clayton

Blanchett here was quite an obvious pick, as she has been winning every single award under the sun for her saving grace performance in the disappointing I'm Not There. The inclusion of Ruby Dee, whose film I think should be nominated for zero awards, is a classic Oscar nominee- the vet card is being played here to a tee. Saoirse Ronan is getting the nomination comparable to the child performance of 2006, Abaignal Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine, but it isn't as exciting. She was very good in the film, and it is an award nomination worthy performance, but I wouldn't give it the win. Amy Ryan is probably Blanchett's ony competition, with her getting several of the supporting actress wins that Blanchett looses, so it'll be quite interesting to see what happens.

My Pick-Amy Ryan
My Prediction-Cate Blanchett

Animated Feature Film

Persepolis
Ratatouille
Surf's Up

For once, the animated feature film award will be a bit of a competition, with two worthy films up for the Oscar. Surf's Up I disliked completely, and would have been more content in Bee Movie continued its streak. But both Persepolis, which I liked every since seeing it in Toronto, and Ratatouille, which was absolutely wonderful, both can walk away with the gold and I'd be happy.

My Pick-Ratatouille
My Prediction-Persepolis

Cinematography

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

These are the five choices I expected for this category, and I must say I cannot be happier. In fact, I would be satisfied with any of these winning the award.

My Pick-There Will Be Blood
My Prediction-Atonement (which is probably my least favorite of the five, so that will be called irony.

Best Director

Julian Schnabel-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Jason Reitman-Juno
Tony Gilroy-Michael Clayton
Joel and Ethan Coen-No Country for Old Men
Paul Thomas Anderson-There Will Be Blood

Schnabel did a great job with "Diving Bell," and it was my favorite film of 2007, but I really found that the scope of Anderson's film, as well as some of the brillantly done set pieces makes me slightly root for him just a little bit more than Schanbel. The Coen Brothers have a great shot as well, and Gilroy isn't out of the race for his. The strong dark horse candidate seems to be Jason Reitman, who got a nomination over one of the favorites Joe Wright, for Atonement. Oddly enough, I liked Juno more than Atonement, but Wright's direction in the former film easily outdoes Reitman's. I did not see anything particiularly special about Reitman's work here, but Wright achieves some masterful shots, including a long field tracking shot, and it was just much more memorable.

My Pick-Paul Thomas Anderson, although I won't complain about Schnabel, The Coens, or Gilroy
My Prediction-Joel and Ethan Coen

Documentary Feature

No End in Sight
Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience
Sicko
Taxi to the Dark Side
War/Dance

I've only seen one of the nominees here-Sicko. All the others I could have seen, but omitted for some reason or the other. The only one that can be seen at the moment is Taxi to the Dark Side, which is now playing at the Angelika here in NY.

My Pick (by default)-Sicko
My Prediction-Sicko

Foreign Language Film

Beaufort
The Counterfeiters
Katyn
Mongol
12

I feel that the Oscars made a serious mistake with this years Foreign Language Films, to the point where I haven't even seen any of the nominees! Beaufort is currently play at the Quad Cinemas and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, but I just do not have any desire to go see it. I really do want to see The Counterfeiters, which I missed in Toronto. That film will be opening Fab. 22nd, so I hope it lasts a month so I can see it in March. The only one of the other three that I heard of is Mongol, which is getting a summer release. But looking at the Submissions list, I was surprised by how many good and great films were here that were not even on the shortlist annouced last week including Persepolis, Taxidermia, I Just Didn't Do It, Gone with the Woman, The Orphanage, You, the Living, and my fifth favorite film of the year, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days-the latter film getting a NY release this Friday.

My Prediction-The Counterfeiters

Makeup

La Vie En Rose
Norbit
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

I would have put this at the bottom, but I can't get over how ridiculous these choices really are. I can see La Vie en Rose-classic biopic with changing makeup constantly, but the other two? Norbit? Remember that movie? It's the one that Eddie Murphy cursed and tried to cross off his memory after it being the reason why he lost in Oscar last year for Dreamgirls. And the makeup is downright awful in that, with one of the worst fat suits in recent memory. And the nomination for Pirates is somewhat silly as well. Where are the better movies? Sweeney Todd, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Atonement, Jesse James. . .

My Pick-La Vie en Rose
My Prediction-La Vie en Rose

Music(Score)

Atonement
The Kite Runner
Michael Clayton
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma

With Jonny Greenwood's amazing score for There Will Be Blood being disqualified yesturday, I was wondering what would happen today. Scores for Atonement and The Kite Runner were a given, Michael Clayton was a welcome surprise (a score I really loved), and the other two were a surprise-and neither one of them can I really remember how they went. A few underlooks-David Robbins' beautiful, and innocent and lovely score for King of California, and Nick Cave and Warren Ellis' beautiful score to The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford-the only two soundtracks I bought this year besides the disqualified one.

My Pick-Michael Clayton
My Prediction-Atonement

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Atonement
Away from Her
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

Once again, Atonement was a given. The final three nominees I am all happy go nominated, as they represent my first three movies of the year-and I love them all almost equally to the point where any of them could win and I'd be happy. The dark horse here is obviously Away from Her, a film I liked but not as much as many others. I would have given this spot to Aaron Sorkin's work in Charlie Wilson's War, which had a very smart and quick script, with several great moments in it.

My Pick-Diving Bell, No Country, or There Will Be Blood
My Prediction-Atonement

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Juno
Lars and the Real Girl
Michael Clayton
Ratatouille
The Savages

Five very good scripts here, but I somewhat feel that the script for Juno is getting too much hype. This is one of those examples where I think if we just read it on paper it might seem a little awkward- that is a film mainly about delivery, and how well the actors delivered such odd lines. Lars and the Real Girl getting a nod is a nice surprise, as is the script for The Savages and Ratatouille.

My Pick-Michael Clayton
My Prediction-Michael Clayton

Best Picture

Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

Since The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is not nominated, than my vote goes to either There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, or Michael Clayton, in that order. The nod for Atonement is an obvious one, but I can't see it taking home the gold-even though it is an Oscar type-period piece, love story, British, etc. Juno is like a weaker Little Miss Sunshine, only this type I think Best Picture is just pushing it a little bit. I was crossing my fingers that Diving Bell would get the recognition, but I'm glad it got something over Sweeey Todd.

My Pick-There Will Be Blood
My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Art Direction

American Gangster
Atonement
The Golden Compass
Sweeney Todd-The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

My Pick-There Will Be Blood
My Prediction-Sweeney Todd

Costume Design

Across the Universe
Atonement
Elizabeth-The Golden Age
La Vie en Rose
Sweeney Todd-The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

My Pick-Sweeney Todd
My Prediction-Sweeney Todd

Film Editing

The Bourne Ultimatum
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Into the Wild
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

My Pick-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Music (Song)

Falling Slowly-Once
Happy Working Song-Enchanted
???????-August Rush
So Close-Enchanted
That's How You Know-Enchanted

My Pick-Happy Working Song from Enchanted
My Prediction-Falling Slowly from Once

Sound Editing

The Bourne Ultimatum
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
There Will Be Blood
Transformers

My Pick-There Will Be Blood
My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Sound Mixing

The Bourne Ultimatum
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma
Transformers

My Pick-No Country for Old Men
My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Visual Effects

The Golden Compass
Pirates of the Caribbean-At World' End
Transformers

My Pick-Transformers (more irony. . .)
My Prediction-Transformers

A note about the short films:
I have not seen any of the short films but will list the nominees anyway.

Documentary Short

Freeheld
La Corona (The Crown)
Salim Baba
Sari's Mother

Short Film (Animated)

I Met the Walrus
Madame Tutli-Putli
Meme Les Pigeons Vont Au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)
My Love
Peter and the Wolf

Short Film (Live Action)

At Night
Il Supplente (The Substitute)
The Mozart of Pickpockets
Tanghi Argentini
The Tonto Woman

The nominees for Short Film Live Action and Short Film Animated will all be shown at the IFC Center starting Febuary 15th, and as for the Short Subject Documentaries I really don't know how you can find them.

Good luck to all involved and all the nominees- and I have my fingers crossed for my favorites-and for once, some categories have multiple choices for me to be happy about.

Cassandra's Dream

Woody Allen is back with "Cassandra's Dream," a film which I wanted to see at the Toronto Film Festival last year, but was unable to get a ticket. My anticipation was shot down some by the audience reaction at the festival, and it only got worse when the movie was bumped from its end of 2007 release and shafted to the dull and dreary month of January. I still went in with expectation, considering that Woody Allen is one of my favorite film makers. This is once again Woody trying something new, and is a far distance from his last film "Scoop." Taking its cues from the "Match Point" drama, Woody has crafted a rather effective and often entertaining film noir thriller, but it doesn't ever engage you or satisfy you as much as the great "Match Point" did- that film made my ten best of 2005, on the side.

Woody did assemble a fine cast here, and the three lead actors-Ewan McGregor, Colin Farrell, and the always terrific and welcome Tom Wilkinson make up most of the drama, along with two rather unknown British actresses Hayley Atwood (who is your typical Woody Allen leading lady), and Sally Hawkins. McGregor and Farrell play brothers Ian and Terry, both of them down on their luck, but honest, men living in London. Ian is the brains of the group, working in a restaurant with his father but dreaming of bigger things- including a possible business venture involving California hotels. Changing women quicker than his shirts (a line stolen from McGregor's 2003 film 'Down with Love"), Ian meets the lovely Angela, and the two of them begin their affair. On the side, Terry is a mechanic who has bigger plans for his live in girlfriend Kate, until he owes 90,000 pounds in a gambling debt. The two of them need money to get on in life, and they decide to ask their Uncle Howard (Wilkinson) for an advance. He makes a deal with them, being in need himself. Howard has made a life in business ventures and he is extremely wealthy, but it hasn't been a completely honest trip. Under review, there is a man who can put him away for a long time, and Howard asks his nephews to eliminate him.

This is the setup, and the rest of the film follows the crime and the aftermath on the two brothers. It reminded me quite a bit of last year's "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead," only without the nonlinear method of storytelling. Allen's script is clever with dialogue, as always, and he has his fun with the socialite types- something he is very familiar with. And as entertaining as this story was, it certainly isn't one of his more memorable ventures, and this is a very minor work. But so what? Does he has to make a masterpiece everything time he goes behind the camera? Is it so difficult to just want to tell an entertaining yarn? That is what "Cassandra's Dream" ends up being- a thriller to enjoy for two hours. He does touch upon a few interesting subtexts with the characters, but doesn't do as much with them as he could have. For example, Ian gets the same thrills from killing and planning the kill as Terry got from card playing, and that does have a lot to do with what goes on in the final act, but the script could have done more with it.

All of the acting is just fine, including Farrell, who never really interested me before. Farrell is playing somewhat against type, not the tough guy that he normally is, but a man who second guesses himself all the time, and is paranoid that something will go wrong at all aspects of his life. Wilkinson doesn't get as much screen time as I wish he could have, and he really acts as a plot device. All of his scenes move the story forward, but we really don't get to explore more of this seedy businessman character- the type of person that McGregors Ian could surely become if he continues with his plans. Atwood has the sex appeal of classic actresses that Allen goes for, and Hawkins is quite good too.

What does not pack quite the punch Allen probably expected was the ending- especially the final ten minutes or so of the film. I do like the ending- at least the ending if someone explained to me how this film ended. But Allen rushes the climax and resolution of this film, as if he got bored with telling the story of Ian and Terry and he just wanted to end it. It's rushed to the point where it looses the haunting quality that it could have had. The final scene in "Match Point" gives me the chills when I watch it, despite Allen bending a few rules of possibly story lines to get to it. But so what? It's entertaining! The ending of "Cassandra's Dream" could have given me the chills if Allen gave it a little more time, and let it unfold in a more slow way, especially since the whole film ends up being set up to the conclusion, including the quite obvious foreshadowing at the start. The brothers buy a boat, name it Cassandra's Dream because the horse Terry won the money with to pay for the boat was named that, and then says "We'll name it that! It's our lucky name!"

As for Allen- some say that he will never reach the golden age of his "Annie Hall," "Manhattan," days. But to me it doesn't really matter. Even a mediocre Woody Allen film still ends up being a very good one, and he certainly knows how to tell a story, comedy or drama. I have found enjoyment in the films people say are his worsts-"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion,' "Hollywood Ending," "Anything Else," "Melinda and Melinda," and even "Scoop" are all perfectly adequate comedies, and "Match Point" was somewhat of a revelation for him. Certainly they aren't the greatest films in the world compared to the Allen of old, but does it really matter? Can't he make a few entertaining yarns in the final years of his career? I still look forward to the yearly Woody Allen, and will continue doing so.

Final Grade-
"Cassandra's Dream"-**1/2 of ****

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days Opens This Week!

The winner of the top prize at last year's Cannes film festival, the great "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days" is opening this week. I saw the film at the New York Film Festival last year, and there have actually been quite a few opportunities for people to see it before its release this week. Some sites tell me it is coming out Wednesday the 23rd, but I believe its opening on Friday the 25th. It is certainly going to play at IFC Center, and it will most likely play at the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas. It can also be found on IFC On Demand for a certain fee at some point this week.

The film is about two young girls living in Romania before the fall of Communism. One of the girls is pregnant and needs an abortion, and we follow the two friends over the course of a day while they decide how to approach this deed. This film was number five on my Top 10 movies of 2007 list- it played for a week in LA, and it can be found in certain locations in Toronto. The film is simply unforgettable, and its a shame that it won't get a nomination for Best Foreign Film (Romania) at the Oscars this year. For some bizarre reason it did not make the shortlisted nominees, and once again none of the five that will be nominated we haven't had a chance to see- with the exception of "Beaufort" which is out now that I am missing, and "The Counterfeiters," which will probably win, opening Feb. 22nd.

This is also a great example of the film making revolution going on in Romania at the moment, with them delivering such masterful products like "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," and "12:08 East of Bucharest" over the last year, and "California Dreamin'," which hopefully will get some kind of release next year.

Cloverfield

Several months ago at the very start of July a little movie named "Transformers" was released-a summer blockbuster that I downright hated-but there was a little thing attached to the front of it that began months and months of mystery and speculation. There was a short trailer-about a minute and thirty seconds long-which was shot all on a hand held video camera-twenty something year olds at a party. Suddenly there is an explosion and everyone runs to the roof to see what it is, and there is where we see our beloved New York City once again at the feet of something unknown. And then the trailer ended. It ended without many clues to what was attacking us, and it didn't even tell us a title. All it said was 1-18-08.

Now for the last few months as more and more clues began to reveal itself about what the monster could be, people began to obsess over it. People were studying the trailer as if it were a science problem. I somewhat wish that I would have involved myself in the hype a little more, because this certainly was a rather groundbreaking, inventive, and clever way to get people interested in something. When the title "Cloverfield" finally was released-a title that I still don't exactly understand with it pertaining the film, if someone could enlighten me on that- more speculation was brought up. I did not even see a trailer for this movie after the one that I saw in July, and only the rare TV commercial now and then. And now, about two days after the release, questions have been answered- many have been disappointed and others have been surprised. I was convinced that the film was very bad- a January release that had great marketing around it to get folks interested in it because Paramount knew they had a dud. But I did like the movie- it was very entertaining and even at times downright creepy. And the creepiest scenes are the ones where the monster (which is big and hulky and yells quite a bit, but it isn't exactly creepy) is not even on the screen.

The film does start like the trailer- in the middle of a party for Rob. Rob is moving to Japan for a job, and his brother Jason, Jason's girlfriend Lily, his best friend Hud (who also acts as the cameraman), and several others are all having a surprise going away party for their friend. For the first twenty minutes or so we get a few back story's and a few love stories. We know that Rob had relations with his friend Beth, but she brought another guy to the party. And we know that Hud has a little thing for Marlena (played by Lizzy Caplan, the best looking and the best actress in the entire bunch). It isn't long until things start to go haywire, and before they know it they are running around the smoky streets of Manhattan running away from a giant creature (which is hard to describe really, but it has several legs, and it has flakes of smaller insects running around and killing people as well- somewhat similar to the monsters in "The Mist.") The thread that somewhat holds a plot together- as well as keeps the group in Manhattan while the military kicks everyone out- is that Rob needs to find Beth in her midtown apartment. And they do lots of running, walking in the train tunnels, and climbing on skyscrapers to do this task.

The 9/11 allusions are not subtle and are abundant, but I do not have a problem with reflecting on that even as some others may. I was honestly surprised by how enjoyable this movie actually was. Director Matt Reeves, who only has a few television credits under his name, goes with the classic "Jaws" approach of monster movies-only showing parts of the monster for well over the halfway point before finally giving us a clear view. In fact the small images of the monster were really the most creepy, but the ultimate shot of it looking directly into the camera may ruin things just a little bit. A perfect example of lack of monster providing some truly creeping images are when they are walking through the streets-fire and smoke everywhere- but they see a team of horses pulling an empty carriage along the streets, almost oblivious to the violence and terror going on around them- I had flashbacks to the scenes of deer running around aimlessly in the great 2006 film "Children of Men." In fact the entire final ten minutes might ruin things just a little bit, but we'll get back to that.

The whole movie is done through the eyes of the camera- whatever Hud wants us to see is what we see. Reeves does make this method frustrating, but it isn't because of the annoying shaky camera work. It becomes frustrating because there are so many things that we want to see, and sometimes the camera doesn't focus on that. You almost want to pull through the screen and focus on what you want to see. Reeves doesn't make the camera motion too abundant-he seems to know that when real people actually have their hands on a camera, they don't constantly move it around in a stylish, directorial debut fashion. Real people do like to take actual home movies and adjust on things. People with motion sickness actually do not have to worry about getting ill during this, and this was a choice move by Reeves that I respect. The lack of any soundtrack, and the fact that there is no music in the credits for about two minutes, was also a choice that I like.

Another thing that is surprising was the mild quality of the actors involved. I never heard of anyone involved, and looking at their credits, I shouldn't have a reason to. I could have lived with some less minutes at the party scene, and based on things that are in the trailers it looks like there was more to it than what we saw. Although quite a bit of the acting involves them running around screaming, the acting during conversation scenes actually mildly approach realism, compared to some other "camera realism' movies like "Redacted" from earlier this year. Even next months "Diary of the Dead," which I saw at the Toronto film festival, goes a little overboard at times, but the acting flaws in "Cloverfield" are rather mild if you match them with the small criteria that they need.

At a lean 84 minutes (with about ten of those being credits), "Cloverfield" is quick and entertaining, but the last ten minutes become somewhat of a drag. First of all there are quite a few endings here-moments where you are certain that the movie would be done but then it continues. It almost becomes ridiculous. Reeves tries to stretch the camera method to the point where it almost becomes a gimmick, and there are moments where I just couldn't imagine a camera surviving all of that impact- a crash, rocks falling on it, and even it going into the mouth of the monster. There is never even a mention of the camera needing a new battery, but it recorded all throughout the party, all night, and into the morning- just about thirteen hours. Even the aforementioned "Diary of the Dead" contained a scene where the characters stopped in a safe location to recharge their camera. I also still don't know how I feel about the inter cuts throughout- there is a tape already in the camera that is being recorded over, and every now and then we get a brief second of what that is. It seemed too much of a way to ignite some more drama in the storyline that simply wasn't needed.

On the whole, "Cloverfield" is enjoyable. It is entertaining and even slightly creepy at times. I just hope they do not try to buff on the success by making a sequel, although a certain sound bite that plays at the very end of the credits might say otherwise. But we'll see. This is a good film, and the rare January blockbuster.

Final Grade-
"Cloverfield"-*** of ****

Film Archive Reminder

It's been over a week since I last posted, but I have not neglected the site, friends. I just simply haven't been to the movies since a double Preminger which I did not review-Saint Joan, and Bonjour Tristisse-two films that I did not find anything special to write about. That was a week ago from Wednesday, but this weekend I have a few films on the slate including "Cassandra's Dream," "Teeth," "Cloverfield," among a few others.

Just in case it wasn't known, on the May 2006 post archives there is a massive list of every single movie I have ever seen, plus a little rating for it on the side. The archive can be located here:

I will be back this weekend with some more reviews, and plan on trying some new things in the future.

-Eric

Fallen Angel/Angel Face

My only real exposure to the films of Otto Preminger have been within the last five months-the two films being "Anatomy of a Murder" and "Laura." The former film (a great three hour courtroom drama with James Stewart) I got off netflix, while "Laura," I managed to see at the Film Forum's NYC Noir festival last July. Here are my thoughts to "Laura," as well as the other film playing during that double feature "The Woman in the Window," right here.


Once again thanks to the Film Forum I have the chance to see several of Preminger's work during their retrospective of his work lasting until January 17th (although the timing for me couldn't be worse.) I did manage to head out today for the noir double feature "Fallen Angel" from 1945, and "Angel Face" from 1952. "Fallen Angel," released through 20th Century Fox, Preminger's choice company at the time, with "Angel Face" released through RKO. I walked into "Fallen Angel" like I do many of the films I've never seen before at the Film Forum-without knowing a thing about it. Not the year, the stars, not the plot. And it works this way best sometimes-after all I was completely fresh with anything that was about to happen, and a film like this one deserves to let itself unfold before you. So read my minor plot description with some hesitation if you must. "Fallen Angel" returns Preminger with his "Laura" star Dana Andrews, as Eric Stanton, a drifter who gets involved with a mind reader played by John Carradine (who oddly enough, disappears about thirty minutes in, with the story taking a different turn.) Soon enough, Eric gets involved with Stella, a mysterious waitress at a counter coffee shop that he finds himself in. Deciding that he needs money before marrying Stella, Eric begins to frequent the company of June Mills, one of the very rich Mills sisters, deciding to use her for her money. And then his plan takes an unexpected twist.

Despite this being a rather lesser known noir, I enjoyed it greatly, although I was a bit skewed by the beginning subplot involving the mind reader. While it does introduce the Eric character to the Mills Sisters, Stella, as well as the diner setting itself, it was almost a sloppy way of doing it, and even a bit cheap. There are several other ways that this could have been done instead of introducing us to a stock character, and than never bringing it back. other than that there isn't much to complain about-Preminger does sometimes try to equal his success with "Laura," which came out the year before, by using similar crew-Andrews is not only back, but also the David Raksin score which was just a bit more haunting in "Laura." It's similar to Fritz Lang's "The Woman in the Window," and then his follow up "Scarlet Street," which used three of the same actors (Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, and Dan Duryea). But no matter how much I still think about it, "Scarlet Street" didn't come close to "The Woman in the Window."

The second film was "Angel Face," from 1952, starring Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons. Mitchum is an emergency vehicle driver named Frank who gets involved with Simmons' Diane at the scene of her stepmothers "accident." Frank slowly gets involved with Diane, leaves his current girlfriend (who of course is the image of perfection), and then gets wrapped up (of course) into a murder scheme. With most of these old films, you know how the ending will turn up-and it is usually the journey that makes it worthwhile. But I will admit that the final two minutes of "Angel Face" took a turn that I did not see coming, but when thought about it would be the only way for it to end.

Besides having the word "angel" in both the titles, both being directed by the same man, and both of them being in the noir genre, both of the movies also perfectly tell stories of men that suffer, or come close to suffering, there eminent downfall because of a woman-the aptly named femme fatale-and this was a popular method of storytelling in this period of time, when the film noir was at its peak. Lately, thanks to the Turner Classic Movie channel, I've been seeing several William A. Wellman films-the pre-code ones between 1930 and 1934. Almost all of the ones I've seen-"Night Nurse," "Midnight Mary," "Lily Turner," and a few others, all feature such prominent and strong female leads, a type of character that also seemed to disappear for a while, or at least become a bit more sporadic. It's been interesting to see how the focus of genres, types of characters, etc. changed over such a short amount of time-a mere ten years in this case.

Getting a little off topic there, sadly the double feature today will end up changing tomorrow, but these are two films well worth seeing on video-and I do recommend seeing them back to back, as they are both available on video. And check out the other films that will be playing at the Preminger festival in the coming two weeks, and I'll do my best to see some and recommend them.

Final Grade-
"Fallen Angel" (1945)-*** of ****
"Angel Face" (1952)-*** of ****

The Killing of John Lennon

You haven't heard of Jonas Ball (I'm assuming, because I'm sure some of you have heard the name before), but if you see "The Killing of John Lennon" during the IFC Center's week long run of it, than you will want to remember that name.

I saw "The Killing of John Lennon" at last year's Tribeca Film Festival, and while the film itself was more of a "Taxi Driver" story, only based on a real tale about the assassination of the Beatles musician, with a terrific performance by Ball in the center. For some bizarre reason this performance has gone under the radar, and the film itself was released on January 2nd, a mere two days outside of Oscar consideration, and I'm shocked about the lack of love from the Independant Spirit Awards. But it's worth seeing the performance of yourself.

The film can be found at IFC Center in New York, and my review for the film dated last May can be found below:

May 4th

The Killing of John Lennon ***1/2
Written and Directed by Andrew Piddington
120 Minutes
This Film Is Not Yet Rated-Probably R for violence and language.

"The Killing of John Lennon" is a kind of cross between "Taxi Driver" and "The Assassination of Richard Nixon." It is also the second John Lennon film in the last year, the first being "The U.S. vs John Lennon," which I never saw. While that film told Lennon's story about what he did, "The Killing of John Lennon" describes the results of that. Mark David Chapman was fed up with life, living in Hawaii in the 80's with his wife that he probably doesn't really love. One day Chapman came across "The Catcher in the Rye" and was completely enaromed in the story, believing that the story was really about him. Chapman eventually comes to the conclusion that he is Holden Caulfield and goes on a quest to get rid of the biggest phony around-John Lennon. The man that promotes anti-materialism and yet has numerous houses and other things. Chapman travels to New York and begins waiting outside Lennon's apartment for his chance.

"The Killing of John Lennon" does not provide sympathy for Chapman. Unlike "The Assassiantion of Richard Nixon," we don't even get the chance to watch the man slowly fall down. He had already fallen. Instead we get to study the pathology of this man-we see him get ready to do it, and than change his mind at the last minute. And then he was driven to do it again. And the success of the film clearly comes from Jonas Ball, who plays Chapman, virtually being in every single frame of the film. Ball has this naturally appareance on screen, drifting from the somewhat charming to the completely insane. The close-ups are actually frightening. This is an interesting film to watch. It also gave me some knowledge on Chapman, who I did not know much about at all. I always heard that "The Catcher in the Rye" was a book for serial killers, but I did not know where that concept came from. "The Killing of John Lesson" is a fascinating film, well acted and well written. Before the film there is a disclaimer saying that "All of Chapman's words are his own." This is important because its clear the amount of research that went into the film-with actual testimonials. And it clear that Piddington really wanted to get into Chapman's head, which he does well. At a Q and A after the film, Piddington declared that he never met Chapman and never wanted to because of his manipulative nature, and his ability to speak to the press. While I think meeting him would have made the research complete, to each his own. Mad at Chapman or not, this is fine film making.

On a side note, there is also a lot of editing that needs to be done. Piddington said that this was the first print that they made on the film, and it is shows. While the film is supposed to be set in the 80's, there is a scene where Chapman is in a cab and billboards reflecting on the windsheld advertise such films as "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," and "Shrek 2." I really don't think that those films were around in the 80's.