Reviews

Holy Motors is a haunting, silly, serious, surrealist meta-acid trip in the mind of a filmmaker about cinema? death? life? performance? acting? angels? which could have only come from the French. A brilliant tour de force performance by lead actor Denis Levant who plays eleven characters in the film won't help the film make any more sense to you, but if you like films that make you giggle with WTF-ness and don't mind not completely understanding what the hell you just watched, then this fever- dream is a masterpiece of avant-garde, experi-mental craziness that I am still thinking about several days later and will most likely dream about the next time I have the flu.

The only thing Silver Linings Playbook suffers from is a case of a studio not knowing exactly how to market it. The marketing lead me (and others, judging by the mostly female audience in the theater) to believe this was just north of a rom com chick flick. The only reason I went to see it was because I couldn't believe that David O. Russell, notorious nutbag director of The Fighter, Three Kings and I ♥ Huckabees would make a rom com chick flick. I was right. This is a funny, painful, heartbreaking, heartwarming, complex romantic tale about real, complex people and families. Bradley Cooper delivers his best performance to date, De Niro doesn't phone this one in, and Jennifer Lawrence is adorable but perhaps only very slightly miscast. Can absolutely see this in the running for this year's Best Adapted Screenplay.

I fully appreciate the scope of what this film was trying to achieve. They were going for epic human exploration rife with deep symbolism and meaning. Questioning the origin and meaning of life, the existence of a creator, science vs faith -- This was not supposed to be your mama's Alien, and in that and perhaps that alone, they succeeded.

But despite their effort towards well-thought out intelligence and some beautiful moving pictures, ultimately the film suffers from some horribly written dialogue, pointless characters, completely illogical character choices, and gaping plot/story issues -- and makes me scared shitless at the possibility of Ridley Scott going anywhere near Blade Runner again, which he full intends to do. Please Mr. Scott, you are usually a genius. Please find something else to occupy your creative mind. Do not revisit perfection.

After returning from the theater, I simply couldn't get this masterpiece out of my head if I wanted to... and I truly didn't want to. It vividly lived on in my dreams throughout the night.

Wes Anderson's singular cinematic language is hauntingly original, intoxicatingly quirky, explicitly detailed, perfectly composed, unfathomably relatable and absolutely uncanny in the way it can make you feel exactly what is intended. This is a film of nostalgia, one that I suspect works better as an adult looking back on your childhood, making you wish you could experience all of your genuine, pure, heartbreakingly important-to-you-at-the-time, firsts again.

This movie is non-stop awesomeness from the moment the time the Universal logo appears at the beginning until "The End" appears at the end. You want to laugh hard? See this. You want a love story? See this. You want kick-ass fight scenes? See this. You want great music? See this.

Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and the Brit TV show Spaced) can seemingly do no wrong. The man just doesn't make bad entertainment. He is damn funny (without having to default to humor centered around bodily functions) , has a visionary style and you can just tell that he makes the movies he wants to make, the way he wants to make them, without compromise.

Part comic book, part video game, part dream... the cinematic language here is excitingly unique, daring and fun and reminds me of how I felt about Moulin Rouge, Amelie or Fight Club upon first viewings.

What really makes the premise work is that no one ever questions the impossible reality of what is occurring. It seems as if they should be asking themselves "Why can this guy fly and shoot fire from his hands"... but no one ever does. It's just taken as this universe's truth. It achieves the rare balance (these days) of suspension of disbelief and genuineness, prolific use of CGI FX and retention of character and heart.

The entire cast shines brilliantly. Everything works exactly as it should. You care about the good guy, you like his sidekicks, you fall in love with the girl, you loathe the bad guys.

Some folks may feel they are tiring of the 'Micheal Cera' character, so they may decide to skip this film - and they would be doing themselves a disservice. Micheal Cera has this thing that some actors have in Hollywood which sometimes works for them or against them. Woody Allen is a great example. Woody Allen perfected the 'Woody Allen' character, a character no one else could possibly play, and that character would reliably show up in any movie he appeared in. If you like that character, you are always happy to see him. If you don't, then you'll never like a film he's in, because unlike character actors, he never disappears into a role… the role disappears into them.

Such is the role of Scott Pilgrim - which seems to have been written with Micheal Cera in mind, because it fits the Cera character to a 'T'. But I think that is where Cera's talent lies. He has the ability to make every moment seem fresh, every word seem as if they are really his words organically pinched from his thoughts in that very moment. He is like a true Zen master, in which whatever arises in every moment is new to him, like a naive young child experiencing things for the 1st time.

Great indie band soundtrack including a great new song from Beck, and a geekgasm inducing score based on old 8/16-bit video game music.

Go support this movie at the box office so that Edgar Wright can continue to follow his vision wherever it takes him.

This is my favorite movie of the summer, maybe even of the year... maybe even of longer than that.

This is a different kind of war movie for a different kind of war that ultimately fails in the same ways the war fails - in that it lacks a singular focus, it has no direction or goal, and the purpose is not clear. It's not a bad movie, I just couldn't find anything to connect to or engage with - and when a moment would arise in which I thought that thing to connect to was coming... it didn't.

The film drags along at a snail's pace at times, which works for some scenes, such as a great scene wherein the main characters are pinned down for several hours by insurgents in the middle of the desert - but mostly the slowness just feels slow. There is no real story here, yet it isn't just a docudrama, either. It doesn't seem to know what kind of a movie it is, or from which characters' view point it is being told. In my opinion the story that it started to tell (and would have made it a much more interesting film) was of the drug-like addictive nature of high risk behavior, and how people who engage in that sort of thing in war will return to civilian life only to find other dangerous, high risk behavior to engage in... which is not dissimilar thematically to another of director Kathryn Bigelow's films, "Point Break". Alas, it seemed as if she forgot about that angle halfway thru the film. The worst part of the film is the ending, which after 125 minutes of slow pacing suddenly races past what should have and could have given the film its purpose.

If I had seen this film back when it first came out, I think I would have said, "OK. A well-acted, decent film despite its problems." The thought that this film would be nominated for and would win so many major awards, including being the front runner for any Oscar whatsoever -- would not have even crossed my mind, and it is mindboggling to me now that that is the case.

Michael Moore is REALLY good at what he does. He is not a pure textbook documentarian - he is a theatrical filmmaker with a definite and specific opinion about his subjects.

This film made me want to put on a surgical mask, hide underneath my bed, curl into a little ball and cry... or just move very far away from the U.S... or open my window and shout "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!".

Having had my own exasperating experiences with healthcare - this film really rang true, as I am sure it does for millions upon millions of Americans. This film, perhaps more than any other I have seen in some time, really made me quite embarrassed to be part of such a criminal, negligent, greedy, violent, selfish, borderline fascist country. Why we are not all marching in the streets demanding a revolution is a sure sign that those with 'the most' have succeeded in making those with 'the least' petrified with fear, paralyzed with despair and programmed into laziness.

Be sure to watch the special features on the DVD - there are some fascinating bits that were left out of the final cut. Meanwhile, I'll be on Paris.craigslist.org checking out the housing listings.

I realize it was coming from a different place and not supposed to be like the original... but it seemed like Burton wanted to be extra dark and creepy and not 'whimsical' like the original. Yet, Burton's style is generally kind of Gothic-whimsical, so this film was dark, creepy and whimsical but without any actual whimsy. The original is creepy and dark enough because Willy Wonka is not so OBVIOUSLY creepy. It works better if he is kind of unassuming and seemingly harmless.

And the musical numbers? PUH-LEASE. The original Oompa-Loompa song was not dated. It was timeless. Timelessness is what makes movies like this work. The replacements for the songs in this film all were trying to be current and relevant and not only did they suck but they date the film and make it unrelateable to anyone who doesn't like/listen to or care about the styles they were presented in.

At the end of WWII, a Japanese platoon is stationed in the jungles of Burma, who have impressive singing skills inspired by their star musician, Private Mizushima...and his harp.

Mizushima becomes separated from his company and is presumed dead. Stealing the robes from a Buddhist monk who saves his life, he disguises himself to avoid suspicion as he goes in search of the British prison camp where his platoon awaits repatriation, but is unprepared for the new perspective the stolen robes provide. The initial selfish act of theft contain the seeds of the thief's selfless future.

Mizushima's spiritual transformation from a fake monk, thief and soldier of war to that of a genuine bodhisattva warrior (a peaceful 'warrior' of wisdom, compassion and generosity) is reflected in a wonderful and unforgettable scene where his platoon assembles for choral practice in front of a large reclining Buddha statue. As the platoon begins to sing, they are baffled by the mysterious and beautiful harp accompaniment that seems to emanate from inside the body of the Buddha statue, where unknown to the platoon, Mizushima, who is thought to be dead, has taken refuge... and has himself become an instrument of peace.

An unflinching descent into psychological and physical oblivion that will undoubtedly burn images of the truthful brutality and suffering of war into your cerebral cortex in a way not many other films will. In fact, there is simply no other war film like it.

Director Kon Ichikawa witnessed the unthinkable horror of Hiroshima first hand only 10 days after the bomb was dropped. He has said that from that day it would always be his mission to express the pointless, empty violence humans inflict on each other and themselves.

Mr. Ichikawa shows us that there are no winners in war... for the paths to victory and defeat are paved with the same soldiers soullessly marching down roads which only have death and destruction at their end.

Mr. Ichikawa succeeds in bringing his message to the world thru this haunting piece of cinema.

What I have a problem with is this heavy-handed proselytizing, thinly- veiled as crossover entertainment with wide appeal and fun for the whole family, regardless of their beliefs. It is dishonest trickery of the highest degree, worthy of the White Witch herself, who lures one of the children into her castle with promises of attaining King-hood and all the sweets he could eat and instead holds him captive chained to a wall in an attempt to lure the rest of the children into her castle and to their death.

Plenty of other films and literature (especially prevalent in the fantasy/sci-fi genre) are influenced by the bible (new and old testaments) including (but in no way limited to): Superman, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Blade Runner, The Terminator, The Matrix and the entire Star Wars series.

Of course, if you acknowledge the work of Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell and the nature of collective consciousness symbolism, mythology and archetypes, then you also can easily recognize any of these stories, including the bible itself, as following this mythological archetype symbolism quite specifically and directly. And much to the credit of the above mentioned films and their filmmakers, even if their underlying intent was to have the audience consider the teachings and/or stories of Jesus and/or the bible, they were smart enough to see that people could make those connections or draw those conclusions on their own without having to pander, overtly preach and advertise their co-opting of holy scripture. They understood that the influences upon which they drew for creative inspiration were thematically universal enough to appeal to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The Chronicles of Narnia, however - at least in this film version of it - the new testament context is so in your face, that it is preachy, exclusive and offensive to a non-believer such as myself.

This film was made to get out the word of Christ - To further brain-wash children into believing that unless they '˜follow the fold', they will live out eternity in a never-ending winter without the joy of receiving presents once a year. Lest not forget to reinforce the images that those who do not follow the '˜King of Kings' are both a) against him; and b) dark-skinned, hook-nosed, evil creatures of the underworld.

Take the DNA of an alien, mix it with the DNA of a human being & you get... an avatar - a genetically engineered body designed to be remotely controlled by a human being, so that they can completely immerse themselves in an alien world. Take the DNA of every science fiction/fantasy special effects film that has ever existed, mix it with a bit of the DNA of a western, a war movie, political/environmental allegory, add 300 million dollars, the best special effects teams known to man, & a mad genius directing the experiment... & the result is Avatar - a technically engineered masterpiece designed to completely immerse human beings in an alien world. Yes folks, the hype is real. All roads have led to this.

Does it change cinema forever? Yes & No. Yes, it does in the same way A Trip to the Moon, King Kong, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, 2001, Star Wars, Tron, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, The Matrix & The Lord of the Rings changed cinema. They all set the bar, & in most instances invented the bar by which all that followed them would be measured. No, in the way that most of the films which immediately followed them could not reach the bar they had set by a long shot. So, rather than describing it as changing cinema forever, I'd prefer to say that Avatar is a 10 ft tall monstrous blue milestone in special effects and for film in general.

I couldn't even begin to imagine watching this film at home on even the best large screen, HD TV or computer monitor... which I think was part of James Cameron's goal in making this film... to bring people back to the theaters. For, it is a film that, in my opinion (and I would be willing to bet money that James Cameron thinks so too), is not intended to be viewed in anything less than the largest movie theater you can find, in the jaw droppingly beautiful 3D technology which Cameron himself developed for this film.

I am notoriously difficult to please when it comes to computer generated special FX. Especially CGI characters. It comes down to the question of genuinely caring about them. Do I get that feeling of nervousness for a characters' safety as they balance on the narrow ledge of a mountain where one false step might lead to their plummeting thousands of feet to their death? Do I get that feeling of tingly excitement when they master flight for the first time and majestically and heroically soar across an expansive alien landscape? Do I relate to the deep emotion of two characters falling in love? Or the pain they feel when experiencing death? Can I shed a tear for a being that is nothing more than a pixel? There has only been one other completely CGI animated character in all of film history in which the answer to these questions was yes - Lord of the Rings' Gollum. Yet, I will admit that as much as I believed in the existence of Gollum, there was still a sense of distance, moments in which my mind could not forget that he was not made of flesh. That did not occur with Avatar. Aside from two sequences I didn't care for depicting a spiritual ceremony, I never once doubted that these incredible creatures and world existed.

I feel that there are three reasons for this success. 1. The obvious, which is the superior talent of the FX teams who created it. 2. The setting of an alien world that appears to share some of our own DNA allows us to recognize certain familiarities in the way we expect things should look, move and operate... but it is also foreign enough that we can accept certain variations to those expectations. And 3. James Cameron has stated that part of the reason he chose to utilize 3D in the way he did was that by applying the 3D technology to this CGI world, it immerses the audience in a way that imbues the realistic depth that is missing from all previous attempts at fully CGI characters and environments.

Now, to step away for a moment from the technical aspects of the film... The story is more than Dances with Wolves in space, although it is definitely that. It is also directly analogous to the destruction of the Amazon rainforests, our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the privatization of war that has given rise to the age of military for hire such as BlackWater and lots of other 'liberal' story lines ranging from our treatment of the environment, our lustful depletion of natural resources, and general displacement of native peoples and other native species (Sigourney Weavers' character is more Gorillas in the Mist's Dian Fossey than Alien's Ripley.)

Avatar is far from perfect. There are some plot inconsistencies, some silly writing and acting at times bordering on camp (such as the silly name 'Unobtaineum' - the highly desired substance substituting for oil), and there are some things I personally feel would have improved the non- effects aspects of the film - such as a slightly slower pace at times... which could have allowed for more time to explore and wonder at the sights and sounds of the world, and more intimate time spent with the characters.

But truthfully, whatever small flaws exist in Avatar, they are dwarfed, overcome and forgotten by the magical achievements of the film as a whole. And for someone as critical as I am, that is saying a lot. Prepare yourself to see a whole slew of films try and replicate what this one has accomplished. We will most likely sit thru many poor attempts before we reach the next one that does... and by that time, we will most likely already be reaching the next important film milestone.

This is wonderfully detailed strangeness from the Coen Brothers, set in a typical Jewish-American community in the 1960's. You will undoubtedly leave the theater wondering what the meaning of this film is, and therein lies the genius of the film. See, Jewish folk have a way of telling stories that are kind of like extremely overly-detailed Zen koans, in the way that they will leave you with more questions than answers.

Thru its storytelling style and main character, the film asks the same question over and over again: Why do bad things keep happening to me? What is God's plan for me? What is 'He' trying to tell me? But, in the film, as in life… we never get clear answers to these questions.

Larry Gopnik is a physics teacher who teaches his students about the 'uncertainty principal', which basically states that the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. In religious terms, I think that this refers to the deeper relationship you have with God, the less you understand 'His' plan – but, despite that uncertainty, you trust it anyway. That trust in certain uncertainty is what is known as faith. In non-religious terms, the more you understand about the scientific nature of the universe, the less you understand about your place in it – and again you are left with that same sense of certain uncertainty.

If you're not Jewish or have not spent any significant time around Jewish families, then I suppose some of the film's details might go over your head… but only in the same fashion that some specifics of any film based inside of one culture might get lost on people outside of the culture. But the Coen Brothers are pros – and manage to paint these specific 'inside Jewish culture' references with strokes broad enough to be understood thru the idiosyncrasies of any culture.

Bottom line: More bizarre genius from the Coen Brothers – but expect to not fully understand the meaning, and in doing so you will completely get the meaning.

Some reviews claim this is a boring movie. I claim they are either boring people, or simply expected that Max would be taking a trip to Disney's Narnia. Sorry to those folks, but this is a vision of artistic brilliance - a poetic, adult journey to our innermost complex childhood mind.

This beautiful film is (in my opinion) told from the perspective of a young boy with some sort of psychiatric/behavioral disorder (could be any number of things such as A.D.D./Bi-polar/Oppositional Defiant Disorder/Explosive Child Syndrome), and looks at how difficult it can be to deal with the growing pains and change that a 'normal' child has to deal with (such as the pressures and anxieties a child is faced with as they learn about some of the harsher realities of the 'grown up' world), and how a child with his types of challenges copes with these changes and realizations. It then delves deep inside his subconscious mind as he interacts with the 'Wild Things' as the many parts of his various compartmentalized emotions/personality traits.

While the fantasy aspect of the film may appeal to younger kids, and the 'misunderstood kid' aspect of the film may appeal to angsty teens, this film will be most meaningful and completely understood by adults. The reason is that while kids, teens and young adults may be mired in the complexities that are 'growing up', it is only in looking back from having completely lived thru childhood and having the perspective that time and distance offers, that one can truly capture the depth of meaning in this film.

This is best represented in the film by a single shot, wherein young Max is laying down under his mother's desk as she works, and we see this from Max's perspective on the floor, looking up at his mother thru the angular features of the bottom of her desk. The sequence continues with Max gently pulling at the frayed toes of his mothers' stockings. There is something so genuine and loving about this sequence. Something that instantly creates a longing for our own similar childhood moments.

The brilliant script is made up of what feels like many short and poignant vignettes, with deliberately paced, pithy dialogue. There is not an extraneous word or a wasted moment in the entire film. Director Spike Jonze visually recreates in exact detail and perfect rendering, the creature illustrations by Maurice Sendak. This, along with extraordinary choices from the creature voice actors, give the creatures their strikingly human characteristics, which in turn, allow us to believe in the wild things as much as Max does.

The creatures are absolutely remarkable. Spike Jonze is one of the few (along with Hellboy's Guillermo del Toro and Lord of the Rings' Peter Jackson) out there who understand how digital effects should be used. At this point in time, despite the amazing things that can be done with digital effects today, 100% digitally created characters are just not believable. We know that they don't exist beyond their pixel count, therefore we just can't care about them the way we do about real people or creatures that actually physically exist. We can create emotional bonds with real things, such as E.T., Kermit, the original Yoda, Big Bird, Chewbacca, etc... and Spike Jonze calling in Jim Hensons' Creature Shop was the only way this could have been pulled off. The audience HAS to believe and care about these creatures as much as Max does. And the use of digital effects for the creatures' faces was flawless. Again, it simply HAD to be. The final shot of the creatures' in the film is incredibly emotional, and I bought it hook, line and sinker because I cared about the creatures -- because I believed they were living, breathing things as much as Max believed it.

Take this journey as soon as possible.

The name Zombieland conjures up a vision of a zombie-themed amusement park -- and that's exactly what this film is. Visually stylish and the most laughs I've had at the movies in a long time. A really solid script and nice underlying story really helps make this so much more than just a bunch of awesome zombie kills. That being said, this film feels as if you're playing a really badass zombie killing video game.

Thanks to 'Natural Born Killers', Woody Harrelson has just the right cult status and persona for this type of film, which is intended to pay homage to the great zombie 'B' movies of yesteryear, but really is a great zombie 'A' movie with today's style & sensibility. Jesse Eisenberg (who has a certain Michael Cera shyness/eccentricity to his delivery, but doesn't seem nearly as pathetic as Cera's characters often come off) carries the film well. And of course, everyone is talking about the film's 'secret' cameo, and rightly so. It is absolutely the best and most fun part of an already awesomely fun film -- and it kept me laughing almost non-stop throughout that 10-15 minute section of the movie.

This is a zombie-comedy that deserves to take it's place amongst the best of the genre, 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Army of Darkness'. In fact, what I wouldn't give to see a triple feature of these films at a drive-in theater on Halloween... the perfect place and time for a zombie feeding.

To tell the truth, this is an unfortunate wasted opportunity. A shame, because there were themes here that I really believe in exploring: wry and witty (at times) comments on religion/faith and indictments of the wholly dishonest and shallow ways we all tend to go about living our lives on a daily basis. The concept should have been an inspired intellectual take on a kind of lame brainless genre, the broad magical/divine comedy in the vein of Jim Carrey's 'Liar, Liar', 'Yes Man' or 'Bruce Almighty', but it just never reaches it's potential.

I so genuinely want Ricky Gervais to succeed on film, but I'm afraid that his style of hilarity may just be too subtle to register up on the big screen. I have always loved Jennifer Garner and she shows here that she is no doubt a great comedienne. However, I would much rather watch her kick ass than make me laugh. Tina Fey brought nothing to her single scene role, for which she is given one of the top billing spots, and like several other cameos by big name actors, they really only end up as pointless distractions.

And speaking of distractions, anytime I notice heavy handed product placement in a film, my enjoyment of the film immediately goes down several notches, regardless of the rest of the films content. And aside from one product placement which actually was the basis for my favorite comedy bit in the film regarding truth in advertising, this film is otherwise shameless in this regard.

It's not that the film wasn't funny. It just wasn't funny enough.

Gorgeously dark, steampunkish, dystopian visuals along with an agreeable allegorical message, are marred by a story that makes so little sense it will make your head spin.

The main problem with the film can be boiled down to its story, which, to directly quote my brother's review: "at 79 Minutes, it was either 70 minutes too long or 1 hour too short". And given the fact that this film began as an 11 minute Oscar nominated short, this makes perfect sense. I won't go into the details here of why almost nothing in the film made sense, because it would require me to 'spoil' the movie. But if you see the film and by some miracle you are able to make logical sense of the story details, please get back to me, and then after we determine how high you were when you saw it, we'll debate it.

It's really too bad. The animation and general creative vision really is stunning. And for me, the film carries a message I am totally on board with. On the top level, it is essentially an allegory about the harnessing of atomic energy and how it promised progress and benefit to humankind, but also has resulted in weapons of unimaginable destruction. Further, it can be said that this can be applied to much of the 'progress' in science and technology in the 20th and 21st centuries. Discoveries and advances have immense potential for being of great benefit, but also to do great harm – and ultimately which direction they go in is completely determined by the human element. Digging into the allegory a little deeper, the film poses interesting questions regarding a Creator who in creating beings in his image has designed both good and evil beings, and who both gives life and takes away life.

Bottom line: A beautifully dark vision, a message worthy of contemplation, decent vocal performances, a very disappointing score with a dumbfoundingly nonsensical story.

In the 1st 10 minutes of the films, Tarantino used about 10 different fonts for various on screen titles. Might not seem like a big deal to most folks, but it is an early example of the films' sloppy inconsistency. QT has always liked to mix genres, most successfully in the Kill Bill films, and I'm fine with that. But here, his A.D.D.-enabled multi-style style is at its most random and really doesn't work for what this film could've been. (I considered offering a list of all the inconsistencies, but my reviews are generally too long anyway.) What I had hoped for, and what the trailer seemed to promise, was a Dirty Dozen homage, where a team of badass characters are assembled with the mission of killing Nazis. Generally, in that type of group mission film (Dirty Dozen, Oceans 11, The Seven Samurai or even QT's own Reservoir Dogs), you'd get to know a bit about each of the members of the team, building some kind of relationship between the various characters and the audience. But QT doesn't take the time to do that. We never really get to know any of the people in the film. Instead, he spends a few slow 20 minute sections in ways that don't enhance our relationships with the characters, the story or the film overall.

So what's good? 1. The film does offer some fantastically funny and quirky performances. Brad Pitt is hilarious, and the film's main villain SS Col. Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, is as funny as he is batshit crazy evil. Pretty much all of the supporting cast, with the exception perhaps of 1 or 2 of the 'Basterds', are also noteworthy. 2. No one knows how to use music in films better than Q. 3. A bunch of Jews kick a whole bunch of Nazi butt in some particularly gratifying (and gruesomely violent) ways.

Final say? Disappointing, but worth seeing. Not for the kids or for people who don't like seeing Nazis die.

Derivative (adj.) 1. Not the original; Copied or adapted from others. Moon looks and feels like so many other films before it, with certain elements that appear to be directly copied from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Alien and more. However, all of the cloned bits in this film serve the purpose of setting up the viewers expectations for one thing and delivering something else instead. The upshot is that this film is a more than welcome entry for a sci-fi genre that is mostly dominated these days with shockingly high budgets poured into creating mindless violence and excessive special fx served up at brain-numbing speeds -- all intent on giving you absolutely nothing to think about. Sam Rockwell gives superb performances, as always. And Duncan Jones (David Bowie's son), despite several loose ends and questionable choices that in other films might have ruined the movie for me, makes a promising feature film directorial debut. I recommend the film for fans of sci-fi who like to use their brains.

The experience of seeing this film is like getting really excited about seeing your favorite uncle who you haven't seen since you were a kid, and then seeing him... and realizing that he's turned into a total dick. And even though it is kind of good to lay your eyes on him again, you really wish he had stayed away so you could just remember him as he was back in the day.

I knew from the moment I saw this steaming pile of dung that Spielberg was most likely responsible for anything good in it (a non-CG motorcycle stunt sequence, and um... ah... um...) and Lucas was definitely responsible for everything that sucked (gophers, Mutt as Tarzan, zero character development, totally wussifying and domesticating Marion, gophers, wasting talented actors with a horribly Frankensteined script, doing everything possible CG, turning Indy into a completely inconsequential secondary character - most likely so he could build up Mutt to take over and keep the franchise going as far past it's expiration date as possible (like Star Wars), and close encounters with gophers for a third time in case you missed them the 1st two times.) Lucas is a malicious droid nosferatu who has sucked the element of human soul from everything he has touched since the 90's and will not return to his coffin to rest until he has remade every good or decent film he has made at least 3 times, replacing every human with a computer generated effect; every prop or set made by human hands replaced by a digital effect in 3-D Smell-O-Vision; every creature 'Brought to Life' by Stuart Freeborn, Rick Baker, Phil Tippet, Frank Oz, etc... photoshopped out of existence to be replaced with glossy, lifeless, video game avatars nobody cares about; basically - this massacre of celluloid and pillaging of our childhood will continue until every piece of film he created is burned and every memory we have of the real adventure, excitement, imagination, mythology and characters we cared about have been reduced to the empty soullessness of a pixel.

The only person with the balls big enough to make films like this, is the guy whose balls appear in this film. Seriously, I don't know how this man has not been beaten to a bloody pulp or shot square in the face. I will say this... I laughed hard throughout the entire movie -- and Director Larry Charles (Curb Your Enthusiasm, Borat) is becoming the king of stuff you can't bear to watch.

That being said, Sacha Baron Cohen is a mad genius gone more mad than genius this time out. The two issues I have with the film boil down to the over-the-top nature of the character of Bruno. #1) Unlike some of his other characters, Bruno doesn't feel like a real person. He feels like a gag from minute one. Because of that, it really becomes hard to believe that anyone but backwoods rednecks could fall for the gag, which of course -- they do. #2) As a result, the segments are forced into becoming very short gags that are more about placing people in shocking & embarrassing situations with Bruno, rather than the way Ali G or Borat would brilliantly lead people in a direction, then just allow them to say or do things that would embarrass themselves.

The end result is something that feels more like an internet viral video or Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd", than a biting social commentary. Yes, it is funny -- but not for the reasons for which I am a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen.

Overall, the film is enjoyable for die-hard Woody Allen and/or Larry David fans, which I am. But when it comes down to it, my largest complaint is that the genius pairing of Larry & Woody should have brought out the best of both of them, instead it lacks the snappy pace and spontaneous feel that I have come to expect from the best of their work.

Truth is, I identified a bit too much with this film, so I found myself becoming more upset with the situations and characters as the film progressed. Of particular frustration for me had to do with Woody not only allowing Melody's (Evan Rachel Wood) mother (Patricia Clarkson, who gives the performance most befitting a Woody Allen comedy) to get away with interfering with her relationship with Larry David's Boris... but has Boris suddenly reverse his curmudgeonly ways as he happily goes along with the messed up resolution orchestrated by Melody's overbearing mom.

Again... perhaps if I didn't identify so much with this situation, I wouldn't of had such a problem with this aspect, but somehow I doubt it.

I carried knowledge of the real story into the theater. Therefore, I feel that because I was well versed in the story of Dillinger I really felt what was missing.

What was missing? The mood of the country: It was the Great Depression and people were poor and out of work - they looked at the banks (wall street) and the govt as the real 'public enemies'. Thus the elevation of fame: John Dillinger came along and stole from the banks, but refused to steal from ordinary hard working people. He did this while constantly humiliating the burgeoning FBI, thus the Govt. He was seen as a modern Robin Hood. A hero. He was media savvy and knew what to do to bolster his image. He became more famous than any movie star or other public figure of his day. None of this was really in the film. It was only alluded to. Character development/motivation: Who was Dillinger and why was he a bank robber? We don't know. What drove him? Never even hinted at. How did he change/grow/fall from the beginning of the film to the end? He didn't. Who was Purvis and what drives his sense of justice and the law? Don't know. Why is Dillinger so important to him, in particular? Never addressed. How did he change/grow/fall from the beginning to the end of the film? He didn't. It ended exactly as it began for him. What is the counterpoint between these two characters? Not played upon. Melvin Purvis much later eventually killed himself, as is stated in the end tag... but nothing we've seen in the film has shown us even the slightest bit of what character flaw or events might lead to this.

In addition, the technical flaws in this film were far too many to overlook.

Sound: The sound flaws were UNFORGIVABLE. Many times throughout the film, the three of us watching the movie turned to each other to ask what the actor on screen just said. We thought the theatre was shitty or something, until it became obvious that it was the design or lack-there-of. Director Michael Mann made one of the biggest mistakes I ALWAYS see amateur filmmakers get reamed for at film festivals, which is underestimating the power and IMPORTANCE of SOUND. It is 50% of the film experience and he treated it like it didn't matter in the slightest.

Lighting: There is no consistency between shots even WITHIN THE SAME SCENE. The color palette of the film is all over the place (and changes from scene to scene and even within the same scene). And there never seems to be a reason for it - no storytelling reason at least. I would understand warm tones to tell a certain tale or cool for the same - but it would be warm to cool for no reason whatsoever. Night shots looked like giant spot lights through the trees. In fact, there are at least three shots where you actually SEE the giant spot lights, dead on. They didn't try to diffuse the lights at all or hide the fact that they were there. It was just giant harsh flood lights raining unnatural super-bright light on the scene. I am aware this is how most films shoot at night - but most of the time they are disguised and diffused enough to at least PASS for FULL MOON light. But these were coming in at the wrong (90 degree) angle to-boot! And the exterior night shots right in front of the cabin, where you might it expect it to be slightly brighter, were appropriately dark (well lit), and only seconds later when deep in the woods, it is bright as daylight - from a source you can actually see just behind a tree. Ridiculous.

In summary, I learned what I know of the Dillinger/Purvis story by watching a 2 hr History channel documentary reenactment of this story, which was far more engaging & technically competent than this film.

Daniel Day Lewis is quite possibly the best actor of his, or perhaps any other, generation... and proves it in this film. He has created a fully realized living being that will make your skin crawl, stomach turn, and your heart pity.

There is a scene towards the middle of the film in which Day-Lewis' character confesses to be a sinner in front of Paul Dano's church congregation... I predict it will go on to be considered one of the greatest scenes of acting bravado and brilliance in the entire history of motion pictures.

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of my favorite directors, and I am amazed at how incredibly different this film is from the rest of his body of work... and yet it is still the quality of work I have come to expect from him.

The only real issue I really have with 'There Will Be Blood' is PTA's choice of not aging Paul Dano along with the rest of the cast for the film's finale. I have pondered the possible reasons for that choice over and over again and just can't reconcile it.

Other elements worthy of mention: Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood's avant-garde/minimalist score, very strong supporting cast and an opus of a screenplay from PTA.

"Life is a state of mind" - so says Chance, Peter Sellers character in "Being There", a meditation on being present, at the right place at the right time and experiencing all the ways in which others try to force you to play a part in their stories.

As we watch him get caught up in extraordinary situations, we question whether it is his fate, whether "Chance" truly possess some special power, or if it is his simple innocence and ability to just be present to each moment without filters or expectations.

A beautiful and timeless film with amazing performances all around. Quite possibly Peter Sellers finest performance -- and that is saying a lot.