The Da Vinci Code (2006)

So I finally told myself I should sit down and watch this film that so many people have badmouthed, yet had gotten so much attention last May. I read the book about a year and a half ago, and I remember most of what happened, so that obviously took an influence in my thoughts on the film.
In essence, the film is like flat cola, it seems sweet and that it has potential, but it really has no buzz going on. I admit I couldn't even get through the whole thing. I got to 1.5/2.5 hours, and decided that the film really wasn't going to change in pace or do anything quite interesting that I haven't read before, so I decided not to waste another hour of my time ( I have valuable other things to watch, haha).
The film is really a paint-by-number depiction. The cinematography is too damn dark, and moody lighty, that just makes it confusing to see what's going on. The direction is also non-existent. I say save your time and don't watch it.

Kicking and Screaming (1995)

I thought this movie was alright. The story is about a group of friends who have just graduated college, and how they spend that first year of independence from school.
I thought it was very well written with subtle, but decent acting for the cast. Honestly going into the film I was hoping for a more archaic narrative. When I first heard about Kicking and Screaming, I hoped that it would have the same feel as Linklater's Slacker from 1990. Instead Kicking and Screaming is a lot more accessible than Slacker. I have to say though that K&S is the middle of the pendulum swing with Slacker on the art house extreme, and Reality Bites on the mainstream extreme. Essentially K&S should be the ideal candidate for apathetic post-college individuals. I think this film would have got more attention, but it doesn't seem to want to toot it's own horn.
This is the first feature film by Noah Baumbach, and I feel like it should get some attention, since he's been doing well for himself lately (ie. The Squid and the Whale, a must see). On the other hand, my theory is that K&S isn't getting much nostalgic attention, the way Slacker did, because it was just recently put on the Criterion Collection. Baumbach is a writer/director worth keeping tabs on.

Smokin' Aces (2006)

I'm just rolling out the bad review today. I watched Smokin Aces two days ago, and I just didn't see the point of it. I know they were trying to create a slick heist/caper film, but it just was a flash of bling and posse.
When I first saw the trailer for this film I really thought it had potential. It had a decent cast, the premise looked interesting, and the cinematography seemed tight. Granted while watching it I was chatting on msn, but still I didn't miss anything by looking away.
I think the main thing that makes this a poor film is that they spend a confusing amount of time on the sub-plots. Because there are so many people looking to kill Buddy Israel, they spend time with each of the hitmen. Maybe in theory this sounded like a good idea, see how there are so many different people looking out to score from the murder, but at the same time, it's just confusing because it keeps jumping back and forth between the stories, but never having the characters crosspaths, which would be an interesting plot development.

Knocked Up (2007)

I thought this movie was alright, but it wasn't really what I was expecting. I was hoping for a film that was more like 40 Year Old Virgin, which is a very funny movie, one of my favourites. The reason why I heavily juxtaposed these two films is because they're both directed by Judd Apatow, who is known for his wise-crack humour mixed in with lovable slapstick (both genre pretty difficult to master).
What Knocked Up had that I found weakened the film is drama and poor improv. I read in an interview with Seth Rogen (the protagonist) that Judd let him do a lot of improv. While this approach may be creative, it actually led to the characters mostly swearing, and not being witty. Seth also brought in tid-bits of autobiographical info, ie. where he grew up, and some other random Canadiana references. The autobio study was just whatever, but for me, if there's an abundance of profane language in a film, without a balance of wit, then the film has the quality of a typical college home movie (seriously!).
I was also pretty disappointed by the ending. Yeah it was cutesy and all that jazz, but still was pretty unrealisitic.

Alpha Dog (2006)

I thought this was an interesting case study on how messed up the people are in America. Cinematically, however, I thought this was a weak film. The script was lacking originality (most of it was swearing), the composition was stark, and the actors looked like they were uninspired.
The interesting part of the film, the premise, I think deserves attention though. A kid is kidnapped because his brother owes money to a drug dealer. After a couple of hours the kid decides he'd like to stay with his kidnappers because he feels smothered in his homelife. Most of the film revolves around the conflict of whether the kid should be taken back to his parents, or if he should be allowed to stay and hang out with his kidnappers. The guys he stays with are very nice to him, and they become friends, so it's complicated to say whether he was being held against his will.
In the end (spoiler) the kid is killed because his captors would rather he die than go to prison for kidnapping (which happens anyway).
Now what's interesting in this whole drama is that it illustrated that the tragedy occurred because pretty much everyone was behaving selfishly. The brother who owed the money got his brother in that situation because he couldn't get his act together. The kid remained "kidnapped" because his parents wouldn't let him have a life. The drug dealer loses everything that he had because he didn't treat anyone with respect. And the kidnapped kid gets killed because he milked his shortlived freedom, when he should have returned sooner to his parents.
I think this is a good study on the american way of life. Everyone is looking out for their own back, but by not stepping up to help anyone else, they're screwing themselves over.
I found this interpretation took me some time to come up with because they film doesn't do much for the imagination, it is what it is. It felt very expository, rather than reflexive (I prefer the latter) so you really have to engage yourself in the characters actions to get a sense of why they are doing what they are doing.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006)

I thought this was a really smartly made film. It shows how sometimes authority will really go to any length to crush revolutionaries.
The film started out lacking, unfortunately, it seemed like it was hastily put together, to show a general view of the feelings at that time. But after 15 minutes or so it got a lot better.
I really enjoyed the footage that they put together of the various demonstrations and media interviews that John was a part of. It really gave a strong sense that he was a committed person to the peace movements.
I liked how the testimonials didn't take up too much of the film, and rather was a lot of archival footage and photos.
I thought it was interesting that John's son, Sean, had no involvement with the film. Was it because he entered John's life so late, and after most of his protest years, or did he not want to put himself in the situation where he had to recount his memories with his father?
Overall, I think this movie is worth checking out. It's completely partial to John Lennon's case, but why would they take the other side, that'd just be ridiculous.

A Night at the Museum (2006)

I thought this movie was pretty weak, but that's not to say I think no would enjoy this film. Both my mom and sister said they enjoyed the film quite a bit, and I can respect from afar their enjoyment. The thing about this film is that it's too easy and self-explanatory for me. Not to sound elitist, but I've seen this formula many times before so there's nothing new for me to see. If you are interested in said formula, this is my interpretation of it: any-robin-william's-movie-involving-a-family. There is usually an inept father, who's trying desperately to connect with his family. The kid feels like the world is out to get him because he has trouble respecting his father. But then it all ends up happy with the father and kids rejoining when after they go through a series of hijinks (often making use of fantasy devices, see how this is kid-friendly).
This film stars Ben Stiller, who I've enjoyed over the years, but his performance in this film is like week old pizza, you think it's going to be delish, but it tastes dried up, and tried. He plays the same character here as in most of his other films. I think the last film I enjoyed with him is Dodgeball, which was pretty funny.
I think what turned me off of this film, is that it's pure Disney. While I can see how it's good for kids, from afar, I cringe at the thought of having to sit through a +90 minute fare.
The one positive note, I did really enjoy the brief scenes between Ricky Gervais and Stiller, along with Dick van Dyke, Mickey Rooney and Stiller. Gervais is hilarious, and should have been given more screen time; Dyke and Rooney are asstacular in the scene where they brawl Stiller.

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

I really liked this film. It had a strong message about staying true to your dream, which I could relate to. The protagonist (played by Will Smith) never let go of what was sacred in his life, his son, and his pursuit of happiness.
When I originally heard about this film I thought it was going to be a syrupy story about overcoming all obstacles, and in a way it was, but I think the sincerity and the real hardships of the protagonist won me over. I think also knowing that this was a real story, of a man who was pretty much living on the streets when he got his break in life to work at a stock broker's firm. I think it's kind of funny that the corruption of finances is never brought up. I guess it's more of a rags to riches story, rather than an expose on the damning of corporate finance.
This film was all about the acting. With Will Smith and his real-life son, playing his son, I think this aspects really carried the film. Will Smith was phenomenal in his portrayal of the protagonist.
The direction of the film was alright, but I didn't see it as anything auteurish about it.
I say this is a film worth checking out if you're looking for motivation in following your dream.

Shrek The Third (2007)

This movie was pretty hit-and-miss. It was better than I thought it would be, but still didn't achieve the same excellence as the first Shrek (like a sequel would be able to beat it).
The storyline continues off where the 2nd Shrek ended, which is pretty self-explanatory, but the characters are portrayed a lot more one-dimensionally. I enjoyed the pop culture references as always, and there were a few that seemed fresh.
In terms of visual aesthetics, the animation seems pretty flat. The character's bodies look like they've been created hastily because they look disproportioned to their environment. I mean that Shrek's body looks awkwardly made, kind of thing. This aspects distracted me a bit, because I feel they could have tried to make the long shots more accurate. The close ups, I admit are well done.
The music that is nondiegetic felt awkward because they were mostly done during montages, and overall, these montage sequences were weak. I think what makes Shrek good is the dialogue between the characters. Shrek, at it's best, feels like a theatre play because it deals with prejudices people toward others who do not fit in.
I was also pretty disappointed that they didn't have a karaoke bar sequence during the credits, those were always my favourite (maybe the studio didn't feel like paying a bundle for copyrights).

Volver (2006)

I thought this was a good film. The story was fantastic and kept my attention the whole way through. The cinematography was also strong with good composition and good use of colours. The acting was alright too. I don't see what the fuss over Penelope Cruz is. She's a so-so actor, with a really nice body, but people lavish her with praise, why? Because she's Spanish? lame.
There's a plot motif that happens toward the end that i like, borrowing heavily from Chinatown, if you know what I mean?
This film is worth seeing for the drama that occurs between the family members. They act like a real family acts, close to each other, but in a way so close that they lie about some of the most important events in their lives, true to life, I'd say.

Children of Men (2006)

This was an intense film. I enjoyed it, but it's not something I could watch again, unless I had a specific reason to. The subject matter and visual were very heart wrenching, but made me realize how fragile human life is. I guess I'm over generalizing the film, but it's hard to put into words because the film does not have a lot of dialogue. That's not to say that the film has a weak script. I think the style of the director, Alfonso Cuaron, did very well with this story.
He is known for his long static takes, so it was put together very eloquently.
I recommend this film because this subject matter of the world's fertility rate is a significant topic, and one that is very present in today's issues.
Clive Owen was pretty good as the films protagonist, and I thought he carried the narrative decently.

The Poseidon Adventure (1972)

I thought this was a pretty weak film. I didn't enjoy it because the cinematography had no imagination, and the characters screamed and fought so much that I almost didn't want to finish watching it.
This style of film is one of my LEAST favourites. Similar films include It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, and Flight of the Phoenix. Ironic fact, these 3 films have been each remade within the past few years, all remakes complete trash. The original films are no masterpieces either, why the hell do they remake the crappy films.
Ernest Borgnine is also so friggin annoying in this film, his voice and face respectively.
I don't recommend this film unless you want to watch something that will help you appreciate good films.

West Side Story (1961)

I really like this movie. For months now I've been trying to see this movie for free (the library had a ridiculous queue), so I ask a friend who owned it, and I must say it's one of the best musicals ever. This was my 2nd time watching it, but it was even better watching it again. The dancing is superb, and I do love great choreography. Story is fine, it doesn't stand out, just a modern take at romeo and juliet, but the dancing and singing, sigh so good.
The setting and costume is also worth paying attention to. There is some great use of bright colours in the women's dresses, against the drab colours the men wear.
Some of my favourite song (and I love them all) "Play is cool, boy", "America", "When you're a jet", "Mambo" (which has no singing, just awesome dancing), and "Tonight" to some extent.

Help! (1965)

This movie is alright. The pacing is slow though. Unfortunately I've been making constant comparisons with A Hard Day's Night, an earlier Beatles film. In my opinion, A Hard Day's Night is a classic slapstick comedy, I own it too. While Help doesn't fit into the same mold as A Hard Day's Night, it still has some amazing elements, that is making me finish watching the film, rather than just turn it off. Both films are directed by Richard Lester, so they have many common cinematic devices, but Help! feels very subtle and quiet in comparison to AHDN. What I like about Help! is that The Fab Four still deliver their random ironic situational comments. John seems ot be getting more air time than the others, but he's been the funniest so far. The plot revolves around a conundrum that Ringo has found himself in, but Ringo's aloof performance is more annoying than silly. Paul and George seem bored with what they're doing, but maybe that's because they don't have as much screen time.
Special attention to the sections devoted to The Beatles doing their music video schitck. "She's got a ticket to ride" where they're on a ski hill is pretty funny. Director Lestor has some awesome off-center cinematography, that still feels original to watch today. The Monkees tv series came out a year after this film was released (1966-1968) and hugely steels comedic devices from Help!, which I'm sad to say devalues this film. While I realize Help! precedes The Monkees' series, the commonality makes it hard for it to stand out.
By the end of the film, I feel like it was able to redeem itself. Funny scene, the four of them are wearing funny beards; the irony is Ringo and John wear beards that they actually have for real later in life, haha.
I think overall this film is worth seeing if you want to see something funny/silly.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)

I enjoyed this movie for a number of reasons. For one, the pacing is really good. I think Eastwood really knows his timing with his films because even though this film is two and a half hours long, it goes by so smoothly so it doesn't feel long at all. I constantly feel engaged in the action of the scene. One reason why I think the scenes are so engaging is because Eastwood balances the tone of each scene so that they work together. There are a number of comic relief scenes that I think really lighten the film up, so that the whol film does not revolve around the murder case. I think it is important to have a subplot because it lets the audience relax for a few minutes, instead of constantly getting more info about the main plot.
John Cusack was also good in this film. Even though he plays his character the same as any other one of his characters, I think it works in the context of the film. The same with Kevin Spacy. I think Spacy's character is a lot like the one he played in The Usual Suspects, but of course in another setting, but there are many character commonalities, like lying to the other characters, that he performs.

The Holiday (2006)

I thought this was a cute film. The premise was good, the cast was good, and the setting was awesome. However, I thought the story line wasn't balanced enough. For anyone familiar with the story line you know that two women switch houses for their vacation, and they end up falling in love with a guy at the vacation spot. It's unbalanced because more time is spent on the romanace with Cameron Diaz than with Kate Winslet. I guess it makes sense in the story line because it was more about the physical attraction between Cameron Diaz and Judd Law, than with Kate Winslet and Jack Black.
I found myself paying a lot of attention to the jewelery that both Cameron and Kate were wearing. There was simple, yet elegant pieces. Since I recently got my ears pierced I pay more attention to earings that other ladies wear. Also the necklaces were really cool that they wore in the film. They were mostly long necklaces and also simple and elegant so they matched the earings they wore. Both actresses wore the jewelery effortlessly and it really added to the tone of the film, I feel.
Judd Law and Jack Black were also cute in this film. I thought it was good that their romance stories were also brought to light, but it was a good decision to never make the film too sad or depressing when the characters were discussing how their last relationship ended.
This film reminds me of Love Actually which is also British (The Holiday I guess is half British), except The Holiday is only with two overlapping romances while Love Actually has many relationships going on. I guess The Holiday can be seen as an echo film to try and capture the same audience that was won over by Love Actually.

Marie Antoinette (2006)

I was really disappointed by this film for a number of reasons.
I don't like it when films bastardizes culture from centuries ago with terms, phrases ways of life from the 20th century. I know it's meant to be a twist on a period piece, but it really takes away from the authenticity of the film and I lose respect when many ideals are not present.
I know Sophia Coppola was trying to be all punk rock with this film, and at times it's really cool hearing bands like The Strokes in the soundtrack of a period piece, but really that takes away any seriousness the film could inhibit.
The party scenes were very well edited in my opinion, but what they were doing at the parties were pretty lame. Playing put-a-famous-name-on-your-forehead-and-guess-who-you-are probably wasn't around in the 18th century, or pot for that matter. I really just think the film is Sophia trying to make Marie Antoinette like any other young girl in the 20th century, but that an unfair representation of their way of life.
Too much of the film was focused of whether or not she was having sex with her husband. I think other elements should have gotten more attention.
The French didn't like this film in Cannes, and I gotta agree with them on this one.

Y tu mama tambien (2001)

This was an impressive film. It was the second time I've seen it and boy it seemed to make a lot more sense this time around.
The cinematography in this film in incredible; I couldn't look away because the composition had me at the edge of my seat. The colours are so bold, and vivid, it felt like I was there.
The characters are also really strong. Their stories are realistic; they have their own goals and vices, I feel like I learned more about human natures from watching it.
The pacing of the film is also really good. I had forgotten that one of the story techniques of the film is that all the natural sound is cut off, and a ominous voice-over shares further information about one of the characters, it was really well done.

The Stepford Wives (1975)

This was a pleasantly eerie film. I say it's pleasant because it was well done and it was subtle rather than over the top. So that no one gets confused this is the original film, the remake from a few years ago pales in comparison.
What I liked about this film is that the politics of 2nd wave women's liberation are fresh in the text of the film. It's very obvious the dominant theme in this film.
What didn't take me as a surprised, and I thought was a good choice was that the film had a bleak ending. This isn't a typical Hollywood film for that reason. It came out in 1975 making it part of the tail end of the New Hollywood Cinema years.
Katharine Ross was alright in this film. It's hard for me to take her very seriously after knowing her as the mousy cute girl in The Graduate, c'est la vie.

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

I thought this was a decent film. It wasn't what I was expecting because I didn't think the film was based on a theater production. I find film adaptations from theatrical plays interesting because they do not require a lot of set design, most of the time the film can take place in just a few areas, sometimes only one room is necessary. I want to examine how there is a huge difference between these 2 room films and epics that use many continents to tell their story.
Arsenic and Old Lace is a typical theatrical production. Most of the film takes place in the living room of the two old ladies that are killing old lonely men as charity.
I initially watched the film because Cary Grant was in it. While he was enjoyable to watch, I have to admit that the magic that I once saw in his films are gone (reading a person's biography, and watching almost 2 dozen of their films can make a person feel bored with an actor).