Oh, wow. That’s not a good ‘Oh, wow,’ that’s ‘Oh, wow, I can’t believe I just wasted 109 minutes of my life.’ This film is supposed to be an epic telling the story of a made-up legend about a young hunter who journeys to the ends of the earth to find and save his destined love. An attempt at mysteriousness refers to this mystical woman as ‘the child with the blue eyes,’ but that just adds to the triteness, and eventually the hilarity (because after the first hour all you can do is laugh at it) of the film.

Throughout his quest, the hunter finds camaraderie in the company of other tribes and civilisations and discovers things about his own past that had previously haunted him. Eventually he wages war on the Egyptian elite which have enslaved his quarry, and the film culminates when the band he has acquired, along with the countless other slaves, revolt and wreak havoc on their captors. In the ensuing melee, woolly mammoths are set free and charge, pyramids and massive scaffolding are destroyed, and the ground is littered with the bodies of the casualties. Normally I try not to give away the ending of a film, but I truly want to save any readers from seeing this movie, and the ending is obvious anyway. The hunter brings the Egyptian leader (I use the word ‘leader’ because he looks nothing like a Pharaoh) to his knees and secures not only the safety of his love but also the release of slaves. This portion of the film only adds to the silliness and outright untruth of the plot. Plus, when the ‘Pharaoh’ dies, his face is briefly shown and he’s an old white guy. If that’s an attempt at a serious political message, not only is the demographic of the target audience way off, but the effort is far, far too late in the movie.

I usually try to keep the political aspects of my reviews to myself, but this film is simply a patriarchal, testosterone driven excuse for battle scenes. Like The Patriot without the only halfway decent plot. A total snoozefest. Honestly, had it not been for the loud music heralding the hero’s arrival in Egypt, I would have fallen asleep. The only, and I mean only, reason I’m even giving this film a rating is because, the first time they’re on screen, the woolly mammoths look pretty cool.

Rating:

A horror film made by the wonderful filmmakers who brought us Pan’s Labyrinth holds a great amount of promise. The Orphanage definitely lives up to its older brother’s reputation.

Nothing draws a crowd, and kicks off the spring/summer movie season, quite like a good ghost story. Especially one featuring creepy little kids in disturbing masks. Even for a Saturday night I was surprised at how full the theatre was when I went to see this film. I actually had to sit next to a stranger. Yuck. But I digress. The large crowd only added to my amusement when it was made clear that the film was in Spanish with English subtitles. Though made by Spanish film makers, as it has been marketed as The Orphanage rather than El Orfanato, many people were not expecting to have to read the dialogue. I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the lack of grumbling and the ensuing silence in the theatre as the audience sat attentively, raptly engaged in the film.

The story is that of Laura who buys the orphanage in which she grew up with the intention of setting up a group home for children with special needs. Together with her husband and young son Simon she soon gets wrapped up in a sad and chilling mystery involving a former employee of the orphanage, her deformed child who constantly wore a disturbing mask, and what happened to the other orphans after Laura had been adopted. Simon inexplicably disappears, and it is Laura’s desperate need to find her lost son which compels her to enlist the help of the dead.

Not unlike Pan’s Labyrinth, The Orphanage keeps the gore to a minimum, but what it does have is extremely realistic and hard to look at. The film makers did not shy away from the human form, even when it was broken and mutilated. Unlike the glossy horror films of the US, the dead bodies look dead rather than like pretty actors who are merely asleep. While The Orphanage did not actually scare me (that’s not a criticism – only two films in history have succeeded in that feat), it definitely has its creepy and uncomfortable moments. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and it seems the average Saturday night movie audience did as well as I overheard nothing but good things walking out of the theatre.

Rating:

I have a very complex relationship with horror films. Horror is my favourite genre, but because I am so picky and snobby that few horror films impress me. Perhaps adding an element of comedy makes the feat easier (with the tremendous exception of the Scary Movie films and their ilk; my abhorrence for such tripe is immeasurable). Either way, The Cottage nobly joins the ranks of Shaun of the Dead and even the Evil Dead trilogy as magnificently executed hilarious horror. It features true horror, gratuitous gore, situation comedy, and an irrefutably attractive, and equally trashy, girl – something for everyone.

Two brothers kidnap said girl in order to extort money from her father, but instead stumble into far more trouble than both what they had bargained for, and what she is worth. A gruesomely deformed, murderous farmer hunts down the characters in the film one by one as they mistakenly trespass on his land. Though there is absolutely no subtlety when it comes to the amount of blood and violence, the magic of this film is in the exquisite details, such as what is printed on the teacups. Though The Cottage is both hilarious and gory, it also has its genuinely scary moments which do not require blood in order to achieve their desired effect. The characters are also well acted, with special emphasis on Tracy, the ill-fated heroine/victim. I was simultaneously annoyed and captivated by her; as I, as a viewer, was supposed to be. A mark of a truly talented filmmaker is the ability to play an audience like a puppet master; making strangers feel exactly what he or she intended using only words and music.

Like the other wonderful horror/comedy films with which The Cottage is on a par, I foresee a substantial cult following for this film, and will no doubt enjoy it in such a context in the future.

Rating:

If it was possible to translate a heavy sigh into writing, I would do so here. It’s not that this film is bad, just that since the advent of Harry Potter it has become fashionable to make movies based on children’s books about orphans discovering magical powers or worlds. The credit that I can give to such films (for example The Chronicles of Narnia and A Series of Unfortunate Events) is that the books on which they were based were published either before or at the same time as the Harry Potter series was gaining international popularity. The Spiderwick Chronicles however, though moderately entertaining, simply falls short of the mark that its monumental predecessors have set.

The formula for all of these films, and for a vast majority of folktales, is that of a group of children, featuring an orphaned boy, discovering something magical and engaging in a quest of some description. The Spiderwick Chronicles is no exception. The hero of the tale, Jared, is misunderstood by his family and thus not believed when he claims to have stumbled onto a book that details the workings of a hidden world full of mythical creatures. Jared gains the help of a few of these creatures in defeating an evil ogre whose wrath Jared has incurred.

For those who haven’t read the books, The Spiderwick Chronicles may be a bit of a disappointment, and though it is clearly geared toward children, there are some scenes that may be a tad scary for anyone under the age of 7 0r 8. One redeeming quality the film may have, for those who are familiar with such things, is that some of the artwork that illustrates Jared’s field guide is delightfully Brian Froud-esque. However, those who are familiar with Froud’s work may be even more disappointed in the portrayal of creatures such as Brownies and Red Caps. Overall, The Spiderwick Chronicles just left something to be desired. I think it may have been originality.

Rating:

Other than the obnoxious people sitting behind me at the cinema when I saw My Blueberry Nights, it was pretty good. Norah Jones makes her acting debut as Elizabeth, a heartbroken girl who journeys around the US after a painful relationship. Before she leaves, however, she meets Jeremy (Jude Law), who runs a cafe and who has also been jilted in the past. Though they build a friendship, Elizabeth nonetheless leaves without saying goodbye.

In her travels around the US, Elizabeth finds herself wrapped up in other people’s lives and dramas, and writes her thoughts about her experiences back to Jeremy on postcards. Elizabeth, who goes by Lizzie in one place, Beth in the next, finds bits of herself in the quirky and sometimes sad people she meets along the way, and by the time she finds her way back to where she came from she is no longer a Lizzie or a Beth, but a whole Elizabeth.

My Blueberry Nights is a little depressing at times, and a lot predictable, but as far as nice chick-flicks about love and soul searching go it’s not bad. Coming from someone who usually hates that kind of thing, that’s saying a lot. It even has an easily read metaphor that gives it a slight but crucial edge over the vast majority of mid-grade girly movies. The soundtrack, which obviously features Norah Jones, is very well put together and fits the film like a glove. As far as the acting goes, I’d say Jones’ first try was a success. Natalie Portman and Jude Law are also decent, and David Strathairn as Arnie, a town drunk in Memphis, is positively heartbreaking. Though it’s not stupendous, it’s not bad either. Ideally paired with a moderately priced meal for a date night, perhaps.

Rating:

When I went into this movie, I was not in a good mood. Though I wanted to see the film, I just wasn’t really in a movie mood. But, I thought, what’s better for feeling crappy than a good portion of the hilarious Jack Black? Well, I didn’t get the exact brand of Jack Black-ness I was expecting, but I still left the cinema feeling much better than when I came in.

Be Kind Rewind claims to be about two guys who remake all of the films in a small video store when all of the VHS tapes are erased. While this is not untrue, the more important plot is that of the struggling working class community that comes together as an unexpected result. Jerry (Jack Black) is eccentric, lives in a junkyard, and believes the nearby power plant is controlling his brain. Within the first 15 minutes of the film, he decides to combat the plant by sabotaging it. The plan predictably goes awry, and Jerry’s brain becomes magnetized. While that particular part is just silly and makes no sense, Jerry’s magnetized brain is really just the MacGuffin for the rest of the film. Mos Def plays Mike, who operates the video store, and together with Jerry and the hastily recruited Alma (Melonie Diaz), remakes Ghostbusters for an elderly customer. As the trio is forced to remake more films, they begin to catch on within the community.

Jack Black, as I said, is not funny in the way that I expected him to be; but that’s not to say he’s not funny. His character is eccentric, but also very serious about what he believes. Black plays the character well, and it’s the seriousness about ludicrous ideas that makes him so hilarious in this film. Mos Def, however, is truly triumphant in this film. He portrays the character of Mike flawlessly. He is awkward, he stutters sometimes, and is a bit mush-mouthed, but all of this is believable and endearing. His inarticulation works for him in much the same way it worked for Marlon Brando in his early years.

Be Kind Rewind also offers cameos and bit parts of big Hollywood names. Danny Glover plays Mr. Fletcher, the actual owner of the store who is absent for most of the film. Mia Farrow is the cantankerous Miss Falewicz, for whom the initial ‘sweded’ Ghostbusters was made for, and Sigourney Weaver plays a Hollywood lawyer with screen time of about 3 minutes.

In the end of the film the entire community comes together to celebrate Jerry, Mike and Alma’s creativity and their common heritage despite the fact that their neighbourhood is run-down, poor, and scheduled to be torn down. Be Kind Rewind definitely delivers as a comedy, but it’s also got heart.

Rating:

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the part of Daniel Plainview, a wealthy oil tycoon at the turn of the century. He and his son travel the country buying oil-rich land from towns that, more often than not, are no match for Plainview’s business sense. When he is tipped off (for a price) about a huge amount of oil in a specific location, a tumultuous relationship between Plainview and a small, desperate town begins. The aptly named Sunday family sells Plainview their land as well as run the local church, of which their young son is the preacher. Plainview brings wealth and education to the town, but also greed and tragedy in the form of exploding oil derricks. The Sundays wish only to provide the community with a sense of faith, but their ideas and practices of Christianity are extreme and disturbing to say the least. The tension builds between these two pillars of the community and culminates in a dramatic mix of humiliation and tragedy.

Perhaps what I liked best about this film is its complexity. It’s definitely not the kind of film that allows the viewer to turn off his or her brain while a story plays itself out in front of their eyes. The characters have real depth, in that you’re not quite sure you like the protagonist, and the antagonist is really just doing what he thinks is best. Paul Dano’s performance as both Paul and Eli Sunday is nothing short of superb. He manages to be threatening, disturbing, and desperately genuine all at once. Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Plainview is just as good, but different in that his voice is just as important to the character as anything else. It absolutely resonates.

There Will Be Blood is certainly not mindless entertainment, and some parts don’t seem to make sense the first time around. It’s the kind of film you can watch numerous times and understand and enjoy it a little more each time.

Rating:

Remember Grumpy Old Men? The one with two formerly great actors (Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau) grasping desperately at a comeback by playing two old guys with a love/hate friendship? Yeah, well The Bucket List is pretty much Grumpy Old Men, only worse. At least Jack and Walter only argued over a woman. In The Bucket List Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are both terminal cancer patients going out in a blaze of glory by fulfilling every dream they’ve ever had before their time is up. I suppose it helps that Jack Nicholson’s character is a multi-millionaire and offers to finance their shenanigans.

Edward (Nicholson) is a stereotypical businessman – lots of money but no friends or family. Carter (Freeman) is a hard-working family man. Throughout their trip around the world, Edward predictably learns all about friendship and the importance of family and love from Carter. At the same time Carter gets to have the trip of a lifetime which he would never have been able to afford on his own. Edward made his money in buying hospitals and making them centres of business rather than places to receive quality care. He all too soon finds out that these corporate style hospitals, which are becoming all too common in the United States, are not always the most pleasant places. The film could have redeemed itself a bit if any sort of stance was taken on the issue, but no. The plot meanders and is extremely dry for much of the film.

It’s almost painful to watch actors with such talent ageing so disgracefully. These guys were Red in The Shawshank Redemption and Jack Torrence from The Shining – and The Joker from Batman! (Sidenote: why does Jack Nicholson always play characters named Jack?) There is no rational reason why they should have to stoop to things like The Bucket List. Honestly, neither should we.

Rating:

Ah, yes, the one with all the media attention and buzz around it. Anyone interested in current movies knows that this film is about a teenage girl who accidentally gets pregnant and the cute, stammering boy she likes. While, yes, that is the basis of the plot, there is much more going on in this film. Maybe it’s just because I am female, but to me the story is just as much about motherhood as it is about teenage angst and emotion.

Juno gets pregnant and soon decides that adoption is the best option for her. In no time she finds an ideal couple and begins the process of adoption. The couple, played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman, are young, beautiful and pretty pretentious at first. Their relationship with Juno, their complete social opposite, forces them to confront the differences between them and the problems with their picture-perfect marriage.

It’s definitely fun to watch this movie and remember being 16 and in love – and all the teenage drama and tragedy that went along with it – and Ellen Page (Juno) and Michael Cera (Paulie) look better doing it than we did. Juno is what every teenage American girl secretly wants to be – quirky, dark, unpopular, but still beautiful, and Paulie is what all those girls want in a guy – shy, emotional, and completely unaware of how cute he is. That mix gives the film a bit of an idealistic feel, but the characters are so enjoyable the audience is willing to forgive that. The script also seems a little, well, scripted at some points in the film, but again this is forgivable because the dialogue is so amusing.

Rating:

I wasn’t expecting this film to be as serious as it was. A story about two brothers who have both gotten themselves into financial trouble and decide to rob their own parent’s jewelry store, to me, screams dark comedy. Which it is, to an extent. There are definitely some pretty hilarious moments. However, I’d say that’s only 40% of the film. The other 60% is tragic family drama. Things inevitably go wrong during the robbery, and how the two very different brothers attempt to rectify the situation just leads to more problems that involve their father, sister, and the older brother’s wife. Add that to heroin use, drug money, and low lives out for revenge and you get one giant mess with no way out.

Both the casting and acting are stupendous. I wouldn’t have thought that rugged, attractive Ethan Hawke and doughy Philip Seymour Hoffman would be compatible as brothers, but their character’s personalities are so vastly different, and the characters are played so wonderfully, that the odd pairing works. They even begin to look more and more like brothers as the film progresses. The roles of Gina (Marisa Tomei) and Charles (Albert Finney) are also wonderfully and subtly executed.

It’s not a particularly happy film, but it does say a lot about upper-middle class American family life – mostly about the desperation and ineffectuality of those living it. A bit of an unsung gem, and definitely overlooked at this year’s major film award ceremonies, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead is one of those films that you can watch over and over and understand something new about it every time.

Rating: