The Artist (2012)

DIRECTOR: Michel Hazanavicius
STUDIO: Studio 37
STARRING: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman
RATING: PG-13
GENRE: Comedy, Drama, Romance

GRADE: A


Ever since I've been interesting in the art of film, not just the entertainment value, I have appreciated the silent era. I loved the period of song and dance and the type of humor they had back then. "The Artist" is a tribute to that time.

Specifically, "The Artist" is about a famous silent film star, George Valentin (Dujardin) and an upcoming actress Peppy Miller (Bejo). They meet in the mid-20s, and when the talkies start becoming more prominent, they meet again, only their career paths are very different. Peppy strives in the talking movies, while George Valentin refuses to accept it.

There are so many little things about this film that I love. There's a scene where Peppy is practicing tapping, but you can only see her feet because of a screen, and then George steps in to accompany her dancing, and then both do a sequence of steps in sync. While most movie-goers would see that scene as cute, anyone who studies the silent movies knows that sequences like that are the main gags in that era. This is just one example of how the movie appeals to modern-day viewers and film historians.

Jean Dujardin has a feel of Cary Grant, Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart wrapped into one. He just has a screen presence that was so vital in the 20s, and he captures his character. He deserves the Oscar completely. Many critics complain that Bejo did not look like the movie stars back then, and while that may be true, she acted so well that it did not bother me. I prefer to have a more talented actress that does not exactly look the part then vice versa.

My one complaint is that it is too long. The story drags on a parts, and becomes predictable. Plus, most silent films were only about 20 minutes long, so a movie almost two-hours seems a bit of a stretch - especially for modern-day film-goers. I think if it was at about 75 or 80 minutes, this movie would have been nearly flawless.

Overall, a fantastic film and whether or not you know/appreciate the era, it is a wonderful story with wonderful actors.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

DIRECTOR: Ang Lee
STUDIO: Focus Features
STARRING: Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Michelle Williams
RATING: R
GENRE: Drama, Romance

GRADE: B


This film has received so much hype since it was announced, but it has taken me 7 years to see this movie. (Granted, I was in middle school when it was released) Regardless, I have heard good, bad and in between reviews and I knew I had to see it for myself.

"Brokeback Mountain" is about two men, Ennis (Ledger) and Jack (Gyllenhaal) who work herding sheep on Brokeback Mountain. (get it?) One night, Jack makes a pass at Ennis, and from then to the rest of their summer they have a sexual and emotional relationship. The next two acts are about their adjustment to their life back where they must conform to society's wants. (marriage, kids, etc.)

Heath Ledger reminds me of a modern-day Marlon Brando. He doesn't just become a actor portraying a role, but he embodies that character completely. Not to say that Gyllenhaal's performance is any less, but it's hard to hold a candle to somebody with such screen presence and raw talent.

The best part about the film is not necessarily the story, because it begins to become predictable, but the chemistry and passion you feel for these two leads. You root for them and side with their love, which is something that many films do so well.

My complaints are only that fact that the motivation behind many characters are not always clear. Especially with Anne Hathaway's character, who grows from a carefree rodeo girl to a business manager with little or no explanation of how or why. This is a very mild complaint, because other than that, this is a wonderful film about how two souls just fell in love.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

DIRECTOR: Quentin Tarantino
STUDIO: Live Entertainment
STARRING: Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen
RATING: R
GENRE: Crime, Thriller

GRADE: A


It's amazing how a first directing work can be so brilliant. Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, John Huston, Mel Brooks,Christopher Nolan, The Cohan Brothers, Rob Reiner. And it would be a sin to omit Tarantino from this list.

"Reservoir Dogs" is a film about a group of hired robbers, who are all under code names by colors. (Mr. Blue, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Orange, etc.) When the heist goes wrong, there is suspect of a snitch in the group. Tensions grow higher and eventually, something will come to a boil.

Out of any Tarantino film, this is probably his best dialogue. Almost every line is quotable, especially the opening diner scene. The acting is wonderful, especially from Harvey Keitel (Mr. White) who embodies his character completely.

Direction has almost no flaws, and the ending is one of my favorite last scenes of any movie I have ever seen. However, my complaint is I never do like seeing the director in the movie, but that's just my taste. Cameos are fine, but to be a character with a purpose seems a bit...narcissistic to me. (That includes Brooks and Welles and any other director who does it) Only reason it is not an "A+" is because I feel that some minor details from the opening scene could have been resolved with more explanation.

I wish I had more to say about this film, but honestly it is just a work of art that everyone needs to see. And while some scenes can get graphic (you should expect that) it is a wonderfully and artistically done film.

Babel (2006)

DIRECTOR: Alejandro González Iñárritu
STUDIO: Paramount Vantage
STARRING: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Gael García Bernal
RATING: R
GENRE: Drama

GRADE: B+


I have always been in love with the idea of different languages. I am currently minoring in French, know some elementary ASL and hope to learn Chinese one day. Ways of communication truly fascinate me, so this movie's multilingual aspect played to my positives.

This film has four stories, that all connect (think "Pulp Fiction") and the conflict in each story has to do with lack of communication. Primarily it is the language, but there is also a girl that is deaf-mute and there are two young brothers that cannot communicate their frustration to their father.

Although the idea of "many stories that tie together" has been overdone since 1994, this film doesn't just focus on the characters that interact, or even the problems that they all have. Actually, every problem is different. What makes this film so unique is that the connection to all four stories is the reason behind the problem, which makes it that much more fascinating. Overall, with all the praise I'm giving this film, one would assume it would have to be at least a "A-" however, there is a complaint that I cannot ignore:

I feel like I'm watching "Se7en" again, because the two characters that I did not care about at all were Brad Pitt's and Cate Blanchett's. I refrenence "Se7en" because in both movies, I feel that Pitt's acting is not to the level he should be at. He just underacts, and because of that, I lose sympathy. In both films, I do not care about him or his wife - so when trouble happens, I lose interest.

A very artistic movie, and though the theme is loose, I enjoy what Alejandro González Iñárritu was trying to do with the film on a whole. If Pitt's acting had been a bit stronger, it would have easily been an "A," but as it is: solid "B+."

Skyfall (2012)

DIRECTOR: Sam Mendes
STUDIO: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
STARRING: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Naomie Harris
RATING: PG-13
GENRE: Action, Adventure, Crime

GRADE: B


This is the film I lost my James-Bond-movie virginity to, and honestly I was surprised by how little I understood who Bond was and what he did. Not that it is a very complicated aspect, but the closest I had ever seen was Austin Powers.

Skyfall is 23rd of the Bond films, and it follows James Bond (Craig) on mission to find a mastermind (Bardem) who stole a vital list from MI6 and who plans to threaten the entire existence of the agency unless Bond can retrieve it. The plot takes some twists and turns, but that is the main idea.

Although I have only seen Daniel Craig in a few movies, he never fails to succeed. Really, almost every actor in the movie is good, but some of the dialogue was weak, especially when it got serious. There are also some moments when many things are unclear.

For example, you find out a secret about the past of M, (Harris) but you do not actually feel the emotional connection to it. It is revealed with the detachment of a history book, instead of the characters and their emotions. I feel that this goes to directing and the dialogue.

There is also an event at the end of the third act, which is supposed to hit the audience hard. It might be my lack of Bond-watching, but I felt next to nothing when the even occurred.

Not to say that this movie was bad, but it was not exactly a work of art. I will definitely have to watch more of the Bond franchise - just to see how everything compares.

Breaking Dawn: Part 2 (2012)

DIRECTOR: Bill Condon
STUDIO: Summit Entertainment
STARRING: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
RATING: PG-13
GENRE: Romance, Drama, Thriller

GRADE: C-


The long-anticipated movie of the season. Why? Not because it is a revelation of quality film, but it means that it will be the last new Twilight movie I will have to see. That alone gave me some pleasure walking into the theatre.

This movie stars Bella (Stewart) finally as a vampire, with her husband (Pattinson) with their daughter, Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy). The story follows the three with their family and a werewolf companion, Jacob (Lautner). However, when the secret of Renesmee reaches the head counci, the Volturi, the Cullens must prepare for battle.

Writing that, it actually makes the movie feel more exciting than it actually is. Out of the five movies there are, this one (sadly) is probably the best. That does not mean it necessarily is all that great to start out. Overall, the writing and acting is the weakest part in this movie. Every character either felt forced or did not care enough to try.

There are also some just gaps that the director did not think to change. For example, when there are many vampire groups, they change every day: except for the Amazonian women: they have to be next to naked in the snow, while everyone else has a change of clothes. Did no characters think to give them any clothes? There are many mistakes like that throughout the entire movie.

The only reason this movie is above a "D" is because there is an action sequence that is possibly the best scene in the entire saga. While the sequence contains flaws of its own, (i.e. fighting everywhere, but some characters can stand for minutes on end, untouched) but it is filmed so well that those can be overlooked.

Overall, acting, direction and dialogue are very weak, but if you want to end the series, it would not hurt to see it.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 (2003-2004)

DIRECTOR: Quentin Tarantino
STUDIO: Miramax Films
STARRING:  Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Daryl Hannah
RATING: R
GENRE: Action, Thriller

GRADE: B


I waited far too long to see this film - and yes, I count these separate films as one, and I shall get to that later.

This film is about a pregnant bride (Thurman) that was tortured and shot on her wedding day, by Bill (Carradine) the father of her child. [Now, don't think of this as spoiling, you discover this within the first few minutes of the story] The Bride vows her revenge on Bill, and his four accomplices for torturing her and causing her to lose her baby.

As Tarantino-esque as this film is, by the style and violence level, this is probably my least of the four I have seen. The story lacks originality. A revenge story about a hurt person - nothing new or inventive, expect maybe the use of weapons. There are very similar plots in other films that were better executed (The Godfather, Memento, True Grit). Those films have a higher quality because it focuses less on the how they achieved their vengeance, but how their character developed and changed through that achievement.

Also, I have never really enjoyed Uma Thurman's work - and that may just be my preference. Even though I saw her act as a strong warrior, I just could not take her seriously. Again, do not let this change your preference of viewing this movie, that is just my take on Thurman as an actress.

Now, that I have said so many negative things, it's time to discuss the positive! This is Tarantino's best film cinematography-wise. So much of the visuals are brilliant and stunning, which add to the relatively average story. So many of the fight sequences are the best I have ever seen, including classic westerns. Even though you would assume a 30-minute fight sequence would be repetitive, Tarantino finds a way to keep you on the edge.

I consider these two separate movies as one film because to truly understand the story and development is to watch them one after the other. Another reason I think like this is because I believe both movies stretched about 15 minutes each, and if they hadn't it would have been a little over two and half hours long as one film.

Regardless of how I feel about the story, all supporting characters are wonderful and very entertaining, and I do not even need to speak of Tarantino's directing - his name almost speaks for itself.

Solid "B."

50/50 (2011)

DIRECTOR: Jonathon Levine
STUDIO: Summit Entertainment
STARRING: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick 
RATING: R
GENRE: Drama, Comedy

GRADE: B+



Sadly, I was not able to view this film in the theatres. It is very rarely that I prefer watching a film with a general audience, but I think it could have made the movie that much more impacting.

"50/50" is about a young radio journalist's (Gordon-Levitt) life as he discovers he has a rare form of cancer. The story follows he, his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), his best friend and co-worker (Rogan) and his therapist (Kendrick) and how each person handles the news and development differently.

I will begin by saying I've never had a film touch me emotionally in some scenes, while still making me laugh throughout since "The Apartment." Many movie-goers today do not realize how Billy Wilder innovated the idea of a dramatic comedy with this film. "50/50" was very well-directed and it gave such a deep inside look to what it could be like having cancer.


Another high point is the writing, because so many characters are written beautifully, and are easy to relate to. Cancer has touched everyone, even in a small way, so we all can identify with one or two characters.

My complaint is the development with his girlfriend throughout the entire movie. I understand that we were supposed to dislike her - and trust me, I did - but it never shared her side. It made her out to be a villain. Even though she was clearly in the wrong, it would be interesting if they had taken a scene or two that developed what she had to go through as well.

Overall, a very touching movie, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt spectacularly sucks the audience in and allows them to understand exactly what and why his character is feeling. Solid "B+."

Chinatown (1974)

DIRECTOR: Roman Polanski
STUDIO: Paramount Pictures
STARRING: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston
RATING: R
GENRE: Crime, Drama, Mystery

GRADE: A-


"Chinatown" is a film about a private investigator, Gittes, (Nicholson) who is hired to spy on a rich man, involved in a controversial water debate. The plot thickens when his wife (Dunaway) becomes involved and drags Gittes in as well.

Across the board acting is wonderful, and a lot of it is due to Polanski's directing. He knows how to light and set a scene so well, it merely becomes a stage for the actors to perform. While it isn't Jack Nicholson at his complete best, he still shines in every scene.

My only small complaint is some of the dialogue. Many things were not clear in scenes, and I just had to pretend they did not matter, and continue with the plot. While the script lacked, the movie is still a classic and will be watched years to come.

21 Jump Street (2012)

DIRECTOR: Phil Lord and Christ Miller
STUDIO: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
STARRING: Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Ice Cube
RATING: R
GENRE:  Comedy, Action

GRADE: B


When I first heard about this movie, I was worried about how it would change or reflect the old "21 Jump Street" television show, with Johnny Depp. Especially once I saw that Channing Tatum was hired, and I have never been a fan of his acting.

The film has two police officers, one a cautious one (Hill) and the other stupid and reckless (Tatum). After failing at patrolling on a daily basis, they are sent to a division of undercover cops called 21 Jump Street. They are sent back to high school, while trying to bust a drug ring that is circling the school system.

While a few jokes fall flat, most anything that is meant to be humorous works very well! This movie defines what is the common humor today, but it does it without any gross-out jokes or overdoing the vulgarity. I believe this can go back to good writing and directing.

Also, with both directors, you would think the movie would be imbalanced or inconsistent, but two may have actually been better than one. I actually liked Tatum, and I can only attribute it to the director, not his progression in acting. (any other movie with him past this still is not as good)

Very funny movie, and while the jokes are not very clever, they can make most anyone laugh. Definite "B."

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

DIRECTOR: Robert Benton
STUDIO: Columbia Pictures
STARRING: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Jane Alexander
RATING: PG
GENRE:  Drama

GRADE: B+


Dustin Hoffman has done it again, and although this film may not have the most Oscar-worthy performance of his career, I am glad that he won one. Those may argue that it was a career-long Oscar, not necessarily for this film in particular, but that's another topic for a different day.

Anyways, this film opens with a wife and mother (Streep) leaving her husband (Hoffman) and son (Justin Henry). The first and second act are all about Hoffman's character adjusting to his new single-parent life. But, the plot complicates when Streep's character returns and wants to fight for custody of their son.

Overall, excellent performances are across the board. Even the eight-year-old Justin Henry was excellent. I really adored the complexity of the situation, and how many people who have not experienced a divorce in a family can now understand on a certain level. Hoffman brought me to tears more than once.

The reason it received a "B+" and not higher is only because I didn't enjoy the actual story. I understand that it was an inside look at the problems and gray-area of a divorce, however it never caught my full interest. Still a very good film, but not quite "A" worthy.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

DIRECTOR: James Foley
STUDIO: New Line Cinema
STARRING: Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin
RATING:  R
GENRE:  Drama

GRADE: B


I've been an Al Pacino and Jack Lemmon lover for a long time, but only recently have I started to admire what a quality actor Alec Baldwin is. Only recently did I discover that they starred in a movie together.

The movie is about real estate agents, who are having a hard time closing deals with their clients. When a harsh executive (Alec Baldwin) comes to demand the agents sell more or else, tensions grow higher and the agents will stop at nothing to sell.

All the actors in this film are nothing short of brilliant. Even Kevin Spacey, who was just getting started at this time, shined on screen in his character. Baldwin, though only on screen for about ten minutes, proved his talent for acting and ability to make an audience feel his character, not only see it. Lemmon and Pacino are outstanding, as usual, and make their mark on this film that no other actor could do for their role.

My only complaints is the length. While this movie used to be a play, theatre timing is much different than cinematic timing. And although it would have been a very short film if it was only 70 or 80 minutes, it would have felt tighter and less stretched out.

Regardless, the movie isn't exactly breathtaking, but if you want to see some superior acting from some classic actors, "Glengarry Glen Ross" is the film for you.

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

DIRECTOR:  John Schlesinger
STUDIO: United Artists
STARRING: Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and Sylvia Miles
RATING:  R
GENRE:  Drama

GRADE: A-


The more I see Dustin Hoffman, the more I enjoy his acting. I never quite knew his range until I saw "Midnight Cowboy." I've always known the famous "I'm walking here!" car scene, but never knew the plot of the movie it came from.

Basically, "Midnight Cowboy" is about a country boy (Jon Voight) who comes to New York to be a male prostitute. When he finds himself unlucky (no pun intended) he befriends a conman, Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) to help him gain clients.

Although I felt like this film was about 10 minutes too long, it is a great example of how so many different acting styles can work together to help not only a good scene, but a good film. The directing was fantastic in this film and Hoffman is brilliant. You feel for his character by just seeing him give a look.

Any Hoffman fans must see, and Voight doesn't disappoint, as well. "A-" only for some minor flaws.

V for Vendetta (2005)

DIRECTOR:  James McTeigue
STUDIO: Warner Bros. Pictures
STARRING: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Rupert Graves
RATING:  R
GENRE:  Action, Thriller, Fantasy

GRADE: B+
I have waited too long to see this movie. I have heard nothing but good about it since it first came out, and I could not have watched it too soon.

This movie is about a vigilante, appropriately named "V," who is trying to start a revolution in a fictional future England. He befriends a fellow rebel (Portman) and their adventure as Guy Fawkes Day approaches.

While the plot may not make much sense, it is easy enough to follow. There are a few twists and turns, but it all has a point and is worth the ride. The acting is very well done and even the supporting characters contribute to the film as a whole.

My only real complaint is the character development, especially with Portman's character. Although we get her entire background, I felt her motivations lacking. This has nothing to do with Portman's acting, though, but more with the direction and just the material she had to work with.

Overall an excellent film, with some flaws here and there.

The White Ribbon (2009)

DIRECTOR: Michael Haneke
STUDIO: Wega Film
STARRING: Christian Friedel, Ernst Jacobi, Leonie Benesch
RATING: R
GENRE: Drama, Mystery


GRADE: B


I will begin this review by saying I have only ever seen two other German films, and while I know there are stylistic differences, I understand I don't quite "get" all of their purposes. On with the review.

This movie is about a small town in Germany, pre-WWII, and in the town, strange crimes start occurring. It is unclear who is doing them or why, and as the film continues, we learn about character's dark secrets and how things are not always as they seem. What I really did not like about the film, was how it tried to make the twist obvious, but then they steered into another direction entirely, with very little logic behind it. Although I understand that may have been the point all along, I did not appreciate that they also never had a true resolution. Even though I did not care for the plot all that much, the acting was very good, especially for how young some of the actors were. It was the darkness in some of the actors that carried this film. Overall, it was a good movie, and whether or not I enjoyed it does not matter as much as the technical aspect. A solid "B" movie. (no pun intended, for film addicts reading this)

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

DIRECTOR: Stanley Kubrick
STUDIO: Warner Bros. Pictures
STARRING: Matthew Modine, R. Lee Ermey, Vincent D'Onofrio
RATING: R
GENRE: Drama, War


GRADE: A-


Being in a film class this semester, I've began to view films in a different aspect. This was a film that we were required to watch, and it was quite an interesting film.

I have never been one for war movies before, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their message and cinematography. In "Full Metal Jacket" we follow soldiers from boot camp until they finally reach the battlefield overseas. While some situations seem exaggerated, the film never lets the viewer doubt that they could actually happen.

This movie deserves an "A-" because the acting was outstanding - mainly from R. Lee Ermey as the crazy drill sergeant. I almost felt that I was watching a Tarantino film, considering how in the first half, the violence was used in a slightly comic manner. The direction was great and the cinematography was used well - especially in the final scene.

Overall, even if you aren't a fan of war films, like myself, I strongly recommend seeing this film sometime. It can truly let one get a deeper look at a realistic Vietnam war film.