Reviews

The Trial is Orson Welles' attempt to adapt Franz Kafka's tale to the silver screen, and the success of that adaptation is an interesting case. The film's visual style and atmosphere are impeccable, but its plot seems to be tenuously put together. This is not surprising, as the source material was never completed by Kafka, and was never intended to be published. The book was assembled after his death by his executor out of the unordered (and sometimes unfinished) chapters which Kakfa had written. The adaptation deals with this by playing the tale as very surreal, which is brought out most excellently by the sets. Welles used an abandoned train station to construct his giant spacious sets, which evoke strange responses with their industrial decay, open work places of endless repetition, and claustrophobia. All the settings are strange and off-putting in the best of ways. The cinematography too is incredible, with exaggerated and unrealistic lighting picked up by the canted and unusual angles to create an unsettling effect. The cast also works wonderfully, as Perkins gives one of his best performances as the protagonist Joseph K. The filmic aspects of the work are all wonderfully executed, but the film doesn't quite pull it off. This is due to the problems with adapting a work which was itself unfinished. However, this shortcoming can be overlooked, as this is one of Welles' best works, a daring work of cinema to be enjoyed and appreciated.

The Big Short is a comedy film about financial outsiders who foresaw the economic collapse of 2007/2008, and bet on the downfall of the banks. A true-life story, the film outlines three different groups that predicted the collapse, and uses their story to guide the audience through the causes of the recession. This lesson about how the American public was, for lack of a better (or appropriate) word, screwed by the system on Wall St. is the film's real purpose.

The films strengths are in its cast, story, humour, and cameos (used to ease the difficult explanations). The cast is very strong, especially Bale and Carrell. Pitt, who produced the film, does a good job, but doesn't feature heavily in the film. Gosling also does an excellent job in his role, but not quite on Bale's level. Gosling's talent is wasted on this role, and the film may have benefited by giving Bale a larger part. The story is a strength, mostly because it's relevant, as the impact of the recession is still felt today. Though the subject matter is serious, the film is still a comedy, and so laughs are important. The film is very funny, so it's a success on those grounds, but it's not drop dead hilarious, so don't expect a comedy masterpiece. The film's final strength, and perhaps it's most impressive accomplishment, is in its ability to explain the necessary financial concepts without losing the audience. This is achieved by breaks in the action during which the concepts are explain by celebrities in fun, unrelated, cameos. Keeping the audience involved while explaining mortgage-backed securities is difficult, and making these moments entertaining is a true feat.

However, the film's biggest flaw is in parts of Adam McKay's direction. The montage sequences and some of the instances of quick-cutting really annoyed me, taking me out of the film, and I can't think of anything that these would have added. The quotes at key points in the film broke up the flow, and though I enjoyed one of the quotes, they didn't fit with the film. Parts of Baum's back story also felt shoehorned in, and the interaction with the tenant in Florida (though a necessary scene) felt very hammy in its execution. McKay shows some potential working with the film's more substantial subject matter, but his lack of experience in this area shows at time.

Overall, the film does a good job of entertaining, and of educating, it's audience. Fun, informative, and pretty accessible given the complex concepts, The Big Short delivers on most of its promise, but could have improved had McKay had slightly more seasoning before taking on the project.

The Hateful Eight is Tarantino's latest play on genre, his first "true" western. Borrowing from classic Hollywood story-telling, and from Westerns in particular, The Hateful Eight has what might be called Tarantino's most mature and developed plot (though mature is not how I would describe the movie). This development comes at the cost of brevity, and this maturity comes at the cost of some of the fun that one expects from Tarantino, so how one views this film really will dependant on one's values as it concerns his films. It almost feels less like a Tarantino film, and more like a traditional film made with Tarantino's style. As well, the pacing in the film's first half is slower than his usual pace, but this is not wasted time, as the first half's scenes are still great, and the build-up really pays off in the second half. I for one (a big fan of his work), thought it was excellent, though it's lesser amount of fun does place it behind his very best work. The technical aspects are executed perfectly, and if you have the opportunity see it in 70mm. Glorious is exactly what it is, and the technology is excellently utilized. Not just beautiful in its stunning landscapes, the film uses the very wide aspect ratio in many two-shots and uses the space well in multiple planes in other shots to keep several objects on screen simultaneously. The acting was great by all in the relatively small cast, with no weak links. The musical score was great, as was the production design, which brought the film's primary locale to life. Slightly less entertaining, but more developed, than what I expect from a Tarantino film, The Hateful Eight may not be exactly what I was expecting when I walked in, but I left the theatre having seen a visual experience, had a lot of fun, and having seen a great film.

Playtime is an intricately craft and incredibly directed comedy, with hundreds of moving parts in each scene resulting in an abundance of visual gags, often assisted by well timed sound effects. The camera keeps all the characters visible, and the deep focus ensures that we can see all of it at all times. The camera is expertly placed to frame the action in the exact way that is needed to produce the visual gags. Tati also manipulates the audio track, turning down the dialogue and turning up the effects. This guides the audience's attention to ensure that their focus is always where it needs to be in the very busy frame. However, though the film executes the gags perfectly (and should definitely be studied for how to fully utilize the medium for the sake of comedy), the gags are themselves not excessively funny. In some films this would not be the biggest issue, however, Playtime is a film built around these gags. Rarely presenting jokes in dialogue, and having the barest thread of a plot, Playtime has only its gags and its themes about modern life. The negative view of modern life and technology, arguing that they have taken the individuality out of the world, is one which has been presented in hundreds of other works, and is not enough to carry the film. Have nothing more than a banal theme and its plethora of flat (although admittedly well executed) gags, Playtime is an excellent film to study for its formal techniques, but nothing more.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a 1975 drama film by Milos Forman about the inmates in a mental institution and their struggles against the nurse in charge.

The film portrays the impact of the arrival of a new patient at the ward of a mental institution run with an iron fist by authoritarian Nurse Ratchet. Ratchet maintains control over all aspects of the patient's lives by whatever means necessary, intimidation, humiliation, and rigged competitions being common techniques. A rebel attempting to escape the labour of a short prison sentence, RP McMurphy finds the patients being oppressed by the authorities in the institution. Being an anti-establishment type, he continuously butts heads with Nurse Ratchet, and the struggle for the autonomy of the patients escalates.

The film is shot in a clear, straightforward, and compelling manner, eschewing complicated cinematography for clarity and simplicity. This manner of filming allows the characters to be the focus of the scenes, and the actors take full advantage of this. Nicholson and Fletcher are perfect in their roles, and their scenes together make for some of the best drama in film.

An excellent story whose style accentuates the strengths of the film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is not to be missed.

The Thin Red Line marked Terrence Mallick's return to filmmaking after an extended absence from cinema. A tale that is epic in scope and in its production, the film follows an ensemble of soldiers fighting in the pacific theatre of WWII. The cast is packed full of incredible actors, and the names below the line are impressive as well, however, despite the talent involved in the production, the potential of this film is not realized. The cinematography is incredible, the battle scenes are breathtaking, the score is moving and the actors all are impressive in the scenes they are given. The problem lies in the fact that the film spreads itself too thin. Many characters are given one or two scenes in the movie, and are completely absent from the rest of the film. Jared Leto, Woody Harrelson, John Cusack, Adrien Brody, John C Reilly, John Travolta, and George Clooney each portray roles in which they appear as barely more than a cameo, and as such it is very difficult to care for any of these characters. The primary characters are portrayed by Jim Cavaziel, Sean Penn, Ben Chaplin, Nick Nolte, and Elias Koteas, but problems aren't absent from these roles. Cavaziel's Pvt. Witt and Chaplin's Pvt. Bell have similar voices and, when in uniform and helmet, similar appearances as well, making their characters difficult to distinguish, a problem compounded by the multiple voice-over narrations. As well, the Pvt. Bell character is given a great deal of screen time without much in the way of a character. Sean Penn's Sgt. Welsh has some good interactions with Pvt. Witt, but these are too few and too far between to make up the core of the film. The characters played by Nolte and Koteas have several good scenes together, but these again are too few, and these characters do not factor in very much in the film's second half. There exists no character relationship strong enough for the film to really have any anchor, and though the language in the narration is pretty, it is too fleeting to give the film any central message. The saving grace of the film lies in its technical accomplishments, and for some this film will be worth watching for these alone. However, for one hoping to be drawn in to the film's characters or plot, I think this film will disappoint.

Roman Polanski's 1974 Neo-Noir Chinatown is a film that helped define both the genre and the era in which it was made.

Chinatown centers on a '30s Los Angeles private investigator, Jake Gittes (who turned to the profession after being unable to work as a police officer in the corrupt environment present in his assigned district of Chinatown), who is tricked into digging up dirt on the head of the department in charge of the city's water (a hot issue as Los Angeles was experiencing a drought). When the man soon turns up dead, Jake's investigation reveals a conspiracy much larger than he had imagined. Though the conspiracy itself is intricate and intriguing, and the characters are very compelling, the real draw of the plot is in its themes. Do not go into this film too focused on the minutiae of the plot, but rather look at what the picture as a whole, and particularly its ending, is trying to say about American greed.

The acting is terrific, with three great performances by Nicholson, Dunaway, and Huston. The direction is precise and tight yet patient, allowing scenes to develop naturally while always driving the plot along. The filming feels rather restrained and almost classical for the most part, and many shots feel like they could have easily have been from a film from several decades earlier. The music too feels this way, the Jerry Goldsmith composed score evokes instantly evokes the noir films which Chinatown takes most of its cues from.

A cynical look at the greed and corruption that shaped America, Chinatown is a classic of '70s American cinema, and a must watch for any fan of film.

This is an excellent film that requires some thought before passing judgement upon it. Heading into my viewing of the film, I was focused on the idea of the cult and its parallels to that of Scientology. I watched the film though this lens, and it was only upon finishing the film that I realized the mistake in doing so. The film is not about the cult so much as it is about a man who returns from the war broken and unable to exist. He drifts though life for a while without purpose, as his damages and drinking interfere with his ability to exist wherever he goes. In his drifting he chances upon a cult leader, whose magnetic personality draws him under the leader's wing. The relationship between the man and the cult leader is a greatly uneven relationship, one disturbed by the man's ambiguity about his belief in the cult, his unstable personality, and by the doubts of the cult leader's family. The cult itself is unimportant in the narrative, except in how the cult shapes the relationship the man has with the cult leader (the cult is important as an examination of American belief, but not very important to understanding the story being told). With this understanding in mind, one can begin to grasp what the narrative is about: one aimless man's troubled search for a way to exist in this world. Through this lens, one can truly see the incredible film that PTA has crafted. Definitely recommended for those who like intellectual cinema.

Stalker is a work of art, one of the supreme creations in the medium. This does not only refer to the visual mastery present in the film, but also to the profound ideas discussed in the narrative. Visually, the film flows beautifully, with long takes throughout, often portraying the faces of the three main characters, giving us a glimpse into their inner worlds, or of the zone itself, alive and lush in contrast to the drab sepia toned world portrayed at the beginning of the film. The sound design is spacious and echoing, giving the world an alien feel which perfectly fits with the stalker's reverence for the zone. Anatoliy Solonitsyn is perfect as the writer, and the performance of the professor is very good, but the stalker delivers a performance which feels sadly desperate. The narrative itself discusses topics such as the meaning of life, mankind's true desires, the goals of the artist and nature of belief. If you want to find a film to change your view on the potential of the medium to work as art and as profound commentary on philosophic ideas, look no further. Stalker is essential cinema.

Life of Pi is nice as a visual experience, but falls a little flat as a movie.

The main character Pi tells stories from the early parts of his life to build his character, but his character does not really make sense as a person. We are supposed to believe that most of the obvious unrealistic characteristics of his personality can be put down to Pi being incredibly quirky, but even still it is hard to consider him as being a believable character. His character exists purely to be the vehicle of amusing stories and situations, but when trying to consider what such a person would be like, it becomes clear that his existence is only there because it is necessary for the story. This problem might have been avoided, but I was once again underwhelmed by Ang Lee's directing. That this film won Ang Lee the Academy Award is a tragedy to me (in my opinion Spielberg, Affleck, Tarantino, and also Bigelow all deserved the award that year more than Lee did).

As well, though the visuals were nice, often they could clearly be seen to be fake. This was not as big a problem in Avatar (which also had more impressive visuals), where the situations are of a science- fiction variety and are not supposed to be real events, but Life of Pi presents these events as actually having occurred, and the flaws in the CGI break up any immersion in the story.

Finally, the ending fails in my mind in its purpose as a story that would make me believe in god. Unlike in the movie where it leaves things unclear as to which of the stories is better, in my view, while Pi's original account is nicer to believe, it is clear that his second account of the story is the one to be believed. I believe that man should live by the wise words of Henry David Thoreau "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth". Believing in something you know to be untrue because it is nicer is a crime against the intellectual gifts you have been given. Connecting belief in god to belief in Pi's story portrays religion as being an obstacle to the truth, an obstacle to man's progress into the world of the future.

Overall, the movie is nice to look at, but hollow and full of holes when examined beyond its pretty visuals. Briefly entertaining, but without any depth to keep it interesting. I recommend that you see it, but do not enter with any expectations of greatness or deeper meaning.

This movie was just bad to the point of being unwatchable.

From the very first lines of the movie, I had a feeling that the movie would be extremely unfunny. My suspicions were confirmed. Nothing in this movie works. Not a single thing. It was as unfunny a film as I've seen, melancholy in every aspect, boring as watching paint dry, the characters were bad, and the story was just simply dumb. The only things this movie might have going for it is its musical score (which is alright), and that it is relatively short (so the torture ends quickly). However, even with its relatively short length, I was unable to watch the movie in one sitting. I have seen other reviews bring comparisons to Waltz with Bashir and Persepolis, but those movies had cool animation, political commentary, and interesting characters and story. This movie has none of that. Save yourself, don't make the mistake of watching it that I made. My hope is that writing this review will save at least 1 person from watching the movie. If it does that, then maybe watching this movie might have been worth the suffering I endured.