#39-Martyrs (2008)

Martyrs

Recently within French cinema, there has been a new-wave of releses. These being incredibly violent, disgusting, and brutal, but also being loved by the public. This French new-wave horror cinema is trying to be remade in America, and appears to be having a similair effect to what happened with Asian horror films in 2002 when The Ring was realesed. Martyrs is one of the these films. It is sick, depraived, disgusting, brutal, violent, and unrelenting, but it is also when of the best horror films of the past decade.

Even before they begin production on a remake they must know that it is a terrible idea. The first and foremost is that the only reason for ever remaking things is to make more money on a new audience, but people who want to watch a film like Martyrs will seek it out and watch it, regardless of it being a foreign film. The second being the level of violence that is depicted in the film, which is incredible. It wouldn't appeal to a mainstream American audeince. Whereas films like Saw have violence shot in a stylized manner, Martyrs drops you in the middle of the violence and tells you to deal with it's brutality. Thirdly is the idea to cast Kristen Stewart. She's not a good actress! Who cares if she's popular and will draw people. No. Just no.

Martyrs tells the story of Anna and Lucie, two girls who have been friends since they met in an orphanage as young children. Lucie had escaped from an abusive group of scientists who ran violent experiments on many other small kids. Lucie is repeatedly attacked by a monster that has followed her since her escape. Flashforward fifteen years, and Lucie has broken into the house of a fancy family with a shotgun, and taken care of all four of them. She calls Anna for help removing the bodies. Turns one of them is still alive and is holding a secret in her basement. Lucie goes crazy and kills her, but not before discovering the family is running similair tests on a hostage in the basement to the ones Lucie went through as a child.

Writer/director Pascal Laugier has created something deeply effecting in this piece of cinema. Whether or not that is a positive or a negative I've yet to decide, as I hope to watch it again soon. In his recorded introduction to the film, he states that some days he thinks that this film is a true masterpiece, and others he wishes he had never made it in the first place. Both of these may be true. But, what cannot be denied is Laugier's excellent direction. The man can direct, and he can direct well. He has a keen ability to make his shots hyper-stylized, but not make them annoying. Similair to what I said about Peter Jackson in my Dead Alive review, he knows how to direct violence in a special way.

 Contrary to popular toture-porn horror films, which make you simply say "eww that's gross" Martyrs makes you feel it. Laugier's lens is unwavering. He knows what he is showing you, and he knows it is terrible and he just rests the camera on it until you just need to look away. When I was a bit younger (and still quite a bit today) I was an avid horror-film fan. I have seen some pretty messed-up things in my time, but rarely does violence in cinema make me uncomfortable. This proves to be an exception. There is one scene in particular -which I'll try my best not to completely ruin- that had me bringing my hands up over my eyes and peeking through the cracks of my fingers, only to see something even more vicious that I turned my head completely and just listened until the screaming stopped.  And while this may sound very dramatized it is what really happened, and when I think about the film I cannot get that sequence out of my head.


And whereas in my previous review of Deadgirl I complained about the senseless burtal violence as an ever imposing negative here it makes sense. There is a purpose to the violence that takes place within Marytrs. The payoff and explanation given for these brutal experiments that take place within the film created a conflict in me as a viewer. On one hand I  thought it was a kind of cool and interesting idea, something that had been done before, but was done different and in an interesting way to bring up so cool plot stings. However when the payoff finally did come and I realized what the movie was trying to say, I just kind of thought to myself "Oh, so that's where taking this". That was the only real flaw that I found with the movie, and it's only a sort of half-flaw. The only other one comes toward the end when they are showing the passing of time within the film. It's done in a series of really slow fade-in, fade-out shots. Normally I wouldn't mind this but the film had such a pace that when these really slow shots starting happening (and happening, and happening, and happening) it kind of drags the film down to this weird place of boredome where you just want something to happen.

The cast for he film is rather slim, only having about four or five main characters, and only having two of them on the screen for a good hour. Mylene Jampanoi who plays Lucie is incredible to watch onscreen.  She is this brutal and violent human being, but has this sort of sensitive outward appearance. You know that the reason she is crazy is because of the tests that were run on her as a child, but to sit and watch her commit acts of violence on others is something else. During the scene where she breaks into the house with a shotgun, as I described above, there is this really kind of soft and touching moment, where after killing the last person she just sits on the ground and rocks back and forth crying. It goes on for about twenty seconds, and the whole time there is just this aching within you that wants to reach out and give her a hug, even though she just massacred an entire family.

In the end, there is no denying that Martyrs is something powerful. Whether or not your morality will allow you to justify that is up to yourself. Sure it's shocking and violent and gruesome, but that isn't the films purpose. Unlike your Saws and Hostels where their violence becomes the main plot point, Martyrs doesn't. It has people that you care for, a story that you want to see through to the end and is just a well made movie. If you can stomach the brutality you will find that it is actually very poignant, sad and sweet. Lucie is one of my favorite troubled characters of recent memory. The movie in the middle is a character study, it is her story, about dealing with the trauma that she went through as a child, and about what she will have to deal with growing up. The violence is just layered around that as additions to the visceral experience. And when all is said and done it really drives you to connect with these people and watch them through to the end. So there. What is possibly one of the sickets films ever made and hype aside, I'd say it's amazing. I won't force you to see Martyrs. It's not a fun film to sit through, and it won't be to some people's taste. But for me and for what it is, Martyrs is near perfection.

I Give Martyrs A:

4/5

#37-Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father (2008)

Dear Zachary:
A Letter To A Son About His Father

Dear Zachary is an interesting and unsettling documentary that premiered at Sundance in 2007, and has been shown on MSNBC several times since then. Created and conceived by Kurt Kuenne, he takes a camera across the country to get interviews from people who’s lives were changed by his close friend Andrew Bagby, who had been murdered by an ex-girlfriend. After many trials, re-trials, and sentences, the woman accused of murdering Bagby, Shirley Jane Turner, announces that she is pregnant with Bagby’s son. Kuenne set out to make a collective effort of love for the young boy about his father, whom he will never know, and who was killed by the woman he will be forced to live with.

This is an incredible film to watch. Defiantly not for those who are weak of heart. It is sad, heartbreaking, and very unnerving. Now, documentaries (the good ones) often prove their point enough to make you think about what the filmmakers are saying. However because there are not always main characters in documentaries, nor is there ever much narrative, it is very rare that we actually feel emotionally connected to what is going on on-screen (for me anyway). Dear Zachary is the rule-breaker. It had me in tears, it had me screaming in anger, and most importantly, it had my heartstrings, that it was able to pull and manipulate anyway that it wanted, which is exactly what it should do.

With that being said, the film is emotionally rich, but isn’t particularly well made. It feels awkwardly paced and a little choppy at times, and so many names are thrown around in such a quick amount of time, I often couldn’t remember who was who. This film was made nearly entirely on Kuenne’s own back. He did nearly everything. He is listed in the credits for: Writing, Directing, Starring, Editing, Cinematography, Producing, and doing the music for the picture. It is obvious that he had a clear vision, and made the film he wanted to make, but so many jobs for one man begins to wear down on a person, and it shows in an almost amateurish way throughout the film.

This isn’t to belittle the fact that what happened was a tragedy, and my thoughts go out to all people and parties effected, but being fair, there are better made documentaries out there. But there are few that can control its viewer as emotionally well as Dear Zachary. It’s a matter of opinion what makes a better film, feeling, our artistry, and for me it is both. But the sheer power of the story in itself, created by some well placed moments and montages, make Dear Zachary a powerhouse.
 
I Give Dear Zachary A:

4/5

#32-District 9 (2009)

District 9

The surprise hit movie that attacked theatres in the summer of 2009 is coming this way. District 9 was a surprise hit comercially when it was one of the few action films realesed that year, that wasn't already part of an established franchise. The film was also a critcal darling, using its third world message to win over even the toughest of critics. Originally a short film from director Neill Blomkamp, District 9 was action on a budget, being given only $30 Million for production, take that in comparison to Transformers 2 given $200 Million that same year.

District 9 did have some force behind it when it was realesed. It was produced, and greatly enthused by famed Lord Of The Rings director Peter Jackson. The film was also in the shaky-cam style that has grown to be quite popular and finacially success these days. Not to mention the film had great marketing tools, with 'Alien Free Zone' and 'MNU Only' signs nearly everywhere. The film may have been small but it definatly knew what it was doing, and even earned itself a Best Picture nomination at last years Academy Awards.

The story takes place on an alternate version of planet earth, where in 1982, a large alien space craft landed and floated of Johannesburg, South Africa. The aliens are kept in camps in Johannesburg, and are not allowed to speak with humans. In preperation to move the aliens or 'Prawns' as their called, a man by the name of Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is assigned to the job of removing, and relocating them. In a raid of one of the alien houses, he comes across a strange vile of liquid, which he accidently breaks upon and gets covered in it. What happens to him I won't say, as it is very fun to see, but as you can probably guess, it isn't something good. There in lies the story of District 9, a sci-fi action movie that is guranteed to please audiences, all the while throwing political overtones, for those willing to catch them.

"Is that cat food?"

While I did enjoy the film quite a bit, I am one to say that I don't think District 9 is that great of a film. My main problem with it was the style. I can enjoy shaky-cam mockumentary films, I think that they are fun, and if done right very enjoyable. In that sense, I think District 9 is a success. I can enjoy regular film styling, where you have multiple cameras set up to capture the action, rather than one trying to make it feel real. In that sense, I think District 9 is a success. When combining the two however, and talking about the finish product in lies the problem. The two styles have nearly become genres. I am willing to go out on a limb and call Shaky-Cam a genre over a style. And when combining these genres I don't think the finished products feels right. The film moves at the right pace, and his good camera work, but when jumping between footage of interviews telling the story of this man, and watching the story of this man actually unfold take place one right next to the other, we get a very weird clash of camera work, and therefore emotion within us that just can't seem to mesh with one another, and therefore fails.

As far as the politcal message goes, I can see what they are trying to get across. However, I also felt like this may have been an afterthought. You can see overtones of almost anything in any movie if you look hard enough for them (see my review of Avatar) and while it may have been planned, it may also not have been planned, but an accident completly. Whether or not it was there on purpose or not, I'm glad to see the message getting some attention. It could bring some very nice bright young directors to the action genre, trying to tell their story and share with us the problems our world still faces on an everyday basis. And judging on other recent action films, they definatly need a face-lift.

Sharlto Copley gives a very strong performance as Wickus. One of my favorite characters of action movies to come out recently. He is funny, intense, dramatic, and smart. He creates a character that we want to see through to the end, that we root for, and connect with. Another amazing bit that comes with District 9 is when we care for the aliens. The aliens aren't real people, the main one potrayed through technology by Jason Cope, but they are given emotion and characterists through a very strong sceenplay that also make us fall in love with them.

Based on what I've written above, it may sound like I hate the film more than I do. I actually found the film better on an entertainment level than on a critcal level, by which it is also very nice. It had great action moments, a good hero, a devilishly evil villian, a cool plot and a lot of other things going for it. Neill Blomkamp should be very proud of his work, and I see him having a very nice career in the future. Sharlto Copley and Jason Cope perform very well, the film has a great screenplay and is fun to watch. The films styling choices do hurt it, even if every so slightly.

I Give District 9 A:

4/5

#24-The Descent (2006)

The Descent

Coming in straight from 2006 is director Neil Marshall's horrific tale of The Descent. Neil Marshall, the previous writer and director of Dog Soldiers, made his return to film in a cave. Being one of the most positivly reviewed horror films of the past decade, by both fans and critcs alike, the real question was, does The Descent live up to the hype. While the film is now known all around the world, everyone should know that it is a majorly British film. With a mostly British cast, a British script, and was filmed in England and Scotland. All that for a movie set in America.

Now, before I officially begin this review you need to know a few things about this movie. Firstly it has two shockingly different endings. The European ending, and the American ending. The film was realesed nearly a year later in America than it was in European countrys. And upon test audience results, filmakers learned that most audiences on the western hemisphere found the original ending to dark. A small bit of editing fixed all that. I am here to tell you that I know both versions of the film, like the original ending more, and will be reviewing THAT film here today.

The story of The Descent is actually quite simple. It's about six women who go on an annual vaction in which they perform some sort of extreme sport, whether it be white water rafting, rock climbing, sky diving, it is always sure to be dangerously fun. So when the new year comes into effect they begin to plan their latest trip. They decide to hike up the Appalachin Mountains to go cave spelunking. Now for those of you who don't know, cave spelunking is when you repel down into the open mouth of an underground cave, and explore its trenches. So, once these women descend into the cave, they get trapped. And upon futher inspection, they realize that they are not alone in the frigid caverns.

I feel that the story for the film is great. I mean, though old, and pretty predictable, the setting of a cave is one that you hardly see anymore. Other than this film, it's hard for me to think of really other big ones that have come out in the past ten years. Anywho, a cave is the perfect place for a film to be set, it is a naturally creepy place because of all the cartoons we see as a kid, its cold, dark, wet, and the cave that was in this film (even though it was a set) was really good, because it had tight corners, and barely breathable air. And no matter how old you are, you're biggest fear, your worst nightmare, virtually everyone has some kind of fear of being stuck, not being able to move. The Descent takes your natural claustrophobia and exploits it, which is acutally more frightening than the beasts.

The acting in this film was decent. It wasn't spectacular, but I don't think that it really needed to be. Most scenes deal with six women in a cave. But, this is also where the acting hits its fault. Neil Marshall wanted to make the film with an only female cast because women talk about their feelings more than men do. So when it comes time to make these scenes become a reality, I lose faith in the film because I don't believe these women are fearing for their life. They are simply speaking lines, that you could tell someone had already written for them.

As for effects, the sets that were used for the caves were spectacular. I thought that they were real until I read that they were in fact sets on a studio. The blood in this film was extreme. I thank God, for, once again, for NEIL MARSHALL! He only used practical effects for the blood and gore in this film. Which is amazing because there is so much of it. And with the way most horror films are using are using blood and gore withe CGI, I just loved watching it. The only thing that I didn't like about the practical production was the actual monsters themselves. I wish that they would've stuck with darkness and claustrophobia for natural scares and tension, and left the monster to be implied. Since everyone has a natural fear of being stuck, the monsters kind of took away from natural scares, and a fear that the audience could relate to.

I appreciated the ending of this film and felt that it was an amazing addition to the film itself. It also, almost, made up for the lack of emotionality the charecters had. The ending was deep, heartfelt, and utterly disturbing. And I felt that it was the true ending, over the American version.

Overall, The Descent is one of the most intense, crazy, scary, frightening, well done, excellent, horror films of the last decade. The sequel is set to come out soon, and I am only somewhat excited to see, but I am for sure going to see whatever Neil Marshall does next.

I Give The Descent A:

4/5

#19-Moon (2009)

Moon

Okay, by this point, you've either heard of Moon, or you haven't. The film was near completely devoid of any major critical attention outside the blog-o-sphere, and where it was given the spotlight it didn't have much time. Bloggers and online filmcritics across the globe came together to celebrate this little sci-fi gem, and gave it a unanimous 'thumbs up' after it premiered at the Tribeca film festival last year. This film has a ton of support around it, and if you pay attention to the online community, you may even see a little hype being created about it. But the question is the same, indie film or not. Does it live up to standards?

Before we get into the real review process of this film, lets just take a look at some of the raw talent behind it, because it is backed very strongly by a few people. First up is Duncan Jones, the director and co-writier. While his name my not seem like much at first, just wait until you hear that this is the son of David Bowie. Yes it true. This is Jones' first job at directing outside a few commercials, and surely did his dad proud. A darling of the indie scene, Sam Rockwell is virtually the only actor on the screen. It is a unique role written specifically for him, and for a good 80 minutes, you'll be seeing no one else. Finally Kevin Spacey does have a genuine role to play here, believe it or not. He is in fact the voice of the robot GERTY, and to get Kevin Spacey in your movie, even as a voice, is something to praise.

While Moon is a very small film, in every sense of the word, one place it breaks out of those standards is the story. Had it been given a bigger budget, this plot could have been intensified a lot, but as it remains it is still excellent. Astrounaut Sam Bell is on base at the Sarang Moon Mining Fecility for three years, or so his contract says. He is the only crew on board, aside for a small companion robot named GERTY. Being alone is such a deserted place does crazy things on the brain, and Sam knows this, even as he begins to experience some himself. But what if, he isn't the one going crazy?

"Okay Sam"

The two words uttered above are virtually the only thing that GERTY ever really says, and outside a few messages sent to the base by various people, Sam Rockwell is really the only person on the screen for most of the movie. His job of playing a man who is trying to save himself from insanity, with the idea of freedom just a few weeks away was done spectacularly. He had a lot of Oscar buzz online about this, and personally, I thought it was all going to be hype, but he sincerly does a great job. I can understand his not being recognized, but I do hope that some day, someone congradulates him on an excellent performance.

For a first time director, Duncan Jones does amazing as well. He had the ability to make his low budget sci-fi movie stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the best of the bunch. And for being a low budget sci-fi movie, it has a pretty good plot to boot, and even has some nice special effects, and great make-up. Whether or not he is as talented as his dad is unclear, but I definatly will see what he does in the future.

I only had one key flaw with the film, being such a great film, I'm kind of sorry that I noticed it, but after a few weeks of seeing it, it did come about. The film succeeds amazing on three key levels. Acting. Directing. And writing. But unfourtanetly for Moon, it does little for anything outside of those three categories. It is a low-budget sci-fi movie, and there is little about that we can help, but in the end, it is still just a really well made sci-fi movie. Similair to my probelms with last years The Host, which I thought was just a great monster movie, Moon is just a great sci-fi movie. So overall, I highly reccomend Moon, even despite this complaint. The general audience, as well as the art-house audience will enjoy it greatly, and that is because it is a great movie.

I Give Moon A:
4/5

#18-Blood Simple (1984)

Blood Simple

Similarly to Ellen Page starring in Hardy Candy before being famous, the Coen brothers wrote and directed this film before they were famous. Infact, Blood Simple is what launched them into superstardom. Maybe not with audiences, but after their first film, they had already caught the attention of professional critics across the board. And now, nearly 26 years later, the brothers have yet to make a bad film.

Now, the Coen brothers have three basic genres that they seem to work in. It is strange because the genres are so different, yet they can do good as easily as one as in the other. The first genre that they can work in, is what they work in with Blood Simple, the straight thriller. Next up is what they followed Blood Simple with, the straight comedy, much like Raising Arizona. Their third and final genre is my personal favorite to see them work in. The Comedy-Thriller, such as Fargo. Part of what they do so well is writing. They continue to produce highly original screenplays for their films, and then pull them off in a simply awe inspiring tone.

Abby is cheating on her saloonkeeper husband, Marty. The object of her affections is Ray, one of Marty's bartenders. Marty hires Visser, an unscrupulous detective, to kill them. But Visser has other, more lucrative plans of his own. So begins a calculating round of double and triple crosses, that will have you not only questioning the characters sanity, but your own, as you try and figure out who is really after who.

"You're the idgit!"

Firstly, the writing (again) is terrific. And through a number of differnt circumstances, the Coen's have begun to have to split up duties on the credits. Joel typically gets directing credits, and Ethan usually gets productin credits, and they share the writing, though they both help in each category. I feel that the writing for the film is very strong, but the direction needs some help. I think compared to some other Coen films, Blood Simple is one of the weaker, simply because they haven't quite worked out their game plan at this point. Other technical aspects of the film are wonderous however, with great cinematography, and an excellent score from Carter Burwell.

The acting here is something to behold as well. It is one of the first prominent roles for Frances McDormand. She is excellent here, as she always seems to be, and is even better in one of the best Coen films Fargo. We also get very nice performances from John Getz and Dan Hedaya. But, you cannot talk about this film, without talking about the amazing performance from M. Emmet Walsh. Walsh then, is the equivalent to Javier Bardem now. He's a great actor, but here he especially shines, just because he is so creepy.

Simply put (hah, simply Blood Simple, hah) Blood Simple is a film to see. The Coen Brothers are amazing in writing, as they always are, but do suffer quite a bit in the direction department. Technical nuances, such as the score and cinematography stand out noticably, and for exactly the right reasons. Not to mention good performances from John Getz, and Dan Hedaya. A great one from Fraces McDormand. And one of the best in screen history from M. Emmet Walsh. Plus, what could be the most intense final climax I've seen in film, in a very, very long time.

I Give Blood Simple A:
4/5

#17-Hard Candy (2005)

Hard Candy

Yes, before Juno, before Whip It, before she was really popular, Ellen Page starred in this little indie gem from 2005. It is directed by David Slade, who may not have made a very big paycheck off this film, but is sure to in the soon future. He also directed the hit vampire film 30 Days of Night, and is currently set to direct the 3rd Twilight film. It's so sad when an excellent director switches to the dark side. However, this is a very different Ellen Page then the one you have come to know and love. She is not your smart, sassy teen, but rather strong a brutal. And has a very short hair-cut.

While many have called for the reform of the MPAA's rating system for film, many say that Hard Candy is a perfect example why. While the MPAA currently rates film based on their content, such as language and violence, people question about film that have little bad content, but mature subject matter. Enter Hard Candy, a film that does have some strong language, and a little gore, but is much heavier-handed in political tones involving criminal penalty and molestation. Should films be rated based on context, or convention, or a combanation of both? Or should film go without rating, as to not ruin their artistic creativity, as some have also suggested.

Hard Candy is a very difficult film to process. And not an easy one to watch. Not because of graphic violence or anything of that sort, but because of it's story. It involves a young girl named Haley, who meets a man named Jeff over an internet chatroom. The two of them decide to meet, and as it turns out, Haley is 14, and Jeff is 32. They go back to his place, where we find out that he is a photographer, his home doubles as his studio, and he his brought back, and photographed many girls the same age as Haley. I think you get where the story goes from there. But, Haley is a lot more resiliant than she looks, and may even be more deviant and evil than Jeff.

"They teach us to never let a stranger mix your drink."

While much controversy will be stirred in the audience over to subject matter, this is where Hard Candy really sticks out. It creates such a dynamic conflict in the viewer. Do we root for the young girl, to hold her own, or do we root for the pedophile, who is being very physically mutilated by his would-be victim. I think this is one of Ellen Page's strongerst performances. Much stronger than her showing in Whip It, and about on par with Juno. Also here we have Patrick Wilson, who plays Jeff. He does a fairly decent job, and has to go through a very wide range of emotions very quickly, often switching over and over again per scene. Also, Sandra Oh shows up very, very briefly, but does play a very nice supporting role, in an otherwise small cast, consisting of a total five characters in the credits.

Another place that the film works very well in is the direction. David Slade does a very good job with pacing and style, creating a subperb tension, and unease between this two characters. You never really know which way it is going to go, and it works very well. The film also has a great visiual style and flow that it uses. The red walls that you see in the picture above, are sometimes the only major color on the screen, while everything else has been bleached out. Credit is also due to Brian Nelson, who wrote such an awesome screenplay, and kept things very equal between the characters, and dared to do something not many other people would have. Not to mention the amazing ending.

One of the few major flaws that comes with Hard Candy is the fact, that at it's core, it is basically a torture film. Granted less so than most others, this young girl does capture, taunt, tease, violate, and mutilate this man, much to her sick amusement. It doesn't help that the film also has a scene, that will have men crossing their legs, in fear for their family jewels. Hard Candy acts like it is a step above the other torture films, which it is, but that does not completely clear it of it's true face.

As a whole, Hard Candy is a very solid picture. It has a very interesting story, and payoff that will split the audience members in a half, and definatly create a stir with the group you are seeing it with. The actors all perform rather well, especially Ellen Page, who gave a solid performance for an incredibly hard role, at a relativly young age. David Slade directs well, keep the tension between these two evils at an equal, and also has a nice visual flair. It is however a torture movie, granted a very smart, and good torture movie, but still a torture movie nontheless.

I Give Hard Candy A:
4/5

#12-Adaptation (2002)

Adaptation

This shouldn't happen often, but it very well may, it seems, that I have reviewed two films, by the same film maker directly in a row. I got Charlie Kaufman fever, and I apologize. Charlie Kaufman, once again, the most original mind in Hollywood today, brings us his third motion picture to be reviewed on my site, that film being Adaptation. This film, is also very original, even though it is based on a novel, not really. The film is about Charlie Kaufman (no that's not a typo), who in reality was hired to write an adaptation for a book called The Orchid Theif, Kaufman was having trouble for the script, so instead wrote a fictionalized screenplay about him trying to write the screenplay. It was an interesting idea, and the studio liked, so though the film bares very little resemblence to the original, it still counted as an adapted screenplay.

The film follows a few main characters. Firstly, there is Charlie and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers both played by Nicolas Cage, Charlie is hired to write a script for a novel by Susan Orlean, played here by Meryl Streep. The Orchid Theif is about a nursery owner, who goes out and steals endagered species, and tries to cultivate them, or so he claims, this man is John Laroche, and is played by Chris Cooper, who won an Academy Award for his performance. The film flashes between three different time periods, of Laroche committing these acts, Orlean writing her novel and getting information, and Kaufman trying to write the screenplay. It was a very interesting way to go about things, and I enjoyed it greatly.

The film has a very large, and a very impressive cast. Nicolas Cage is always hit-or-miss for me. He definatly is a hit here. Though he looks little like real-life Kaufman, I can safely assume that he portrays him well, considering it is Kaufman writing himself. Whether or not the character is 100% true to form, I still thoroughly enjoyed his performance. Meryl Streep also gives a winning performance as Orlean, whose film version, is nothing like the real-life verison, real Susan Orlean made that very clear (you'll know why after the film). But I think that the real winner here was Chris Cooper. He got his first Academy Award nomination and win for this film, and he certainly deserves it. He is always convincing as the somewhat illiterate, yet startlingly insightful Laroche, who is an amazing character on his own.

"Damn, that's a voice-over again."

As much as a praise the film, that does not mean that it is without faults. The film is very quirky, and very funny, filled with in refrences for film-fans and movie-buffs, but unless you know the background knowledge for the film, you won't get all of the jokes, which are all very funny. Also, the film seemed very choppy at times, it's never really a fast-paced movie, but it is never really slow-paced either. I don't know if that is really a bad thing or not, but it was certainly noticed. This is also one of the most serious of Kaufman films, not serious as in dark and depressing (that would have to go to Synechdoche), but serious as in it is his least fantasitcal, especially if you don't know the background information.

The film is also very nice everywhere else. You've already heard my love of Kaufman from two other reviews, so I won't waste anymore space here. I feel that Spike Jonze really stepped up his game here from Being John Malkovich. While he was very good there as well, I felt that he was even better with Adaptation, getting to mess around with some cool lighting, and daydream techniques. From a technical standpoint the film is very nice too, with a good score, and some nice camera work and cinematography.

Overall, I felt that the film was very nice. It was fun, entertaining and original, of which are things film should be. Plus, we have the always clever writing and dialouge of Kaufman, some excellent direction by Spike Jonze, and great perfromances from the entire cast. However the film won't be for everyone, I can tell you that right now, with its quick ending, strange pace, and weird story, some people will definatly dislike the film. The cast did an excellent job, but so did the crew, with some great camera tricks, and some fun music.


I Give Adaptation A:

4/5

#11-Being John Malkovich (1999)

Being John Malkovich

Remember awhile back when I was reviewing the film Synechdoche, New York? I absouloutly loved that movie, and I gave most of the credit to writer/director Charlie Kaufman. Remember how I said that I hope to be reviewing more of his films as the time goes on? Well here is another! His first big picture was Being John Malkovich. It was originally quite a small film, with a very impressive cast, which includes: John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Cathrine Keener, and of course, John Malkovich. The film is very fun, very quick, and sure to make you question your own sanity. Unlike Synechdoche, this film is not also directed by Kaufman, this one is directed by Spike Jonze, who would go on to direct another Kaufman film, and Where The Wild Things Are.

What did I tell you? Charlie Kaufman is one of the most original minds in Hollywood today. Being John Malkovich is about a struggling puppeteer, who, in lack of a demand for pupetts, gets a job on the 7th and a half floor of a large office building. While here, he finds a small door in his office, which, once crawled through, leads you inside John Malkovich. Seeing in great detail what this could mean for him, and his stuggling family, him and a co-worker hatch an plan to sell trips into John Malkovich for $200 a pop.

First off, let me tell you that this film is led by an allstar cast. All of whom perform marvelously here. I am usually not a very big John Cusack fan, or haven't been lately, but he does excellenty here. He pulls off his role quite well, and even does an interesting job with some wacky hair, and outfits. Neither am I a fan of Cameron Diaz, (with some exceptions), but she does excellently here as well, as a pet obsessed young woman. Cathrine Keener was even nominated for an Oscar for her performance here, and it is certainly deserved. And then of course there is John Malkovich, who I always love, and her sure does an excellent job playing himself, granted a very fictionalized version, but himself nonetheless.

"What happens when a man goes into his own head?"

Though Spike Jonze also got nominated for an Academy Award for his directing on the film, I still feel that at this point, he hadn't fully developed his craft quite yet, which he is now, nearly flawless at. The film seemed very strange in length. I still cannot tell whether this film was too long, or too short, because it has very odd pacing. It just seemed to end rather ubruptly. Granted, I still think this is one of the few films that ends nearly perfectly, it just wraps up, too quickly, I suppose it is.

Charlie Kaufman is always excellent at what he does, as I have praised before. And this is no different. Though Being John Malkovich is not my favorite film he has done, it is still an amazing piece of cinema. While most of Kaufman's works are fantasy grounded in reality, this one seems mostly fantasy. Don't get me wrong the film is still deeply rooted in human nature and existence, but you won't realize that until after the fact. As Synechdoche, was one of his darker films, Malkovich, is one of his lighter.

As you can tell, I really like this movie, Being John Malkovich is a great whimsical adventure to be enjoyed by all who care to enjoy it. Watch it as a fantasy, watch it as a drama, however you watch it, just be sure to watch it. Let the message, the acting, the story, the lighting, the editing (which is excellent), the music, the direction, and all the other factors seep into you, so you can truly enjoy this amazing piece in movie history. It breaks the fourth wall, it acts as if there are multiple dimensions to a single one, it is just a lot of fun.


I Give Being John Malkovich A:
4/5

#4-Ils (Them) (2006)

Ils
(Them)

Them, known in it's native France as Ils, is a horror film that was made in 2006, circled the festival circuit, made a killing in France, and was prominently reviewed, but never got a state-side realese. Now, its three years later in 2009, and the film is finally getting the attention it deserves. Them shys away from the torture-porn type horror we have come to know, and instead goes back to a Hitchcockian type of horror, blending suspense and slashing. Them is also based on a true story, and this isn't one of those movies that claims to be based on a true story and isn't, and it isn't a shakey-cam film either, it is simply true, which makes the final product that much more disturbing.

The plot of Them, or Ils, is quite simple really. It is about a young couple named Clementine, who is a school teacher, and Jared, a struggling writer. They live in a large farm-house on the country side of Bucharest, Romania. The day is coming to an end, and they start hearing strange noises outside. They think nothing of it. The noises the turn into flashing lights, and even louder sounds. The sounds are then inside the house. Like I said, simple. It's also been done before, a lot before, but this one is definatly better than most of them.

Part of what makes this such a great film is the chemistry between the two lead actors, Olivia Bonamy and Michael Cohen do a great job playing husband and wife. In fact, the acting here is solid by nearly everyone involved, even the characters during the open sequences were very strong, and they were only onscreen for about 5 minutes. That being said, there isn't that many characters here, just the couple, the two in the opening sequence, and three other side characters, but, they all performed marvelously.

Another part that I really liked about the film is that it was great from a techinal standpoint as well. The lighting, pacing, camera-work, and direction by David Moreau, and Xavier Palud, were all done magnificintly. Also, the sets that were used are very nice as well. The mansion has a proper gothic atmosphere and adds a very creepy element to the film. And like I said, the camera-work was very good, and some aerial viewpoints had this movie crawling with tension.

"They won't play with us."

Speaking of tension, this film has a lot of it. Each scene is filled to the brim with it in fact, it will make you sit back a little bit and think, "Wow, look at what scary movies used to be like." However, even though each scene is filled to the brim, there are not that many scenes in this movie. It's only about an hour and fifteen minutes long. But that isn't bad, because this movie doesn't need to be, and I feel the movie had a great ending, and made things very, very chilling, and maybe even...eye-opening, for lack of a better term, to those who don't really know about some certain aspects of Europe.


As much as I praise the film (which it deserves) I did have a few promblems with it. First of all, bits of the dialouge between the two couples seemed a little cheesy, because it is French, I watched with English subtitles, maybe there was a bad dub, but things like "Leave me. Go! You are our 0nly hope." were kind of strange for a movie that was pretty realistic. Also, some moments seemed implausible, or even some near impossible, but this is something that occurs with all horror movies. These, however, were my only complaints with the film, and they are pretty mimimal.


Overall, Ils, Them, whatever you want to call it, is an excellent horror film, hell, it's an excellent film all together. Great acting, story, and direction make it a winner already. But add in great thrills, suspense, genuine chill, and just a good old time make it even better. But, with some cheesy lines, and some strange decisions on some characters parts, drop this film from perfection.

I Give Them A:
4/5

#1-Zombieland (2009)

Zombieland

It's been about two months now since Pantient Zero took a bite out of an infectious hamburger from his local gas-and-gulp. Symtoms include:
Swelling Of The Brain
Sweltering Fever
And an Undying Desire for Human Flesh.
Imagine Mad Cow, transformed to Mad Human, Transformed to Mad Zombie. Welcome to Zombieland.

Now lets be honest, anybody who walked into a movie called "Zombieland" hoping for a tour de force on modern culture, in a two-and-a-half-hour masterpiece driven by charater development, was probably an idiot. The plot is mostly as described above. We get one little sentence of narration descibing how the zombies came to be, and then we are thrown into a world of massacisstic cannibals hoping for their next fix. Other than that, our main plot follows four main characters. Columbus, Witchita, Tallahassee, and Little Rock, all named after their home towns. (Never use real names, it gets things too personal), and with Columbus' book of rules, they head off to make their way to Pacific Playland, hearing that is the only place left un-touched by zombies. But they are going to have to go through a hell've lot of them to make that far.

The acting in this movie is good. And yes, there are some moments that acutally require acting, and some touching, (if not sometimes depressing moments) of life at home before the apocalypse. Woody Harrelson does an amazing job, as he always seems to do. And that is really good for him, beause before Zombieland he hadn't had a box-office hit since the mid 90's. Speaking of box-office failure, this movie also stars Jesse Eisenberg, whose last big project was adventure land, which failed to make a connection, again good thing Zombieland came around to help this little Indie gem. Emma Stone is a relative new-comer to film, and does a decent job with a fairly large supporting role. Abigail Breslin appears to be taking a fouree into more adult films, which it really where she started. Little Miss Sunshine anyone? And yes, she is from Signs. All the acting here is well done and had some very good improv by some pretty much unknown comedians.

"It had to be a clown. No, no, you don't understand. It HAD to be a clown."

While it's name might seem daunting, this film is definatly a success at being a comedy. All the lines hit perfectly, there is some in-your-face moments, and other more subtle humor displayed here. But, do not fret horror fans, Zombieland features plentys of scary, and tension filled moments in between spouts of laughter. It didn't cut out on the violence either, its body count is high, and lots of blood fuel this movie with adrenilne. However, despite how many positives I have with the film, there are a few negatives.

The first opening sequences of this movie are hilarious. The first, maybe fifteen minutes are the absoloute best. If the entire movie was like the first minutes, it would be one of my favorites definatly. Though the film continues to be funny in its entirety, the rest of the movie is a little bit slower, and the humor is more evenly spaced, when originally it was just being thrown at you over and over. And me saying that it has slow moments isn't good, considering the movie isn't even an hour-and-a-half, that includes credits.

And lastly, also in the beggining, the film had a very cool, hip, kinda slow-mo-y visiual style that it had going on. I really enjoyed it, the music was perfectly tuned to each of the scenes, and the action was well oriented. But again, for some reason the action seems to get pushed to the wayside during the middle, and then the style and action comes back for the final act. I just thought that it was strange for it to come and go like that.

Well, Zombieland has officially become the highest grossing zombie movie of all time, beating out the Dawn Of The Dead remake, and it was the first zombie spoof to make a large profit in the U.S.. I have to say, it definatly deserves it, and the minor gripes that I had with it, are just that, minor. The acting was great, the humor was spot on, and when it was there, the action was fun. Overall Zombieland was a great experience.

I Give Zombieland A:
4/5