Somewhere [2010]

A world famous actor stumbles through the course of a few days looking for meaning – when his daughter is dropped off.

The acting was solid – the tired and lonely quality of the performance was not lost on me. Stephen Dorff was great – that was fairly surprising to me – not that I can recall something that he was in. The directing was a lot of just let the camera sit and let’s watch – so it felt very lazy – because not much happens – Sofia Coppola was smart to use that technique but considering not much happens – I wish one style would have changed – but that’s not what the movie was. The two scenes with the twin pole dancers were shot in an uncomfortable way. It felt like a letter from Sofia to her father or something along those lines about how she felt isolated as he was famous. Ultimately, I felt like this movie fell short of its potential and abandoned any narrative structure for a considerable more style over substance - and it was a frustrating film.

If you want to watch this movie and you are sensitive to SPOILERS – please look away.

By the end of the film – I was frustrated with it. They portray the main character as needing a direction – and when he gets his daughter for an extended period you start to think “this is that missing direction he needs” – but it’s not. He drops her off for camp – apologizes – and you expect that he’s going to correct his direction and make his life about his daughter. Yet, at the end of the movie he checks out of the hotel – abandons his car in the middle of the road out in the middle of nowhere and walks away – and gives a smirk to the camera. Thusly, abandoning his daughter at camp – and honestly – I don’t get it. The smirk is what gets me – I get the “fuck the world” kind of rebel attitude – but it just felt like it was misdirected and made an odd twist to what was expected.

The Ides of March [2011]

In a tight race for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States – a young political consultant learns what politics are all about.

This is an actor’s piece – filled with lots of talking and facial expressions for all the wonderful actors to display how well they can flex. Ryan Gosling, Marisa Tomei, Paul Giamatti, Phillip Seymor Hoffman all jump in with George Clooney (who acts & directs) and make faces at each other and say stuff that makes you think they are saying important stuff – so you better pay attention.

Sorry.

I liked the movie – but you know when you want to see a movie – and you go to the theater and your phone told you the wrong time? So, you pick something else that you kind of want to see – when you have yourself hyped up for something else? Well, I went to see Moneyball and get lunch at the local brew & view – my phone said it started at 1PM – but it really started at 2PM – and I had already killed time waiting until 1PM – and I was really hungry for a burger and some waffle fries. So, I watched The Ides of March – and I could tell you everything you want to know about it – but I just can’t review it.

It’s about loyalty – and dirty politics – and how shitty life is. It’s good – really good – compelling – it felt like a 2 hour movie but it wasn’t – usually a mark that lots is happening and you are engrossed – and I was certainly grossed in. Great pacing. Good directing. Great performances. You should watch it if you like political thrillers and/or the actors involved.

It made me feel icky. It made me feel like I needed a shower. It did its job. Really good – seriously I’m not making fun of it – I’m just having a rough go of it lately – so let me have this one.

Thanks, I'll try better tomorrow - I promise... But since it's the weekend - I might not try at all... I am sorry to all you readers...

50/50 [2011]

A young man is diagnosed with a rare type of cancer that the internet says he’s got a 50/50 shot at survival – this is the story of how he copes.

Honestly, this was a great movie. Much better than I had hoped - but my presumption disparity was geared toward expecting a lower brow stoner comedy – with “heart”. Mainly due to the fact that Seth Rogen was involved – I find him amusing at times – and much (much) less than amusing at other times.

Happily, the film remained in the correct tone throughout – it had its ups – it had its downs – and the performances remained strong. Not once did I feel like it betrayed the topic and tried to make it all a big laugh. The film generated laughs organically – from the story and from the characters – not from gags. The only thing crude and/or low-brow was some of the language – but who the fuck cares anymore?

The film kept up a good pace – allowing us to dwell in some of the down times for just long enough as to not be depressing – but to get a solid feelings across. I’ve seen a lot of great performances on the big screen this summer as I’ve been picky with what I’m paying to see these days – and Joseph Gordon-Levitt gave a powerhouse performance. That scene of sudden intense fear before surgery was subtle and beautiful – that scene will stick with me. I expect Levitt and Angelica Houston to both get a lot of much deserved Oscar buzz.

The film was written by Will Reiser based on his experience with having cancer – so the truths explored in the film were rooted in reality – and all that makes it all the more hopeful of a film. It’s a great screenplay – something I would like to read – time to do some research.

I don’t know if it’s too early for me to say this – as it’s still all too fresh – but it’s certainly the frontrunner for my movie of the year.

Win Win [2011]

I love how Thomas McCarthy captures what on the surface seems to be a bleak experience and makes it into heartwarming hopeful film. A down on his luck lawyer decides to take advantage (ever so gently) of one of his elderly clients in order to make ends meet – and when his client’s teenage grandson comes into the picture – he brings him under his wing. Just like with THE STATION AGENT and THE VISITOR he takes his lead character’s want for one thing and flips it on its ear in order to show that they actually need something completely different. I really love how the high school wrestling element of the story is just a glue for binding the characters together stronger – much like trains in THE STATION AGENT and music in THE VISITOR. Great performances by the entire cast and great story – make WIN WIN a wonderful movie.

Quick Picks - Sept 3, 2011 Edition

Love and Other Drugs [2010]

A shallow guy meets a hot girl – they have a bunch of sex – then fall in love – they do it some more – break up – and get back together.

Anne Hathaway has an amazing rack – and she shows it aplenty in this film – they even give her some “drama” to do while she’s not naked. Jake Gyllenhaal is becoming an interesting actor – and he coasts for the most part through this movie – hitting his marks when he needs to be shallow and when he needs to be sweet. Not spectacular but lots of boobs – more of a romantic dramedy – with lots of boobs – could Hathaway be the lead in a remake of NUDE ON THE MOON please?

The Company Men [2010]

A bunch of guys lose their jobs and have to cope with being unemployed.

The problem with this movie is they followed the plight of a bunch of well off guys who get fired. Who the fuck cares? If they cut their fucking spending – took a “lesser” job – they would be able to coast. Does Affleck do that? No! Do I feel sorry for him? No! Boo hoo he has to work blue collar – until he’s offered out of the fucking blue a job that pays a fuck load! I call bullshit all over this movie – though it was scary because everyone got fired after their company got bought out – and my company just got bought out a week or two before I watched this movie. There was some good yet very muddled messages mixed in there – but the problem was they took the wrong approach to get to them.

W is for... [part 2]

Family loyalty and self-reliance take on whole new meanings in this dark story of one family's desperate struggle to survive in the Ozark woods of southern Missouri. Day-to-day life is tough in the economically depressed, unforgiving harsh rural landscape that's home to the extended Dolly clan, but it's made much tougher thanks to their history of cooking crank and deep involvement in the local drug culture. For Jessup Dolly and the other men of the family, looking out for oneself has become the first priority. Seventeen-year-old Ree (Jennifer Lawrence) has been caring for her mentally ill mother and her two younger siblings while her father runs from the law. Ree has been managing OK, but when the sheriff shows up with news that her father has put the house up as bond collateral and is unlikely to show for his court date, things get desperate. Ree is well aware of the family code of silence, but desperation forces her to confront her relatives in search of her father, regardless of the personal consequences. One by one, Ree's relatives refuse to help, protecting themselves even at the cost of one of their own. This is a dark, often violent film that doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of the manic drug culture permeating some rural areas of the South. It is intense, emotional, and extremely effective: it is at times simultaneously uncomfortable to watch and paradoxically riveting. Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes, and Dale Dickey deliver phenomenally powerful performances and are completely believable in their respective roles. While this official selection in the dramatic film competition at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival doesn't align well with many of the details in the Daniel Woodrell novel on which it's based, what is absolutely faithfully rendered is the overwhelming sense of resolute self-reliance, complete desperation, and intense, yet distorted family loyalty. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2010

directed by Debra Granik

V is for... [part 2]

A deeply moving drama built around longtime character actor Richard Jenkins, The Visitor is a simmering drama about a college professor and recent widower, Walter Vale (Jenkins), who discovers a pair of homeless, illegal aliens living in his New York apartment. After the mix-up is resolved, Vale invites the couple--a young, Syrian musician named Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and his Senegalese girlfriend (Danai Gurira--to stay with him. An unlikely friendship develops between the retiring, quiet Vale and the vital Tarek, and the former begins to loosen up and respond to Tarek’s drumming lessons as if something in him waiting to be liberated has finally arrived. All goes well until Tarek is hauled in by immigration authorities and threatened with deportation. His mother, Mouna (Hiam Abbass), turns up and stays with Vale, sparking a renewed if subdued interest in courtship. But the wheels of injustice in immigration crush all manner of hopes in post-9/11 America. Vale soon realizes his unexpected capacity for anger over Tarek’s plight, and the positive changes to his personal life that emerged from a deep involvement with his friend and Mouna, might be the only legacy he takes from this experience. Writer-director Thomas McCarthy has created a wonderfully measured story about change and renewal, and put it all on the shoulders of Jenkins, a largely unheralded but masterful performer whose time for renown has surely come. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2007

directed by Thomas McCarthy

Anita: Swedish Nymphet [1973]

Every so often I rent something thinking it will be one thing – and it turns out to be something else entirely. I rented Anita because it was a Christina Lindberg film – and I’ve enjoyed her other movies. This one sounded like it was another one of her typical films where there’s little plot and a lot of nudity. Well, nudity this film certainly has a lot of – but when it comes to a plot – wow.

Anita (played by Christina Lindberg) is a 17-year old nymphomaniac in a small town outside of Stockholm. She’s notorious throughout the town – to the point where she’s mocked by her peers, used by the men in town and a disgrace to her parents. She hops a train to Stockholm one day as the police were looking for her and to have a fresh set of new men to go after. This is where she meets Erik (played by Stellan Skaarsgard) who runs into her as he’s chasing after someone – and he takes her in to mend her scrapped up knee. Erik identifies that she has a serious problem – and tries to talk her through her issues. Erik eventually falls in love with her – which causes a problem since Anita is stuck in the power struggle of her illness – and Erik doesn’t want to be a guy she uses once and then discards.

What I loved about this movie was the level of depth it delves into with her illness. They don’t glorify it – they treat it like she’s really sick. The nudity and sex becomes unsexy pretty quickly – and soon you are pleading with Anita to stop herself. They explored Anita’s family life - which was at the cause for her worthless feelings about herself and thus caused her nymphomania – with a series of flashbacks.

As a matter of fact – the story flowed from flashback to present time for more than half the beginning of the film. This really helped balance what she was doing and the possible inner monologue that was happening at the time. No scene went too long or with out a future explanation. The story set-up and execution on that level was mind blowing – it’s the kind of stuff major motion picture companies still can’t get right these days.

Christina Lindberg did an AMAZING job in her performance. She’s always felt like she was disconnected from her characters – but in Anita her hesitation as an actress really helped in her performance. Though I hesitate to say that it was the same type of performance that I’m used to seeing. You really felt - when she was desperately searching for a guy – that addiction. You really felt – when she was lying on the couch crying – that repentance for what she did.

The story between Anita and Erik really played out quite well. Erik you felt was more concerned for Anita’s well being than anyone was in the entire film. He brought her in to his house of music students (it was unclear if he was a psych student or a music instructor) – but he tried to have everyone show understanding for Anita – and figure out how he could best help work her through her issues. He did it in such a way that it kind of worked itself into the story – you didn’t feel like he was sitting on a distant chair taking notes – he was there with her in the trenches of her mind.

Probably the only thing that bothered me about this movie – was once Anita was “cured” – Erik and Anita finally got to be ‘together’ – but Erik moved way too quick to touch her breasts (though I can’t blame him) – but that seemed inappropriate for the mood that was set for that scene. Erik even commented that he wanted to dive in – but felt like he should have all the restraint in the world. I felt that the scene could’ve even just been the two of them lying in bed fully clothed – and it would’ve felt more complete.

The Image DVD release of Anita – is on a flat horrible print. There’s probably nothing they can do about the film stock – they certainly aren’t going to bring it in for a full scrubbing considering it’s a Swedish cult film and they won’t make their money back – but it would’ve been nice.

Ultimately, this is a very well made love story. And even though the cover makes it look like you are about to watch something very dirty – it’s got more heart and depth to it than most films.

Storm Watching

Over the holiday weekend we were hit with some massive thunderstorms so I pulled some movies off the shelf and had a movie marathon - none of which do I want to write up in anything huge - so here's the quick 2-sentence hits.

Psycho [1960]
The scariest thing in this movie is the scene of the getting rid of the body - it seemed almost in real time - and that's all it takes to make you never seen again. The end with the condescending psychiatrist's speech explaining and over explaining doesn't hold up well for modern audiences.


One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest [1975]
I think this one holds up pretty well all the way around for modern audiences - the whole antiestablishment feelings people seem to always seem to carry with them from generation to generation. After this particular viewing, I was feeling that Mac brings it on himself - so even though I get the message of the overall movie - I wasn't feeling much sympathy for the anti-hero.
Lars and the Real Girl [2007]
This one is starting to pull away from the pack and it might make it into my top 10 movies - every time I watch it - I have the same reaction like I was watching it the first time. I love how the town pulls together for Lars - making Bianca real - bending just enough of their lives to pull Lars back into "reality".
Splice [2010]
It's the same old Frankenstein story but with a modern genetics twist and more sexual tension. Something about this time - made me draw a few parallels to some of Jesus Franco's creature/genetic abomination films - and wonder if he had helped inspire any bit of the story.

T is for... [part 2]

With its hallucinatory visions of crawling dead babies and a grungy plunge into the filthiest toilet in Scotland, you might not think Trainspotting could have been one of the best movies of 1996, but Danny Boyle's film about unrepentant heroin addicts in Edinburgh is all that and more. That doesn't make it everybody's cup of tea (so unsuspecting viewers beware), but the film's blend of hyperkinetic humor and real-life horror is constantly fascinating, and the entire cast (led by Ewan McGregor and Full Monty star Robert Carlyle) bursts off of the screen in a supernova of outrageous energy. Adapted by John Hodge from the acclaimed novel by Irving Welsh, the film was a phenomenal hit in England, Scotland, and (to a lesser extent) the U.S. For all of its comedic vitality and invigorating filmmaking, the movie is no ode to heroin, nor is it a straight-laced cautionary tale. Trainspotting is just a very honest and well-made film about the nature of addiction, and it doesn't pull any punches when it is time to show the alternating pleasure and pain of substance abuse. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1996

directed by Danny Boyle

Blue Valentine [2010]

The story of a couple falling out of love as juxtaposed to how they fell in love.

This movie hit me like an emotional wrecking ball – it was powerful in both story and performance. It was very voyeuristic – as the narrative was unfolding more as the characters blossomed as opposed to a very clear point A to point B story. The story was told from present day where Dean and Cindy are on the rocks – and in flashbacks of how they met and fell in love.

It was both equally heartwarming and heartbreaking – very much rooted in the visceral emotional journey of the characters. The performances were incredibly gutsy – both Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams felt as though they were living out their lives in sorts in front of the camera as opposed to portraying characters.
The only thing I felt the movie lacked was a middle – but the film was about how passionately and quickly people can fall in love and many years later – the slow withdrawal into falling out. It’s also a testament to the performances and direction – that since they were so intense in their portrayal – the middle part was a strong curiosity. As a viewer you are meant to question how they fell apart – and the question arises literally in the film “is this you?” – and you are meant to wonder – could this happen to anyone.

I really liked the direction of Derek Cianfrance – it wasn’t flashy or there to tell the story – it was there to present the characters – and through those characters the story was told. I watched the fluff “making of” feature on the blu-ray – which usually amounts of a bunch of press junket interviews where the actors, director and producers pat themselves on the back (and there was plenty of that) – but Cianfrance also revealed how this story had evolved by discussing the characters over a period of 6-years with both Gosling and Williams. That kind of preparation could easily make a story stale – but there’s really nothing stale about this film. It was fresh full of life – full of emotion – and it certainly seemed like a very cathartic experience for Cianfrance.
I wondered as I was watching the film – that since I found Dean to be a sympathetic character – and Cindy a bit colder (in the present day falling out of love portions) that if I watched it with my girl if she’d find Cindy to be a more sympathetic character and be able to identify more with her plight. It just feels that well-crafted emotionally that it would seem that if I took a different approach I could find either character to be equally as sympathetic.

Gosling and Williams have both become such phenomenal actors – I’m excited to see their careers continue to blossom. They are bold and daring – and fearless in their roles. Though I wonder with how bold these performances were – what more was going to make this an NC-17 film? I would like to see that original cut – if there was one – or if it was just Hollywood politics trying to label it as too strong.

If I had my way – I’d go back and make it the co-captain of my BEST OF 2010 roster along with SCOTT PILGRIM – as they were equally outstanding in their own rights - and now both seem intrical to my movie collection.

Weekend Viewing - April 23-24, 2011

I watched BIRDEMIC & TROLL 2 on Saturday night – details of which I posted on Sunday. We were going to watch my blu-ray of HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT. 1 but obviously – it got a little late for a 3 hour film (or half a film).

Sunday – it was HEREAFTER and THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS – both fairly solid films – with flaws on both.

HEREAFTER is another absolutely magnificent directing effort by Clint Eastwood – he lets his characters work their story. Clint is an actor’s director – he appreciates what it was like for him to be in front of that camera – and knows what it takes to pull the performance of the actors out of a solid story. The story is what kind of lets down HEREAFTER – it is good – but there’s not as strong of a thread connecting everyone – and the kind of hidden epiphanies that they go through didn’t work for me.


THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS was all right – certainly not as good as I thought it would be. The film probably suffers from the fact that I’ve seen a lot of films that followed and copied it – and that simply made me feel like this film was weak. Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor – but I wanted more scene chewing. (C’mon – take a big bite, Danny! Nom nom nom!) The action was pretty good – fairly intense – yet disjoined in parts that made me just not enjoy the film for all that it was. It’s something I will probably rent later to take a second glance – as it’s one I will probably think about for a little while.

O is for... [part 2]

One of the key movies of the 1970s, when exciting, groundbreaking, personal films were still being made in Hollywood, Milos Forman's One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest emphasized the humanistic story at the heart of Ken Kesey's more hallucinogenic novel. Jack Nicholson was born to play the part of Randle Patrick McMurphy, the rebellious inmate of a psychiatric hospital who fights back against the authorities' cold attitudes of institutional superiority, as personified by Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher). It's the classic antiestablishment tale of one man asserting his individuality in the face of a repressive, conformist system--and it works on every level. Forman populates his film with memorably eccentric faces, and gets such freshly detailed and spontaneous work from his ensemble that the picture sometimes feels like a documentary. Unlike a lot of films pitched at the "youth culture" of the 1970s, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest really hasn't dated a bit, because the qualities of human nature that Forman captures--playfulness, courage, inspiration, pride, stubbornness--are universal and timeless. The film swept the Academy Awards for 1976, winning in all the major categories (picture, director, actor, actress, screenplay) for the first time since Frank Capra's It Happened One Night in 1931.

A nice rest in a state mental hospital beats a stretch in the pen, right? Randle P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a free-spirited con with lightning in his veins and glib on his tongue, fakes insanity and moves in with what he calls the "nuts." Immediately, his contagious sense of disorder runs up against numbing routine. No way should guys pickled on sedatives shuffle around in bathrobes when the World Series is on. This means war! On one side is McMurphy. On the other is soft-spoken Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), among the most coldly monstrous villains in film history. At stake is the fate of every patient on the ward. Based on Ken Kesey's acclaimed bestseller, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest swept all five major 1975 Academy Awards: Best Picture (produced by Saul Zaentz and Michael Douglas), Actor (Nicholson), Actress (Fletcher), Director (Milos Forman) and Adapted Screenplay (Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman). Raucous, searing and with a superb cast that includes Brad Dourif, Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd in his film debut, this one soars. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Milos Forman

released 1975

Never Let Me Go [2010]

It may not be subtle - but it doesn't mean that it doesn't make for great science fiction. No guns were shot, no explosions rocked the screen, no villains were stopped, no aliens, no futuristic machines... Just a heartbreaking story captured in the context of a science fiction film that makes for a good film. I quite liked this film - and wanted to put up something in regards to it right after ejecting it. When I get my Netflix - I try to watch the film that I think has the least potential for me really liking first - so that I have something to look forward to once I pop in the second and third discs - but now the other two films have something to live up to.

[directed by Mark Romanek, 2010]

J is for...

The curiosity of Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown is Robert Forster's worldly wise bail bondsman Max Cherry, the most alive character in this adaptation of Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch. The Academy Awards saw it the same way, giving Forster the film's only nomination. The film is more "rum" than "punch" and will certainly disappoint those who are looking for Tarantino's trademark style. This movie is a slow, decaffeinated story of six characters glued to a half million dollars brought illegally into the country. The money belongs to Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson), a gunrunner just bright enough to control his universe and do his own dirty work. His just-paroled friend--a loose term with Ordell--Louis (Robert De Niro) is just taking up space and could be interested in the money. However, his loyalties are in question between his old partner and Ordell's doped-up girl (Bridget Fonda). Certainly Fed Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) wants to arrest Ordell with the illegal money. The key is the title character, a late-40s-ish flight attendant (Pam Grier) who can pull her own weight and soon has both sides believing she's working for them. The end result is rarely in doubt, and what is left is two hours of Tarantino's expert dialogue as he moves his characters around town.

Tarantino changed the race of Jackie and Ordell, a move that means little except that it allows Tarantino to heap on black culture and language, something he has a gift and passion for. He said this film is for an older audience although the language and drug use may put them off. The film is not a salute to Grier's blaxploitation films beyond the musical score. Unexpectedly the most fascinating scenes are between Grier and Forster: two neo-stars glowing in the limelight of their first major Hollywood film after decades of work. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Quentin Tarantino

released 1997

I is for...

The considerable pleasures of In Bruges begin with its title, which suggests a glumly self-important art film but actually fits a rattling-good tale of two Irish gangsters "keepin' a low profile" after a murder gone messily wrong. Bruges, the best-preserved medieval town in Belgium, is where the bearlike veteran Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and newbie triggerman Ray (Colin Farrell) have been ordered by their London boss to hole up for two weeks. As the sly narrative unfolds like a paper flower in water, "in Bruges" also becomes a state of mind, a suspended moment amid centuries-old towers and bridges and canals when even thuggish lives might experience a change in direction. And throughout, the viewer has ample opportunity to consider whose pronunciation of "Bruges" is more endearing, Gleeson's or Farrell's. The movie marks the feature writing-directing debut of playwright Martin McDonagh, whose droll meditation on sudden mortality, Six Shooter, copped the 2005 Oscar for best live-action short. Although McDonagh clearly relishes the musicality of his boyos' brogue and has written them plenty of entertaining dialogue, In Bruges is no stageplay disguised as a film. The script is deceptively casual, allowing for digressions on the newly united and briskly thriving Europe, and annexing passers-by as characters who have a way of circling back into the story with unanticipatable consequences. That includes a film crew--shooting a movie featuring, to Ray's fascination, "a midget" (Jordan Prentice)--and a fetching blond production assistant (Clémence Poésy) whose job description keeps evolving. There's one other key figure: Harry, the Cockney gang boss whose omnipotence remains unquestioned as long as he remains offscreen, back in England, as if floating in an early Harold Pinter play. Harry has reasons inextricably tender and perverse for selecting Bruges as his hirelings' destination, and eventually he emerges from the aether to express them--first as a garrulous telephone voice and then in the volatile form of Ralph Fiennes. By that point the charmed moment of suspension, already shaken by several irruptions of violence, is pretty well doomed. But In Bruges continues to surprise and satisfy right up to the end. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Martin McDonagh

released 2008

H is for...

Sometimes people are attracted to each other because of their differences. When there's a nebulous attraction between a teacher and a young teenage child--as in the superb Half Nelson--the relationship has all the makings of confused disaster. Though there are a few uncomfortable moments when it's not obvious whether Dan (Ryan Gosling) and Drey (Shareeka Epps) might cross the line, the attraction between the pair is culled less from sexual tension than desperation. Dan is an idealistic history teacher in an inner-city school. Drey is one of his brightest students. For both, drugs represent something that may help them escape their worlds. He takes drugs to dull his dissatisfaction with himself. She views drugs as a possible way to better her life, even though she knows her brother's foray into that trade landed him in jail. Bleakly filmed and well told, Half Nelson soars because of the immaculate acting by Gosling and Epps. With his impish smile, Gosling provides a character that is at once disarming, alluring, and pitiful. As the young girl who's already seen too much hardship in her life, Epps plays her part with just the right amount of hardened raw emotion. While the ambiguous ending may not please fans weaned on happy Hollywood finales, it's a fitting and believable close to a thought-provoking film. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Ryan Fleck

released 2006

E is for... [part 2]

Esteemed author Albert Radeck is the toast of the Berlin literati and the object of his stepdaughter Eugenie's affections. However, when his doe-eyed little darling unmasks her sophisticated father figure as a sex-crazed psychopath obsessed with perpetrating the perfect crime, she transforms from innocent ward to a willing accomplice. The deadly duo seduce and destroy everyone in their path - until Eugenie's charms spark a jealous rage in Albert that threatens to consume them both.

Prolific filmmaker Jess Franco (MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE, SADOMANIA) again brings the writings of the Marquis de Sade to bloody life with the aid of the sinister Paul Muller (EUGENIE...THE STORY OF HER JOURNEY INTO PERVERSION), and the beguiling beauty of Soledad Miranda (VAMPYROS LESBOS, SHE KILLED IN ECSTASY) and Alice Arno (JUSTINE DE SADE). This twisted tale of the perverse has been remastered from its recently discovered original negative and is offered completely uncut and uncensored. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Jesus Franco

released 1970

E is for...

David Cronenberg's signature obsessions flower in Eastern Promises, a stunning look at violence, responsibility, and skin. Near Christmastime in London, a baby is born to a teenage junkie--an event that leads a midwife (Naomi Watts) into the world of the Russian mob. Central to this world is an ambitious enforcer (Viggo Mortensen) who's lately buddied up with the reckless son (Vincent Cassel) of a mob boss (Armin Mueller-Stahl, doing his benign-sinister thing). Screenwriter Steve Knight also wrote Dirty Pretty Things, and in some ways this is a companion piece to that film, though utterly different in style. The plot is classical to the point of being familiar, but Cronenberg doesn't allow anything to become sentimental; he and his peerless cinematographer Peter Suschitzky take a cool, controlled approach to this story. Because of that, when the movie erupts in its (relatively brief) violence, it's genuinely shocking. Cronenberg really puts the viewer through it, as though to shame the easy purveyors of pulp violence--nobody will cheer when the blood runs in this film. Still, Eastern Promises has a furtive humor, nicely conveyed in Viggo Mortensen's highly original performance. Covered in tattoos, his body a scroll depicting his personal history of violence, Mortensen conveys a subtle blend of resolve and lost-ness. He's a true, haunting mystery man. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by David Cronenberg

released 2007

C is for...

Arguably the greatest of American films, Orson Welles's 1941 masterpiece, made when he was only 26, still unfurls like a dream and carries the viewer along the mysterious currents of time and memory to reach a mature (if ambiguous) conclusion: people are the sum of their contradictions, and can't be known easily. Welles plays newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane, taken from his mother as a boy and made the ward of a rich industrialist. The result is that every well-meaning or tyrannical or self-destructive move he makes for the rest of his life appears in some way to be a reaction to that deeply wounding event. Written by Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz, and photographed by Gregg Toland, the film is the sum of Welles's awesome ambitions as an artist in Hollywood. He pushes the limits of then-available technology to create a true magic show, a visual and aural feast that almost seems to be rising up from a viewer's subconsciousness. As Kane, Welles even ushers in the influence of Bertolt Brecht on film acting. This is truly a one-of-a-kind work, and in many ways is still the most modern of modern films from the 20th century. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Orson Welles

released 1941