“Prometheus”, the sci-fi thriller that marks Ridley Scotts return to the genre, is a cerebral and intense motion picture that asks a lot of challenging questions in an attempt to be more than the average blockbuster. Does it exceed? Well my answer would be yes…but only barely.

Most people, like me, were fairly excited when they learned Scott would return to science fiction. He is responsible for two of the best films of the genre, “Alien” and “Blade Runner”; and when word spread that his newest film would be a sort of quasi-prequel to “Alien”, taking place in the same universe, lots of rumors began to swirl as to what exactly we would be getting.

Well, the story here revolves around two scientists, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway, who have discovered various ancient cave carvings and drawings across the globe from different cultures that depict the same scene, people worshipping tall creatures pointing to a cluster of stars. Because these civilizations never had any contact, and because the star cluster is located so far from earth that humans would have never known it existed, Shaw and Holloway go to the large and powerful Weyland Industries to get funding for a trip to these planets, one of which just so happens to contain a moon that might be able to support life. But why risk so much on such a long and expensive journey? Shaw and Holloway believe that the drawings they found are an invitation from “engineers”, intelligent life forms that created life on earth, and they as well as the founder of Weyland Industries hope to find the origins of life, and the reasons for our existence.

When the crew headed by Meredith Vickers, a strict representative from Weyland Industries, reaches the moon what they find might not only provide the answers to life that they were looking for, but also bring about the very destruction of that life. All exacerbated by members of the crew, including an all too human android named David, who appear to have hidden agendas.

The entire plot is very thought-provoking. Mainly because the questions brought up, such as the creation of life, planet seeding, and trying to find the answers to why we are here, are all challenging and universal. The only problem is that it doesn’t do very much to answer any of them. There is a bit of ambiguity surrounding the events of the film that I did in fact enjoy. There are times when it leaves thing open for interoperation, understanding that in reality many of these questions can’t be answer, and instead just provides alternative explanations. This is all fine, what bothered me though was when many of these themes were just dropped from the film after only being brought up once. For instance, there is a moment in which Shaw and Holloway talk about god and how if these “engineers” are responsible for life, should she remove her cross necklace because it means a god doesn’t exist. In the very same conversation one of them questions the important of life if it can be created so easily. Both are very intriguing notions, but both never really come up again. Yes, the audience can take what happens in the story and try to make their own assumptions as to god and the importance of life, but the real issue is that the characters themselves never really do this.

This mostly has to do with my second big issue of the film, which was the lack of really any development of the crew members outside of Shaw. One thing I enjoyed about “Prometheus”, which is one thing I loved about “Alien”, was that it takes it time. It doesn’t really jump right into the action. The major difference is that whereas in “Alien” the crew members seem to all have their own personalities and we get enough of each to care or at least make us think we know them, “Prometheus” fails to make anyone, besides a very select few members of the crew, have any development. This wouldn’t usually be an issue even if death in horror films is made more effective when those threatened are people we care about; but considering stuff that happens in the end, when some of the characters make decisions that could typically make for rather emotional moments but alas because we know nothing about them it just doesn’t hit as hard as it could. So with more development, not only could there have been more of an emotional connection with the crew, it would have also let them have more time to contemplate all these questions the film asked. It makes me wonder and hope that a director’s cut will be released.

Thematic and character issues aside, the film is damn near perfect on a visual and heart pounding intensity level. The set designs, of the ship Prometheus and foreign world for example, are stunning. This comes as no surprise given that Scott has always been very good at creating futuristic worlds. His use of 3-D was also incredibly effective. It isn’t used simply as a gimmick, nothing made to come shooting out of the screen for scares, it is just there to add a bit of depth which I like.

As for the horror/thriller aspects of the story….well the first thing that came to mind when I walked out of the theater was that what I just watched was absolutely insane. Like “Alien” it just has those totally shocking, eerie and at times bloody moments that are not for the squeamish. This was incredibly satisfying of course; of all the things I wanted from the film, to feel completely uncomfortable at times and just stunned by what I was seeing on screen was one of them. It is in these two ways, the visual beauty and intensity, in which the film really makes up for some of the previously mentioned flaws.

Another of the films redeeming qualities are the performances from the main cast, which were generally great. Michael Fassbender steals the show, as the eerie and impassive android David. Fassbender is always brilliant, and the mystery and wonder he brings to David makes for a fascinating but also unnerving character. Noomi Rapace (Shaw) was also wonderful. She is one of the better actresses to emerge in the past few years, and the emotion and horror really work all the better when being channeled through her. Also, Charlize Theron is at her stone cold bitchiest and Idris Elda just continues to prove he is one of the coolest individuals around, which made them both fun to watch. The supporting cast held their ground I guess, though most were just the stereotypical hard-ass’s “just here to get paid” while being complete morons until their inevitable death.

So in the end, I can say that I did in fact highly enjoy “Prometheus”. It works on a whole lot of levels, in being both visually stunning and intensely thrilling. Its only fault is that it tried to be a bit too smart, asking far too many questions, and not having answers to most of them. Perhaps on another viewing, or given more time to mull it over…or if a director’s cut comes out with more story and characters…then I will think more highly of the themes it attempts to tackled. Until then I can only admire it for being a better than average sci-fi thriller blockbuster and at least trying to strive to be challenging and thought provoking, and maybe that is enough, but I can’t help feel a little let down.

“Moonrise Kingdom”, Wes Anderson’s newest feature and easily one of his best, is a delightful, colorful and flat out beautiful depiction of young love, seen through the eyes of a director with a youthful heart. Sure he might overindulge in terms of visual style and whimsy, a passion and uniqueness I personally love, but in the end his mastery behind the camera and tenderness for his characters and the stories he tells make for wonderful experiences.

Not everyone always feels the same obviously, many are completely turned off by his work, but I think in this case even the most anti-Anderson crowd will have a hard time not falling in love with this story, these characters and the touching, charming and often hilarious situations they find themselves in. That is because this time around, more so than in his previous film, the line between reality and fantasy is extremely thin. In his previous films, and this is coming from someone who has loved EVERYTHING he has done (yes, even ‘The Darjeeling Limited’), the worlds he creates, with their overtly intellectual, quirky and often pompous characters, are often interpreted mostly as shallow and even more harshly labeled as pretentious and annoying because they are drowning in an ocean of visual grandeur. Although I personally love it, I cannot say I blame people for thinking it. The story, emotion, pain and humanity of many of his films can be lost and viewed strictly formalistically in his attempts to stay grounded while also throwing a very thick layer of style over everything. The difference with “Moonrise Kingdom” I believe has to do with the perfect blending of that passionate and fine eye for detail, color and design and the central human story below the surface. Here we have the joys and passions of young love, juxtaposed with the hollowness and pains of adulthood in a way that feels more like a fable than an actual depiction of real life. It is in that way, how this feels more like a story out of one of Suzy’s fantasy novels, that makes it work so well.

This fable takes place over the course of a few days in the summer of 1965, on a fictional island off the coast of Rhode Island.  It follows Sam Shakusky, an orphan and Boy Scout who has trouble making friends; and Suzy, a smart but depressed young girl whose parents think is “troubled”. After meeting a year before, and becoming pens pals, the two decide to run away together.  When the Scout Master (Edward Norton) finds out he goes to the local police captain (Bruce Willis) to start a search party with Suzy’s parents. As Sam and Suzy’s love blossoms in their adventure across the island, the adults have secrets and personnel issues that begin to get in the way with their search for the children.

Visually intertwined with this story are everything one would expect from a Wes Anderson film. Those fantasy elements and overall tone I mentioned above are really driven by the use of tracking shots, almost always consisting of layers of action, with things happening in the background that could be easily missed on a first viewing; and set and costume design that not only capture the era (the late 60’s) but also a very fantastical and specific melancholy-summer atmosphere.  The house where Suzy lives for example feels more like a doll house, with the characters just puppets under Anderson’s guidance. In this way the entire film really feels like a live action version of a story that would normally take place in the world of “The Fantastic Mr. Fox”.

As for the performances, which are just as important as the visuals and designs because of Anderson’s writing and humor, are all around just wonderful. For the adult cast this comes as no surprise. Bill Murray for instance is no stranger to Anderson’s films (this being the sixth time he has appeared in one). The rest fit in nicely, with Willis and Norton seamlessly blending into the world and dead pan humor. What really blew me away was the performances by the two child leads, Kara Wayward (Suzy) and Jared Gilman (Sam). Now these performances were not perfect, I felt like they stumbled over a few lines and their delivery was flat at times, but it worked in their favor making the performances feel very natural, never forced and their missteps felt more like children trying, and at times failing, to sound smarter than they really are which was in line with the personality and background of both.

Overall this definitely ranks up there as one of Wes Anderson’s best, probably right behind “The Royal Tenebaums” (my personal favorite of his). As for its place amongst the rest of the films this year? I can easily say that it is the best, and my favorite, filmso far in 2012. And although there are still many more to come, I think I’ll be hard pressed to find another film that was as all around beautiful, charming and fun as “Moonrise Kingdom”; and even if it doesn’t turn out to be the “best of the year”, it will most likely be the one I revisit most often.

Quick heads up. Please also read Leonard Wilson’s thoughts over at his review, if you haven’t already. Also I apologize for the length of this review. It doesn’t really contain many spoilers but is a bit more in depth than I usually do.  But hopefully you have, and giving its box office performance I’m betting on it, seen it already.

“The Hunger Games”, the adaptation of Suzanne Collins’s young adult novel, is a thrilling, smart, visually unique and most importantly emotional dystopian drama/thriller directed by Gary Ross.

The film stars Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen. She lives in the distance future in which after the destruction of the North American continent due to some unknown event a new nation called Panem was created, consisting of several districts ruled by a Capital city. The districts ended up rebelling against the rule of the Capital, resulting is a war that saw the total destruction of the 13^th District with the Capital ending up being victorious. In order to help keep the Districts in line and avoid another rebellion, outside of the barriers and “peacekeepers” placed within each, an annual “gladiatorial” game is held. During this time, which has become essentially a reality show, two teenagers from each district (one male, one female) are chosen by random to be sent to an arena, the design of which changes each year, to fight to the death. They act as sacrifices for punishment, but also create a level of hope for those wanting to see their District succeed because the last one standing is labeled the “Victor” and their District is rewarded.

The film begins on the “reaping”, the day in which the tributes are picked. Katniss lives in District 12, which specializes in coal mining. It is surrounded by a lush forest that she illegally hunts in with her friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Today her name has been entered multiple times as it has in previous years, but her main worry this year is that her young sister Prim is of age to be eligible. Katniss has a very strong relationship with her. Both live alone with their mother, who has been emotionally inept since Katniss’s father died years before in a mine accident. When it comes time to select the tributes Katniss tries to reassure Prim that she will not be chosen but of course she is. Katniss, not willing to let her young sister enter the games, volunteers to take her place.  I must mention that the buildup to this, and many other scenes throughout the film, is done exceptionally well. Most people, even those that didn’t read the novel, know what happens during the reaping and yet with a dreary tone and at times haunting score my heart was still pounding and sunk when the names were called.

The male chosen is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a baker’s son, who Katniss has only ever interacted with once before, though it was a moment that has an important meaning to her. After a brief goodbye with their families both are shipped off to the capital, under the guidance of Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), an eccentric and dolled up woman from the Capital, and their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a drunkard and past winner of the games from District 12.

The Capital is a shock to them because it is nothing like the rural world of District 12. Here there are huge builds and statues. The citizens wear colorful clothing and elaborate makeup. There is an abundance of food and usage of technology that helps them thrive over the Districts. It is ruled by President Snow, who is played by Donald Sutherland. He doesn’t get much screen time, though he appears more than he did in the first book, but he handles the character very well, ruthless but subtle.

Katniss’s time in the Capital before entering the arena is really for one thing only, that is to try making an impression to gain sponsorship from interested members of the capital who wish to support specific tributes. These impressions are made in two ways. The first are training courses in which all 24 tributes work out together in various stations (camouflage, archery, swords, plant identification, etc.). Due to her experience hunting Katniss is proficient with a bow, though she tries to down play it at first. This training area is the first time all of them really get to see what the others are made of, which is important so they know who the real threats are. In this case those threats are “career tributes”, which are tributes from more “well off” Districts where children are chosen to train specifically for the arena and then volunteer at age 18.

The other opportunity to make impressions involves a parade in front of a large crowd and later on interviews broadcasted throughout the Capital and Districts. During both it is important that Katniss look and act in a manner that will make people like her. The “looks” part isn’t much of a problem. She is a beautiful young woman and has the help of a stylist named Cinna, who Katniss quickly bonds with. This is because he is the only citizen of the Capital who seems to respect her and understand the situation she is in. He is played by Lenny Kravitz and I must say he does a great job. Cinna doesn’t get much screen time but when he does it truly feels like he empathizes with her, which is important. He truly wants to see her succeed and luckily he is damn good at his job. The outfit he designs for her and Peeta, black leather and flames, when they are displayed to the sponsors wows them all giving her the nickname “the girl on fire” which becomes very important later on in the series.

The real challenge comes when she is interviewed by Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), a TV personality. Cinna tells her to be truthful, and so she does, expressing the love for her young sister. When it comes time for Peeta’s interview he easily wins the crowd over with his charm, but it is a lie that shocks them the most. He expresses his love for Katniss, who doesn’t take it lightly but Haymitch explains that he can easily sell “love birds” to the sponsors, so she reluctantly goes along with it.

It is this aspect of their relationship that really leads to any sort of love story. Many people who had not read the books went in thinking there would be some sort of cliché love triangle but that just isn’t the case. Katniss does have Gale back home, who seems to like her, but she views him only as a friend. The only reason she shows any feelings for Peeta is to sell the love angle, and although during the games she does begin to like him, you couldn’t call it love.

When the games start is when the action begins. All 24 tributes are placed inside a dome that’s designed to be a forest. Located in the middle of them all is a stack of weapons and bags full of supplies. When the timer goes off the blood begins to spill. Katniss doesn’t take many chances in getting a weapon; she instead grabs a bag close to her and runs off into the woods. Much of the rest of the film takes place within the arena in which Katniss struggles to survive against nature and her fellow tributes, especially the “careers” that have teamed up and are picking off everyone else.

This portion of the film is the focus of one complaint that keeps coming up. Many seem to dislike the fact that the violence is toned down a bit. This is something that I think works for the better. There is still a sense of death and blood but Ross didn’t want to glorify the brutality, which made sense. The viewer should be looking upon the film in the mindset of someone in the Districts, horrified by what they see but not wanting to be entertained by gore and there is just no need for it. When people say they needed to really see the deaths to make it have an impact in a way sort of worries me. If the death of a child, even if barely shown, doesn’t affect you; if instead you need to actually see a child’s neck slit open for it to rattle you then the problem is yours and not the films. How Ross handles the death, which is horrifying in itself, fit the tone of the film which should be enough.

Now I will avoid going any further into detail about the events that take place in the arena. I will say that there are some shocking and highly emotional moments. One in particular nearly brought me to tears, those who have seen it will know which one I’m speaking of. I was worried, since it is probably my favorite moment of the whole series, that it wouldn’t be handled well but it is handled damn near perfectly. The only thing I think they could have handled better within the arena is the interactions between Katniss and Peeta. You really need to be paying attention and make a few assumptions to understand that Katniss’s change of heart is for show, and it does get cheesy at times.

But I couldn’t really hold it against the film. The biggest challenge Ross had to manage was the perspective. In the book it is first person, so much of the exposition and explanations of the world, games, and most importantly Katniss’s feelings are done within her head. The film could have gone with narration for much of this but I don’t think it would of fit. Instead it relies on the audience to put some of the pieces together. It also utilizes the “reality show” aspect of the games by having Caesar and another commentator appear as if they are telling viewers at home what they are seeing. For example there is a scene in which Katniss uses a beehive to her advantage and it cuts away briefly to have Caesar explain that these bees are deadly and cause hallucinations. These cutaways did seem a bit out of place but as I said if you consider that this is viewed as a reality show by most in the Capital then this sort of commentating makes sense.

I enjoyed the direction overall to be honest. I’ve read multiple complaints over the lack of establishing shots and shaky cam. I’ve personally never had a problem with the “shaky cam” technique; I think it adds to the intensity and chaos of many scenes. And I personally have no complaints about the editing. The performances were also very good. The stand out here is Jennifer Lawrence. She fully embodies Katniss and does such an amazing job at expressing her vulnerability while also making her a strong female character. Hutcherson was much better as Peeta than I thought he would be. Harrelson as Haymitch was damn near perfect and the same goes for Elizabeth Banks as Effie. The other tributes held their own. I didn’t expect much from them and so wasn’t disappointed when some had a few terrible moments. Oh, and the girl chosen to play Rue was amazing casting.

For those that haven’t read the book, the biggest differences that stood out to me was the lack of explanation for the Avoxs. Those are the servants in red you see in the background. They are individuals who have been punished; their tongues cut out and forced to be servants. In the book Katniss recognizes one of them from a while back in which she and Gale ran into people trying to escape another District.  Also the explanation on how she got the pin is different. In the book it is giving to here by a friend, the daughter of the District’s Mayor. It made sense to leave this out because the characters weren’t needed.

The most important changes I think was all the stuff happening outside of the District. All the interactions with Snow and the Gamemaker, or Haymitch working to help them both behind the scenes are new. We don’t get this in the book and it was nice to get an idea of what was happening outside of the arena and how those characters watching reacted to what takes place.

As for the comparisons to ‘Battle Royale’, I’m seriously getting sick of the two being mentioned together. Although I really liked ‘Battle Royale’ it wasn’t the first film to contain people battling to the death for show and doesn’t have a monopoly over the concept. Just because both contain young adults doesn’t mean one stole from the other or is any better or worse. It bothers me that people like to pick and choose when they can accept certain aspect of a film over others; like accepting films with concepts very close to another for different genres yet here it is all they can talk about. The same goes for the technology in the film. I’ve heard more than one complaint over the lack of deep explanation on stuff like the medicines used or the “mutated dogs” at the end that seem to pop up out of nowhere. Must I remind people that the events in the film take place many years in the future? And that although the surrounding districts are poor with little to no technology, the Capital is still thriving and have made many advances in certain areas that would make medicines that can heal burns efficiently possible. I mean audiences can easily accept the futuristic world of other sci-fi films, even when there is little to no explanation on how things work, yet here for some reason they can’t.

It really just boils down to the fact that it would have never truly satisfied some people no matter what it did. Many wanted more exposition, yet would have complained if it was longer. If it was shorter, then they would have complained even more about the lack of exposition and length. Then there are those who have read the book and are disappointed that things are left out. And finally there are those who went in wanting to hate it because they have this misconception that it is like the ‘Twilight’ books and pandering to teenage girls. Honestly, to truly enjoy it you have to take it for what it is which some just cannot seem to do.

Overall I really, really enjoyed the film. Upon another viewing my love for it might possibly grow. It has its flaws and many aspects of the story are handled better in the book but I felt Gary Ross and his cast did a wonderful and admirable job adapting Collin’s novel. They faced a lot of challenges, and a lot of hate, but the end result was still an entertaining, smart and emotional story with a fantastic lead performance. I eagerly await the sequels and hope it is Gary Ross behind the camera once again. Highly recommended.

So I have not posted in a while. Mainly because I was without a laptop for about two months, but also because I have not watched anything recently worth reviewing or discussing. That was until last week when I decided to subscribe to Hulu Plus to access their large  selection of Criterion films. For those that might not have heard of the Criterion Collection, it is a DVD/Blu-Ray distribution company that acquires, restores and beautifully packages “classic”, “important”, foreign and American films with a focus on art-house and hard to find releases. I’ve been a fan for quite some time and recently had an urge to explore their collection more deeply, which has led to this post and hopefully more to come.

————————————————

“The Cranes Are Flying” is a visually dazzling, humane and emotional war drama about a girl struggling to survive during WWII as her boyfriend is on the front lines and communication with him is lost. This might sound like a story ripe for melodrama and clichés but instead it is very delicate and sincere. The development of the relationship between the young lady, Veronika, and her boyfriend, Boris, is handled so well and their chemistry so deep that when they are apart and when thing take a turn for the worst the pain and heartbreak feels all too real.

What truly made me fall in love with this film, beyond that touching and humane story, was just how exceptionally well crafted the film itself is. The visuals are at times stunning and the camera work, cinematography and crane movements are superb. It is one of those films that is the total package, delivering on an emotional, technical and storytelling level unlike most films made today. A definite must see.

“El Sur” is a lyrical and often haunting portrait of alienation, dislocation and the often un-remarkability of being human. Its story is seen through the eyes of a young girl named Estrella who is living with her family in northern Spain after the Spanish Civil War. We watch, in an almost mystical but utterly mesmerizing fashion as she begins to mature and realize truths about the world around her. The most shocking, and the one that plays the biggest role in her development has to do with her father who we learn comes from a deeply troubled past and is filled with pain. Like Victor Erice’s other film, “The Spirit of the Beehive” (one of my top fifteen favorite films of all time), it all plays out in a rather delicate manner and because the world we see is one through the eyes of a child it is often surreal and enigmatic. This is all handled with fantastic direction by Erice whose brilliant use of natural light and granulation adds a special touch to the visuals and tone. It definitely is a wonderful film and perhaps a new favorite.

*An interesting, albeit sad, fact about “El Sur” is that Erice had planned an additional 90 minutes to be added to the end of the story but the producers wouldn’t allow it. Luckily the final result was still near perfect and ends on a very fine note. The film is also apparently very hard to find, even Criterion has not released it but luckily was able to offer it for streaming. I do hope it gets a restored release sometime soon.

“Knife in the Water”, Roman Polanski’s first feature film, is a competently directed chamber piece about a couple who pick up a young hitch hiker and take him along as they go sailing out on a lake. Polanski seemed to have had some social themes he wished to address but personally I felt none of them really came through, and since their isn’t much in the way of thrills or humor the result was a rather boring affair that ended with no new insight or entertainment to be had. I guess I’d recommend it to those interested in seeing the first film of Polanski’s career, but other than that I doubt I’ll ever find myself considering watching it again.

“Umberto D.”, Vittorio De Sica’s neorealist tale of a pensioner struggling to get by, is an emotional depiction of the human condition, solitude and dignity. It stars Carlos Battisti, non-professional actor and university professor at the time, as Umberto Domenico Ferrari who after decades of civil service is left struggling to get by off of the small pension he receives. He has no family, and lives under the roof of a cruel landlady who wants him out. His only friend is his dog Flike, though he does have a good relationship with the landlady’s young maid.

The story begins as Umberto’s time in his apartment is nearing its end and unless he can pay his rent he will be evicted and left with no place to go. With a pension too small to make up for this debt he must sell his possessions for money and refuses to beg on the streets. When things do not seem to be going his way Umberto considers more drastic measures to escape his unhappiness and plight. It all builds up to a very sad, but also inspiring ending that nearly left me in tears.

Like De Sica’s other and perhaps more well known film “Bicycle Thieves”, the story appears rather simple on the surface but its examination of such universal and emotional themes is what makes it so profound. “Umberto D.” avoids melodrama and sentimentality in its portrayal of its protagonists struggle and instead handles it with a quiet sadness. I couldn’t recommend it more.

“Vivre Sa Vie” or ‘My Life to Live (It’s My Life)’ is the episodic telling of a period in time in the life of Nana, a mother and wife turned aspiring actress who turns to prostitution in search or happiness and money. In telling her story director Jean Luc Godard uses the camera as if it were the human eye, seeing at times the perspective of Nana viewing her surroundings; but is at its most interesting when it acts as an onlooker, mesmerized by her beauty and sadness, fixated on her flawless face. Often, like with “Breathless”, Godard’s overindulgence leads to excruciating viewing experiences, but because the camera and editing her serve some purpose it is not only bearable but escalates what on the surface appears to be a simple story. I found the whole thing to be rather fascinating and its ending stuck with my longer than I thought it would. Another high recommendation.

“Tokyo Drifter” and “Branded to Kill” by Japanese ‘B-movie’ director Seijun Suzuki can both best be describe, as one critic put it, like this “…Suzuki doesn’t do establishing shots and when he does, they don’t establish shit.” As true as that statement is, and the editing and fractured pacing (even more prevalent in ‘Tokyo Drifter’) are unusual and at times distracting, both still contain a level of uniqueness and visual splendor to make for satisfying and often amusing viewing experiences.

The first I watched was “Tokyo Drifter”, about a gangster trying to go legit though the world around him is trying to pull him back in or bump him off. It is definitely the most visually stunning of the two but contains a very fractured plot with at times hectic editing. Scenes often skip from one moment to the next which is at first hard to follow, especially considering how much story and how many characters are crammed into the short running time. And yet, its pop-art look, visuals and fresh and cool main character make it such a treat to watch that I just have to recommend it.

Next up was “Branded to Kill”, the more ‘conventional’ of the two, which had a much more fluid story and editing that wasn’t as chaotic. The story follows a hit man who after messing up a job struggles to survive as the organization that hired him tries to kill him. It honestly isn’t the most original or thrilling story. The most exciting parts come during a few surreal sequences when the main character seems to be losing his mind. Overall I wasn’t too impressed, though it still holds a visual uniqueness that makes it worth watching for those interested, and is perfect for a double feature alongside “Tokyo Drifter”.

“Summer Interlude” could be described as lesser Bergman, which isn’t surprising being that it is one of his earlier films, coming out before 1957 when he released “Wild Strawberries” and “The Seventh Seal” and his popularity and the quality of his films increased greatly. Still, it is a very good story about an unhappy ballet dancer who, when visiting a summer home, remembers her tragic past through flashbacks. The plot very much reminded me of “Wild Strawberries” (flashbacks/reevaluation of ones life) meets “Summer With Monika” (a summer fling on a beautiful island), which was a pleasant surprise considering this came out before both.

There honestly isn’t much more to say other than that the themes Bergman tackles here will be very familiar to those who enjoy his work.  Its only fault in my opinion would be an end revelation that comes a bit too abruptly. Overall it is a must watch for any Bergman fan, but an ultimately unremarkable motion picture.

*This is the 16th film I’ve seen from Ingmar Bergman (my favorite director by a large margin) and the first of many of Bergman’s early films that Criterion and Hulu Plus have available.

“Eyes Without a Face”, Georges Franju’s gothic horror tale of guilt, obsession and beauty, is an atmospheric, finely shot and haunting film. The story follows Dr. Genessier whose daughter Christiane, after a serious car accident, is left with a face scared and practically missing. Feeling the guilt of having caused the accident, and wanting badly to give his daughter back her beauty while also furthering advances in the field of transplantation, Dr. Genessier hatches out a gruesome plan. He and his assistant track down and kidnap women bearing a resemblance to Genessier’s daughter so that they can remove their faces and try to successfully transplant them onto Christiane.

What makes the story and film so effective is the atmosphere and imagery. The buildup to the first surgery is a slow one, but as the fate of the woman chosen for the graphic procedure becomes clear there is a level of dread that fills the story that would make anyone uncomfortable. Add onto that graphic imagery like the facial surgery, shown in full, and the mask Christiane wears to hide her scars (which is arguably one of the creepiest I have ever seen) and it becomes a chill inducing experience.

The film isn’t without its flaws. The biggest being the way in which it often jumps from one scene to another, in which the audience can easily assume what happened but still periods of times seem missing.  Luckily that is never really an issue and the end result is something I’d recommend to anyone, especially those with a preference for horror.

————————————————–

At the moment I still have 47 Criterion films in my queue to watch on Hulu Plus, and that is just those that I have a strong interest in. The size of the full collection to stream is around 130. I doubt I’ll make it through them all, but I hope to post another group of reviews like this every week.

I hope you enjoyed the reviews, and leave any comments (good or bad) below.

So it is the last day of 2011, for some it might even already by 2012 (and by the time most read this it will be) and I decided to compile my lists of favorite films, performances, directors, etc. of the year. Please feel free to comment, good or bad, on any or all my picks but just remember they are MY picks.

———-

Worst Films:

1) “Hall Pass” (dir. Bobby and Peter Farrelly)

2) “Super” (dir. James Gunn)

3) “The Change Up” (dir. David Dobkin)

4) “Battle: Los Angeles” (dir. Jonathan Liebesman)

5) “Crazy, Stupid, Love” (dir. Glenn Ficarra and John Requa)

———-

Best Score or Song:

1) “Theme Suite” by Roger Neill, Dave Palmer, Brian Reitzell (“Beginners”)

2) “Brandon” by Harry Escott (“Shame”)

3) Rivers by Alexandre Desplat (“The Tree of Life”)

4) Nightcall by Kavinsky (“Drive”)

5) “It’s a Process” by Mychael Danna (“Moneyball”)

———-

Best Screenplay:

1) “Midnight in Paris” (Woody Allen)

2) “The Tree of Life” (Terrence Malick)

3) “The Artist” (Michel Hazanavicius)

4) “A Separation” (Asghar Farhadi)

5) “Moneyball” (Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin)

6) “Beginners” (Mike Mills)

Best Cinematography:

1) “The Tree of Life” (Emmanuel Lubezki)

2) “Meek’s Cutoff” (Chris Blauvelt)

3) “Melancholia” (Manuel Alberto Claro)

4) “Hugo” (Bob Richardson)

5) “The Artist” (Guillaume Schiffman)

———-

Best Directors:

1) Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life)

2) Martin Scorsese (Hugo)

3) Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

4) Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive)

5) Abbas Kiarostami (Certified Copy)

6) Steve McQueen (Shame)

———-

Best Supporting Actress:

1) Jessica Chastain (The Tree of Life)

2) Sareh Bayat (A Separation)

3) Carey Mulligan (Shame)

4) Melanie Laurent (Beginners)

5) Berenice Bejo (The Artist)

6) Leila Hatami (A Separation)

———-

Best Supporting Actor:

1) Christopher Plummer (Beginners)

2) Albert Brooks (Drive)

3) Brad Pitt (The Tree of Life)

4) Shahab Hosseini (A Separation)

5) Jeremy Irons (Margin Call)

6) Corey Stoll (Midnight in Paris)

———-

Best Actress:

1) Olivia Colman (Tyrannosaur)

2) Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene)

3) Rooney Mara (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo)

4) Juliette Binoche (Certified Copy)

5) Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia)

6) Jeong-hie Yun (Poetry)

———-

Best Actor:

1) Michael Fassbender (Shame)

2) Peter Mullan (Tyrannosaur)

3) Jean Dujardin (The Artist)

4) Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

5) Ryan Gosling (Drive)

6) Peyman Maadi (A Separation)

———-

Best Films 25-11:

25) “The Trip” (dir. Michael Winterbottom)

24) “Submarine” (dir. Richard Ayoade)

23) “Like Crazy” (dir. Drake Doremus)

22) “Jane Eyre” (dir. Cary Fukunaga)

21) “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” (dir. David Fincher)

20) “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (dir. Rupert Wyatt)

19) “Melancholia” (dir. Lars von Trier)

18) “Hanna” (dir. Joe Wright)

17) “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (dir. Tomas Alfredson)

16) “Martha Marcy May Marlene” (dir. Sean Durkin)

15) “Meek’s Cutoff” (dir. Kelly Reichardt)

14) “13 Assassins” (dir. Takashi Miike)

13) “Moneyball” (dir. Bennett Miller)

12) “Poetry” (dir. Chang-dong Lee)

11) “Le Quattro Volte” (dir. Michaelangelo Frammartino)

———-

Best Films 10-1:

10) “Tyrannosaur” (dir. Paddy Considine)

9) “Midnight in Paris” (dir. Woody Allen)

8) “The Artist” (dir. Michel Hazanavicius)

7) “Certified Copy” (dir. Abbas Kiarostami)

6) “Hugo” (dir. Martin Scorsese)

5) “A Separation” (dir. Asghar Farhadi)

4) “Shame” (dir. Steve McQueen)

3) “Drive” (dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)

2) “Beginners” (dir. Mike Mills)

1) “The Tree of Life” (dir. Terrence Malick)