Author: jbg

THE MAGDALENE SISTERS (2002)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed by: Peter Mullan
Cinematography: Nigel Willoghby
Editor: Colin Monie

Cast: Anne-Marie Duff, Nora-Jane Noone, Dorothy Duffy, Eileen Walsh, Mary Murray, Brita Smith, Frances Healy, Geraldine Ewan, Phyllis Macmahon, Eithne Mcguniess

Three young Irish women struggle to maintain their spirits while they endure dehumanizing abuse as inmates of a Magdalene Sisters Asylum.

This is a harrowing story of survival and injustice. Where young women were forced into indentured slavery to a degree. As they were made to be subservient to priests and nuns at monasteries and convents. For supposedly being bad girls but usually see being attacked or abused sexually or even thought if for being non chaste.

In the first act of the film, we see the three characters who we will follow their daily lives and what lead them to be Sent to this asylum. The next act is their lives in the asylum and the third act is an escape attempt. 

Then once sent away being made to be tortured and abused by the church. From molesting and raping priests In Servitude. While the church makes money off of their slave labor. 

This film allows us to be brought into the situation by three protagonists who are sent there we see what leads them here before interacting with one another as we hear snippets of other women’s stories while being preyed upon by the nuns who are the main tormentors. As they believe the girls deserve it as sinners and that they themselves are in service to god. So they are the more mighty.

The film is a powerful historical dramatization as well as a strong movie that doesn’t offer any conventional Cookie cutter answers or depictions. Even when some are released there are no emotional goodbyes or promises to help get them out. It makes you want to learn more about the history of the subjects the film offers. As it is such an immersive experience.

This film easily could have gone into exploitation. Though luckily the film is meant to show what they go through without getting bogged down in any graphic depictions of sex and violence.

Though it does manage to keep the tension high and filled with drama. We watch the Female protagonists and see how each in their own way survives and gets released or makes their getaway. How it scars then and haunts one especially even past their supposed escape.

The film is hard to sit through due to the victimization that went on until the 1960s and was never brought justice. As the audience watches, they can feel the pain

What makes this move unsettling is the fact that It’s a true story. Which is also what makes it so unforgettable. It’s a history lesson and a survival story about a time no one really talks about and you see and experience the horrors of the characters. Though the actual people who survived the asylum said it was much worse then depicted. 

Grade:B+

DHEEPAN (2015)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Jacques Audiard 
Written By: Jacques Audiard, Thomas Bidegain & Noe Debre 
Cinematography By: Eponine Momenceau 
Editor: Juliette Welfling 

Cast: Jesuthasan Antonythasan, Kalieaswari Srinivasan, Claudine Vinasithamby, Vincent Rottiers
Marc Zinga Dheepan is a Tamil freedom fighter, a Tiger. In Sri Lanka, the Civil War is reaching its end, and defeat is near. Dheepan decides to flee, taking with him two strangers – a woman and a little girl – hoping that they will make it easier for him to claim asylum in Europe. Arriving in Paris, the ‘family’ moves from one temporary home to another until Dheepan finds work as the caretaker of a run-down housing block in the suburbs. He works to build a new life and a real home for his ‘wife’ and his ‘daughter’, but the daily violence he confronts quickly reopens his war wounds, and Dheepan is forced to reconnect with his warrior’s instincts to protect the people he hopes will become his true family. 

The first French film shot nearly entirely in the Tamil language. In fact The first film in Tamil language and with Tamil lead actors to win the Palme d’Or.

The film involves a former soldier is suffering from PTSD. Tries to start over with a new identity and a fake family.

Not as violent or action-packed as once thought and advertised. As mostly there are scenes of action but we see it mainly from his point of view and more towards the end. Even though throughout the film the characters are surrounded by dangerous characters and hear stories of violence in their new home and the one they are coming from.

As the film moves along it becomes a slow-burning vigilante tale with heart. As it seems here thankfully the film considers the characters first and the action is secondary.

Once the action starts what a glorious sequence it is. The film is full of vivid handheld camera work which makes some scenes more dramatic than one would think.

The film focuses on him and his makeshift wife mostly. Their relationship and how it actually blossoms purely out of survival at first then slowly becomes affectionate. While they also raise an orphan girl who is more in the background and used more to help them get sympathy but is the chain that binds them together. As they have escaped war-torn Sri Lanka only to move into and work in a gang filled Parisian housing development (projects)

She slowly gets close to the son of the elderly man she takes care of, the son is a gang leader who is under house arrest. So that she is constantly in the middle of the current war going on in the streets. 

Everything goes good until the third act with the reemergence of an old general who has lost it. He seems to have cursed them as old nightmares come to the forefront in the new form of continuous random violence until DHEEPAN decides to take a stand. As he couldn’t before, forming a peace block.

The film is pretty straight forward which is why it might seem like I am just telling the plot and scenes. Just as with his precious film director Jacques Audiard has us with the characters every step of the way. Right up in their faces.

The film is an immigrant story that doesn’t solely focus on being in a new country and trying to assimilate more dealing with the troubled past of the characters as they try to settle. Starting a new life when virtually everything is new and different. Especially as most of the leading cast had never acted in a film before. So it gives the film unmannered performances that make it feel all the more natural and real.

It’s the anti – BROOKLYN movie (which is a romantic tale of an Irish immigrant in New York on the 1950s)

Not much happens but much is felt though at times the film seems to try to hide it’s hand. Even as one thing really particularly shocking happens in the film.

After his more provocative films. He plays this one pretty straight other than turning the camera in characters and cultures usually not seen on the big screen.

Happy for the ending as it is rare for these types of tales to end positively and with promise. They always seem to be downtrodden, sacrificial, or compromised.

Grade: B+

DONALD CRIED (2017)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Kris Avedisian 
Story By: Kris Avedisian, Jesse Wakeman & Kyle Espelata 
Cinematography By: Sam Flesichner 

Cast: Kris Avedisian, Jesse Wakeman, Louisa Krause, Ted Arcidi, Shawn Contois 
With the sudden passing of his grandmother, Peter Latang returns to his hometown and encounters his long lost, childhood friend, Donald Treebeck. What begins as a simple favor, turns into a long day’s journey into the past.

I will say that this film isn’t for everyone.

Making and distribution of this movie funded through the website, Kickstarter.

As it is very low budget and seems more like a labor of love and a kind of semi-autobiographical cal story that feels like a kind of therapy or expression of what could have been.

This is a film that will easily be overlooked, it’s worth it if you take your time to discover it.

The cartoonish appearance of one of the characters prepares you to expect one type of story but delivers another. Almost like a bait and switch.

The director stars in the film and wrote the film. His co-star in the film who plays his friend is also the co-writer of the film.

It’s a comedy of sadness that feels at home in despair. That comes off depressing to a degree. That shows how some people grow and some don’t. Who seen stuck in arrested development. To when they had their heydays and as the world matures they still seem to stay the same.

Here a character comes back to his hometown to bury his grandmother and take care of her estate and rubs into an old friend and while definitely changed he can’t seem to shake this friend and the longer he is around him find himself reverting to his old ways. Even though we are never completely told we find out so much about their past through stories and other characters. Gradually over the 24 hours they spend together. It appears both have some anger issues towards one another and in general.

The film generally stays awkward and uncomfortable throughout. With both characters not particularly likeable though whenever you want to feel sorry for them. Something happens that brings them back to being unlikable. Maybe then it is more understandable what makes them that way.

The film is very revealing with an intimacy that is not that intricate, but is affecting. As it seems like both characters are sensitive and working through issues but constantly pushing them to the side or deflecting. That makes the film feel like they are both having a one-man show. Working through the pain only more encompassing and interacting. Though Donald clearly cherished this friendship and that they were close when others recollect it seems that his friend was kind of cruel to him and used him. Which is why Donald who seems to dress more like a comedic character who looks like he belongs in NAPOLEON DYNAMITE

How hard it is to communicate feelings as a man to another man. Especially when you have grown up and grown apart. That asks what if you were only friends die to location and necessity. Seeing other characters from their Youth move on or marvel at how stuck they seem or how some have moved forward. They don’t necessarily fit into each other lives now, but always have a bond and feeling for one another. Are friends for the past entitled to you and your feelings? Are you supposed to be on their side? I matter what? The film explores how friendships can evolve like relationships. How they can be manipulative and disintegrate.

The past can be subjective. You can look at it as positive, but once confronted the truth comes to light and you realize you weren’t as good and heroic as you once thought.

It even seems to have a moment of easy temptation that seems like selling out of sorts.

The film affected me. As it might have hit too close to a nerve for me. Though the film also feels like a kind of release for the characters and the audience finally by the end.

Going back to a past you hoped would stay that way and becomes  a comedy of layers

GRADE: B

DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS (2010)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Jay Roach
Written by: David Guion & Michael Handelman
Based on the original screenplay “Le Diner De Cons” by: Francis Veber 
Cinematography: Jim Debault 
Editor: Alan Baumgarten & Jon Poll

Cast: Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Zach Galifinakis, Jemaine Clement, Bruce Greenwood, Larry Wilmore, Andrea Savage, Lucy Punch, David Williams, Stephane Szostak, Ron Livingston, Kristen Schawlow, Nick Kroll, Randall Park, Chris O’Dowd, Jeff Dunham, Octavia Spencer, Rick Overton 

When he finds out that his work superiors host a dinner celebrating the idiocy of their guests, a rising executive questions it when he’s invited, just as he befriends a man who would be the perfect guest.

While I quite enjoyed the french original it was smaller scale and crueler. Limited in its locations and hijinks. 

As Well the lead was less likable and by the end, all that happens seemed more like a well-deserved comeuppance. Though after a while you Could feel his pain

This American remake is opened up more to allow more characters and situations. That makes the film feel more Bloated than it needs to be.

The film has a talented comedic cast, who all seem to go over the top and try way too hard to make the material work when not needed and steal the movie. It doesn’t feel so much as fun and entertaining. With each trying to top one another in a game of one up man ship that it feels grand in its upper-crust air. Though proves that some bits and pieces are good enough. Which is a shame because the cast is pretty solid. 

Steve Carrell feels too familiar with this role in THE OFFICE of being innocently annoying and stupid more silly here and bigger. While He is one of the stars he keeps getting scenes stolen from him by co-Stars.

Steve Carell does what he is supposed to do and can be a chameleon usually in roles you would never believe he would be cast in, but here he never quite makes a mark to pass into an original or a classic. 

The film certainly lacks any subtlety. The film still wants the main stars to be likable. So the film opens up the story for more hijinks. As well as padding out the cast and a third act showdown. Whereas the original could have been a theatrical stage piece.

One can give credit for opening up the Story but each new location most feels like a set up where you know things are going to go wrong. 

The film isn’t As snobbish or highbrow as this seems more broadly humored. 

Yet again though this is a remake made for now original the foreign language one was and other than it’s the Main point most is changed around for a more mainstream appeal that subtracts what made it so special in the first place. It’s never a good place to be, because if you follow too closely then it’s like the film

LET ME IN practically the same shots with different actors and in English with minor changes. Where you might as well watch the original as everything is pretty much the same. You just won’t recognize the cast and will have to read subtitles.

So if you have seen the original while this is bigger it comes off strangely and as even if you haven’t seen the original. This still will be way too familiar and you’ve seen it before and done better.

GRADE: C

BILL & TED’S BOGUS JOURNEY (1991)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Peter Hewitt
Written By: Chris Matheson & Ed Soloman
Cinematography By: Oliver Wood
Editor: David Finfer

Cast: Keanu Reeves, Alex Winter, William Sadler, George Carlin, Joss Ackland, Pam Grier, Hal Landon Jr., Sarah Trigger, Jim Martin, Taj Mahal, Primus 

The world of our distant future is a veritable utopia, thanks to the lyrics of two simple-minded 20th Century rock and rollers, Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Ted “Theodore” Logan. However, a would-be conquerer threatens to throw history off-track by sending “most non-non-heinous” evil robot Bill and Teds back to kill their good counterparts. Finding themselves dead, the boys must outwit the Grim Reaper and traverse Heaven and Hell to return to the land of the living, rescue their “babes” and have a “most triumphant” concert at the all-important Battle of the Bands

The original title was “Bill and Ted go to Hell” but was changed because of American objections to the use of the word “hell”.

Stephen Herek declined to return as director because he thought it was “almost a parody of a movie that was already a parody”.

This is a sequel not too many people saw coming as yes the first film was a hit, but this sequel while seeming a bit more forced. This seems to revel in the off the Wall motif of everything involved and seems giddy with the chances they have in where they can take the film. As this film is much more wild and experimental and bigger budgeted.

When it comes to this film while there is much more to love and it is more accomplished. I prefer the original for it’s newness factor. Here we are used to these characters and while the film offers a noticeably different story. It still doesn’t feel quite as fresh as the original. Though this one is stranger. It’s not a bad film just different In its own way

definitely can say that this film seems to benefit from a better budget. As the art direction is a lot more sharp and pleasing to the eye. Making the film seem more surreal overall. As the visuals stay with you.

While this film is futuristic it is also definitely a film of its time. Which is where the film’s weakness lies. This is a film where you can tell everyone had a lot of fun making. As all the actors are inspired even the leads seem more gung ho in their roles as maybe they understand the characters more.

As the leads get to play multiple versions of themselves and seem to have their characters more on a directional path. Whereas in the first film they were teenagers who got a glimpse of the future. They still had the time and plenty of room until then. Here we see them trying to get there and the otherworldly obstacles in their way.

This film has less of a necessary story than the first film which just seemed like an odd quirky high concept comedy. Here the film seems more inspired by the characters than the plot. As this film Plays more like a comedic nightmare for the characters. Though you can’t debt that the film is more vibrant if slightly more off-center. As the film beers more into star Alex winter’s early short films and show on MTV, IDIOT BOX. As well as his feature film directorial debut FREAKED, in it’s strange and surreal humor. Where scenes seem partially like sketches that tie into the overall story. Especially in the hell sequences 

William Sadler as death (his death character seemingly more inspired by Max Von Sydow in THE SEVENTH SEAL) steals the film with so much gusto and comedic highlights. That it is another performance that should have made him more in demand and lead to either more lead by roles or character actor roles. At least more comedic ones.

In this film, there is very little time travel. This is a relief as it leaves the film Not relying upon or rehashing the first film’s main focus. Making this sequel seeming fresher.

This film though does feel more creative. As it takes more chances and seems a lot more fun. It’s like a funhouse version of the first film. Whereas this film shows it’s inspirations and seems more aimed at off the wall humor. Focused on its core younger audience. This film also introduced an actual villain for the two characters to face. Even though Joss Ackland claims he only too the role because he lost a bet.

These films always feel like a precursor or an inspiration to the WAYNE’S WORLD skit and movies. Which just like this film had a more surreal and overstuffed sequel. as well as BEAVIS & BUTTHEAD was only more likable.

The film has an ending song that at the time felt iconic but listening to it now feels more melodramatic and embarrassing from the band KISS.

Grade: B-

CELEBRITY (1998)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed by: Woody Allen 
Cinematography: Sven Nykvist
Editor: Susan E. Morse 

Cast: Kenneth Branagh, Winona Ryder, Famke Janssen, Leonardo DiCaprio, Gretchen Mol, Greg Mottola, Charlize Theron, Judy Davis, Douglas McGrath, Joe Mantegna, Andre Gregory, Sam Rockwell, Adrian Grenier, Michael Lerner, Melanie Griffith, J.K. Simmons, Famke Janssen, Becky Ann Baker, Issac Mizrahi, Anthony Mason, Kate Burton, Debra Messing, David Marguiles, Tony Sirico, Bebe Neuwirth, Patti D’Arbanville, Ingrid Rogers, Jeffrey Wright, Hank Azaria, Karen Duffy, Aida Turturro, Allison Janney, Donna Hanover, Celia Weston, Wood Harris, Donald Trump 

Lee Simon, unsuccessful journalist and wanna-be novelist, tries to get his foot in the door with celebrities. After divorcing his wife Robin, Lee gets to meet a lot folks of the rich and/or beautiful, partly through journalism, and partly because he has a script to offer. But life amongst those from out-of-this-world is hard, and his putative success always results in defeat. Meanwhile, Robin meets a very desirable television producer and takes the first steps in the world of celebrities.

This seems to be more of a moralistic take more than a character piece. filming in black and white the film does come off looking beautiful and Classic but just like the characters, it’s empty.

This isn’t a typical woody Allen film. This feels more aggressive and verbose than usual a bit more hardcore. Where you can’t tell if he is angry or trying to fit in with the cinematic trends and language of the time. As this film and DECONSTRUCTING HARRY have that in common. 

While we have the typical Woody Allen type surrogate lead character played here by Kenneth Branagh. Here he feels disposable and never quite makes a mark. As he is just one of the many unlikeable characters throughout the film.

The characters are all physically beautiful but seem to be grotesque internally. As it seems only the lead character seems to know better. As he constantly cheats on his wife as his profile seems to rise, but as he slowly gets his comeuppance his suffering wife seems to become famous herself and finds love and good fortunes. 

The film seems more like a commentary on modern life at that time. The nature of celebrity web tabloids. A kind of acid commentary on it all. While feeling like a tabloid itself how it jumps around from character to character and tale to tale. Though it also feels like with this film though not surreal Allen seems to try to emulate Fredrico Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA to a degree. While it tries to feel like that movie it never quite rises to that level. 

Using the nature of having a lot of big names in his cast. They are here for a reason. While this little is a commentary the film seems scattershot and ultimately lost because it never seems to come to a point. Just cruelty  As the Lead and the movie goes on many misadventures on his way to trying to achieve being a great writer and screenwriter. He finds the romantic entanglements prove to be as artificial as the proper and the world he is trying to enter. Even if all are around him are supposed to be artists and of such depth and passion. Showing all to be more in the moment and inauthentic with a love of self More than anything. 

Falling in love with the image in which others see them and list after them. Loving their own image More than anything else. 

The most noteworthy thing about this movie is that it has Leonardo DiCaprio in it. Mirroring his TITANIC fame of popularity but this was filmed before that film’s release. So it seems like life imitating art. Though some of the films revolve around him, he isn’t actually in it much. 

While not a classic the film is admirable in it’s own ways. It is beautifully shot and tries to say something overall it just has a funny way of showing it. 

Grade: C

THE INFORMANT (2009)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Steven Soderbergh 
Written By: Scott Z. Burns 
Based on the book by: Kurt Eichenwald 
Cinematography By: Steven Soderbergh (As Peter Andrews) 
Editor: Stephen Mirrione 

Cast: Matt Damon, Melanie Lynskey, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale, Clancy Brown, Tony Hale, Ann Dowd, Rusty Schwimmer, Eddie Jemison, Tom Papa, Rick Overton, Thomas F. Wilson, Scott Adsit, Andrew Daly, Ann Cusack, Patton Oswalt, Tom Smothers, Paul F. Tompkins, Candy Clark

Mark Whitacre has worked for lysine developing company ADM for many years and has even found his way into upper management. But nothing has prepared him for the job he is about to undertake – being a spy for the FBI. Unwillingly pressured into working as an informant against the illegal price-fixing activities of his company, Whitacre gradually adopts the idea that he’s a true secret agent. But as his incessant lies keep piling up, his world begins crashing down around him. 

Based on a true story. 

This seems like the perfect set-up for a comedy a rather dry one. 

The film starts off a little haphazard at first laying its groundwork. That at first is confusing, but you get the full picture as the film goes on. The first half of the film also feels a little pretentious as it seems to feel it’s the smartest kid in the room and has jokes and humor that seems to be inside and to itself, but the film becomes more interesting and compelling as the film goes on. 

Though there are many good actors in the film their roles are so small they never get a chance to shine. Quite a few stand-up comedians in the cast. I believe more for their improved skills and ability to punch up the lines to have a humorous stance, but most of them play straight and deadpan where as the dramatic actors are playing more comedic roles. Which i believe is another cinematic experiment by director Steven Soderbergh to subvert genre rules and play with the material. 

The film is practically a one-man show for Matt Damon who gained weight for the role. Already a great actor. He is certainly having fun here while portraying a three-dimensional real character. 

It’s always nice to see Scott Bakula on screen a character actor. Who always seems to pop up in the odd film. Who I always feel should work more though it may be my hero-worship of him from the Tv Show QUANTUM LEAP. 

I have a love/hate relationship when it comes to Mr. Soderbergh and his movies. I applaud his filmmaking skills and the fact that he brings more experimental techniques and direction to mainstream films. The problem is that at times it generally distracts and makes you pay more attention to it. Then the actual story that is onscreen can work if it’s a story you’ve seen many times (ERIN BROCKOVICH) before or the films. Theme and plot are thin or more of a character study, but if it’s a straightforward film it can be a bit much. I respect and honor him for it, but at times it feels a bit much. 

What works here is that in his head Matt Damon’s character is playing this espionage mission and is a hero and has convinced himself that he is the innocent hero and his employers are the villains when in actuality he is the villain, yet see’s himself as a double agent and is able to convince others of this. Only it’s not an exciting action-packed cat and mouse situation, but the most mundane and boring business double-dealing. It’s a nice and interesting contrast considering we have seen Damon actually play a character in life or death Espionage action films in The Bourne Trilogy 

In an NPR radio interview, Matt Damon said that Steven Soderbergh, to get Mark Whitacre’s final apology to the judge just right, directed Damon to perform the lines as if he were accepting an Academy Award. (Damon said it was an example of “perfect direction”.) 

The mood of the film comes off as a timely classic period piece though it is thoroughly modern. Steven Soderbergh makes films full of ideas that might not always work for general audiences, but at least he is trying you get a general sense of excitement behind his films as he is actually thinking far ahead while in the moment. This doesn’t make for the fastest most exciting moments while watching the films. Once you are finished watching the film though it does leave you to think more about what you have seen. it stays with you a bit longer. You just don’t dismiss and forget. It’s not exactly disposable. That is what a true artist as a director brings to the screen. 

The film purposely styles itself like a classic 70’sfilms in tone and mood. Even its titles and score by Marvin Hamlisch. This also leans it more towards the Pretentious style or maybe I am being a bit harsh and it’s more a homage. 

I realize that at times Soderbergh more goes for the documentary-style where he seems like he is filming as it really happens. I give more kudos to the cast for never breaking and making the mundane of the character believable. 

The film starts off as a guy who tells a lie to get out of trouble and the lie just snowballs bigger and bigger leading to a bunch of lies and when he finally gets caught. He tries to lie and deal his way out. The thing is as he is lying at times he even seems to believe the lies but ends up destroying many lives for nothing while still feeling and portraying the victim not understanding or refusing to see why people are mad at him. 

I believe his character appears to want to be the rebel because he believes he is always being slighted but wanting to be popular also and believing he is the smartest guy in the room. 

GRADE: C+

FLIRTING WITH DISASTER (1996)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed by: David O. Russell

Cinematography: Eric Alan Edwards

Editor: Christopher Tellefsen 

Cast: Ben Stiller, Patricia Arquette, Tea Leoni, Josh Brolin, Richard Jenkins, Mary Tyler Moore, Alan Alda, Lily Tomlin, George Segal, Celia Weston, David Patrick Kelly, Nadja Dajani 

Five months after the birth of his son, Mel Coplin remains unable to name the child until he has met his own biological parents and discovered who he “really is.” He, his wife Nancy, and his social-worker-in-training Tina Kalb jet off to California to meet his birth mother–who turns out not to be his mother, due to an error with the agency’s adoption records. The quartet sets out in search of Mel’s real parents, with tensions growing because of the sexual chemistry lacking between Mel and Nancy and growing between Mel and Tina.

This film is made in a classic screwball comedy type manner, but it feels more intellectual than these films. As it swings from out and out wacky comedy to more witty humor. So that it feels like a modern for that time Woody Allen movie. Only with his earlier anarchic spirit behind the camera.

The film often goes for shocks in it’s comedy but doesn’t feel blatant and ends up more subtle at times.

Each of the characters perfectly complements the ensemble as each of them appears fairly normal, but as we get to know then their dysfunctions or freaky side is revealed and they are so one of a kind many of them. Could have a whole film built around them.

Though the film is shot small and more like an independent film. Where at first we are in The cramped apartments of New York where it feels overwhelming and tight. As there are scenes that take place more indoors and feel closed off. Once they hit the open road it offers more abundance.

Though the way the camera keeps moving and shooting. It’s shots make it look like the camera like the performers are always exploring be it themselves, space, or boundaries. Which as a viewer excites you as you are never quite sure what will happen next and it keeps you laughing.

The timing And delivery of the jokes and performances as well as the direction are all on point.

The ensemble cast that would be seen as an all-star cast now. Seem more like they are improving like a jazz standard jam. Riffing off of one another and carrying the beat. Though while sure improv was involved it seems like the film was actually tightly scripted. Though when dialogue as said. It seems like it was thought up on the spot.

This is a comedy that delivers real surprises when you don’t expect them.

The strength behind the film is writer/director David O. Russell. He pulls the film together. Cinematically It’s impressive, script-wise it’s impressive and the performances he gets from his cast are amazing. As they go from serious to wacky in an instant. He usually can find laughs and comedy in situations that are not the usual places most would even go looking. Especially in dire depressing situations. Not only with this film but with films

Like his directorial debut SPANKING THE MONKEY (a rather depressing comedy about incest) I HEART HUCKABEES, THREE KINGS, AMERICAN HUSTLE, JOY, THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, and THE FIGHTER. He shows range, talent, and a certain composite. Where you can’t say there snot if his films are the same.

The casting in this movie is inspired as ben Stiller doesn’t seem as in control here nor are his reactions with his usual acting tics in this movie. This seems like one of the last times he would be this pristine performance. Though he usually plays this type of character.

Tea Leoni and Patricia Arquette get to show off their talents. Tea Leoni in a more offbeat styled character who was usually played at that time by Parker Posey. She really shows her chops in a role she rarely gets to do these days more the neurotic sex pot who dresses more like a femme fatale. Who always seems in control but might be just for appearances.

Patricia Arquette has an almost leading lady form and is that attractive girl next door quality as Stiller’s wife.

Mary Tyler Moore as his overbearing Jewish mother. Who likes to show how good her body still is in shape. She tries to steal the movie but is in her realm in a role that at first looks like stunt casting but actually works out well.

Josh Brolin being more comedic and open than usual as a gay/bi FBI agent who tags along on the ride.

This film is a treat I regret not seeing in theaters. As I tried but disappeared fast. Though luckily saw it as soon as it was available on home video. Though I will admit It was A film that had to grow on me. Like the first time, i saw it. I thought it was funny but not hilarious. As I watched it over the years it has won me over. As I began to notice the layers and construction of Jokes, scenes, shots, and characters. It’s an underrated film that needs to be revisited and Given more credit.

Definitely an addition to the home library.

Grade: B+

ROUNDERS (1998)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: John Dahl 
Written By: Brian Koppelman & David Levien 
Cinematography By: Jean-Yves Escoffier 
Editor: Scott Chesnut 

Cast: Matt Damon, Edward Norton, Martin Landau, Gretchen Mol, John Malkovich, John Turturro, Michael Rispoli, Famke Janssen, Josh Mostel, Melina Kanakaredes, Lenny Clarke 

A young man is a reformed gambler who must return to playing big stakes poker to help a friend pay off loan sharks

The Film takes you into the backroom parlors and other places around the city where gambling and illegal gaming is going on.

The film puts you in the right atmosphere of a certain kind of elegance and well as an underground network of con men and illegal activities. Which the film tries to come off as cool and slick, but comes off as stiff. The confines though feel illustrious and classic. Like age-old traditions which help give the film a richness. All the scenes seem to filtered with deep dark reds.

By all means, considering the talent involved in the film, this should be a better film. The way the film plays, it acts like it’s a better film then what it is. While it has a pedigree, the film hasn’t earned that right yet.

While it has it’s share of surprises the story feels fairly predictable. The thing that keeps you watching is wondering when and how what you know is going to happen.

Though he is good Edward Norton seems to be coasting through this film. While Matt Damon seems to be taking it seriously while that works for him. It’s not too much of a stretch. While Norton seems to be trying to create a character with very few details. But seems to be going for classic gritty scumbag.
The film at least gives him an important decision to make but either way it is looking up for him whichever decision he makes. only one is more dangerous and uncertain. While the other he is good at but has no passion for.

At the time Hollywood’s it girl Gretchen Mol has what passes for a female leading role, though in the end, it comes off as a typical girlfriend role. There isn’t a real character there just a point in the script to give the lead something to be working toward and pulling him in one direction while the other direction entices him.

It’s fun to see John Malkovich hamming it up in his role. Where he gets to be a character and a heavy. While also getting to be funny

The film seems to have an attitude like it’s supposed to be or going to be a classic New York tale, yet comes off as mediocre and a story that feels familiar that is not necessarily better but isn’t worse than how we have seen it before.

It’s entertaining and a disappointment only because you go in thinking about the possibilities that it never achieves. One of the problems in this film is that we understand the bonds of friendship, but these guys are hustlers and poker players a game of not only skill but smarts. Now he realizes his friend is a screw-up which almost anyone except for him can see. So that when a betrayal does eventually happen He is so shocked. Yet expects loyalty even though they are not family.

I know I am hard on this film, it’s not a bad film. Maybe it’s just the fact I have seen so many films this one does little to distinguish itself. It’s a good film that is enjoyable yet there is nothing too special about it. I remember seeing this in theaters on opening night with a small audience. I expected a bigger more appreciative crowd. Yet the theater was nearly empty. The film is entertaining and as long as you don’t expect much it’s good. It’s just watching it and thinking of how much better it could hurt a little. It does set an intoxicating mood with it’s elements. Giving it a feeling of warmness in treacherous times.

GRADE: B

SPRING (2015)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Aaron Moorehead & Justin Benson 
Written By: Justin Benson 
Cinematography By: Aaron Moorehead 
Editor: Aaron Moorhead, Justin Benson & Michael Felker 

Cast: Lou Taylor Pucci, Nadia Hilker, Jeremy Gardner, Vanessa Bednar, Shane Brady

A young man in a personal tailspin flees the US to Italy, where he sparks up a romance with a woman harboring a dark, primordial secret. Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead claim they wrote the film as a counterpoint to Anne Rice’s The Vampire Chronicles in that it is about a creature who actually enjoys its strange condition.

The film is a foreign romantic fantasy with supernatural elements. That depends more on the conversation to reveal character, elements, and story. rather than just visuals. So that you notice it’s BEFORE SUNRISE influence early. While still having more genre elements.

It is more talkative then Action-oriented, Essentially a dark romantic fantasy

The film starts off dramatically. That makes you wonder where it is exactly going. Though it figures out a nice convenient way to get the main character overseas, we get to know all about him. So like him throughout we wonder about this mysterious femme fatale. Wondering his backstory would be too much mystery.

So the film introduced us to him early. To continuously stay on his side. Allowing us to be more in his shoes and probably knowing what he will do. Rather than continuously questioning his morals and character. Though disappointingly as what gets him to go. Is more of a threat, but never truly explored it come back to.

I am not going to lie. While the film is good what makes it memorable is the lead actress Nadia Hilker who while watching you believe a new big-screen goddess is being introduced.

The film works like the leading character. We get excited once the lead actress Nadia Hilker is on screen and after we are introduced to her. The anticipation until she appears on screen again becomes deafening.

Though after getting to know her. We realize that something is up. Not that the film doesn’t heavily hint at it half the time. Yet we are still fascinated by her.

Like her nature of letting him in and then abandoning him physically and emotionally. Never truly explaining what she is so open to interpretation. She is so stunning that we fully understand his addiction to her and acceptance of her behavior continuously. Sometimes even wishing the film was more all about her and her character’s way of life.

At first, it doesn’t seem like it will, but the film ends up being full of energy and mystery. That starts more once he travels overseas. As he discovers her. Just as when he romances her. we both discover the town revealing both beauties.

Though it feels like a film more of youth than anything. Just as with any romantic love story. The film takes it’s time to set up. Still rather quick allowing for real circumstances

Happy to see Lou Taylor up on the big screen in a lead. He always seems more like a character actor. Who is good looking in a thoroughly modern way. Finally getting a role that he is effective in and makes a mark. He feels real here.

Though it does seem like some effort at times. Go into making him seem cooler, sensitive, and tough to a degree. Though also pretty average in certain ways.

The filmmakers choose to use their locations strongly as we are constantly in picturesque beautiful locations. That makes the smaller scale story feel like that as we are thrown in what feels like epic waters.

The camerawork sometimes positions itself. So that we are right there but also a voyeur. Reminding us. Though we are close. We are watching a story.

The film has a few too many zooms and close-ups of scenery, landscapes, and coasts. In between scenes At times. That is the result of us by drones to film those segments. These shots when done more to impress and show off than anything. Maybe open up the story and land.

The special effects are impressive and are truly explored in one transformation scene, fully.

Even if not, up to a certain point the film seems like a look at love and modern relationships.

It’s obvious on it’s initial influences and thankfully gets more intriguing as it goes along. Like it really wants to separate itself from other indies. Yet feels a little gimmicky to please two masters or two different frames of thought. Yet later to tease the audience with an explanation gives a confusing technical/biological explanation that gorges it a certain context. Yet really only sets up an either/or end.

By the end, the film has a more twilight zone type set-up or seems headed for one. Even if those last moments are precious.

GRADE: B-