"Dinner for Schmucks"

Gus Van Sandt's "Last Days"

Over a decade ago, when Kurt Cobain was chanting “Rape me, my friend” with his Munch-like scream and intense blue eyes in opposition to MTV's hold on his artistic license, he had only scratched the surface in his realization of how far the American corporate machine of media entertainment could and would permanently center him. "Last Days" is the last in a trilogy of films exploring untimely deaths by director Gus Van Sant, best known for grim but quirky masterpieces such as "Drugstore Cowboy" (1989) and "My Own Private Idaho" (1991). Van Sant presents a meditation on the demise of a rock musician named Blake (Michael Pitt) who has somehow lost his mind along with his raison d'etre and mumbles and stumbles around his Seattle mansion and surrounding area for several days, vacillating between moments of clarity and catatonic states until he eventually kills himself in the room above the garage.

"Where the Truth Lies"

I have a confession to make. This is an embarrassing one considering that I am Canadian, and also a movie geek (of sorts). I don't really like Atom Egoyan. I think he is a marvelous technical director, and at times he has caught me up in his cinema. I find, however, with a lot of his work that he keeps the material at such a distance from the viewer, that the audience can not fully appreciate it like they should. He made "The Sweet Hereafter", which was a prime example of what I'm saying, and then "Felicia's Journey" which was a step in the right direction. Then along came Ararat and I thought he was doomed. During that film, I swore he was lost forever in material that was relevant only to him.

"Walk the Line"

I went into "Walk the Line" a skeptical viewer. I am not a fan of biography movies in general, for I find that most of them either become too inaccurate in their approach, or miss the point entirely and become focused on the darker side of the person. Films such as "A Beautiful Mind", "Ali", and "Blow" are all examples of movies that failed to portray their subjects in the light that would have most suited them, and henceforth failed entirely.

"Quills"

There are many things that amaze me about the work of Philip Kaufman. First off, it amazes me that he gets a seemingly small piece of film fan's recognition. Second, that he made "Twisted" which was a huge hunk of crap. And most notably that Philip Kaufman has made not only some very significant examples of cinema, but that those separate films are so different from each other. Kaufman directed the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" remake, which is not only superior to the first film, but also one of the most stylistically dark movies ever made. A wonderful comedic snapshot of the early sixties, "The Wanderers", for which Kaufman also wrote the screenplay. He directed "The Right Stuff" which was a significant, Academy Award winning docudrama about real life space exploration. Then he directed movies like "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" and "Henry and June" which are some of film's finest examples of erotic storytelling.

"Purple Rain"

I was not a fan of Prince before I saw "Purple Rain" for the first time. I had never had more than a passing interest in his work, and didn't think that would ever change. One day, however, after buying "Purple Rain" for the girlfriend (calling her a ‘huge' Prince fan, would be a ‘huge' understatement), we sat down and watched it, and my opinion of Prince and his music was forever changed. I am now of the opinion that there are few, if any, entertainers who are as talented, or as enjoyable to watch, as Prince. "Purple Rain" is the defining film in the genre of rock-based drama.

"Now You See Me, Now You Don't"
aka "Most látszom, most nem látszom"

I seem to have a sort of dilemma at the point of writing this review. You see, when I view an independent short film, the film usually falls into either the category of very good, or very bad. In my experience, there have been few short films that sit on any sort of ‘middle ground'. The film is usually either very well crafted in nearly every respect, or some sort of abysmal failure that can't seem to get anything right (Luckily, I've had to write very few negative reviews on independent shorts). Regardless of the film's overall quality, I don't often have a problem pointing out the film's positive or negative aspects. In the case of "Now You See Me, Now You Don't", however, I fear that by revealing details of the plot I may lessen the film's emotional impact, so I will attempt to reveal as little as possible about the film. This may make for a slightly shorter review than usual.

"Marie Antoinette"

Sofia Coppola's previous efforts, "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation" did not go unheralded by most critics. I have always maintained that the enthusiasm towards both of these films was highly exaggerated. While both were solid efforts to be sure, neither was particularly noteworthy.

An enthusiasm in the opposite direction has been directed at Coppola's "Marie Antoinette". According to rumors, the film was booed at the public screening at the Cannes Film Festival, and most articles written about it have agreed that it is a step backwards for the promising filmmaker.

"JCVD"

Van Damme's films have always catered to a certain mentality of film-goer. His films have never carried much of a plot, focusing solely on the action, be it through martial arts (“Bloodsport”; “Kickboxer”) or a mix of traditional action, focusing as much on gunplay as physical action (“Hard Target”). Action movies aren't made this way anymore… They try to incorporate more of a plot than the films are worth, and as a result the level of action suffers, as does the film overall.

"He Was a Quiet Man"

I'll do my best to keep this short…

"He was a Quiet Man"'s DVD cover is riddled with award and critical praise. And it's no doubt that Frank Capello's first film in ten years has received significant respect from more notable critics than myself. So how is it possible that I can dislike the same movie so very much?

"Crash" (2004)

"Crash", is a film that has its watchers widely divided.

There are those that think it's one of the best films that they've ever seen, and believe that it deserved its Academy Award. Then there are those that can't comprehend it's enormous following, and had a deep, rooted hatred for it.

I am of the latter group. Many, many other critics, including Roger Ebert are of the former. I mention Ebert because I respect him more than most, and it causes me great distress that a critic of his experience fell for such a condescending piece of shit.