Thoughts on the 2013 Best Picture Nominees

So although I haven't viewed all of the 2013 Best Picture nominees (for various reasons), I just want to discuss the five that I have seen: Django Unchained, Life Of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Argo. I still desperately want to see Amour but haven't got the chance to yet (when flying on Austrian Airlines this summer, they offered the film on their in-flight entertainment service, but it didn't have English subtitles). I have little interest in seeing Les Miserables, mainly because of a poor Metascore and the fact that I have heard much about its cheesiness and poor singing from some lead roles. I also am not particularly interested in seeing Lincoln, as I really am not much of a Spielberg fan. I find his films quite overrated (or at least the ones I've seen). Finally, I'd like to see Zero Dark Thirty at some point, but I am afraid if it is shot in a manner similar to Hurt Locker (director Kathryn Bigelow's last film) I wouldn't be able to stomach it - the extreme shaky camera of the latter film actually made me physically nauseous. Without further adieu, here's the lowdown on these five fine films:

Argo 
Director: Ben Affleck
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 86
RT: 96%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Excellent writing, acting, direction
• Phenomenal film editing
• Tense chases and lots of suspense
• 'Murica

Avoid this film if you dislike:

• Historical inaccuracies ("Hollywoodization")
• Ben Affleck 

Django Unchained 
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.5
Metacritic: 81
RT: 88%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Dynamite acting performances
• Incredibly witty, funny, and intelligent dialogue
• Tarantino's unique method of storytelling and visual style
• Over-the-top action and violence
• Westerns

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Brutal depictions of slavery
• Lots of profanity and extreme violence/gore/torture
• Quentin Tarantino films
• Westerns

Silver Linings Playbook 
Director: David O. Russell
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 81
RT: 92%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• Unconventional protagonists
• Witty, funny, yet serious screenplays
• Excellent acting
• Robert DeNiro and/or Jennifer Lawrence

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• [Literally] insane protagonists
• Lots of profanity
• Unconventional characters/storytelling

Beasts of the Southern Wild
Director: Benh Zeitlin
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.3
Metacritic: 86
RT: 86%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Incredibly natural acting
• Breathtaking scenery
• Mature fantasy films
• Gorgeous soundtracks

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Shaky-cam cinematography
• Abusive characters
• Extreme poverty and hardship
• Occasionally nonsensical plot points

Life of Pi

Director: Ang Lee

Country: United States, Taiwan, United Kingdom

IMDB: 8.1

Metacritic: 79

RT: 87%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A-

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Breathtaking and groundbreaking visual effects
• Gorgeous and sweeping cinematography
• Insightful philosophical and religious questions
• Epic adventure films
• The actual novel

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Oftentimes minimal dialogue
• Occasionally excessive use of CGI
• Potentially inconclusive film endings
• Animals dying

So as you can see from my ratings, my favorite of the bunch is the breathtakingly beautiful epic film, Life of Pi. I heartily agreed with the Academy's decision to award Ang Lee an Oscar for Best Direction. The cinematography and visual effects were absolutely incredible. The film features an extraordinarily rich range of colors and textures as well. In fact,  Life of Pi oftentimes seems like a series of increasingly breathtaking visual spectacles interspersed with solemn pontificating on the meaning of life. The film also raises interesting religious and philosophical questions and features excellent acting from all of the leads, especially newcomer Suraj Sharma. After seeing the eventual Best Picture winner, Argo, I must say I think Life of Pi deserved it more.

One of many breathtaking stills from Life of Pi

That is taking away absolutely nothing from Argo. In fact, I think the Academy may have awarded the top prize to Affleck's exciting movie simply because of its pure technical proficiency. Argo has no weaknesses across the board - it features strong acting, writing, and editing especially. Yet despite Argo's technical strengths, I couldn't shake feeling that there really isn't much substance behind the film's glossy surface . Story-wise, it plays out like a run-of-the-mill Hollywood thriller, albeit with outstanding production values.

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Django Unchained, represented a much stronger effort than 2009's Inglorious Basterds. The film's strong point is Tarantino's trademark (and Oscar-winning) dialogue, along with dynamite performances from the entire cast (especially Jackson, DiCaprio, and Waltz). Tarantino's excellent visual style and an awesome soundtrack also contribute to the overall quality of the film. However, Django Unchained does suffer some inconsistent pacing and sloppy editing at times.

I enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook - it's a wonderful little film but I don't think it's in the same category as any of the other Best Picture nominees I've seen. Well made, written, and acted, but nothing really standout (at least to me). Way above average mix of a quirky-family comedy and rom-com. 

Finally, that brings me to Beasts of the Southern Wild, an absolutely outstanding debut effort by rookie director Benh Zeitlin. A rich and engrossing fairy tale taking place in a quasi-post-apocalyptic floodplain in the Louisiana Bayou, the film features wonderfully natural acting, gorgeous scenery, and an earthy and heartwarming soundtrack. Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry as daughter and father are absolutely incredible given their non-acting backgrounds. The film takes a good hard look at how poverty affects the way people live and interact, and highlights the inherent strength of familial and community ties. The film's plot is a bit of a mess at times, but as a whole, Beasts of the Southern Wild is a phenomenal film. I will definitely be looking out for Mr. Zeitlin's films in the future.

Hushpuppy (Wallis) afloat on a makeshift raft in Beasts of the Southern Wild

So there are my (hopefully coherent) musings on the 2013 Best Picture nominees I've seen. My next post will probably be a more straight-up review, but this was a fun exercise in comparing films!

-CC

Overrated and Overstated - SCARFACE

SCARFACE

1983 - 170 Minutes - Crime/Drama

Director: Brian De Palma

Country: United States

IMDB: 8.3

Metacritic: 65

RT: 89%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 6/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• violence/gore

• crime/drugs/mob

• Michelle Pfeiffer

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• violence/gore

• a weak screenplay

• poor characterization/acting

• montages

(minor spoilers and language below)

"Scarface is one of special movies, like "The Godfather," that is willing to take a flawed, evill man and allow him to be human," - Roger Ebert - Chicago Sun-Times

"A beautiful, at times poetic exercise in excess from Brian De Palma." - TV Guide

"Performances are excellent, and despite its moralistic conclusion, the film has since become de rideur for crack baron, who know a good shoot-em-ep when they see one." 

- Andy Gill - Empire

Well... not exactly. 

Brian De Palma's Scarface celebrated it's 30th anniversary this year, and is renowned as a crime saga classic. Al Pacino stars as Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who decides he wants to take Miami by storm, and become a drug lord. In the process, he fights back agaisnt extreme violence, kills off his bosses in the hope of taking their positions, and is seemingly unfazed by any and all obstacles. He woos a beautiful woman (Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira Hancock), buys a massive mansion and takes control of the south Florida drug landscape. The story had promise, but Brian De Palma and company failed to execute. Scarface is a poorly done, extravagant film that is basely placed among the crime classics. 

Headlining the negative features is lean man Al Pacino. He was surely the ideal actor for the role in 1983, coming off huge performances in the 70's like "The Godfather," "The Godfather Part ll," "Serpico," and "Dog Day Afternoon." He was smack in the middle of his prime, and familiar with a crime-oriented role. Hell, he even sort of looked Cuban. He's a favorite actor of mine, but his acting in Scarface was all too fake. While he may resemble a Cuban, his attempt at a Cuban accent was bothersome. It felt forced and unnatural, and sparked flashbacks from his Italian role in "The Godfather" as Michael Corleone. Italy is where his actual decent lies, and he was much more believable as an Italian. Worse than the accent though, was his overall body language. Everything he did, from walking and talking to smoking and shooting was exaggerated and over the top. He spoke loudly, almost yelling in unneeded settings. His presence as a powerful and ambitious figure was clear, but almost too clear. Some claim that he acted this way because he was constantly abusing cocaine. (the prominent drug in the film) I don't buy it, but even if I did, I wouldn't dismiss the overblown mannerisms. Pacino had a role in "Heat" where his character (a homicide detective) was a little wacky sometimes, but it was given to us in small doses. This was non-stop, and it was just too much. His dialogue was also poor, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and point the finger at screenwriter Oliver Stone for that one. 

Al Pacino as Tony Montana

Speaking of Stone's script, it was cliched and immature. It featured a lot of dialogue that seemed abnormal and unfitting. At times, it was even comical:

"I'm Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin' with the best!" - Tony Montana

"You know what? Fuck you! How about that?" - Tony Montana 

"The only thing in this world that gives orders... is balls." - Tony Montana 

Again, I blame Stone more so than Pacino here, but it just couldn't be taken seriously. In his quote above, the late Roger Ebert claimed that Tony Montana was humanized, but I disagree. I don't think any of the characters in Scarface resembled real people, and it really weakened the plot. And let's not forget about the most famous of them all: "Say Hello to My Little Friend!' This phrase has literally become a brand name over the years, and it's quite puzzling. The line is random, out of place, and prefaced by a snort of cocaine. It's the most overrated line in film history. 

Seriously?

"Uh, hello little friend..."

Perhaps what I disliked most about Scarface (because I focus so much on them) was the relationship between Tony Montana and Elvira Hancock. The basis has been done a million times: "My boss has a hot wife, I think I'll find a way to capture her." But to make matters worse, it was done in a horrible manner. To be expected, Hancock despises Montana to begin with. He's a disgusting immigrant that calls her "baby." Okay, fine by me. Then as he climbs up the crime ladder, she allows him to sit poolside and ask her to have babies with him. Excuse me? And by the final third of the film, they're getting married in a laughable montage. There was no expression of real feelings, no substance, and no timeframe for any of it. Hancock came off as a pretty housewife that couldn't think for herself, and that wanted nothing more than money. It's possible that that is precisely what she was supposed to be, bit either way it didn't work. 

Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer in Scarface

The last thing I'd like to add regarding Scarface is it's recognition. While many see it as one of the great films of all time, it was never nominated for an Oscar. In fact, Brian De Palma was even nominated for WORST director by Razzies, who gives out awards for worst film aspects in the Academy's categories. Not all great films get heavy attention at the Oscars, but many do. It was almost as if Al Pacino and the cast were attempting to make fun of these Oscar-winning mob movies. Jay Carr of the Boston Globe concurs: 

"It plays like a crude "Godfather" parody, the sort that might amuse a 10-minute sketch on "Saturday Night live," but curdles and collapses as a 143-minute film." [09 Dec 1983]

The film is actually well overlong at 170 minutes, but was edited for the theaters upon release in 1983. Clearly, Carr didn't think chopping 27 minutes helped any. 

Overall, Scarface fails in all the major categories of a successful crime drama: A strong script, believable and necessary violence, and convincing relationships. It's poorly acted (even from the great Al Pacino), and lacks a serious tone. Decent cinematography and some cool visual effects keep it from being a total bomb, but it remains one of the most overrated films ever made.

- EE


If you're a fan of well-done mob movies, I recommend the following titles:

• Goodfellas
• The Godfather 
• The Godfather Part ll
• Casino
• The Departed 
• Donnie Brasco
• American Gangster
• Eastern Promises

LET'S TALK ABOUT DRIVE

DRIVE

2011 - 100 minutes - Crime/Drama
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn 
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 78
RT: 93%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: 7/10
EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 9/10

(a couple very minor spoilers below)

Hey everybody, CC here. Todaymy colleague EE and I are going to have a conversation about Drive. He's big fan, me not so much. We'll talk about what we like about the film, what we (I) don't like about it, and give you a good idea of what to expect from Drive.

CC: EE initially recommended this film to me. I take his recommendations very seriously, so I watched it the first chance I got, which happened to be in a retro movie theater in Brussels, Belgium. Watching a film on the big screen is always the best way to go. And although I did enjoy the movie overall, I also had some big qualms with it. What about you, EE?

EE: Personally, I would have loved to see Drive in theaters. Visually it's one of the most appealing films I've ever seen. We're immediately immersed in an absorbing, modern atmosphere, and the bright lights of Los Angeles are displayed throughout. The cinematography is masterful. It spotlights the action using unique camera angles, and emphasized views of the actors. (Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, etc.) It features an upbeat, techno-based soundtrack that molds perfectly with the story. However, what I love most about Drive is the subtle, yet extraordinary partnership between the two main characters. 

CC: I have to agree with EE on a lot of his points - Drive actually has a lot of elements that really appealed to me. For one, it looks gorgeous. Shot in neo-noir style featuring bright neon colors and long shots, the film is definitely a beauty. The accompanying 80's-esque soundtrack is also just plain awesome and perfectly embodies the general moodiness of the film. Los Angeles looks and feels cool in Drive, especially the nighttime scenes (which evoke a noir feel). The actual driving/chase scenes are extremely well done and incredibly tense. I just wish there was more of them! I felt the title of the film was a misnomer of sorts, as not a whole lot of actual driving takes place. 

EE: So if the title were different, the lack of car chases would be acceptable? 

CC: Haha, that's really only a minor quibble. But the whole title of the film is Drive, after all, so I was hoping for a little more in that department. I'm always a big fan of a good car chase. What really irked me about the film is that I felt that not a lot really went on aside from the visuals on screen. The main lead is essentially a static character and pretty unlikeable, and there is really no one to root for in this film. All in my humble opinion, of course! 

EE: Alright first of all, the car chases that did make it into the film should have satisfied you, because they were extremely well done. Second and more importantly, The Driver (Ryan Gosling) was in fact static... before he met Irene (Carey Mulligan) The entire story is based upon how he meets her and feels something he never has before. He suddenly feels like he needs to protect her and her son Benicio. He's a stone cold badass that is transformed and captivated by the untouched feeling of connection. 

Carey Mulligan and Ryan Gosling in Drive

CC: I don't really feel like Drive captured any sort of relationship between The Driver and Irene/Benicio, unspoken or otherwise. I guess you could say that Ryan Gosling's irritatingly imperceptible smirk could qualify as emotional involvement, but I disagree. If one says the film was attempting a "neo-noir" style, then I think it failed in this regard. The Driver in no way resembles a classic noir male lead (not necessarily an issue), but he doesn't convey much of anything when so much of the film supposedly relies on the relationship between him and Irene/Benicio. One of my favorite neo-noirs, the classic science fiction film Blade Runner, features a flat and emotionless protagonist just like Drive. However, the visuals of Blade Runner serve as the primary focus of the film while answering insightful philosophical questions. Drive, on the other hand, attempts to use visuals to portray emotional connections. I think it failed in this regard. 

EE: You don't always need dialogue to convey emotions CC. Have you ever just looked at someone and smiled for no apparent reason? If you haven't, I feel bad for you son, because you've got 99 feelings, but love ain't one. But seriously, sometimes you just simply don't need words. With proper camera work and strong actors, you can mimic a true connection. To me, it's clear that both sides really enjoyed spending time with each other, and not just for their looks. Locking of the eyes and simultaneous smiles depict a rare and meaningful relation. Let's also keep in mind that she is married here. So even though she knows that her husband isn't the guy for her, she can't just jump all over The Driver. (like most girls would like to) 

CC: I'm glad you brought up looks, because lots of movies tend to throw to very attractive leads in a situation with minimal exposition/dialogue, and expect the audience to "create" an emotional connection out of thin air. I think Drive is somewhat guilty of this. 

EE: Let's give Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan some credit here. If acting consisted of just being attractive and starring at other attractive people, I'd be an actor myself. It doesn't. It requires a lot of talent, and both these actors have that. Gosling dominated the screen throughout the film, and gave off a reserved, yet gripping sense of power. 

CC: You must have an interesting definition of attraction then, ha! All joking aside, I'd like to bring up my last issue with Drive: its unrelenting, brutal, and unnecessary levels of violence. I consider myself to have a strong stomach when it comes to movies, having seen all kinds of gore and violent acts depicted on screen. The violence in Drive is borderline pornographic and fulfills no function whatsoever aside from titillating gorehounds and disgusting the rest of us. The gore and violence in the film seemed straight out of a crazy horror/sci-fi film. I have no problem whatsoever with gore/violence if it serves a purpose and is done well. Drive's violence is done extremely well and looks quite convincing and realistic. However, I don't think that level of violence was necessary for the story that the film was trying to tell. It felt very out of place and jarring. 

A moment of silence before The Driver strikes

EE: Again, it all has to do with protection. He meets two people, connects with them, and begins to care deeply for them. The violence is merely a representation of how far he's willing to go to keep them safe. In perhaps the bloodiest scene of them all, it ends with a long shot of The Driver's blood-smeared face. It's an expression of shock, fear, and disbelief. I'm under the impression that he wouldn't have acted violently if he didn't have to. He doesn't run around kicking skulls in for fun. In each violence sequence, he was attacked or threatened. They weren't only acts of self defense, but also acts of defending others. 

CC: I understand what you are getting at, I just think his affection for those under his protection could have been conveyed without the over-the-top gore effects. Just my $.02.

CC: Well I think we have definitely covered a lot of ground on the controversial film Drive. To sum up, for me Drive is a beautifully shot and expertly crafted film that is ultimately hollow. It tries and fails to establish a connection between the main character and the supporting cast, and features excessive and unnecessary violence. However, Drive isn't a bad film overall, and is still worth checking out if the plot seems intriguing or you are drawn to visually striking films. 

EE: Enjoyed the discussion CC. As you said, Drive is a stunning film. Unlike you though, I believe the beauty goes beyond the production values. I think Nicolas Winding Refn, Hossein Amini (screenplay) and James Sallis (book) did a stellar job of portraying human emotions, and adding strong dialogue where necessary. Depending on your view, the film goes much deeper than your typical crime drama. In regards to CC's qualm with the violence, I quote Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle: 

"Mainstream audiences will probably be confounded by Drive, while lovers of gritty filmmaking will defend every exaggerated shotgun wound as art. Know which camp you're in before you enter the theater." 

While CC and I are both lovers of gritty filmmaking, we're definitely in separate camps when it comes to Drive. Though, if you can tolerate the violence, I highly recommend giving it a chance. A very well made film that will keep you thoroughly entertained and visually amazed. 

- CC & EE


If you don't decide to check out Drive, at least take a listen to its awesome soundtrack: 

The rest of the soundtrack can be found here:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K7rmxjk5RQ&list=PL8AF7F89F397B8941

Childhood Innocence In Wartime - FORBIDDEN GAMES

FORBIDDEN GAMES (JEUX INTERDITS)

1952 - 86 minutes - Drama/War
Director: René Clément
Country: France
IMDB: 7.9

The unique storybook opening of Forbidden Games

Metacritic: N/A
RT: 100%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A-

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• Realistic depictions of children
• Themes concerning mortality
• Excellent child actors
• WWII films

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Tragic films
• Macabre actions performed by children
• French-language films

French films seem to have a penchant for realistic and convincing depictions of children. From  François Truffaut's The 400 Blows to Louis Malle's Au Revoir Les Enfants,  French directors have crafted many nuanced and accurate films focused on children.  Forbidden Games, René Clément's controversial 1952 WWII film, is no exception.

The film opens with an incredibly heartbreaking sequence. Frenzied Parisians are fleeing the city to escape the Nazi invasion of June 1940; the roads are clogged with refugees. Five-year old Paulette (Brigitte Fossey) loses both of her parents and her pet dog in a German air raid on the refugee column. She stumbles off of the road in a dazed stupor, wandering through the neighboring fields and farms with the body of her pet before encountering a young farmboy named Michel (Georges Poujouly). He instantly takes a liking to her and convinces his family to take her in. They soon develop a strange friendship of sorts as they become obsessed with death and create a fantasy world together in the midst of the horrors of the Second World War.

Michel (Poujouly) and Paulette (Fossey)

Clément's austere direction ensures that the film's primary focus remains on the two child leads, who put forth absolutely magnificent and natural performances. Fossey is perfect as the traumatized survivor of a wartime attack who cannot comprehend the death of her entire family, while Poujouly captures pre-adolescence daring quite convincingly. Their bond appears sincere and steadfast despite their differences. Michel does anything and everything to please and protect Paulette, despite the questionable nature of some of his actions and Paulette's temperamental nature. Paulette views Michel as her guardian, and displays both the childlike innocence and lack of conscience characteristic of five-year olds.

Though the duo takes up sizable portion of screen time, the supporting cast (consisting mainly of Michel's family and some neighboring farmers) are excellent as well. Strangely enough, the film contains elements of dark humor that are effectively juxtaposed with the macabre actions of the children and general wartime atmosphere. A vicious rivalry between two neighboring farm families serves as a backdrop to the relationship between Michel and Paulette, placing their actions in a larger human context.

Fascination with death is a major theme of Forbidden Games

Of final note is the film's score, which consists entirely of haunting classical guitar which plays whenever Michel and Paulette appear together. Composed by Narciso Yepes, the main melody exudes tragedy and sadness, perfectly mirroring the events unfolding onscreen, including the film's unflinchingly brutal denouement. The soundtrack is actually more well-known than the film itself, judging by the countless number of various covers and recordings of it produced over the years.

Forbidden Games provides an enthralling and realistic look at how children can cope with death. It features two wonderful child actors, a poignant and moving score, and an absolutely tragic plot. Fans of escapist cinema will find no refuge here; however, those who value realism and mature themes in the movies can truly appreciate this wonderful piece of filmmaking.

-CC

Check out this gorgeous rendition of the guitar theme of Forbidden Games:

Blood, Brutality, and Brilliance - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

2007 - 122 minutes - Crime/Drama

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen 

Art by Zed187 at zed187.deviantart.com 

Country: United States

IMDB: 8.2 

Metacritic: 91
RT: 94%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 9/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• great filmmaking 

• suspense

• the Coen brothers 

• Woody Harrelson 

Avoid this movie if you dislike: 

• violence/blood

• potentially disturbing sequences 

• southern accents 

• seriousness 

In the Coen Brothers' 2007 crime saga No Country for Old Men, we follow a west Texan hunter who comes across a drug deal in the form of a blood bath. He discovers the drugs, bodies, and most importantly, millions in cash. When he decides to take that cash, violent outbreaks, relentless pursuits, and abashed accusations unfold.  

Josh Brolin plays the hunter, Llewelyn Moss, whose two primary pursuers are a ruthless killer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) and a local sheriff nearing retirement, Ed Tom Bell. (Tommy Lee Jones) Both eventually investigate the crime scene, and both are interested in finding Moss, just for two very different reasons. As Chigurh's quest turns violent, Bell's case becomes more and more complex. He must battle his innate enforcement of the law with an internal feeling of question regarding his current state of life. He can't explain the killer he is chasing, and always feels a step behind. A cat and mouse chase in expert form, that molds three contrasting characters into one captivating trio. 

As a whole, No Country for Old Men is a marvelous film, but three aspects truly stand out: 

1. Anton Cigurh - In an absolute dynamite role, Javier Bardem depicts one of the most powerful villains ever put on screen. A deep, eerie voice, a dead, blank stare, and a trembling mystique make for a totally frightening killer. He flips a coin to decide life and death. He sheds blood without any thought. He uses weapons that are both unorthodox, and vicious. His confrontations are chilling, and his counterparts are always seeping with fear. A well deserved Oscar win from Bardem. 

2. The script - As the Coen brothers often do, they wrote the screenplay together, along with novelist Cormac McCarthy. The words they use often symbolize something greater; They force you to think about what you've heard. The dialogue is sharp, intelligent, and fitting to the Texan land. The characters speak in a way that is both natural and enthralling. It is a rare film in that it features no music. There is no soundtrack to couple intense scenes, or move the story along. That is all up to the characters. Their interactions make the movie and demand investment from the viewer. 

3. The atmosphere - Real life sets often make a big difference in films. No Country for Old Men is no exception. Filmed near location in Sante Fe, New Mexico, the overall vibe from the movie is rural and lonely. The area is not only scenic, but also crucial to the plot. A story of this nature couldn't possibly take place in a city, and the atmosphere plays a huge role in its quality.

Tommy Lee Jones as Ed Tom Bell

Josh Brolin as Llewelyn Moss

At times, No Country for Old Men is downright masterful. Extremely well made, suspenseful and unique in its craft. If you recognize incredible filmmaking or enjoy crime stories or westerns, it's the perfect film for you. A great cast (including a supporting role from Woody Harrelson) telling a great story. Not to be missed. 

-EE

The Darker Side of Manhattan - SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS

SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS
1957 - 96 minutes - Film Noir/Drama
Director: Alexander Mackendrick
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.1
Metacritic: 100
RT: 98%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A

Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster in Sweet Smell of Success

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• Fast-paced, sharp, and witty dialogue
• Gorgeous black and white cinematography
• Film noir
• New York City

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Vicious and sleazy lead characters
• "Unhappy" endings
• New York City
• Womanizers

"You're dead son. Get yourself buried." - J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster)

Sweet Smell of Success is quite the unusual entry into the film noir genre. True, it does take place in a dark and dangerous city (Manhattan) mostly at night and the male leads are womanizers who smoke a lot and talk fast. However, unlike most film noirs, Sweet Smell of Success has no femme fatale, hard-boiled detective, or narration-driven story. Instead, it relies on some of the best dialogue ever put to film (including what seems to be a never-ending stream of exquisite one-liners), incredibly strong acting across the board, and excellent black and white cinematography that showcases the streets of Manhattan in a caliginous fashion.

Burt Lancaster plays J.J. Hunsecker, New York City's most [in]famous newspaper columnist and one of the most chilling and convincing villains in cinematic history. Tony Curtis (in an early role of his) plays Sidney Falco, a sleazy and ambitious press agent working for Hunsecker that will stop at nothing to get ahead. When Hunsecker orders Falco to orchestrate the breakup of his younger sister's relationship with a budding jazz musician, the press agent resorts to lying, blackmail, and bribing to achieve his objective, all the while hoping that his connections with Hunsecker will secure him a newspaper column of his own one day.

Both Lancaster and Curtis put on strong and completely convincing performances as two figures of Manhattan's darker side. Although they steal the show throughout the film, all of the supporting characters are excellent as well, especially Hunsecker's tender younger sister (played by Susan Harrison), who suffers under her older brother's oppressive obsession with controlling her life. 

Sidney Falco (Curtis) spies on Susan Hunsecker (Harrison) and her lover, Steve Dallas (Martin Milner)

Though well-acted and wonderfully shot, the real strong point of the film is the dialogue itself. Written by Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman, the script moves along at a brisk pace, with characters conversing and screaming at a hundred miles an hour. The one-liners are almost too numerous to count and extremely memorable: ("Watch me run a 50-yard dash with my legs cut off!", "Maybe I left my sense of humor in my other suit", "I'd hate to take a bite outta you. You're a cookie full of arsenic"). 

Though Sweet Smell of Success was a flop at the box office when first released, it is now generally regarded as a cult-classic and a masterpiece of film noir. The film looks and sounds great from beginning to end, and Hunsecker and Falco are two of the most memorable characters ever to appear on film. The script is on par with (and arguably stronger than) other 1950s writing juggernauts like Sunset Blvd and All About Eve, and easily as entertaining. Sweet Smell of Success is a dark and uncompromising look at post-WWII New York City, and exceptionally well-crafted. Highly recommended.

-CC 


Check out the Criterion Collection's 3 Reasons for watching Sweet Smell of Success:

Pain, Family, and Scenic Views - THE DESCENDANTS

THE DESCENDANTS 

2011 - 115 minutes - Drama/Comedy

Director: Alexander Payne 
Country: United States

IMDB: 7.4

Metacritic: 84

RT: 89%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 9/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• beautiful shots of Hawaii 

• relatable characters

• a good laugh 

• George Clooney's face 

Avoid this movie if you dislike: 

• profanity 

• a moderate pace 

• Hawaiian people/culture 

• George Clooney's face (impossible) 

Director Alexander Payne takes us to Hawaii to tell us a story about Matt King, (George Clooney) who is caught right in the middle of a mid-life crisis. The Descendants balances suffering, uncertainty, and loss with laughs, charm and comradery. 

The film opens with a shot of King's wife Elizabeth water-skiing from a boat that would eventually crash, and put her in a coma. King then attempts to re-establish a broken relationship with his daughters Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (Amara Miller) to both cope and seek advice. On top of this, King is in the midst of a land deal that could change his home state in a big way. His family has lived on Hawaii for many generations, and because of his father's death he is now the heir apparent to over 25,000 acres of waterfront land on the island of Kauai. He must make the difficult decision of selling the land and making his family millions wealthier, or keeping it in the family and pleasing the locals of Kauai. Just when you think his plate is full, he is presented with a disturbing revelation that sends him racing for answers. 

Matt (George Clooney) and Alex (Shailene Woodley) react
to a questionable comment from the backseat

What The Descendants does best is to provoke emotion. It takes you on a smooth ride of both solemn and joyous feelings, all while telling a wonderful story. The characters are natural, funny, and refreshing, and the cast meshes perfectly as a whole. 

On the production side of things, it also passes the test. Great writing, a unique and cultured soundtrack, and polished camera work that focuses on the characters and their facial expressions. Narrated bits from Clooney give perspective, and add a lot to the story.

The Descendants is a warm and inviting film that demands your full attention. You'll get attached to the characters, and immersed in the gorgeous Hawaiian landscape. It speaks to a number of different age groups, as well as a number of different movie-goers. It instantly became one of my favorites.

-EE