I thought it was decent at best...we praise experimental filmmakers like David Lynch when they try to break the curb....the problem with experimental filmmaking is the downflip of it when it doesn't really work.

My problem with REDACTED probably is that for a movie stremmed together from surveillance cameras, a soldier's camcorder, and Foreign Television coverage.....some moments are just too cinematically convenient.

Take that scene when that soldier has this speech of how he must stop his fellow comrades from commiting a horrendous warcrime...give me a fucking break. If this was CASUALTIES OF WAR, fine because it was a movie that admittedly was a fictionalized drama.

That said, there are three great scenes in REDACTED. One is when from a wide shot (via security surveillance), you have the soldier threaten to kill another as he's pushed up against the wall. Incredible.

Second is when the car races past the checkpoint, and its shot to hell.

Third is the ending...where real photographs of corpses have their faces digitally censored, as if a feeble attempt to cover up the obvious, which is ironic since producer Mark Cuban made that change over Brian DePalma's head, to avoid a possible lawsuit.

REDACTED itself was redacted...not by the government, but by the corporate bigwigs.

That said, I don't think REDACTED deserved the Bill O'Reilly heat or DePalma being called a "traitor." Couldn't Papa Bill simply have let this movie come and go this side of a pair of underpants, as it was destined to be before he came along and gave it free press of notoriety?

REDACTED (2007) - ***

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
(First Viewing)

Another look at the Iraq war on the heels of RENDITION. And while I felt that one hit home with me more, this is actually based on true events which makes it even sadder. I am very glad to see Tommy Lee Jones getting back into the swing of things now with both NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and this film added to his recent resume. I've always enjoyed this man's work.

Irish, I notice you seem to watch movies mostly for the actors. Not so much for director, writing, cinematography, etc... Am I wrong?

Not really, unless it's Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Tony Scott or Steven Spielberg who are my favorite directors. But yes, mostly I watch them for the story or actors.

Don't you watch films for....

entertainment?

That's should be a given right?

Tough room.... tough room.

[/Rodney Dangerfield imitation]

MICHAEL CLAYTON
(First Viewing)

An intelligent drama but two things bothered me about this film: 1) George Clooney wasn't really great. Like svsg said about Denzel Washington, I felt Clooney seems to either play himself or the same character in most of his films. 2) I didn't like that the film opened with the ending and then went back to the beginning. However I will give Tom Wilkinson a lot of credit for a job well done.

GOYA'S GHOSTS
(First Viewing)

Now this is the Natalie Portman I love and remember. She does a spectacular job portraying two characters in this film. The first is an unjustly accusted woman who spends 15 years imprisoned for not eating pork (during the Spanish Inquistion they thought she was Jewish because of this). Later on in the film she plays this characters teenage daughter. This was a wonderful tale about truth and it comes from Milos Forman (he also directed ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST and AMADEUS). As usual, Javier Bardem brings his A game. Unfortunately this will probably get overlooked by many when it's released on the 26th but I would recommend seeing it.

Has anybody seen the movie John Q as i my Auntie bought it me yesterday,i was wondering what it was like?

I enjoyed John Q very much..

Elephant (2003) - (out of four)
- Elephant truly disturbed me. With no main character or "hero" it made the movie feel very real as we follow different students around their high school. I must have stared at the screen for a solid five minutes after the movie ended not sure what to think because I felt so uncomfortable. I loved it. The long camera shots were very interesting to me as well. I know this movie seems to get mixed reviews but I think it is probably underrated, mainly because it doesn't progress or end the way the average movie does. I plan on watching it again next weekend.

Wolf Creek (2005) - (out of four)
-Better than I expected. Three people end up stranded in Australia and helped by a lovable Crocodile Dundee type man who turns out to be a killer. His character as a bad guy was actually quite entertaining. The movie isn't very original but I appreciated that it stayed away from the usual horror movie cliches, the ones that make you wonder why did that person just do the complete opposite of any normal human being. Not a masterpiece but very fun if you like B slasher flicks.

Requiem for a Dream (2000) - (out of four)
-After now seeing Pi and Requiem for a Dream I have to put Darren Aronofsky as one of the directors I want follow closely. He did a great job showing the decline of four drug addicts and made me feel as anxious and as close to what it probably feels like to be hooked on drugs. Without giving away any spoilers I will say part of the movie was as horrifying as anything I have ever seen. I truly felt sorry for the elderly lady who ended up addicted to prescription medicine that an irresponsible doctor prescribed her so she could lose weight. I highly recommend this movie but only to those who have the stomach to watch a very graphic and disturbing movie.

am I missing it on the boards or really no ones cares about it ? I made a 'warning post' about "Tropa de Elite" a few months ago when I first watched it and I knew right away it would get recognition outside the world, but I didn't expect anything like this. according to what I read earlier this week the movie got a lot of good and a lot of bad reviews, like it was predictable.

all you movie buffs don't know what you're missing! it's not anywhere as good as "Cidade de Deus" but is an overall very good movie even though the stories are a little shabby, but once you watch it, you know that's the least important thing in the movie.

JUMPER
(First Viewing)

Director Doug Liman (THE BOURNE IDENTITY and MR. & MRS. SMITH) adds another enjoyable action flick to his resume. I enjoyed Samuel L. as usual but was probably impressed the most with Rachel Bilson. I've never really seen THE O.C. so I was looking forward to this to see her acting abilities and she didn't disappoint. I also am really happy that they left room for a sequel or even trilogy (hopefully they will do so because I'd love to see more). Finally, I am so jealous of Hayden Christensen for now hooking up onscreen with Natalie Portman and Rachel Bilson

Please add year-of-release after the title (see Blibble above). I know it's 2008, but still. It's standard practice. If you can't provide a link, then at least provide a year.

I haven't seen Jumper (2008) yet (I can wait for NetFlix), but I can't help but recall Sliders (TV, 1995).

"Caddyshack". A totally silly yet hilarious movie. Rodney Dangerfield at his best and Ted Knight holds up his end as Rodney's nemesis.

The scenes with Bill Murray and the gopher slowed the movie's pace down but Murray was absolutely wonderful in the scene in which he finds a candy bar in the country club's pool. Kudos to Dangerfield for his "Who stepped on a duck" line.

"are you talkin' to me?"

I guess I'm really stupid. anyway, you should have already watched it for yourselves !!!

"Tropa de Elite" / "Elite Squad" (2007)

I watched ZULU DAWN yesterday,the sequel/prequel to all time classic ZULU.

A grim tale of the mighty British empire getting its backside whupped by the Zulu's...

Pesky buggers

THE FRENCH CONNECTION
(Second Viewing)

A fully enthralling, 1970s crime/drug film. I appreciated it more with a second viewing and after having just recently watched AMERICAN GANGSTER. I'd say Gene Hackman's best two roles were as Lex Luthor in the SUPERMAN franchise and this role. I don't think I've ever laughed so much at him onscreen unless he was playing Lex. I was also impressed with Roy Scheider's work who I've only been exposed to with JAWS and briefly in THE PUNISHER.

SYRIANA
(Second Viewing)

What worked for TRAFFIC didn't work here. Writer/director wrote the screenplay for TRAFFIC and directed SYRIANA. This film was much more complicated and busier. There was always something going on which sometimes made it difficult to follow due to its fast pace.

This coming from someone who often uses "boring" as a criticism? I don't know; filmmakers can't win these days.

(FWIW, though, I didn't like Syriana either.)

As far as Hackman goes, what else have you seen him in? Check out Night Moves (1975) and The Conversation (1974). The former is a typically '70s film, low-key and ambiguous - if you like private eye films, this one's for you; the latter is Francis Ford Coppola's best film (possibly - I need to re-watch The Godfather films), an intriguing and impeccable masterpiece.

Capo,

Speaking of Hackman, I saw Enemy Of The State for the first time yesterday on tv. I loved the movie, and was reminded of what a good actor Hackman is. I think the first movie I had seen him in was probably Bonnie & Clyde (was that maybe his first film?). Gosh that was a lifetime ago.

His most famous roles aside, have you seen him in Extreme Measures with Hugh Grant? Not a terribly popular movie, but I liked it. He's great at playing the villian.


TIS

Yeah, his role in Enemy of the State is a sort of reprisal of The Conversation's Harry Caul. Haven't seen Extreme Measures, but agree he's good at the villain - though I relish him more as a badass hero like Popeye Doyle or Agent Anderson in Mississippi Burning (1988).

I gatecrashed a campus screening today of Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven (2002/USA), a film whose synopsis and description alone has hitherto given me the willies, though given my recent interest in Haynes, I thought I'd delve. I liked it on one level, disliked it on another. As a throwback to Douglas Sirk's melodramas (All That Heaven Allows features prominently) it's meticulously designed and visually gorgeous - the establishing exteriors were especially impressive, and I liked the allegorical mise-en-scene of bright, autumn oranges fading gradually into bleak, depressingly wintry whites. The music, too, is effectively sweeping and preachy, and the editing, full of abrupt dissolves, makes exposition and narrative development suitably jerky.

The story, however, is another matter. I realise the dialogue is necessarily stilted and the acting quite one-dimensional and hammy, but only some of it works, and in being a contemporary "adaptation" of Sirk's "woman's films", it's quite cringe-worthy.

The Academy fell for it, probably interpreting it as an issue film (or moral lesson) for the contemporary world, but I see it more as an exposé of the gender codings within Hollywood melodrama itself. A genre film exploring its own history, not so much the racism and suppressed homosexuality of 1950s society as the representation of race and gender in the cinema itself of that time. Inevitably, it becomes a critique of the plasticity of family life and the varnished surface of populist cinema (like Haynes's own Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1987), a biopic that replaced actors with Barbie dolls).

Still, though, as much as I find that sort of post-modernism impressive and clever, it ultimately left me dead and cold - and for such an emotionally charged script, that's surely a major and lingering flaw.

Of interest, then, only in relation to those films it evokes - which it does effortlessly and brilliantly.

In an effort to invest some sort of film-watching gluttony among others, here's another review, too; one that I wrote for my school newspaper's film section. It's been a while since I actually wrote a proper critical entry like this.

Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)
(Julian Schnabel 2007 | France / USA)

What is it about scenes in films wherein men shave other men? John Huston was fond of them: in Key Largo (1948), Edward G. Robinson is shaved by a henchman, while Under the Volcano (1984) sees Albert Finney affectionately groomed by a younger friend. If nothing else, both scenes have in common a certain intimacy, a humble and subtle humanity – even if Robinson does play a nasty gangster and Finney a suffering alcoholic. Evoking the same tone in one of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’s many flashback scenes, director Julian Schnabel has Mathieu Almaric shave his on-screen, apartment-ridden father, played by Max von Sydow (who, incidentally, starred in Huston’s The Kremlin Letter in 1970). Here, though, the tone is especially poignant – in the context of the film, we already know Jean-Dominique Bauby, who Almaric plays, has been diagnosed with “locked-in syndrome”. Bauby, whose memoirs the film adapts, was editor of Elle magazine when he suffered a stroke in 1995, aged 43. Totally paralysed but for his left eye, he was able to communicate by blinking alone. If his situation sounds grim, it is; though Schnabel is able to invest welcome wit and a fine measure of narrative purpose. The inherent self-reflexivity of the first-person narration allows the script to externalise viewpoints without becoming problematic: the bold and limiting choice to film from Bauby’s own bed-ridden point of view is given much relief, both narratively and visually, as the protagonist grows increasingly articulate in his new means of communication. The selective flashbacks and Bauby’s own fantasies help, too; the latter especially recall Michael Gambon’s singing detective. As the title suggests, Bauby’s self-inspection offers the central theme of triumph over adversity: “I decided to stop pitying myself,” he says at one point. “Other than my eye, two things aren't paralysed: my imagination and my memory.” And even if the film is a stark reminder of one’s own mortality, it is, in typical existential fashion, just as much celebratory of life. True to its real-life central figure, Diving Bell is finally uplifting and inspiring. I, for one, feel like writing a book.

Blibble, have you seen Last Days? It's my favorite of the three films that get grouped as Van Sant's "death trilogy".

Oh, and I may as well mention, Aronofsky is another one of my favorites. Requiem is one of few films that I can say actually BOTHERED me, but check out The Fountain ASAP... He just gets better with each attempt. Plus, Mogwai (excellent post-rock band) collaborates on the score, and makes a great match-up with Aronofsky's visuals. It's just an overall great flick.

You know, he was originally set to direct the adaptation of Choke years back, sometime after Requiem was released on DVD, but he ended up putting it on hold because of The Fountain. I would have loved to see what he could've done for that adaptation... After watching the Choke clip in the other thread, I'm slightly dissapointed; it's sort of a let down, visually, compared to that of Fight Club, which had some of the best visuals in modern American cinema. And Aronofsky is probably one of the best visual directors out there right now, so I know he could have done something interesting. Not to mention the soundtrack would've been spectacular, because Clint Mansel is one of the best contemporary composers working in film... The music in the clip sounded as if it had tried to emulate Fight Club's soundtrack a tad...

LLC, both Last Days and The Fountain are high on my list of movies to see next.

You're right about Aronofsky being one of the best visual directors, at least compared to everything that I've seen. He would have been incredible directing Choke and I agree that trailer clip seemed very flat. I'm hoping that little bit they showed was a bad example as to how the finished product looks.

I have a question for those of you more educated on how films are made. I'll continue to use Aronofsky as an example. First off, does he edit his own movies? Because sometimes I think an editor can make a director look really good or really bad, and Pi and Requiem for a Dream had amazing editing sequences. I am just curious how much input directors normally have in the editing process.

I'm also looking forward to watching Van Sant's Gerry, which I think is part of that "trilogy" you're talking about.

THE LAST BOY SCOUT (1991) - ***1/2

(NOTE: I reviewed this movie already, but I hated what I wrote. I polished up some words here and there. Enjoy!)

There is no such thing as a sure-fire blockbuster in Hollywood. You may have "hot" stars and filmmakers booked, but as cooks can tell you, the consumer's taste towards the dish isn't be as predictable as the recipe can be followed.

Warner Bros. must have thought they had a guaranteed hit on their hands with THE LAST BOY SCOUT. Producer Joel Silver, behind Hollywood action classics DIE HARD and LETHAL WEAPON, paid a record-$1.75 million for WEAPON scripter Shane Black, followed by booking action star Bruce Willis and director Tony Scott.

Yet THE LAST BOY SCOUT, despite its potency on paper, shot blanks in theatres. While it was marketed as yet another LETHAL WEAPON-esque buddy cop shoot'em up picture, SCOUT is really a polarizing affair even for genre fans.

Take the opening sequence, where a drug-junkie football player is rushing down the field while firing his gun at the Linebackers to score a touchdown. And you thought the infamous "Basketbrawl" between Ron Artest and Pistons fans was brutal. If you can't get beyond this crazyness, press the Stop button.

SCOUT faithfully follows the action tempo and gunplay as expected of that epoch in Action Cinema, including a major car chase that's too much LETHAL WEAPON 2 for my taste. But it just hikes such crazy-ass option plays that don't just come out of no where, they shock you that a major Hollywood release actually got away with them.

From a kid and father yelling F-bombs at each other, to a hero (awesomely) killing a thug by a punch to the nose, and the quotable as hell dialogue from Mr. Black...

Wife: I was lonely!
Willis: Go buy a dog.

Guys can't help but recite such misogynistic lines over and over....which I guess is a compliment, as much as Dave Chappelle helping to make "bitch" virtually a verb in America's dictionary.

In fact, in this tale of two guys stuck way over their heads in a deadly conspiracy which celebrates and jabs the genre's cliches, this seems eeriely way too much like Shane Black's later directorial effort KISS KISS BANG BANG, though SCOUT isn't so blatant.

Hell, my biggest problem with SCOUT is in its Third Act where, like BANG, the material reaches a point where it gets too self-aware of how smart it is. I mean, a villain saying "Yeah, I'm the bad guy"?

That's not clever, that's just silly.

But otherwise, I rather enjoyed THE LAST BOY SCOUT and its macho-nutty tale of two depressed losers deep in funk who fight each other, and race in citing the next witty one-liner.

With such financial "guaranteed" Hollywood misfires from Bryan Singer's flat SUPERMAN RETURNS to Peter Jackson's boring 3-hour(!) KING KONG remake, I guess I am actually pleased that THE LAST BOY SCOUT was actually pretty good, maybe even a tad ahead of its time.

Consider that Tony Scott's next movie was TRUE ROMANCE, scripted by a self-proclaimed major fan of SCOUT in Quentin Tarantino.