Pacific Rim Movie Review

Pacific Rim is the story of a future Earth that has been under attack for many years by an alien race that enters our planet through a rift at the bottom of the Pacific. We get the history of this in the first 15 minutes, then enter the story at a time where the world has, paraphrasing the movie's tagline, built monsters to fight monsters. The world has built giant robots (called Jaegers, German for 'Hunters'), controlled buy two pilots who connect via a neural bridge to control the giant machines from within, and go to war with these monsters (called Kaiju, Japanese for 'Monsters') when they enter our world. This has been effective up until this point. From there, we watch as our heroes fight to save our Earth from attack while simultaneously try to close the rift in the Pacific. It stars Charlie Hunnam (the gang leader from Green Street Hooligans), Idris Elba, Charlie Day (from It's Always Sunny), Ron Perlman, and others, and is directed by Guillermo del Toro.

This movie was SO much fun. It was a movie that I didn't have much advanced info on before going, so I had really no expectations. What I experienced was the type of movie that is just a ton of fun from start to finish. Watching these giant human brain-powered robots fight these alien monsters that were ever growing in size and threat was incredibly fun. Like 10 year old giddy type of fun. Now there were many reasons for that. The next two paragraphs are going to be my likes and dislikes, starting with dislikes.

There are always issues when you invent a new reality on film, which is what Guillermo del Toro did in this movie. Hard to build the scope, hard to build the circumstances, hard to build the stakes, in a 2 hour movie. Those that can don't have the scope of this movie. Now, this has a good side (which comes next paragraph), but it left a lot of holes and a lot of questions that I felt you need to really be invested. The overarching plot was simple, but the micro-scenes, those that are there just to drive the story forward, were bad. There was a lot of cheesy dialogue, a lot of flimsy relationships forced on us, and really no character development that's worth a damn. The worst was when Idris Elba emerges from the Jaeger in Mako's memory. It was so cheesy, and simply there to show us his connection with her. I honestly think it would have been more powerful as a dialogue. That is one scene of many though, which luckily are far enough apart that the action can pull you right back in. It was also a bit scattered, but honestly, I chalk that up to just not having enough time to show everything, while wanting to.

Now, for the good. ALL of those negatives I just mentioned, the lack of substance, are ALL made up for with the positive aspects. Number one, the scope. This movie is perhaps on the largest scale I've ever seen. By that, I mean sheer size of what we are looking at. Plenty of movies have a broader universe, span more time, or have larger themes. However, this movie does a fantastic job of first establishing how big we are (humans), and then showing us how large these monsters and robots we've created are. We are first introduced to our first Jaeger (older model) and Kaiju (category 3), which are almost equal in size. We're told this is what we've been dealing with for years, and we are now very profiencient at besting these monsters when they appear. However, throughout the movie we are shown larger and larger Kaiju (up to a category 5, "the first ever") that come more frequent and in larger numbers. The helplessness we're supposed to feel is clear. The end is near, if we don't do something drastic. Enter the plan to close the rift, etc. Going along with the scope, the visuals are incredible. I would say 80% of this movie is visual effects, and they are SOLID. Easy Best Visual Effects Oscar coming to this movie this year. A marvel in visual effects, truly. The third piece of the scope and visuals puzzle is, of course, the action. Just pure fun. Orchestrated and directed in such a way that there wasn't any boring Power Ranger-style fight scenes, but there was enough action to get your knucles white. A few times I caught myself with my hands clenched like crazy. Now that leads me to the comic relief. Charlie Day plays a GREAT Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day. Just great. Hilarious the whole time. But when he's with Ron Perlman, those are some of the best scenes in the movie. It is well done to give you a little break but not too long where you're begging to get back to the action. I thought this movie was unique in a couple ways, also: first, it's a unique script, not based on source material or a sequel. There should be a round of applause for that right there, we need more ambitious, creative, original movies out there. Second, this is one of the first movies I can recall that shows a global crisis, which is then fought by the entire globe as one. All countries coming together to fight for the greater good. Not America saving the world (looking at you, Michael Bay), no competition among nations, just good old fashioned human race vs. the rest. I liked that. The last thing I will say, and this may be the thing that proved to me how much I liked the movie, is that I really want to know more about this universe. I want to know the backstory, how we built these things, the origin and progression through technology, how we came together as a world to build and fight these things. I want more! I will see sequels or prequels if they are made, in spite of my previous commendation of this being original and NOT a sequel.

In summary, I think this movie is as popcorn as it gets for all the right reasons. It's fun, it's unique, it's loud, it's exciting, it's got a huge scope, it looks great, and it's a pretty darn good movie to boot. Go see it on a Sunday afternoon and just enjoy yourself.

On the Reganometer, I give Pacific Rim an 8 out of 10.

Links: Trailer IMDB page Rotten Tomatoes Review page

The First Major Dark Knight Review

The movie is still 3 weeks away, but Rolling Stone's Peter Travers has just posted the first major review of the film, at least the first that Rotten Tomatoes and I have seen. Anyways, this post is just going to be a re-posting of his entire review. It's absurdly positive, which, from Peter Travers could mean a lot or nothing at all, but it just gets me that much more excited to see this thing!

I must warn you, if you're trying to stay away from revealing information (beyond what you would get from movie sites), this review does have some minor spoilers. I personally knew about all of the info he talks about, but that's because I read movie blogs and try and keep up on all the news. So, if you're like me, don't worry, he doesn't get too much into it. I mean, it is Peter Travers after all.

Anyways, without further ado, here's the review:

Heads up: a thunderbolt is about to rip into the blanket of bland we call summer movies. The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan's absolute stunner of a follow-up to 2005's Batman Begins, is a potent provocation decked out as a comic-book movie. Feverish action? Check. Dazzling spectacle? Check. Devilish fun? Check. But Nolan is just warming up. There's something raw and elemental at work in this artfully imagined universe. Striking out from his Batman origin story, Nolan cuts through to a deeper dimension. Huh? Wha? How can a conflicted guy in a bat suit and a villain with a cracked, painted-on clown smile speak to the essentials of the human condition? Just hang on for a shock to the system. The Dark Knight creates a place where good and evil — expected to do battle — decide instead to get it on and dance. "I don't want to kill you," Heath Ledger's psycho Joker tells Christian Bale's stalwart Batman. "You complete me." Don't buy the tease. He means it.

The trouble is that Batman, a.k.a. playboy Bruce Wayne, has had it up to here with being the white knight. He's pissed that the public sees him as a vigilante. He'll leave the hero stuff to district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and stop the DA from moving in on Rachel Dawes (feisty Maggie Gyllenhaal, in for sweetie Katie Holmes), the lady love who is Batman's only hope for a normal life.

Everything gleams like sin in Gotham City (cinematographer Wally Pfister shot on location in Chicago, bringing a gritty reality to a cartoon fantasy). And the bad guys seem jazzed by their evildoing. Take the Joker, who treats a stunningly staged bank robbery like his private video game with accomplices in Joker masks, blood spurting and only one winner. Nolan shot this sequence, and three others, for the IMAX screen and with a finesse for choreographing action that rivals Michael Mann's Heat. But it's what's going on inside the Bathead that pulls us in. Bale is electrifying as a fallibly human crusader at war with his own conscience.

I can only speak superlatives of Ledger, who is mad-crazy-blazing brilliant as the Joker. Miles from Jack Nicholson's broadly funny take on the role in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, Ledger takes the role to the shadows, where even what's comic is hardly a relief. No plastic mask for Ledger; his face is caked with moldy makeup that highlights the red scar of a grin, the grungy hair and the yellowing teeth of a hound fresh out of hell. To the clown prince of crime, a knife is preferable to a gun, the better to "savor the moment."

The deft script, by Nolan and his brother Jonathan, taking note of Bob Kane's original Batman and Frank Miller's bleak rethink, refuses to explain the Joker with pop psychology. Forget Freudian hints about a dad who carved a smile into his son's face with a razor. As the Joker says, "What doesn't kill you makes you stranger."

The Joker represents the last completed role for Ledger, who died in January at 28 before finishing work on Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. It's typical of Ledger's total commitment to films as diverse as Brokeback Mountain and I'm Not There that he does nothing out of vanity or the need to be liked. If there's a movement to get him the first posthumous Oscar since Peter Finch won for 1976's Network, sign me up. Ledger's Joker has no gray areas — he's all rampaging id. Watch him crash a party and circle Rachel, a woman torn between Bale's Bruce (she knows he's Batman) and Eckhart's DA, another lover she has to share with his civic duty. "Hello, beautiful," says the Joker, sniffing Rachel like a feral beast. He's right when he compares himself to a dog chasing a car: The chase is all. The Joker's sadism is limitless, and the masochistic delight he takes in being punched and bloodied to a pulp would shame the Marquis de Sade. "I choose chaos," says the Joker, and those words sum up what's at stake in The Dark Knight.

The Joker wants Batman to choose chaos as well. He knows humanity is what you lose while you're busy making plans to gain power. Every actor brings his A game to show the lure of the dark side. Michael Caine purrs with sarcastic wit as Bruce's butler, Alfred, who harbors a secret that could crush his boss's spirit. Morgan Freeman radiates tough wisdom as Lucius Fox, the scientist who designs those wonderful toys — wait till you get a load of the Batpod — but who finds his own standards being compromised. Gary Oldman is so skilled that he makes virtue exciting as Jim Gordon, the ultimate good cop and as such a prime target for the Joker. As Harvey tells the Caped Crusader, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain." Eckhart earns major props for scarily and movingly portraying the DA's transformation into the dreaded Harvey Two-Face, an event sparked by the brutal murder of a major character.

No fair giving away the mysteries of The Dark Knight. It's enough to marvel at the way Nolan — a world-class filmmaker, be it Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige — brings pop escapism whisper-close to enduring art. It's enough to watch Bale chillingly render Batman as a lost warrior, evoking Al Pacino in The Godfather II in his delusion and desolation. It's enough to see Ledger conjure up the anarchy of the Sex Pistols and A Clockwork Orange as he creates a Joker for the ages. Go ahead, bitch about the movie being too long, at two and a half hours, for short attention spans (it is), too somber for the Hulk crowd (it is), too smart for its own good (it isn't). The haunting and visionary Dark Knight soars on the wings of untamed imagination. It's full of surprises you don't see coming. And just try to get it out of your dreams.

Hopefully I can find a movie theater down in Houston with a midnight showing.

[via RS]

There Will Be Blood Movie Review

There Will Be Blood tells the story of Daniel Plainview, an oil man at the turn of the 19th century who, in all his extremely competitive and capitalistic nature, becomes the embodiment of evil as the life he meticulously built begins to erode. Daniel Day-Lewis stars, Paul Dano co-stars, and Paul Thomas Anderson directs in this epic character study with 8 Academy Award nominations.

In my opinion, this is the 3rd best film of the year, behind No Country for Old Men and Juno. That being said, I thought it was good, but honestly, I don't think it would have received as much acclaim if Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't in it. He really carried this film, more than I've seen anyone carry a movie ever I think. It reminds me of On the Waterfront in that Day-Lewis was the only one really pulling you into the movie much like Brando did. I think On the Waterfront was a better movie, but still, can you name the other characters in that movie? Did you even care about them? Only if Brando wanted you to, and that's how I think this movie went. Maybe there are some better examples out there that I just can't think of off the top of my head.

Day-Lewis carried this film with a phenomenal performance. It was amazing to watch this man work that character so perfectly. He's great in everything he does, and while I haven't seen all the films he's been in, I'd be willing to bet this was his best performance yet. The way he crafted this character into such an awful, greedy, selfish competitor that would literally do anything to succeed and intimidate, but force you to love him at the same time was brilliant. I thought it was interesting that, as much as you try to hate him because he's doing such awful things, you end up rooting for him in a sort of sadistic way. When he's going crazy, kind of loosing his mind to all of this, you enjoy watching it. It's almost like rooting for Javier Bardem in No Country, but to a greater degree. That whole exchange with the two Standard Oil men was great, and when the whole "I'll come to your house at night and slit your throat" line came out, you couldn't help but laugh even though it was awful and unnecessary for him to respond that way.

On that note, I loved all the dialogue in this movie, especially anything that came out of Day-Lewis' mouth. It was fun to follow and well written. I'm not sure how much of that can be attributed to the book and how much to the movie, but it was good either way. Daniel Day-Lewis' whole performance, from the bottom of the oil well at the beginning to his last line in the bowling alley in the end, it was masterful, and hands down worthy of the Academy Award for Best Actor.

Day-Lewis aside, as much as I thought the movie lived and died with his performance, I was impressed with the direction. Very impressed actually. The movie was beautiful to look at, and the juxtaposition of bright landscape shots and dark, close-up shots was stunning. The way he told so much of the story through visual cues just added to the depth that the exposition set up.

The story was entertaining enough, but really went all over the place. However, one of the main themes I found was Plainview's relationship with his son. It seemed as though, throughout the first two thirds of the movie, his son was his driving force. Sure he was competitive and a greedy business man, but his son was his crutch. But after his accident, it's almost like Plainview just gives up on him, and I didn't like how easy that seemed to be for him. So maybe it was a furthering of the character's morality, malice, or true priorities. Whatever it was, it seemed to be contradicted by the fact that he starts to go crazy from that point on. Maybe that was when he reached his boiling point. It changed him so much that the scene with his son grown up is hard to watch. He's just so unforgivingly evil that you, for the first time, begin to root against him a little. And maybe I'm missing something here, but all those dots just didn't connect in my head, so when it was all over, I was still puzzled about it.

The last thing that I want to say is that I really didn't like Paul Dano in this movie. He played the role of two twin brothers, though the film focuses on only one of them, and I think he was just the wrong guy to play that part. I liked the character, on paper, but Paul Dano just didn't do it for me. Each church scene where he's actually preaching seems very forced and unauthentic, and it seemed like there was this deep commitment to something we were supposed to feel from him, maybe religion, maybe money, whatever, but I didn't get whatever it was. He was like the antithesis of Day-Lewis' great performance.

Overall, it was a slow moving but very enjoyable film about the rise and fall of a self-made oil man. The performance Daniel Day-Lewis brings to this movie is more epic than the movie itself, but is far from the only shining part about it. It deserves the nominations that it got, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor? Undeniably. I think this is one of the best character studies in a long time, thanks to Day-Lewis' ability to create a layered character and fully flesh out the complexities. But Best Picture? I don't think so.

On the Reganometer, I give There Will Be Blood a 9 out of 10.

Note: After wrestling with the rating for 3 days, I finally settled.

Atonement Movie Review

Atonement is a movie set just before and during WWII that examines the repercussions of a child's lie, and how it changes the lives of everyone involved. It stars Keira Knightly and James McAvoy.

Now, summing up this movie would take too long, so you'll have to accept my abbreviated version above. That said, the story of this film was really its driving force, and nothing more, in my opinion. The acting was very good, but was not really anything special. Knightly has played that character before, and always plays that character if you ask me (I don't like her at all, and think she's overrated), and McAvoy didn't show us anything new either, but I DO think he is a good actor, and was great in this. But back to my original point, this movie was much more plot driven than I was expecting. I thought it was going to be a movie in which stuff happens, but not a lot of it, and it's more about how the movie carries itself without the plot "crutch", if you know what I mean. Great movies, like The Godfather and No Country for Old Men, don't need a lot of plot points because they are great in all the other aspects and those carry it. I didn't think Atonement did that.

However, there was a lot about it I did like. I thought it was an unconventional and interesting story of love. It was also about guilt and kind of spoke on the cruelty of war, but it was a love story, and it did that very well. I thought the "flashback" type structure of the narrative was effective and done well, giving us tidbits of info at the perfect times. I also thought it looked really good. The cinematography and direction were solid, the set pieces were amazing, and some of the shots in the movie were beautiful. There was this one shot that I absolutely loved. (Spoiler!) It was when McAvoy and his 2 war buds had just found the beach with the rest of the troops on it. From the time they started walking, it was about a 3 or 4 minute sustained shot, no edits, that was just beautiful. How the camera moved around and showed everything while still following these 3 guys and showing their reactions, and how everything flowed, all the way until McAvoy went into that building with the movie playing. It was beautifully done and I loved it.

Now, the final thing I want to talk about is the ending. I am very interested in all your opinions about it, so if you've seen it, please comment on this, but I didn't like it. I said before I liked the narrative structure, with "3 weeks earlier" type transitions, but I thought it was one of those "it was only a dream" type cop out endings. For what it was, it did it as well as I've ever seen, but I still didn't like it. (Spoiler!) The realization that we've just been listening to this girl's made up story, and that some parts were true and others were made up was kind of frustrating. Now, I get that it could have different meanings, like making her imagination a character, or saying that was her way of making things right, or whatever, but none of that was woven into the story enough, so I didn't think it worked and didn't like it.

All in all, I recognize that this was a good movie. Being a self-proclaimed (and aspiring) film buff, I know and can appreciate a good movie, and this was one of them. That said, I didn't like it. The first act was too slow, the flaws were too glaring; it just wasn't my cup of tea. But I can see why it's getting love this awards season (which is really the only reason I saw it). Now, after finally seeing it, I can say with conviction and authority that Atonement is not as good as No Country for Old Men, and No Country for Old Men should win the Oscar for Best Picture. Well, maybe Juno should, but comedies get no love.

On the Reganometer, I give Atonement an 8 out of 10.

Juno Movie Review

Juno is the sweet and hilarious story of a high school girl, Juno (Ellen Page), who gets pregnant after sleeping with her friend-but-not-love-interest Pauly Bleeker (Michael Cera), and decides to give the baby to adoptive parents Mark and Vanessa (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking) directs.

So, Juno might be the best movie of the year. The combination of a smart, witty script, an engaging story, and an absolutely perfect performance from Ellen Page that all click together for a movie that just works on all levels.

Ellen Page really drove this movie though. She was perfect for this movie. I was sold on her character from scene one, and it wasn't just because she was believable or anything, she infused charm and pain and hilarity and confusion and maturity into this character all at the same time, that you just couldn't help but be drawn into her character and her struggle as a 16-year-old who's trying to deal with a pregnancy and all this other stuff foreign to a high school girl. I can't say enough about how much I loved her performance, but she had some help too.

The supporting cast around her was great also. Michael Cera was solid and perfectly awkward as usual, but played a smaller part than I imagined. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner were great as the adoptive parents. This kind of role has its stereotypes and crutches it can use, but this movie stayed away from that and really made these feel like original characters, and both played their characters very well. I loved Bateman and all the subtle emotion he brought to the role. Hard to explain,but you'll understand if you see it. Juno's dad and step-mom were great as well. The only character I could have done without was Juno's best girl friend, I didn't think she really did anything for the story and wasn't that great.

I mentioned the original character, and one of the great things about this movie is that, as much of a genre type film this is, the whole high school angst and awkwardness movie it seems to be, it really is a very original movie. All the characters are fresh and original, the quirky story and the honesty is real and original. You know, I've been mentioning honesty in humor a lot lately, which is something I value in a good comedy, and I think this year has shown a lot of that, but this movie probably sets the benchmark.

Now, one thing I originally didn't like was the "trying-to-hard-to-be-hip" language that they used, but as the move went on, it really did fit the characters, so I got used to it. There have been movies that get it totally wrong and the language gets annoying, but this one wasn't one of them. The music was the same way for me, kind of cutesy and quirky, but not as much, because it fit the story, but I think I would be the only one that had a problem with it as its on top of the iTunes album sales.

So, this is probably the best movie of the year. Unfortunately it's a comedy, so it's not going to get as much love during award season as it should, but there really aren't enough good things I can say about it. I loved it, I totally recommend it to everyone.

On the Reganometer, I give Juno a 10 out of 10.

Walk Hard Movie Review

In Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, the whole Apatow crew returns in the satirical story of a musician and his up-and-down, roller coaster ride of a life. John C. Reilly stars, and Jake Kasdan (of Orange County fame) directs, as well as pens the script along with Judd Apatow. In the vein of movies like Walk The Line and Ray, Walk Hard takes shots at the era and its musicians, as well as the movie genre itself, and pulls no punches when it comes to its satire.

This Apatow film is much different than his first 3 hit comedies. It's a satire of all the music biopics, so it takes potshots at existing material instead of creating its own, which has been the real reason behind the success of his previous movies. However, just because this movie was different doesn't mean it wasn't funny.

This wasn't just your average satire. This seemed to take its source material, Walk The Line say, and use it as an outline for the movie. When it came to the humor though, it wasn't all that stupid Scary Movie type satirical garbage that they keep churning out, it was more intelligent and clever humor, using devices that you find in Apatow's other movies. Now, one of the things I really value about the other movies of his is the honesty and genuineness in the humor, and while this has some of that, a lot of it is inspired by other things, so those qualities aren't really there. Don't get me wrong though, it definitely still has some big laughs.

This was a satire of musical biopics, but one of the things that really surprised me was how good the music actually was. I really didn't expect the music to play such a large part in the movie, just like driving really wasn't a big part of Talladega Nights, but it was good. Plus, if being good wasn't enough, it actually drove the plot and moved the story along. That's a difficult task for some biopics in the first place, let alone a satire, so that was impressive.

Aside from the music, the humor was solid. VERY crude, even more so than Knocked Up and Superbad, but well done and funny. It was mostly low-brow stuff, but there were some great moments. I can distinctly remember 2 of Tim Meadows' lines in this film that were repeated over and over throughout and got funnier each time ("You never paid for drugs. Not once!"). Very good comedic repetition, which is one of those devices I mentioned earlier that just lets you know that these guys know how to do comedy. The movie also took shots at the 60's and its artists, such as Bob Dylan and The Beatles. I actually really enjoyed the part with The Beatles, it was clever.

Now, Apatow has quite the hot hand in the comedy industry, churning out hit after hit, and doing it all with essentially the same group of actors. But it was funny in this movie, because even though these guys are in every other Apatow movie, when they came on screen, it seemed like they were doing a cameo. Just weird how attached they are with his movie and still can seem like guest stars. I just thought that was interesting.

There were a few things I didn't like about it. First, while I understand that it was a satire, it still seemed a little rushed spanning 7 decades. I know that was kind of the point, but here's my rationale. All Judd Apatow's previous movies have been very successful due to, in my opinion, the honesty in the comedy. He makes comedies, yes, but he makes them with heart and character, so they aren't just comedies, they're good movies as well. So the traditional "filler" that you would find in other satires that generally sucks is replaced here with quality. That's why, at the end of this movie, it actually gets sympathetic and sentimental. Therefore, when you're going through 7 decades of this movie, and the filler is good stuff, it feels a bit rushed. Hope that makes sense. The second thing I wasn't sure of was John C. Reilly himself. I'm not convinced that he's a lead actor. He was good in this movie, but I don't think he's the kind of actor that, by himself, without good writing, could carry a movie. Just my opinion.

There is a lot of good stuff in this movie, and a bunch of laughs. Judd Apatow and crew has proven they know how to do comedy, and this is proof they can branch out into other styles and have the same success. It was definitely different than his previous movies, not quite the classics as the others, so don't expect the same things, but it did what it set out to do, and did it well. I was totally sucked in, laughed the whole way, and had a very good time watching this movie.

On the Reganometer, I give Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story an 8 out of 10.

Sweeney Todd Movie Review

In Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Johnny Depp plays a young barber in London who is robbed of both his family and his innocence by the corrupt local judge (Alan Rickman) who wrongfully arrests him and sends him away in order to steal his wife. Depp's character comes back to London years later as Sweeney Todd, an angry, bitter shell of his former self, hellbent on one thing: revenge.

First of all, this movie LOOKS great. The landscapes, the set pieces, the characters, and just the general environments look really good. (Especially in the new, all digital Clackamas Town Center cinemas.) Burton does a great job using his usual darkness for a distinct purpose in this film, really immersing us in the gloom of Sweeney Todd's environment. That alone was enough to draw me in, but it wasn't the driving force of the movie.

All the lead performances (except the overacting sailor boy) were very well done. Johnny Depp plays gloomy revenge like nobody else (like the dream montage where they go to different locations where everyone is happy except him, who's looks miserable throughout. It was pretty hilarious). Alan Rickman did very well as the lead antagonist. It's hard to stand next to evil, vengeful Sweeney Todd, the "Demon Barber", and make him look like the good guy, but Alan Rickman pulled it off. Helena Bonham Carter was great, as usual, and so was the little boy. However, the two characters who almost stole the show were Timothy Spall as Beadle Bamford, who just oozed sleaziness and corruption, and Sacha Baron Cohen as rival barber Adolfo Pirelli, who absolutely stole every frame he was in. Lucky for Depp he wasn't in it long. But still, that wasn't the driving force of the movie.

The real driving force, and I need to double check that I'm really talking about a Tim Burton movie here, was the story. The story of Sweeney Todd, a betrayed man, coming back with a new identity to exact his revenge was really fun to watch. The morbid quirks and the way he planned and executed his revenge, and ultimately how the film wrapped up was very satisfying. From the opening credits, following the blood's path, all the way to the final drop, was engaging and oddly delightful considering the subject matter. Kudos to Tim Burton for that.

Now, as many people may gripe about, this was a musical remade into...a musical. I've heard people say it would have been better without the musical aspect, or that the musical numbers only slowed it down, and while that may be true, how can you know for sure. I thought it worked remarkably well actually, and made the movie an experience that it wouldn't have been if it was different. I thought it was a great musical script, and the musical numbers, while not as memorable as some, worked well in this great story.

This is the 2nd best movie I've seen all year (behind No Country for Old Men). I loved it, and wouldn't hesitate to see it again. I hope it has success at the award shows and that everyone goes out this Christmas and sees it.

On the Reganometer, I give Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street a 9 out of 10.

I Am Legend Movie Review

In I Am Legend, Will Smith plays genius scientist Robert Neville who is the last man on Earth after a sure-thing cancer cure turns into a plague-like virus and wipes out the rest of the population. Almost. A small portion of the infected live and become these inhuman zombie monsters that only come out at night and seek any food available, including those still not infected.

This movie initially surprised me because what it is all about is much different than the advertising made it out to be. I was under the impression that it was going to be a survival movie with a few scares, kind of like a poor man's Cast Away. However, as it turns out, it is much more a horror flick than a survival tale. I'm sure that marketing was to draw a larger crowd, and I'm glad, because I saw it with Hayley and she would NOT have gone if she knew it was going to be that scary. It really freaked her out.

Anyways, Will Smith was great as the lone lead. He was the only one on screen for 85% of the movie (if you don't count the CGI zombies), and while he was no Tom Hanks in Cast Away, I think he did a really good job. I've always thought he was a good actor, but he's really proving himself lately. I'm not sure many actors could have pulled this off, but he did. A few memorable scenes come to mind, like when he was trying to muster the courage to hit on a mannequin. (Hey, the man has been alone for 3 years, so what if he's gone a little crazy.)

Now, the first two acts of this movie were solid. In the first, we learn who he is, his situation, and all about how he's made as close to a regular life as one could living alone in a city full of flesh-eating monsters. He drives around, watches movies, hunts with his dog, and continually works on a cure for the disease that he's immune from. It's fun watching how he's made New York City his own personal playground. In the second act, we learn about the "dark seekers" as they're called, and are first exposed to them in a really suspenseful and scary way. I won't ruin anything, but it's very nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat type stuff.

However, as we approach the third act, the movie seems to slump to the lows of cliche horrors with cheap scares and bad plot. Once we really see the dark seekers, and other characters are introduced, it just falls apart, and unfortunately that happens with most movies like this.

This movie works very well for the first half, and I would have much rather have spent more time seeing Smith's character's way of life in the beginning and being exposed to the FEAR of the dark seekers than actually seeing them and going through all that. Smith did a great job, and I think if you're looking for a good scare (Hayley had nightmare's, so it's pretty scary), and want to inject some fun into the clump of Oscar-season movies, see this one. I recommend it.

On the Reganometer, I give I Am Legend a 6 out of 10.

Sunshine Movie Review

Sunshine, directed by Danny Boyle (of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later fame) and starring Cillian Murphy, is a film in which a group of astronauts are on a mission to reignite the dying sun. I saw this on Saturday night, but wanted to sleep on it a few nights and hash out what I really wanted to say about it. I want to address a few things that stood out to me, but not say much more, because I really urge you all to see it for yourselves.

First off, I want to express how much I loved this film. It is easily one of my favorites of the year, and while there is one major flaw I feel it falls prey to, there is too much about it to love, so I can get around that. That flaw is the villain. While I liked what they did with him visually and, for lack of a better term, spiritually, and I actually understand that the film needed him as a spark to set off the events that lead to its conclusion, I thought the intangible villains (the lack of oxygen for instance) were more powerful evils that the evil incarnate. It turned into a sci-fi cliche, and felt forced in many instances as just this cliche. However, that is my only gripe.

This film does an amazing job of combining morality, ethics, and spirituality into very relatable circumstances. These people are 2 years into a mission to the sun, and their mission is essentially to save the world. When they're out there, so isolated from everything and with these stakes, those moral and ethical questions are going to come up, and they have to make those decisions. They are essentially playing God with scientific brains, and that element of this film is fascinating. And the beauty of it is while watching this, I felt like I was right there with them every step of the way, and asking myself what I would do in a situation like this, and that shows that the film is really working.

I thought the cast was great. Cillian Murphy played the central character, Kapa, the ship's physicist and only member with the knowledge to use the nuclear device that was to reignite the sun, thus, he carries the heaviest burden. His acting was very understated in this movie, but very powerful and very good because of it. His character is really the one who makes the decision that leads to the chaos (of the last portion of the film) and won't let himself die until he makes things right and carries it out to the end. Chris Evans (Flamer in Fantastic Four) really surprised me. He was so great in this role, that of the astronaut that was so dedicated to the mission that he was against any changes. The way he saw it, the mission was so much bigger than all of them that it wasn't their place to risk it, but played in a very honest way. For instance, when one member was on suicide watch, they calculated that the ship had enough oxygen for everyone to survive if one less person was on board, so he says, "are you suggesting we let him kill himself?", and it was presented with such honesty, but really, those kinds of decisions have to be made in those situations.

Cliff Curtis might have been my favorite character. He played the psychiatrist on board, which is an odd person to be on a space ship, but when you think how long they've been up there, it makes sense. He really exemplified the spirituality in this film with his character's relationship with the sun. The two instances that exemplify this best for me were when he is on the observation deck, and his skin is literally peeling away due to sun damage, but he continues as if there is some higher power that he is connecting with in those moments. The second is when two crew members are repairing the outside of the ship, and the shadow that is protecting them is fading, so they must rush back before they are burned alive. While everyone else is freaking out because these characters are in such danger, Curtis's character simply asks, "what do you see." It's hard to explain, but these moments are brilliant.

I've rambled long enough, but I would just like to finish with the notion that, while this movie does have a moment that brings it from the pristine to the almost ridiculous, the first hour made such an amazing impression on me that I can't help but love it. It really works on so many levels, and it's just that close to being an almost perfect film.

On the Reganometer, I give this film a 9 out of 10.

The Bourne Ultimatum Movie Review

The Bourne Ultimatum is the third installment the Bourne franchise, following Jason Bourne on his quest to finally discover his true identity. By now, everyone knows that's just the loose plot line that lends itself to lots of action, but they stick to it anyways. Paul Greengrass is back in the directors chair, and of course, Matt Damon is back as Jason Bourne.

I hadn't heard or read much about it before I saw it, but I had seen the previous 2 Bourne movies, so I had an idea of what to expect. I can't say I was a huge fan of the first 2. They were pretty good, but they weren't all that memorable. Personally, I didn't think the movies did a great job setting up the story, or the character of Jason Bourne for that matter, so I didn't really buy into the storylines or Matt Damon.

However, this third and final movie of the trilogy made up for all my doubts. I felt like this movie really embraced what it was, and used its strengths to build the story, and not the other way around. The action scenes were the best part, by far, but the most surprising part was the performance from Matt Damon as Bourne. He finally sold me as an action star. One of the best action/chase scenes I've seen since the opening scene in Casino Royale, maybe even better, ends up with a fight between Bourne and another guy, and throughout the scene, Damon is the one doing a lot of the actual fighting. And holy crap the fight was good.

Now, while everyone will tell you that the shaky cam is used too much in this movie, and it was used a lot, I think it was used well, because it was used the whole time to build a sense of tension, one thing these movies have always been good at, and it wasn't used to cover up anything. By that I mean, they didn't try to hide poor action scenes by using a shaky cam, in stead, they showed everything.

Finally, for the loose plot, I bought into it for 2 reasons. 1) It took a backseat to the very well done and intelligent action, as I said before, and 2) because it had very strong actors in the supporting roles, and the way they wrote the dialogue between those characters and Bourne was intelligently stupid, by which I mean they were good at writing smart characters into stupid situations that were fun when Bourne took advantage of them.

Overall, it is a very intelligent action movie, the best of the trilogy and one of the best of the year, and it is definitely worth the price of admission.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 9 out of 10.

Harry Potter 5 Movie Review

Last night I went out to the (still) new Bridgeport Theater to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I really like that theater, albeit a little crowded at peak times.

So this is the 5th installment of the Harry Potter series, coming off a darn good 4th. I thought Goblet of Fire was good, so I was looking forward to seeing this one. This is the first book of the series I didn't read, but I don't think that should have mattered, as any movie adapted from a book should still aim to be good in its own right, but as you'll see in my review, maybe it did.

This film took a deeper look at the characters of this franchise, and in particular, Harry. It tried to show that he had grown up and changed. The only problem is, it's a character study about a boy with no character. What I mean is, Harry Potter has never developed his own character, it's always the people around him or their actions, or stuff that happened before the first book, that develop it. He's never really done anything, but he's built into this heroic figure through what others tell him and other do. He's just the innocent little boy who has no idea what he can do, and everyone has so much respect for him and he doesn't get why, and neither do we, so I think that has been really effective getting an audience to care about him. But I think he, the character of Harry Potter, is pretty empty by himself, thus making this character study pretty boring.

The whole movie didn't have the same "Harry Potter feel" to it either. You'll know what I mean when you see it, but there was very little magic throughout, we never got a sense of the world they live in, the way wizards have their own little world, and the huge size and luster and glory of Hogwarts was totally absent. When their was magic, the 7 minutes of it in the whole movie, it was magicians throwing magic energy balls at each other, which I thought was really lame, or it was Dumbledore and Voldemort facing off for about 45 seconds. That should have been at least a 5 minute scene. The only cool part about it was when Voldemort used their combined magic, shattered all the glass in the whole hall, and threw it at Harry and Dumbledore. But really, there was very little action, or real climax, in this "fantasy" movie.

Other gripes: I thought the directing was full of itself, I thought Voldemort was one of the weakest characters (let Ralph Fiennes give a speech and do some acting), I thought they underutilized the great actors like Fiennes, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, and Michael Gambon (Dumbledore), and I thought there were a lot of cop-outs tying up loose ends.

Likes: I thought the Voldemort glass shattering was great, I thought they lady they got to play Umbridge, the new defense against the dark arts teacher, was perfect in that role, as was the girl who played Luna Lovegood, and the sweeping shots of Hogwarts are always cool looking.

On the Reganometer I give this movie a 4 out of 10.

Transformers Movie Review

As many of you may know, I had been looking forward to this movie forever. I was set that this was the movie of the summer, and was just going to kick ass. One of my friends knew I couldn't wait, and just had to play devil's advocate and insist that it was going to suck, so we made the decision to see it together and see who turned out to be right. Hey Franklin: I won.

This movie was directed by Michael Bay, and what I'd like to say first is, everyone that's ever seen a Michael Bay movie knows what he's all about: action. He's never been an exceptional storyteller or anything, but he has made his movies appeal to the people who like huge perspective and lots of explosive action. That being said, this was the best movie Michael Bay has ever made. While there are things to gripe about, like the weak, and in most cases unnecessary, human story lines, the narrative in general, the tiny little "Frenzy" robot (he sucked, but was necessary in the movie I guess), this movie knows what it does well and knows what it does poorly. Anyone who's seen it also knows what those are, but regardless, it was exactly what a summer popcorn blockbuster should be.

The movie followed Shia LeBeouf's character "Sam Witwiky" and his accidental immersion into the world of Transformers. I thought LeBeouf did a great job and is one of the most promising young actors in the business right now. Other than him though, and Megan Fox who is just amazingly beautiful, the other human characters were pretty unnecessary, although some added some pretty good laughs. While this movie follows the story of a human, make no mistake, this movie is about the Transformers.

This movie brought the transforming robots we grew up with in cartoons and action figures to life in incredible detail. Not only did the characters of the robots shine (Optimus Prime was perfect), much more than the human characters, the CGI is the best I've ever seen in movies. It was incredible. These huge robots transforming from cars and trucks right before your eyes (great GM commercial), and the detail and intricacies and moving parts, you could see it all. Some of the scenes were incredible. There were incredible slo-mo parts, and while I may have liked to see a slow motion transformation, everything looked amazing. Not only was the CGI incredible, but this movie has some of the best action scenes I've ever seen. It was just incredible. Regardless of its faults, which I could easily get around, this was a great movie. It knew what it was, and did that to perfection. It's my favorite movie of the year so far, hands down.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 10 out of 10.

Knocked Up Movie Review

Like I said I was going to in the last post, I saw Knocked Up tonight, and I loved it. Going in, I knew it was getting great reviews (it's at 91% right now with 129 total reviews, but the "Cream of the Crop" is 97%), but it lived up to and surpassed my expectations, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, this is the second offering from Judd Apatow, the first being 40 Year-Old-Virgin, and while that was great, you really couldn't say for sure if that would continue into his second movie. Well, it did, and in my opinion, this was better than 40 Year-Old-Virgin. Way better.

First of all, the dialogue is perfect, the story is solid and totally believable, the characters and the actors who play them do a great job, and the jokes and laughs are so, so well done. The movie keeps you laughing the entire time. It's just a great movie, and I think one of its biggest strengths, probably its biggest, is how honest it all is. The combination of Apatow's writing and Seth Rogan's acting really lend authenticity to the whole thing. Plus, it's hillarious!

Now, this is a good movie, but I think its biggest hurdle is its title and marketing. I'm sure they know this, and looking back it helps with the whole honesty theme, like "we're naming it this because we want to and think it's funny and don't care what anyone says", but it is such a better movie than its title gives it credit for. For instance, I can see plenty of people seeing the poster and hearing the title, and being turned off thinking it's just another stupid comedy, even though if they saw it they would like it. Regardless of what your opinion of "stupid comedy" is, I don't think this is one, and it actually does a good job appealing to all audiences. If my brother, Mom, and Dad all saw it, I bet all 3 of them would really like it, because it's just a good movie. It drifts into the realm of romantic comedy in the same way 40 Year-Old-Virgin did, which isn't a bad thing, comedy definitely comes first in this film, but it does a great job making you care about the characters and have all those "feelings" and stuff. Anyways, enough babbling.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 9 out of 10, and say everyone should go see it. I loved it, it was the funniest movie I've seen all year, one of the best overall, and I think no matter who you are, you'll like it.

Shrek the Third Movie Review

It's just one bad sequel after another these days. After my awful Spiderman 3 experience, I saw Shrek the Third last night with Hayley. We were going out for dinner and a movie, and she really wanted to see it, so that made me want to see it. I loved the first one, we actually watched it the other day, and the second one was good too. However, the third came up way short and left both of us disappointed.

First of all, these movies make a lot of money ($122 million opening weekend for this one), so just like Spiderman, I expected this one to be better because the movie makers knew it would pay off. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that though. Just like in Spiderman, it felt like this thing was just thrown together and rushed out so they could reap the rewards.

It was far more scattered than the first two, with a flimsy plot line and some weak new characters. It still appeals to kids, because all the ones in the theater seemed to love it, but it didn't have the adult appeal that the first ones did. Also, at this point in the series, they could have played a lot more off of some of the favorite existing characters, like the Gingerbread Man. Most of the scenes with him in it were funny, and they didn't have to try much because he was already an established funny character, but even still, with all the characters they've developed, there wasn't much depth to any of them.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 5 out of 10, and say, if you have children, or liked the first two, it's worth seeing once, but unlike the other two, it won't be worth seeing again.

Spiderman 3 Movie Review

I just saw this, and I'm going to write this thing short, and try and purge the memory of it from my brain. I'm going to try the buy or sell method.

First thing I'm buying is Bruce Campbell. Awesome. I'll buy everything he sells. I'll sell his agent though. He must have the agent from Extras, because he needs to be in everything, he's hilarious, yet he's reduced to Old Spice commercials. Granted, they're funny, but he needs his own movie and fast.

I'll buy the action scenes, I'll sell every other scene.
I'll buy good Spiderman, but sell emo Spiderman.
I'll buy Venom and Sandman, but sell Mary Jane.
On that note, I'll buy Topher Grace, but sell Kirsten Dunst.
I'll buy the budget, but sell what it bought.
I'll buy the editor of the Daily Bugle, and sell everyone else not already purchased.
I'll buy Sam Raimi, but for Evil Dead IV.
On that note, I'll buy Evil Dead 4, but sell Spiderman 4.

Everything else, including most of the awful, shameful, totally forced and not effective comic relief (the "emo" Peter Parker scenes), I will sell. Actually, I'll put it in a wet cardboard box, write "Free" on it, and leave it on the sidewalk for a few days. Then it's going to the dump. I was told not to see this movie, I didn't want to see this movie, yet I went. I didn't like it at all.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 4 out of 10, and say do NOT go see this movie. Like my roommate said, it was like a bad joke that just wouldn't stop.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters Movie Review

This was one of my most anticipated movies of 2007, so going in I had high hopes. I didn't exactly know what to expect, because I tried to stay away from reading reviews before I went, as hard as that was, but that let me make my absolute own decisions about it. After reading some reviews, I realized that they are absolutely pointless, because this is not the type of movie that should even be reviewed; not enough people know what it's about. Anyways, my thoughts:

I have to admit, I was a little disappointed. That's not to say I didn't like it, because I did, I really liked it. But it just didn't live up to my expectations which, like I said before, were high. Probably too high. But there's so much they seem to pack into every episode, and the movie just didn't have the same humorous punch that the episodes do. It had a lot of funny points, but I guess I was looking for an hour and a half of laughing.

My likes: it was "side-splittingly" funny at points. A lot of points. Especially the intro. For fans of the show, like me, it made great references to old characters and was just as fun as watching 7 episodes of the show in a row, but with a really loose plot. On that note, I think only fans of the show should see it. I feel bad for people who go in not knowing what its all about, and are just confused the whole time. A seriously funny movie though. I will buy it on DVD and watch it tons, and probably pick up lots of things I missed the first time.

My dislikes: while it was really funny at points, there were times when it wasn't. Being a 15 minute show on TV, I'm not used to it not being funny. Also, they focused too much time on stupid, pointless, secondary characters. The show is best when it involves lots of the Aqua Teens and Carl. They were there, but they could have been used so much better. I mean, these characters are hilarious, so exploit that!

Regardless though, it was a really funny movie, easily worth the price of admission. On the Reganometer, I give this movie an 8 out of 10, and say go see it, but ONLY, and I really mean this, ONLY if you're a fan.

300 Movie Review

This is the movie that everyone has been buzzing about. I was looking forward to seeing this for a long time, and even with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 61% as of last night, I was still as eager to see it as I was when I first read the synopsis. The movie is the next of Frank Miller's graphic novels to get the movie treatment, and here's my review:

I had done a lot of reading about this movie before I saw it, and pretty much everyone came to the same consensus: it was kind of boring, but it looked amazing. After seeing it, I only partially agree with that. I thought the story, which is a retelling of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, was actually fascinating. The whole story felt very Shakespearean in it's telling. Full of internal conflict, and a great juxtaposition of duty, courage, pride, and honor vs. cruelty, arrogance, and ego. The first 20 minutes or so of the movie I thought were great, and they got me to totally buy into it. However, that only took me until about 20 minutes left, and then I unfortunately felt some of that boredom everyone was talking about.

Almost needless to say, I thought the movie looked great, and aside from a few instances of "wow, that was bad CGI," It looked amazing. Granted this thing is mostly digital effects, I imagine in order to get every scene perfect, it would have taken about 10 years. But most looked amazing. Also, the battle scene's were awesome; as riveting as I had hoped, but there just weren't enough of them. Overall, there were tons of things I loved about this movie.

What I didn't like is a much shorter list than what I did, but still more than I had hoped. I thought Gerald Butler, the Spartan King, did a great job, but his Scottish accent peeked through too much and was a bit distracting at times. The dialogue was also a bit corny at times and didn't fit in some other places, but I got around that. I caught myself thinking about that line from Swingers, "everyone copies from everyone in movies" a few times. Most of it was from Lord of the Rings though, and if you're going to copy a movie, it might as well be that one. Also, there's only so much you can put in slow motion before it just gets ridiculous. This thing would have been 45 minutes long if it was sped up. The action was awesome in slo-mo, but somethings just didn't need to be slowed down. Again, the CGI moments, and my feeling that there just wasn't enough action. I think the action was by far the best part.

Overall, I did honestly enjoy this movie. I can see why it's getting a 61% on RT because I think it's almost a hate it or love it type movie. On the Reganometer, I give this movie an 8 out of 10, and say if you liked Sin City, love movies that have great action and that are visually stunning, and can let yourself buy into certain things and ignore some others, you will love it.

Breach Movie Review

Yesterday I went down to my local cineplex and cought a flick. The flick was Breach, starring Chris Cooper and Ryan Phillippe. In this movie, Chris Cooper plays Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent who is selling secrets to the Soviet Union, and Ryan Phillippe plays Eric O'Neill, and upstart FBI agent assigned to his case.

Now, this thing is tagged as sort of a political thriller, and while it does focus on one of the worst security breaches in US history, it "thrills" us in a different way than a movie normally tagged a thriller does. The only term I can find that expresses the feeling this movie has is "quiet strength." It doesn't have any action, it's all character interaction and implications that spawn from those interactions, but it's still really good. For being somewhat of a "slow" movie, it kept me glued to my seat almost the whole time. The reason: Chris Cooper. He did an absolutely phenomenal job in this role. He is such a talented actor, and it really showed here.

As far as what I liked, I thought it was very well acted by everyone involved, and that really helped move it. I liked it's "quiet strength." I thought the interaction between Ryan Phillippe and Cooper was great. They really sold the ackward feeling the whole time. And of course, Chris Cooper's acting, easily the best part of the movie. His character was really interesting too; very multi-faceted and hard to put your finger on. Also, the fact that it was a story about American history that was told from the intelligence side, and not the "gun culture" side, as Cooper calls it throughout the movie. What I didn't like was the lack of climax. It didn't really peak anywhere, not even when they caught him. Also, the fact that they plainly said he was caught him in the beginning took away any suspense building. I mean, you know that he eventually gets caught, but when they do that, you can't let yourself be fooled anymore. I just didn't like it. Other than that though, it was a pretty darn good movie.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 7 out of 10, and say if you like movies that snowball from character development, and don't mind a bit of a slow pace, it's worth seeing. I liked it a lot. Chris Cooper is another reason to go. It's one of those movies that's good, but not great, and you'll enjoy, but forget about a week later.

Brick Movie Review

Brick, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, puts a new spin on an old classic. The days of film noir as the fashionable genre of film making have long been over, but this movie revamps the genre and presents it as a multi-layered, fast-moving mystery behind a high school veneer. Stylized to perfection, we are taken quickly into the depths of a murder and left there without knowing exactly which way is up, only to find ourselves knowing far more than we thought. Joseph Gordon-Levitt turns in an amazing performance, as does the rest of the cast, showing us that he's far from his days on 3rd Rock. His character's firm, relentless disposition combined with the inherently harsh reality of the story and the stylized direction it takes make for one hell of a ride. The dialogue was straight out of the 40's, as was the well-timed deadpan humor, and while it may have bothered some, it drew me in further. I thought this movie was a tribute to the style of the film noir genre, and an entertaining flick in it's own right.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 9 out of 10 (back-to-back 9's!), and say you have to see it. Especially if you are a fan of the genre.

The Proposition Movie Review

The Proposition, written and composed by Nick Cave, is a gritty, poetic Western about the pursuit of justice, loyalty, and life, with a sense of "real" pulsing throughout. The look and feel of this movie are totally authentic, Guy Pearce and cast put together amazing performances, and the story is remarkably balanced in its chaos. It perfectly juxtaposes hate and tolerance, beauty and ugliness, intelligence and ignorance, and tells it all so beautifully. Brilliant changes in tempo, mood, atmosphere, intensity, and music, even very subtle ones, all compliment the films progression and very much drive what otherwise may seem like a slow-paced drama. It is one of the greatest slow-moving films I've ever seen, and I'm very surprised that I didn't hear more about this film when it came out earlier this past year, and it certainly deserved a wider release in the U.S. than it received.

On the Reganometer, I give this movie a 9 out of 10, with emphasis, and say you MUST see this movie.