Citizen Kane is supposedly the greatest film ever made. More people are probably aware of this fact than have actually sat down to watch it. My dad is one of those people who likes to watch a good movie. Mention No Country for Old Men or The Straight Story and he'll start chatting excitedly about why he loves those films. He decided to sit down and watch Citizen Kane and it didn't really do anything for him. Some might say that my father is too dense and unsophisticated to appreciate Orson Welles' masterpiece. Although there could be some truth to that, since there is a certain scientific approach to cinematography, editing, and acting that tend to make a good film, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I think that the real reason my father couldn't get into the whole experience has to do with the elusiveness of the things that emotionally move us as individuals. Films tell their stories viscerally. The camera allows us to see and hear what the characters see and hear. Good books can accomplish this as well, but the nature of a movie lends it a greater amount of momentum to the whole experience. You can put a book down, it's harder to stop a movie because you get so caught up in the whole experience.

I believe that the films a person loves says more about who they are than what kind of taste in art they have. It allows us to relive the familiar in a slightly unfamiliar setting. It's a way of saying I'm not alone in feeling the way I feel. That's why we keep watching the same stories over and over again in slightly different packaging. When I sit down and watch a film, I usually come away from it discovering something about myself. A good film forces you to examine yourself and your perceptions of the world around you. We love movies that we see ourselves in. Popular films that stand the test of time are that way because they reveal basic common truths about all men. It's a Wonderful Life has stood the test of time precisely for that reason. I absolutely adore that film and it's not because it's a case of cinematic genius. The film is flawed in many ways, but our family continues to watch it over and over again because we can all relate to it.

This isn't always the case though. My mom recently had our whole family watch the movie Henry Poole is Here. She cannot stop raving about that movie. She loves that movie. I didn't particularly find it as powerful an experience as she did. In fact I'd personally say that it strayed way too far in the corny zone for my tastes. However, I can understand why my mother loves the movie when I look at things she's gone through in the past and how they relate to the movie. This means that the film provides a much more powerful experience for her than me and that's OK.

Film criticism has gotten to the point where everything is being rated, as if there's some way of scientifically determining if a film is good or not. This is a ludicrous idea. I don't understand why everyone feels the need to have public opinion monopolized to a single general consensus when it comes to art and entertainment. Everyone liked the Dark Knight but you. So what? Film can be a living breathing thing when you allow it to. And when you do, it can be quite a rewarding experience.

The Hurt Locker is a war movie, but not in the same way that Saving Private Ryan is a war movie. This film has an episodic structure rather than a large overarching plot, which places the emphasis on character. This is a very good thing. This isn't to say that you won't be left gripping your seat, because you will. The moments of heart stopping tension just pass by more quickly and come more frequently than in your typical war thriller drama.

The film follows a squad of soldiers in Iraq who are in charge of eliminating ordinances (explosives) by carefully diffusing them or bluntly blowing them up. The job is dangerous and survival isn't guaranteed. The film isn't afraid to make examples of some of its characters to prove this point.

Staff Seargent Williams (played by Jeremy Renner) is a fearless tech team leader, who's approach to eliminating bombs is unorthodox and reckless to say the least. Although Williams' character comprises the focus of the film, he comes onto the scene later after the viewer has been acquainted with the secondary characters first. This is a smart move on the filmmaker's part because it demonstrates to the audience the senselessness of the man's actions in comparison to those of his predecessor.

Williams could have easily been portrayed as a two dimensional superhero who's courage and skill allow him to do no wrong. Thankfully, both the script and Renner's solid performance prevent this from being the case. The Staff Sergeant makes mistakes, lots of mistakes. Even when he emerges from a situation victorious or alive, you can't help but wonder if his actions were the best way to go about things. At times we get glimpses into a deeply buried emotional core. Behind his cocky exterior is a man who feels fear and uncertainty.

The supporting cast puts in excellent performances as well. There's a good amount of chemistry that establishes a believable love/hate relationship between the team members and Williams. It is through them that the audience is able to relate to the often times alien Staff Sergent.

The cinematography is well done. As this is a war movie, a good portion of it is shot using hand held cameras. Still, there are some beautifully shot gratuitous slow motion explosions peppered throughout the film.

This had a limited release, so it can be hard or near impossible to find showings. Check local art house cinemas or wait for this to show up on DVD. This is an excellent and thought provoking piece that should be seen.

In a recent interview concerning his upcoming documentary (Meeting Andrei Tarkovsky), Dmitry Trakovsky (not related) talks about the difference in approaches between contemporary films and the films of Tarkovsky. One of the most defining characteristic of a Tarkovsky film is its use of extended shots, which places an emphasis on the moment. In his interview Dmitry speaks of how he feels that many of today's contemporary films force the viewer to only be concerned with what happens next.

While Rachel Getting Married does not come close to approaching the look and feel of a Tarkovsky film, it does frequently possess a delightful sense of being in the moment. It is within these seemingly organic slivers of time that the wide range of human emotion is portrayed in a disarmingly authentic manner. Grief, anger, jealousy, joy, and love make their presence felt within the context of the celebration of a marriage and all without the taint of manipulation. Several times throughout the film I couldn't help but wince or crack a smile as I recognized parallels between my own loved ones and the characters on the screen.

The film is seen mainly through the eyes of Kym, adeptly played by Anne Hathaway.  She's a drug addict who goes straight from rehab to a house full of bustling and excited people. Her sister Rachel, is played also quite well by Rosemarie DeWitt.

There are all sorts of minor plots that play out through the film, most revolving around Kim and her relationship with her family, but each is small and doesn't threaten to overwhelm the overall experience. There's no disaster the day before the wedding or any other similar plot device to produce a false sense of excitement and pace.

The story does not shirk from showing the darker side of its protagonist, or any of its characters for that matter. Depending on how forgiving you are, you may even leave hating a few of them. Discussion may even be provoked by disagreements between viewers after the credits roll (heaven forbid a film do that!).

There's a lack of a score (which helps to maintain its emotional honesty), but music still plays an important role. A variety of musicians and musical styles are present through the preparations and the actual ceremony. This helps to further ground the film in a sense of reality. At times the sound of a violin can be faintly heard in the background as one of the musicians practices.

It's been a good while since I've seen a recent film as refreshing as this one. It's available now on DVD, so go check it out.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGk7E53NtDo&feature=PlayList&p=A416E3A7827F4650&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23]

I saw this based on the recommendation of my favorite movie critic, James Berardinelli, over at his reelviews site. This is listed as his number one favorite film. Since he and I have similar tastes, I thought I'd give the film a chance. The film was well received when it came out. It won seven Academy Awards in 1970, including best picture.

While I can perhaps understand why the film is so well loved by people like Berardinelli, I feel that the film's flaws ultimately mar the viewing experience from being either entertaining or intellectually stimulating. This film has not aged well.

George C. Scott does a fine job as the general, but his performance is weighed down by self-conscious dialog. Rather than organic, the dialog feels sterile and contrived. Much of the time it was obvious that the purpose of much of the dialog was to put in a humorous quip attributed to the famous general, rather than to reach any sort of understanding of the man's complex character.

Because of this general feeling of separation between the film and its subject matter, very little sympathy is generated for the General and his problems. This shouldn't be the case in a dramatic biopic such as this.

Despite the problems of the film, it does succeed in several instances. The opening sequence, where Patton gives his speech before a giant star spangled banner is perhaps one of the most iconic images in American film (not to mention having been parodied a countless number of times). The scene in the medical tent where Patton slaps a scared soldier senseless was also well done in that it helped to show a perspective of the event not often shared by history books or the public.

Patton isn't a bad movie, it's just not a great one. Certainly if you have an interest in the general then this film may interest you, but I'd be hard pressed to recommend it to anyone else.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9FMBbFJZY]

"Bringing Up Baby" is a screwball comedy that features Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Screwball comedies thrive on situational and physical comedy, a quality which has endeared me to the genre since I first came into contact with it. Mistaken identities, ridiculous chase scenes, and outrageous characters are all a staple.

That's no less the case here. Cary Grant plays a timid and nerdy scientist, David, who has spent the last four years working on the reconstruction of a brontosaurus skeleton and is engaged to his co-worker (who views their future marriage as an extension of David's committment to his work).

Katherine Hepburn plays an eccentric woman, Susan, who always seems to mistake other people's things for her own. She and Grant meet in a hilarious manner on a golf course and soon enough they're both entangled in a situation with a tame leapord named "baby". This all leads to a highly entertaining and ridiculous moment in the city jail that involves a hilarious exchange of misinformation.

Grant does a good job of playing the straightman. Hepburn however, steals the show. She expertly deals out fast paced dialogue and double entendre's with a crazy sense of charm that seems uncharacteristic of other more glamerous roles I've seen her in.

Despite the skill displayed by the actors the romantic ending seems far too contrived. In the superior, "It Happened One Night", sexual tension was a major underlying factor in much of the conflict. That's not the case in "Baby". Rather, David spends most of the picture irritated and annoyed with Susan, which causes his declarations of love at the end of the picture to seem tacked on rather than a natural result of the preceding events. Indeed I feel that the film would have been stronger had it ended with Susan's infatuation being unreciprocated.

Despite this major fault in the picture, it's still well worth seeing just for Hepburn's performance and the great use of situational and physical comedy. Just don't expect it to stick.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Q17fepYdU&feature=related]

I just finished watching Alfred Hitchcock's film, Rebecca. It was a great film. I was somewhat skeptical at the beginning as it seemed to be your typical romance movie with all the cheese that entails. However the movie soon moved past this toward more meaty dramatic material that seemed to me like watching a trainwreck and a 40 car pile up all thrown together into a big pot with just a dash of intrigue thrown in for flavor.

In typical Hitchcockian fashion, curve balls are constantly being thrown at the viewer. Just as soon as I thought I knew what was going on, another factor came into play. It was a positively satisfying experience.

There's some great thought provoking stuff in there about the fallacy of comparing ourselves to others and how we're decieved by social displays of happiness in others. Go check it out.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3TgoekMV5Y]

My favorite Disney fairytale is probably Beauty in the Beast. It's a really great movie, the only animated film to be nominated for a best picture Academy Award. Everything about the film is top notch; the voice acting, the animation, the pacing, and the musical numbers. It also has the most interesting premise of all the Disney fairy tales, the idea that love transcends beauty. Ancient philosophers used to believe that outward beauty was a sign of inner beauty. This is our natural inclination as well. Studies have shown that physically attractive people are paid more, get more breaks, and have more successful partners (that one specifically is kind of a no brainer).

Shakespeare fell into the camp of people who put all the emphasis in love on physical appearances.  If you read his sonnets, a great many of them are extremely unromantic. In several of them, he describes the beauty of the beloved disappearing with age and pleads with her to have children to pass her beauty on to the next generation.

Beauty and the Beast however, suggests the idea that beauty or the lack thereof does not get in the way of love. This is a really idealistic view of love, but I've met a small number of people who I would say exemplify this.

In addition to the Disney version of the film, there's a famous french film, La Belle et la Bête (1946), that's adapted from the same fairytale. The differences between the two versions are quite interesting. Other than topical differences such as animated vs. filmed and musical vs. drama, there are some interesting differences in plot and character. Belle in the Disney film is independent and intelligent. She's tired of her life as a lower middle class inventor's daughter. She "wants more than this provincial life". The Belle from La Belle on the other hand is self-sacrificing. She's offered marriage by a seemly young man, who she later admits she's attracted to, but refuses because she wishes to stay at home with her sickly father.

The Disney Beast is abusive and short tempered, but is slowly brought around by the caring nature of Belle. She completely brings about a change in character through the power of her love and reforms him into a considerate, loving, gentleman (it works in real life too...right?). The Beast of La Belle on the other hand is not abusive at all. His antagonistic side comes from being bound to the laws of the spells placed on him, which is why Belle must come stay with him. Probably the worst side of his character comes at a moment when he literally starts to steam with jealousy.

I think it's pretty obvious what these differences between the two interpretations reveal about the cultural views from which they come. Two stories with the exact same basic plot can say entirely different things. I find that interesting.

I wasn't surprised that Heath Ledger won his posthumous award, though I feel like the award would have been better spent on boosting the ego of someone who's still alive. I didn't think his performance was all that special (I also felt like the Dark Knight was a mediocre film that didn't surpass Batman Begins). I feel like if he hadn't kicked the bucket the award would have gone to Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who's always a favorite.

Slumdog Millionaire raked in the most awards. It was an excellent film (that's totally undeserving of it's R rating). It's plot made a lot of references to Bollywood films, which probably went over the heads of American audiences. Still, if you're interested in a good love story where the "nice guy" gets the girl then I highly suggest seeing it.

I was really disappointed to see that Happy-Go-Lucky didn't get more recognition. The protagonist is a woman who is very upbeat (to the point of annoyance for some viewers). The film follows her through fairly normal days in her life as she interacts with the people around her. The film has a lot to say about living with fear. Fear of relationships, fear of criticism, fear of the future, fear of financial security. The foil to the protagonist is a driving instructor who is afraid of everything. You can see how this festers up in him, the driving force behind his anger at the universe.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdjb98LOuEw]

Bigger Stronger Faster is an excellent documentary that takes a good hard look at steroid use in the United States. It's very even handed about the issue, showing some of the moral issues with the drugs while also dispelling a lot of the negative stigma that has grown around it. Towards the end of the film it begins to pull out and look at how much medicated self improvement has become an ingrained part of our culture. Kids take ADHD medicine to gain an edge in education, U.S. pilots take speed, tons of people take anti-depressants.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8nOKJTL6Tg]

Also, check out Appaloosa. Usually when a Western comes out now it's at least interesting if not good. I liked this a lot better than 3:10 to Yuma. The gunfights are intense but quick, rather than drawn out like in a spaghetti western.  The two protagonists aren't morally perfect, but they are interesting studies in commitment and trust between comrades. It's a good movie, go rent it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h57n6R9pbU0]