Equilibrium

What would it be like to live in a world where freedom of expression is no longer free? What if the very things that made us who we are became illegal? It's a horrifying prospect, especially with the censorship laws throughout the world.

Kurt Wimmer's Equilibrium explores the possibility of such a world existing. All forms of expression -- literature, music, art -- are banned and those found with them will be executed. In order to stay unaffected, everyone is administered a drug which suppresses all emotion.

Wimmer's vision is almost like what Ray Bradbury did with Fahrenheit 451. Something that's in our life every day is suddenly forbidden, a simple object that is deemed dangerous for our mental health. Sure, it's understandable how a few books or a couple paintings could get some controversy, but becoming qualified to be destroyed? Practically horrifying, especially coming from someone who appreciates the arts.

However, the main flaw of Wimmer's vision is his apparent need to include violence into the story. I suppose it's mainly because everyone's a living, breathing sociopath under the drug, so the need to kill someone is inevitable. Seems like a strange response to the drug though.

Equilibrium provides an interesting concept but it gets bogged down thanks mainly to the violence aspect. Maybe if that was removed, this would be ranked alongside THX 1138 and Blade Runner. Instead, it falls face first into guilty pleasure territory. And that's where it intends to stay too.

My Rating: ***1/2

Pandora's Box

G.W. Pabst's Pandora's Box provides a portrait of a woman whose life is layered with good luck and hard times. She's fully aware of the distinction between the two, but they blend from time to time so she can't be too sure.

The woman in question is Lulu, a role immortalized by Louise Brooks. She plays Lulu as someone who is fully aware of her sexual prowess and its impact on men. It's just she finds out about it too late most of the time. Brooks makes this role her own. (And to think there was an uproar over her casting.)

The interesting thing is that Pabst doesn't depict Lulu as either a man-eater or a martyr. He depicts her as an innocent girl who acts naughty at times. What happens to her in the end could be up for debate. Was what happened to Lulu unjust or deserved?

There have been a number of films focusing on the tumultuous sexual lifestyles some people lead (only a small handful daring to delve into sex addiction) since the release of Pandora's Box. But it was Pabst's film that started them all. Bear in mind this was a film from the late 20s and it was quite ahead of its time. (One of the supporting characters is a lesbian.) And it still resonates to this day.

Pandora's Box is a truly fascinating film to watch. It's a stunning portrait of the dangers within human nature and the consequences that follow. Honestly one of the boldest films from the early years of cinema.

My Rating: *****

Skyfall

When you look at the small but extensive filmography of Sam Mendes, you can tell he's interested in stories about the everyman and the life they lead. Suffice to say his newest film Skyfall feels out place when in the likes of American Beauty or Revolutionary Road. That doesn't mean it's a bad film. Oh no, not at all.

Even though the James Bond franchise has now been around for fifty years, I'll admit I'm not well versed in the world of 007. (The only other Bond film I saw was Casino Royale.) That said, I still managed to get the few throwbacks to previous entries that were in Skyfall.

The cast is great. (Then again, with names like these, what else would you expect?) Daniel Craig is essentially perfect as James Bond. (Boo to those that say he isn't.) Judi Dench is also perfect as M. Javier Bardem is equally ideal for the role of villain Raoul Silva, displaying a nice balance of creepy and straight-up unhinged. Supporting actors Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Albert Finney are also great. Wonder what the cast for the next one will be like?

The many other aspects of Skyfall are also to die for. Adele's theme song is (pun slightly intended) pitch perfect. Same can be said for Thomas Newman's score. But I must talk about Roger Deakins' cinematography. The pure gorgeousness of it makes the film come alive. I would be ecstatic if Deakins got nominated, more so if he finally won.

I must say, this year has been pretty great for actions films. First The Avengers, then The Dark Knight Rises, now Skyfall. Mendes seems like an odd choice at first but when you see the final result, you realize he was perfect for the job. But if you had seen his unjustly underrated Road to Perdition (which co-starred Craig), then you know Mendes could depict action and violence without overdoing it. In short, Skyfall is awesome.

My Rating: *****

Nikita

When we first see the title character of Luc Besson's Nikita (or La Femme Nikita as it's commonly called), she is clearly zoned out, oblivious to the mayhem going on around her. As the film progresses, she becomes more focused and driven.

Nikita is played by Anne Parillaud. She provides the appropriate amount of sex appeal and cunning behavior needed for the role. That said, there isn't much else for Parillaud to do. The role mainly consists of her being in either a skimpy outfit or her underwear. (Well, later on in the film anyways.)

Besson is one of those directors who's accused of preferring style over substance. With Nikita being the first film of his I saw, I can't really confirm it. I will say I definitely felt it from Nikita. (Probably not a good note to start on.)

Speaking of the film's style, it is pretty nice. Thierry Arbogast's cinematography and Eric Serra's score make the most out of the film. Though to be honest, those are the main highlights of Nikita.

All in all, the film's all right. There are a few sequences that are good, but that's about it. It's definitely clear that it was made in "the MTV era". (Just saying.) I just hope The Professional won't be like this.

My Rating: ****

The Band Wagon

Anyone who has seen enough musicals from Hollywood's Golden Age knows you have two song-and-dance men to choose from: Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. Both were very different; Astaire provided elegance with his dancing whereas Kelly was more aggressive. Kelly himself said it best: "If Fred Astaire is the Cary Grant of dance, I'm the Marlon Brando."

Even though the dancing styles are different, amusingly their careers were somewhat similar. Both started out in show business with their siblings. Years later, both displayed their abilities as legit actors around the same time. (For Astaire, it was 1959's On the Beach; for Kelly it was Inherit the Wind the following year.)

Also within a year, both had the leading role in a prominent MGM musical. Kelly of course had Singin' in the Rain whereas Astaire had Vincente Minnelli's The Band Wagon. Both films were written by Betty Comden and Adolph Green, and their roles were that of movies stars whose careers are in trouble. (Ironic on Astaire's part since The Band Wagon was made when his career was at a standstill.)

Of course both musicals have their differences. Singin' in the Rain was more bouncier in comparison to The Band Wagon. Astaire's musical was more of a musical revue than a straight-up musical. Also, Singin' in the Rain has more charm than The Band Wagon.

The Band Wagon itself is mainly all right. Some of the musical numbers feel out of place. (It makes sense when you realize only three songs from the original stage production made it into the movie.) But of the musical numbers, my favorites were "Dancing in the Dark" and "I Guess I'll Have to Change My Plan". Also, it made me realize that I have to see one of Astaire's movies with Ginger Rogers soon. (Can't believe I haven't yet.)

My Rating: ****

Brute Force

Following the end of World War II, returned soldiers were trying to escape the uncomfortable nature of everyday life. One such escape was to the movies. But they weren't seeing the love story pictures their sweethearts wanted to see. They wanted to see something with more grit. Something like a film noir.

It makes sense once you think of it. They're weren't ready to see a saccharine-drenched picture that Hollywood often cranks out. (That was probably why the Frank Capra-helmed It's a Wonderful Life didn't have great returns.) They had gotten accustomed to a world of violence and death, so they wanted a movie that feature that.

One such film is Jules Dassin's Brute Force. Depicting a life behind bars, the film chronicles the differing perspectives between the inmates and the guards. However Dassin depicts the guards as the morally corrupt, especially Capt. Munsey (Hume Cronyn). (Many later noirs would go into the territory of power corrupting absolutely.)

The film stars Burt Lancaster (in only his second film role!) as Joe Collins, a prisoner who only wants to get out of jail. He has good reason to; the health of his wife Ruth (Ann Blyth) is declining and he wants to be with her. The silent intensity that Joe displays is precisely why I love Lancaster in the first place.

Brute Force is very good though it feels like it's lacking...something. What it is, I have no idea. (Might become evident on a re-watch.) Still, Dassin's direction, Lancaster's charisma and William Daniels' cinematography kept me intrigued.

My Rating: ****1/2

Wreck-It Ralph

This year has been pretty good to the world of animation. Yeah, there have been a few misses earlier in the year, but titles like Brave, ParaNorman and Frankenweenie gave me hope.

Another is Rich Moore's Wreck-It Ralph. My definition of a great animated movie is one that can be enjoyed at any age. (This is precisely why movies from Disney and Pixar are often successful.) Is this the case with Wreck-It Ralph? Oh, you bet it is.

When my sister showed me the trailer a few months back, the one thing she commented on was how they managed to get famous video game characters into one movie. I have to admit I was curious about that myself, but it kind of went away once I remembered Disney's recent spending spree. (The probably bought a few rights beforehand.)

Onto the names involved. Sarah Silverman was entertaining without being annoying. Jane Lynch was awesome, but then again she usually is. Jack McBrayer was really funny as the complete happy-go-lucky guy. (He also convinced me that I need to watch 30 Rock.) But the star of Wreck-It Ralph is John C. Reilly. He has played likable schmoes enough times to make it understandable why he's perfect as Ralph.

Basically I loved Wreck-It Ralph. It's a really original and thoroughly entertaining concept. So if you're a video game fan or just want a fun movie to watch, Wreck-It Ralph is your go-to movie. You won't regret it. (Oh, one more thing. The short that plays before the movie, Paperman, is adorable.)

My Rating: *****

State and Main

Depicting the chaos behind the production of a film isn't something very commonly tackled among Hollywood. (There are those few titles every and again.) Maybe it's because no one in Hollywood wants everyone to know the troubles that go into making a movie.

There are many complications that can affect the production of a film: money problems, "creative differences", squabbles between director and producer, actors behaving badly, insecure actors, re-writes galore...just your average film production. Nothing too extreme.

David Mamet's State and Main depicts such chaos and almost effortlessly. (Maybe because at that point Mamet had written for a number of prominent directors.) It almost made me iffy on pursuing a career in Hollywood. (Not entirely though.)

The names involved are pretty good. Among them are William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, Sarah Jessica Parker, Julia Stiles, David Paymer and Charles Durning. (Added bonus: Coulson -- er, Clark Gregg -- is in it too!) I found them very well suited for their roles, so I have no complaints on them.

My only complaint is with Mamet's style of writing. Maybe once I've gotten accustomed to it the complaints will stop but for now, I'm just not that into the repetitive nature of it. Still, the comedic moments helped a bit. I can see myself re-watching it in the near future though.

My Rating: ****1/2

Advise and Consent

In 2000, Rod Lurie released The Contender. The film revolved around the somewhat controversial nomination of a vice president candidate and the highly publicized confirmation hearings that would follow. It was a very well-received film, especially since it was an original idea.

Rewind thirty-eight years earlier, and you'll see that Otto Preminger had beaten Lurie to the punch on the subject. Of course knowing the period Preminger's film Advise and Consent was made in, the thing Robert Leffingwell (Henry Fonda) is accused of was dabbling in communism rather than a string of illicit affairs. (I suppose that was the norm back in the day.) That's one of a few things that make the film dated and somewhat flawed.

Knowing that this is a film directed by Preminger, there is bound to be a risky subject as a focal point. (Previous examples include drug abuse in The Man with the Golden Arm and rape in Anatomy of a Murder.) For Advise and Consent, the subject in question is homosexuality. However, it's treated more as a subtheme rather than a main one. Again, another flaw.

The cast is one for the ages. Along with Fonda, the names include Charles Laughton, Walter Pidgeon, Don Murray (in a role that's very much a far cry from Bus Stop), Peter Lawford, Gene Tierney, Franchot Tone, Lew Ayres and Burgess Meredith. (Also keep your eyes peeled for a young Betty White as a senator.) They're all great, especially Murray.

Advise and Consent is the best film of Preminger's career (that honor goes to Laura) but it's one of them. Released in a year filled with great titles, this seems like a minor blip on the film radar. Still, it's worth a look.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Age of Innocence

It seems strange that Martin Scorsese, the man responsible for blood-soaked films like Goodfellas and Raging Bull, would go and do a much quieter film like The Age of Innocence. This is the kind of film more suited for James Ivory, so is Scorsese's decision in making this a misstep on his part? Absolutely not.

It's peculiar because if you've seen any of his crime films, you wouldn't have thought that Scorsese was capable of subtlety. (Casino would have made that theory impossible to imagine.) But that's the foundation for The Age of Innocence. Scorsese shows that you don't need complete excess for a gorgeous film.

That said, the visual design of the film is stunning. Thanks to Dante Ferretti and Robert J. Franco, the detail in many of the scenes is worthy of anything in a Luchino Visconti film. But it's on a much smaller scale than, say, Visconti's The Leopard. But that helps in the film's sense of subtlety. (There are eye-catching set pieces regardless.)

Scorsese doesn't shy away from making his film practically come alive. And it's thanks to the many finer details that contribute to that. There's Elmer Bernstein's score which just makes the film even more gorgeous. The costumes designed by Gabriella Pescucci are stunning and wisely earned her an Oscar. And the cinematography by Michael Ballhaus practically makes the film swoon. (How did it not get nominated?)

The Age of Innocence is an emotionally gorgeous film. Thanks to the fantastic work from Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder, Scorsese makes Edith Wharton's novel (which I'll admit I haven't read) come to life. And those final scenes are quietly heartbreaking. (Again, not something you'd expect from the man who gave the world Taxi Driver.)

My Rating: *****