In Theaters Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Directed by: Danny Boyle

Synopsis (Rotten Tomatoes): British director Danny Boyle takes another intriguing career turn with this heartfelt underdog tale. Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) is a street kid (or "slumdog") who has landed an appearance on India's version of the hit TV game show WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE? Jamal exceeds expectations on the show, and the producers alert the police after they become suspicious of his methods. The young contestant is subsequently arrested and is interrogated at the hands of a nameless police inspector (played by Bollywood star Irfan Khan). As the interrogation proceeds, Boyle tells Jamal's story through harrowing flashbacks that both show the terrible poverty of Mumbai and help explain how he knew the answers to the MILLIONAIRE questions. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is a tightly woven story that has been expertly edited into shape. The contrast between Jamal's upbringing and his chance of escaping it on the show are adeptly juxtaposed. Mumbai is portrayed as a place of terrifying poverty and unforgettable brutality, and Jamal and his brother get into a never-ending succession of challenging situations. But the way Boyle ties together Jamal's life experiences with his answers on the show is quite brilliant, and the film really does run the full gamut of emotions as we see him growing up, falling in love, coming close to death, and teetering on the brink of escaping from his terrible predicament. The film belongs to Boyle's cast, who are mostly unknown outside of India. Patel, in particular, gives a startlingly mature performance that audiences are likely to remember long after the credits role on this affecting feature

Impressions that I Get: Danny Boyle has really established himself as an absolutely top notch director after the gem that was Slumdog Millionaire. This film walked quite the balance between being intense and entertaining while still mantaining excellent filmsmanship and showing the horrific beauty of poverty in India. The shots of the slums of Mumbai and Bombay, the cross country trains, and the rich urban centers were simply stunning. This was masterfully shot and edited, each sequence seeming fresh and overflowing with details.

As for the acting, Devi Patel turns in a great performance as the humble young man who has overcome everything to achieve his "destiny." His true love, Lakita, is not extraordinary in her role, but is very beautiful and the motif clip of her smiling could melt a heart of stone. The children that are used to play the younger versions of the characters are great and unbelievably adorable. Also, while the plot of Slumdog may be somewhat predictable, it is presented in an unique way through the flashbacks and question answers. This might seem like it would be simplistic and contrived, but it actually captures the complexities and "little things" of Jamal's life quite well. The irony of the last question simply put a smile on my face and, although the film seemed to lose a bit of steam at the end, I was glued to the screen for every minute. Feeling the pains and joys of the "Three Musketeers" was simply a viewing treat. Slumdog Millionaire was rich with detail and will take you to a land that few will ever see. Here's to another fine film of 2008. -AT

Acting (8.5/10)- Excellent job by Patel, solid supporting cast

Plot (8.5/10)- Could be considered predictable, but still kept me riveted

Cinematography (10/10)- Gorgeous, simply rich. Best I've seen in awhile

Originality (9/10)- Loved the way this was presented, stand out indie movie of the year

My Grade: A-

Review from the Vault: Memento

Memento(2001)

Directed (and written) by: Christopher Nolan

Synopsis (Rotten Tomatoes): Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) wears expensive, European tailored suits, drives a late model Jaguar sedan, but lives in cheap, anonymous motels, paying his way with thick wads of cash. Although he looks like a successful businessman, his only work is the pursuit of vengeance: tracking and punishing the man who raped and murdered his wife. His suspicions dismissed by the police, Leonard's life has become an all-consuming quest for justice. The difficulty, however, of locating his wife's killer is compounded by the fact that Leonard suffers from a rare, untreatable form of memory loss. Although he can recall details of life before his "accident", Leonard can't remember what happened fifteen minutes ago, where he is, where he's going or why. A former insurance investigator, Leonard is keenly aware of his handicap. Moreover, he's got the discipline to compensate as well as the motivation-the cruel memory of his beloved wife's last moments. Haunted by what he's lost, he's re-built his life out of index cards, photographs, file folders, charts, tattoos and obsessive habits that stand in for memory, fixing him in space and time and connecting him to his mission. Out of necessity, Leonard must rely on others despite being thoroughly ill-equipped to assess either their motives or basic decency. Leonard remembers his past-up to a point. But just who has Leonard become since losing the ability to hold together the fragments of himself? "Memento" mines this psychological terrain, using non-linear film narrative to mirror Leonard's own effort to interpret the random pieces of evidence he hoards. The murder, rewound in the opening frames, we discover, is logically the endpoint of Leonard's story. What we learn comes from a point earlier in time, a few moments and a few sentences prior to what we've already been shown. As Leonard's story unfolds, the meaning of events changes. Allies, enemies, victims, victimizers swap place almost kaleidoscopically.

Impressions that I get: So, I watched this movie for about the 6th time yesterday, proving to myself once again why it is the best film I've ever seen. Even though I feel like I have all the nooks and crannys of the film down, I still get more and more out out of it with each successive view. Not only is this movie structured in the most unique, yet bizzarely comprehendable, form imaginable, it also gets to some mind numbing philosophical questions with its excellent dialouge. What does it mean to have memory? Are we still human without memory? Does time exist if we don't have memory? This film isn't just an artsy, intellectual film, it is also clever and intriguing with its well engineered plot and film noir atmosphere and sound.

This film is not built solid from the ground up, with the basic characters and setting having the same meaning over time. It is just floating out there, and every time you think you have it figured out, you realize that there is just even more going on than you realized. That is one of my favorite aspects of the film, the film isn't simply entertaining you and doing all of the work, you have to keep thinking and reasoning yourself in order to try to comprehend the wide structure of Memtento. However, this is not just mind games for the sake of it. Nolan truly is trying to show people what the meaning of memory is while having a fun time with the murder mystery aspect of it as well. On all levels, this film is a home run becuase "the more you put in, the more you get out." I have spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of films like this and I can safely say that, when I saw Memento for the first time 4 years ago, it changed my expectations for movies. I began to realize that films were an art, not simply an entertainment. There was so much potential that could be utilized in a film that couldn't be done with a play, song, or painting. By choosing to create the complex chronology, surreal dynamics, and alternating storylines, Nolan was trying to reach the pinnacle of art in film. Now, I think that The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Prestige, and Insomnia are all great movies (In the Dark Knights case, VERY great), but nothing matches Memento. For me at least. To paraphrase Leonard, "watching this movie is alot like waking." I might be lost or confused, but that feeling of prominence creeps over me like the sun rising over the horizon..- AT (Sorry if this review seemed terribly scattershot, my thoughts sort of tumbled out)

Acting (8.5/10)- Guy Pierce was fantastic, why haven't I seen him in anything else?

Plot (9/10)- Goes beyond film noir, the plot changes meaning as more is revealed

Cinematography (9/10)- Excellent, black/white balance with color, captures the "little things"

Orginality (10/10)- This is extraordinary.

My Grade: A+

Quick Review: Eastern Promises

Eastern Promises (2007)

Directed by: David Cronenberg

Synopsis (Rotten Tomatoes): The new thriller reteaming acclaimed director David Cronenberg with his A History of Violence leading man Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises is written by Steve Knight (Academy Award-nominated screenwriter of Dirty Pretty Things). As in the earlier film, director and star together explore the psyche, physicality, and fortunes of a man whose true nature may never be wholly revealed. The mysterious and charismatic Russian-born Nikolai Luzhin (Mr. Mortensen) is a driver for one of London’s most notorious organized crime families of Eastern European origin. The family itself is part of the Vory V Zakone criminal brotherhood. Headed by Semyon (Academy Award nominee Armin Mueller-Stahl), whose courtly charm as the welcoming proprietor of the plush Trans-Siberian restaurant impeccably masks a cold and brutal core, the family’s fortunes are tested by Semyon’s volatile son and enforcer, Kirill (Vincent Cassel), who is more tightly bound to Nikolai than to his own father. But Nikolai’s carefully maintained existence is jarred once he crosses paths at Christmastime with Anna Khitrova (Academy Award nominee Naomi Watts), a midwife at a North London hospital. Anna is deeply affected by the desperate situation of a young teenager who dies while giving birth to a baby. Anna resolves to try to trace the baby’s lineage and relatives. The girl’s personal diary also survives her; it is written in Russian, and Anna seeks answers in it. Anna’s mother Helen (Sinéad Cusack) does not discourage her, but Anna’s irascible Russian-born uncle Stepan (Jerzy Skolimowski) urges caution. He is right to do so; by delving into the diary, Anna has accidentally unleashed the full fury of the Vory. With Semyon and Kirill closing ranks and Anna pressing her inquiries, Nikolai unexpectedly finds his loyalties divided. The family tightens its grip on him; who can, or should, he trust? Several lives – including his own – hang in the balance as a harrowing chain of murder, deceit, and retribution reverberates through the darkest corners of both the family and London itself.

Impressions that I get: Viggo Mortensen is really an excellent actor. And I'm not talking about Aragorn. His performance really drives Eastern Promises and also captures the complexity of a Russian hit man. From the authentic Russian speaking to the simple gestures in his eyes, Mortensen is absolutely commanding in his role. Not to take anything away from Naomi Watts (who plays an innocent nurse who is trying to help a dead woman) or Vincent Cassel (who plays the impulsive and confused son of the gang lord), both of whom did fine jobs, but I cannot help raving about Viggo Mortensen. He has proven himself to be a master of the serious character who is solemn on the outside, but divided within himself on the inside (Check out A History of Violence as well.)

As for the movie as a whole, it was very well shot and gives one a great sense of the trechary and bloodiness of being in a prominent gang. All from an outsiders perspective as well, as the details of the plot are found by characters reading journals written by a dead prostitute who came from Ukraine for a better life (The "eastern promise".) Somehow though, this movie doesn't seem to "stick". I just can't see myself wanting to watch this again and again. Overall though, if you're looking for some fine acting and snapshot of the Russian mafia, give this film a whirl. (Quick Warning however, this is GRUESOME at parts. Cronenberg hides nothing.)-AT

Acting (9.5/10)- Viggo is the man.

Plot (7/10)- Not terribly memorable

Cinematography(8.5/10)- Very good, gets the nitty gritty urban feel

Originality (7/10)- Interesting, but doesn't stand out on its own

Review: No End in Sight

No End In Sight (2007)

Directed by: Charles Ferguson (Documentary)

Synopsis (Rotten Tomatoes): The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraq’s descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insider’s tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the Spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of the occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts. NO END IN SIGHT examines the manner in which the principal errors of U.S. policy – the use of insufficient troop levels, allowing the looting of Baghdad, the purging of professionals from the Iraqi government and the disbanding of the Iraqi military – largely created the insurgency

Impressions that I get: Well I'm proud to say that the first documentary I review is not a brainchild of Michael Moore. Not that I have anything against Michael Moore,after all he is the pioneer of the genre and a true artist. I just feel as if his name is the only name associated with political documentaries, when we should be doing just the opposite by hearing a wide variety of opinions from a selection of filmmakers. Which is exactly what I did when I went out and found "No End in Sight". It might remind some of "Farenheit 9/11" due to its strong bashing of the way the Bush Administration handled the Iraq War. However, I believe that this documentary stands above "Farenheit 9/11" becuase it doesn't have the obvious sense of an agenda that Farenheit did (Moore clearly wanted to prevent George Bush from being re-eleceted in 2004, not that that was a bad purpose or anything..). This film was many years in the making and arrived at conclusions that were not post-huc, but rather well thought out and perfectly logical due to the ethos of the interviewees(many were serious insiders of the Iraq War/ Bush Administration) and the overall presentation of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney as being obviously clueless about the long term impact of their Iraq invasion. This does not have the feel of a liberal yuppie quacking about "peace and love" and why wars should never ever be fought, but rather a highly intelligent critic who has taken careful time to look at all of the facts on the table and, yet, can still not believe how poorly handled the entire Iraq conflict is.

The overall impact of this film is rather unsettling becuase it points to the futility of so many innocent American and Iraqi deaths that were all in the name of terrible management by an administration that rushed into a war that it had no idea how to solve after the easy part was over. The key fact that Fegurson is trying to get across is that the Iraqi insurgancy was not some random occurance, but rather a direct result of Mr. Bremer's irresponsible decesion to not listen to expert advice, put inexpereiced newbies in control of extremly important tasks, destablize the standing government, and to disband the entire Iraqi army when the evidence was clear that it would be a diastorous idea. To be fair though, the situation in Iraq has stabilized due to the much needed surge of troops and a new Secretary of Defense in Robert Gates, among many factors. But even though there is no longer "no end in sight", this is still an extremly important film to watch because those "who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Hopefully, we never have to find ourselves putting American soldiers and innocent civilians in harms way for something that is not absolutely necceserry or unavoidable.

Well, it's kind of hard for me to do a traditional movie review becuase this was a highly serious documentary that focused on logical analysis and conclusions, although it was presentated with lots of great Iraq/archival footage and was never a bore for the eyes. Overall, I would recommend that you go see this film and judge for yourself whether you think Mr. Ferguson's claim is strong or not. But don't just write it off becuase you are sick of hearing anti-Bush Administration stories. This is a highly qualified film that deserves, at the least, the attention of every American for a few hours. After all, knowledge is power and that can set you free.- AT

Grade: If I had to, I'd give it an A