The Official Review Thread of 2007

[Penelope]

Given how religious groups went batshit crazy over The Golden Compass, I’m genuinely surprised they didn’t get their panties into a wad over Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (***1/2), which is quite possibly the most subversive, radical film to come out of the Hollywood blockbuster factory since V For Vendetta, and perhaps even more so, since Four is part of the much sought-after franchise/tent pole template.

Forget the fact that the first film pretty much blew chunks; forget that Jessica Alba is still a terrible actress, or that her blonde wigs (if they are wigs) look horrible; forget, even, that Tim Story is no more than a passably efficient director. Instead, wonder at the fact that this is a film about the faithful servant of a master/god who discovers free will and not only rejects his master/god, but rebels and destroys him; marvel that this is a film that, in a joyously ironic way, gently skewers our celebrity culture (a superstar wedding is more important than the end of the world), the war on terror, and the traditional definition of family; delight in Chris Evans’ lickable chest (as well as his surprisingly adept performance); and enjoy the wonderfully rich performance by Doug Jones and Laurence Fishbourne (voice) as the Silver Surfer (too bad the two of them combined can’t be nominated for a Supporting Actor Oscar). This is, unquestionably, the most underrated film of the year.

Conversely, the extravagant praise for Zodiac (***) is a mystery to me; oh, it’s a fine film, very well acted across the board, marvelously capturing the late 60s/early 70s era, atmospheric and effective in its portrayal of obsession, but…never a very tense film, never a film that makes one stand up in wonder or retreat from horror or brood in pensive despair. It’s a well-crafted film but, really, there’s nothing original or daring or exciting here, nothing that truly warrants the extravagant raves that greeted the film. Were this one of those true-crime miniseries from the late 80s, I could understand....

[Sonic Youth]

Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story

Skip this. Goddam critics...

Actually, the first 25-30 minutes aren't bad, and as it documents Cox's "early years" it initially looks like it's gonna look like one of those entertainments in which only every third joke misses the mark, and every tenth joke is deleriously funny. John C. Reilly is wonderful in these early sequences, giving off a lovely aura of guileness. But as Cox's career goes on through six decades of American pop culture, the laugh/not-laugh ratio crashes and Reilly's charm curdles VERY quickly. The screenplay has a very keen ear for banal biopic dialogue, but it doesn't have the good jokes to give it any satiric bite. Very sporadically, it manages to hit the mark; just when I thought I had enough, the film suddenly launches into a hysterical "Don't Look Back" parody. But you have to sit through Jack White's pointless and embarassingly unfunny Elvis impersonation in order to get to it.

On the other hand, the songs are enjoyable and Reilly is a pretty damn good singer. And the brilliant costumes are worthy of an Oscar nomination. Satirically, they're far more on-target than the film itself. Too bad they'll be overlooked.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1198379710

[danfrank]

I agree, Kaytodd about the wonderful casting in this movie. I disagree, though, about the actress who played the mother. She was a weak link (albeit a small one, since it was a small, non-essential part) in the movie for me, stood out as too much of a caricature.

[kaytodd]

No Country For Old Men

Liked this one way more than I thought I would. Outstanding screenplay. I thought all of the changes the Coens made from the book were good ones. The story seemed much tighter than the book but it loses none of the messages about the nature of evil and violence, the changes in American society and Jones' concerns about age and whether he is still the man for his job. And the film addressed some plot issues that confused me in the book. I liked the book but I was skeptical about whether it would make for a good experience for filmgoers. The Coens did a good job adapting this novel.

The "Tommy Lee Jones" scenes in the book brought the action to a halt and struck me as pointless self-indulgence by the author (At least it felt that way when I was all hyped up on the action and wanted more right away. I am certainly a product of the TV generation.). The credit goes to Jones and the Coens. The character in the book was kind of silly, spouting down home philosophy and wit to his colleagues and wife in the midst of carnage. With Jones, the same lines from the book had a totally different effect on me. I am not sure this is an Oscar calibre performance but it is great work and a perfect casting call by the Coens.

Everybody in this cast is wonderful, large parts and small. Bardem, Brolin and Kelly MacDonald deserve all of the good press they are getting. But I also liked all of the little parts, from the man in the gas station who plays coin toss with Bardem early in the film to the people who work at the motels and stores to the kids who help Bardem near the end of the film to to the girl at the swimming pool. Karla Jean's mother is a lot of fun as well.

It is probably too strange and slow to make a lot of money, even if it cleans up during awards season. But I agree with those who say it is the best film so far this year.

**** out of ****



Edited By kaytodd on 1197783867

[criddic3]

Oh no arguments here Criddic. I think it makes perfect sense that these films are loved by the mainstream, by the Academy, and by you.

What I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, some "mainstream" fare is to be ridiculed (Saw and License to Wed, for instance), but not all mainstream films are bad. Sometimes the masses do get it right, you know. Remember, Shawshank was not a huge box-office hit when released.

That's true. It's just in the case of Shawshank, they got it wrong.

The first time around, yes. Through the years, as the public has actually viewed it a few times, they have come to realize just how good it is. I think the audience reaction now to Shawshank is much more realistic than their current view of Scarface (1983), for example.



Edited By criddic3 on 1197329807

[FilmFan720]

Oh no arguments here Criddic. I think it makes perfect sense that these films are loved by the mainstream, by the Academy, and by you.

What I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, some "mainstream" fare is to be ridiculed (Saw and License to Wed, for instance), but not all mainstream films are bad. Sometimes the masses do get it right, you know. Remember, Shawshank was not a huge box-office hit when released.

That's true. It's just in the case of Shawshank, they got it wrong.

[Damien]

Yes, some "mainstream" fare is to be ridiculed (Saw and License to Wed, for instance), but not all mainstream films are bad.

I'd take Saw over Shawshank any day.

[criddic3]

Oh no arguments here Criddic. I think it makes perfect sense that these films are loved by the mainstream, by the Academy, and by you.

What I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, some "mainstream" fare is to be ridiculed (Saw and License to Wed, for instance), but not all mainstream films are bad. Sometimes the masses do get it right, you know. Remember, Shawshank was not a huge box-office hit when released.



Edited By criddic3 on 1197326814

[Akash]

Oh no arguments here Criddic. I think it makes perfect sense that these films are loved by the mainstream, by the Academy, and by you.

[criddic3]

I was not offended by either film. In fact, I agree with the Academy's nominations for both.

Thank you for your consistency Criddic. The world continues to make sense. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll have you know that, despite the implication that I'm basically alone in liking those films, many people absolutely LOVE both of them. People of all types seem to respond favorably and rent (and buy) them frequently.

Additionally, both The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile showed up on numerous critics' top ten lists in there respective years. The Academy bestowed best picture, acting and writing nominations to each, as well.

[Sabin]

'Control' is fine. A dull, standard-issue story with no real insights into Ian Curtis other than he was an epileptic emo cock and that his wife was the tenth wonder of the world. Beautiful, striking cinematography, amazing performance by Sam Reilly which is a success mostly on the basis of drawing you into a blank slate, some excellent set pieces. Worth a glance but not much more. Very student filmy, more tribute than stand alone.

[The Original BJ]

I was pleasantly surprised by Juno, which I had feared would be the second coming of Little Miss Sunshine. It's true that this film has been oversold -- had I discovered it at Sundance, I might feel more strongly toward it (I'm always a little flabbergasted at how these "sleepers" can become such easily-predicted audience favorites) -- but it's charming, funny, and quite poignant without ever being cloying or (my biggest fear) nauseatingly quirky.

I agree with Sabin about the dialogue. A lot of it is fun and fresh, but there are a couple times when entire conversations seem to consist of sentences no real human being would ever remotely utter...and it becomes a little too much. The narrative arc is solid without ever really surprising, though I appreciated this little story's modest charms.

The cast is wonderful. (What is it with this year and terrific casts? I count Assassination of Jesse James, Atonement, Away From Her, Gone Baby Gone, I'm Not There, Into the Wild, Michael Clayton, No Country, and now this film as great examples of wonderful casts working in tandem to produce great results). And Ellen Page is a joy. I didn't see that Hard Candy thing that everyone seems to hate, but she's a delight here, nailing every oddball laugh, and finding the poignant heart beneath the quirk. I think she's in for a nomination, at least she should be.

It's nothing spectacular, but it's a cute movie, one of the year's better comedies.

[anonymous1980]

I loved gone baby gone just as much as you did but did i read that right...you think morgan freeman, michele monaghan and amy madigan all deserve oscar nominations? How many nominations do they give out for supporting actor and actress...27? You don't think there are five better performances in each respective catorgory? Personally i thought ed harris gave the best supporting performance in the film, and he's just out of my top five...casey is just outside of my top five as well in the lead.

I felt all their performances deserve acknowledgment, that's all. But if I were to nominate people, I'd probably nominate Ryan and Harris.

[anonymous1980]

EASTERN PROMISES
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Sinead Cusack, Mina E. Mina, Jerzy Skolimowski.
Dir: David Cronenberg

Another exemplary film from one of the best contemporary directors in world cinema today. Although it's not quite as successful as his previous two works, Cronenberg still weaves an intriguing tale involving the Russian mob and a doctor and a baby. Mortensen gives another one of his great subtle performances (with a nude fight scene to boot).

Oscar Prospects: It'll be lucky to get a Screenplay nod. But it also deserves Best Actor (Viggo Mortensen), Best Supporting Actor (Armin Mueller-Stahl) and Best Original Score.

Grade: B+

[dylanfan23]

I loved gone baby gone just as much as you did but did i read that right...you think morgan freeman, michele monaghan and amy madigan all deserve oscar nominations? How many nominations do they give out for supporting actor and actress...27? You don't think there are five better performances in each respective catorgory? Personally i thought ed harris gave the best supporting performance in the film, and he's just out of my top five...casey is just outside of my top five as well in the lead.