REVIEW: Wall Street (1987)/Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010)

Back in 1987, esteemed director Oliver Stone made a little film about a man with a big wallet and an even bigger ego. This man, of course, is Gordon Gekko, the famous cult villain played with fiendish glee by Michael Douglas, and the film, if you're still wondering, is Wall Street (1987). Fast forward to 2010: Stone and Douglas have reprised their respected roles as director and actor, and teamed up for the highly anticipated Wall Street follow-up Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010).

Having never seen either film, I took full advantage of my bright, shiny, new Netflix account and watched Wall Street this afternoon before moseying on over to the cinema to see its sequel. Having watched the films back to back, has I think, allowed for a deeper appreciation of both films, and while they aren't in any respect brilliant, they do have an enjoyable rhythm and flow that makes for solid and worthwhile entertainment.

Wall Street follows a young go-getter stock advisor named Budd Fox (a baby-faced Charlie Sheen) who is trying to get his slice of the proverbial pie. He wrestles his way into the company of Gekko, a ruthless business-man extraordinaire and, together, they makes things happen, monetarily speaking. Of course, life gets in the way for young Fox, who essentially must decide whether a life of fortune is worth giving up everything else for. It all seems a bit predictable (hint: there are a lot "look in the mirror" metaphors) but of course, the film was less about the story and more about the message behind it. More on that later.

I was happy to see that the plot for Wall Street 2, as we'll call it, was not a carbon copy of its predecessor, but rather a film that stands its own ground. I had a sneaking suspicion that perhaps they would basically just rewrite the original in modernized form - essentially a remake, posing as a sequel so that Douglas could return as the iconic Gekko, with Shia LaBoeuf (Transformers), who plays a young Wall Street idealist/genius named Jake Moore, mimicking the Charlie Sheen character. Moore would make the same mistakes and face the same questions that Budd Fox did. Not the case.

In fact, I'd say Wall Street 2 has an overall more interesting and engaging plot, one that allows a little more room for emotional gravitas behind the dollar signs. Moore, who is marrying Gekko's estranged daughter Winnie (played with much flare by blooming star Carrie Mulligan), goes out of his way to find out who is responsible for sabotaging the company he works for, resulting in plummeting stocks, and even more severe consequences (to write them here would be too big a spoiler). The story twists, turns, and meanders, to the point where it's all a bit much to write it down here, but along the way, Moore of course comes across a prison-free Gordon Gekko (yes, he goes to prison at the end of Wall Street and yes, it shows that explicitly in the trailer, so I think I'm spoiler safe here). Long story short, Moore and Gekko team up in a sense (much to the chagrin of Winnie), and of course everything escalates from there.

The most interesting thing about the films is how they're both appropriately time-specific. The original film is a cautionary tale about what can happen when you abandon everything in search of riches, wealth, power... something that was at the height of interest in the late 80's. Booming economy, jobs handed out like candy, a capitalist heaven.

The second film is essentially a commentary on the state of economy today - the frivolous spending, and the cutthroat Wall Street suits that will do anything to make a buck, which of course lead to the frightening recession that the United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada are suffering through now. Basically, Wall Street forewarned of the dangers of picking the meat off the economy's bones; Wall Street 2 shows the affects of what happens after the bones have all been picked. I found myself identifying much more with the sequel, precisely because its plot depends on the current economic state of North America, something I'm currently living through and seeing the affects of in my own life.

Performance-wise, the series boasts a talented cast, headlined in both cases by the great Michael Douglas. Going in, I had only heard good things about the Gordon Gekko character, a role which originally grabbed an Oscar for Douglas. Maybe it was a weak year, or perhaps times have simply changed, but there's no chance the role of Gekko would nab him an Oscar now. However, I enjoyed his larger-than-life portrayal thoroughly and must admit that, in the hands of a less-suited actor, the original Wall Street may have been forgotten long ago, and there would be no sequel to speak of. Charlie Sheen is perfectly believable here, and it makes me think back to the great work he did in his prime. I'm thinking Platoon (1986) here. It's a shame he's almost become a parody of himself, as well as a public wreck. It's Charlie's real life father Martin (who is criminally underrated) who does the best bit of heavy-lifting in the original, playing Budd Fox's working-class father.

Likewise, the sequel boasts an impressive list of up-and-comers. LaBeouf plays his best role yet. I completely enjoyed him in this film. He is essentially the lead, though Douglas gets top billing, and he has absolutely no trouble carrying the heaviest load. People seem to really hate LaBeouf, and I hope that this role starts to sway opinions of him, because I've always thought he had the talent to last in this business. The previously mentioned Mulligan is a talent and a half, and I know this from seeing here in only two roles: this and last year's An Education. If anything, her role in this proves that the Oscar nomination she received for An Education was not a fluke. Melodramatic, realistic, and breathtakingly beautiful, Mulligan is here to stay. Lastly, Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men) plays the villain here (or at least, the other villain, besides Gekko), and he seems to be having quite a bit of fun. While this role doesn't even approach his stellar roles in No Country for Old Men (2007), Milk (2008), another Oliver Stone film W. (2008) and even the delightfully sadistic doctor in Grindhouse: Planet Terror (2007), it doesn't need to and was never intended to. He is perfect as the sleaze that you love to hate and hate to love.

The films are both very fast-paced. Scenes are quick, dialogue is to the point, which quite honestly can make them a bit hard to follow of you're not a stock market whiz kid. Everything does feel a bit rushed. The films aren't subtle (the new film beats a bubble metaphor to death with a stick), nor are they, we'll say, profound. Their messages sit outwardly on the surface, but this is usually the case with Oliver Stone, who directs with all the subtlety of a lead pipe to the face. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Stone's goal is to entertain and to inform. It seems this has always been his goal, and he's never really changed his style, even though it's been criticized to death, and I respect that. No, these films are Oliver Stone films through and through, and if you go in expecting any different, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. The Wall Street series is basically politically charged melodrama mixed with pop fluff, and I mean this in the most respectful way possible.

FINAL SCORE: Wall Street - 3/5

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps - 3/5

Netflix Canada

Just wanted to let people know that Netflix is now available in Canada. For a low low price of $7.99 a month, you can stream any movie in their database to your PC or console (PS3, Wii, XBox 360). Their database is not nearly as full as the American counterpart but keep in mind that it's very new and I'm sure many more titles will be available in the coming months.

For any movie lovers, this is a MUST.

www.netflix.ca

REVIEW: The Town (2010)

We all remember when we were young hooligans running freely on the streets, playing cops and robbers with our buddies. It would usually end in a mess of anger, one kid saying he "shot" another kid, and that kid outwardly challenging the notion, until finally everyone had to break off and go home for dinner. In retrospect, it wasn't actually that much fun. However, its sole purpose was to get the adrenaline rushing and our hearts beating quickly, and if that's likewise the main goal of Ben Affleck's second directorial effort The Town, then I guess it succeeds.

The story follows Affleck who's directing himself here as Doug MacRay, an upstart Bostonian with a penchant for bank robbery and a supposed weakness for the beautiful women he robs. After an armed burglary with his team of cronies, which include his lifelong friend Jimmy Coughlin (a darkly genius performance by Jeremy Renner), MacRay finds himself, through various events, head over heels for the manager of the bank he just robbed. Meanwhile, the feds are now involved and they're pissed. Push comes to shove, shit hits the fan, and you've got yourself a fairly explosive premise for a thrilling action-drama.

In a film about Boston's crime world and the many rich characters that must reside there, one would hope for a cast up to the task, and The Town swiftly delivers. Firstly, and most obviously, Affleck probably does some of the best work of his career here. Perhaps he's realized that some of the best acting is done with everything but the mouth. It's not that I don't like Affleck; on the contrary, I always thought he was very talented but didn't really fully realize it, and therefore has a resume of misfires and squandered opportunities. Here, he finally seems to step up to the plate, and if this film is any indication, I'm sure his batting average will begin to climb towards hall-of-fame numbers very quickly.

The previously mentioned Jeremy Renner is fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. His frightening hard-ass Jimmy is a perfect follow-up to Renner's haunting Oscar-nominated performance in The Hurt Locker (2009). He allows just enough breathing room for audience sympathy towards his character, while simultaneously packing a scary looking punch. Just so you know, this man will kill you if you look at him the wrong way. Blake Lively (The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) turns in a sophisticated performance as Jimmy's sister, and Rebecca Hall (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) seems to fall naturally into the role of the distraught bank manager. Her life seems to take some severe turns for the worse in a very short manner of time, and she appropriately conveys what that might be like. Not good, if you're wondering.

Pete Postlethwaite (The Usual Suspects) is featured briefly here, and, if he's never let you down before, he's not about to do so now. Looking frail as ever (somehow this makes the man more frightening), Postlethwaite is given the best scene and round of dialogue in the film, and by golly its a joy to watch (albeit a joy that gives you the willies).

The only performance I was left unconvinced by, and I don't even necessarily believe it was the fault of the actor, is Jon Hamm's turn as FBI agent Adam Frawley, who is in charge of catching Boston's most notorious bank robbers. Perhaps I missed what Affleck was trying to convey with this character, but I was mostly left confused by Frawley. Was he supposed to be a bumbling, loud-mouthed idiot, burdened to a job he couldn't quite handle, or was he supposed to be a suave, smooth talking manipulator, one step ahead of the robbers at all times? Certain scenes suggest the former, while others suggest the latter. And perhaps this is a realistic depiction of what many FBI agents are indeed like. You win some, you lose some. Did it work for me in this particular film? Not really.

If this is a flaw in the writing, its one of few as, for the most part, the script was spot-on. Fast talking dialogue is of course a must in a Boston crime film (think The Departed) but writers Peter Craig, Aaron Stockard and Affleck have a flare for infusing wit and poetic prose amongst all the expected cussing and yelling, creating a finely tuned narrative that never gets boring and allows the characters to rise from the depths of predictable crime drama like a phoenix from the ashes.

Affleck is beginning to make people stop and stare as he grows increasingly more confident behind the camera. He directs with a steady hand here, allowing his vision to shine through. His action sequences are very impressive, both technically and aesthetically, and the pacing of the film is appropriately quick, so that you'll never be bored, even with the film running over the two-hour mark.

His first film, Gone Baby Gone (2007), was an eerily effective thriller whose only shortcoming was in its tacked on climax, which, in my opinion, rendered moot everything that came before it. Similarly, The Town is mostly a very good film, until the final act conjures up a bit of confusion. The Town draws from very tricky subject matter, in that the story is being told mainly from a criminal's perspective, and MacRay is just that: a criminal. However, the end of the film might have me believe that MacRay recognizing his mistakes as a criminal is redemption enough. Not in my book. The moral compass might be a bit broken here.

And so, just as Gone Baby Gone impressed me immensely for four fifths of a movie and then sadly let me down in its conclusion, Affleck's second feature The Town follows suit. But then I guess it's a little like the childhood game of cops and robbers: fun, until someone spoils it right at the end.

FINAL SCORE: 3/5

Wes Anderson Featurette/ Never Let Me Go

Hey all. So a friend sent me a very cool, very in-depth link to an online documentary profiling film director Wes Anderson and his many varying influences. To all aspiring filmmakers and/or Anderson mega-fans, this 5 part series is a must-watch. I won't give much a way because I'd rather you just go watch it.

Here's the link to part 1. Video link is at the side of the page.

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/the-substance-of-style-pt-1-20090330

Additionally, I just finished a compelling novel by author Kazuo Ishiguro entitled "Never Let Me Go". Its been made into a film directed by Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) and I honestly think it'll make quite a film. The trailer looks intriguing, sporting an A-list cast of Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and big time up-and-comer Andrew Garfield, who has also been cast as the new Spider-Man and is starring in David Fincher's Facebook movie The Social Network (opening October 1).

Never Let Me Go has been garnering some solid reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes, and I'll of course post my review once I get a chance to see it.

REVIEW: Notorious (1946)

Alfred Hitchcock is often considered an innovator of filmmaking, and quite rightly so I might add. His films carry a certain daring confidence that few early pieces of cinema possessed and his 1946 film Notorious is no exception.

Notorious follows a woman by the name of Alicia Huberman (played pitch-perfectly by a Hitchcock mainstay Ingrid Bergman) who is enlisted by a US government agent named Devlin (the suave Cary Grant, also a Hitchcock favorite) to spy on a group of suspected Nazis post WWII. The story is simple enough, as is the case with many Hitchcock films, but the excitement lies not in the story itself, but in the multiple twists and turns that Hitchcock expertly presents.

When I was younger, and had little experience in the realm of Hitchcockian cinema, I always assumed that he was some sort of master of horror. My VHS of The Mummy (the Brendan Fraser remake) was one of the few video tapes I owned as a kid, so I would watch it over and over, and on it was a preview for a Hitchcock video collection. If I remember correctly, they did indeed call him the "Master of Horror" in this preview, splicing together numerous shots from all of his films, which included blood-curdling screams, people falling from tall buildings, skeleton corpses, and of course, black devil birds raining death from above. So you'll forgive me when I say that as a child, I wanted nothing to do with Hitchcock or his psychotic imagination.

Of course, in hindsight, while Hitchcock is a master of horror (movies like Psycho and The Birds should help prove my case), I'd say equally so he's the master of the thriller and, as a child, I misunderstood everything about the man. Notorious follows more closely to other Hitchcock classics like North by Northwest and Vertigo, films that would come to shape the way modern thrillers are made, and have little to do with psychotic murderers nursing terrifying mommy issues.

Where Notorious truly excels is in it's charismatic lead performances. Bergman is enchanting. Here is an actress who was well ahead of her time. She found ways to give depth to characters who quite frankly had little right having much depth at all, and her performance here is of no exception. Though Grant gets top billing, Bergman is very much the star. Not to take anything away from Grant, who is so majestically cool onscreen, that I began to think how much of a shame it was that James Bond didn't surface until 1960. He would've been a shoo-in.

Though the film starts off a bit slowly (this can be attributed to the fact that the audience isn't really sure what's going on right away), it generates speed quickly, and once Hitchcock establishes the plot as well as all the main players, the film rarely lets up. Interestingly, and in traditional Hitchcock fashion, the director plays mind games with the audience, creating a possible love triangle between the two leads, and the supposed antagonist, a well-off Nazi by the name of Alexander Sebastian, played with a nice dose of reserved villainousness by the talented Claude Rains, who by all accounts, seems to be consistently brilliant in everything he does. Hitchcock revels in showing us only the bare essentials, leaving us to speculate, discuss the possibilities, and piece together the rest. Is Alicia really in love with both Devlin and Sebastian, or is she just playing her part of spy to absolute perfection? We may never know.

While watching, I noticed that Notorious bore resemblance to two films. Most notably, it holds quite a bit in common with the classic film-noir Casablanca, with both films revolving around world war spy games, love triangles involving good looking people, and beautifully exotic locations. This is probably a result of audience love for Casablanca and their thirst to see more films along those lines. More importantly, however, a certain element of Notorious reminds me of a later Hitchcock film, the previously mentioned Psycho, and dare I say that Hitchcock may have used his experience on the set of Notorious to construct what many consider to be his best film in Psycho. Specifically, the relationship between Sebastian and his mother is rather frightening. She lives with him in his large mansion, always keeping a watchful eye on her son, never afraid to voice her often vengeful and corrupting views to Sebastian. There's an underlying weariness in Sebastian when he's around his mother, who is a constant hulking presence in the home, but ultimately he sides with her harsh, disturbing ways, stifling any good that may have been present in him. And isn't this, after all, the main dynamic of Norman Bates and his mother in Psycho? Watch the film and decide for yourself.

Normally, I don't condone remakes. Though I'm usually excited to see them, they very often let me down, throwing restraint to the wind, becoming heavy-handed, often missing the point of the original entirely. However, I would loudly get behind a remake of this film, if done by the right people of course. I could easily see it's gorgeous locales, sophisticated characters, and interweaving plot as a fine Scorsese piece, shot with the same grace in which he shot this year's Shutter Island (with DiCaprio in the Cary Grant role, of course). Or perhaps the brothers Coen could take the film and give it an interesting injection of outlandish cynicism. Alas, I'm sure such a thing will never surface.

All in all, a strong entry in the Hitchcock catalogue and a diamond in the rough that you mustn't miss.

FINAL SCORE: 4/5

REVIEW: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

It takes a great amount of courage to give away the main plot point of a film directly in the title. But that's what director Andrew Dominick boldly does in his brilliant film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. And therein lies the beauty of the film. It isn't inherently about the act of the assassination itself, nor is it about the legend of the famous Western outlaw Jesse James. Elements of these themes are present, sure, but the film is not exclusively in debt to them.

There's a moment early on in the film when Charlie Ford (played superbly by Sam Rockwell) asks the older member of the James clan Frank (in a small role by Sam Shepard) what he'll do after he's done with robbing trains, stagecoaches, what have you, to which James replies "maybe I'll sell shoes". There's a lot to be said about the uncertainty in his voice in this moment, and this uncertainty seems to find its way into the core of the film. What does an outlaw who has only known violence his whole life do? How does one escape?

Brad Pitt expertly portrays the notorious Jesse James, an outlaw with a mean streak and a reputation the size of Texas. I'd go so far as to say that this is probably Pitt's best role, a fairly massive compliment considering the amount of extraordinary work he's done in his career. He gives James a calming demeanor, something most wouldn't think of upon mention of Jesse James. Alternatively, the presence of a legendary outlaw is sensed every time he paces into a room, even when he does something as small as eat a bowl of porridge. His anguish and torment is etched across his face, but lo and behold, just as the criminal James would have done, he masks it, locks it up and throws away the key, all in an effort to be that figure that so many people feared and were fascinated by.

I could go on and on about Pitt's performance in this film, but quite honestly, that would be a disservice to the rest of the extraordinary cast. Jesse James is riddled with amazing supporting performances, including the previously mentioned Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile, Moon) as Robert Ford's older brother Charlie. Why Sam Rockwell, who is basically a show-stealer in every movie he's in, hasn't been nominated for an Oscar yet is one of life's great mysteries. He easily could have here, bringing the confused and burdened Charlie Ford to life, while most actors would have fled for the hills. Additionally, Garret Dillahunt (No Country for Old Men, A History of Violence), who is one of the greatest actors nobody knows exists, performs exquisitely in limited screen time as Ed Miller, a part-time member of Jesse's gang. Paul Schneider (Away We Go) plays a creepo playboy to perfection and there's even a pre-Oscar Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) as James's cousin.

After all this gushing, you'd think I'd be all out of praise, but I haven't even touched on the best part of the film. No, Brad Pitt's performance, exquisite as it was, isn't even the best performance in the film. That honor goes to Casey Affleck, who's Oscar nominated performance as the coward Robert Ford is both stunning and equally haunting. I've always been a big fan of Affleck's (he's also brilliant in another 2007 film directed by his brother Ben, Gone Baby Gone) and was pleasantly surprised to see his growth as an actor here. I won't even go into his performance much, as to do so would, I think, cheapen the performance. It must be seen to be believed and had Javier Bardem not come out with perhaps the greatest villain of all time in 2007's No Country for Old Men, I'm sure that Affleck would have walked out of the Kodak theatre with a little gold statuette. His juggling of admiration for James, jealousy, contempt, hatred, and most importantly the desire to be something legendary, almost a Jesse James himself, is perfectly realized, and after seeing Affleck's performance, I can justly say that the casting director for this film struck absolute gold. Bravo.

Last but not least, credit must be laid at the feet of director Andrew Dominick. His vision comes across plainly and beautifully, something all directors should strive for. While many would have opted for quick fast-paced action in a Jesse James film (and I'm sure its been done before), Dominick opts for a tapestry-like portrayal, an overview of the moments outside of the heists and robberies, focusing on the man's relationships, specifically his relationship with Robert Ford, of course. Watching the film, I felt like I was in an art gallery, staring and analyzing beautiful paintings and works of art. Credit here must also go to the talented cinematographer Roger Deakins, who always makes films look like art. Which they are.

Additionally, Dominick has a knack for creating tension through fits of dialogue, and the haunting pauses that occur between conversation. One scene, where James has called of the Ford family for a spot of dinner, struck me as particularly Tarantino-esque, in reference to the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds, where the tension could be cut with a knife even though the audience has no idea whether anything remotely tension-worthy will even happen at the climax of the scene. Its this kind of film-making that I am constantly in awe of.

If I have a small gripe with the film, it may be that it perhaps gives away too much about what happens after the assassination. I see what Dominick's intentions were, but had I made the film myself, I may have elected to end the film immediately after the assassination and let the rest be open to interpretation. However, like I said, this is a small gripe and does not even truly begin to tarnish what will surely go down as one of the best of 2007, a year which is quickly becoming one of the greatest film-making years in the history of cinema.

FINAL SCORE: 4.5/5

Phil Hoffman Stuff

Wanted to post an interview here that AVClub.com did with probably one of my top 5 favorite actors Philip Seymour Hoffman.

In my humble opinion, the man is pure genius and has managed to carve himself a niche in the acting world as perhaps the only guy that can play the type of character he plays. Seriously, a LOT of his roles instantly become classic Hoffman roles after viewing, because once you've seen him in the role, you can't think of anyone else who may have been better suited for it.

He currently finished showing his film at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), a film called Jack Goes Boating. He stars as the titular character, and also directs the film, this being his first directorial feature. Needless to say, I'm very anxious to see it.

Anyways, the man comes off as such a well-rounded intelligent individual, so I had to post the interview. Happy reading!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/philip-seymour-hoffman,45102/

Jack Goes Boating also stars the amazing and equally underrated actress Amy Ryan, who has already picked up an Oscar nomination for the grim Ben Affleck film Gone, Baby, Gone (2007) and has some wonderful television performances in "The Office" and my personal favorite TV show of all time "The Wire". Check out the trailer for the film here:

REVIEW: Rain Man (1988)

And as quickly as the first post is placed, the second post bumps it out of the front of the line.

It's a hard decision, figuring out which movie to talk about first on a movie blog. Thinking about it, I could easily discuss my favorite movie or one of my perfect 8 (the eight movies that have generated a perfect 5 for 5 score from me), but I think it'll be more fun to save those for later and keep people guessing.

So instead, I will kick this off by discussing a movie I just watched today, for the first time, and I may as well discuss it while it's fresh in my memory.

The movie is Rain Man (1988), a film directed by Barry Levinson, starring Tom Cruise as a self-absorbed yuppie who, upon his estranged father's death, discovers he has an autistic older brother.

Most of you have probably seen this one, and quite honestly, as I was watching it, I found it odd that never in my life had I sat down to watch this movie. It's one of the films that even if you haven't seen it, you know exactly which movie it is, and what it's about.

For this one, I guess I can heap copious amounts of faint praise on it. The story here is strong, a perfect set up for a character study, the type that'll yank at your heartstrings. And yet, I didn't find myself getting very emotionally attached to anything or anyone in the film. Don't get me wrong, Dustin Hoffman puts in a worthy (and Oscar-winning) performance as the autistic brother Raymond opposite Tom Cruise (in a time when people really liked this guy; I for one still dig his style) who plays the part of Charlie, a narcissist-turned-unselfish-and-loving-by-his-autistic-brother to perfection. And because most of the film focuses on the two leads and no one else, and they aren't the reason for the film's shortcomings, I have to place the blame on the director, Barry Levinson.

Levinson has helmed quite a few films in his prestigious career, and quite honestly, looking at his resume, this is the only one I've ever seen. His early career seems to be more notable than his previous work, having flicks such as the Robert Redford vehicle The Natural (1984) and Good Morning Vietnam (1987), a film that scored Robin Williams a Best Actor nomination. But quite honestly, if they are anything like Rain Man, I won't be jumping out of my seat to see these films. The film moved at a leisurely pace, and in my opinion, it all felt a bit safe, a bit "feel good". Never was there a moment where I was on the edge of my seat, tense anxiety skyrocketing through my veins. The biggest on-screen dilemma revolves around things like Raymond not wanting to fly in a plane or drive on the highway, and, while nice in concept, these things don't command my immediate attention either. I'll admit that perhaps a film like this need not have grandiose situations for its protagonists, and I would probably agree, but then I guess it's not really my type of film. Even the climax of the film never got me sweating. Without posting any spoilers, I was mostly indifferent to Raymond's fate.

However, I can't be entirely critical of Rain Man (it did win Best Picture at the 1988 Oscars after all). The writing was solid, allowing the characters to breathe and function realistically throughout. The building relationship between Charlie and Raymond is slow but steady, and though Raymond manages to drive Charlie up the wall on numerous occasions, his attitude reversal is appropriately heartfelt, at the same time creating interesting discussion about whether Charlie perhaps is making up for the lost relationship with his father by fully embracing and nurturing a relationship with his newfound brother. In doing so, his character arc is fully realized by the filmmakers, and for this I applaud them. And of course, as I previously stated, the performances by the two leads are terrific, propelling the film to otherwise unreachable heights.

FINAL SCORE - 3/5

The First Post

Lately, with everything kind of slowing down to a crawl in my life, and with the amount of free time I'm seemingly going to have for the coming months, I've decided I'm going to attempt to keep up with a blog.

I've tried this before (a few times) and, in all honesty, I usually write about 4 posts and then forget about it entirely. So if you come on here, say, next February (and it's September 2010 right now) and there are 4 posts and then nothing, you'll know why. But I think my biggest problem was that, when I've attempted this before, there was no goal, or aim, or anything specific to right about. Just my random musings, pure and simple. So I've got a goal this time. And hopefully that cures my "blog-writing blues".

Simply put, this blog will be about one thing and one thing only. Movies. Film art. The mise-en-scene.

I've had a passion for movies ever since I was a kid and started to cry when the credits began to role at the end of Aladdin. From there, the movies just stuck with me, like a plague. But the good kind of plague.

Basically, I've got a lot of time, and I'm doing everything I can to get into the film program at Ryerson in Toronto, so I watch a ton of movies, and I figure I may as well provide some insight while I'm at it. Get things rolling, so to speak. So this blog is for anyone that has interest in reading one man's opinions on everything film. It won't have much structure at first, and to be honest, coloring outside the lines is more fun, so it will probably never have much structure, but as I figure this blogging thing out, I'm sure it will become a little more... cohesive.

So sit back, enjoy, and please feel free to rip of my head off if you disagree with something I say, or shoot me any questions you may have. I'll do my best to respond.

On to movies!