The Conversation

The Conversation was done as something of a passion project by Francis Ford Coppola that he made right in between parts one and two of the Godfather franchise. Unlike his other films at the time, The Conversation was a stripped down, bare bones story that relied on a compelling central performance, a well-crafted story, and stunning cinematography rather than big-budget elements like elaborate sets and wardrobes. Gene Hackman plays a surveillance specialist named Harry Caul who begins to fear for the life of a woman he was asked to spy on. As the film progresses Harry's past begins to haunt him as he tries desperately to balance his professional career with his personal worries about the ethics of his occupation. As Harry becomes increasingly obsessed with the job he was asked to do, he begins to descend into paranoia and irrationality. Although the pace of the film is slow at times, it's a fascinating demonstration of the talent of both Coppola and Hackman. In the end, though, the real stars of the show are Bill Butler and Haskell Wexler, the uncredited directors of photography who gave the film its captivating look and feel. The Conversation is considered one of the great classics of American filmmaking, and with good reason. Though many would call it boring by today's standards, the film is quality cinema in its purest form: great acting, great plot, great direction, and stunning photography. Although it feels spartan in its presentation, anything more would just feel wrong.

The Conversation

PG, 113 Minutes

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Writer: Francis Ford Coppola

Score: 9/10 (I toyed with taking a point off for being somewhat boring, but that's more a problem with me than the film).

Watch this film if: You enjoy a film driven primarily by a single character's psychology, and that delivers plenty of twists and turns along the way. This film is also practically required viewing for those who are aspiring to be true cinephiles. Finally, it's worth watching for the incredible cinematography alone.

Don't watch this film if: You prefer the more rapid, action-driven pacing of modern films.

The Wolverine

Well the verdict is in on The Wolverine, and I'm afraid the news isn't good. I really wanted for this to be a good movie. I mean, it's directed by the guy who did 3:10 to Yuma, the cinematographer did the freaking Matrix, and it's about everyone's favorite tormented claw-weilding X-Man. How can you go wrong? Well apparently there are a lot of ways, which I will now enumerate. Anyone interested in making a really lame movie, do the following:

1. Include a lot of really bad CGI, like a crappy looking grizzly bear and a poorly rendered bullet train.
2. Try not to develop your characters very much. That might cause your viewers to actually think and care about the film.
3. Be sure that the motivations of every character are completely unclear. It doesn't matter why people in movies do things, just as long as those things look exciting!
4. Make sure that your movie frequently references other films that weren't very popular or very good, and which were made seven years ago. Be sure these references are so central to the plot that if these people haven't seen the previous film they will be completely in the dark.
5. Completely disregard the existing mythos relating to your story, particularly regarding the properties of indestructible metals.
6. Don't look up the definition of indestructible prior to filming.
7. Make sure that at first your main character seems deeply conflicted about something, perhaps his violent past, but make it appear that he has gotten over it fifteen minutes into the film without explaining why.
8. Have a host of characters who abandon their loyalty to someone they've known their entire lives in order to ally themselves with someone they met yesterday.

So there you go, folks. How to make a terrible movie in eight easy steps! All joking aside, I was sorely disappointed by this film. The director and cinematographer have both done excellent work, but I feel like they just phoned this one in. The writing was the biggest problem, with plot holes and narrative shortcuts abounding. This isn't particularly surprising, since the film's writer has contributed to some fairly terrible films in the past (*cough* Total Recall remake *cough*). Even if the story had been better, though, I feel that the directorial choices were ill-advised, particularly as regards the special effects. The film had at least one interesting central theme (aging), but I felt that the most interesting theme (that of Wolverine's inner conflict over his violent nature) wasn't utilized effectively, and ultimately fell flat. I had hopes that this film would shed itself of the baggage of X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men: The Last Stand (the two worst X-Men films) and join the ranks of the greats. Instead I am assigning this film a different honorific, as the third worst film in the franchise. It's not awful, and it's fun enough to see one time, but in the end it's just the next installment in a long line of forgettable summer movies that are full of sound and fury, yet signify nothing.

The Wolverine
PG-13, 126 Minutes
Director: James Mangold
Writers: Mark Bomback and Scott Frank

Score: 5.5/10
Watch this movie if: You want lots of action, bad CGI, and a plotline that, like swiss cheese, is thin and full of holes. Also it's worth watching just to make sure you're caught up on the X-Men film franchise in preparation for the next movie.
Don't watch this movie if: You feel no particular attachment to the X-Men series, and therefore don't feel obligated to see them all regardless of quality.

Side by Side

For over a hundred years the cinema has relied exclusively on chemical process film in order to shoot, present, and preserve movies. Within the last two decades, however, a revolution in technology has seen a steady increase in the use of digital cinematography which is beginning to edge out traditional film as the preferred choice for shooting, editing, and screening films. Side by Side takes a look at the history of digital photography in the film industry, and examines the impact that it has had and will continue to have on cinema as a whole. Anyone interested in the technical aspects of filmmaking or the history of cinema will find this film interesting and engaging.

Hosted by Keanu Reeves, the film presents the viewer with a history of digital cinema from its earliest days in the 1990s up to the most groundbreaking modern films such as Avatar and the Star Wars prequels. The film is chock full of interviews with directors, cinematographers, editors, and actors who all weigh in on whether they think digital cinema is good for the industry or not. Predictably the jury is still out, but the debate is fascinating nonetheless. I found all the interviews to be very enlightening. My one complaint with the film was that I felt they talked to George Lucas far too much. I'm not his biggest fan, so I could have done with less from old Georgey Boy. However, I was thrilled to see other great directors like Martin Scorsese, who I believe had the most balanced and pragmatic approach towards the technology, as well as toward cinema as a whole. I loved being able to learn more about the technical aspects of filmmaking that I have been unaware of in the past, and it increased my appreciation for the amount of work that goes into the successful production of a movie.

Although this film didn't pull at the heartstrings like many of the best documentaries do, it was concise and well-organized, and presented information that any movie-lover would find fascinating. It was enjoyable to watch, and I feel like a much more informed film-goer as a result of having seen it.

Side by Side
NR, 99 Minutes
Director: Christopher Kenneally
Writer: Christopher Kenneally

Score: 8/10
Watch this movie if: You are interested in cinema's history and the technology behind it, as well as the effects that the digital revolution is having on the quality and style of movies.
Don't watch this movie if: The finer points of cinematic production don't interest you, or if you want something with a plot and characters.

Spirited Away

I don't really know how to review movies, so I'll just dive right in with subjective impressions and uninformed critical perspectives. Frankly, I really love this movie. I'll admit that it's a bit weird, and sometimes things just don't make sense. But it's fanciful, absolutely gorgeous to watch, and awakens a sense of wonder within me. I love the colors, I love the creativity of the world, and I love the simple beauty and humanity which comes through so strongly throughout the film. I'd like to give a quick synopsis, but I'm honestly not even sure what happens. Basically a girl and her parents accidentally wander into some world of spirits, her parents get turned into pigs, and she has to go work at the spiritual bath house (run by a witch, of course) in order to save her parents and get back to the real world. The characters are funny, occasionally grotesque, and always interesting. Some of them, particularly No-Face, are even quite moving. Chihiro is a fine heroine, if perhaps a bit too perfect in her unfailing kindness and courage. What really gets me about the movie, though, is the music. While Miyazaki films tend to be full of wild scenery, imaginative animation, and top notch voice acting, nothing says Miyazaki to me quite so much as those beautiful, sparse piano scores that accompany his films. When the music is married to the artistry and heart of the film, the result is nothing short of moving.  Not only is this a great animated film, it's just a great film all-around. Though bizarre and unconventional, especially for American viewers, Spirited Away is a top notch example of the power of anime to convey emotion and deliver important moral lessons.

Spirited Away (2001)
PG, 125 Minutes
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Writer: Hayao Miyazaki

Score: 9/10
Watch this film if: You love beautiful colors, enchanting animation, delightful characters, and don't mind a healthy dose of the bizarre.
Don't watch this film if: You aren't particularly open to anime (if that's the case you should start with Howl's Moving Castle), or just simply prefer live action. Also if abstract and artistic films aren't up your alley.