MONSTER

Several days ago, I reviewed a film which contains one of the best performances by a male actor ever. So, it's only fitting that my follow up details a turn by an actress which garners the same kind of praise. "Monster", which candidly tells the story of the infamous prostitute turned serial killer Aileen Wuornos, sees Charlize Theron make one of the most convincing transformations we've ever seen.

As "Monster" opens, we are soon introduced to the instability and deterioration of its main character. Wuornos' life has driven her within an inch of suicide, and the film effectively shows her to be a lonely, damaged, out of touch individual. Where "Monster" quickly differs from most other serial killer stories, is in the emotional and even sympathetic tones which it achieves. As the protagonist develops a naïve, unlikely relationship with an 18-year-old girl, viewers get a sense of helplessness surrounding the characters. Wuornos wants nothing more than to provide for herself and the young Selby, and to give them what they see as a normal life. Her methods are less than honorable, and the film does not make excuses for the robberies and seven murders that she commits, but the passion which is evident in the picture's central performance crafts the story to a point where it pains viewers to see the overall decay of the character. Her obviously delusional outlook on her life and her "work" make her a tragic character more than just an evil one.

If one went into watching this film without seeing any billing, they likely would not recognize Charlize Theron as the lead. However, the brilliance of her performance goes beyond the stunning physical transformation. The actress' mannerisms and intense vocal delivery brilliantly make viewers  uneasy. There isn't a scene in the film in which the character seems level headed. Where Theron is most successful is in the troubling volatility she brings to Wuornos. Her ability to swing from pathetically vulnerable to disturbingly brutal within seconds beautifully establishes the psychopathic nature of the character. The decision to cast Theron in this role was likely one which caused some head scratches at the time, but it has proven to be one of the best casting choices in cinema history. It's a bold, courageous and ultimately virtuosic display of acting.

Something about serial killers attracts a considerable amount of interest and fascination from society. Strangely, we are often eager to get inside the heads of those who experience insanity. People in Hollywood, as well as fans of movies and television are often mesmerized by madness, but, again, this film separates itself in its ability to cause viewers to feel for such a violent character, rather than simply hate her. The movie and its lead performance are endlessly thought-provoking, and if I've seen works by actresses which are better than this one, they can undoubtedly be counted on one hand.

RATING: 7.8/10

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

Rarely is a film graced with a performance in which an actor inhabits an enthralling character to the point where everything going on around that character becomes subsidiary. These performances and these characters become so compelling and polarizing, they leave their audience internally analyzing them long after the viewing experience. In Paul Thomas Anderson's historical epic, "There Will Be Blood", Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of those performances, and oilman Daniel Plainview is one of those characters. In all of movie history, few films can attribute as much of their greatness to the work of one actor.

Plainview's story begins as one of ambition and aspiration, as the film opens to his humble beginnings as a coal miner in the late nineteenth century. However, the man's relentless drive and passion soon turn to the oil business, which quickly turns his ambition into obsession, and his aspiration into avarice. His faith, moral fortitude, and sanity are tested as he attempts to bring his "family business" to the top of the early California oil industry.

The film provides probably as dark a commentary on the danger of greed as a film could. Throughout the early parts of the story, the audience is perhaps unsure about how they should feel about Plainview. His fixation is concerning, but at first his drive seems admirable. As his business endeavors expand and the line between life and work is erased, he is revealed to be a truly tragic figure, and a full-fledged villain. The film turns the idea of wealth correlating with happiness on its head. It's at the end of the story, when Plainview appears the most financially sound, that he is entirely mentally unhinged. Along with greed, religion also takes a central role in the conflicts of Plainview's story. Not because the character is a faithful man, but because of the pestering role which the Christian leadership presiding over his oil sites plays in his business. He represents a character who is so out of touch with a morally upstanding existence that he seems to fear religion and how it might make him conscious of his wrongdoings. Above all, this film is a study of a deeply flawed and intricate character.

Paul Thomas Anderson uses barren, almost dead settings, restrained writing, and an ominous score from Jonny Greenwood to create the film's menacing tone. These, along with impressive practical sets and an impassioned supporting effort from Paul Dano, are all important factors in this films effectiveness. But, as I stated earlier, "There Will Be Blood" is Daniel Day-Lewis' film. His turn as Daniel Plainview is the masterwork of his career. Plain and simple, this is one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. In every moment which sees Day-Lewis occupy the screen (essentially every scene of the nearly three hour picture), he provides a subtly menacing demeanor, a chilling vocal cadence, and a palpable presence of reserved madness. This is one of those roles which is impossible to imagine any other actor playing. Day-Lewis, a famed "method actor", embodies Plainview's preoccupation with perfection in his work. It's not hard to imagine Day-Lewis having an obsession for his acting which is equal to Plainview's obsession for riches.

"There Will Be Blood" is one of the best films to come out since the turn of the millennium, and perhaps the best work to date by one of the greatest actors of all time is a huge reason why. It is an ambitious modern epic, which weaves its way through issues of faith, business, family, greed, and rectitude. The finished product; one of the most ferocious, engaging, and brilliant films I have ever seen.

RATING: 9.5/10

PAN'S LABYRINTH

I must admit my ill-advised hesitation to dive into the world of foreign language films more often. With some films, I find the requirement to read subtitles to be distracting from the visual experience. With "Pan's Labyrinth" however,  the experience is so stunning and compelling, it's nearly impossible to resist being drawn into the mysterious world created by writer and director Guillermo del Toro. Detailing a young girl named Ofelia, caught between the sadistic nature of 1940's Spain and a number of captivating yet treacherous fantastical adventures, the film combines the wondrous touch of a children's fairytale with the intensity and grit of a war story.

One of many impressive things about "Pan's Labyrinth" is that it is a modern and entirely original fantasy story. Most films within the genre today are heavily based on stories from decades, even centuries, ago. In fact, this is a movie so unlike others that it may not be fair to say that the picture fits well into an existing genre at all. As the story begins, we are introduced to seemingly familiar wartime themes, as Ofelia and her pregnant mother struggle to stay out of dodge while living under the oppressive watch of a fascist military officer. The commander in charge of the outpost at which Ofelia resides is so convincingly evil, as he tortures prisoners and shoots whomever he wishes with little to no reason, that the audience wishes to escape to the fantasy side of the character's life as badly as she does. Her fairy-tale experiences begin as she wanders into a wooded labyrinth and encounters a faun who tells her of her ability to achieve immortal royalty if she completes a series of considerably perilous tasks. But, "fairy-tale" is a partially dishonest term to use when discussing this movie. At times it possesses an enchanting quality, but "Pan's Labyrinth" is not for the kids. On all sides, it is a mature, violent, and often startling story.

The films central performance is provided excellently by young Spanish actress Ivana Baquero. For a childhood role, her screen time is immense and her part is demanding. Ofelia, along with Mercedes, a housekeeper who acts as the films other rebellious hero, creates a strong virtuous presence. When these characters are contrasted with the blatant cruelty of the Spanish military forces shown, they create a clear line between good and evil in the human world. The brutality of one world which the main character lives in shows the need for the other. In her supernatural encounters, Ofelia is faced with danger and uncertainty, but the opportunity to be free of human persecution leads her deeper into the unknown. Depicting the early days of 20th century Spanish autocracy, "Pan's Labyrinth" covers historical elements which are actually underrepresented in film. Among other central themes, the movie provides commentary on the madness often spawned by war.

Technically and visually, the movie is exceptional. To create the various creatures which the protagonist encounters, the filmmakers relied largely on prosthetics and practical effects, and these are some of the best we've ever seen. This unsettling, nonhuman realism combines with del Toro's fluid directing style, bosky settings, and gloomy cinematography to create an often haunting atmosphere.

This is a fantasy film, and it's entirely presented in a foreign language. Both of these vital aspects are ones which may turn some viewers away, mistakenly as that may be. "Pan's Labyrinth" is one of the boldest, most effectively unique movies of recent years. It's atypical, but confidently so, and succeeds in being an endearing yet sincere fantasy picture. 

RATING: 7.8/10

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" defines an entire genre in a way that few films do. Those who make the mistake of thinking that the contemporarily cliché "spaghetti western" types cannot be elegantly crafted, truly artful films either haven't seen, or cannot appreciate this 1966 classic. But, for good reason, this films impact and place in the history of movies transcends the "Western" label. Yes, it is a Western, but it's also an Epic, an ambitious adventure, and a sprawling tale which has provided us with some of the most iconic characters, images, and sounds in the history of cinema.

Clint Eastwood, as Blondie, plays a gun-slinging, word sparing cowboy, tied in a tense partnership with Tuco, a desperate and reckless bandit portrayed by Eli Wallach. The two, constantly falling in and out of each other's favor, must collaborate in their hunt for a fortune of gold which has been buried in a distant cemetery. Eastwood and Wallach each deliver a performance which is essential to not only the film, but the Western genre as a whole. Their characters contrast each other perfectly, one is discreet and cautious, the other is rash and unmannerly. Challenging the two for the elusive stash of riches is the imposing Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), who appears to be the collected, formidable, perfect opposition to the other characters. While each figure represents a sort of archetype within the Western genre, writer and director Sergio Leone makes one theme clear: greed has the power to fuel, motivate and override everything that we see these characters go through.

Leone is undoubtedly a stand-alone, pioneering figure in filmmaking. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is largely defined by many of the distinctive, idiosyncratic decisions of its director. The wide shots of barren desert, up-close views of characters' grizzled stares, and unusually lengthy fixations on certain important moments, such as Tuco's feverish run through the prized cemetary, were largely unprecedented, and would feel peculiar in many other films. In this picture, these moments are endlessly fun. Take, for example, the films classic climactic showdown, in which the main characters stand in a circle, gazing at one another, ready to shoot the next man down at any sign of a dash for the treasure. Each man's life lies in the hands of the others. While its a long and unconventionally shot moment, it is perhaps one of the most effectively suspenseful scenes in movie history. The unpredictable jumbling of camera shots between each of the characters, combined with the legendary score of Ennio Morricone, combine for a truly edge-of-your-seat experience. It is a brilliant moment in filmmaking.

On the topic of score, this film's is one which cannot be simply glanced over. Rightfully and consistently ranked as one of the best ever, Morricone provides a composition which almost acts as a character itself. Even for those who have never seen "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", the opening notes of the film's theme evoke images of cowboys, shootouts, and old-fashioned American revolvers. Like many aspects of this film, the score has become wholly representative of the Western genre.

For glaring evidence of the influence of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and Sergio Leone, look no further than Quentin Tarantino's 2012 hit, "Django Unchained". A film lauded by critics and viewers alike, "Django" is one of my absolute favorites; it represents modern mastery of the largely dated "spaghetti western' subgenre. However, it is simply impossible to watch it without thinking that if it weren't for "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", there would certainly be no "Django Unchained". A film like this one makes it seem as if Sergio Leone was born to shake up the world of movies, and go against the norm in a way which revolutionized a beloved genre. Estimates hold that well over 1000 movies have been made about the old American West, and this film stands out, with all its brilliant unconventionalities, as one of the absolute best.

RATING 8.5/10

SCHINDLER'S LIST

"Schindler's List" is one of those films which is almost universally agreed upon as being great. It stole the show at the 1994 Academy Awards, and is considered one of the most impressive achievements of an all time great director. Certainly a bold undertaking, I can understand why viewers and critics commend its scale and honesty, but I myself am part of a rare set which calls this film overrated. And grossly overrated it is. I agree that it is a good movie, but by no stretch would I call it the unprecedented, transcendent cinematic experience that everyone else seems to. Before this article is disregarded as an act of modern cultural blasphemy, I have a legitimate case to make, and it goes beyond the 195 minute runtime aspect.

Oskar Schindler's story is undoubtedly one worth telling. The German businessman employs Jewish workers to work in his factory at the start of the second World War and the Holocaust. As Jewish extermination becomes more prevalent, Schindler recognizes that through designating Jews as important workers for the German war effort, he is able to save hundreds of innocent lives. At the center of the film, Liam Neeson is as charismatic as he is imposing. His shining performance is the highlight of his career as he shows Schindler to be a greatly conflicted, but ultimately goodhearted man. For me however, "Schindler's List"'s greatest strength comes in the form of Ralph Fiennes' performance as the despicable, loathsome Nazi commandant, Amon Goeth. It's hard to think of a character in film history deserving of more hatred than this one. I would call Fiennes' turn a "bright spot" in this film, but perhaps it is better to say it's the films strongest dark spot, as his embodiment of sinful atrocity is painfully compelling. This pair of actors represent what I believe to be the films best aspects, while other factors are not nearly as masterful.

I must say that I surely recognize the greatness of Steven Spielberg. Few directors in modern Hollywood, or possibly ever in Hollywood, can match his prolific originality and overall success rate in filmmaking. "E.T.", "Jaws", and "Bridge of Spies" are all favorites of mine, but other iconic efforts of his do not seem to strike the same chord with me. With regards to "Schindler's List", I am not going to attempt to tell Steven Spielberg how to make movies, but for a movie to be nearly three and a half hours long, it must be air-tight the whole way through; keeping the audience engaged and excited and not wasting a minute. Unfortunately, this film does not do that. It becomes redundant in its attempted poignancy, and while it does the job of delineating the tragedy that was the Holocaust, it could have been equally effective with many aspects pared down, cut short, and left out.

But, as I said, the flaws of "Schindler's List" go beyond its length, as there are other films as long as this one which I love. To be frank, at times I see this film as an attempt from Spielberg to be taken more seriously than he had been in recent years. In the 1980's and early 1990's, Spielberg's recent successes included "E.T.", "Hook", and the beloved "Indiana Jones" saga. Additionally, "Jurassic Park" was in production and not far from its release. These are adventure films, which are, for the most part, lighthearted, happy-ending, and aimed at enrapturing family audiences with movie magic. "Schindler's List" represents a clear departure from films like these, and while many of its emotional elements are effective, I find that others miss the mark. In particular, the scene depicting the young girl wandering in her red jacket against the black and white scenery is an unnecessary, oversimplified way to tell already aware audiences, "Look, sad things are going on here". In fact, the use of black and white in general, while often commended as an insightful move by a film genius, seems rather simple and obvious to me. Another scene loved by many is the emotional breakdown of Oskar Schindler at the conclusion of the story. While Neeson's acting in this scene is excellent, I find the inclusion of this moment to be forced and out of character. For the vast majority of the film, Schindler is shown to be an astute, constantly collected businessman. Leading up to this moment, the character's flashes of deep sympathy and genuine, humane concern are infrequent, and the film has become static and numb to the point where it is difficult to connect with the scene. Its one of many which I find to doesn't hit the emotional pitch that it intends to.

Curmudgeonly as this review may sound, I have not lost sight of the fact that, yes, "Schindler's List" is a good movie. I commend Spielberg for taking on subject matter like this, and I commend the films actors for bringing to life such imposing and polarizing characters. Nonetheless, I stand by my unpopular opinion that it is not a near perfect production. It would have benefitted from limiting its repetitive, occasionally feeble attempts at depth. Perhaps the Holocaust is a subject so grim that it's really impossible to do justice on the screen. Spielberg's take is simplified and, while occasionally powerful, fails to hit on all the emotions it seeks. It's a film you must see once, but, while I cannot imagine why you would want to, never have to see again.

RATING: 7/10