There Will Be Blood (2007)

It’s an over 2 ½ hour of movie that makes the simple point that “people suck!” Sure, you have Daniel Day-Lewis, or as my friend Bryan calls him, Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is great. He should get another Oscar for his performance. It was rare treat. He is totally engrossed in the character, and it is like nothing you have seen before. Another Oscar should go for cinematography. It was beautiful. The look of the film was authentic too. My grandfather grew up in rural California during the same time of the film, and the buildings and scenery looked like pictures of Fontana, California from those days, which was cool for me because, I was like “Cool! Now I’ve seen it” – at least in a movie, albeit a long one.

The movie takes you through rise of evil Oilman Daniel Plainview, from the time he is prospector in solitude till he is sociopathic old man living a mansion in Beverly Hills, California. The crux of the story takes place in rural California when Plainview buys up the land. Evangelical fundamentalist preacher and false prophet Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano, becomes a thorn in Plainview’s side, because both try to have control of the town. The rest of the movie unfolds, in a very long way, it goes through the life of Plainview’s relationships to his son, Eli, and the oil expansion. There really isn’t a plot here. It is more like an exploration into the dark side of human nature, although in Plainview’s case he is a highly functional psychopath, drunk on greed, and power. It is really ugly, and the same time realistic.

The movie is always engrossing but soooooooooooooooo long! The music by Johnny Greenfield from Radiohead is boring. He uses a motif of hard dissonance, which might sound like Radiohead from the Kid A days, but it mostly sounds like the THX movie when they introduce the product.

There Will Be Blood, and there is plenty of it, is loosely based on a Upton Sinclair novel Oil. You might remember him from The Jungle.

It is an interesting movie to see in this era of the Oil Wars and the petrol-economy, because there has been so much blood; just look at Iraq. The obvious comparison in film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre; just as gold made men crazy, homicidal, and evil, so does Oil.

I can’t say this is a date movie. For film aficionados, this is a must see. It is certainly one of the best movies this year. That being said, it is like an emotional journey that leaves you feelings sick at the end.

Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)

OK, here is another attempt to make an entertaining movie about relevant geo-political players in the post 9/11 world. Does it work? No.

Even if you throw Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Afghanistan or Pakistan, you still don’t have good movie.

The problem with the movie is that it tries to do too many things. It tries explaining to the audience who the players are and how the Unites States Government works, how the CIA works, a romance between Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, a bromance between Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and a Hanks charm movie. The real problem with these movies is that nobody really understands what is going on in the world. Eventually, I am sure Hollywood will get it right, but not here.

The movie very poorly tries to explain how Afghanistan went from a Cold-War success for the United States to a place which shelters America’s greatest enemies. If you blink, you can miss that.

Charlie Wilson’s war tells the story how one little known congressman personally got a cold war against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980’s going with the help of Neo-Conservative woman from Texas and a CIA agent. Tom Hanks who plays Charlie Wilson tries to carry this movie as he does his Tom Hanks charm. He works well with Hoffman, and both are excellent in his role. Hoffman plays Gust Avrakotos, a CIA agent. Who must be some sort of play on former CIA director George Tenet, who is also a son Greek immigrants.

Hanks and Roberts don’t work. Roberts who seems to play her role as just a bitch, seems to be trying to out stage Hanks in every seen. The semi-romance just doesn’t seem believable. They seem like people who just use each other for whatever they need. not They care for each other out of gain.

It does do some things right. They capture the Islamic rage and suffering. The military scenes seem to have a fair amount of realism to them. The director, Mike Nichols, lets the actors do their thing. Hanks and Amy Adams were as charming as ever.

Overall, the movie seem is boring at times, uneven, and mildly entertaining. It needed more drama, more story, and maybe a little more style. The whole Texas thing just didn’t cut it.

The Savages (2007)

This is the most depressing movie I have seen all year. I say this not a criticism, but as a fact. The reason why it is so depressing is because it gets so many things right. Written and directed by Tamara Jenkins, it seems like she must have had time with these characters in therapy grab their essence so well. Of course, Laura Linney, who is best being crazy but fragile, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is brilliantly flawed, are perfect for their roles.

Linney plays Wendy a 39 year old over-educated woman working as a temp in New York City. Not sure how she pays the rent. She is in a small apartment with a foldout bed. She is in an unhealthy almost totally sexual relationship with a married man 13 years older than her. She is functionally sad.

Her brother, the Hoffman character, is an obese professor living Buffalo, who receives a hysterical phone call from his sister that their estranged father is in trouble. He seems to be used adding a rational counter-balance to his sister’s emotions. Later in film we learn that he is emotionally withdrawn, and cries at inopportune moments, such as when eating eggs. He is 42 years and claims to not be ready for marriage as his Polish girlfriend of three years goes back to Poland after her visa expires. Ever the rationalist his decisions lack an emotional compass.

Both characters seem so typical in real life.

When we meet the father we get a sense of the children’s backgrounds growing up with an emotionally and physically abusive father. There mother was completely out of the picture.

The father is living in Arizona with his girlfriend who just past away, and now he has no place to live. He is no longer able to care for himself.

The process of the health-care industry, the emotional drama of picking up the pieces of a life and ship it to place where they will die, was done is extreme accuracy. The moments of packing up their father’s pocessions, finding a nursing home, dealing with the staff, taking the loved one out to a restaurant to get out for a moment, it is all too real. So much so that it could be training for adults with older parents. I couldn’t help thinking will I have to do that.

At the very end, there is a little hope, maybe.

When I saw them film, in the audience were senior citizens in crowd who seemed offended that people were laughing at the plight of life at the nursing home. I guess for them it wasn’t funny. Actually, I didn’t think much was funny in the film, unless it was tragically funny. There was a seen where they were playing a scene from the Jazz Singer (1928), where Al Jolson was putting on back-face. The movie was a film the father picked out, and pained expressions on his children faces was funny if you can relate in someway.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)

Absolutely the worst movie I have seen this year. It was a waste of an hour and half of my life and I want them back! The only good part of this film was the very very small cameos from Jack White as Elvis, Paul Rudd as John Lennon, Jack Black as Paul McCartney, Jason Schwartzman as Ringo Starr, Jonah Hill, Eddie Vedder, and Tim Meadows. Frankie Muniz as Buddy Holly just didn’t make sense. The lead John C. Reilly was horrible. I am told that Walk Hard is a spoof of Ray and Walk the Line, but that doesn’t mean it works. I have seen The Simpsons do the same jokes over and over again that they try in this movie, except they are far superior and work.

The story of a Johnny Cash-like rock legend, Cox is born in the South to a broken family, finds fame and self destructive behavior, and finally redemption. It tries to mock every genre of music from the 50’s – 70’s. It is just so banal, trite, and hackneyed that just gives one a headache. I can't think of one thing original in this movie. Most of the jokes are sex jokes, which try to be so wrong to be funny, but are still flat. It was certainly the most forced movie I can remember seeing since the last Punisher film. Skip this one hard.

Mr. Magoruim’s Wonder Emporium (2007)

This is a hard one. This is a probably a good for very little kids, and the few kids that were in the audience were laughing every now and then. The adults laughed a little less.

The name Mr. Magoruim’s Wonder Emporium has a feel of a 1970’s kids movie. It had a Charlie and the Chocolate factory (the original) feel to it, in that it seemed to try to amaze in a really low concept and low tech way. Like a giant bouncing ball is a grand idea in concept, but hey it’s large CGI ball that could be done in a first year animation major. It’s a little boring.

The movie centers around huge magical toy store in Chicago. They don’t make a big deal that it is Chicago, but if you have ever been there you will recognize it. There are a lot of crazy things going on in that toy store. Some of it has it’s moments, like Kermit the frog shopping there (some how doesn’t work without Jim Henson’s real voice), and wooden Dinosaurs alive and playful were cool.

Dustin Hoffman plays Mr. Magoruim, avid shoe-wearer, he is exactly how you might picture such a person: crazy hair, clothes, and absent minded. Natalie Portman, who must have been growing her hair out from V is for vendetta, is about to inherit the store, but she doesn’t want it. Magoruim hires an accountant, played by Jason Bateman, who he called “the mutant,” to gauge the worth of the store. There is some kid in there, who wears a different hat everyday but has no friends. All together they work things out.

It is a cute, simple story, but really not much to write home about. I think after first grade your kid might be too sophisticated for it.

Atonement (2007)

Atonement is like two stories, hence two movies. One is very good and one isn’t. Based on a novel that I now want to read, Atonement tells story of an event; what leads up to the event, and the effects of that event.

The first part is set up a like thriller. It has an effect a little like the movie Momento(2000) in that is told in not quite a chronological order. I really like this because it seems true a memory. It feels like you are inside someone’s head as think about something and rethink it.

You have a bizarre preteen in a love triangle of sorts with her older sister, and the maid’s son Robbie, whom both girls have known since childhood. Both sisters have a burgeoning interest in him. The older sister Cecilia and Robbie are at the beginning of starting a romantic relationship. The younger sister Briony, who has an active imagination, watches them through a window and thinks she catches them in a sexual act. Later she really does. That same night two of cousin, two little boys run away. Everyone in the house party that night, including Robbie, go looking for them. During the search, another cousin, who is also a preteen girl, is raped. She doesn’t see who does her, but Briony who walks in on the act says it was Robbie. The viewer knows it was someone else.

When Robbie comes back with the two boys found, he is arrested based on Briony’s story and his stature in society. Cecilia is heartbroken and distrusts Briony’s story, but it does little good.

This part is excellent. It is a taut thriller. It is shoot beautifully, actually the whole movie is. Everything is beautiful. I have never seen Keira Kinghtly look more beautiful. I actually couldn’t stand her before. Everyone looks glamorous here.

I kept thinking that my grandfather was the same age as the characters at the same time this story is suppose to take place, which gave it an interesting perspective.

The second part isn’t so good. Although early World War II England is interesting to see, and there is some historical interesting aspects to it, once Robbie goes off to war it just becomes really boring. There are some interesting bits about nursing in World War II London. I suspect that book goes into that a little more. Robbie and Cecilia to stay together through everything, but they meet a tragic ends. It ends with a present day interview with Briony and offers some plots twists, but the end is unsatisfying. They should have done something with the second part to make it better like edit it down.

While leaving the theatre, I heard people talking, as the post movie analysis usually happens in New York theatres, some people said that couldn’t have watch it on T.V,and others said that it made them appreciate the book more. I can see how this must have been great book.

I think this is a movie to see on the big screen, if you are going to see it, because it is the only way to appreciate fully it’s beauty, which is really it’s strongest feature. Well that and the actors are amazing.

Juno (2007)

Coming to the Lifetime network for women soon, is the new movie Juno. Juno had all making of a woman’s movie, except for the man screwing the woman over part. There are women helping women. Every woman is a heroine. Every man is nebbish. So, it is a like a heterosexual feminist movie.

The movie tries very hard to be a cool indie film a la Napoleon Dynamite (2004) and Rushmore (1998), which are the archetypes. It might have faired better taking a bit from Ghost World (2001), which is a similar and superior movie with the same themes as this one. I see this as the fault of the director, Jason Reitman. Actually, movie tries so hard at the beginning to be artsy film of the year that it is a bit boring at the start. There is the very pretentious animated introduction, which was like so cool, like seven years ago. The symbolism of cross country male runner being sexuality gets old real fast. Luckily, the story kicks in and the film becomes very enjoyable. I think the biggest reason that the film is lacking at the beginning is that you don’t really understand the true nature of the relationship between Juno, Ellen Page and Bleeker, Michael Cera.

In the film, Juno is pregnant, and Bleeker is the father. ( I think that the name Bleeker is a side referring to the Muppets Bleeker in a gen-X way, because the character comes across as a teen Bleeker from the Muppet show. ) It is towards the end of the movie that you realize that Juno and Bleeker are two friends that hang out all the time and decided to have sex one day, as oppose to typical boyfriend-girlfriend dynamic. It would have been good if that was clearer in the beginning.

When the story does kick in, you fall in with the dramas and character of Juno, who is an angelically delightful. Juno is pregnant, and is supported by friends and family, plans, to give her baby up for adoption. She finds the perfect yuppie couple to take the baby. After that she has to deal with the pregnancy and a love triangle of sorts between the baby’s father, Bleeker, and the husband of the yuppie couple; who is played by Jason Bateman, and a he looks a lot like a slightly younger Bono. It sounds cheesy but it works.

Juno, herself, was a joy. Ms. Page brought a lot of good energy and youthfulness to the role. It sort of makes the film. I am always impressed by the generation 9/11. I always get the impression that 90’s were so weird and the era 9/11 has been for horrible that this generation is somehow looking for normalcy. I see this in the way they speak and dress. Somehow it seems both youthful and straight forward. In some ways it is hopeful where previous generations have tried to be so extreme or iconoclastic. It is refreshing to get away from that.

I think what I like the most about Juno, the character, is that she just goes on. This is a coming of age film, probably the millionth one this year. In the end things work themselves out but not without some working at it. I liked that too.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is the attention to detail in the film. Take a look at the walls in the film, like an old Simpson’s episode, it is filled with interesting stuff. Bleeker has Hebrew letters on the back of his door, Juno’s friend has a picture that has Bill Clinton’s face and really built guy’s body, which I am not sure if really funny or disturbing. On the wall by the staircase, there is really cheesy couple of pictures of the couple who wants to adopt the baby.

I think I will see this movie again. It is not the greatest film ever made, and it has plenty of flaws but I would say that it is one of the ten best films of the year. If Rocket Science (2007) was the male equivalent of this story this year, Juno is the female version. The dialogue is charming and fun. In the end, it is a cute movie.

Love in the time of Cholera (2007)

Love in the time of Cholera is, of course, the classic novel from Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez, which is now a new movie starring Spanish actor Javier Bardem and Italian actress Giovanna Mezzogriorno. For most of us this was required reading in college. However, I never got around to it.

Love in the time of Cholera is one of those movies which you could be a little bored in the beginning, but towards the end you realize that everything comes together. All of that seemingly superfluous stuff at the start makes sense in the end and you can see that it is all necessary to the story. It’s worth it because as a whole it is a beautiful story.

It is a love story set the behind a backdrop of war and disease (Cholera), and peace. It is also the character of love as war and disease, and peace. I thought it was clever.

It also has the pained elements of a story of people the areas around and including Mexico and South America. People are overly proud, emotional, and tragic. There is a strong sense of colonial values and situations. The story takes place in the white upper class of Victorian Colombia.

Set in Colombia, almost no one here sounds like it too much. Bardem speaks perfect Spanish. He is from Spain. Mezzogiorno is Italy and really sounds Italian when she has to show emotion. Giovanna may be more beautiful than she is a great actress. Many of her scenes are uneven and when she plays an old woman she mostly moves like a young woman. It is noticeable and distracting. Another, noticeable and distracting element in the film is the transition between the Florentino character as a young man, Unax Ugalde, and Florentino for the rest of film Bardem. It is really to tell that are the same person outside of the fact they wear the same clothing. A bit of a surprise is John Leguizamo who is actually Colombian, and is perfect in his of Fermina’s (Mezzogroino) father. Liv Schreiber, Catalina Sandino Moreno (also Colombian), and one my favorite actors, Hector Elizondo around out a great supporting cast,

There is great cinematography, sets, rainfalls, and natural beauty. You do feel like you are in some Spanish colonial world. Mostly the movie is a character driven movie. Like a long book, which it is, you watch the characters develop. Hopefully you like them, because you are spending a while with them. All character’s relationships seem to explore the love between in its different forms. Love between man and woman (Romantic Love), love between Mother and Son, Father and Daughter, Uncle and Nephew, between cousins, between co-workers, and that is the nature of the film and the story. It is important to know that going into it. There is a lot in Love in the time of cholera.
It felt like there was something there, and I found myself thinking about its themes for sometime afterwards.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

The long await return for Ethan and Joel Coen ( the Coen Brothers). No Country for Old Men is not their best work but it is, just by the fact that it is them, ten times better than most of the films out this year. It is sometimes hard to be critical on a movie that does so many things right. It pulls you in right at the beginning. It has excellent characterization. It is tense and it has many parallel themes going on at one time. But at the same till, it is has some very loose ends.

In many instances this film is like Fargo. It takes place in an interesting subset of the United States; this time the U.S.-Mexican Boarder. The Coen brothers show many instances of quirky people from South Texas but they seem to lack the overwhelming racism and anger of the real people from Texas. In some ways Texas seems like a normal place, which anyone from Texas knows is just not true.

The film stars Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Kelly Macdonald. Bardem is brilliant as a psychopath. Not for one second do you believe that he isn’t a complete sociopath. The cat and mouse game with the Josh Brolin character, Llewelyn, is nail biting and the heart of the film. The good cop and old time Texas Lawman of the Tommy Lee Jones character is underdeveloped and barely necessary to the story.

It starts out seeming to be an old west story brought to a modern setting, but then it loses that, and tries to picked it up again, ultimately failing. Jones is great as he ever is, but he doesn’t have much to work with, and this whole storyline could have taken out of the film which would have improved it greatly.

Kelly Macdonald plays Carla Jean Moss wife of Llewelyn, and you would never know that she was the English preteen from Trainspotting.

There is not much to the story. There is a robbing of drug money. Llewelyn finds it, takes it, and he is hunted. It’s a hell of a ride. It has a bit of a money is the root of all evil moral to it, but you really hope that the film maker are doing more. You think that they must be, but maybe there are not.

Dan in Real Life (2007)

Not a good movie. It was a series of embarrassing scenes of a wasp family, despite their Irish last name, getting along and having fun together in Rhode Island. Now, most movies have a happy family, but this was over the top with family talent shows, songs, workouts, football games, and bowling.

The basic premise of the film is Steve Carell, single family of three daughters, visits his family for what seems like a month. He meets Juliette Binoche, who pulls off her best American ascent. It would have better she was supposed to be French. Anyway, these two meet at bookstore, but they find out that she is dating his younger brother played by Dane Cook. You can probably figure out the rest.

Dan in Real Life has a really dark look to it. Everything seemed in the shadows. Carell is a funny guy, and he alone provided a few needed laughs, but he seemed so depressed; you feel depressed too.

The soundtrack was really annoying too. I do think I has seen every piece of clothing in the film at Urban Outfitters.

I can’t recommend this film. It seems like it would be good on the Saturday afternoon when you just want to see something barely watchable on T.V.

O Jerusalem (2007)

Directed by Elie Chouraqui and written by Elie Chouraqui and Didier Le Pechaur. Together they made a mediocre movie about an interesting subject. Made like a TV movie of the week, its dialogue was about as gripping as a didactic an educational film you might have sat through in grade school while passing notes.

I am not sure what was worse, the bad acting or the cheesy clichés in the script. From the very start, you see the actors missing beats and using over the top emotional responses. It didn’t worry the film-makers if the movie made emotional sense, instead it just told you something like “pain here, “or “joy here.”

O Jerusalem tries to tell the story of the birth of the nation of Israel in an even handed manor. Nothing does that better than casting an aging French pop star, Patrick Bruel, as a main character.

At best, it gives a basic outline of events around 1948 Palestine/Israel. It speaks of some of the basic arguments on both sides of the issue while giving respect to each. It shows British compliancy, and the greater Arab hypocrisy in terms of the conflict. On the hand the movie, focuses too much on European Jews who came to Palestine after World War II. It would have been wise to focus on Jews that have been in the area since biblical times; who have never left the area in thousands of years. Those people were mentioned but never shown. Big mistake! It did a good job at showing the different factions on both sides and the consequences of their actions.

I suppose it could be a good film for someone not aware of the events. The use of archival news footage is highly effective in giving a taste of realism.

It is hard to say that because many of the people who are the most passionate, especially college students, know relatively little of the historical events (even if they think they do), and with passions so high you wonder if opinions could be altered.

Tovah Feldshuh returns to her brilliant off-Broadway portrayal of Golda Meir. Ian Holm certainly gets the hair right for playing Ben Gurion.

Watching the film did remind me of my three week trip to Israel. There are many reminders of the wars there. Left intentionally are the shot up military vehicles on the side of the road to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv or vice versa.

For all that the movie gets right; you still have to suffer through a poor film. O Jersusalem stars JJ Field, Said Taghmaoui, Maria Papas, Patrick Bruel, Ian Holm, and Tova Feldshuh.

Elizabeth, The Golden Age (2007)

Elizabeth, The Golden Age is the worst directed movie that I have seen this year. Only an inept director could take three of the best actors in England, and make the story of one of most interesting times of English history boring. OMG, this is a very big budget film, and it feels like it was put together by a 12 year old. The score is so over the top, it is annoying. Watching this you feel like you are missing the emotional story because you can’t believe the filmmaker could get it so wrong. There are long sequences where you wonder, what was THAT about. There is a long bath scene with Elizabeth that goes on so long that you wonder if some more is going to happen, like a lesbian scene. Nothing happens! It just lags.

The movie stars Cate Blanchette, who I think is a brilliant actress, and she is brilliant as always. She shines on the screen. She plays this role again, as this is a sequel, but even she can not save it. Clive Owen, England’s coolest actor, is positioned like a bland male interest in some generic chick-flick. Geoffrey Rush does his thing too. All are competent and give interesting performances. In fact, the actors are great.

The pacing is just off. The score made getting a drink of water into an emotional moment. The camera work was just irritating. Sometimes there would be circular camera movements that would just repeat until you get dizzy from the spinning.

Now, I am all for England. I have been there many times and I have British friends, but the night and day depicting of the English vs. The Spanish reminded me too much of the G.I. Joe cartoon from the mid-80’s.

More about the camera, the color tinted is reminiscent of a bad 70’s movie you might have caught on TV on a Saturday afternoon in the 80’s and will never see the light of day since. Even the colors were boring in this film.


Elizabeth, The Golden Age could be greatly improved by a re-edit and a re-scoring. Some producer should have seen the dailies and fired the director, Shehkar Kapur. Walking out of the film, you feel it is two hours of your life that you want back.

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

I really loved this movie. For those of you that don’t know The Darjeeling Limit is the new Wes Anderson movie (his fifth movie). Anderson is wildly successful with people my age and around it. It stars some of Anderson's favorites such as Owen Wilson (Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic), Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore), and Adrien Brody. If you are a fan of the director you will be very pleased.

I have seen this movie twice so far and I think I can see it again. It is one of those movies which some people will take nothing away from it and others will take everything from it. I am in the later category.


There was so much liked about it. I think, first was the characterization. Francis, Peter and Jack Whitman are such developed characters that they feel like real people. The actors worked well together, and executed a perfectly witty and brilliant script. Of course, some might see a train ride around India where three rich American brothers look for spiritual inspiration to be boring and pretentious. It depends how much symbolism you want in a film. Also, it depends on what you find to be funny. If you only like Superbad/American pie/sitcom humor, again this might not be your cup of tea. The Darjeeling Limit extenuates the quirks of very smart and neurotic people. Most characters in Wes Anderson are creative, intelligent, and successful who are incredible sad. This movie was in some ways like a Chekhov play, in that there is a great humor and even happiness in tragedy. Like a Neil Simon play without the one liners and zingers.


All three brothers are incredibly damaged people. The Owen Wilson character Francis, shows it physically as he is covered in bandages throughout the movie. All three are morning the death of their father who died. He was hit by a cab on 72nd Street in New York City. Their mother who had always left them, missed the funeral. Francis, the oldest, tries to put back their family back together. He brings back together his estranged brothers who have been living very separate lives and brings them to India where there estranged Mother is living as a Nun.


Interestingly enough, we meet the mother towards the end of the film. After that, all the characters makes sense, and why they do what they do makes sense. Francis has become the mother. He organizes and handles his brothers just like their mother does. Peter, played by Adrien Brody, abandons his wife for longs periods without warning, even when she is pregnant. Finally Jack, the youngest and played by Jason Schwartzman, has stayed in his childlike relationship with his mother, by getting into relationships with unhealthy women who use him and mess with his mind. He finds them everywhere he goes. Despite being an unhealthy relationship with his ex-girlfriend, played by Natalie Portman,he meets an Indian girl (played by my co-worker’s ex-college girlfriend) on the train that also uses him. She becomes a microcosm of his relationship with women. She is with him physically but not emotionally.

In the end, the brothers do find each other, as Francis’ puts it as he takes off his bandages in the only time of the film, there is a lot more healing to do.

You will find a lot of what you love about a Wes Anderson film here. There is the great use of color. There are very developed characters. Bill Murray. There is great use of music, and what I refer to as the bad-ass scene, which is when the main characters are moving with the music attitude of a song. I also call this the pimp-sequence.

One of the things I liked best about this film is how purposeful it was. Everything about it, whether failed or successful, was executed with purpose and confidence. No scene in the film seemed to be in there without having a point, whether it is by the actors or the cinematography.


I found the movie to be a beguiling happy movie. Like the others Anderson films mentioned above, it was similar in its style and explication. This time the movie is set on the relationship of three brothers who have been deserted by their mother and their father had passed away. You are left with plenty to think about, and you care about the characters and wonder how they will turn out. Hopefully they are in a better place than before. You feel happy and a little calmer after the film.

Across the Universe (2007)

I have to admit that this is probably the best time I have had at the theatre in a while. This movie is basically “The Beatles, the musical.” There is barely a story here. It is just an excuse to make movie set in the 60’s and sing a lot of Beatles songs. In fact, they murder the songs most of the time. However, as my grandma used to say, you can murder a good song, but you can’t kill it. Basically, what you do with this film is to stop paying attention to any kind of narrative, and sing aloud with your favorite Beatles songs. They are mostly sung in a cheesy musical theatre fashion, which makes it easy to follow along. If you can't do that, then just enjoy the interesting visuals. If you can do both, then you will have a great time with this campy movie.

Of course, you might have some intellectual tension with the fact that this movie is constantly taking Beatles references literally to a point of nausea. Nausea ain’t fun! That is exactly why it is important not think too much while watching this.

Probably the best part of the movie are the visuals, which would be somewhat artistic if the movie just wasn’t so damn cheesy, but you are going to the listen to Beatles songs anyway, so who cares!

Bono is in the movie. He plays Dr. Robert. Dr. Robert is a John Lennon song from the Revolver album. Get it, the Beatles have a song called Dr. Robert and Bono plays Dr. Robert. OK, forgot it. Well, this was no stretch for Bono who basically played his Macfisto role from the Zoo TV tour. U2 constantly barrows from the Beatles anyway, so Bono was right at home here. You can here Bono sing “I am the Walrus,” which is pretty good, and “Lucy in the sky with Diamonds” with The Edge.

Did I mention that the Paul McCartney look-a-like, played by Jim Sturgess, is named Jude? His love interest, who was just 17, was played Evan Rachel Wood is named Lucy. And you have a Jojo, Sadie, Prudence, and lets just say, it gets worse. At one point Jude says, “She came in through the bathroom window.” oi, really! Now, she could have just done that and the audience would have gotten the picture, but no, the filmmakers had to go for 120% cheesiness. If you not a purest, it is possible to really enjoy this shtick.

I am not one to have an opinion on choreography, but I like it in this film. I really seems to have work well. There are a thousand and one references to people and events of the sixties that are so NOT subtle.

This film is directed by Julie Taymor.

Just think of Across the Universe as Beatles sing-a-long and you will be in great shape, and don’t forget to clap when they have John Lennon, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, and Ringo in the credits, because it is the only mention of the actual Beatles in this movie. This feels like a cult classic!