Dec 1: The Sting

"In 1930s Chicago, a young con man seeking revenge for his murdered partner teams up with a master of the big con to win a fortune from a criminal banker."

Directed by: George Roy Hill, Rated: PG, 129 minutes

While The Sting is far from as flashy as the Oceans' 11 series or as action packed as The Italian Job, it's still one of the first heist/con movies of its time. With a memorable soundtrack (thank you ice cream trucks) and acting that leaves you smiling, it's a bonafide classic that must be seen. It's entertaining, full of humor, a bit of violence, and has a lot of twists you can barely see coming (a lot of the twists in the film were first seen with The Sting). Ladies and gentlemen, there are dozens of reasons why this movie won Best Picture in 1974 and it's no surprise it was able to beat out The Exorcist and American Graffiti.

Even the devil can't out-movie The Sting. 

Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) is a suave con man who makes his living scamming any hapless stranger walking down the street. He's a scamp, never really making it big and losing whatever he makes gambling. His partner, Luther (Robert Earl Jones) is an older man, well past his prime in the conning game. He's ready to retire and settle down and get straight (or legal). After Hooker and Luther steal from the wrong man, Luther finds himself face down in an alleyway, dead. Hooker, angry and scared, heads to Chicago to find Luther's old friend, Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman), to not only have a place to hide but also a place to come up with a plan of revenge against the greedy and evil Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). The two hatch an idea of staging a horse betting ring and figure out a way to draw Lonnegan into betting millions, only to take it away from him for revenge.

Before he hunted a great white shark, he was the swarmy and evil Lonnegan. 

The Sting is a very smart movie that's well ahead of its time. It's a movie from the 70s, set in the 30s, with the humor and charisma you can find in any decade. With each additional viewing, it proves more and more timeless and you can't help but be amazed at what's happening on screen. Robert Redford and Paul Newman have a blast in their roles, and the reunion of them four years after Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid reminds us why they're so perfect together. They both exude masculinity and cool and seeing them work off of each other adds an entirely new level to the film. George Clooney and Brad Pitt were able to emulate this chemistry thirty years later, with Oceans 11, but even then, it's far from as awesome as Newman and Redford. Besides the two leads, The Sting also has plenty of recognizable faces (most of which you're used to seeing much older) and has great supporting performances from Ray Walston, Eileen Brennan, and Harold Gould. Of course, Robert Shaw is also great, as always, and his Irish and angry Lonnegan proves to be a villain you can most certainly stand against.

No matter how hard you try, you will never be as cool as these two men. 

The Sting is a must watch for any fan of film. So many themes and ideas we see in the heist movies of today borrow from The Sting and once you recognize that fact, it looks even greater. The movie also uses the ever-annoying The Entertainer (again, thank you ice cream trucks) but to a much greater effect. It becomes the movie's theme and is more memorable than annoying and helps build the setting of 1930s Chicago. With great acting, witty and smart dialogue, and terrific set design, The Sting is a ride through multiple pasts and reminds us that movies are the perfect escape from reality. 

The Good:

a great capture of the 1930s with an optimistic feeling to it that leaves you more excited than depressed

The Better:

the performances from the entire cast with Robert Redford and Paul Newman more perfect than ever

The Best:

knowing that the film has such an importance in cinema history and being reminded of how influential it is

Overall: 8.7/10

Discussion Question:

Where does The Sting rank in the greatest movies of all time? Has it been a bit forgotten over time?

Trailer:

Nov 30: Men in Black 3

"Agent J travels in time to MIB's early years in the 1960s, to stop an alien from assassinating his friend Agent K and changing history."

Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld, Rated: PG-13, 106 minutes

It's hard to believe it's been ten years since we last saw Agent J and Agent K. In 1997, we were first introduced to the rather unusual duo of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. Since then, Smith has become a megastar and Jones has begun to find the humor in his old age. Repairing them at this point in time seemed damn near impossible, with both of them going off in their own directions, but of course, in Hollywood, anything can happen (and of course it does). With Men in Black 3, we see a return to a world filled with intergalactic aliens, secret organizations, and even a little bit of time travel. However, we aren't treated to 90 minutes of Tommy Lee Jones but instead are gifted with the incredible talent of Josh Brolin emulating the man to absolute perfection.

Seriously, it's terrifying how exact he is in emulating Jones. 

Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) is an alien terrorist that's on a path of revenge. He's an alien that has smaller aliens living inside his arms and after Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) severs one of them, Boris is sent to a prison on the moon. There, he's locked away for 40 years until he manages to escape and more motivated than ever to get back at K. So he steals a time traveling device and takes a first class ticket to 1969, where he lost his arm and where he plans to kill K before it can happen. Agent J (Will Smith) figures out Boris' plan and time jumps into the past as well, and vows to save his partner from a most certain death. In 1969, J runs into a much younger K (Josh Brolin) and comes to realize that the man was always a bit uptight, but had a thing for a woman and eased back when it came to pie. Together the partners must stop Boris from changing history and of course, protect each other from you know, dying. 

While he's not as gruesome or sinister as Edgar, Boris does prove to be memorable, even if he's not the most developed of villains. 

Men in Black 3 is far above it's predecessor and gives the first film a run for its money. While the first two movies focused heavily on the effects and wide variety of aliens, MIB3 focuses on the two characters we have grown to love. Even through their adventures already, J was never able to understand or even learn a lot about K and MIB3 not only answers a lot of questions, but makes you appreciate the two's relationship even more. It's complex but very much a father-son relationship and while Tommy Lee Jones isn't on screen as much as you'd hope, Brolin still manages to deliver on those complexities. Yes, the film has a hell of a lot of humor throughout with Will Smith reminding us why he's the megastar we all love on countless occasions  but MIB3 actually has some moments of real drama that are genuinely sad. It's really interesting that a film so many of us have waited for really turns out to be vastly different than the first two installments, but still gives us what we want in its own little way. After this many years since seeing the two fight aliens, I guess it's about time we get to know them a little better.

We are also given the chance to see the continually amazing Michael Stuhlbarg as the all-knowing-every-possibility alien, Griffin. 

While the film is far from perfect, Men in Black 3 still manages to be much better than a majority of the blockbusters that roll in and out of theaters. The movies does not have as many aliens or creatures or even explosions and guns as the first two, and instead takes a more mature approach to a story that all of us can feel for. It's a character study disguised as an action comedy and it surprisingly works. It's not a game-changer by any means but it's smart in that the filmmakers knew how invested we were in these characters and that at this point in time, we really just want to see more of them, even if its not shooting giant alien bugs with even larger guns. Director Barry Sonnefeld returns us to a world we're glad to be in, and even better, reminds us it's a place we'd love to stay. For me, I'm excited to see more of J and K, even if it's just them sitting at a diner and talking for 90 minutes. At least there is pie.

The Good:

seeing what J and K are up to after ten years of doing God knows what

The Better:

and along with that reunion, being reminded that the world that MIB exists in is not only fun and entertaining, but has thousands of stories that can be told over and over

The Best:

being surprised by a more character-driven drama than anything else- something quite unexpected

Overall: 7.5/10

Discussion Question:

Should the Men in Black franchise carry onward or is this installment a nice end to a rather successful trilogy?

Trailer:

Nov 29: A Cat in Paris

"In Paris, a cat who lives a secret life as a cat burglar's aide must come to the rescue of Zoe, the little girl he lives with, after she falls into a gangster's clutches."

Directed by: Jean-Loup Felicioli and Alain Gagnol, Rated: PG, 70 minutes

Last year, A Cat in Paris was nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Feature of the Year. While it's competition wasn't the greatest of films, the movie definitely was able to stand on its own amid the mix as a little French flick with stellar hand-drawn animation and a jazzy score that makes you move. It's visually engaging and really makes you appreciate its style, but the film does get a bit boring after a bit. Luckily, the visuals keep things interesting and leave you more overwhelmed with nostalgia than anything else.

It's pretty... pretty. 

Zoe, a little girl in Paris, hasn't said a word since her father died at the hands of the gangster Victor Costa. Her mother, Jeanne (Marcia Gay Harden) is a cop who's obsessed with getting her vengeance for her husband's death but also has to deal with a cat burglar, Nico, who's stealing precious jewels and artifacts all around the city. Zoe's cat, Dino, seems to be the only joy in the little girl's life at the time and he continually brings her home little treats (dead lizards, diamond bracelets). Little does Zoe know, Dino is actually an accomplice to the burglar, helping him get through alarms and warning him when someone is near. After Zoe is kidnapped by Costa, Dino finds a way to get Nico to help save her, and must figure out a way to get the aid of Jeanne as well, even though he's one of her prime targets.

It plays out a lot like a children's book you'd find in the corner of the kids section at the library. 

A Cat in Paris' animation style is beautiful. Hand drawn with paint and ink, you're left in awe thinking you're watching something from the days of the past. The movement and color is both vibrant and full of energy and the music that accompanies it gives the movie a feeling of being cool. The jazz music that dances with the visuals only adds to the mood and you're left with a laid back, easy-listening vibe. It's certainly the biggest strength for the film and you really could watch it all day. The movie is certainly for kids (with only a couple of moments for adults) and the style reminds of you something you'd watch on PBS growing up. It's sophisticated on its own level and is a valuable piece of cinema that calls back to the past.

Nico moves like a dancer in the dark, stretching and swimming through the rooftops at night. 

Even though A Cat in Paris has moments that leave you a bit bored, the visuals are a masterpiece of its own kind. I would definitely recommend watching the movie for the animation alone and if you're a fan of anything of the past or the classic in the genre, you're in for a treat. Beautiful on levels you haven't seen for years, A Cat in Paris is the perfect remedy to the countless 3D CGI animated movies that litter the theaters these days. It's a work of art that needs to be watched, and even if you get bored, it is only 71 minutes. But I think then, even after it's over, you'll know that you've watched something special. 

The Good:

incredible animation, hand-drawn and painted that leaves you all sorts of amazed

The Bad:

moments of the story drag on a bit and leave you a little bored

The Ugly:

wondering why there are not more movies like this made these days and if old style animation is really dead

Overall: 7.5/10

Discussion Question: 

What recent movies remind of you animation styles of the past? Is the art dead or just buried in the ground, sleeping for awhile?

Trailer:

Nov 28: The Company Men

"The story centers on a year in the life of three men trying to survive a round of corporate downsizing at a major company - and how that affects them, their families, and their communities."

Directed by: John Wells, Rated: R, 104 minutes

2007 saw Ben Affleck become relevant again with his directorial debut in Gone Baby Gone. Seemingly re-energized  Affleck jumped back into the acting game after a few years on "leave" and found that his talent in that department started to catch up with his directing ability. To be honest, I never really gave up on the man but I can understand why a lot of people did. He's an acquired taste and you tend to either love him or hate him. Well, throughout all of his emergence as one of the best American directors, a little film called The Company Men he stars in flew under the radar. It's even more surprising given its subject matter- the US economy collapse and the results of the recession, in the corporate world and at home.

He even gets to keep his Bawston accent. 

The Company Men follows the stories of three men. Bobby Walker (Affleck) is a senior salesman at the GTX Corporation. He's damn good at his job and makes $200K a year. He has a beautiful home, a gorgeous wife (Rosemarie DeWitt), and a really nice car. He has settled in his life and is more than sitting large and comfortable. Unfortunately  GTX runs into financial problems because of the recession and Walker is let go, completely out of nowhere. Bobby flails and loses any comforts he had, never thinking something like that could ever happen to him. Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) is another bigshot at GTX and his close friends with the CEO, James (Craig T. Nelson). He's a fighter for all the workers let go and we see him working to contain the downsizing, knowing the employees are more than just people who show up to work every day. Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) started off on the factory floor of GTX and worked his way up over thirty years. His job is his life and he has set up an even nicer home for his wife and daughter. He never complains and works his ass off, so hearing the news that he too has been let go pushes him to the brink, unraveling the man faster than you could imagine.

The film also stars Maria "I Always Get Naked" Bello. And yes, she does. 

The Company Men is a movie all about the performances. All three men in the lead roles are amazing, each fitting their respective part perfectly. It's easy to believe Affleck is the over-confident businessman who has it all and it's even easier to picture Tommy Lee Jones as the man at the top, rugged, worn, and wiser than you think. Chris Cooper is exceptional as Phil and you feel so bad for him as the man who's worked so hard to get royally f**ked in the end. However, at first glance, you would think that these characters shouldn't be cared about, as they really are high and tight, near millionaires who have made money off of the losses and pains of other people. But, I guess that's the strength of the film because it never villainizes these characters. Even if they're "better than us", they're still human and the movie really focuses on the real struggles they face. Losing your job and even your home effects everyone and is equally embarrassing across every economic class.

This sucks, no matter who you are. 

I would definitely recommend The Company Men. It's a movie that's relevant to what's been going on in the country the last few years and gives us at look at how those on the top (who we're supposed to hate) are struggling to get by as well. It's extremely well acted and gives the film an unexpected level of talent and credibility. Written and directed by TV vet John Wells (The West Wing and ER), it's a smart very serious drama showered with bits of humor that make it all that much easier to swallow. While the lives of those focused on in the film are far from what any of us are used to, their struggles are still relatable and their pain is still hard to watch. Even then though, it's worth your time. 

The Good:

terrific performances from the entire cast, from the three main leads to each supporting character

The Bad:

being reminded that getting fired has absolutely no positive aspects to it and that family may be important, but money really, really helps

The Ugly:

seeing that everyone was hit hard by the recession, except the very, very, very, very top of big companies that keep spending all of the money, taking bonuses, raising new buildings, and going on vacations 

Overall: 7.7/10

Discussion Question:

If someone makes millions of dollars a year, lives large, but then loses his/her job, should we feel sorry for them? 

Trailer:

Nov 27: Brave

"Determined to make her own path in life, Princess Merida defies a custom that brings chaos to her kingdom. Granted one wish, Merida must rely on her bravery and her archery skills to undo a beastly curse."

Directed by: Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman, Rated: PG, 93 minutes

Pixar is falling to pieces. It's a sad fact and I hate admitting it but it's true. Ending with one of its greatest films (Toy Story 3), Pixar has seemingly came full circle and now everything afterwards is just not really worth it. Cars 2 is a disgrace and is a sequel no one but kids and merchandisers asked for. If Pixar ever showed signs of slowing down it was with Cars 2, and all hope for the animation studio regaining its composure was put into this year's Brave. Unfortunately, the film is a complete mess and doesn't feel like a Pixar classic at all. It's unimaginative, horribly paced, and probably one of the more childish movies I've seen from the studio. Brave is a generic waste of time and I am so disappointed with Pixar.

She must have so much hair in her food...

Merida (Kelly McDonald) is a young princess (because we don't have enough of those already) who's rebellious and lives her life against the grain, never wanting to do the training her mother (Emma Thompson) wants her to do and never wanting to become the queen she's destined to be. Luckily, her rather rambunctious father (Billy Connolley) allows Merida her moments of freedom and time with archery, something she's very good at. After a fight with mommy, Merida runs off into the woods and encounters a witch. She tells the hag that she wants her mother to change and the witch conjures up a little tart to present to mom that will most certainly make things a bit different around the dinner table. Unfortunately for Merida, the changes are a bit too drastic for her own good, and a curse is placed upon her mother, leaving Merida with only 48 hours to stop it before it becomes permanent.

Believe it or not, there's very little of this that actually happens in the film. 

Brave never feels like something that sprung from the minds and imaginations of the once-genius animators at Pixar. The story is the same story we've seen hundreds of times before, disguised as something just a little bit different. With lush, very realistic scenery and terrific visuals, Brave at first glance is something special. However, as the film drags on, even that luster begins to fade and you can tell what parts were given more attention than the rest. Merida's hair is rendered really well and the bright orange color contrasts well with the green of Scotland, but at times, you can tell it's the only thing that was paid attention to. A large part of the story features a bear and after the animal is introduced, it sticks out as something poorly made, and the fur on it's back looks neglected compared to Merida's fiery mane. It's a shame more attention wasn't paid to the details because once you notice one, it slowly drives you insane.

Oh my God! There's a poorly rendered bear right behind you!

If the hit and miss visuals weren't enough to scare you away, Brave lacks any imagination in the story it tries so hard to tell. The pacing is awful and jumps from family melodrama to stupid kid humor in the blink of an eye. In it's more fun moments, Brave tries to pack in as much jokes as possible, all of which are far from being THAT funny. Sure, there are a couple of chuckles in the mess, but they are far from enough to save the film. As for the actual story, there's very little originality in it and from the very beginning you can predict where it's headed. By the movie's conclusion, you feel no satisfaction as you've seen it all before and are more happy that the whole thing's over than anything else. Pixar may be owned by Disney (who's still putting itself back together), but there are few excuses to allow such mediocrity from the studio. With a streak has strong as the one it has, a film like Brave coming out of nowhere and really disappointing is almost unforgivable.

Luxor Jr. is a little dimmer these days...

Brave is a hard film to really breakdown and review. As a stand alone movie, it's above average and has technical moments worthy of praise. As a Pixar film, it's terrible and one of the worst they have made (it gives Cars a run for its money if that tells you anything). It's a movie that's completely lacking any imagination or thought and the magic we're promised in this fairy tale is almost non-existent. Our heroine is hard to root for and her actions are more careless than anything else. Very little depth is put into her and the rest of the characters and any emotion we're supposed to feel is shallow, if anything. However, I won't recommend staying away from Brave, as I know many people will see it regardless  but I will warn you that it's far from anything else we've seen from Pixar. Here's hoping that next year's Monsters University will restore some of the faith I have lost. Mike and Sully can't let me down. Right?... 

The Good:

visuals that create a vibrant world set in a very green wilderness (but has moments of blah)

The Bad:

a predictable story that does nothing new with the princess/fairy-tale story

The Ugly:

Pixar completely losing itself in the past couple of years and very little hope or signs that it's repairing itself

Overall: 6.1/10

Discussion Question:

Where does Brave rank in Pixar's filmography?

Trailer:

Guest Review- The Constant Gardener

"As some of you may know, I have a handful of writers jumping on board with me as phase 2 of The Cinematic Katzenjammer rolls out this week. In slowly introducing all of the writers, I always wanted to infuse some of their own reviews in the site, to give you a taste of what is to come. Here's Michael's review of The Constant Gardener."

Greetings movie lovers. On the solemn word of writer Ries Murphy - who is a good friend of mine - Nick Powell has generously agreed to let me graffiti his beautiful website with my review. He may not know this constitutes my first blog post ever, and as such, the dawning of a new age. Somewhere a giant block of obsidian has appeared and neanderthals are tossing bones in a rapture of evolution. Let’s hope there’s less strife this time.

Welcome to the digital age.

You know you’re watching a John le Carre mystery whenever you can hear the clock ticking on the mantelpiece. For those of you who aren't familiar with John le Carre, he wrote some of the most iconic British espionage literature of the past fifty years, which has, in turn, inspired some of the longest winded film titles of the past few decades. He wrote the novels that later became the movies Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Both movies are excellent. However, as much as I admire John le Carre and Fernando Meirelles, who also directed City of God, I had little interest in seeing this movie when I first saw the previews. It sounds awful to say it, but I will. I thought, “Oh great, another Oscar winning film about Africa.” I think a lot of people had a similar reaction, or at the very least, tossed this movie aside into the giant box of Oscar winning and foreign movies that people told them they should see. One day. After Hot Tub Time Machine.
I don’t think this reaction is a mistake and so I’ll meekly climb my soap box now. Most movies that take place in Africa run into either Scylla or Charybdis. Either they’re too timid to approach the reality of the country, and instead paint a fantasy (remember Tip of the Spear?). Or, even more obnoxiously, they lean on the problems of the country in hopes of squeezing out another Oscar before our concern packs its bags for some other third world. I was a little hesitant at first to watch The Constant Gardener because I feared that underwhelming feeling you sometimes get when an Oscar winning movie passes you by. Just as you can expect someone to tell you that you should watch it, you can count on someone to tell you why you didn't get it. The bottom line is that I wasn't willing to sacrifice my respect for either Meirelles or John le Carre.
Let me tell you now, if you ever shunted this movie aside on the suspicion that the Oscars were won before the filming, and that the reviews afterwards wore false smiles, I understand your indifference. Regardless, give this movie a second chance, despite how too-good it looks. Meirelles made a serious movie. The Constant Gardener takes a long, unblinking look at the dangerous political marriages between Africa, state aid, and humanitarianism and the resulting atrocities. It makes no shoddy claims or definitive answers and except about people.

I’ll warn you. If you take a good look at this film, it might cut you

Little did Justin know that the begonias were watching him.

Now, that being said, take my recommendation with a grain of salt. John le Carre is not for everyone and what I like about him others might detest. I remember once watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with someone who hadn't ever seen a le Carre movie. At the end I was completely transported, biting my nails; if someone on screen had dropped a tea cup I would have probably passed out. Only after the movie finished did I realize that the person I’d watched it with was dead asleep. If you’re looking for an action thriller, this probably isn't your movie. Unlike his contemporary, Ian Fleming, le Carre’s characters take their mysteries and thrills one step at a time, usually only after playing a rousing game of chess, or perhaps re-potting the begonias and sipping on a cup of earl gray. Compared to Fleming’s sheer sided, diamond compression of manhood, le Carre’s protagonists tend to look as wilted as boiled spinach. Ironically, I watched this film just after the momentous Skyfall and there were times when I caught myself expecting the main character, Justin, to break some one’s shin, or start a bike chase and instead, he got his ass kicked.

The Constant Gardener is my kind of mystery though. I find myself biting my nails when a character mutters, and holding my breath while Justin re-pots his goddamn begonias before taking tea. The tension of the movie revolves around the relationship between Justin and Tessa. Most of the time, in fact, the scenes between them are charged with more tension than when Justin is in dire peril.

This is the heart of the movie.

This formula only worked because I cared about the characters so much. I empathized with Justin - modestly able, mostly distracted, and completely thunderstruck that he had such an awesome wife. While I felt like Justin, I fell in love with Tessa, who was written so we fall in love with her. Ralph Fiennes (again in Skyfall) does a brilliant job of playing Justin by what he fails to say, and his subdued, somewhat timid reactions. Rachel Weisz, passionate, altruistic, manages to be both ambiguous and highly charming, inspiring our loyalty and trust even as we doubt her, which isn't that surprising after seeing her performance in The Fountain. I felt like Justin. I wanted to believe in the goodness of my wife. The movie by contrasting this love story with the horrors of the scheming pharmaceutical companies, had the arguably realistic effect of making worthwhile love seem an anomaly. As much as we want to believe her, how can we trust Tessa?

The Constant Gardener trades in subtleties. No questions have a single answer. The violence sinks in more deeply when its off screen and has a quality to it as final and helpless as the landscape itself. Africa is wide and desolate and red, full of persisting life, but when the violence passes you’re only left wondering as to why it happened in the first place. It unsettled me when I noticed the absence of “why” in the film, especially when there is so much death to explain. One scene will haunt me for a long time. Raiders swoop down on an isolated village. The whole thing unfolds as if rehearsed. People run and the raiders pursue, women die, children are rounded up. A man stands staring at his grass hut, now a ball of flame. The logic of the film had entered me at some point and I knew what would happen next, off screen, when the credits rolled and I left to go eat lunch. The villagers will rebuild. The grass huts will go up again and be burned away. Victories and losses in that land are written in sand. But just as the violence cannot not be explained or remedied, neither can the love. Both come from a place as wide and inexplicable as Africa.

A bleak and beautiful land.

“Some very nasty things live under rocks. Especially in foreign gardens.”

Indeed they do. Bravo.

The Good: Terrific performances by Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes in a subtle, thinking man’s thriller with deep questions.
The Bad: 
Some of the answers to those questions. Anyone planning to join the Peace Corps should not watch this movie.
The Beautiful: 
The movie pays attention to Africa as a pressing dilemma rather than a backdrop for a thriller. It’s a heavy punching movie with a lot to say about the dilemma’s of a torn country.

My score: 9.2/10

Nov 26: Big Fish

"A son tries to learn more about his dying father by reliving stories and myths he told about his life."

Directed by: Tim Burton, Rated: PG-13, 125 minutes

Tim Burton and I have a love-hate relationship. His earlier work I adore but his more recent films are absolute travesties. He's an incredibly talented filmmaker that's spiraled into awful. However, before his downfall, Burton delivered to us, in my opinion, his masterpiece with Big Fish. The film is a collection of tall tales that have twisted visions of reality and fit Burton's style and perspective brilliantly. Featuring larger than life characters, creatures, and situations, it's Burton's swan song of brilliance, incorporating everything he had become known for with dashes of added emotion. It's also worth noting that Burton's long time collaborator, Danny Elfman, also delivers one of his greatest scores to accompany the film.

Elfman even earned an Oscar nomination for the score, which is well deserved. 

In a Burton film lacking completely of Johnny Depp (that's a plus), Ewan McGregor, Billy Crudup, and Albert Finney shine. Crudup plays Will Bloom, a man that's become disconnected with his father, Ed (Finney), because of the constant larger than life stories he tells about himself, some seemingly exaggerated well past believability. Will feels his father has been lying to him his entire life with these stories, and as Ed lies on his death bed, Will feels obligated to figure out what's fact and what's fiction. In the retelling of the stories, we flashback to Ed's younger days (where he's played by McGregor) and see how he got to where he is now, how he meets the love of his life, Sanda (played by Jessica Lange and Allison Lohman), and his encounters with rather unique individuals throughout Alabama and the south.

Including a giant played by the late Matthew McGrory. Rest in peace, big fella. 

Big Fish is a beautifully colorful film that creates a fantasy world rooted in reality. With energetic and extraordinary embellishes, we see Burton burrowing into his comfort zone of the rather unusual and bizarre. However, unlike most of his films, he's pulled back to the real world more than often, and the blend of both worlds gives the film a greater strength. It's relatable and magical, something that's hard to find in a movie of this particular persuasion, and tells a story that inspires your imagination. Along with the magical qualities, Big Fish's other strengths are the performances. All three men at the core of the film are exceptional, and McGregor proves again that he's more than a likable face and is indeed a leading man and suave, gentle hero. Crudup also delivers a terrific performance as the man looking to find truth about the man he's called his dad for so long. He reminds us that he is just as talented as the rest of the cast and that deserves to be in more than what his career as ended up with. And, of course, the star of the film is the legendary Albert Finney. He's the "grandpa" we all would love to have and the over-the-top stories that come out of his mouth are never questioned, but believed immediately because of who he is.

You don't question Daddy Warbucks. 

Driven by incredible visuals and powerful performances, Big Fish is a film you cannot miss. It's Burton's final masterpiece before he loses himself along the way and he puts everything he has into it. It's just enough of his style for familiarity purposes, but focuses much more on the relationship between a father and his son than anything else. It's heart-warming and tests any ideas you have about how fully you can live life and that holding any grudges or regrets will only weigh down upon you and ruin any relationships you have. Big Fish is a tale of coming to terms with what you at first believe to be impossible and helps you realize that even if the truth may seem stretched a bit at first, there really is magic all around us.

The Good:

a focus on genuinely good storytelling, with visual beauty only strengthening it

The Better:
great performances from the entire cast, with even the smallest of roles added something special to the movie
The Best:

Tim Burton showing that he can make a movie that's not as weird as his usual outings and is much more effective

Overall: 9.0/10

Discussion Question:

Do you have any relatives that tell tall tales that are a little too hard to believe?

Trailer:

Also, as a reminder, make sure to check out The Shoes They Wear Blogathon, focusing on biopics of all varieties, even including, yes, Big Fish.

Nov 25: Life of Pi

"A young man who survives a disaster at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. While cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor ... a fearsome Bengal tiger."

Directed by: Ang Lee, Rated: PG, 127 minutes

Ang Lee has proven time after time that he's a master storyteller. Luckily for us, he is also just as incredible with a camera, and manages to bring each of his stories to life in the most beautiful ways possible. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is the film that put him on the map and a fine example of his ability to blend the dramatic and beautiful. At first, you'd think it's just a run-of-the-mill kung fu movie with swords and what not, but its story is genuine, heart-breaking, and much more complex than what you'd expect. Then Lee decided to tackle a superhero with Hulk, a movie that was confused with itself and didn't know where to go. Even then, Lee managed to tell a very dramatic story (too dramatic for a superhero) and the look of the film was still superior to most. Then came his masterpiece in Brokeback Mountain, a movie that focused solely on the relationship between two lovers with a gorgeous backdrop of the American ranch lands. What easily could have been a disaster (and parodied to death), Lee turned into something more beautiful than you could ever imagine. With this year's Life of Pi, Lee has elevated his talent to new levels, employing the use of 3D and a lot of special effects to get the job done. However, just like all of his other works, the beautiful imagery plays second fiddle to the story at the heart of the film.

Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) is a young man from Pondicherry, India who is book smart (school is boring to him) and curious about every kind of religion. He tastes each faith, looking for his favorite flavor and becomes a very well-rounded individual over time. He's not above you or me, but he's very in touch with God(s) and never loses his faith. When his family decides to move to Canada, they board a freighter carrying all of the animals from the zoo they owned, including a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker (his name was a clerical error). On its way across the Pacific, the freighter capsizes and poor Pi is left alone in a lifeboat with Richard Parker and must figure out a way to keep the beast at bay and find rescue. What unfolds is an incredible story of survival, religion, love, and the beauty and dangers of nature as well as all of creation. It's much more complex than your ordinary survival tale, but is also quite simple in the ideas behind it.

First-time actor, Suraj Sharma gives one of the better debut performances I have ever seen. He's a young man that's tested over and over again, by his family, by nature, and even the God(s) he so adores. Yet, he never gives up faith and realizes that everything happens for a reason and that he needs to accept it no matter what. Life of Pi manages to be a story about faith without ever feeling like it's forcing its ideas or beliefs in any direction. It's a simple story about a man never giving up, and the source of his hope just happens to be rooted in Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, and even a bit of Judaism. You don't need to understand any of the faiths to understand it's the driving force behind every aspect of Pi's life. Sharma manages to convey a real balance between conviction and naivety and in his actions he's never arrogant or self-righteous. He's just like anyone would be in his situation- scared, alone, and even more frustrated with his situation but manages to pull himself together to get things done, be smart about it, and survive. With Sharma on the screen for the majority of the film, he needs to be something special, and it goes without saying that he deserves a nomination for Best Actor.

Pi is a boy transformed by a tragedy and Sharma is compelling in the transition from boy to man. 

The story of Life of Pi jumps between present time (where Pi is played by Irrfan Khan), Pi's childhood, and the time he spent on the lifeboat. Even though we know that Pi survives and that his older self is the one telling the audience the story, we still fear for the boy. Danger is constantly biting at his heels, either from the harsh weather of open waters or from his partner in surviving, Richard Parker. Many bits of discussion leading up to this film was the fact that the largest part of the story, a tiger and a boy co-existing on a lifeboat, would be damn near impossible to film, at least convincingly. However, Ang Lee utilizes breath-taking special effects and visuals to not only create a real, breathing Bengal tiger, but craft beautiful paintings around the two characters for the entire film. Richard Parker never feels like an animated animal that is added to the screen to fit the story, but he becomes a real character with his own personality and even his own fears. He's the supporting cast to Sharma's titular character. Along with the tiger, the rest of the film is packed full of imagery and visuals you could only dream of. As I stated, the entire movie feels like a series of paintings and, as the audience, we're walking through the gallery as an even more beautiful story is told. Our souls, our minds, and our eyes are all gifted with amazing pictures and words and the entire film will leave you in awe. Unlike films like Avatar or Transformers, where the visuals tell the story, Life of Pi utilizes the special effects to only give a grander scale to what's unfolding on screen. Even without the imagery Life of Pi would be successful, so all the beauty we see only accentuates the story, never taking away from it.

Seriously, the entire movie looks like this and it's breath-taking. 

On a technical aspect, Life of Pi is extraordinary. It's a beauty to behold and humbles you in a way you wouldn't think a film would be able to do. It reminds you of how gorgeous nature can be and shows you that you can do a lot more with a camera than you could ever imagine. It takes you on a journey to a world you could only think of in your dreams and imagination, and then makes you realize it's that of the world we actually live in. Life of Pi is incredibly well acted and is as packed with as much emotion as possible in its 127 minute run-time. Luckily, the film never feels preachy and the delicate subject matter it treads upon is never ruined or disrespected. It raises a lot of questions about what you would not only do in a similar situation, but about how you live your life, your test of faith, and makes you value the things and people around you like never before. While it's not a life-changing experience, it's something that comes very close and shows us that there are unending stories to be told on an even more unending scale. Ang Lee presents us with a beautiful story with amazing special effects. The filmmaker takes us on a ride across oceans and existences and leaves us with the facts to decide on what to believe. 

The Good:

heart-wrenching emotion strewn with bits of humor that makes the film all the more human and relatable

The Better:

terrific visuals that make the film one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen and completely redefine any expectations I have for 3D

The Best:

incredible performances from an entire cast of mostly unknowns, with an exceptional debut performance from Suraj Sharma and a terrific outing from the always amazing Irrfan Khan

The Oscar Chances:

Nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Sharma), Best Supporting Actor (Khan), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Visual Effects, and Best Cinematography

Overall: 9.4/10

Discussion Question:

Would you have the willpower and/or the faith to survive for so long?

Trailer: