Steven Spielberg and George Lucas revolutionized the sci-fi genre in 1977 with their one-two punch of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But somewhere along the line, the films in the genre lost the battle between spectacle and character, and became all about the spectacle. In the 80's, character still managed to hold its ground. Hollywood was entering a new phase - the era of the blockbusters - but character was still king in this world. E.T., Back to the Future, Aliens and others continued the tradition of character-driven space opera for the masses. But as the genre continued to grow and develop throughout the 90's and 2000's, studios began to realize how much money could be made on science fiction films, particular ones with aliens, and their money-grubbing sentiments took over. Battle: Los Angeles. Skyline. The Transformers sequels. And before them, Stargate, Independence Day, Armageddon. Bigger! Faster! More spectacle! More pizzazz! Nowadays, most of our sci-fi films, particularly ones dealing with alien invasions, are works of grand, CGI-ridden spectacle. But somewhere along the way, the characters got lost in the shuffle. Luckily, Spielberg is still around to steer things in the right direction. And now, one if his latest protégés, J.J. Abrams, has taken the reigns...[more]...

Like many, I have been disenchanted with Woody Allen as of late – his film output over the past decade has been mediocre at best, and absolutely dismal at worst. Of course, it’s hard to expect such a prolific filmmaker such as Allen – who has been releasing one film a year since he first started making movies – to maintain such a consistently high-quality output heading into his sixth decade of filmmaking. However, right up through the end of the 90′s, it seemed like Allen was an unstoppable filmmaking force to be reckoned with. In my opinion, Allen only made two good films in the last decade – Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona – but even those films didn’t come close to matching the level of wit and brilliance of his greatest classic works. However now, in 2011 at the dawn of a new decade, Allen delivers what in my opinion is his finest film since Deconstructing Harry and destined to rank up there with his greats...[more]...

Joe Wright is one of the most interesting directors to have emerged on the scene this past decade. Pride and Prejudice was a surprisingly fresh film that injected a newfound energy into a genre that is normally quite stuffy and rigid. Atonement was one of my favorite films of the entire decade, and while The Soloist was a good-but-forgettable misstep, his two previous movies more than proved his worth as a directorial force to be reckoned with. When I heard that his fourth film was going to be an action-packed thriller starring a teenage assassin, suffice it to say that I was intrigued. I had always thought it interesting that such a young director was making such excellent period dramas, but now that I had become accustomed to that style, it was odd to see Wright revert back to a more traditional film genre for directors his age. Suffice it to say that fans of Wright will not be disappointed by this film; nor will fans of the action genre. In fact, Hanna manages to attain the rare achievement of being an artsy action film – a film that delivers both on the emotional and on the stylistic level...[more]...

It’s so fascinating to track the trajectory of the Coen brothers’ project choices over the years. Their affinity towards genre projects and their preference for comedy remains constant from project to project, but the main deciding point for them seems to be a desire to make something as completely and utterly different as possible from their previous project. Their past four films are a perfect summation of their usual choices. In 2007, they gave us No Country for Old Men, their most serious, humorless, dramatic, brooding film since Blood Simple. It was only fitting then that they would follow it up with an over-the-top star-studded black comedy farce, Burn After Reading. After working with big stars like Clooney and Pitt, they decided to strip it back down to the minimum and make a very personal, introverted comedy of wits, A Serious Man – a film with no recognizable stars and one of the Coens’ most deep, personal, philosophical, symbolic films yet. And how do they choose to follow that up? By doing the exact opposite, as they have done with every other previous project: A very straightforward, direct return to good old-fashioned classic storytelling: True Grit...[more]...

I will be the first to admit: I am a sucker for costume dramas. No matter how tepid or banal the writing, no matter how hammy the acting; lavish production value, flowing gowns and beautiful cinematography are usually enough to keep me interested. Over the years, there have been countless numbers of such productions, most of which were fairly average, but which I enjoyed just the same: The Duchess, The Young Victoria, you name it. However, my low standards only mean that when a truly great period piece comes along, it really is something spectacular. On this level, there hasn’t really been a good, lavish costume drama since Atonement three years ago. That is, until now. The King’s Speech is about as lavish as lavish period productions get. It is also one of the best films of the year. I have often spoken of the very particular balance between technical prowess and good storytelling required to make a film work. A film that has impeccable style but does not tell a well-written story is pointless. You can have all the lavish production value, costume design, lighting, camera set-ups and British thespians in the world, but without a good script, you have nothing. This applies not only to costume dramas but also to most mainstream Hollywood fare. As we see week after week, the multiplexes are plagued with very flashy, well-made films with high production value and a free hand to create beautifully shot and highly stylized fantastical...[more]...

For a year many consider to be a mediocre one for movies, 2010 has certainly been a great year for auteurs. These past 12 months have seen releases from some of the best directors working today, many of which haven’t released a new film in quite some time: from Martin Scorsese and Roman Polanski to Tim Burton, Noah Baumbach, Christopher Nolan, Oliver Stone, David Fincher, Clint Eastwood, Darren Aronofsky, Danny Boyle, Sofia Coppola, The Coen Brothers – and David O. Russell, one of the best directors to emerge from the American independent film scene in the 90’s, and someone who hasn’t released a new film since 2004’s I Heart Huckabees. Like many of his contemporaries, Russell has undergone a change over the last few years: a shift from quirky indie filmmaking to more mainstream fare, while still retaining that indie touch. The Fighter, his latest work, is an indie film disguised as a mainstream crowd-pleaser. And it features elements from both worlds, for better or worse...[more]...

Somebody once said that filmmaking is like opening a restaurant: In order for it to be successful, you need a group of people to collaborate and work together in order to create something that works. Each team member is good at their particular area of expertise: one handles the business end, one designs the restaurant, one handles customer service; on the creative end, the chef, the sauté, the fry cook, the desert chef… they all need to work together in order to create something good; everyone brings something to the table. A film requires a similar balance in order to be successful. The screenwriter needs to work with the director, the director with the technical crew, the producer with the director and with the distributors… without this equilibrium, a film cannot succeed. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Sometimes, a director will come along who is so distinct and thorough and talented at his craft, that he can take something that could be mediocre and makes it into something spectacular. I believe that Darren Aronofsky is one of those directors, and furthermore, is hands down one of the finest directors to emerge in recent film history. And Black Swan is one of his most fascinating films...[more]...

Movie structure is an elusive and very difficult thing to grasp, and for screenwriters, I feel like it often proves to be one of the most difficult things to do correctly. As if interesting characters and a gripping story aren’t enough, scripts must also have a coherent narrative structure, one that constantly propels the plot forward. Say what you will about the terrible dreck that comes out of Hollywood these days; at least those writers know how to stick to the three act structure. I admire when directors try to take risks and change things up a bit, but I also think that it’s a true testament to the difficulty of crafting a coherent structure when even risk-taking indie directors have trouble getting it just right. Take Danny Boyle. One of the great risk-takers of our time: he has dabbled in an impressively eclectic multitude of genres and has generated really interesting work in all of them: Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and Sunshine are the highlights of his career, and I think that Slumdog Millionaire and even The Beach are very interesting films in their own unique ways. Boyle’s directing style is slick and unique; his use of digital photography is special, his films’ pace, editing, and shot choice create a highly stylized and very distinct feel, and his soundtracks are usually top notch. However, if there’s one thing that I think Boyle has never really managed to grasp, it’s structure. His films always seem to fall apart...[more]...

I just want to get this out there right away: When I first heard about it, I had very little faith in this project. I was stupefied, confused by the thought of what attracted all this talent to this seemingly trivial story to begin with? Why would David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin possibly be interested in the story of the founding of Facebook? Surely they could have found something more important, more meaningful to apply their efforts to. After seeing the film, though, I realized that, of course, Fincher and Sorkin knew what they were doing all along. And furthermore that labeling this as “The Facebook movie” is really an insult to what Sorkin and Fincher were trying to and have succeeded in achieving with this film...[more]...

Thank god for independent film. After this truly dismal summer, I was just about ready to give up. The Hollywood studios continue to bombard us with over-saturated, computer-generated imagery with grand, operatic set pieces and sequences so over-the-top, we can’t help but sit in awe and wonder how we got to the point at which this schlock passes as entertainment. Out of the dozens of Studio films released this summer, only two genuinely engaged me as a viewer, and provided me with something more than just flashes and bangs – for the record, those films are Toy Story 3 and Inception. But if one is interested in real, human drama that is genuinely funny but also touching – not to mention even remotely based on reality – one has to look beneath the studio system, or at least, in between its cracks, where the thriving independent film community continues to produce the best and most engaging films out there, as it has consistently managed to do for the past 20 years...[more]...

Are movies an art form, or are they nothing more than an entertainment, a product? This is the eternal argument that has been the driving force behind almost all film-related discussions over the past century. Especially in the past 30 or so years since the late 1970’s, when a group of filmmakers who set out with one very simple goal – to make films that would be entertaining and enjoyable for the masses, and not just for the thinking elite – essentially created the “blockbuster”. Films like Jaws, Star Wars and E.T. made so much more money – and so much faster – than any other movie before them; moviemaking would never be the same again, and after the artistic breakthrough of the “New Hollywood” auteurs of the 70’s, Hollywood reverted to its old self: a money-driven industry that puts out a product, sells that product, and makes a profit. Except this time around, post-70’s, Warner Bros, Paramount and Universal were no longer just film studios, but small parts of massive media conglomerates interested in bottom lines, gross revenue, stock value, and other such corporate concerns. For the past 30 years, the divide between “arthouse” cinema and “mainstream” got bigger and wider. But every once in a while, an exception would come along: That rare hybrid between an unabashed action-driven piece of entertainment and a complex, thought-provoking “art” film. Inception is just that – a deep, intricate, philosophical study of the nature of dreams...[more]...

I’ve been reviewing movies for nearly seven years now, since late 2003. And every year, consistently, the review I look most forward to writing is the annual Pixar release. It’s become somewhat of a tradition for me to start off my Pixar reviews with the same sentence, and so here it is again, as it appeared in my reviews for The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up: Pixar never cease to amaze me. You’d think that by now, I of all people would take Pixar’s incomparable, inconceivable streak of quality for granted. And yet, the fact that the earlier statement remains relevant with each subsequent release is just further proof of just how daring and unafraid of taking risks this movie studio still is. After Disney’s buy-out of Pixar, the Mouse House backed down from their threats to produce a direct-to-DVD threequel to Toy Story without Pixar’s consent. It was a risky move on Pixar’s part to re-initiate the project and go forward with the film, considering what was at stake. Toy Story is and remains Pixar’s most popular and recognizable brand – it was their first film, a milestone in modern animation, the film that put them on the map, not to mention their only movie with a sequel (so far). Suffice to say that expectations were high, with legions of twenty-somethings hoping, praying that Pixar would do justice to the films they grew up on as children. I belong to this group, and...[more]...

Oh, the inexorable curse that is the movie sequel. It’s hard enough to get audiences to invest in and identify with movie characters, but it’s even more difficult to keep audiences satisfied once those characters are already established and introduced. A sequel is always difficult to pull off because after the first film, audiences automatically form their own assumptions and ideas as to where the characters and the story should logically go to follow the first film. And with a movie like Iron Man, this task’s difficult was increased tenfold considering the overwhelmingly positive response generated by that first film upon its release. Many people were surprised when the movie came out two years ago and was fresh, funny, well-made, action-packed, irrefutably entertaining and featured a fascinating and sympathetic main character anchored by Robert Downey, Jr.’s irresistibly energetic and charismatic performance. The film was a huge box office success and single-handedly transformed Downey, Jr. from a washed-up drug-addicted ex-actor to a blockbuster superstar. It is obvious that much of what made the first film so successful was that audiences and critics had no expectations going in. It was not an established franchise, nobody was fully sold on the lead actor and the director, and consequently, nobody knew what to expect. Suffice it to say, though, that expectations for the sequel were very high thanks to the success of the first film. Luckily, for the most part, Iron Man 2 more than delivers on...[more]...

There is a curious bond between film and fashion design: both are fundamentally visual art forms. Before the addition of sound in the late 1920’s, motion pictures were just that: moving images, pure visuals in essence. Unlike in novels or plays, the film medium forced artists to tell their stories visually, and to use words sparingly. In a similar manner, fashion design can also tell stories, although the types of stories woven into clothes are far more abstract than the more straightforward plots of films. Another element that ties the two together is that both filmmaking and fashion design are worlds in which art is directly tied with profit making: no matter how strong or deep the artistic ambitions of the work, at the end of the day, your goal is to sell tickets/clothes. This commercial element separates both film and fashion design from the other fine art forms. And what better a marriage of these two worlds than to have an established fashion designer direct a motion picture...[more]...

Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest directors to have ever emerged in the history of film, and it is a joyous miracle that such a legend is still working today. Not only that, but these last few years Scorsese has really reached the peak of his career: he finally won an Oscar and his last few movies have been the most financially successful of his entire career. As a direct result of his legendary status and lengthy career, Scorsese has definitely earned the right to make whatever movies he wants to – If he shot excrement for an hour-and-a-half I would probably watch it. Luckily for us, though, his advanced years and many films, some of which are masterpieces of modern cinema, have not hampered or decreased the quality of his filmmaking in any way – in fact, his last few films were made with uncharacteristic energy and vitality for a director nearing his 70th birthday. His latest film, Shutter Island – his first narrative feature since his Oscar win for The Departed four years ago – is perhaps a bit of a departure from his usual fare and style. But it is still undeniably a Scorsese picture, as it transcends its genre and features many of the characteristics that identify his previous films. It’s just a little harder to find them this time...[more]...

What makes a good director? What does an auteur need to do in order to prove his worth? Does he need to show a clear and personal cinematic voice throughout his body of work, discus common themes and employ a distinct and unique visual style? Or is a mere knack at making good movies without any common themes or distinct voice enough? There is no correct answer to this question, as every lover of film has his or her own elements that he or she looks for in a director. That said, I think it is safe to say that, no matter which way you look at it, Peter Jackson has definitely proven himself to be a good director. He is responsible for the greatest cinematic achievement of the decade and one of the greatest of all time, not only managing to film the un-filmable trilogy of novels, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, but also delivering three absolutely incredible films in the process. But Jackson had already proven his worth, at least to me, before The Fellowship of the Ring debuted in December 2001. He showcased a distinct and unique style on his early, low-budget horror films and spoofs, but also showed a steady hand and clear vision with Heavenly Creatures, his first foray into more dramatic and real-world-based material. The Frighteners and King Kong were also both very different but very unique and enjoyable works of entertainment. All of the...[more]...

Although he's only made three films and has only been active for the past half a decade, it really feels like Jason Reitman is finally getting his due, as if he has been around for years and only now is starting to be taken seriously. Sometimes, success is immediate and actually just becomes hard to live up to – like in the case of Quentin Tarantino, or George Lucas who both burst onto the movie scene with much loved and well-received debuts. But every once in a while, there will be a case in which a director will produce a number of films and be active for years before he receives and sort of mainstream or industry recognition. Paul Thomas Anderson had four movies under his belt before he brought the world There Will Be Blood in 2007, and along with it critical praise, box office success and a whole pile of awards and nominations. It took Clint Eastwood two whole decades before he was finally recognized as a definite talent when he unleashed Unforgiven in 1992. And just this year Katheryn Bigelow, after a potent career spanning three decades, is finally getting her due thanks to The Hurt Locker. Darren Aronofsky and Christopher Nolan are the two prominent names that come up in discussions of new directorial talent that has emerged during and truly been a product of the last decade, but now, as it nears its close and a new decade is upon us, I think...[more]...

I was too young to notice what was going on when Titanic came out in 1997 (though I did see it in theatres, with my mother no less – imagine how embarrassing sitting through some of the scenes was), but from what I gather in retrospect, the build-up leading into that film was very similar to the pattern James Cameron’s latest film and his first since that historical epic, Avatar, is following. The months leading up to both films’ releases were marked with similar skepticism: Skepticism that Cameron would live up to the hype and build-up surrounding the film. Skepticism that Cameron would actually manage to “push the envelope” as he had been promising to do on both films. Skepticism that his bloated budget – in both cases the most money spent on a film at the time – would be worth the investment in the end. Titanic came out and its wave of success took it right through to the middle of the following year, cumulating in no less than 11 Oscars and the biggest box office gross in history. Now, Avatar is in its second week, and it is showing no signs of slowing down. It is also remarkable to see that, once again, Cameron has promised so much, and delivered on every point to a T...[more]...

For the past decade or so, Clint Eastwood has had one of the most consistently high-quality outputs out of any director working today – and aside from Robert Altman and maybe one or two more earlier in the decade, he is also the oldest one of the bunch. It was an absolute treat to see a director reach the twilight of his career and bloom with the vitality and energy of a young director just getting his big break. Eastwood’s films this past decade have been big, potent epics of emotion, from the Shakespearian characters in Mystic River to the down-and-dirty determinists in Million Dollar Baby to the subtle honor of the stars of Letters from Iwo Jima. Eastwood was always so careful in selecting his powerful, dramatic subjects over the past few years – which is why the vanilla-coated glossiness of Invictus seems completely out of place in his oeuvre...[more]...

The Coen brothers never cease to amaze me. It’s just incredible and wonderful to see a directorial duo with such a distinct and unique cinematic voice, yet who still manage to re-invent themselves with every subsequent film. Just these past three years they went from a gritty, dark, dramatic crime-thriller (“No Country for Old Men”), the likes of which they hadn’t made since their first film in 1984, “Blood Simple” (“Fargo” was injected with far more humor than the two aforementioned films), to a hilarious, over-the-top espionage spoof comedy with an all-star cast (“Burn After Reading”), to their latest, “A Serious Man”; a deeply personal and philosophical family dramedy lacking both in recognizable film stars and in murder plots or any of a wide assortment of other genre filmmaking staples that have characterized the Coen’s oeuvre throughout their careers. It is really the only film of theirs I can think of that isn’t overly stylized and actually attempts to exist in the real world, although it is obviously a skewed version of the world as seen through the Coen brothers’ eyes; so many elements come into play during the film, from their own childhood memories of being on the verge of adolescence in the suburban Northwest in 1970, to their Judaism and what that faith meant to them then, and now. And due to all this content and subtext, ideas and themes, the film also becomes what may be their most cerebral one yet...[more]...