Movie Review Sunday

Contagion – 2011 (PG-13)

Netflix says: Steven Soderbergh steers big stars through this big-screen disaster-thriller about a global team of doctors tasked with tamping down a deadly outbreak of infectious disease before it annihilates mankind.

Matt says: Star-studded disaster films are nothing new, having their heyday in the ‘70s and popping up their ugly heads every once in a while since then. “Contagion” is another one of those films that follows a disaster from the beginning to the breaking point. What makes it stand out from films such as “The Poseidon Adventure” or “The Towering Inferno”, is that it’s an extremely realistic look at an outbreak of a deadly virus that could potentially cause the deaths of a large portion of the human population. Think a slow, in depth beginning of Stephen King’s “The Stand”. It’s a frightening concept, but also an overly ambitious one to put to a film. In a project like this, in order to capture the scale, things need to be less personal and focus solely on events. But, that takes the drama and emotion from the film… and who wants to watch a movie in which you can’t really empathize with any character? So, the move picks a handful of players in the drama to focus on, which in turn takes away from the scale. It’s a Catch-22 that never pans out. Even the central messages of the politics, red tape, and nasty human nature behind a global disaster feel small. The movie is well made in all aspects, but it never fully accomplishes its task. Like I said, it’s scary to think of, but maybe a novel or mini-series would make a stronger impact. 3 stars.

The Rum Dairy – 2011 (R)

Netflix says: Eager to flee his humdrum life in 1950s New York, booze-loving journalist Paul (Johnny Depp) moves to Puerto Rico and begins writing for a local rag, but his life becomes unhinged when he falls for a gorgeous woman (Amber Heard) and clashes with her shifty fiancé (Aaron Eckhart). Written and directed by Bruce Robinson, this adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's early novel also stars Richard Jenkins as Paul's editor.

Matt says: Depp is like a stray puppy: once exposed to something that he enjoys, he sticks with it no matter how much it abuses him. How many movies has he done with Tim Burton? And he has, what, four “Pirates” movies with Disney under his belt (and a 5th coming)? As that curious puppy, he clung to Hunter S. Thompson after meeting him while researching his role playing him in “Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas”. In fact, they became pretty good friends. In “Fear and Loathing”, Depp (with Gilliam’s excellent direction) became Thompson. Since it was a moderate success, I guess someone somewhere thought it would be a good idea to adapt “The Rum Dairy” to film and have Depp somewhat reprise his role (as a “Thompson-like character created by Thompson”)… and it almost works. The thing that made “Fear and Loathing” shine was the lack of morals, the balls out insanity, and the lack of any fuck given. Sure, Depp pulls out all the stops and delves deep into his role… but with fucks given, Depp’s character becomes hinged and hindered. Thompson’s voice is still here, and his quest for the American dream, it’s just young and naive. It’s hard to explain, but due to the narrative and character building, this feels like Thompson was mirroring a different author (Steinbeck comes instantly to mind, not just with the middle-aged self discovery, but the alcoholism) as many young novelists do. It’s not bad, but don’t expect a typical balls-out Thompson drug fueled trip. It’s all there, just restrained. If you can depart from the way this was advertised, you may find a decent story like I did. I wasn’t blown away, but I was spoiled by better. 3 1/2 stars.

The Myth of the American Sleepover – 2010 (NR)

Netflix says: Facing personal and interpersonal crossroads on the last night of summer vacation, four high school friends wander the streets of suburban Detroit, each taking the first tentative steps into the world of adulthood in this thought-provoking drama.

Matt says: “The Myth Of The American Sleepover” makes the same mistakes as most modern indies flicks. It starts off as a charming film about middle school/early high school students and their neurotic (and insecure) naivety when it comes to life, relationships, and being comfortable with themselves. Unfortunately it degrades into a stiff performances of brooding teen angst with no real sense of purpose. It seems like a typical coming of age movie, and although the central players do learn a little about themselves, the lack of any change of pitch in their voices or sign of life in their frozen faces detracts from the movie’s central themes. Think “Twilight” meets “Dazed and Confused”… without the vampires and werewolves of “Twilight” or the fun, comedy, and heart of “Dazed and Confused”. What’s left is not bad, but not good. That it takes place roughly in the time of my own development (though it’s never mentioned, it appears to be late 80s or early 90s due to several visual cues) makes the lack of emotion that much more disappointing. It’s also painful when a modern indie song comes on during a supposed period piece, droning monotone indie musings instead of a song of the times (they do mock the music of the era with copyright free imitations, but not for the seminal moments… only for one-off nostalgia scenes). This could have been the next “Dazed and Confused” updated for my generation, but instead ended up trying too hard and failing due to it. Maybe it was budget related or not… but next time, Mitchell, don’t cater to modern audiences. Modern audiences give less of a shit about your childhood than someone your age (like me). You alienated all of us by trying to please both. 2 stars.

Everything Must Go – 2011 (R)

Netflix says: Director-writer Dan Rush makes his film debut with this dramedy based on a Raymond Carver short story about Nick (Will Ferrell), a good-hearted but relapsed alcoholic who decides to live on his front lawn after losing his job and being thrown out by his wife.

Matt says: Will Ferrell has two distinct acting styles: one is the over-the-top caricature and the other is the straight-yet-humorous every man. As much as I enjoy him being outrageous, I enjoy when he plays it straight much more. In this he plays the role with so much heart and intensity that it is his truest role to date. It’s funny, but not hilariously so. In fact, this tends to fall more into the drama category than the comedy one. Ferrell’s character is hurt, flawed, sad, and very real. It’s easy to relate to his problems, even if you have never experienced them, as we all have imagined what would happen in situations such as his. It’s the same as watching a reality show about a person arrested for a petty crime and being thrown into jail with hardened criminals. We know that there’s a possibility of something like that happening to us if we fuck up bad enough, so we choose to walk the straight path. Ferrell’s character makes one too many mistakes and ends up in an adult nightmare of red tape, rejection, poverty, and loneliness. Yet, he does what most of us would do in that situation and that’s what pulls the viewer in. It’s not a great movie (it can lag at times), but it’s entertaining and short enough to keep you engaged. Life can bring you down, it can crap on you, and then it can rain a shit storm on you. We all dread the shit storm, and it can feel unbearable, but life goes on and, if you have a good head on your shoulders, you have to remember that you won’t stay at the bottom forever. 3 1/2 stars.

The Tree Of Life – 2011 (PG-13)

Netflix says: Brad Pitt and Sean Penn star in Terrence Malick's 1950s adventure about a confused man named Jack, who sets off on a journey to understand the true nature of the world. Growing up in the Midwest with two brothers, Jack has always been torn between his mother's guidance to approach everything he encounters with an open heart and his father's advice to look after his own interests. Now, Jack must find a way to regain purpose and perspective.

Matt says: “The Tree Of Life” is the kind of independent film that everyone loves except for the audience. It’s an overly pretentious film that tries too hard to be high art. It has whispering voice-overs musing about “life” over tight shots of rain, feet in rain, car tires in rain, and people staring out at something off camera (probably rain). I got 25 minutes into the film and no on-screen actor had spoken yet… it was all voice-overs. In fact, no one really did anything but pose as the whispers rambled nonsensical musings. I’m sure everyone involved felt they were making something important, and maybe it does end up with the viewer feeling enriched and wanting to be a better person, but I couldn’t make it that far. Look, I have a full time job, school three hours a night three times a week (not counting transportation on public transit), homework, and I’m currently looking for an apartment; if something doesn’t interest me in the first half an hour, it’s turned off. If you have trouble sleeping, I recommend this as it really is a boring, boring movie… at least the part I made it through. I originally rented this as it was getting Oscar nods. Serves me right for buying into the hype. That this is up for “Best Picture” and “Drive” was almost completely ignored by The Academy is a crime and a shame. I can’t even grade this one because I never got far enough. So: ??? stars. (If anyone does sit through the whole thing and wants to have their complete viewing review posted here… e-mail your review to me at moviereviewsunday@gmail.com. I would love a guest review of this and will give you full credit.).

Hesher – 2010 (R)

Netflix says: Struggling to accept the death of his mother, T.J. (Devin Brochu) befriends Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a twentysomething misfit who becomes both a mentor and a bad influence on the lost and awkward teen. Hesher soon invites himself to live with T.J. and his self-medicating dad (Rainn Wilson). Their bizarre relationship is tested when T.J. develops a crush on a supermarket checkout girl (Natalie Portman) who rescues him from a gang of bullies.

Matt says: Amusing indie flick will strike a chord with anyone who grew up in a suburban US in the early 1990s. Everyone knew someone like Hesher then, whether directly or indirectly. Gordon-Levitt is becoming quite the notable actor of late and in this he fully absorbs himself in the role, proving his mantle once again. Wilson is at his best where he’s most comfortable, in quirky independent movies with a little edge. And Portman is as sexy, talented, and wonderful as ever. Overall, a fun movie with some dark tones that equally elicits laughs as well as tugs at your heart (as well as has one of the best elegies I’ve seen on film). It’s an unlikely friendship, but there have been stranger real and fictional relationships than a 20 something metal head and a 15 year old kid. 4 stars.

Another Earth –2011 (PG-13)

Netflix says: After a strange Earth-like planet is discovered, astrophysics student Rhoda accidentally slams her car into the vehicle of John, killing his family. In time, Rhoda and John begin an unlikely romance, but Rhoda begins to wonder about the other planet.

Matt says: Notice how I left the “Science Fiction” tag off of this? That’s because the Sci-Fi elements are barely there. “Another Earth” bait-and-switches from the proposed idea to a drama that’s one step up from a Lifetime Channel movie-of-the-week. Ok, so maybe it’s not that bad of a drama, but I felt totally duped into renting this which sullied any chance I would give it normally. Look, you have this wonderful idea of another Earth coming into existence and (Spoiler Alert) the inhabitants live parallel to our lives. Work with that! I really didn’t expect or want an indie drama with awful amateurish camera shots and angles (you know, the typical indie shit: the main character’s eyes in the side view mirror, standing naked in the snow, etc, etc, etc). I saw potential in this in a few tense scenes of Science Fiction, but if I wanted to see a love story/self examining drama, I would’ve actively pursued renting one instead of a movie that’s supposed to be Sci-Fi. 2 1/2 stars.

Shock Corridor – 1963 (UR)

Netflix says: Ambitious reporter Johnny (Peter Breck) wants to win a Pulitzer Prize by solving a murder that was committed in an insane asylum and witnessed by only three inmates, from whom the police have been unable to extract anything about the case. With the help of a psychiatrist and his girlfriend, Johnny succeeds in getting committed to the asylum, where he tracks down the witnesses and is slowly driven insane himself.

Matt says: “Shock Corridor” takes big chances with racism, insanity, and exploitation for the era in which it was filmed. Unfortunately, due to modern film goers being jaded by movies with twist endings and inundated with uncertainty about what is perceived as “real” in a film, having a solid character driven story without a big “tada!” at the climax ends up feeling a little weak when viewed today. I think it loses the bulk of its effectiveness mostly because the film adaption of “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” borrowed so liberally from it. “Shock Corridor” works well as a historical piece; it’s interesting to watch and pick out the influences it had on later films. Other than that, there is not much of a mystery and that sullies its impact. You have the whole plot in the Netflix description, so if it sounds like something you’d like to see, you may still enjoy it. 3 1/2 stars.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring – 2004 (PG-13)

Netflix says: Under the vigilant eyes of Old Monk (Yeong-su Oh), Child Monk (Jong-ho Kim) learns a hard lesson about the nature of sorrow when his childish games turn cruel in a story that's divided into five segments, with each season representing a stage in a man's life. This exquisitely filmed drama directed by Ki-duk Kim is entirely set on and around a tree-lined lake, where a tiny Buddhist monastery floats on a raft amidst a breathtaking landscape.

Matt says: I first saw this 6 years ago when my indie theater loving friend/roommate wanted to go see it. She didn’t like it too much and I thought it was well made but slow. Neither of us was impressed. Fast forward to now and I have had more than a share of exposure to Zen Buddhism, through both school and visiting monasteries and temples. With that knowledge, I now see that “Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring” captures the Zen Buddhist mindset perfectly. It’s a quiet film, with only about 5 minutes of dialog within the 90+ min running time. It’s also very beautifully shot in one of the most serene locations on the planet. The film follows the lessons that go with Buddhist training through several stories of a young monk’s transition into adulthood. Without trying to give too much away; he learns compassion, the dangers of desire, discipline, penance, and eventually… well, best to leave the ending one for your own interpretation. His teacher is the ideal monk: an educator, a mentor, a disciplinarian, but also lets the boy learn the lessons for himself. There’s a little humor, but mostly it’s a sad, poignant tale… but then again, so is being trapped in samsara, so it’s fittingly so. My experience was benefited by knowledge of Buddhism, so those without may miss some of the subtleties (“Is that a statue of Avalokiteśvara??? Cool!”), but it is still a fine, deep film that anyone can enjoy picking the symbolism out of. Netflix mislabeled this as being rated “R”. The disc I saw said it was rated “PG-13” and contained nothing more risqué than simulated love making and the male lead’s bare bottom… just in case you look it up on Netflix and wonder why it is labeled as rated “R”. Either way, it gets 5 stars in my book.

Blood Simple – 1984 (R)

Netflix says: In a jealous rage, Texas tavern owner Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya) hires unscrupulous private detective Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh) to not only tail Marty's two-timing spouse, Abby (Frances McDormand, in her big-screen debut), but also murder her and her bar-keeping paramour (John Getz). Events take a surprising turn, however, when the gumshoe double-crosses his client. Joel Coen directs this stylish shocker co-written with brother Ethan Coen.

Matt says: The Coen brothers are one of my favorites. Each movie they do is unique in its own way. Yet, there’s always their love of flawed, human small town characters peppered within each film. This is their first flick, and although it’s nothing too remarkable, many of their signatures are there (violence begets violence, the violence is performed with no musical soundtrack which makes it feel more realistic, slow scenery shots, the aforementioned realistic characters, etc). It’s also Frances McDormand’s first film and she shows her future star power with a very solid performance. It’s gritty, but a bit contrived… there’s no mystery to the mystery; it’s just bad people doing bad things to each other. This is also one of their purely serious movies, which I find to be their weakest genre. The Coens are their best when they toss symbolism and absurdity in to their films. In this, there is no dark humor to lighten the violence like in “Fargo” or “Burn After Reading” and everything is at a surface level. It’s a gripping film for what it is, and I’m glad I finally watched it, but they’ve grown much better since this. 3 1/2 stars.

Indecent Proposal – 1993 (R)

Netflix says: Talk about expensive dates! Billionaire Robert Redford pays for a doozy when, for a cool $1 million, he proposes to a very married Demi Moore that they spend a single night together. Moore's husband (Woody Harrelson) is a cash-strapped, down-on-his-luck architect who could use the dough to keep their beach house from defaulting to the bank. Will she, or won't she?

Matt says: You know how sometimes you’ll catch a movie or TV show from the ‘40s or ‘50s that didn’t age well? At the time, it was probably regarded as mediocre and forgettable. Yet, when you catch it, the awful dialog and hammy acting invokes a cheesy glee; you can’t turn away from the train wreck and love every minute of it. That’s “Indecent Proposal”. It is an awful movie, don’t get me wrong, but everything about it (from horrendous voice overs and teased up hair, to the melodramatic music, the slapped together feel, and everything in between) culminate into one of those fun experiences. I actually quite enjoyed how bad it was. Just when you start to think it can’t get any worse, it jumps into a light rock backed soft sex scene or Redford mugs for the camera and everything is ok with the world. The DVD was devoid of anything but the film, and understandably so… I could never see this getting the special edition treatment. Still, even though it’s completely horrible, it’s a good time. Some things to make it more enjoyable: look for the flashback scene with the worst wigs this side of a low rent drag show, Billy Bob Thornton before he was famous, and a little game I like to play called “count the cliché” in were you see how many movie stereotypes and clichés you can count (not just plot, but characterizations, set pieces, anything). My fun exceeded the rating I’m giving it, but I have to be honest in the score. Oh, and its worst crime? That the simple premise (guy offers 1mil for a night with a woman) is padded out to two epic hours. Really guys? 1 1/2 stars.

Drive – 2011 (R)

Netflix says: In this thriller, Driver, a Hollywood stuntman who moonlights as a getaway driver, is lured from his isolated life by a lovely neighbor and her young son. His newfound peace is shattered, however, when her violent husband is released from prison.

Matt says: The distributers dropped the ball big time on this one. I’m sure many of you have seen the ad billing this as a “The Transporter” or other Jason Statham adrenaline thrill-ride. Well, the movie is nothing like that. What it really is is a gripping drama that slowly builds characterizations and unfolds into a stimulating violent thriller. Much like “Taxi Driver”,“A History of Violence”, “The Professional”, and “Manhunter”, “Drive” is a slow burner. Also like those films, it’s necessary for its slowness in order raise the impact of the violence when it happens… and it does happen, in realistic and often extreme ways. This is a film for cinephiles; it’s an homage to the drama/thrillers of the 70s and 80s that used subtlety and viewers’ imaginations to put the pieces together. The cast is quite good, with Gosling saying more with a look than with dialog… and that is more often than not (he’s practically mute throughout most of the movie). If you want an artistic thriller, go see “Drive”, preferably in the theater so filmmakers know to make more films like this. It’s not the popcorn chase movie you were expecting, but it pays off big if you have patience. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this get a “best screenplay”, “best cinematography”, or “best supporting actor” Oscar nod. 4 stars.

Life During Wartime – 2009 (R)

Netflix says: Filmmaker Todd Solondz revisits his Happiness characters in this tale about three sisters, Trish (Allison Janney) and Joy (Shirley Henderson), each married to degenerate men, and estranged Helen (Ally Sheedy), as they ponder the virtues of forgiving and forgetting. As Joy visits Trish to escape problems with her perverted, druggy husband, Trish is unaware that her own ex-husband, a pedophile whom she's claimed is dead, is now out of prison.

Matt says: Did Todd Solondz need to make a sequel to his masterpiece “Happiness”? No. No he didn’t. Did it work as a movie? I would say it did, but just barely. Different actors and actresses play the parts, and it’s interesting seeing what happened to these fucked up people 6-7 years later, but the theme remains somewhat the same and that weakens this as a stand-alone venture. “Happiness” worked so well because it delved deep into the the hidden desires we all think will make us happy, but which are really harmful, criminal, or sociopathic. In “Life During Wartime”, the characters still aren’t happy and they seem to be still looking for something, yet instead of “knowing” what they think makes them happy and partaking in emotionally devastating behavior, they are flying blind on a rocket cycle. It’s still a Solondz film, so expect uncomfortable dialog that will make you squirm in your seat and exploration of taboo topics... but it’s nothing new. The cast is truly wonderful, taking the mannerisms of the original characters with little fault, yet making them their own as well. If you are a big fan of “Happiness”, I would recommend checking this out just for curiosity's sake. For those wondering about Solondz and are unfamiliar with his works, I would put this at the bottom of the list and say to rent “Welcome to the Dollhouse” and “Happiness” first. If you still want to explore his warped mind after those, then pick up the rest of his catalog, still keeping this one for last. 3 stars.

Terms of Endearment – 1983 (PG)

Netflix says: James L. Brooks directs this Academy Award-winning drama that follows widowed Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and her daughter, Emma (Debra Winger), through the years as they support each other through relationships with various men -- and deal with heartbreaking tragedy. This warm, offbeat adaptation of Larry McMurtry's novel won five Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actress (MacLaine), Best Director and Best Supporting Actor (Jack Nicholson).

Matt says: Continuing my summer of movie suggestions: "Terms of Endearment" suggested by Debbie Markel.

This is one of those movies like “Thelma and Louise”: it’s a chick flick first and foremost, but because it is extremely well made (with a more than competent cast and crew) it actually is a pretty good movie. James L.Brooks had a lot of practice with getting real comedic/dramatic performances from people with years and years directing comedic/dramatic sitcoms (and he’s still going). With brilliant actors and actresses such as Winger, MacLaine, and Nicholson, he need not try very hard to get their best performances; it’s second nature for them (this did win five Oscars for a reason). This meeting of great minds, along with a decent script, culminates into a movie that works. Even though I could care less about some lady and her daughter and their lives, loves, and losses (yawn!), I can appreciate a well made film. Not the content I prefer watching, but a decent movie for what it is… and no, I didn’t cry. 3 1/2 stars.

Fried Green Tomatoes – 1991 (NR)

Netflix says: In this adaptation of Fanny Flagg's novel, flashbacks reveal the remarkable and mysterious story of soul mates Idgie (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Ruth Jamison (Mary-Louise Parker), whose antics cause an uproar in their rural Southern town during the 1920s. Feisty Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy) tells the tale to a repressed Alabama housewife (Kathy Bates), who becomes obsessed with Idgie and Ruth, and ultimately finds inspiration in their story.

Matt says: Continuing my summer of movie suggestions: "Fried Green Tomatoes" suggested by Debbie Markel.

Poignant and touching film brings inspiration and the true meaning of friendship through laugher and tears and will have you too standing up and shouting “Towanda!” as your female empowering mantra! That’s what I would say if I had a vagina. I don’t, so therefore I hated every minute of this. Not the emotional female bond of the main characters that borders on lesbianism, I can take that with a grain of salt (see my “Thelma & Louise” review), but that it just isn’t a good movie. It’s a mess of clichéd stereotypes and patronizingly predicable from the first scene. Worst of all, you’ll notice that it says “NR (not rated)” as the rating. That’s right… Netflix was kind enough to send me the “Unrated Extended Edition: With extra Fried Green footage!”. Thanks Netflix! The cast does the best with the roles given to them, but my god is it fucking awful. Keep in mind this was written by the woman on “Match Game” who wore the awful sweaters. Ok… now, you may think I’m being overly cruel because I tend to go for guy flicks. Let’s play a game and I’ll prove my point. Imagine a movie about women in the south in the 20s. Now, picture all the stereotypical situations you can. I’ll wait…… Ok, done? 9 out of 10 of you will have come up with “racism”, “abusive husband”, and “someone getting sick and dying”. There you go, you just saw “Fried Green Tomatoes”. So, if you want to see a menopausal Kathy Bates talk about not being able to deal with her vagina, and then watch her take 2 hours and 15 minutes to figure out what the audience realizes in the first 5 minutes of the movie, rent this. If you want to see a good movie with all the same elements (that were obviously ripped off by “Fried Green Tomatoes”), rent “The Color Purple”… if not for excellent performances and a better story, then to see Oprah get beaten retarded and the scene of her peeing in her Sunday best (gloriously lengthened to 10 minutes here). As for “Fried Green Tomatoes”? It gets 1 1/2 stars… the 1/2 star is actually because, and I shit you not, on this “overcome your role as the complacent woman and stand up for yourself movie” DVD, they include a bunch of southern cooking recipes! Hahaha!!!! Yeah, enjoy your “Towanda!” revolution while you fry me up some fried chicken in the kitchen, woman!

To Be King – 2011 (PG-13)

Netflix says: This is on a festival run, so it’s not on Netflix yet. Here’s what IMDB.com says: “To Be King is the story of down and out son of a professional boxer, Tyrone King, who loses his family and is plagued with setbacks but finds redemption in his life to move on. He crosses paths with the man who trained his father and the man who lead his father to his death in the underground fighting world. King finds faith in himself to stand up, fall in love and against all odds become a champion.”

Matt says: As you well know by now, I have helped Steve Rahaman with almost every one of his film projects since the beginning. So, you may think this is a biased review. But, as someone who watches a ton of movies, has sat through a lot of shit, and, from my previous reviews of Steve’s films, knows I don’t pull punches when it comes to any movie, I assure you it is an honest review. My integrity as a reviewer is on the line! With “To Be King”, I had small parts in its creation, but was kept out of enough to really not know much about it. When I heard it was finished, I jumped at the chance to see it… not only to see the finished product, but to see Steve’s progression as a filmmaker. I was told that I could watch it with one condition: to view it as a regular movie goer would and to not have a personal stake in it. As I explained above, that’s not a problem. Ok, that being said, on to the review…

Steve Rahaman showed promise with his previous film “Blood Line”, but it was a flawed, rushed movie. With that in mind, I had hopes for his next project, but they were apprehensive at best. Boy was I proven wrong. “To Be King” is a highly entertaining drama that shows growth and maturity in Steve Rahaman as a budding indie filmmaker. After seeing what he can accomplish, if he keeps making films like this, I feel his career can go nowhere but up. I would say that it’s an urban “Rocky” (as there are similarities in theme), but it’s a completely different film. Hell, there’s really not much boxing in it at all; it’s all about the story, the people, and what happens when life gets tough. Steve showed that he can get the best out of actors, shots, and dialog when he puts his mind to it. About half the cast from “Blood Line” is back and, instead of it feeling like they were cast for roles, it feels as if the roles were created with them in mind… and it works so well. The main cast (Harvey, Merlino, Moss, LoDeon, Morales, Clohessy, and Goffin) handle their roles with a professional quality rarely seen in indie projects such as this. The story flows organically, with realistic dialog and situations, and the theme is strong enough to make its point without becoming too weighted. I have to say that I was very much entertained by “To Be King”. Now, you know me… So, I’m not saying it’s a perfect movie; there are few films outside of Kubrick’s library that are perfect to this reviewer. The major flaw I had with it is the score. While an excellent score on its own (much better than any score previously used by Rahaman), it still doesn’t feel right at certain moments. I wouldn’t say that it sours the movie at all, but that at points it becomes overwhelming when subtlety would suffice. My other nitpicks are purely minor faults that I just “would’ve done differently” and wouldn’t be noticeable unless pointed out (an edit here, a shot there… purely inconsequential stuff). For an indie drama, “To Be King” has more potential to get Rahaman noticed than anything he’s done prior. I would actually recommend this if it was playing at a local indie house as an example of what can be done when a filmmaker puts heart and soul into a project. Well done, Mr. Rahaman… now don’t let it go to your head. 4 stars.

New Yorkers, come out and see a special screening of the film on July 7, 2011 at 9pm at Anthology Film Archives 32 Second Avenue New York, NY 10003. Tickets are on sale now and going quickly, so get them soon.

Thelma & Louise – 1991 (R)

Netflix says: Fed up with her boyfriend, live-wire Arkansas waitress Louise Sawyer (Susan Sarandon) persuades her friend Thelma Dickinson (Geena Davis), a naïve housewife burdened with a negligent, sexist husband, to hit the road with her for a simple weekend of freedom. But after accidentally killing a man, the two friends wind up outlaws blazing a cathartic trail across America. Callie Khouri won an Academy Award for Best Screenplay.

Matt says: Continuing my summer of movie requests: "Thelma & Louise" suggested by Debbie Markel.

Debbie thought she was doing me a disservice by suggesting a block of “chick flicks” for my Summer of Movie Requests. While the other two sound absolutely dreadful (just wait… you’ll see), I don’t have a problem with watching “Thelma & Louise”. Sure, my tastes tend to be of the “guy flick” persuasion, but with a great cast, direction by Ridley Scott (“Alien”, “Blade Runner”, “Gladiator”), and an award-winning screenplay, "Thelma & Louise" is far from a typical chick flick. Sure, the main characters are emotional basket cases, but aren’t all women? Am I right guys?!? Booyah! High five! Let’s go grill some meat! Ha ha ha, nah, but seriously, this was catered for the estrogen sect: it’s got hot guys (including a shirtless Brad Bitt), women bonding, and female empowerment… and there’s nothing about that a guy can’t enjoy as much as the significant other who forced him to watch it (except for the hot guys, but whatever… seriously Brad, put on fucking a shirt). It’s fun movie about friendship that can tug at your heart as well as have you cheering for the protagonists. I think of it as the female “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, but not as iconic; those are pretty big boots to fill and many well made films don’t reach that level. Overall “Thelma & Louise” is an entertaining watch, just as long as you check your balls at the door. So, grab that pint of Häagen-Daz and fuck your diet, it’s ladies night. Don’t worry, there are explosions and car chases between the incessant sharing of feelings. 3 stars.

Sonny Boy – 1989 (NR)

Netflix says: Since this never got a proper DVD release, Netflix doesn’t have it. Here’s a summary I found online: A small-town crime boss accepts delivery of a stolen car, only to find there's a baby in the back-seat. He and his transvestite "wife" cut out the boy's tongue and raise him as a mute accomplice in their crimes. When the grown "Sonny Boy" escapes and tries to make contact with the outside world, the attention he draws to his warped family results in darkly-humored mayhem.

Matt says: Beginning my “Summer of Suggestions”: “Sonny Boy” suggested by Lorelei Beatrix:

Certain films have yet to get the DVD release they deserve. Because of this, they have the potential to disappear into obscurity. That’s where I have a true love of the internet; lost films have a chance to breath a second life through film buffs’ VHS captures, shared imports, reviews, and suggestions. “Sonny Boy” is one of the films that, due to its odd nature, low budget, and past box office failures has yet to find proper distribution on DVD. I really don’t seeing it happen either as the target audience for this movie is a very small group, small enough that it probably doesn’t seem worth the capital to re-release it. Part disturbing portrayal of back-woods freaks, part dark comedy, and part poignant drama, “Sonny Boy” defies all solid classification. The description I found and posted above gives the general makeup of events, but it doesn’t give the sheer fucked up nature of the story. As a baby, Sonny Boy is saved by being fed to pigs by a hillbilly criminal by the criminal’s transvestite lover (David Carradine doing waaaay too good of a job as a transvestite). To please his lover, the criminal reluctantly allows the adoption of Sonny Boy, but uses the opportunity to raise him as an animalistic thief: his tongue is cut out, he is tortured throughout his upbringing, and he is kept caged and fed live animals as a young adult. But, humanity endures and, through Sonny Boy’s narration, we find that he is more than the animal he was raised to be. Props go out to the cast as everyone plays their parts exceptionally well. The IMDB trivia page gives some good insight into the motives behind this bizarre movie’s creation. I found it to be a quite enjoyable watch though, as consistent readers already know, my tastes are different than the average film goer’s. 4 stars.

The Illusionist – 2006 (PG-13)

Netflix says: With his eye on a lovely aristocrat (Jessica Biel), a gifted illusionist named Eisenheim (Edward Norton) uses his powers to win her away from her betrothed, a crowned prince (Rufus Sewell). But Eisenheim's scheme creates tumult within the monarchy and ignites the suspicion of a dogged inspector (Paul Giamatti). Set in early 1900s Vienna, this lush period drama from writer-director Neil Burger earned an Oscar nod for Best Cinematography.

Matt says: I heard from several sources that “The Illusionist” was better than “The Prestige”, though it took me a few years to finally see it. Both movies came out about the same time, both are about illusionists, both have love triangles, and both have a twisted ending. I remember having the opinion of being a little cheated in “The Prestige” as I felt the ending twist was hard to swallow. For “The Illusionist”, I called it in the first fifteen minutes. The rest of the movie felt like a waiting game for an outcome that I knew would be just as cliché as it was leading up to be. I can’t recall the other movie that had basically this same outcome, but I knew I had seen it before. Still, I was willing to give it a chance. I was rewarded with stiff acting, fake British accents (why must all late 19th Century/early 20th Century period piece characters, no matter where it takes place, have British accents?), and a predictable, slow story. Giamatti is the only one who gives the movie any credibility, but it’s too little to help against the wooden performances of Norton and Biel. Not only all of that, but the editing is truly horrible: small, useless scenes are kept in that give little or no help to the pace and sometimes the film goes slow-mo at the most inopportune moments. The best parts of the movie were Phillip Glass’s music and the cinematography, which both were very well done. I was disappointed in “The Illusionist” for other reasons than I was for “The Prestige”, but I will have to say that at least “The Prestige” didn’t bore me. If you’re easily surprised by twists, you may be entertained when it’s all said and done. Otherwise, just skip it. 2 stars.

The Social Network – 2010 (PG-13)

Netflix says: Director David Fincher's biographical drama chronicles the meteoric rise of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) from Harvard sophomore to Internet superstar, examining his relationships with co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). Winning Golden Globes for Best Picture and Best Director, the film also racked up Oscar nods in the same categories and for lead actor Eisenberg.

Matt says: Boy did this film get a lot of hype. I was none too interested in seeing it (having had it in the bottom of my Netflix queue since it was available) and really was not impressed by the Golden Globe awards it received. The premise just didn’t interest me. I could care less about a cocky billionaire’s rise to fame by stealing ideas and screwing over all the people who worked hard to help him. Hell, didn’t Bill Gates already do that? Eisenberg does a decent enough job with the role, making Zuckerberg look like a callous, socially awkward, dickhead super geek. It was not the most flattering portrayal. I’m sure “the Zuck” wasn’t the greatest guy in the world at that time, but I’m also sure he had some redeeming qualities that weren’t shown. It is pretty incredible that he built an empire on one web site, but I found the movie of it a bit boring. People sue the shit out of him, and rightly so… he did screw them all over. Maybe knowing the story and outcome ahead of time took some of the mystery away. Being a Nine Inch Nails fan, I have to also comment on Trent Rezor’s soundtrack. It was very impressive and, seeing how it could have been with a different soundtrack, and then what Reznor’s haunting music did to the movie, made it a worthy move. However, Reznor’s music and attitude in Nine Inch Nails were always about sticking it to corporate America. His selling out to Hollywood really disappointed me. The music was great, but Reznor lost a bit of my respect in the process. I’m not saying The Social Network isn’t a good film, it did hold my interest and had the nice polish of a well made movie. But, it’s not anything overly special and definitely not the best picture of 2010, Golden Globe judges. 3 1/2 stars.

I Love You Philip Morris – 2009 (R)

Netflix says: When upstanding Texas cop Steven Russell (Jim Carrey) realizes he's gay, he changes his entire life and pulls a series of bold con jobs that lands him jail -- where he meets his one true love, cellmate Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor). When Morris is transferred to another prison, lovesick Russell mounts a series of jailbreaks just to be with his beloved soul mate. Glenn Ficarra and John Requa direct this comedy based on a true story.

Matt says: It’s a shame that people are so closed-minded that this movie got shelved multiple times, passed around by distributors, and eventually never got more than a brief run in indie houses. It’s a very funny, touching movie. So it has simulated man-on-man sex, scenes of Carrey and McGregor making out, and shows that people of the same gender can actually feel genuine love for each other without hiding it and getting all cowboy-angsty about it. Who cares? It’s a solid romantic comedy/drama. That it’s a true story makes it all the more entertaining. McGregor does a great job with his role, but movie is all Carrey’s. He brings his incredible comedic styling to the film, giving his portrayal of Russell an undeniable charm. Say what you will about his choice of early roles, and his unfortunate stabs at the serious, but when given the right character he really does shine. If you believe homosexual love is an affront to god, then I suggest you go ahead and skip this one. If you’re open-minded enough to to know that it is normal to accept all consensual love in a progressive society, your reward will be a great film. 4 stars.

127 Hours – 2010 (R)

Netflix says: From director Danny Boyle comes this harrowing tale of real-life mountain climber Aron Ralston (James Franco), who literally cuts himself loose from danger -- and lives to tell about it when sliding rock pins his forearm under a boulder during a climb in Utah. To stay alive, Ralston resorts to his basest survival instincts. The film scored Academy Award nominations in the Best Picture and Best Actor (Franco) categories.

Matt says: It’s no wonder this got Oscar nominations for best film and best actor. Boyle does an excellent job capturing the drama of being trapped and facing your death alone. Franco does an equally impressive job as Aron Ralston. I was a little weary of a film about a guy trapped under a rock for the majority of its run time. Yet, Boyle keeps the pace by providing enough alternate camera tricks, introspection, and hallucinations to pad out the already brief hour and a half length. The tension runs high as Ralston runs out of food and water and begins to realize the only way out is to cut off his arm with a dull knife. It all turns into a public service announcement at the end (if you’re going somewhere alone, make sure someone else knows where you’re going), but it’s well made enough to be entertaining. I agree that it was not deserving of any Oscar wins, but it is a fine enough film to deserve the recognition. 4 stars.

Never Let Me Go – 2010 (R)

Netflix says: Based on Kazuo Ishiguro's acclaimed novel, this sci-fi drama from director Mark Romanek is centered on thirtysomething Kathy (Carey Mulligan), who reflects on her time spent at Hailsham, an English boarding school, alongside classmates Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield). Born for an unusual reason, the three struggle with their destiny and their love triangle. Charlotte Rampling plays headmistress Miss Emily.

Matt says: The novel for this was required reading in one of my classes. The class was an interesting one… we had to read four western writings from different time periods, starting with “Paradise Lost” and ending with this. We then connected those bookends to the other two readings, “The Great Gatsby” and “Frankenstein”. Themes included religion, desire, progression, morality, and the impact all have on each other. While an interesting read, I found “Never Let Me Go” to be a little too slow-paced and melodramatic for me to love it. Still, it left enough of an impression (due to the excellent writing) to make me want to see if the movie captured the feel of the novel. Though technically Science Fiction (it takes place in an alternate reality where science has progressed to the point that lifespans are increased well into the mid-100s), it’s more focused on the drama of the children’s lives. The movie is a decent adaptation; it hits all the key points and the ending has just as much of an impact. It gives away a little too much too early, which takes some of the mystery out of the narrative, but the whole story is still revealed at the novel’s pace. It also omitted the one part of the novel that made me tear up; an important scene that set the mood for the rest of the story. All that being said, if you look at the themes like we did in my class, you can see that it’s deeper than just a typical drama. To discuss the details any further would effect the discovering of it for yourself. I do recommend this to those looking for a slowly unfolding literary piece that culminates into a discussion worthy endeavor. 4 stars.

Year of the Fish – 2007 (NR)

Netflix says: Wide-eyed Ye Xian (An Nguyen), a servant at a massage parlor, falls for a musician (Ken Leung) and transcends her oppressive reality with a magic koi in director David Kaplan's digitally painted retelling of the Cinderella story. Set in New York City's Chinatown, the film -- a ninth-century Chinese variant of the fairy tale -- also stars Tsai Chin as cruel madam Mrs. Su and Randall Duk Kim as the fortune teller who comes to Ye Xian's rescue.

Matt says: I waited three years for this finally to be picked up by Netflix and I have to say I was a little disappointed. The only thing I had heard about it was that it was a Cinderella story that takes place in Chinatown and that it was rotoscoped (when they film a movie with live actors and then animate on top of the film). I am a big animation fan and can appreciate what rotoscoping can do to a film. Ralph Bakshi and Richard Linklater did wonders in their films (check out “American Pop”, the animated “Lord of the Rings”, the brilliant “Waking Life”, and “A Scanner Darkly” for excellent examples). Much to my surprise, the story is a little more adult (it takes place in a “massage” parlor and has some f-bombs) and the film was mostly only run through some posterization filters in post as opposed to being fully rotoscoped. There are a few parts with rotoscoping, and they are well done, but the posterization done in the rest of the movie comes off distracting. The actors are decent, but it seems to have been filmed too quickly to get their best performances. I was expecting a mix of animation and live action to bring magic to the story. With rotoscoping the potential is limitless for adding anything you want to a film. Since this wasn’t, it just looks like they just masked a low quality print with filters. The story itself is pretty generic: a girl with a poor family back home goes to the big city to make her fortune only to get thrust into a miserable situation. In comes a cute guy to whisk her away from all her problems. I have to admit, while the posterization didn’t work for most of the film, a few later scenes stood out where they did change it up and brought a little art to the film… and the entire endeavor was a courageous attempt by the filmmakers. I can’t say I hated it, but it wasn’t what I expected at all, and not the film I had hoped it would be. A 2 star result worth 4 stars for the effort… so it gets a solid 3 stars.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose – 2005 (NR)

Netflix says: Attorney Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) always manages to keep her emotions in check when she's in the middle of a case, but she finds herself unraveling when she decides to represent a priest (Tom Wilkinson) who's conducted an exorcism gone horribly awry. The highly charged case, in which Erin battles an overconfident state lawyer (Aaron Douglas) who thinks he has a slam dunk, leaves her questioning her life choices, career prospects and beliefs.

Matt says: The events of “Emily Rose” take place after the exorcism as the priest who performed it goes on trial for Emily’s death. It’s an interesting way to tell a demonic possession story, yet knowing the outcome of the horror aspects takes away most of the creepiness. There’s still some semi-effective shocks, but the lack of “are they going to die or not” tension turns this into a courtroom drama with slight horror elements. Instead the plot turns to “was she really possessed or not” and to the priest’s defense attorney’s questioning of her own beliefs. I remember that this was the biggest complaint of people who saw it in the theater. They felt gypped that it wasn’t an “The Exorcist” clone (the marketing campaign is mostly to blame as it was advertised as such). I, on the other hand, kind of liked they took this road with it. It gives more credibility to the possession flashbacks as most are filtered through several words of mouth. Everything that happens to Emily is picked apart by the prosecution and strange happenings fall to those involved. It’s not a bad film as long as you recognize it for what it is and don’t expect much of a horror movie. 3 stars.

Cyrus – 2010 (R)

Netflix says: Indie favorites Jay and Mark Duplass co-direct this wry look at modern love and family dysfunction. John C. Reilly plays a divorced man who thinks he's found just the right woman (Marisa Tomei) to help him recover and move on. Unfortunately, the woman's son, played by Jonah Hill, has no interest in allowing another man into their lives -- a stance he proceeds to demonstrate in a variety of obnoxious ways.

Matt says: Awkward and slightly dark comedy/drama/romance fortunately has great directors, a brilliant cast, and an above average script backing up the typical indie fare. I enjoyed the Duplass’ “Baghead”, mostly because the characters were extremely realistic. Decisions and lines of dialog felt like something that people would actually do or say and the un-remarkableness of it made it remarkable. “Cyrus” keeps that same feel. Everyone feels genuine and nothing is sugar coated (yet, that a schlub like Reilly lands a hottie like Tomei reminds you that this is a fictional story). Either everyone jumped into their roles wholeheartedly, or the script was written with them in mind. The Duplasses use the same directorial techniques as in “Baghead” and the viewer feels like another person in the room, hovering around the characters as a present observer. Also, the music is minimalistic and never obtrusive, which helps bring more realism to such a dialog driven movie. Over all, I would say that it’s a decent indie to check out of you’re in the mood for a movie such as this. 3 1/2 stars.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s – 1961 (NR)

Netflix says: In this Blake Edwards-directed adaptation of Truman Capote's novel, fortune hunter Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn) finds herself captivated by aspiring writer Paul Varjak (George Peppard), who's moved into her building on a wealthy woman's (Patricia Neal) dime. As romance blooms between Paul and Holly, Doc Golightly (Buddy Ebsen) shows up on the scene, revealing Holly's past. The film received Oscars for best song ("Moon River") and best score.

Matt says: Breakfast at Tiffany’s is an interesting film. On the surface, it’s a cute romantic comedy. Underneath, it’s very similar to “The Great Gatsby”. Both protagonists come from rube backgrounds, run away to NY, and although they are both surrounded by people and parties, they both are pretending to be something they are not and are quite alone in their quests. Both stories also have a fixation with money and how it isn’t a cure all to life’s desires; Tiffany’s just takes a more lighthearted approach. Hepburn is absolutely charming as Holly. She plays the role with gusto and she will make you fall in love with her. The rest of the cast is good, except for Rooney’s portrayal as the noise-hating Japanese landlord. Seriously, it couldn’t be more offensive if he was in blackface. Well, I guess it was a different time. The Oscar winning score really helps accentuate the mood of the film, hitting highs and lows with subtle efficiency. It’s a good reflection of the NY party scene in the 1960s and the facade that people put on to be in that scene. 3 1/2 stars.

True Grit – 2010 (PG-13)

Netflix says: After her father is murdered by drifter Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), hires Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), an alcoholic U.S. Marshal, to help her exact vengeance. The disreputable Rooster still has grit though, and mounts an epic search. The pair is joined on their quest by Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who is also hunting for Chaney, in this updated Western from Joel and Ethan Coen.

Matt says: Not having seen the original for over 20 years, I went into the Coen brothers’ remake with a fresh, opened mind. The movie itself is above average: it’s got some beautiful shots, the Coens’ unmistakable direction and dialog, and a solid story. What really shines, though, is the acting. Damon, Steinfeld, and Brolin are excellent in their roles, but Bridges steals the show as Cogburn. Each scene Bridges is in is completely absorbed by his presence. The only thing lacking is the Coens’ sense of depth. The film is played straight forward, with no symbolism or sense of subtlety. It almost feels like a Coen film, but as you watch it, something feels lacking. That didn’t effect my enjoyment at all, but don’t expect a “Barton Fink” or an “A Serious Man”. Still, if Bridges doesn’t get an Oscar nod for this, it will be a travesty. 4 solid stars.

The Road - 2009 (R)

Netflix says: From the ash-covered, post-apocalyptic remains of Appalachia, the Father (Viggo Mortensen) and Son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) take to the road in search of a better life. But the Father's health is failing, lending urgency to a journey impeded by nomadic bands of cannibals. Charlize Theron co-stars in this adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, set in a fictional near future in which the world has been virtually destroyed.

Marc says: Exceptionally bleak story tells the bitter tale of a Father and Son as they travel south towards the coast after a planetary-wide apocalypse. Shares little in common with the post-apocalypse adventure genre, as the game-ender here is treated as truly an extinction level event, rather than an excuse to get decked out in some assless leather chaps. Powerful visuals, used sparingly, but effectively, and Mortensen’s stubborn, fearful, and determined performance really sell the experience. The small rays of hope didn’t necessarily feel out of place at the end, I guess, but, like the title suggests, the best part of this was definitely the journey and not its destination. 4 solid stars.

Matt says: The Road is not just a movie about surviving in a post-Apocalyptic wasteland, it’s also a parable of raising a child in modern society as a single father. Mortensen is Man, and together with Boy, they travel across a land of harsh reality, cruelty, and greed, where people (literally) devour each other. Everyone they meet has their own agendas and it’s up to Man to teach Boy that no one can be completely trusted. Man is scarred, mostly from his wife leaving him alone with Boy. He never wanted to raise him alone, but he understands that he is a father and owns up to the responsibility. He teaches Boy survival, retribution, and most importantly, how to work for your goals in a world where everyone seems to be trying to stop you. But Boy isn’t the only one who learns… Man learns things that he forgot with age and from being disheartened by the pressures of responsibility. It’s not an easy road, but it’s life. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for its depth… it surely wasn’t for a story of a man and boy walking down a road. The movie really does capture the feel of the novel. There’s very little omitted and the cast give great performances. The problem is that it is very, very bleak, so much so that it can be difficult to absorb. The ending is also a bit had to swallow, but for different reasons. But, like Marc said, it’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey. There’s much more to explore (that I left out to avoid spoilers), which is glad I gave this a second watch. It’s a dark, depressing, beautiful movie that works well as a stand-alone experience and as a visual companion piece to the novel. 4 1/2 stars.

Monsters – 2010 (R)

Netflix says: Six years after aliens invaded Earth, a security force maintains tenuous control in the Infected Zone straddling the U.S.-Mexican border. Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a photographer, is documenting this war-torn area when he's interrupted by an unexpected rescue mission. Samantha (Whitney Able), daughter of a media mogul who just happens to be his boss, needs an escort home, and Andrew reluctantly takes on the job.

Marc says: Due to the premise and the hand-held documentary approach to the material, comparisons to District 9 and Cloverfield are inevitable. For the most part, the film deftly avoids becoming derivative, and instead delivers an interesting take on an alien invasion that is steeped in Hurricane Katrina imagery and the continuing debate over immigration along the Southern U.S. border. The aliens, implausible in origin as can be, are nonetheless shown to be simply an invasive species, with little to no actual malice, or even interest in the human beings they now share the planet with. All of this is left completely unresolved at the end, as is the human story around which much of the film revolves. Nonetheless, the nearly complete allegorical approach to current issues is generally handled well (if not with any special subtlety), and it is always a nice change of pace to see science fiction used for something deeper than laser sword duels and shiny spaceships. B-

Blood Diamond – 2006 (R)

Netflix says: In war-ravaged Sierra Leone, diamond smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) learns that a local fisherman (Djimon Hounsou) has stumbled upon a gigantic gem, and he offers to reunite the man with his family in exchange for the diamond. When Archer befriends a journalist (Jennifer Connelly) tracing "blood diamonds" that finance terrorist groups, he's faced with a choice between riches and humanity. DiCaprio and Hounsou each earned Oscar nods.

Marc says: DiCaprio turns in a decent performance, with just enough idiosyncratic character quirks to make you forget his movie star persona and take him at face value as a troubled soldier of fortune who smuggles conflict diamonds out of warzones in Africa. Relentlessly turns on the preach-o-matic moralizing, especially with the woefully miscast Jennifer Connelly, who acts as a mouthpiece for the inane viewpoint that if Americans just stopped buying diamond engagement rings, civil war in African countries would all go away. As a result of the heavy-handed message and an obvious shoehorned romantic subplot (I mean, you just don’t put DiCaprio in a movie and them have him go stag, do you?), Blood Diamond meanders and loses much of its focus over 150 minutes of runtime. The bloated ending sequence is especially guilty of this, as it practically forces several contrived feel good scenes of justice on the viewer, long after the main story has been wrapped up. Ultimately, I would genuinely recommend Lord of War over this any day, as LOW made many similar points about African brushfire wars, the involvement of foreign elements, and the role of conflict diamonds in same in a far more succinct and sophisticated manner. Blood Diamond is content to pretend that “evil prevails only when good men fail to act.” Let’s drop the pretense here... evil prevails. C-.

Harold and Maude – 1971 (PG)

Netflix says: Death-obsessed teen Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is being hassled by his domineering mother (Vivian Pickles) to play the dating game, but he'd much rather attend funerals, which is where he meets the feisty Maude (Ruth Gordon), a geriatric widow who's high on life. The seemingly mismatched pair forms a bond that turns into a highly unconventional -- but ultimately satisfying – romance in this comical cult favorite from director Hal Ashby.

Matt says: An extremely amusing and amazingly heartfelt movie about love, life, and death; “Harold and Maude” should be on everyone’s list as an essential watch. It looks beyond our daily doldrums and insecurities to what really matters in this world. The main character, Harold, is obsessed with death. His life is boring and unpleasant and he resorts to faking suicide to get attention. His obsession with death leads him to attend funerals of people he doesn’t know in order to try to comprehend his own miserable existence. When he meets a free-spirited septuagenarian named Maude, she shows him that death is a natural occurrence and part of the cycle of life… and most importantly, though mortality is something to always be aware of, it’s nothing to dwell too much upon. Though their relationship, Harold gains an appreciation for what life has to offer; that we are only on this world for a brief time and we need to indulge in the positivity, exploration, and joy while we’re here. They are kindred spirits separated by age, but drawn together so that their age difference doesn’t matter. Hilarious at times and touching at others, this movie is the perfect example of a meaningful, insightful film. And, with an extraordinary soundtrack by Cat Stevens, the emotional levels are heightened beautifully. If you haven’t seen this, you must. Not only will you laugh and cry, but you will feel enriched by it. 5 stars.

Hurlyburly – 1998 (R)

Netflix says: Ambition, sex, money and drugs are part of an average couple of days for 1980s Hollywood players Eddie (Sean Penn) and Mickie (Kevin Spacey) -- who maintain that things wouldn't be so bad if they could only figure out the meaning of it all. Anthony Drazan directs this stark and witty adaptation of David Rabe's popular play with an all-star cast, including Garry Shandling, Chazz Palminteri, Robin Wright Penn, Anna Paquin and Meg Ryan.

Marc says: Sean Penn gets coked out of his mind and has several different spazz outs and emotional meltdowns while Chazz Palminteri acts like a total dick to everyone around him. Kevin Spacey and Garry Shandling take on the bemused bystander roles to all this ridiculous drama. The Hollywood setting is no more than a backdrop for exploring the peculiar self-absorbed melancholy of the moderately successful professional man as he experiences a mid-life crisis and the inescapable revelation of his own mortality. As an adaptation of a very successful play, it is trapped in stagebound mode. Of course, the real reason to see this is to watch the fine cast do their thing, and in the end, their execution of the material is pretty watchable, if not especially absorbing. C+

Salvador – 1986 (R)

Netflix says: Washed-up photojournalist Richard Boyle's (James Woods) bad habits keep him from getting jobs, so he heads to El Salvador with his pal Dr. Rock (James Belushi) to find work amidst the country's fledgling civil war. But he soon finds that the danger is more than he can handle. Boyle and Rock realize that they need to flee before the violence escalates, but Boyle doesn't want to leave his new girlfriend (Elpidia Carrillo) behind. Oliver Stone directs.

Marc says: Unlike any number of Oliver Stone’s later pictures, Salvador is content to move along at its own pace, with oddly timed moments of grim intensity offsetting more tranquil scenes. For the most part, Stone does a good job of avoiding the preach to the camera monologues that permeate the likes of JFK, Wall Street, Natural Born Killers, etc. However, he can’t resist at least one scene with James Woods getting super righteous on a U.S. Military officer and an American diplomat. Great work on capturing the mood of freewheeling around a third world shithole, as well as the uniquely American paranoia that comes from being a dumb gringo getting mixed up in Central American monkey business. To some extent, your interest in this may be dependent on how much you care for the various foreign policy intrigues of the 1980s, but as someone very interested in the CIA’s secret involvement in Latin America, I was certainly the intended audience. Bonus points for a not very happy ending and the matter of fact depiction of war atrocities. 4 stars.

Welcome to Dongmakgol – 2005 (NR)

Netflix says: Nothing. They don’t have it. For some reason this never got distribution in the states. I could only find a copy with English subtitles by ordering it from Korea. So, here’s the summary from Wikipedia: The story is set in Korea during the Korean War in 1950. Soldiers from both the North and South, as well as an American pilot, find themselves in a secluded village, its residents largely unaware of the outside world, including the war. It was South Korea's official entry for the foreign language film category of the Academy Awards in 2005, and as of 2005 it was the fourth-highest grossing South Korean film of all time.

Matt says: When a few stray soldiers from North and South Korea converge on a small village near the boarder and accidently destroy their food storage, they must work together to rush and help the villagers harvest more before the coming winter. I can say nothing but good things about this. The cast are brilliant in their roles, the story mixes war, comedy, and drama, and the scenes are backed with breathtaking shots. I can not recommend this enough; it has easily become one of my favorite foreign films. They capture the naivety of the village and the ideals of the solders with a mature brevity that resonates throughout. Never does it not feel whole, real, and enjoyable. Even in the end, where things begin to deconstruct, it has a subtlety that continues hold the viewers. It all comes together as a piece of pure beauty. The one flaw, and it’s a minor one, is that Americans are shown as boorish, gung-ho war fiends. They are irrational caricatures, which in turn gives the protagonists a common enemy, but it detracts a bit from the overall feel. Still, this film is so beloved, I can’t mark off for a little racial profiling. 5 stars.

Greenberg – 2009 (R)

Netflix says: At a crossroads in his life in New York, Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) takes some time to figure things out and travels to Los Angeles, where he house-sits for his brother and forges an unlikely bond with his brother's assistant, Florence (Greta Gerwig). Acclaimed director Noah Baumbach's (The Squid and the Whale, Margot at the Wedding) finely observed relationship comedy also stars Jennifer Jason Leigh and Rhys Ifans.

Matt says: I like Baumbach. His movies are smart, a little bit funny, and very real. He also always tries to bring a little situational discomfort, which turns off casual viewers. He didn’t disappoint with “Greenberg”. Stiller can play a slightly crazy neurotic Jew very well. Go figure. His character is mostly unlikable, but it’s such a well crafted character, that it comes off as amusing. The rest of the cast is equally as talented in their roles. It’s part love story, part mid-life crisis story, and part self discovery story. Baumbach blends these nicely together into an entertaining Todd Solondz inspired shake. 4 stars.

Viva Zapata! – 1952 (NR)

Netflix says: Marlon Brando earned an Oscar nod for his portrayal of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, an illiterate peasant who rallies the countryside against the government and eventually ascends to his nation's presidency. Elia Kazan directs John Steinbeck's Oscar-nominated script that takes historical liberties, but captures the spirit of Zapata's unwavering commitment to his people. Anthony Quinn won an Oscar for his fiery portrayal of Zapata's brother.

Matt says: Story has it that Steinbeck’s script was heavily censored due to it being the height of McCarthyism and just making this film turned the government’s eyes on the filmmakers. Fortunately, they were able to keep the government pleased while still not compromising the central anti-government themes. I was hesitant in thinking Brando could play a Mexican revolutionary. He mugs his classic bad-boy brooding chin and mumbles his way through his lines… and it works. The show stealer, though, is Anthony Quinn, who won a well deserved Oscar for playing Zapata’s older brother. Though it was censored, took liberties on the story, and the way it was filmed is dated, Steinbeck’s brilliant script and some great acting make this a worth-while watch. 4 stars.

The Informant! – 2009 (R)

Netflix says: While gathering evidence against his institutional employer to help the FBI build a price-fixing conspiracy case, affable agribusiness executive Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) begins to piece together a fantasy world of his own. Scott Bakula, Joel McHale and Melanie Lynskey co-star in Steven Soderbergh's dark comedy, which is based on Kurt Eichenwald's acclaimed nonfiction book about the true-life Corporate America whistle-blower.

Matt says: A great little movie that didn’t get the credit it deserved during its theatrical run, mostly due to the fact that it was advertised as a hilarious comedy. It’s not. It’s a dark comedy about a man in upper management who just wants to do the right thing when he discovers corruption and illegal activity in his company. Damon’s character does what most normal office working schmo would do when faced with whistle blowing and working with the FBI: become a great spy in his own mind. Things take a surprising turn in the second half, which really makes it an interesting watch. It’s not too hard to believe this is based on a true story, though it is exaggerated (it makes sure to mention it before the opening credits). If it wasn’t embellished, it would be a pretty boring tale. Damon is almost unrecognizable as Whitacre, which made me question the casting when I saw the previews. But, he delves into the character with gusto. All in all, an entertaining film that deserves a watching, if not just to help support movies like this. My only beef? The music can be distracting at times… from 60s low budget spy soundtracks to ragtime; it hits some and misses some. Consistency would’ve been nice. Soundtrack aside, a solid film. 4 stars.

Insomnia – 2002 (R)

Netflix says: Sent to investigate the murder of a teenage girl in a small Alaska town, police detective Will Dormer (Al Pacino) accidentally shoots his partner, Hap (Martin Donovan), while trying to apprehend a suspect (Robin Williams). But in spite of his guilt, he's still determined to solve the case. Hilary Swank co-stars as a local detective who hampers Dormer's efforts based on her suspicions about the circumstances of Hap's death.

Matt says: In keeping with my Nolan kick of late, I decided to rent one of his lesser rated movies. I had seen the original Norwegian version (though years ago), and therefore skipped this in its initial heyday. I also couldn’t wrap my brain around Williams being cast as a child murderer. Pacino is at his Pacino-iest self in this: full of gruff and vinegar. It’s not his best performance, but he’s a great actor, so it’s still above par. Williams does a decent job going against typecasting by being genuinely creepy. Nolan’s direction is good, albeit a bit plain. It’s a low simmer of a movie; much too long for such slow pacing. There are some excellent scenes that are beautifully filmed and those that bring a tight level of tension, but you need to have patience. 3 1/2 stars.

Gangs of New York – 2002 (R)

Netflix says: Amid the savage Irish and Italian rivalry that dominated New York City in the mid-1800s, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) hunts down his father's hateful murderer, Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis). Along the way, Vallon falls for the charms of a streetwise pickpocket (Cameron Diaz). Director Martin Scorsese's riveting epic -- nominated for 10 Oscars -- also stars Jim Broadbent, Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly and Henry Thomas.

Marc says: Rather bizarre historical epic never really feels like it takes place in 1862, despite all the effort poured into period detail, costumes, and the sets. The foolishly anachronistic soundtrack and self-conscious dialogue only heightens the disconnect. Although Daniel Day-Lewis is superb, his performance feels like it belongs to another, better movie, especially when compared against Cameron Diaz’s teeny-bopper approach to her character or DiCaprio’s clueless mouth breathing in his reaction shots. One has to admire the ambition and scope of the project, but even a director of Scorsese’s caliber can’t make it gel convincingly. Surely, it is not a total failure at all, but ten Oscar nods? I think not. 3.5 stars.

Red Cliff (Original International Version) – 2008,2009 (NR)

Netflix says: When a warmongering prime minister (Fengyi Zhang) advances his armies against two rival kingdoms, he unwittingly prompts his adversaries (Chen Chang and Yong You) to work together in this martial arts action-adventure. The ensuing conflict culminates in the epic battle of Red Cliff, a struggle by the sea involving more than one million soldiers.

Matt says: Originally released as two movies clocking at just about 5 hours total (then cut down to one movie at half that length for ADD Americans), Red Cliff is John Woo’s magnum opus. The scale rivals Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. It’s a classic story of the events leading to an infamous battle that was apparently one of the biggest in Chinese history. Everything about this movie is epic. There’s grandiose battles that awe the viewer, amazing cinematography, elaborate costumes, and spot on acting. Of course, it wouldn’t be a John Woo movie without some martial arts, which are thankfully kept restrained to a realistic level. Ok, so there’s one or two WTF moments, but they don’t do anything to sully the movie’s seriousness. I saw the two full length parts back-to-back, not the stripped down version, which is recommended for something of this scale. I don’t even see how the movie would be watchable cut in half. If you’re in the mood for an epic, I can’t recommend this enough. My only issue is the film’s assumption that the viewer knows the story already. Since it was made by the Chinese for the Chinese, this completely understandable, but it makes it less accessible for those not familiar with the history of The Three Kingdoms. Going in to this blind caused a little confusion on who was doing what and why. It cleared up about half-way through, but that’s already two and a half hours in. Then again, maybe I’m just a boorish capitalist American who should be ashamed for not knowing more about Chinese history. Yeah, that’s probably it. 4 1/2 stars.

Quiz Show – 1994 (PG-13)

Netflix says: Robert Redford directs this infamous true story of Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), who rocketed to national fame as a repeat winner on the TV quiz show "Twenty-One." In the late 1950s, prime-time game shows were a cultural phenomenon. But the American public didn't realize it was being hoodwinked ... until persevering congressional investigator Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) unmasked the corruption behind the show's glittering façade.

Matt says: I absolutely love game shows. So much, in fact, that in my 20s I won a Game Show Channel (now known as GSN) tee-shirt during a classic Family Feud marathon on said channel. Jesus, did I just admit that? Anyway, even then, in my game show watching heyday, I hadn’t known much about the facts this movie depicts. Because of that, I skipped Quiz Show in its initial run and video release. I just became aware of the details recently in a web article about “the biggest TV scandals evar!” and took a chance to see Redford’s take on arguably the biggest in TV’s history. It’s an interesting story, but the movie drags. Redford’s direction is above average, the cast is filled with favorites (Fiennes, Turturro, Azaria, and even a cameo by Scorsese), and it’s on a subject that I adore… but it feels lacking. It builds tension in the beginning, but struggles to keep it in the later part of the movie. There are good scenes of scummy TV execs manipulating people through deceit and audio editing which are the only things keeping it from being a big snore. Redford instead focuses on the David and Goliath story, which doesn’t work too well when the protagonist is annoying and whiney. It’s almost as if he tried to make “All The President’s Men II: The Game Showening”. If you want to see a better game show scandal, check out stories on how Michael Larson memorized the Press Your Luck board to win a whopping $110,237 on a daytime, 30 minute game show in the 80s (unheard of at the time). His run on the Big Board was so long, they had to split it into two shows. Check out the full episodes on YouTube (HERE, HERE, HERE, and ending HERE) and be amazed at his crazy, savant timing. Honestly, it’s mesmerizing. You can read about the ramifications of his scam by searching Wikipedia for Larson. As for “Quiz Show”? 3 stars.

The Fall – 2006 (R)

Netflix says: Set in the 1920s, director Tarsem Singh's visually lush drama stars Lee Pace as paralyzed movie stuntman Roy Walker, who bonds with an imaginative 5-year-old named Alexandria (Catinca Untaru) as they convalesce together in a Los Angeles infirmary. To coax the girl into procuring the cache of morphine he wants from the hospital pharmacy, the suicidal Roy regales Alexandria with an elaborate fantasy about larger-than-life heroes.

Marc says: Extremely visual film combines sharp colors and intricate costumes with breathtaking vistas, both natural and man-made. The movie consists of two parts: the frame story is set in a 1920’s California hospital while the fantasy segments recreate an aimless fairy-tale told by a paralyzed silent film stuntman. An interesting device is used for the fantasy segments, where the narrative is constantly revised to make up for its contemporaneous delivery. Ultimately, it runs a little long, and the depressing ending is undermined by a cheery epilogue. Nevertheless, it compares well to any number of films that tread the same ground, such as The Adventures of Baron Munchausen or Pan’s Labyrinth. B+

Matt says: 6 years later, Tarsem follows up the disappointing The Cell with an equally visually stunning picture, but this time he gets it right. Striking and touching, though not perfect, well enjoyable. (Capsule Netflix review from 2008)

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men – 2009 (NR)

Netflix says: Grad student Sara Quinn (Julianne Nicholson) is perplexed by her endless string of romantic failures. Combining work on an anthropological dissertation with her quest for personal answers, Sara interviews an array of men, whose confessions range from banal to bizarre. Actor John Krasinski makes his directorial debut with this quirky comedy based on a collection of short stories by David Foster Wallace.

Matt says: Jim from The Office directs this movie about men’s sexual quirks, issues, and most importantly, the way they view women. Adapted from a series of short stories, it seems to be an attempt at comedy, but just comes off as sad. The protagonist, in trying to cope with her own failed relationship, focuses her master thesis on interviewing men on their thoughts about women. Some come off crass and some amusing, but they all come off as insecure. The motive here was meant to show women that men can have as many emotional hang-ups as they do and that not everything we do makes sense. It comes off feeling very misogynistic. The lead barely speaks, letting the men do all the talking and the movie tries to invoke sympathy for the “hideous men” by making them pathetic creatures of nature’s cruel design to dominate that which they want. The direction is choppy and makes many indie mistakes (“artful” segways, strange cuts in conversations, over excessive use of voiceovers, and “real” conversations that really can only come from a smug writer’s mind). There are some good moments (Will Forte’s brief interview raises some chuckles) and it is a movie you can think about. Maybe I’m completely wrong about my impressions, but then again, it didn’t get a 2.8 star rating on Netflix because it was great. 2 1/2 stars.

Tokyo Sonata – 2008 (PG-13)

Netflix says: From Japanese director Kiyoshi Kurosawa comes a drama about the Sasakis, an ordinary Japanese family living a bucolic life -- until the father is abruptly laid off from his job and decides to keep the news from his wife and kids. Soon, the father's sense of shame, and the indignity he faces while passing each day in the park in his suit and tie, quickly turns into a rage that proves to hold irrevocable consequences for all concerned.

Matt says: Kurasawa channels Ozu in the first 2/3rds of this.It starts as a striking look at modern Japanese families. In the last 40 mins though it falls apart and becomes convoluted. The ending pulls things back to reality, but the distraction was a little too much. Like Ozu’s films, it offers a gateway into the Japanese; the way they think, live, and feel. It is mostly touching and sad, but there is hope underneath the honor and desire. The actors are great and the central story is heartfelt and gripping. Why Kurosawa needed the climax to have the twists it had, is beyond me. I guess he just couldn’t escape his horror movie roots and make a drama for drama’s sake. 3 1/2 stars because of the distraction. Without it, it could’ve been a 4 1/2 flick.

Mean Creek – 2004 (R)

Netflix says: A motley group of small-town Oregon teenagers (some troubled, others not) set out on a boat trip to celebrate the birthday of their youngest member -- but it's all an elaborate secret ploy for some innocent payback against a local bully. When some members of the posse begin to harbor second thoughts, however, the plot unravels ... with frightening speed. Rory Culkin, Ryan Kelley and Trevor Morgan co-star.

Marc says: Simply told story about a teenage prank that goes Pete Tong provides for an even-handed exploration of moral questions and the difficulty of fessing up to a very bad thing. Overall, the message takes a backseat to some great performances by the young cast. Well written script does an especially nice job of portraying the bully in the story as a real person, somewhat undermined by the left turn into Lifetime Movie of the Week territory at the end. Makes a great counterpoint to River’s Edge, which dealt with a similar setup and theme in a much more nihilistic and hopeless fashion. 4 stars.

Hard Candy – 2005 (R)

Netflix says: Ellen Page (Juno) stars in this suspenseful drama from director David Slade as Hayley, an intelligent teen who's got her own reasons for spending so much time with Geoff (Patrick Wilson), a much older man she met online. Even though Geoff is a charming, good-looking photographer, Hayley should know better than to go home with a guy in his early thirties -- especially since he might have ulterior motives.

Marc says: Fffffucked up revenge psycho-drama toys with the viewer’s emotions on several different levels, eliciting alternating feelings of disgust and sympathy for Patrick Wilson’s reprehensible character. Some see this as glorifying or championing an extreme punishment of pedophiles, but I read it as a strong condemnation of the idea of “private justice,” showing that personal revenge, even righteous, well-deserved revenge, is a path that leads into the abyss. Suspenseful, disturbing, and very capably acted, I must nonetheless subtract a star for several scenes and setups that just seem like bullshit and were clearly included simply to artificially heighten the tension. 3.5 stars

Cruel Intentions – 1999 (R)

Netflix says: Slaking a thirst for dangerous games, Kathryn (Sarah Michelle Gellar) challenges her stepbrother, Sebastian (Ryan Phillippe), to deflower their headmaster's daughter (Reese Witherspoon) before the summer ends. If he succeeds, the prize is the chance to bed Kathryn. But if he loses, Kathryn will claim his most prized possession. Selma Blair and Sean Patrick Thomas co-star in this teen-themed take on Dangerous Liaisons.

Marc says: Pretty much a straight out transplant of Les Liaisons dangereuses, wherein 18th-Century French aristocrats become modern day New York City rich kids. As with most versions of the story, the first part is the best, as the two protagonists amorally and unflinchingly scheme to corrupt the innocence of their peers. The shift in setting doesn’t detract from this appeal, but the script is pretty awkward and unnatural in many places, and one never really buys into the premise that the two teen leads could be as sophisticated about human emotional frailties as the Valmont and the Marquise of the source material. C+

A Serious Man – 2009 (R)

Netflix says: Larry Gopnik (Golden Globe nominee Michael Stuhlbarg) has hit a "rough patch," according to a colleague, and it would seem so: people are dropping dead all around him, his wife (Sari Lennick) wants a "get" and his whining kids (Aaron Wolff and Jessica McManus) only add to the heavy load. Larry is just looking for some help. Can a few rabbis guide him to life's answers? Richard Kind co-stars in Joel Coen and Ethan Coen's 1960s-set, dark Jewish-culture send-up.

Matt says: Where to begin? I guess with that the Coen’s make two types of movies: one type has lovable goofs who spout endlessly quotable lines and get in wacky adventures, and the other type has the poor everyman who deeply soul searches in a life of randomness and is rife with symbolism. “A Serious Man” is the latter. There are a few chuckles (the bar mitzvah is hilarious), but it’s mostly a meditation on retaining your moral standings and not looking for meaning when life takes a big ‘ole dump on your chest. The Coen’s seem to enjoy reminding us that you’re pretty much damned to a miserable life if you try to understand your existence. Sometimes we overlook the joys we have when the pressures of living weighs on us. Or is that what they’re saying? In this, there is a very heavy Jewish theme that leads to more confusion (since I didn’t study the torah, am I missing out on religious allegory?). It’s best to just see it with a few friends who like to think and try to pick it apart when it’s done. From seeing other Coen films, I know that there is no right answer, in life, and in their films. They’re both just confusing messes that fuck with us at every chance they get. 4 stars.

Stalker – 1979 (NR)

Netflix says: This science fiction milestone from director Andrei Tarkovsky takes you into the Zone, a mysterious, guarded realm containing a mystical room in which occupants' secret dreams come true. Stalker, a man able to lead others to this holy grail, escorts a writer and a scientist through this foreboding territory and confronts several unexpected challenges along the way. Based on the Russian sci-fi novel Roadside Picnic.

Marc says: Tarkovsky is an acquired taste. Even then, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch any of his films. Between this and Solaris (1972), it’s hard to say which moves more slowly or which one is more of a perpetual cocktease. Stalker is defined by long steady takes, nearly pure dialogue driving every scene, and the use of many intriguing industrial and naturalistic locations. Be advised that nothing much happens in this, except for some super heavy meditations on the nature of human existence. The sci-fi premise while interesting, is at the most, just a catalyst for these discussions. Patience is a virtue, but the payoff is all mental – there is no climax, closure, or overriding message to take away. The deliberate ambiguity may be tough to take for many after sitting through 3 hours, so keep this in mind. 4 stars.