The King's Speech (2010)

OVERALL RATING: 8.50/10

I was once asked to speak in front of a crowd of people, and discuss my life. How it had changed so drastically due to the events surrounding the institution I was speaking on behalf of, and convince these people they could gain the same from it. I prepared my best. Wrote out the story the way I wished to tell it; even included a few jokes I could sneak in. So when the night finally came I was convinced I was ready. Striding up when my name was called, I looked out over the room of people... and immediately forgot every single damn word.

Admittedly the room I was speaking to only featured about Forty people so my relative association to King George VI, here portrayed by Colin Firth (A Single Man, Love Actually), is limited. Yet, the principles are still the same. Speaking in front of people can be an incredibly trying and difficult action. It's not made any easier when you carry the weight of a crown, hundreds of years of family history, and the expectations of an entire nation.

King George VI is perhaps one of the most dynamic characters of the year. Stoic and tempered, if you didn't know the man you'd think he was nothing but a bumbling, solemn man. However, he carries with him a long history of issues, both tragic and pressure indicative, that have paved the way to his current form. He believes in family honor because it is something he can hold onto. It won't betray him or look down on him - it's a set of rules, and rules do not judge. He also believes in his wife and children because they love him, support him, and care for him. They see greatness even in his weakest moments.

In my eyes, Firth is absolutely perfect as 'Bertie' (so nicknamed by his family and since I don't care to type out his entire name over and over again I'll use it as well). He inhabits every quirk and mannerism asked of him. His speech and the way he hits those stammers are so subtle, and yet he makes them sublime. When his eyes water up while he's mad (or feels regret and sadness) the audience is drawn to him like a mother wishing to protect her child. There's such an innocence to him that you feel impressed by his intellect, quick wit, and self-aware sense of humor. Dynamic, and sympathetic, this is without a doubt my favorite character, and performance, of the year.

Sharing the screen with him we have Geoffrey Rush as his speech therapist Lionel Logue. Logue is given due time to develop as a character, and for the most part Rush shines. Australian by birth, Logue shows a flailing interest in the formalities and history a Prince and King would have to deal with on a daily basis. His demeanor, in stark contrast, helps in breaking down the walls of protection Bertie creates to shield himself from his past. Lionel is not the most dynamic character, but I quite enjoyed his expository moments in the scenes in which we see him interact with his family.

I did find it unfortunate that the other central figure of the film, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), isn't given nearly as much to work with as her male counterparts. In essence, she's what her husband needs her to be. Strong, caring, and principled she carries much of the balance between the polarizing personalities of Lionel and Bertie. One could make an argument that if this were a comedy trio she'd be the 'straight' one who gets a few laughs but often exists solely to control the flow of the banter between her outlandish comrades.

As an instant rule of actor thumb, I appreciate anytime Derek Jacobi finds his way into a film. Here, alongside Timothy Spall as Churchill (whose main role is to remind us of Hitler's presence), Guy Pearce as the soon to be abdicated King Edward VIII, and Michael Gambon and Claire Bloom as King George V & Queen Mary, we get a well rounded supporting cast of seasoned vets. It's nice to see such talented actors given roles that do require depth, even if they are throw away and short lived.

One of the aspects of the film I found most frustrating was the direction of Tom Hooper (The Damned United, Longford). At times Hooper could be absolutely brilliant, capturing every tick and emotional struggle these characters went through. Yet, there were moments (especially early one) where I felt as if he didn't know how he wanted to compose a scene. As such many of conversation scenes had a sporadic series of cuts showing different angles on two people talking back and forth. I don't like this. It felt intrusive, and alienating amidst some very humane moments. With the talent involved, a wide shot and rolling camera is all he really needed (something I feel Hooper comes to terms with as the film goes on).

As well, I felt as if King's Speech had a bad habit of lingering too long on uninteresting issues. When the main cast of characters are conversing there's a lot of amazing drama and comedy to behold. During the quiet moments, or conversations with some of the secondary stars an element of that magic is lost. The only thing I can attest it to is the high charm and wit of the main trio. They play their characters so lively and volatile, it's hard to deal with the more flatlined co-stars who often exist just to supply backdrop elements. In a film like this, where the movie is about the journey of the characters over any tangible 'plot,' making sure you nail their time together is paramount.

In the end, The King's Speech is without a doubt one of the more enjoyable experiences of the year. Moving, funny, and full of heart, I can't help but feel as if I was part of a true and excitable journey. In context of the entire tale, many of its flaws seem negligible. As such I can only fault it a bit, and appreciate it for the roller coaster ride of emotions it took me on. There's nothing wrong with being 'oscar bait,' especially when the bait you're using is delectable.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Tom Hooper
Written By: David Seidler

 

Ip Man (2008)

IP MAN

DIRECTED BY: WILSON YIP
WRITTEN BY: EDMOND WONG
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

Master of the Chinese kung fu style Wing Chun, Ip Man (Donnie Yen), a young wealthy family man living in Foshan, spends his days honing his craft, and relaxing with his family. Suddenly his life is thrust into turmoil when his house, and wealth, is taken from him amidst the 1930's Japanese Invasion. Though when a General offers local fighters the chance to earn food via battle, Ip Man must battle moral principle, and family need.

------------------------------------------

When it comes to kung fu stars, Donnie Yen is cut of a different bread than most. Subtle, almost unassuming in his approach, Yen creates a likable, relatable, character out of Ip Man, with the help of a highly fictionalized telling of Ip Man's life.

Reminding me vaguely of the Ronny Yu/Jet Li film Fearless, Ip Man blends morality, Chinese propaganda, and action in a fun, albeit not mind blowing, cinematic effort. Wilson and Edmond put forth great effort into bringing about 1930's Foshan with great visuals, colorful characters, and exciting action sequences. Yen, whose always been a talented fighter/choreographer (see: Blade 2), is a delight to behold, and easily the film's shining element.

The supporting cast plays their way. Though often times they are caught up in rather overly dramatic subplots, some of which felt a bit soap opera in setup. I do admit that at first I worried the film would be riddled with too many throw away characters. Coming and going for only a fight or two, then leaving. Yet, Wilson and Edmond utilize the plot to their advantage and maintain many of its characters throughout. Giving, what is seemingly paper thin characters at first, a bit of time to flower. Though, none as much as our main character, of course.

As for the story: the fictionalized retelling works, in that it creates enjoyable fight sequences, and manages to bring the 1930's mindset to life. It's not a brilliant narrative. And at times it can feel a bit taxing, especially when it comes to the more "emotional" moments. Though it never flounders to the point of annoyance, keeping interest all the while.

Unfortunately the same can't be said for the film's extras. I usually don't harp on extras, but the one's taking part in this film really phone it in at times. This is most prevalent during the teaching, and group display of skill, sequences in the film. Far too many just idly make the hand gestures, at their own leisure, way off the pace set by the supposed teacher. No real rhythm, and when you're dealing with a city known for its Kung Fu dojos, the extras should look like they've at least tried.

I suppose, though, if that's all one really has to complain about, the film isn't all that bad off. No, Ip Man is a fine film that will entertain, but don't expect to be blown away.

Without the depth to make it a masterpiece, Ip Man gets by on strong fight sequences, and acceptable plot, and a strong turn by seasoned choreographer Donnie Yen. Whether or not you enjoy it likely be related to how many plot contrivances you can stand, and how much you enjoy your action.

Sword of the Stranger (2007)

SWORD OF THE STRANGER

DIRECTED BY: MASAHIRO ANDO
WRITTEN BY: FUMIHIKO TAKAYAMA
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

On the run from Ming swordsmen, young orphan Kotaro (Yuuri Chinen) and his protective dog Tobimaru, encounter a nameless ronin. In desperate need of a guide and protector, Kotaro hires the ronin, and the two set off, both about to get in for more than they bargained for.

A staple of samurai anime shows and movies, it seems to me, is the feature character with no name, and a mysterious past. Applying that same motif, Sword of the Stranger throws a new spin on the staple figures, and tries to throw a combination of humanity and narrative nature on the character. All the while maintaining a high level of violence, and even higher level of blood splattering. I'm not against violence in anime, or films in general, and as much as I love the movies Yojimbo and Kill Bill Vol.1, the insane blood gushing can be a bit off putting. Though in the case of Sword of the Stranger I have to say for each blood explosion (if you will) there's a counter acting moment of humanity and amazing visuals that kept me hooked.

The voice acting is absolutely on queue, and the animators (from the ever increasingly popular studio Bones) really take the time to harness their emotional moments. There are a few wide shots I do remember that seem less finely detailed, but overall there's little to complain about from an animation point of view (especially in the finally). As for the story itself: it's simple, a bit far fetched, and cliche, but filled with enough heart, pacing, and determination, it carries the movie quite nicely. It works because they never question their own storyline. They allow it to evolve, and the characters to unveil their personal issues, all the while never forcing the viewer to accept more than they're willing to.

I can see why the movie has gained such beloved status (JapanCinema.net named it his best anime of the 2000's & Film Forager gave it 4.5/5). The movie has some amazing fight sequences, very creative stuff, and that typical aura of mystery the seems to attract anime lovers. It manages to explain the events without the need for spelling everything out. This can be both a strength and a weakness, and here it can be a bit of both. It takes a while for the story to develop, leaving us with a bunch of disconnected events, and fight sequences. As well as two traveling characters we know nothing about, except they're the protagonists. It's interesting to see how it develops, and still leaves a few questions out there, but it's still a very enjoyable and moving experience.

While it has plenty of anime cliches, and a few narrative flaws, Sword of the Stranger is carried by amazing visuals, a lot of heart, and a solid story to carry you threw.

The Informant (2009)

THE INFORMANT

DIRECTED BY: STEVEN SODERBERGH
WRITTEN BY: SCOTT Z. BURNS
BASED ON THE BOOK BY: KURT EICHENWALD
OVERALL SCORE: 5.50/10

Company executive Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) decides one day to aid the FBI is capturing his company in an international price fixing scandal. But as the FBI gets closer and closer to making the case, Mark finds his life getting more and more difficult.

I have to admit I've been sitting on this review for nearly a month now. Walking away from the credits I had no idea what score to give the movie. Part satire, part comedy, part character study, all mildly interesting, even at their shining moments, The Informant felt to me like a movie grounded by a single great performance, stuck in a world of mediocrity. Sure there's some good side performances, and I'm always up for a Joel McHale sighting, but throughout the entire tale I never felt any interest in where it was going.

The main character is not likable in the least bit, and I think the movie knows it. Our supporting cast range from bumbling to generic company executives, all the while we have nothing really to connect to. Perhaps I believe the biggest mistake of the film was to make it a satire, rather than a thriller/drama. Throughout the runtime there's an overbearing feeling of forced jokes, bland social criticism, and a narration, that while perfectly done, feels as if it's weighing down the film. These satirical moments feel as if they remove the film of all of its tension, and I have to say they seldom inspired even near a chuckle.

Even with the knowledge that I tend to find movies like this funnier after the fact, and on repeat viewings, throughout the time I found myself more concerned with what time it was, than the characters. Their attitudes all felt cardboard, and disinterested to me. While Whitacre's tale is painful to watch, and easy to get emotionally involved in, I never much cared about the guy. And for a character study piece you need some sort of emotional investment, regardless of whether or not it's positive or negative to see it through. Here it all just felt jumbled. As if the movie wanted to be way too many things at any particular point. It wanted to be a dark comedy drama with social context and an anti-corporation executive stance. In the end all I saw was a film that had more potential than execution, and more intended jokes than actual ones.

While I'm sure it will appease those with its particular brand of humor, I found little to praise, and even less to care about, with this 2009 Soderbergh outing.

The Young Victoria (2009)

THE YOUNG VICTORIA

DIRECTED BY: JEAN-MARC VALLEE
WRITTEN BY: JULIAN FELLOWES
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

With an overbearing and controlling stepmother (Miranda Richardson) and caretaker (Mark Strong), both seeking to control her future queenship, Victoria (Emily Blunt) finds unlikely allies in Prime Minister Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) and suitor Prince Albert (Rupert Fiend).

I've often felt that period films get a bad rap as existing solely to attack the best costume design, and appeal to the whimsical fascinations of young women. Yet more often than not there's a lot of depth, and insight, into the struggles of a growing women, and in that respect The Young Victoria is no different. As life's go Queen Victoria's was unarguably a very difficult one, often kept from knowledge of those around her all of whom are seeking something, she had to learn how to be Queen in spite of her relatives. Thus the task of her formative years lay in the hands of Fellowes and Vallee, both of whom must find a way to cram a inordinate amount of information into such a short running time.

For the viewer this is great in that it gives great depth to the decisions that shaped Victoria (extra points for strong accuracy in narrative). The Young Victoria retains its romantic heart, especially towards the latter half, but only in so far as the events help to shape Victoria the person, and Victoria the Queen. As such the film is riddled with political talk, important historical characters, and a good look at how Victoria deals with life's different challenges. The film does dramatize certain events, but never to the point of excess, and as such we get a rather good portrait of the early life of Victoria. For that I feel I must commend the film, especially since it would be far easier to simply remove so much for runtime.

Unfortunately though I can't help but feel as if the film's runtime is its greatest flaw. Clocking in at 1 hour and 40 minutes, Young Victoria is one of the few instances where I would say the film needed to be about 20 minutes longer, if not more. Vallee's eye for beauty, characters, and the romance, is caught behind flawed transitions, forced to jump years at a time in order to reach key events. As well certain characters come and go in almost the blink of an eye, and yet are meant to maintain a strong sense of importance upon us. Jim Broadbent's King William amounts to two scenes, but his impact in the film is of grand importance to the shaping of Victoria. As such when his character appears and then suddenly leaves we're left with a sense of disappointment.

Though it always helps when you have a strong cast to carry the film. Blunt is perfectly suited for the leading role, showing the perfect combination of strength, social awkwardness, and emotion you'd expect. While Rupert Fiend breaks through molds as the distant lover, forced to be apart by tradition, while hoping the women he loves feels the same. Of course the film's real unsung heroes may lie in the seasoned skills of Paul Bettany, Mark Strong, and Miranda Richardson. Few actors play the modern villain as well as Mark Strong, and while it may not lead to long term success, he perfectly captures the oppressive John Conroy. While Richardson is in a sense the torn mother, caught between family obligation, desire for the thrown, and the want for a good life for her daughter, something we don't get to grasp until the final act. Then of course there is Bettany who must play the seasoned politician, one seeking to use, love, and gain from his relationship with Victoria. Bettany's stead fast character is a great counter to the romantic Fiend, and emotional Blunt, all of whom are trying to work their way through a series of political webs cast upon them.

A political web with which the director, the writer, the characters, and the audience must all travel through in this films runtime. This is where Fellowes' persistence at accuracy comes right in handy. Never clogging down the plot with unnecessary details, or pushing upon the viewer less than they need to know, we're really given a treat and sharp insight. A notion of which is often lost on many period films.
Don't be so quick to judge this period film as nothing more than a romance, as it is a sharp look into the early life of Victoria, that while packed in, works as a solid character study.

Out of the Blue (2006)

OUT OF THE BLUE

DIRECTED BY: ROBERT SARKIES
WRITTEN BY: ROBERT SARKIES AND GRAEME TETLEY
WATCHED FOR: GREAT FILMS NOBODY SAW
RECOMMENDED BY: ThisTimeItWillBeDifferent
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

On November 13, 1990 at roughly 7:30pm David Gray (Matthew Sunderland) shot and killed his neighbor. That night he would go on to indiscriminately kill a total of 13 men, women, and children in Aramoana, New Zealand. Out of Blue tells the story of the Gray, his victims, and the undermanned local police forced tasked with taking him down.

Knowing very little about the Aramoana massacre prior to entering Out of the Blue I must say it's a powerful, painful, and gripping story, with lots of heart and emotion. As a director Sarkies wonderfully captures the characters, both good and bad, involved in this heartbreaking tragedy. Best of all though is Sarkies willingness to bring us in to the life of Gray. Socially anxious, gun fanatic, and his flailing mental state, Sarkies spends much of the first first 40 minutes developing Gray as a character.

The only other characters we spend a lot of time with are Nick Harvey (Karl Urban), a local policeman, and Garry Holden (Simon Ferry), David's first victim. Once the tragedy begins we really spend a lot of time with reaction. The organization of the police, the elderly lady down the street, Helen Dickson (Lois Lawn) who tries to help an injured man. We seldom see the actual violence, almost always the lead up takes narrative precedent, while during the actual shooting we often see the expressions of onlookers. This is where lots of the real drama comes in. We watch parents seeing their children killed, and vice versa, at the hands of this vicious man, and it's hard to not get absorbed in.

Of course it doesn't hurt that Sarkies gets the right cast, filled with inexperienced actors who perfectly embrace their characters, United 93 style. My one complaint about the film is that we don't spend enough time with certain victims. For example officer Stu Guthrie (William Kircher) who posthumously won the George Cross for bravery is merely a 4th/5th lead and maybe takes up 15-20minutes of screen time. Though I understand Sarkies desire to spend most of his time with the survivors, and really get their reaction to the events, I do think it takes down the immediate emotional impact a notch or two. Of course when tasked to tell the story of the most violent day in your nations history, the impact is always a good place to start.

Powerful, gripping, and dark, the tale of the Aramoana massacre is well honored in the hands of director Robert Sarkies.

The Twilight Samurai (2002)

THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI

DIRECTED BY: YOJI YAMADA
WRITTEN BY: YOJI YAMADA & YOSHITAKA ASAMA
OVERALL SCORE: 8.25/10

Following the death of his wife, a poorly Samurai, Iguchi (Hiroyuki Sanada), who works as an accountant for his clan, must be all members of the family to his two young daughters, and his senile mother. Without time to bath, and no women willing to marry into his problems, Iguchi is the laughing stock of his clan, which is slowly moving towards the modern use of guns as opposed to samurai for battles. Things start to get better for Iguchi though when his childhood friend, and long time love, Tomoe (Rie Miyazawa), returns following a nasty divorce with her drunk of a husband.

As I'm making my way through Samurai films as I try to become a bit more of an expert on them, I found myself running into lots of praise for this quiet 2002 film. And quiet is exactly what this movie is. Subtle, unassuming, and yet beautifully shot, The Twilight Samurai is an easy film to get into, filled with moments that bring out all the spectrum of emotions. Perhaps better yet, Sanda (best known to Americans for his role in The Last Samurai), is wonderfully perfect in the role as the quiet male who is the perfect example of what the film intends to be. The relationship between him and Tomoe is wonderfully unemotional, in that our two characters are so reserved they keep it all so hidden for fear of social and romantic backlash due to their pasts.

This aids a finale that really manages to put both a smile on your face and a tear in your eye, supported by an amazing battle between Iguchi and a local retainer he's forced to kill. In fact, the battles in this film are quite amazing. There's only two of them, and for the films entire 2 hour runtime they probably take up about 5 minutes (the first being incredibly short). Instead the film opts for emotional conversation, build up, and character study to sustain its entire playing time. This is both a strength and a weakness. The buildup allows us to really fall in love with the characters, cheer for them, and wish their success in life. Yet since our characters are so reserved, so time dependent, their actions are like clockwork, leaving several scenes of feet tapping as we wait for the next plot point to occur.

Yet none of this is an exceptionally bad thing. Those seeking a wonderful character study will find their appetite well appeased, while those seeking action might want to flip that channel changer. Yamada's talent for creating strong characters within in a time where it would be looked down upon elevates the film above genre conventions. The final battle is not over a woman (if you remove the metaphorical aspect), but rather a battle between two men with everything, and at the same time nothing, to lose. Poetic, beautiful, and great, The Twilight Samurai is a samurai film for those seeking characters, not action.

An amazing character study, filled with emotion, and poetic beauty, The Twilight Samurai is a staple to everything the Samurai film can be when removed of its action crutch.

Braveheart (1995)

BRAVEHEART
DIRECTED BY: MEL GIBSON
WRITTEN BY: RANDALL WALLACE
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #78

After the death of his wife, William Wallace (Mel Gibson) becomes the leader of a Scottish uprising, as they attempt to regain their country's freedom from British king Edward the "Long-Shank" (Patrick McGoohan).

If you glance over my list you'll notice I have a few categories of film that I really love: among the most consistent are epic+war films. I love going on a journey with characters, seeing their ups and downs, the trials and tribulations, and how they ultimately meet an end to their overarching problems. Mel Gibson's much beloved 1995 epic war film about Scottish hero William Wallace, and the 13th century Scottish Revolution, is about as great an epic film as you're ever likely to see.

We follow our main character from childhood to end, from his first love, to his emotionally, and grand struggles that would become the driving force in his life. The battles are epic, the story monumental, the directing spot on, the characters fun and exciting, the depth exactly where you'd want it to be. Perhaps the best aspect of Braveheart overall is that each character comes with such depth that you are driven to feel exactly what Wallace and Gibson want you to feel about them. You feel compassion, love, and support for William Wallace, distaste for the King, and a struggling sense of untrust with Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen).

In fact the only thing not perfect about this film is the editing, which makes a couple of rather obvious blunders, probably why it didn't win the Oscar there. Overall though the editing mistakes are microseconds of this massive film, and will do nothing to harm your overall viewing. In fact Braveheart accomplishes three things most often associated with classic films: 1) Strong stand out characters 2) Insane quotability (almost every classic film has at least one line) and 3) The ability to reach out to the audience. Combine all of these and you get a film transcendent in the world of cinema, an always perfect treat, even on your 20th viewing.


Braveheart is one of the greatest epics ever made, with just pure quality in writing and directing from top to bottom.

Henry V (1989)

HENRY V
WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: KENNETH BRANAGH
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #79

After being insulted by the king of France, young King Henry V (Kenneth Branagh) leads his English army into the depths of France, and into one of the bloodiest wars in history.

Deciding between Olivier and Branagh's versions of Henry V and Hamlet depend entirely on what you look for in your movies. If you like your play adaptations to be literal in their shot technique, Olivier is your man, a method I think works great for his Hamlet, but if you're looking for very cinematic style, Branagh brings Henry V to screen in amazing form. As Branagh and Olivier both know, there's no adapting Shakespeare's words for the screen, you just don't do it, and as such both seek to capitalize on his use of them.

Yet Branagh goes the extra mile, he brings to life Shakespeare's highly underrated play, encompassing a world within the film, self aware, and yet a gritty look at war. Using Derek Jacobi as the narrator, Henry V comes to life in the hands of Branagh, with amazing performances from Branagh himself, and supporting stars Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, Emma Thompson, and a very young Christian Bale. Each delivering their performance in fine form, grasping the dark, and gritty nature Branagh seeks to show amidst the 80s anti-war film movement (alongside films like Platoon).

In doing so Branagh creates what may just be one of the single greatest shots ever designed for a play to film adaptation. The post battle march of the wounded song scene is simply perfection personified. It may be worth watching this entire film alone for that one scene alone, as you grasp all the meaning of the entire film, and the pain felt by each of these characters, in a simple no-cut 3minute shot. Some directors will go their entire career and not design a shot 1/10th a great as that single one.

Yet one shot alone does not make a film, and Branagh knows this. Leading up to it, he keeps the film moving, even during conversations, people are always running around rooms, moving in halls, charging on horses. As such Branagh keeps the pace fast, gripping, ever building in anticipation. While at the same time utilizing some of the Henry play back stories from Shakespeare to give a grander perspective of those outside the mind of the King. So as, we are rewarded with a Shakespeare adaptation that is both concise, entertaining, gripping, and when it comes to films on Henry V, unmatched in execution.

While it depends on your flair of film, in terms of play adapting, Branagh's 1989 masterpiece brings to life one of the most cinematically inclined plays of all time.

Year One (2009)

YEAR ONE
DIRECTED BY: HAROLD RAMIS
WRITTEN BY: HAROLD RAMIS, GENE STUPNITSKY, & LEE EISENBERG
OVERALL SCORE: 4.25/10

After being banished from his small village, Zed (Jack Black), and his only friend Oh (Michael Cera) set out on a journey to discover the vast world. But when two girls they were trying to woo from their old village are sold into slavery, they set out on a quest to rescue them, and win their hearts.

I really don't know what to say about this film, a quick run over to just about anyone's review will tell you all you need to know. An amazing cast, a classic director/screenwriter, and absolutely nothing works. The jokes fall flat 90% of the time, many of which are subtle stabs at early religions (including Christianity & Judaism), and the rest slapstick humor. The two main stars are as uncreative as they come: the big dumb lug who keeps walking into trouble only to get lucky and escape danger, with his sidekick, the loyal companion who is overly weak, a bit feminine, and always the recipient of the injuries due to the other's bad decisions.

Even the beautiful up and comer Juno Temple, as Oh's love interest, is uninspired, another "damsel in distress" with no apparent ability to do anything for herself. Same goes for just about the entire female cast really (which includes Olivia Wilde and June Raphael), it's rather sad, and you're basically left with a collection of dumb to weird main cast. Granted if I read you the cast list you'd probably think, automatic great comedy. Here: Jack Black, Michael Cera, Oliver Platt, David Cross, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Vinnie Jones, Hank Azaria, Xander Berkley, the above mentioned, Horatio Sanz, Bill Hader, & Paul Rudd. Yet none of them are of any real interest.

Hank Azaria is funny as Abraham in his minor role, but for the most part the cameos come off stale, sad overly scripted attempts at humor. There's nothing real about the film, it's basically Superbad meets 10,000 BC, and everything is so generic you end up just watching them go through the motions of predictable humor than really laughing at any shock value. In fact the credit role bloopers were funnier than most of the film, and that's pretty sad.

Harold Ramis was at one point a true king of comedy with Ghostbusters, Caddyshack, Back to School, Vacation, and Groundhog Day. He even directed the hit Analyze This, but since the 2000's he's experienced a monster drop off. What happened? Where did all the funny memorable characters go? Why did he substitute substance comedy for insane cameo spamming? I really don't know, but the comedy lover inside of me, finds it very depressing, and Year One represents all that is wrong with the modern comedy.


The only thing truly more sad than this films comedy is the rapid fall from grace Harold Ramis has taken over the past few years... I only hope he can return to form with the upcoming Ghostbusters film.

Der Untergang/Downfall (2004)

DER UNTERGANG/DOWNFALL
DIRECTED BY: OLIVER HIRSCHBIEGEL
WRITTEN BY: BERND EICHINGER
OVERALL SCORE: 8.25/10

As Berlin is surrounded on all sides by Allied soldiers, Adolf Hitler (Bruno Ganz) tries to come up with any last ditch effort to save his German ideal. Meanwhile those around him struggle with their loyalty to Hitler, the soldiers still fighting, the civilians, and their desire to flee before being killed by the Russian onslaught.

Dark, depressing, humanizing, and powerful, Hirschbiegel's (what a mouthful) 2004 epic drama of the last days of Hitler is as captivating, historically accurate, and impacting as war films come. The cast, highlighted by Ganz, is simply amazing, backed by HBs gritty and careful tone, centered on telling the true story, bringing to life the real struggles of some of the most hated people in history. There's no denying this movie is dark, from the central characters being Nazis to the underlying fact that many opt to do devastating things in the face of the Russian threat.

As a narrative the movie is told from 3 perspectives: The first being that of Hitler himself, the second being his secretary Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara -who wrote a book on the events depicted in the film), and Dr. Schenck (Christian Berkel) who opts to stay behind in order to care for the remaining troops. The torn nature of these characters presents us with a sense curiosity, some possessing ignorance to what is going on around them, and some only caring of what happens to themselves.

The humanizing of these characters has been pretty much the only real public criticism of the film. I disagree though that this is a bad thing. It's a dark, pressuring, reminder that those who enacted such violent, insane, and painful crimes were human, flawed, and were allowed to make those decisions because people wanted to remain ignorant. To try and leave them as nothing but historical figures, would be to leave them in the past, ignorance to the possibility that if not taught correctly such events could occur again.

This is why I respect this film so incredibly much, it tells the story as it happened (within reason), not ignoring character traits/facts in favor of entertainment or broad appeal. The only downside to that fact is the movie drags its feet from time to time, but our overbearing curiosity as to what happens to these characters, how did each of them meet their ultimate fates, strives the viewer to continue watching. In the end, there's no real happy scene, the characters that survive you could only say are the lesser of the evils displayed, not really sympathetic characters. With that though comes the moral question, how do we judge the ignorant?

As films of its nature go though, you simply won't find a better display of historical storytelling during a time of extreme pain in the world. Ultimately though, Der Untergang will tug at all of your emotional and moral cords, pulling them to the extreme, as it challenges you to witness the final days of the most villainous man in history.


An all around masterpiece, Der Untergang/Downfall may not sit well with your stomach, but intellectually you couldn't ask for a more real, and powerful, film.