The Illusionist (2006)

* * *

Like the magic tricks depicted in the film, The Illusionist is great fun to watch, especially if you allow yourself to be entranced within it, but the more it is analyzed the less special it seems. The Illusionist tells the story of a peasant magician who uses his magic to win the heart of an aristocrat girl. Its hard to go wrong with a cast headlined by co-stars Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti. Watching the story of Eisenheim the illusionist, played by Norton, is worth the time of anyone who enjoys movies simply for his performance. Norton is disturbing, mysterious, affectionate, at all times captivating and although this isn't a relatively important or award-winning film, he brings everything to the table, showing why he is one of today's best actors. He and Giamatti shine in the scenes they are in together, which are thoroughly enjoyable. Rufus Sewell is perfectly despicable as Crown Prince Leopold, rival to Eisenheim and tyrannical ruler of Austria. The three actors are involved in almost all of the scenes, which is good, because the cast outside of them is below average. The most notable example of poor casting was Jessica Biel as Sophie, Eisenheim's love interest. She is unbelievable as a high class nobility in a time piece set in a foreign country and cannot remotely compare to any of the actors, particularly Norton. The film is written and directed by Neil Burger, and as a mystery-romance holds its own against anything else released recently. The script is attention-grabbing, fast-moving, and entertaining, and the score, direction, and cinematography create a dark, mystic atmosphere and the tension is high throughout. The conclusion, like the rest of the film, is quite satisfying on the surface but breaks down a bit upon further inspection. The story of Eisenheim the Illusionist will appeal to anyone who likes David Blaine or Criss Angel and anyone else looking for a fun diversion.

Good for: a date, someone looking for a 90 minute distraction, fans of romance films, Norton fans, people who like mysteries

Bad for: people who figure out conclusions before the conclusion

The Gallery
The Economist: * * *
The Film Maker: * * * *

United 93 (2006)

* * * * *

United 93 may be the most important film of the 21st century to date. Many will say that, because of how difficult it is to watch, this film is not for everyone, and those people are wrong. United 93 is a thoughtful, painstakingly effective portrayal of the events of September 11, 2001, particularly United flight 93 which crashed into a field in Somerset, Pennsylvania. Directed by Paul Greengrass, known for parts 2 and 3 of the Bourne series, the film employs no well known actors and many engineers, officers, and various personnel playing themselves. The direction is phenomenal as every single scene captures the raw emotion and intensity of the bizarre sequence of events. The casting of little known actors prevents the viewer from being star-struck, and eliminates the feeling of watching an actor in costume. There is no swelling, pulsing, sappy Hollywood score to tell the viewer how to feel because the emotions are right on the screen. The frantic editing and documentary-like cinematography create a window into how different people from all angles felt and acted throughout the events. Aside from the technical and artistic brilliance, United 93 is such vital film because of its presentation. The complete neglect of Hollywood techniques and marketability as a film leave behind truth and reality. This wasn't meant to be enjoyable but a chronicle of a terrible event, life lost, indecisiveness under pressure, and the sheer courageousness of humans fighting evil, grasping for their lives. A film like this could only be made about an event as tragic as 9/11, and no other film about 9/11 should ever be made. It may be too soon after the event for the brilliance of United 93 to sink in, and the fact that it was nominated (without winning) only two Academy Awards is an embarrassment to the Academy. In a country full of media and political bias divided along ideological lines, it is refreshing and necessary to take a step back and understand what happened, why it happened, and honor the life that was lost. This movie is a depiction of fact without any opinion, spin or twist. United 93 is a groundbreaking accomplishment and a landmark achievement in film that must be watched.

Good For: everyone

Bad For: overly emotional people

The Gallery
The Economist: * * *
The Film Maker: * * * * *
The Writer * * * *

Happy Feet (2006)

* * * *

It’s not often that a movie can be incredible for children and even reasonably tolerable for adults. Happy Feet, however, employs a typical animated, children's movie storyline but entwines parable, symbolism, and allegory to bring much more value as a film. Will young kids pick up the deeper meanings behind the characters and their actions? Who knows, but if they do notice anything beneath the surface and begin to ask questions, Happy Feet has considerable value. In the Antarctica of Happy Feet, penguins are all born with a song unique to their personality. The main character, Mumble, is dropped while in the egg and is born unable to sing a note but has better dance moves than Emmitt Smith. His striking difference leads to isolation and persecution, and a cast of interesting characters join him on the resulting journey to find acceptance. None of the characters are as funny as the Penguins of Madagascar, but each is much more complex and contribute more to an evocative story. Happy Feet has an A-list of celebrity voiceovers including Nicole Kidman, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood, Hugh Jackman, Hugo Weaving, and even Fat Joe, but none are very noticeable. This may be a plus, though, as none of the characters are looked at as a cartoon version of the person doing the voices. Robin Williams voices a few characters and turns in his least annoying voice-over performance since playing the Genie in Aladdin. The only other notable film by director George Miller was the Mel Gibson cult-classic Mad Max. However, the entire production team also created Babe, one of the best films of the 1990s. Although Happy Feet doesn't quite live up to Babe-status, it is similar in that is an entry in the under-12 genre that appeals to an audience of all ages. Happy Feet has received acclaim and criticism for both subtle and blatant messages about issues such as the environment, but it is Happy Feet's depth as a story and talking point that make it something that should be seen by both children and adults. It isn't just another computer animated movie designed to make money at the box office, and has earned a spot in the conversation with legitimate cinema.

Good For: kids, a date, someone babysitting, hippies

Bad For: people who enjoy littering, zoo employees

Idiocracy (2006)

*

Throughout the nineties Mike Judge proved he could make versatile comedy across multiple genres. Office Space was a cult classic, smart, and satirical. Beavis and Butthead was the complete opposite, the ultimate display of immaturity that used its stupidity as genius comedy, and King of the Hill was a mainstream comedy that is still in syndication. Idiocracy, which has garnered a respectable cult following as it has lingered in Hollywood purgatory for years, is none of the above. Absolutely nothing is smart about Idiocracy, the stupidity is not funny, and after not being released in theaters or distributed by any major film company, it is unlikely to ever gain a mainstream audience even on DVD. The premise of Idiocracy is in itself brilliant. Joe Bauers, played by Luke Wilson, is the most average human being on earth. As part of a U.S. army experiment he is frozen to be re-thawed a year later, but actually is not rethawed until over 500 years later. In the distant future, 500 years of evolution has selected for an incredibly stupid human race and Joe finds himself as the smartest human being on earth. Maya Rudolph plays a prostitute who is also a part of the experiment. Wilson and Rudolph are painfully not funny especially when they are on the screen together. Dax Shepard plays one of the humans of the future and talks in an awful future "hick, ebonics, valley girl" combination accent that is way more annoying than funny. Where Office Space was the perfect satire of life in the cubicle, Idiocracy completely whiffs at the chance to poke fun at the increasing stupidity of the human race. Occasionally there are a few fart jokes or plays on four letter words that get a chuckle, but as a full length feature, the film falls flat on its face. I'm not sure what Judge was thinking, and I see myself for the first time siding with the film companies. This should not have been released and needed major work, probably a hit of the reset button. Its a shame such a great idea is wasted on a terrible plot with a funny joke every 30 minutes.

Good For: people who liked Norbit, Beavis and Butthead (themselves)

Bad For: people with a double digit IQ, people with hobbies/friends/relatives

The Gallery
The Economist: *
The Film Maker: * * *

Babel (2006)

* * * *

Babel is a moving film about the inter-connectedness of the world we live in, but the most important message it conveys may be the importance of recognizing the equality of individual people across the globe. An ensemble performance with a huge cast, Babel is a scene-jumper which weaves multiple story lines together that don't form a whole until the film's last ten minutes. The plot may be difficult to follow for some. The scenes not only jump between characters but also back and forth in time, and it takes some time to understand where the film is at. The acting is great across the board as it shows how people react to incredibly demanding situations. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are the big names, and both perform well in their roles, but it is the little known actors who make Babel a success. Adrianna Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi are both phenomenal as a Mexican housekeeper and Japanese school girl, respectively. Both had extremely difficult roles and are nearly flawless in every scene. Kikuchi, whose character is deaf, does not even speak a word and still steals every scene. Her performance is a model of what acting should be and was robbed of the Oscar she was nominated for. One of the story lines involves an Arab family whose names as actors I do not know, but the two young boys and the man who plays their father were tremendous and should be recognized. The score is fantastic, one of the best of 2006, as it creates a distinct atmosphere for each scene, and the visuals that it complements across multiple cultures (a Japanese rave, rocky wasteland of the Middle East, a U.S. desert land) are breathtaking. The acting rarely seems forced as well as the point it is trying to get across, and this may almost be to a fault. The directing is great, but it seems as if Alejandro González Iñárritu was trying to whisper his message rather than shout it or even say it with authority. Regardless, I am very anxious to see what he comes with next. Overall, Babel has great acting, an intricate storyline, and an important message. Those are three things you rarely find in movies these days.

Good For: people who like socially conscious films, people interested in many cultures, fans of little known actors

Bad For: people who can't read subtitles, people upset by full frontal nudity, ethnocentrists

The Gallery
The Economist: * * *
The Surfer: * * * *
The Film Maker: * * * * *

Half Nelson (2006)

* * * *

There is nothing great about Half Nelson, but there's nothing wrong with it either. It is a dark, honest drama about a drug addict school teacher and a student he forms a close bond to. The film is very quiet with no pounding score to accentuate the emotional scenes and short, terse dialogue with quick cuts. Throughout the movie you get a sense that the director was trying to create a feel of reality with scenes that get right to the point without sugar coating. You aren't told when or what to feel, and the acting alone gets the point across. Ryan Gosling's performance as Dan Dunne was worthy of an Oscar nod (but not a win). His character is "getting clean" from past drug use but transforms from a teacher who dabbles with drugs at night to a man whose life is nearly destroyed by substances. Shareeka Epps more than holds her own as Drey, a student in Dunne's history class, and we will surely see her pop up in more films in the near future. She portrays a young girl trying to stay straight with a crack-addict teacher, a mother constantly getting the double shift, and neighborhood dealers trying to get her to run dope. It's the connection between Epps and Gosling which makes Half Nelson worthwhile. The film exposes the harsh reality of what can happen to someone who can't get loose from the hold drugs place on them. This is clearly an independent film that doesn't use any of the Hollywood cookie-cutter techniques to make a statement. This is both its flaw and its bright point, as general audiences may become bored at some points. Half Nelson isn't for everyone, but its honest illustration of drug addiction and its effects make it worth watching.

Good For: independent movie fans, people who like movies about the inner-city, someone interested in drugs

Bad For: people who get bored easily, crack-cocaine addicts

The Gallery
The Film Maker: * * * *

Children of Men (2006)

* * * *

Alfonso Cuaron's last American release before Children of Men was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Children of Men's storyline of a desolate not-so-distant future where women have been sterile since 2009 is a bit more powerful than Harry's adventures at Hogwarts. This is the most realistic "bleak future" film I can remember with some jaw-dropping cinematography. Clive Owen stars as Theo, a government employee who, by some chance events, must help to protect the first pregnant woman on planet earth in almost 20 years. Owen is suprisingly solid and has established himself as one of "just-below-top-tier" leading men in Hollywood. Michael Caine, mostly known by this generation as Austin Powers' father, plays the hilarious and heartbreaking Jasper, a close friend to Owen's character. The film carries many British overtones as most of the cast is British, and in the film Britain is one of the last remaning safe havens with refugees from around the world flocking into the country. There are many religious and political allegories weaved into the plot, and at times they are difficult, yet a challenge to decipher. The images of terrorism, facism, and immigration are clearly aimed at the unfortunate situations society faces today. As mentioned earlier, the cinematography is breathtaking as Children of Men has some of the most realistic war scenes and terrorist/refugee attacks I've seen. A car attack scene and another in which the camera follows Owen for nearly five minutes without a cut are two notable examples. The film will no doubt have you enticed throughout, and may raise more questions than answers. This is likely a good thing though, as it will have you talking and may be one of those movies you need to watch a second or third time. Although its not perfect, hopefully Children of Men will spark more films of its kind.

Good For: people who like futuristic movies, political theorists, literature majors, people into symbolism

Bad For: unrelenting United States flag-waving patriots

The Gallery
The Economist: * * * *
The Film Maker: * * * * *

Volver (2006)

* * * *

Penelope Cruz has always been beautiful, has always had a terrible voice, and has always been an average to below average actress. That is until she speaks in Spanish. Cruz is in a totally different realm in Volver, her first performance worthy of attention. Volver, directed by the critically acclaimed Pedro Almodovar, has equal parts comedy and drama. The cast is almost entirely female with little to no camera time for male roles. The women light up the screen, however, in an interesting story of family and death, different from almost anything I have seen. The dialogue is sharp, the visuals are full of color and imagery, and the score has a Hispanic flavor, particularly a scene in which Cruz may or may not sing an emotional, acoustic song. Regardless, she is as hot as ever as the main character, Raimunda, and deserves the nod she received for best actress. Lola Duenas is excellent as Cruz's confused, quiet sister Sole, and Blanca Portillo is memorable as Agustina, the weed smoking, anti-establishment neighbor/long-time friend of the sisters. The film seems to get better each scene as its humor and plot twists take turns keeping you interested. This is the first of Almovodar's films I have seen, but after Volver, I would like to see more.

Good For: a date, women, general movie audience

Bad For: people who can't read subtitles, misogynists

The Gallery
The Film Maker: * * * *

Pan's Labyrinth: El Laberinto del Fauno (2006)

* * * * *

Pan's Labyrinth will not leave you speechless, because you will be discussing it with whoever is lucky enough to watch it with you. The film captivates you from the first scene until the culminating in a phenomenal ending, one of the best in film history. A fairy tale for adults, Pan's Labyrinth is a perfect blend of reality, fantasy, horror, heartbreak, and magic. The story is told through the eyes of Ofelia, played masterfully by Ivana Baquero and follows her journey in both an imaginary and real world. Beside the groundbreaking performance by Baquero, The cast is highlighted by Sergi Lopez as Capitan Vidal, one of the most evil characters in memory, and a powerful performance by Maribel Verdu as Mercedes. The special effects are some of the best ever created and can be appreciated because they are wonderfully placed and not overwhelming. You will be humming music from the score for days and will hear the theme music in your dreams. Guillermo del Toro has made a masterpiece that illustrates the brutality of war and the innocence of childhood. A fable and a fairy tale in one, this film should not be missed by anyone. A great film initiates discussion, and this one could be talked about for days as it is open to every viewer's interpretation. Everything in this film; the cast, direction, cinematography, score, effects, and script is memorable.

Good For: everyone who likes movies, especially great ones

Bad For: people who can't read subtitles, people upset by realistic blood/injuries

The Gallery
The Economist: * * * * *
The Surfer: * * * * *
The Film Maker: * * * *
The Writer * * * *

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

* * * *

Will Ferrell is the new Jim Carrey. Except better. Ferrell has proven to be more consistent with Old School, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights (not to mention countless cameos) than Carrey ever was in his prime during the 90s. Now, with Stranger than Fiction, Ferrell has scored a great performance in a dramatic role just as Carrey did with the Truman Show. Marc Forster, the director of Finding Neverland, has created a movie that appeals to almost anyone. As can be expected from Farrell, there are scenes that make you laugh out loud. But what may surprise you is a plot that twists enough to keep you riveted, and a narrative that tugs at your heart. The great story is brought to life by a phenomenal cast. Maggie Gyllenhaal lights up the screen as Ferrell's love interest, Dustin Hoffman is electrifying as a professor, Emma Thompson is brilliant as a neurotic writer, and Queen Latifah holds her own as the writer's assistant. As mentioned above, Ferrell shines brightest as a character completing an arc both funny and touching for the first time. The script may be too deep for some, but this is one of the most original movies I have seen in years. Stranger Than Fiction was great in the theater and looks to be one of those movies that is better a second and third time at home.

Good For: a date, existentialists, general movie watchers

Bad For: mean people

The Gallery
The Economist: * * *
The Surfer: * * *
The Film Maker: * * *

The Good Shepherd (2006)

* * *

The Good Shepherd looks like it has all the ingredients to be a great movie; good cast, legendary director, government conspiracy story, and no explosions. But the movie is a disappointment thanks to average performances and a way too long, way, way, way, too complicated storyline. Matt Damon is far from bad as one of the first agents in the CIA, but also isn't anywhere near his performance earlier this year in The Departed. The story has its twists and turns that keep you briefly intrigued, but at times you may miss what is happening because you are trying to decipher what you have just witnessed in the previous scene. I sincerely believe you either have to be a history major or have lived through this time period to fully comprehend the entire story. Deniro's character is much more enjoyable than what he has done behind the camera, and a cameo by Joe Pesci was a high point. Angelina Jolie and Alec Baldwin are both capable but have been better. John Turturro, a favorite, stands out as Damon's assistant. Overall, the film would probably be much more enjoyable as a book. If you're a fan of Deniro, Damon, or conspiracy films, it is worth checking out. Otherwise, you may have better ways to spend three hours.

Good For: Deniro fans, history buffs, very intelligent people

Bad For: people who don't want to think at movies, someone with limited time

The Gallery
The Economist: * * *