Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" was an extremely good example of a film with significant social commentary. The dialogue in the film fit so well with the setting as well as the community and, for me atleast, is where most of the entertainment can be found. I did have to rent the film because I missed some, but truth is I did not feel as though my missing a section really affected my comprehension of the film. The film definitely does not tell a plot driven story but centers more around human action and behavior. It was very interesting watching the film unfold, and it was a complete surprise to me to find out that Mookie would be the one to start the riot on Sal's Pizzeria. My favorite character, and the one I thought actually did do the right thing, was Da Mayor. He is the one who utters these words to Mookie, as well as the sole person attempting to calm the angry people of the neighborhood after Radio Raheem's death. I applaud the utilization of color in this film because it truly sets this film apart, it not only emphasizes the heat, but more importantly it gives the neighborhood a unique look/feel. Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" could be heard numerous times in the film and highlights the racial tension. In terms of the issues brought up in the film, I do not think Buggin' Out had a right to criticize Sal for not having African Americans' pictures on his wall. It's not like he had Abraham Lincoln and Cary Grant up there; it was strictly Italian Americans, and it was his attempt to represent his culture. In my opinion Sal is not a racist, but he is clearly aware of his surroundings. I do not believe that Mookie did the right thing by society's standards, but I do believe he did the right thing in terms of mourning a good friend.

The Battle of Algiers

"The Battle of Algiers" is considered a classic to many people and the review/commentary I read by Sheila K. Johnson of News Center would definitely agree. Johnson first discusses how the film was mostly watched by young Americans when it first came out in the 1960s, young Americans who just wanted to learn more about the Third World country revolutionaries thousands of miles away. I thought it was very interesting how Johnson explicated the fact that the film was made by an Italian director, Gillo Pontecorvo. I never thought this would really affect the film, but she makes the point that the fact that the director was neither French nor Algerian added an un-bias feel to the film. Johnson also points out that the film is shown in political science classes as well as more recently the pentagon. While watching the film I was also, like Johnson, extremely impressed with the documentary-like look the film had. Knowing that Pontecorvo did not use any realy footage made the film that much more impressive. Johnson kept on making connections between the Algerians and the Iraqis and her view on the war in Iraq became extremely clear, but I feel she concentrated on that connection too much and should have just watched the film to learn more about that instance in history. What Johnson did not mention was the fact that most of the actors in the film were not professional actors. Not only was that my favorite fun fact but I thought that having real life Algerians represent their culture made the film that much more authentic. Overall, Johnson praises the film for being a groundbreaking piece of art, while I enjoyed it but reading the subtitles became a little too hard sitting in the back.

Memento

"Memento" is by far my favorite film that we have watched so far. I know for a fact that if I had watched this movie on my own I would not have understood anything, but surprisingly writing down the events of every scene as they went was extremely helpful. I loved everything about this movie, from the plot to the acting to the order of the scenes. Everything pieced together perfectly. The story revolves around Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) who suffers from short term memory loss and therefore cannot make new memories from any time after his wife's death, and his attack. He results to photographs, notes that he writes to himself, and tattoos to direct him in the right direction everyday, he conditions himself to remember. This storyline right away is something I have never seen in a movie before, already making it an original film. The characters are all very hard to read, and throughout the film, and for some, after the film, you do not know who to trust. The characters all have their own motives and it was extremely entertaining to see them all unfold. I was impressed with the acting throughout, especially Guy Pearce. The other characters such as Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie Ann Moss) seem to be just as complicated as Leonard in their own ways, and they each question eachothers motives throughout the film. I really enjoyed watching the colored scenes, which were going backwards in time, and the black and white scenes, which were running chronologically collide at the end (or beginning depending on how you look at it). I love films that keep you thinking even after you've watched them, and have subjects open for debate because it gets your mind to think while watching. I must admit, I'm not exactly sure what film noir tactics are used in this film, the most obvious one that I can think of is the universal fact in film noir that the protaganist is doomed from the beginning. I definetly think that Leonard is doomed and he does not want to admit it. Like Teddy said, we all lie to ourselves to be happy.

Kiss Me Deadly

I honestly don't even know where to start with this movie. From the opening credits, to the story, to the ridiculous ending, I was weirded out and completely confused. I honestly have no idea where some characters fit in and why every woman the main character, Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker), seemed to meet would just go up and kiss him. I mean, do people ever really do that? Going off of the unrealistic portion of the film ultimately leads to discussing the ending that I could not have possibly been more surprised by. The mysterious box was opened and unleashed a fiery doom for the characters to either fall into from one ending, and run away from in another. I did not understand how Christina (Cloris Leachman), who Mike picks up randomly, gets possession of this key that opens the box, and that is never explained. It was also not explained, or maybe I didn't catch, why Dr. G.E. Soberin (Albert Dekker) wanted possession of this box, that clearly only destroys. Velda (Maxine Cooper) is the only character that I liked, and truthfully I didn't like her that much. I won't even go into the acting because I really was not impressed by any of it. Gabrielle (Gaby Rodgers) was the creepiest woman I have ever seen so I guess that is an accomplishment considering she's supposed to be a little crazy. Overall, I can safely say I hated this movie. Not because it was in black and white, not because it was old, but because I honestly was not entertained. That is what movies are supposed to do, atleast, that is what good ones are supposed to do.

Double Indemnity

A movie with the name "Double Indemnity" does not seem to grab people's attention right away, but once we started watching the film, I became extremely invested in the characters and their outcome. Because the film begins with the end, it is no longer a mystery of what is going to happen, but more how and why it happened. Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) is an insurance agent who seems to be leading an average life. When he goes to the Dietrichson household to sell car insurance to the head of the house, he instead finds his wife Phyllis (Barbara Stanwyck), and is instantly enthralled. From their first meeting flirtation is obvious but nothing more seems out of the ordinary. It is when Phyllis asks Walter to come back another time that her motifs begin to shine through. I thought it was very interesting how at one point I felt bad for her because her husband seemed so wretched, but what was even more interesting was Walter agreeing to assist in the murder of Mr. Dietrichson so easily. Many aspects of the film noir genre were easily spotted, for example the voice over narration and low key lighting. The use of venetian blinds was also evident in many scenes especially in the offices. I felt the love story between Phyllis and Walter blossomed to fast but by the end it becomes evident that Phyllis did not really love him at that point at all. Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson) was by far my favorite character. His intelligence and ability to piece information together was extremely noteworthy. I also liked watching his scenes with Walter because he confided in Walter when all along he was the one he was looking for. The film has a very true and clear message, sometimes people miss what is right under their noses.

"It's Groundhog Day!!!"

Every time "Groundhog Day" is played on ABC Family (which happens quite often) I have always found myself changing the channel and not giving the film a chance. That was definitely a mistake on my part. I thought this film found a very original way to tell an extremely over done story, the story of a man who is initially a jerk, realizing that he is a jerk and changing his ways. Because this film had Phil Connors (Bill Murray) repeat the same day over and over again, I was able to see a gradual change within Phil throught events that happened over and over again. I liked how the film mixed a significant amount of comedy and romance into a story that could have probably survived without one but would not have been as successful in depicting the story. Although it did frustrate me not knowing why Phil was stuck in February 2nd for however many days, I am glad the writers did not make up a ridiculous excuse to cover it up. By not knowing I feel the plot line, in a sense, becomes more legitimate. I loved the acting in this movie because unlike "Bringing Up Baby," another screwball comedy, the acting seemed more realistic and the characters seemed more like everyday people. The film was extremely repetitive, obviously, but I feel it was filmed in a way where everyday brought something new for the characters keeping the events moving. My only problem with this film would have to be Rita, played by Andie MacDowell. She just did not seem very likeable to me at first, and the only reason I seemed to be rooting for their romance was because Phil seemed so enthralled by her. Throughout the film her character did grow on me, but Phil was by far the star. This film in many ways is like a screwball comedy but Phil being the center of the events was a clear difference since usually in screwball comedies there is a strong female character leading the film. I think, in a way, "Groundhog Day" tried to incorporate the strong female character by having Rita be the producer and Phil just a weatherman, making her the authoritive figure. Overall, I enjoyed watching this film and I must say it does surpass "Bringing Up Baby" for me. Although the film involves a not so likely premise, the message is universal.

Bringing Up Baby

I personally love romantic comedies. Although they may not be very realistic in terms of all the events that unfold, I find it quite entertaining watching the relationship between two people grow, especially as it did in "Bringing Up Baby." Susan Vance and David Huxley meet at a golf course, and Susan takes a liking to him instantly. From that point on Susan does everything in her power to keep David close by, and wacky situations ensue. It was interesting to see Susan as the dominating character in terms of personality. She was not just the female sidekick, which is different from many other films, making this movie especially loyal to the screwball comedy genre. I noticed immediately that the film would be extremely fast paced, in terms of dialogue and action. The film is very dependent on physical comedy, for example Susan's clumsiness, which is not very funny the fifth time around but it definitely credits her wacky personality. Many people say Susan's annoying, but I just find her eccentric and bubbly. Let's face it, if Susan were a calm, quiet woman, the film would lose its charm. Contrary to what others have said, I find both Susan and David's characters likeable. Their personalities seem to compliment eachother, and through all the events, it is clear why they finally fall in love. I have found a new appreciation for both Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, who I thought played their roles fantastically. The acting is overdone at certain times, but only to highlight the craziness of the sequences. Overall, I found this movie to be extremely entertaining, and taking into account the film genre and time period, the film is rightly renowned by critics and film goers alike.
Fun Fact: "Bringing Up Baby" was one of the first films to use the word "gay" in a homosexual context.

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood

In class we discussed the classic Western versus the revisionist Western and ultimately decided that Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West" fell in the middle. The mysterious Harmonica serves as the cowboy hero, but many of his behaviors make him a much more psychologically complicated character than most Western heroes. Instead of focusing on what I thought of the film, I wanted to discover what the film originally set out to be. Sergio Leone had great success with the Clint Eastwood starring "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." This made him a household name in Hollywood and afterwards he vowed never to make another Western, for he thought there was nothing more he could bring to the genre. Hollywood studios thought otherwise. He refused many offers but soon enough Paramount Studios offered Leone a big budget and the opportunity to work with Henry Fonda (Frank), someone who just happened to be one of Leone's favorite actors. He took the offer, enlisted Sergio Donati to make the screen play, cast the actors and set off to Spain and Italy to film. Claudia Cardinale (Jill) was Leone's vision of the character, but Cardinale said she was not confident enough her English or Italian to speak the dialogue so Leone had her lines dubbed. The film and all its characters were initially tributes to other great Westerns, so the story was completely original to the film. Like most Westerns, Leone presents the contrast and arrival of civilization to the Old West. Many of Leone's other films have proven that he likes to exemplify specific sequences with little to no dialogue and focus on the settings or actions. This, in turn, causes the film to flow slowly and allows the viewer to absorb the scene. The film was originally released in Italy and then a year later released in the US, but the critical acclaim did not come at first glance. Although, as we all know now, the film is today regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, and I can see why.
Fun Fact: There is a deleted scene from the beginning of the film where Harmonica gets beaten by a sherriff and his crew at a hotel after arriving in Flagstone. Although this scene does not appear in the final product, Harmonica carries scars on his face from the fight throughout the entire film.

The Classic Western

The truth is, I have never actually seen a western before, except maybe for a minute or two, I'd just get bored after that. Surprisingly, I did not mind John Ford's "My Darling Clementine." Because I was absent, I had to rent the movie and watch it at home, which was nice because I just got to watch it the whole way through without any interruptions (not that class discussions aren't helpful...) The film recounts the story of Wyatt Earp and his rise to Marshall in the town of Tombstone. The film's overall theme is the coming of civilization in to the West, and throughout the film that overlying theme becomes clear very quickly. One of my favorite scenes in the entire movie was when Wyatt takes Clementine to the very first service in the yet to be completed church. Clementine, who represents modern civilization, finally connects with Wyatt, the once scruffy frontiersman. With all the violence thrust in his life, Clementine seems to represent a piece of innocence that is long overdue. I was extremely impressed with Henry Fonda's portrayal of Wyatt Earp. He proves to be a fantastic character actor. Wyatt's transformation from cattle herder to sophisticated lawman does not seem pushed and plays off quite naturally as if it were a right of passage. The film is set in Arizona and I was very surprised to learn that John Ford especially wanted to film in Arizona, on his favorite locale, instead of sets in Hollywood. Once again this gives the film a more realistic tone, which is important when telling a story of a real life man. Native Americans are represented as they always are in Westerns, uncivilized, trouble making Indians, but it was the mind set of settlers during that time period. The tension that grows between Wyatt, Doc Holliday and the Clantons is build up nicely but the finaly fight at the OK Corral was not as climactic as I would have expected. It was honestly one of my least favorite sequences in the movie. Although, during this sequence was the first time I noticed that Wyatt was being shown by a low angle camera, possibly representing his new found power. Towards the end of the sequence when many have been killed, Wyatt chooses not to shoot Old man Clanton; a clear representation of the honorable man that he is, and everything a Western hero is supposed to be.

Culture Clash

"Babel" is a film that was released in 2006, and gained great critical praise from the day it was released at the Cannes film festival. "Babel" combines four stories from Morocco, Mexico, Japan, and the US. All the stories are in some way connected and show that no matter how far away people are physically, no matter how different our cultures, we are (in some way) the same. The film is a drama that begins in Morocco where only a few of the main characters are introduced. Abdullah, a goatherder, is tired of jackals eating his goats and decides to buy a rifle from a friend to solve the problem. He gives this rifle to his two teenage sons, whom he believes will be responsible. Despite this thought, the boys, Yussef and Ahmed, decide to try it out. At first they shoot at rocks, and unbeknownst to the range of the rifle, they shoot at a tourist bus. The bullet hits a tourist, Susan Jones played by Cate Blanchett. Her husband Richard, played effortlessly by Brad Pitt, is more than distraught by this because he knows Susan did not want to be in Morocco in the first place. Simultaneously, two other stories are being told, that of Amelia a Mexican nanny, and Chieko, a Japanese deaf girl who refuses to speak traumatized after her mother's suicide. Amelia is taking care of two children, and for some reason the parents are delayed from coming back from their trip. Amelia's son's wedding happens to be that weekend so she decides to take the children with her, without the parents' consent. Problems ensue, along with Chieko's situation which proves just as morbid. Chieko's father is being investigated for a rifle, registered in his name, being involved in an attempted murder.
Starting to get the picture?
While watching this film I became increasingly interested in how and why the story was told as it was. The events are, obviously, told out of order and jump from location to location. Issues within the issues begin to present themselves and it is clear that the director intended for much more to be taken out of the film then just the surface information. "Babel" was directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (pictured above with Brad Pitt), a Mexican director best known in the US for his film "21 Grams" which he has said is, in a way, a prequel to "Babel." Inarritu made it clear that he wanted all the locations in the film to actually be shot on location, so the film was shot in each of the four countries. In terms of directing the actors, Inarritu believed that in order for the characters to be presented as realistically as possible the actors needed to be placed directly in their shoes. He felt this could not be achieved filming only in California. Inarritu also decided that instead of having the characters who came from different countries speak English, he would have them speak their native language and add subtitles, which meant a majority of the film would have to be read. This decision was extremely important, and well made. By having the Japanese characters speak Japanese, and the Mexican characters speak Spanish, the film is given a certain authenticity that would not have been achieved otherwise. Being foreign himself, he had a better idea of how to make the film multi cultural, and it helped with the overall presentation of the film. Inarritu did not record a commentary for this film, like all the others he has made, and he explains why in an interview with a newspaper; “I don't like them. I feel that if you have to explain something it loses strength. It's like a magician trying to explain his magic, in a way. Those kind of things make me feel like I've lost something special about the film. The film should explain itself.” Inarritu tends not to explain everything in his films. In many cases the viewer has to infer what happens to the characters. This definetly gives the film a thought provoking edge and keeps you thinking and imagining long after having seen it, yet another trait of Inarritu's films. The name "Babel" for the film was not random, Inarritu is said to have chosen it carefully. Babel in the dictionary is defined as a confusion of voices or sounds. Throughout the film there are so many languages spoken, and a clear confusion is presented. A lot of translation is needed (hence the subtitles) but as Stuart Levine of MSNBC explains, "What unites them is a unifying voice, however. One which speaks universal truths in understanding the harsh realism of humanity."

Citizen Kane Reflection

"Citizen Kane" is rendered by many as one of the greatest films ever made, if not the best of all time. It is easy to see why once you examine the film techniques incorporated during a period when sound was just being introduced into film making. What I found most interesting about the film was what seems to gain my attention the most in modern films; mise en scene. Because this was Orson Welles' first film, and directorial debut I was extremely impressed with his control over what appeared on film. Much of mise en scene overlaps with theater, which explains why Welles was able to control the aspects so well, considering his theater background. The overall combination of all the film techniques created a film that was not only groundbreaking, but also entertaining to watch.

The first sequence in "Citizen Kane" introduces the viewer to a setting that proves extremely important throughout the film, his massive getaway towards the end of his life- Xanadu. Xanadu is shot beautifully in various different angles, and it is almost hard to believe that Xanadu was actually a painting. Xanadu seemed like a very stylized setting for Kane's refuge. The first clue is the "No Trespassing" sign hanging on the fence, but also the secluded nature of the structure shows just how alone Kane was at the end of his life. I was extremely impressed how through all the shots, the window, where Kane was lying when he spoke his last words, stayed in the same place through every angle. Throughout the entire film, Welles alternates between built artificial sets and paintings for the setting. For the newspaper building, the neighborhood was portrayed through a painting but the close ups on various buildings were built sets on the studio lot. Paintings were not only used to imitate large buildings in the film. In one scene, Kane is giving a speech in front of a huge crowd during his run for Governor of New York. At first, a viewer could be fooled into thinking that there are a lot of extras, but once you look closer it is easy to see that the people are in fact not real. Welles placed a flashlight behind the painting to give the illusion of people moving in the crowd. There are very important utilizations of props in the movie, including the snow globe which Kane is holding in his death bed, his childhood sled, and the puzzles that Susan is working on through many sequences. Each prop is employed not only to have something for the actors to hold but each one also has symbolic meaning. The snow globe and sled remind Kane of his childhood and the life he once had, where as the puzzles not only help shift the film through the seasons but also serve as a metaphor for Kane's life as being told by those he knew; the viewer has to piece the events together along the way, and even with one missing piece, the story would be incomplete. But setting is far from being the only part of the film which is applied to change prospective.

Costume and make up were used to their fullest potential in this film. They proved to be functional as well as symbolic. Make up is obviously important in the portrayal of Kane through all his life stages, especially when played by the same actor the entire film. The use of the face mask helped make Welles' portrayal much more realistic, even causing the viewer not to recognize him by the end. Costume helped exemplify the time period while also highlighting changes in attitude. For example, through the progression of Kane's marriage to his first wife, Emily, the costumes and make up change in the sequence to portray a more tense, uneasy marriage. Emily's make up was also incorporated to contrast with that of Susan, who was much more laid back to say the least. Costume and make up helped demonstrate changes in characters as well as distinguish the time in which that scene is occurring.

Finally, and possibly the most innovative technique for the time period, was the use of lighting. Low key lighting was used in many scenes including the scene where a younger Charles Foster Kane signs the declaration of principles, where he promises to only publish honest news. While signing, due to the low key lighting, Kane's face is in the dark causing the declaration to be the main focus of the scene. The low key lighting throughout provides Welles with the power to control what the viewer focuses on, and surprisingly it is rarely Kane. Welles provides the viewer with a much more intelligent view of the movie by guiding eyes to what he feels are much more symbolic and meaningful to the story.

Mise en scene is a very important aspect of film making, especially in "Citizen Kane." Each time Welles exercises a technique within mise en scene, it creates a scene (and overall, a film) way beyond its time.

Film Review

Batman has to be my favorite super hero, not as sad and weak as Spider man, and not an alien like Superman. With no particular super power, he uses his riches to make a difference in his city. Batman began in film a very long time ago; the first Batman movie was made in 1966 starring Adam West as the black knight. The film was quite comical, and not nearly as dark as the newest version starring Christian Bale. Bale is mostly known for his very eclectic roles in films such as "American Psycho" and "The Machinist" where he lost 64 pounds to reduce to a 120 pound figure. His portrayal of Batman was far from any other character Bale has depicted, but by inserting his subsequently dark demeanor, he adds a significant amount of mystery to a character that, let's admit, has never truly been developed from the ground up.
"Batman Begins" tells the tale of, of course, Bruce Wayne. Bruce is first introduced in his childhood years; the first sequence is actually a young Bruce Wayne trapped at the bottom of a well type structure, which marks his first encounter with bats; and it is not a very good one. This experience scars him, and proves extremely important throughout the entire film as the basis of many of his decisions. Like his decision to run away and find refuge in the far east, where he learns not only to fight, but also how crime is handled in various societies. When he finally returns, he discovers a broken Gotham, torn by those who believe in good, and those who exploit it. Through Bruce's own expedition into becoming Batman the audience is also taken on a psychological journey that exemplifies just how fear can affect an individual as well as a society. Who would have thought a super hero movie could be so deep?
The film is beautifully directed by Christopher Nolan, who directed "Memento" and also directed Bale and Hugh Jackman in "The Prestige," which came out just last year. His films are known as being extremely 'cultish' so his choice to create a Batman film was surprising to many. Overall his presentation of Gotham as a crumbling, crime infested empire, instead of just a big city shows just how much Batman is needed. Nolan also wrote the screenplay alongside David S. Goyer, which just seems to flow throughout. The screen play allows for other characters to shine brightly as well, like veteran actor Micheal Caine's Alfred. Who would have thought that Bruce Wayne's old butler would have so much to contribute? Not to mention Morgan Freeman, who just seems to add greatness to every project he participates in. Katie Holmes plays Rachel, a district attorney in Gotham and Bruce's childhood girl friend. Rachel is a character who could be so much more effective if she weren't played by Katie Holmes. It could be just me, but I can't seem to picture her in anything aside from Dawson's Creek and tween movies like "First Daughter."
Overall, the film is fantastic. Bale's portrayal of Batman has just enough seriousness and charm to make anyone cheer for him. The new Batman does not fight crime to gain praise, because he rarely recieves any in this adaption, but instead does it to restore hope in the people. The story is structured and filmed so differently from other Batman films, that you could almost believe this is happening somewhere; and I would like to think that maybe it is.

My Favorite Actor

If there is ever one actor who could say he did it all, it would have to be Tom Hanks. He is by far my favorite actor, not only because of his skills within acting (which are evident) but also his range through his films. His very first movie was "Splash" in 1984, and aside from recieving critical acclaim the film went on to be nominated for an Oscar for best screenplay. From that point on it seemed Hanks was perfect for light romantic comedies, including "Joe Versus the Volcano" which was his first movie with Meg Ryan. Three years later he played the lead role in "Philadelphia," in which he played a gay man with Aids, which marked his first Oscar nomination and win. The next year, Hanks played the lead role in a film which he is by far best known for; "Forrest Gump." Not only did this film gain extreme critical acclaim, it also won Hanks his second oscar, and Best Picture. He was the first actor ever to win the Best Actor award two years in a row. After that Hanks became an icon in Hollywood, and great projects followed including "Apollo 13", "Toy Story", "That Thing You Do!", "Saving Private Ryan", and "The Green Mile". Even within all these action, animated, and dramatic films, Hanks still contained the charm to star in two more romantic comedies with Meg Ryan. Throughout his acting career Tom Hanks definetly did not create a box for himself. He starred in a film that many people expected to fail, but turned it into a surpise classic; "Cast Away," which chronicled one man's experience stranded on a deserted island alone. Now even through all these great films, I have yet to tell you my favorite. Although I love "Forrest Gump" and love watching his romantic comedies, my favorite Tom Hanks movies would have to be "A League of Their Own" and "Catch Me If You Can." He plays such a cold, careless coach in "A League of Their Own" but who could forget him yelling "There's no crying in baseball!!" to one of his female players. Even as a mean guy, you can't help but love him. "Catch Me If You Can" just happens to be one of my favorite movies, not only because of its amazingly true story, but also because of the acting; Tom Hanks is simply amazing. And his career has yet to stop in any form. Although many people were harsh in the adaption of 2006's "The DaVinci Code," I couldn't find anything wrong with it, but my opinion's quite biased. His cameo in "The Simpson's Movie" proves it though; Tom Hanks is unstoppable. Many people in Hollywood seem to agree that Tom Hanks is an icon, and inspiring many proteges. Shia LaBeouf has been called the next Tom Hanks, but he'll have to do a lot to prove that.

Critique the Critic

"Across the Universe" is a film that came out just last Friday, and one that has been anticipated by Beatles fans everywhere. The film is essentially a movie-musical, but completely using only Beatles songs; 33 to be exact. While searching for reviews, the critiques for this film were extremely mixed. I finally found a review in The Hollywood Reporter that presented all the good things, the bad things, and the original things that this film has to offer. Stephen Farber describes the premise of the film, which is a love story, based in the 1960s, one of the most historically important decades this country has encountered. The main character in the film, Jude, is a Liverpudlian dock worker looking for his father whom he hopes to find in America. While at school he meets Max, a rebellious young student, who becomes a fast friend. Jude soon falls in love with Max's sister Lucy, and life seems to be at its peak for the trio. Although, when Max is drafted into the military after dropping out, and leaves for Vietnam, Lucy and Jude are left to fight for peace, and keep their love alive. Farber agrees with many critics in saying that, yes it is an original idea for a film, mixing the music of the Beatles with the drama of the era, but an original idea can only go so far.

Yet this lavish production, which also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival, is finally unsatisfying because it somehow misses the essence of the Beatles and of the most memorable movie musicals.

Even though throughout the review, Farber points out the faults of this movie, his approval of the overall presentation of the film still keeps me wanting to see it. Farber does make it clear that the film had a great potential and much of it was reached through the full presentation of the story. Throughout the review, a reader can notice the one thing truly troubling Farber about the film is its desire to be a musical without harnessing the joy and cleverness found in many of the Beatles' songs.

The Beatles acknowledged the tensions of the period in some of their music, and Taymor has highlighted the grim mood of songs like "Revolution" as well as the more surreal, psychedelically flavored songs such as "I Am the Walrus" and "Strawberry Fields Forever." But she has completely ignored the sly wit found in such songs as "Penny Lane," "Paperback Writer" or "When I'm 64."

Farber believes that one of the greatest mistakes within the film was the simple story accompanying its extravagant musical numbers. He gives great praise to the costume and set design and the editing, which without would have made the review completely cynical. He also points out that with all that the movie presents during the storytelling, it is not met with a strong enough ending to finish it off.

Mark Friedberg's production design and Albert Wolsky's costumes should be remembered during awards season. Francoise Bonnot's editing also deserves high praise. The inter cutting during "Hold Me Tight," "With a Little Help From My Friends"and "Let It Be" gives these numbers a breathless cinematic rhythm. The arrangement of the songs also is top-notch. But the romantic finale seems pat rather than emotionally devastating.

Farber is able to present his critique by not just listing off reasons why he thinks this movie is just okay, but he uses his knowledge of the subject to enhance the reader's understanding of why the film could use improvement. His knowledge of various Beatles' songs and how there presentation would have better fit the story help acknowledge the possible mistakes the film may contain. He also compares the film to other movie musicals explaining that not all musicals must be joyous, but they should render a significant emotion.

Still, it could be argued that many of the greatest moments in movie musical history-like Gene Kelly's performance of the title number in Donen and Kelly's "Singin' in the Rain" -- convey pure exuberance. And of course what made the Beatles' own movies "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!" so captivating was their spirit of playfulness and joy.

I enjoyed reading this review more than others because it presented not just reasoning why the film was not its best, but also highlights of the film that helped me realize that, although it is not fantastic, the film does have its bright moments.

Joe Cocker plays three characters in a brilliant rendition of "Come Together," and he momentarily supplies the gleeful wit that the film desperately needs. Bono's performance of "I Am the Walrus" is another high point.

Aside from complementing various songs throughout the film, Farber also expresses great acceptance for the cast and their overall performance.

Overall, this review not only informed me about the various issues lying within this film, it also informed me of the many ways the film could have improved, and giving examples of various moments where the film was truly good, helps me to know what to focus on when I go see it, because I still do want to!

Tuna Fish

Fish