No Country for Old Men

This film by the Coen brothers is sheer brilliance. By far the best movie I've seen this year, and the hype did not exceed the delivery. Where to begin with a movie this exceptional? I'll begin with the story, because that is the glue that holds the other pieces together. The story is based on a novel by Cormack McCarthy. This means nothing to me other than he won the Pulitzer for fiction in 2007 for The Road and his book was picked once by Oprah. It is a truly compelling story set in 1980 rural Texas about a simple man who finds a bag of money that turns out to be Pandora's Box.

The Coen brothers deliver this story to the screen in one of the most indescribably genius examples of camera work in recent film memory. The detail offered to each scene overshadows the characters and the story itself building a cinematic landscape of suspicion and intrigue. Even characterless stills of fences or gas stations have an air of building tension simply because of the angles and placement of the camera, or the prolonged hesitance of a shot. They had an intelligent, yet humorous and human dialogue to deal with, but what is far more memorable is the silence that dominates much of the film. The desired effect is perfectly achieved with audibly emphasized footsteps in dirt, or the sound of a truck coming to a stop, or a metal air tank being gently set down on concrete. Their vision comes to life in a way few directors know how to achieve. Their attention to detail is meticulous, and their delivery is flawless.

The acting group take this challenging piece to the next level with stellar performances all around. With the exception of Harrelson, who I have never really cared for, they all rise to the occasion, particularly Brolin and Bardem. If they aren't nominated this year it will be a shame. Bardem's psycho killer is the most riveting antagonist to come to the screen in recent memory, and he absolutely commands the viewer's attention leaving nothing more than a guilty sense of blood lust in his wake. Brolin is masterful as the everyman who finds the satchel of money, knowing all along the trouble that it will bring.

As the conclusion nears, you can't help wanting more. More action, more suspense, more death and more beautiful cinematography. But that just wouldn't be the Coen brothers' style. They end it in the perfect place for this impressively simple yet suspenseful and entertaining ride. Easily the best movie of the year. 10/10.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

This is a great tale of greed, family and a simple plan gone horribly awry. Hoffman is excellent as the older brother who sets the plan in motion with the help of his half-wit younger brother (Hawke). Lumet uses an interesting direction technique starting the story at the climax and moving backwards showing the days leading up to the robbery through the various characters' perspectives. Then we move forward and see Hoffman and Hawke try to pick up the pieces, although we know that it is simply too late.

Hoffman exudes emotion, and as I was watching him, I could see and feel the stress and angst in his face. He draws the viewer into his world, and as it begins to come crashing in around him, you feel like you're right in the thick of it. His performance reminds me of one of his lesser known films; Owning Mahowny, and his characters plights are very similar in both films. There is an outward appearance of calm confidence, but through the eyes you can see nervous uncertainty and fear.

The pace of the film went smoothly, and the suspense began to build about half way through, but the shaky cuts when the perspective changed were a little overly dramatic. Finney and Tomei both do a fine job, but my complaint is with the resemblance between Hoffman and Hawke. There could have been a more convincing player than Hawke to play the little brother, and I'm normally a fan of his work.

As events begin to spiral out of control, we see that there is no such thing as a perfect crime, and the repercussions are disastrous and inescapable. The tension holds until the final frame and a lesson in greed and trust is learned too late. I have a feeling that this one will escape the mainstream audiences' radar, but I would expect Hoffman and Lumet to receive recognition from the Academy. 9/10.

Lions for Lambs

Lions for lambs is an allusion to a German poem written during World War I about the British. The Germans saw great courage and determination in the British soldiers being wasted by the ignorance and arrogance of the brass. This is a spot on revelation of the political perspective of this well-written and acted, but mostly unimpressive film.

The political overtones run deep, but this is not as liberal as it may be made out to be. Redford does a great job of showing the war on terror as a global quagmire that has no easy solution (while offering numerous comparisons to Vietnam). His motives are more introspective in that he shows both sides to the age old debate of peace versus righteousness. Where the film falters is in its delivery. The dialogue is entertaining enough, but there is very little substance beyond the three converging storylines.

The film begins with various people reading their relevant reports; Cruise's ambitious GOP senator reading approval ratings, Redford's "A California University" political science professor reading his class attendance logs, and Berg's special forces colonel reading situation reports from Afghanistan. These three stories intertwine simultaneously for a one hour period of time, with a few flashbacks as character development of the two soldiers who find themselves shot down in the Taliban infested mountains of Afghanistan.

The dialogue between Cruise and Streep is really nothing more than a venting of foreign policy errors and pessimist predictions for global annihilation. Everybody knows that this war won't end in a tidy manner, but Cruise's political ambitions seem to cloud his own moral judgment. Redford as the tired professor trying to inspire his intelligent but lazy student seems incredibly far-fetched. They meet as if it were a regular thing, and discuss how he's squandering his potential. Redford then gets on his soapbox and tells a story about a couple of his most promising former students, who happen to be the same two who are currently sitting on an Afghani mountain ledge. It all seems a little too convenient and connected.

I can't say I didn't enjoy the film, but I am getting tired of political conspiracy theories and combat scenarios that conveniently produce martyrs for the film's cause. I could rant and rave about my own political beliefs, but I'll leave it at this: The film poses an interesting question to the viewers without exerting too much of an influence toward any one side. I felt a little let down by the film, I think it could have been a lot more powerful with the cast and the subject matter. I am not expecting any Oscar nominations from this one. 6/10.

American Gangster

This highly anticipated biopic did not disappoint. Denzel was brilliant, as always and as great of an actor as he is playing the protagonist, he's so much better when he's a ruthless, despicable criminal. The true story follows Frank Lucas' rise and fall during the twilight years of the Vietnam war as he uses his family military connections in Asia to smuggle heroin into Harlem. Crowe plays Richie Roberts, seemingly the only honest cop in New York (but with plenty of personal problems) who finds himself heading up the drug task force. His performance was well done, but was understated. He draws considerable comparison in my mind to Pacino in Serpico, fighting crime and the corrupt brotherhood at the same time, but doing so without much flamboyance or self-pity. There's even a scene when he's calling for backup and the dispatcher asks "who is this?" He identifies himself and is informed that "there are no units in the area, Detective Roberts."

My favorite comeback player of the year, Josh Brolin (Planet Terror, In the Valley of Elah, No Country for Old Men), delivers a scorching performance as the hotshot New York detective on the take. I would expect at least one nomination for him this year, if not two. The rest of the cast does well, and the direction was as expected from Ridley Scott, who has produced some of the most entertaining films of the last 30 years. The attention to detail of the early 1970's clothes, guns, cars, phones and even the massive recording device that a nervous informant taped to his chest made it a truly believable throwback crime drama. The reviewer for Entertainment Weekly hit it right on calling it a blend of Serpico, Scarface, Godfather and the French Connection. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The excitement of corruption mixed with the uncertainty of procedure in the run and gun police work really lets the viewer believe that dirty cops get away with murder and criminals can do whatever they want. This was a great, truly epic story that ends with an exciting shootout, and then an anti-climactic obligatory explanation of what happened next. The film was a little long at 2 hr. 40 mins., but it worked well and didn't drag out any unnecessary scenes or character development or linger in any one area too long. I would expect this one to be a heavy hitter come Oscar time (see the Departed, 2006). 9/10.