Julie & Julia

"Julie & Julia" is written and directed by Nora Ephron (who wrote "When Harry Met Sally" and wrote/directed "Sleepless in Seattle) and stars Meryl Streep ("Mamma Mia!," "Doubt"), Stanley Tucci ("The Devil Wears Prada"), Amy Adams ("Enchanted," "Doubt"), and Jane Lynch ("Role Models") has a brief role. This is another good movie that came out this summer...putting Meryl Streep in the lead role is always helpful.

The movie is base off two books, "My Life in France," by Julia Child and "Julie and Julia," by Julie Powell

"Julie & Julia" follows the lives of two women, Julia Child (Meryl Streep) starting in 1949 and Julie Powell (Amy Adams) in 2002. Julia Child has moved to Paris, France with her husband Paul (Stanley Tucci). She decides to enroll in a cooking school and soon impresses the class full of male chefs with her talent. This leads to teaching aspirations as well as writing a French cookbook for American chefs. 53 years later Julie Powell (also married) decides to start blogging about her plan to cook all 524 Julia Child's recipes in one year. Throughout the film Nora Ephron goes back and forth between the two women's stories.

Meryl Streep is an amazing actress and I am convinced that she can play any role. Her list of movies shows her wide range as an actress and this latest endeavor is no exception. She is excellent as Julia Child. She is convincing and gets the voice and mannerisms perfectly. Many of the successfully funny scenes and lines come straight from Meryl Streep. She also has great chemistry with Stanley Tucci. Of the two couples, their marriage was by far the most convincing. You can see the love that they have for each other and how much Paul supports Julia in her desire to fulfill her food-related dreams. Amy Adams is also a good actress but her scenes with Chris Messini, who plays her husband Eric, just don't feel as convincing as Streep and Tucci.

By far the best parts of the movie are the scenes about Julia Child's life. This story is just more interesting that Julie Powell's. The acting and dialogue is more believable and I just cared more for the interactions between the Childs'. Both couples deal with how the wives' fascination and time spent with food affected the respective marriages.

The movie visually looks very good. The scenes about Julia and Paul Child in Paris has a definite 1940s-1950s look. Everything in those scenes fits the era well and are a nice contrast to the 2002 scenes in New York City. There are some good aerial shots, wide shots, etc. Nora Ephron doesn't do innovative direction. But, what is here works for the type of film. Also, plenty of shots of delicious food add to the visual enjoyment.

At times the movie drags, mostly in the 2002 scenes, but overall works well. The switches between the two women's lives feel natural for the most part. At times scenes with both women mirror each other in the actions that are taking place.

The movie is highly entertaining. Some people may be skeptical about a movie about Julia Child, but it's a successful mix of comedy and drama. And the main thing is that Meryl Streep's the lead and is a pleasure to watch as usual. Without her the movie would not have been nearly as good. Although some parts have dialogue or chemistry issues overall it is a good movie-watching experience for me. 3 out of 4 stars...and way better than a certain "Sleepless in Seattle."

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Informant!

"The Informant" is directed by Steven Soderbergh and stars Matt Damon. It's a combination of drama and comedy and one of those things that proves that making good movies these days is not impossible. Although after some absolutely awful movies this summer, people have good reason to be skeptical...yep...this is indirectly bashing Michael Bay...yet again...

"The Informant" is based on a true story and covers 10 years in the life of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon). He works at the company in Illinois, Archer Daniels Midland. He has a pretty high position in the company, but becomes a spy for the FBI. He ends up doing fun things like getting wires tapped, traveling to several different countries, and stealing millions of dollars from the company.

Matt Damon proves that he is indeed a great actor. He hasn't done many comedies in his career, but he is extremely capable. He has several funny lines, many of them via narration, which are very effective. His character is more complex then he at first leads on. Damon shows great range with his role; it's a great blend of drama and comic timing. He has chemistry with the rest of the actors in the film including those he works with and those related to the FBI. Although this chemistry isn't necessarily seen with him and his wife, she does love her husband and is pretty supportive. I feel like explaining the main character any further could possibly spoil parts of the movie, since he is the central character.

The script is strong, which is always helpful when watching a movie. It's nice when people actually spend some time writing a good script. There's no sense in spending close to 10 bucks to have your intelligence insulted and leaving the theater annoyed. It's smartly written and is able to ease from drama into comedy pretty effortlessly. For the most part the pacing is good. However, in a couple parts it tends to drag on a little bit.

Cinematography is another strong point. There are several unique camera angles and everything is well-edited together. A broad variety of shots are present as well, which visually adds to the enjoyment of the movie. The look of the movie in terms of lighting and such feels like it's supposed to be the 1970s. The movie starts in 1992. So I'm not sure why it feels like the '70s, but I liked that aspect of it.

The music in the film definitely adds to the comedy at times. It's all done by Marvin Hamlisch, famous stage and film composer. His music feels like a combination of music found in a James Bond movie (he actually did the music in one of them) and a Broadway musical score (to which he is also no stranger.) It fits the tone of the scenes well, though not in the conventional sense. It also serves as a reminder that this is indeed a comedy and not just an intensely serious drama about spying for the FBI and stealing millions.

The movie is well-made and entertaining. Great acting, especially from Matt Damon is present. He makes his character interesting to watch. Drama and comedy mixed together when done right is always a good thing. I think Damon, Soderbergh, and the rest of the cast and crew definitely got it right. 3 out of 4 stars.

-Joseph Sbrilli

12 Angry Men

I'm trying this thing where I review some of my favorite classic movies.

Sidney Lumet's (a great director, by the way) "12 Angry Men" was released in 1957 and stars Henry Fonda, John Fiedler, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, and 8 others. It's one of the greatest films ever made in the history of the entire medium. Every single thing that makes a movie great and worth remembering 52 years later is present in this film.

12 Angry Men refers to twelve jury members. These men are in charge of deciding the fate of a teenage boy who has been accused of killing his father with a knife. If all 12 jury members decide the boy is guilty then he gets the electric chair. Originally 11 jury men think the boy is guilty. Henry Fonda (Juror # 8) is the only one who thinks that he may be innocent. And of course if there's even the slightest doubt you cannot send the boy to the electric chair. Henry Fonda spends the next approximately 90 minutes trying to get the other 11 people to see his point of view. They go through a variety of different scenarios to see if it's possible that the boy is innocent.

Some of the best ensemble acting in any movie is on display in "12 Angry Men." The fantastic cast is led by Henry Fonda, who is perfect as the lead character - both determined and persuasive. The other 11 are also fantastically cast. The interactions between all of the characters seem natural. Some of the jurors are stubborn and some are extremely soft spoken, but as time goes on everyone gets on edge and becomes aggravated with each other. The movie is extremely character driven since the same 12 people spend almost the entire duration of the movie in one room. And it is done perfectly.

The script is also great. The dialogue is well thought-out and fits the characters well. It is also very concise, so the movie doesn't drag out at all. The 97 minute run time is utilized extremely effectively, making the character interaction more fast paced and interesting to watch.

"12 Angry Men" showcases some impressive cinematography. There are lots of close shots, making the room they are in feel very small. Also, close-ups of the faces of the jurors are used several times throughout the movie to show their facial expressions. The camera moves throughout the jury room during the movie, making for a variety of different shots.

"12 Angry Men" is one of the best movies to come out of this wonderful place known as the United States of America. Henry Fonda and the rest of the cast give amazing performances, which is helped by an fantastic script. Sidney Lumet proved that he was a great director and all the scenes and camera angles were set up exceptionally well. People have been watching for over half a century now and loving every minute of it and for good reason...I highly recommend that anyone who has not seen this movie yet to go out and rent it sometime...unbelievably well-made and entertaining. 4 out of 4 stars...one of my top 3 movies of all time...it's hard to explain how amazing it is...you need to experience it for yourself.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Inglourious Basterds

"Inglourious Basterds" is written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, the great film maker behind 1994's "Pulp Fiction." "Inglourious Basterds" is no "Pulp Fiction," but few films are. Brad Pitt leads the cast of "Inglourious Basterds." Also starring in the movie are: Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger, and Melanie Laurent. Mike Meyers also has a brief scene and Samuel L. Jackson provides brief narration.

First of all, this movie is not historically accurate in any way, shape, or form. Only a couple things are actually true...like there was indeed a Second World War. Beyond that, things get a bit sketchy. Like most Tarantino movies, "Inglourious Basterds" includes several separate stories that come together to form a common plot. The movie is split up into 5 chapters. Each chapter is introduced before it begins. The chapters include Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) coming to a French man's house in search of Jews, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) talking to his group of Nazi-scalping Jews, and a plan to kill hundreds of Nazis in a theater during a propaganda film showing at a theater. This all leads to lot of bloody violence, including several Nazi scalpings and plenty of gunfire, both of which also result in blood. But this is a Quentin Tarantino movie so it's to be expected.

The movie is well-cast and well-acted throughout. All of the actors seem to have a handle on their characters. Brad Pitt is great as the lead and gets to show off his Southern accent and Italian accent throughout the movie, which is actually really funny. Christoph Waltz also gives another great performance as "Jew Hunter," Hans Landa. His inhumanity and determination to find and get rid of Jews is believable. Other good performances include Melanie Laurent, as the owner of the movie theater that she plans on burning down, after Samuel L. Jackson helpfully explains how well nitrate film burns. I personally would have liked more narration by Samuel L. Jackson. He just has a really good voice for that sort of thing.

Cinematography is a definite strong point in the film. Quentin Tarantino does this very well in his films. There are several low-angle shots that give good perspectives of different characters. Also there are a lot of close-ups of peoples' faces so we we can better get a feel for the emotion they have at a given time. He also uses slow motion effectively and the intense gunfire in various scenes is also well-shot. The camera moves fluidly throughout the scenes, sometimes going from a long shot of a wide area to a very close shot. However, circling rapidly around people talking is never a good idea. It was dizzying when Ron Howard did it in "Angels and Demons" and its just as dizzying when Tarantino does it.

The movie takes place during World War II, however it definitely does not feel like a typical war movie, which is what Tarantino was trying for. Throughout the film there are several freeze frames and then brief text on the screen describing who a character is. There are also random arrows pointing out who people are in a couple scenes. This may be annoying to some people, but I was pretty amused by it and thought it is a pretty funny aspect of the movie, that doesn't involve Brad Pitt's accent experimenting. Also the music in the film definitely does not feel like it should be in a movie that takes place during the 1940s. It sounds extremely modern, but once again a reminder that this is far from a serious war movie. So they the movie has an overall slightly cheesy feel to it, in addition to some pretty disgusting Nazi scalpings and carving Swastikas in peoples' foreheads with knives.

The movie was 2-and-a-half hours long. Yes, that is very long for a movie and each chapter probably could have been edited slightly (then we would have had room for Cloris Leachman's unfortunately cut scene, which I assume would have been wonderful to see and made the movie better). Editing also would have helped the pacing a little and eliminated some of the scenes that dragged out slightly, like one bar scene. But Quentin Tarantino can fill 2.5 hours way better than Michael Bay can. (Michael Bay made a little movie called "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." He was trying to make a movie I guess, but the end result was not really a movie, just a pile of something really painful and unpleasant.)

Quentin Tarantino writing and directing "Inglourious Basterds" made it so the result is basically what he envisioned years ago. I think movies are always better when the same person does both jobs. It just feels more unified.

So if you hate Quentin Tarantino, then feel free to never watch this movie. The same goes for those who hate Brad Pitt, who was good in this, just not "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"-good. If Nazi-scalping or blood makes you sickly, then this movie would not be a fun experience for you. Overall, not a bad movie, not an amazing movie to watch again and again (like "Pulp Fiction," which is amazing and everyone who has not seen it should rent it), but not bad. Brad Pitt and the rest of the cast, some good dialogue, some of it darkly funny, great camera work, strange music and random cheesy things, and some good ol' Nazi-scalping makes this a good movie to see at least once. I don't think it would be a complete waste of time. We just need to accept the fact that the greatest movie Quentin Tarantino ever made occurred 15 years ago and featured amazing performances by John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. 3 out of 4 stars...much better than most of the movies that came out this summer.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Last Station

"The Last Station" was written and directed by Michael Hoffman. It stars Christopher Plummer ("The Sound of Music") and Helen Mirren ("The Queen"), in what are sure to be two Oscar-nominated perforances this year. The film also stars Paul Giamatti ("Cinderella Man") and James McAvoy ("Atonement"). The movie is an example of great film-making and one of the best movies in 2009. The film debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in Colorado earlier this year. I was able to see it at the Music Hall, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire this weekend as part of the Telluride By the Sea Festival.

"The Last Station" is a bio-pic about the last few months of famous author Leo Tolstoy's (Christopher Plummer) life. The conflict in the movie comes from Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), a man who deeply believes Tolstoy's teaching, and Tolstoy's wife, Sofya (Helen Mirren). Both these people want to gain control of Leo Tolstoy's estate. The movie takes place years after Tolstoy finished writing books and deals with the strain on his nearly 50-year marriage. James McAvoy plays the role of Leo Tolstoy's secretary.

By far the most memorable parts of the film are the two leads. Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren are amazing in "The Last Station." These two actors have been acting for decades and their most recent endeavor is an unbelievable success. They play the roles so well. Plummer is completely convincing as the aging author and his interactions with Chertkov and Sofya are believable. He has fantastic chemistry with his wife. They feel like an actual old married couple and not a couple of actors just faking it. It is obvious that they love each other deep down, although at one point Sofya says she hates Leo and on a couple occasions asks him if he in fact loves her. Sometimes anger, frustration, and abandonment get in the way of their relationship. The two actors are able to have such range and sheer emotion in their acting - both serious and angry and sometimes lighthearted if the scene calls for it. The final scene with the two leads is especially memorable as is a scene of slight flirtation, reminiscent of when they were much younger. Sofya's intense hatred toward Chertkov is evident when she wants to know the details about Tolstoy's new will and hates the fact he and her husband have become so close recently. Chertkov is not sensitive at all to her plight, claiming he would have killed himself if he were married to her.

The cinematography in "The Last Station" is also extremely memorable. Every time characters speak the camera goes in for a close up, getting the audience up close to the focus of the scene. Several long shots are also used as the camera pulls back, giving the audience a vast area visible on screen. The film also features several tracking shots as well as occasional partially-out-of-focus frames. Lighting and shadows are also used effectively depending on the tone of the scene. These cinematographic effects and flowing camera movements make "The Last Station" a memorable film.

"The Last Station" is mainly a drama since it deals with a strain on a marriage and a fight to get the estate. However, throughout the film are several lighthearted scenes, serving as comic relief and adding to the enjoyment of the movie. The combination of drama and slight comedy work smoothly and naturally in the film. This is mainly due a strong script which was smartly written and strong in developing the characters.

Overall the pacing is good, however at times it drags on a little. Some scenes could be completely omitted as they severely take away from Plummer, Mirren, and Giamatti screen time - also known as the main reasons to even consider watching the movie in the first place. These scenes include those with Valentin, Tolstoy's secretary and Masha, some random girl he finds at what is essentially a Tolstoyan commune. They try to convince us that they are actually in love, but that is a huge lie. The relationship goes way too fast and feels about as realistic as Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in "Sleepless in Seattle" - an awful, unbelievable movie that Nora Ephron should be ashamed of. The scenes in "The Last Station" with Valentin and Masha are drawn out and unfortunately take away from the story at hand.

The movie is very artistic-feeling, so if you are not into that then avoid the movie at all costs. If you don't like Christopher Plummer, Helen Mirren, Paul Giamatti, or James McAvoy also feel free to avoid the movies, because every single scene has at least one of the above mentioned people (who all give impressive performances.) A movie based on a book about the final months of Tolstoy's life may sound boring, but I didn't find that to be true and thought the acting, pacing, and everything that makes a good movie, are present here. The dialogue, characters, and camera movement kept me interested throughout the entire film. 3 1/2 stars out of 4. One of the best movies that I've seen this year, and I've seen a pretty lot.

-Joseph Sbrilli

500 Days of Summer

"500 Days of Summer", directed by Marc Webb and starring Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is simply put one of the best movies to come out this year.  Summer is generally the time of year for lots of sequels or other poorly made blockbuster movies, so "500 Days of Summer" is a welcome change.  Everything in the movie just works.

The movie opens with the narrator saying "This is a story of boy meets girl. But you should know up front, this is not a love story."  And that's exactly what the movie is like.  Love stories as far as movies are concerned are often times predictable, tired, and cliched.  "500 Days of Summer" is not like that at all.  In the movie Tom Hansen (Gordon-Levitt) works at a greeting card company and one day Summer Finn (Deschanel) joins the staff and Tom falls for her and they begin dating.  He seems to want a much more serious relationship than she is initially willing to give him.  The movie does not follow their relationship chronologically though, starting with day 488 and going back and forth between various points in the couples relationship, both the good times, and the not so good. 

Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt were perfectly cast as the two leads.  This is the first movie I have seen with Gordon-Levitt so I can't comment on his other works, but I have previously enjoyed watching Deschanel in "Elf" and "Yes Man"  The two actors have chemistry with one another and are believable as characters and the audience begins caring about and relating to these two different people.  The other actors in the film that portrayed other friends and co-workers were also well cast, but obviously overshadowed by the two leads.

The writing is great as well. The narration is effective and a welcome addition to the movie and having the movie go out of order adds a more original aspect to the story.  The script is the perfect length, having the movie clock in at a round an hour and a half.  Nothing is drawn out and every scene including a brief musical number complete with animated bird, just like an old Disney movie, the couple going through IKEA pretending that they live in each of the model rooms, and Summer getting mad at Tom for trying to protect her from a guy at a bar they are in, has a reason for being in the final cut of the movie.  Just about every joke is executed perfectly and fits so well with the tone of the film.  And when the script turns serious for a moment it still works well and flows naturally.

"500 Days of Summer" is well casted, written, directed, paced, and has a great soundtrack.  It's a romantic comedy, just a whole lot better than most and well worth the time and money to see it.  4 stars out of 4.  I'm pretty sure most people will have a pretty hard time finding a better movie this year...except maybe "Up."

-Joseph Sbrilli