Hustle & Flow (2005)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 2.7/10

IMDB User's Rating: 7.5/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 82%

Director: Craig Brewer

AllMovie.com Plot Synopsis: One man's struggle to rise above his circumstances prompts him to try a career in music in this acclaimed drama from writer and director Craig Brewer. Djay (Terrence Howard) is a low-level pimp and drug dealer who scraped together a living in the ghettos of Memphis, TN. Djay isn't happy with his life, and the realization that he's reached the same age when his father unexpectedly died has made him start thinking about changing his ways. Djay has always had a gift for spinning stories, and after picking up a cheap keyboard, he begins picking out beats to go along with his rhymes. After bumping into an old high-school buddy who works in gospel music, Key (Anthony Anderson), Djay decided to take the plunge and remake himself as a rapper.

Monson's Review:

I knew by the title that this movie was going to suck. Then I took a look at the DVD cover and was even more certain that I wasn't going to like the movie. Sure, I had a bad attitude going into this movie, but I really did try to enjoy it... or at the very least respect it. Still, I couldn't help but hate it. This was one of the few English speaking films we have watched recently, yet we still had to turn on subtitles because we couldn't understand anything that was being said. The main character in this movie was following his dream of becoming a successful rap artist (terrible plot to begin with). I wanted so badly for this guy to make it big in the music industry. This wasn't because the film drew me in, but rather because if he became a success the movie would end. There was so much in this film that just wasn't believable under the circumstances. I didn't see much creativity in it, either. It was like a pathetic rip off of 8 Mile... and I didn't even like that movie. This film seemed to be trying so hard to make us feel something while watching it, yet it never made me feel anything aside from the uncomfortable cushion I was lying on. I could go into detail about all the things in this movie that I didn't like, but that would just be a long and tedious list, and this review is already plenty long enough. I'll be generous and give this 1/5.

Matthew's Review: I had high hopes for this film, because I thoroughly enjoyed Craig Brewer's more recent film, Black Snake Moan. However, I don't like Gangsta rap nearly as much as Blues music, so that did influence my taste for this film some. I thought that this film would grow an appreciation within me for this sort of rap, but it didn't really. While it did seem to appeal to my sense of "Punk Rock" (making true, compromised music for the purpose of being heard with whatever skill or resources available), I sometimes felt that the messages being produced were not worth being heard. I could be mislead, (and hopefully someone can educate me) but it seems that this is a style of music that goes the opposite direction from desiring to speak honestly from the soul. It seems to be all about putting on appearances. That is my opinion on the music. I must commend Craig Brewer for trying to show some honest people within this setting. The characters do show some real feelings, struggles, dreams, and love in the midst of a difficult world. I did "feel" for some of these characters occasionally, and that is worth something.
I give this film a 1.7/5

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 2.7/10

Sorstalanság - Fateless (2005)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 7.05/10

IMDB User Rating: 7.4/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 92%

Director: Lajos Koltai

AllMovie Plot Summary: One young man's devastating voyage through the Holocaust sets the stage for this powerful drama. Gyorgy "Gyurka" Koves (Marcell Nagy) is a 14-year-old Jewish boy living in Hungary when the Nazi pogroms begin sweeping through the country. Gyura's father (Janos Ban) has his business taken away from him not long before he's taken away to a concentration camp, and as he's led away, Gyura agrees to his father's request to look after his stepmother while he's gone. However, Gyurka takes a bus rather than the train to work the following morning, believing it to be safer, but before it can reach its destination, police stop the vehicle and take the Jewish passengers into custody. Gyurka is sent to Auschwitz, but is later transferred to Buchenwald, and finally to Zeitz; at each stop the teenager is witness to greater and greater horrors, as different varieties of torture and violence are introduced with each passing day, until his emotions begin to wear away. (Summary by Mark Deming)

Matthew's Review: It was a real treat to see something with a Hungarian perspective. I always enjoy seeing something from the perspective of a new culture. This tells a story in a creative way, and there is no attempts to pretty things up unnecessarily. It was beautifully shot and I still have some shots in my memory over a week later. I think of the yard where the Jews waited to be transported and the bombing and fire-fights going on over-head. I also remember a scene while their train makes a stop and a Hungarian Official tries to rip-off any valuables they still have for some water. While there are countless films that deal with the Holocaust, I feel this one provides a unique perspective of concentrating on the difficulty after the concentration camps, and not merely just in them. I feel the film did seem to end too suddenly as it began to explore its subject matter. However, perhaps it is not up to me to decide how much it should cover its subject matter. I give this film a 3.3/5

Ryan's Review: This film does its job in telling the horrific details of main character György's experiences in a concentration camp. Since this is a holocaust film, many of the scenes in it are colorless and uninviting. Despite that, the cinematography in this movie frames the shots in a way that gives each scene a dose of artistic beauty. As moving and disheartening as the story of György's youth is, I felt as though this movie wasn't anything new or different to me. I don't want to say it's 'just another holocaust story' because it a true life account of one man's shocking journey through his teens, but at the end of the movie it hinted at something I would've liked to see more of: the happiness and beauty that young György found within the concentration camps. That would have been a movie that I've yet to see about World War II. At any rate, this movie did an excellent job of showing hope and despair intermingled throughout. It was filmed with delicate perfection and quality acting. I give this one 3.75/5


Monson & Yeomans Rating: 7.05/10

Bottle Rocket (1996)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 5.6/10

IMDB User Rating: 7.3/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 77%

Director: Wes Anderson

AllMovie Plot Summary:A bright, optimistic caper comedy from first-time director Wes Anderson, Bottle Rocket focuses on a group of young Texans aspiring to become master thieves. Their leader is Dignan (Owen C. Wilson, who also co-wrote the screenplay), an upbeat if naive charmer who convinces his friends Anthony (Wilson's brother Luke Wilson) and Bob Mapplethorpe (Robert Musgrave) to enter the crime business. After their first heist, a bizarrely-executed robbery of a local bookstore, the trio goes on the lam, taking up residence in a border hotel where Anthony falls in love with a maid played by Lumi Cavazos. When the three buddies decide that they need to return to the real world, they hook up with a master con-man (James Caan) who sends them on a daring -- if ill-concieved -- mission. (Summary by Jason Ankeny)

Ryan's Review: Part way through this movie I remember saying out loud, "I think I've seen this before." By the end of the movie I still wasn't sure if I had seen it. Thinking back (we watched this a few days ago now), I can't really remember exactly what the movie was about. Something about robbing, falling in love with a maid at a motel... but was that it? My point is that I find this movie to be somewhat forgettable and lacking in direction. It was fun, of course, because it has the Owen brothers and is a Wes Anderson film. But It wasn't as profound or as entertaining as Wes Anderson's other movies. Definitely the weakest of the bunch in my opinion. I suppose I've just come to expect a certain caliber of movie coming from Wes Anderson, and seeing his first film last probably wasn't the best way of going about it. Sure the movie was entertaining, but it wasn't anything special, either. I give this one a 3/5.

Matthew's Review: Wes Anderson's worst film. It has his style and humor in a not-yet fully developed form. It's sad that I compare it to his other films because it still isn't bad, and better than most. For instance, it is far better than "Little Miss Sunshine" which I feel got too much credit [I have now deleted my other comments because they are not about Bottle Rocket]. There was no shortage of interesting characters present in this film, and there were many entertaining moments. I only feel that the film did not come together into some sort of solid presentation of a story or piece of work in a cohesive manner. Also, I feel it wasn't refined or perfected into the type of distinguished cinema that Wes now achieves. (I have my own idea of what is classified as "distinguished", which I will not explain now). To me, Bottle Rocket has the feel of college Buddies with some original ideas coming together to make a fun film. It shows promising talent that will later be better displayed.
I give this film a 2.6/5

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 5.6/10

Ordet - The Word (1955)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 9.25/10

IMDB User Rating: 8.1/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 100%

Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer

AllMovie Plot Summary: With his masterful Ordet (aka The Word, [1955]), legendary Danish filmmaker Carl Theodor Dreyer examines the conflict between internalized personal faith and organized religion. Dreyer sets the drama in a conservative, super-pious Danish town, where widower Morten Borgen (Henrik Malberg) -- the father of three boys -- cuts against the grain of the community with his constant heretical doubt. One of his sons, Mikkel Borgen (Emil Hass Christensen), is entangled in an interfaith romance with a fundamentalist's daughter, while the second, Anders Borgen (Cay Kristiansen), is an agnostic, and the third, Johannes Borgen (Preben Leerdorff-Rye) -- a devotee of Søren Kirkegaard -- believes that he actually is Jesus Christ -- a conviction ridiculed by almost everyone as pure insanity. (Summary by Hal Erickson)

Matthew's Review: I was completely fascinated by the material that this film presented. I love being transported to another world, culture, or time. This film does not disappoint, especially in regard to spiritual and religious subjects. I often feel inadequate when watching films from other cultures or times, however, because if a film-maker is deviating from the norm of his culture by what he presents, I may miss it entirely and just assume that the originality is due to the culture itself. I still appreciate that I get to view a new world-view, I just don't know whether to credit the originality. Is it thanks more to the film-maker or his culture. I would say that the credit should always be balanced towards the director for at least presenting the world-view, even if he is not the origin; because really, who originates a world-view on his own anyways?
I loved the presentation of factions of Christians that disagree with each other and how Dreyer seems to portray something greater that overcomes the disunity. I found this flick to be powerful (which is rare). I realize that I am oversimplifying themes within this film and therefore, doing it absolutely no justice. This is truly a great film, done over 50 years ago with what appears to be 1 camera. It is truly impressive. I admit that it will not entertain most people, but I believe it can be very interesting and appreciated by many. I do value entertainment when it comes to film but I admit it is not my top priority. But Ordet did entertain me, while doing other, greater things even more.
I give it a 4.75/5.

Ryan's Review: This religiously packed film explores differing views on Christianity and its role in our lives. It is a journey seeking faith, rather than a journey of faith. The themes of the film are complimented by symbolism which really round out the unspoken points that are being put across. I noticed a faint play of irony throughout the film, especially surrounding the 'mad' character who thought he was Jesus. Although I couldn't really sense much emotion in the characters throughout most of this film, there was certainly a sense of hope and expectation by the end of the movie. I felt that the final scene of this film was quite beautifully done through its scene set-up, cinematography, and timing. I think I was surprised by the depth of storytelling this film had, and despite not sensing certain emotions in the movie the way I thought they should've been portrayed, this was a very well done movie. I give it a 4.5/5.

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 9.25/10

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 7.4/10

IMDB User Rating: 8.6/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 98%

Director: David Lean

All Movie Plot Summary: This sweeping, highly literate historical epic covers the Allies' mideastern campaign during World War I as seen through the eyes of the enigmatic T. E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole, in the role that made him a star). After a prologue showing us Lawrence's ultimate fate, we flash back to Cairo in 1917. A bored general staffer, Lawrence talks his way into a transfer to Arabia. Once in the desert, he befriends Sherif Ali Ben El Kharish (Omar Sharif, making one of the most spectacular entrances in movie history) and draws up plans to aid the Arabs in their rebellion against the Turks. No one is ever able to discern Lawrence's motives in this matter: Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness ) dismisses him as yet another "desert-loving Englishman," and his British superiors assume that he's either arrogant or mad. (Summary by Hal Erickson)

Ryan's Review: Hailed as one of the greatest epic stories of all time, Lawrence of Arabic left me slightly disappointed. I'm a big fan of Peter O'toole but this movie simply didn't pull me into it very well. Perhaps I was surprised by the large amount of Middle Easterners who spoke perfect English, or maybe it was simply because I found it hard to follow the storyline at times. I thought that this film was unnecessarily long due to the fact that many of the lengthy shots didn't need to be quite so lengthy and didn't really add to the overall feel of the film. I guess the pace of the film just didn't feel right to me. Aside from those problems, though, this was a very well done movie for its time. It was intelligently told and had impressive visuals throughout. I'll probably excite a lot of people by giving this film only 3/5.

Matthew's Review: I enjoyed this film. I think what I appreciate most about Lawrence of Arabia is that the main character seems real and believable. I can't say if D.H. Lawrence was portrayed accurately or not, but I surely believe it is possible. This character is presented in a way that does not try to gloss over any flaws or imperfections to present an infallible hero. He is presented as an unusual and believable person. I also believe that David Lean provides a less ethnocentric approach to his film-making than was probably common in his time. So, for his time, I am grateful for what he attempts. Perhaps my modern-day craving for authenticity gives him a hard time, and hopes for more than what could be expected from a 60's era production, but none-the-less, I wish there was more convincing Arabian character portrayals. I give this film a 4.4/5.

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 7.4/10

Scener ur ett äktenskap - Scenes From a Marriage (1973)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 8.75/10

IMDB User Rating: 8.4/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 94%

Director: Ingmar Bergman

Plot Summary: Follows the relationship of Marianne and Johan as they separate, engage in extramarital affairs, bond, re-bond and eventually divorce. Their relationship continues after the divorce, it seems this is a couple that can't stay away from each other, though they argue most of the time.

Matthew's Review: I think I wish I saw this film prior to watching Saraband a couple weeks ago. In any case, it exponentially increases my appreciation of Saraband (which picks up the same peoples’ lives 30 years later). Because I have left it too long after viewing to review this film, I feel I won’t do it justice. I suppose I love to see how the characters grow through out the story, and then even contrast that wit how they have changed by the time of Saraband. I think what sticks with me the most from this film is some of the opening scenes that seem to me to be the most impressively long shots I have ever seen. I don’t mean this in the way that they are slow, picturesque and beautiful. Rather, the characters are constantly interacting and talking without stopping for what seems like forever. Even with incredulously long shots, the actors never show a hint of weakness or breaking from character. Not that I expected them to, they are all solid actors. This is a solid film by Bergman, who seems consistent at creating those. The complexities of marriage relationships were explored with this film to some degree (I can’t know how complete it is because I am a foolish youth) but I found it thought-provoking none-the-less.
I give it 4.25 out of 5.

Ryan's Review:This film allows us to eavesdrop on the intimate truths that exist between a couple. It is a movie founded in dialog rather than action sequences or events. Scenes From a Marriage is actually the unofficial prequel to Bergman's final film, Saraband (2003). It showcases the same actors playing the same roles thirty years prior to Saraband. The impressiveness of this movie is more fully appreciated when watched alongside Saraband. This is a quiet film that shines with its subtleties. I loved seeing shots in 'Scenes From a Marriage' recreated in 'Saraband' in inconspicuous ways. It was also interesting to see what conversations took place in the closed doors of a bedroom. I often find myself wondering what two people in love can possibly talk about for so long, day after day. This movie gave me a glimpse of Bergman's thoughts on this. On its own, I would give this movie 4/5. Alongside Saraband, I would bump it up to 4.5/5.

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 8.75/10

La Meglio gioventù - The Best of Youth (2003)

Monson & Yeomans Rating: 9.5/10

IMDB User Rating: 7.9/10

Rotten Tomatoes Critics' Rating: 95%

Director: Marco Tullio Giordana

Plot Outline: Chronological, from 1963 until 2003, moving around Italy, from Rome to the floods of Florence in 1966, student unrest in Turin, Mafia murders in Palermo, chance in Milan, plus two trips to Norway. Brothers Matteo and Nicola, of opposite temperament, try to free Giorgia, a teen, from a mental institution: their failure leads Nicola into psychiatry and Matteo to the police. In Florence, Nicola meets Giulia, a musician and leftist whose Red Brigade ties drive them apart after they have a child. In Palermo, Matteo meets Mirella, a photographer; they connect again in Rome. The film explores love, family, friendship, politics, mental illness, tragedy, and opportunities to forgive and to heal.

Matthew's Review:
This film is 6 hours long, but I feel that not a single minute can be spared. I heard of this film when it came to the Calgary Film Festival a couple years ago, but I couldn’t pull together my act to see it at that time. I think I appreciate it within the comfort of my own home anyways. This film mostly covers the lives of two brothers and those that closely surround them over a period of about 40 years. I feel that when this much care and attention is put into producing a film that covers such a vast span of one’s life and the relationships involved, you are almost guaranteed to end up with a very unique and powerful perspective. I absolutely loved it. I feel that this film is perfectly titled because that describes what I feel I took away from the viewing experience. The film seems to put forward this certain theme or feeling of the greatness and uniqueness of youth; which takes experiencing much more than just youth in order to grasp to any degree. I think my favorite (and most easily remembered) scene was very close to the end, and it includes a very bold move that could easily come off as cheesy (with the presence of a certain character), but it is pulled off perfectly. However, it is immediately following the character’s exit which contains the most power for me. A man and a woman are walking and he puts his arm around her shoulders and she receives it. Then there are about 10 seconds where you understand all of the things that are rushing through their minds and hearts before anything else happens. I don’t feel that those moments couldn’t have been achieved without the 6 hours of beautifully told story building up to it. Not that that moment is even needed to make this a great film, but it was much appreciated. I rate this 4.75/5.

Ryan's Review:
This is the longest movie I've seen to date. The running time was a solid 6 hours and 6 minutes. I loved pretty much every minute of it. This film was a detailed look at the lives of a group of family and friends spanning over nearly 40 years. It took us through the joyous and romantic moments, through to the sorrowful and aggravating moments, then back again to the beautiful moments. The creativity, depth of story, and believability of it kept me thoroughly engaged throughout the film. Watching this movie felt as though I was reading a book because it took the time to show/tell/describe many of the details in the stages of the lives of the characters that normally wouldn't fit into a single movie. This was the easiest 6 hours of movie watching for me, aside from the hour of hunger waiting for the intermission so we could make some dinner. If you have time and patience, definitely check this film out. 4.75/5.


Monson & Yeomans Rating: 9.5/10