The Visitor

The Visitor tells the story of an economics professor (Richard Jenkins) who to New York City to attend a conference and finds a young illegal immigrant couple (from Senegal and Syria) living in his old apartment. He decides to be kind to them and let them stay there while he attends the conference. As a widower he has found himself lonely for over 20 years and admittedly crawls through life without doing anything important, only trying to look busy. His only attachment to his wife, a talented pianist, is trying to make use of his piano by taking lessons and trying to hear her music through his fingers. After going through many different piano teachers, he finds it frustrating that he can't improve at all. He has no human concern for the likeness of others as he shows no sympathy for his students or co-workers. The first sign of attachment the professor, Walter has seen in years, maybe decades is when he shows interest in his immigrant friend, Tareek (Haaz Sleiman), playing the drums. He sees that the rhythm of the African drum is something that he can express his beat through and the two start to gain a relationship.

Tareek is mistakenly caught jumping the rail at the subway and then arrested, which as the movie suggests is because of racial profiling. He is then sent to an immigration prison where Walter becomes the only catalyst for communication between Tareek, his girlfriend Zainab and eventually his mother, who travels into the city to be a near source of comfort. Walter becomes emotionally attached to the situation and does all he can to get Tareek out of prison. Many tiny elements of social commentary are placed in the film (although director and writer Thomas McCarthy did not intend for this film to be a social commentary, more of a character-based drama) it has become one of the greatest social statements of the real lives of immigrants, racial profiling and the treatment of foreigners, even people under strict, inhumane policies.

Walter begins to see much more clearly and notice those around him because of his found relationship in a friend and a blossoming romance in Tareek's mother, who he takes to a Broadway play that she has only dreamed of seeing in reality, The Phantom of the Opera. She even notices at one point what I believe to be a metaphor that Walter has new glasses, which represents not only the literal meaning that he has now decided to present himself better because he cares more about the people around him but also that he has new eyes to see the world clearly, with a new found sympathy and contempt for the people around him.

Tareek's girlfriend sells crafted necklaces on the street market and when a rich white woman asks her where shes from (Senegal), she states that she visited Cape Town last year (which is on the other side of the continent) and a manifestation to the viewer that there are people who not only view all of Africa as one, same culture, but also that when people travel to a place, they assume they can identify with the culture/people. So often is travel misrepresented in resorts and tours. One can never identify with a culture, only learn to appreciate it more and more.

Assuming that the reader has not seen the film, I will not reveal the ending, however I will say that the ending is typical of what happens in hundreds of cases throughout the country as immigrants are separated from their lives, family and friends. The film illustrates that it is easy to frown upon immigrants and the amount that exist when you merely look at numbers. It is easy to write policies when you are detached in an office with no human reach. However, the reality is that when you put a face, even a story to even one of the millions that exist across America it changes your story and theirs. In Us debates they talk of immigrants as objects and literally brush around the topic as if they are chess pieces with no resistance to their hands. This film puts a face and a story to what policy and stereotypical governments can do to real people as if they were numbers or chess pieces. Tareek is ripped away from everything he loves most, without any fair reason or treatment. It is true that illegal immigrants are trespassing, and there is much policy that is required, but does the government really have to treat them like prisoners, especially just because of the color of their skin?

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 92% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

As Jeffrey Anderson put it The Visitor, "Dabbles in messages and liberal guilt, but more importantly, it sets up a reasonable and genuine space for a fascinating and heartbreaking character." Richard Jenkins gives a near-perfect performance in a story that reveals its facts through a natural momentum, nothing seemed forced as the film simply walked through life and unexpected circumstances and relationships happen to the viewer as seamless as the character Walter in the film itself. The viewer is left wondering and hoping that such a profound experience, so everyday, could happen to them as we continue to interact as a human race instead of within the race of our skin. If you enjoy this movie I beg you to watch the greatest, most heart-felt movie I have ever seen (in my top 50 of all time) with immigration as a major theme called In America.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

The Chronicles of Narnia is the fiction film in which a family of four children are deported from London to the house of an eccentric professor during World War II. The four children: Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, use a wardrobe as a magical gateway to the land of Narnia. Ancient Narnian prophecy has told of two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve (humans) who will come to save Narnia from the white witch’s spell, which has caused a cold winter to come over the entire land. It is not until the arrival of these four humans that the world of Narnia sees the power of the witch to weaken as hope from the Narnians increases. Temptation spells casted by the witch cause Edmund to betray his siblings, and as a result the plot thickens into not only saving Narnia from its evil witch and her spells, but also saving their brother Edmund from her evil power to trap/tempt him.

There is obvious indication of the director’s religious background as he has portrayed Aslan (who represents Christ) as an epitomised figure who eventually resurrects from the dead after being sacrificed. The bias represented in the film is paramount when not only understanding its relations to witchcraft, but also when analyzing the premise of the film itself. The author C.S. Lewis, and director Andrew Adamson use overarching metaphors to reflect their Christian bias. The entire film is an allegory for the sacrifice of Christ on the cross; however it takes place on a stone table similar to an altar of sacrifice. The bias is obvious in the way that the entire story is constructed with a passage into an eternal world through a veil-like wardrobe, a Satan versus Christ conflict where the themes of hope/faith save the world and Atonement is made to achieve it. The bias/allegory is even as apparent as the kingdom after Aslan’s departure being passed on to a character named Peter, just as Christ gave his kingdom to the Apostle Peter after his death. The author/director is clearly attempting to deliver a message through this tale reflecting the bias of their beliefs.

The director portrays Aslan being humiliated as his mane is cut off and he is scolded then sacrificed just as Jesus was. He resurrects the morning after through beaming light in the film and is seen alive again for the first time coming through a tomb-like structure in perfect form and greeted by Lucy (which is similar to Mary Magdeline being the first to see Jesus upon his resurrection). The connection to Christ’s resurrection is almost seamless and crafted with full intent by the director to reflect Christian bias/background as good magic, or the power of God is used to make the unbelievable happen. Also worth noting is once the magic of the witch is defeated her dark magic loses power, causing those under her spell (made into stone) to be reborn or set free from her spell just like the concept of overcoming the temptations or spells of Satan will cause one to be reborn in Christ. This shows the brilliance of the director’s craft, that he used witchcraft and good magic to reflect and represent his views on Christianity and faith.

The point of view represented is a combination of the religious and magical. In fact, the story uses magical means to reflect a religious point of view. Aslan explains in the film that “there is a deep magic that rules over all of Narnia that is within us all.” The magic he speaks of here can be taken literally, however in reality it is meant to mean faith in God that empowers one to overcome the darker magic or temptations that Satan (the Witch). The Witch, for example uses magic to create Edmund’s favourite treats and entice him to come to her side. This, in effect is a perfect example of using magical means to represent religious principles, or in this case, the temptations of Satan. The wardrobe itself is a magical gateway representing a pathway into eternity, which is a religious concept.

The supernatural is presented as good and evil within the land of Narnia. The witch, Jadis, is a supernatural character that uses magical powers for her own evil purposes. For example, the white witch turns mystical creatures into stone when they disobey her. Specifically, the witch represents Satan and uses magic in devious ways to entrap the world for her control and demonic means. The lion, Aslan uses magic for good to help save Narnia from the evil white witch. As Aslan represents Christ, who sacrifices himself for “the son of Adam” in order to save the world. His sacrifice is performed by the evil witch in occult-like fashion amongst chantings, fire and blood. His righteous power overcomes evil however and the good magic prevails as he is resurrected in a perfected form.

I believe that the author/director believes in the supernatural, because the entire film is made to emulate his belief in Christ’s crucifixion which is a phenomenal, supernatural event. The director uses supernatural characters, such as talking animals and mystical creatures to bring Christian messages and archetypes. They are presented as metaphors for Christian themes as seen in the bible. Therefore, the author/director clearly must believe in a supernatural order or being as the parallels presented and outlined above are meant to represent this higher deity and is trying to press them through this fantasy tale.

Although questions could arise with the author/director’s approach of using witchcraft or occult themes to bring about religious beliefs (somewhat of a paradox), I feel that the author/director has done a brilliant job in their use of metaphor. His literary methods have created a well-known international masterpiece that has fully portrayed predominant Christian themes that continue to exist in modern-day literature and literature that has been seen in literature for centuries and films for decades. In regards to witchcraft and the supernatural, the author/director has brought out overarching connections to the occult and Satanism in more ways than one through the white witch in the film. It is because of these well-crafted literary connections that I agree with the author/director’s approach and point of view towards the supernatural, as he has used it as a tool to achieve a stronger and more meaningful literary purpose. I fully agree with this approach over the alternative, which would be to use the supernatural as a means to entertain something dark or satanic.

The Chronicles of Narnia is a fictional allegory, which uses witchcraft and the occult as a metaphor to represent the power of Satan in opposition with the power of God/Christ. The viewpoint could emerge in this light that argues in favour of the film being propaganda for those who watch it. For example, a child could watch the movie and be under the impression that they are just watching an exciting tale of fantasy; however in reality, the film would be exposing them to Christian archetypes, themes and even doctrine. It is because of this subtle form of passage that it would especially be viewed as propaganda. One of the major themes of the film is about the importance of sacrifice, which is a religious principle. Even if a child is watching the film and doesn’t clue into the Christian allegories and metaphors, they would still learn religious principles, such as resurrection, the good overcoming evil, faith, hope and sacrifice. Due to the film’s obvious connections to Christianity, it does not leave events of the movie up to other interpretations and therefore could be seen as a propaganda piece in favour of Christians.

Although there are elements of the occult in Narnia, it did not enhance my understanding on the subject, rather it presented stereotypes. The film assumes that anything associated with the witch is evil, when in reality witchcraft does not always hold such a negative association. The film also stereotypes the fact that witchcraft is only associated with females, as the white witch Jadis is a strong female character. However, witchcraft can, and has presented itself in both male and female forms. The white witch herself manifests stereotypes as she ever so typically uses a wand and casts spells, which are not necessarily common methods of performing witchcraft. Even though Narnia is a fictional story, the strongest stereotypical case could be made in regards to the inconclusive evidence that witches have ever existed at all.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 75% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

I would recommend this fantasy classic because it is captivating and visually compelling. Even for one who is not Christian it is easy to dispense with the religious undertones and simply enjoy the adventure, if a viewer finds it hard to get over the religious allegory and hidden messages of the film there is something a little more bigoted and one-sided about the viewer, rather than the film. It is enormously better than its successor Prince Caspian, a sequel which should be avoided.

Groundhog Day

Zoom-in analysis looks into movies, as you know, beyond the simple, obvious and surface of the film and takes even the most common, everyday films and 'zooms-in' past the everyday critique. Groundhog day may appear on the surface to be Harold Ramis's classic comedy about a man who continues to live the same day over and over again until he finds peace with himself and those around him; however, this hysterical, yet profound concept is reminiscent of and contains archetypes from the religion of Buddhism. This zoom-in review will be arguing that the entire film is a metaphor for the religion itself.

First, the religion of Buddhism itself needs to be explored before explaining its parallels, a simple explanation is found on Wikipedia:

Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices, considered by many to be a religion. A Buddhist is one who takes refuge in The Three Jewels: the Buddha (the Awakened One), the Dharma (the Teaching of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the Community of Buddhists).

Buddhism is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as "The Buddha" (of our era), who lived in the northeastern region of the Indian subcontinent. Buddhists recognize him as an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering by understanding the true nature of phenomena, thereby escaping the cycle of rebirths with suffering (saṃsāra).

The Four Noble Truths were the first teaching of Gautama Buddha after attaining Nirvana:

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering (dukkha) in one way or another.
2. Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or people that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

If the parallels haven't made themselves manifest to you already, allow me to point them out for you, with the help from an excellent essay I have read on the subject (Romeril, 2008).

The film demonstrates the wonder of living each moment as a totally new event. It follows a day in the life of weatherman Phil Connors, a sarcastic curmudgeon. He wakes upon the same day, Groundhog Day, again, and again, and again. His namesake, Phil the groundhog (himself a weatherman), sees his shadow, is frightened and goes back into his burrow, thus predicating six more weeks of Winter. Phil Connors is frustrated by living the same day over and over again. He wants to get somewhere else, find new circumstances, he tries to escape each day with the scenarios of his life. He pursues sex, but after a while it is a dead end. Crime is exciting but becomes tiresome. Drinking, therapy, suicide, finding a love relationship, all are explored. The habits and shadows of his life are found wanting.

Each action has consequences. This is the law of karma: he has a choice, but each choice leads to a new reality. Perhaps the turning point of the movie is when he tries to save a homeless man day after day after day, and, no matter what he does, the man dies. He really wants something and is powerless to insure its happening. We have freedom, but within limits. This is "samsara" in Buddhism, the cycle of becoming driven by our karmic intentional activity. We have desires and wants but we may never reach them. Eventually, through many days [lifetimes] he chooses a life of service, works through his demons, and breaks the cycle of Groundhog Day.

Each moment becomes a new opportunity, so the same situation is brand new and his unique response leads to a unique result.

If we recognize what is driving us, and clarify our true intention, the unexamined shadows are no longer about some solely external reality or objective weather, but about us. Each moment is a new beginning. Our projections and stance in the world can cast a long shadow on our lives, and the Spring of each moment is postponed for a long Winter. If you examine and test your perceptions, each moment brings forth a new world. If we lead an unexamined life, we feel each day is different, but it is really a rerun of our habits. If we examine a disciplined life closely, each instant can blossom into a unique flower.

This film parallels Buddhist practice. In a training temple, the wake-up bell rings the same time every day. You go to the same place, wear the same clothes, and follow the same routine, and yet each moment is unique. Not distracted by your desire for changed conditions, you can live each moment not knowing what it will bring, seeing the familiar landscape with new eyes.

On this last day Phil is Awakened, becomes a Bodhisattva, and finally awakes to February 3rd. The same is playing and "I Got You Babe" has a complete different meaning than from the "first time" he heard it on Groundhog's Day. As he ran outside with Rita he declared that Punxsutawney was a beautiful town and that they would stay; true to a Mahayana tradition once enlightened stay with the people and teach them the dharma until the escape samsara. He even stayed true to the principle of annica and opted to first rent a house as to avoid attachment and evade the consequences of dhukka.

Phil Connors in the end "wins the girl." He gives up trying to possess her, so that true intimacy, true participation, can occur. Affecting and being affected by each other and each thing is the true interpenetration of self and other.

The cycle of samara is broken, his shadows are seen through, and each moment blossoms.

As in the tenth ox-herding picture, Phil Connors comes out of his burrow to the market place with gift bestowing hands. He sees the shadow of his reflections and bows to it, as it must to him.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes has no rating for this film

Zoom In Analysis will give it a 7 out of 10

The film Groundhog Day is more than just a romantic comedy, it's about self-improvement, becoming further connected with the people and things around you (including yourself). It begs the question is there anything that can save you besides you. In the end Phil didn't sell out and become Arhat, but instead stayed with the people he had already spent eternity with. He stayed true to the principle of annica and opted to first rent as to avoid attachment from things that may not really exist. Nagarjuna was right in that "samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara" (Wikipedia, 2007). Phil learned the four noble truths traversed the noble eightfold path, quit being a weatherman, and finally lived in the moment of now.

Barton Fink

Movies with ambiguous endings stay with you forever. Think of the first time you saw Lost in Translation (what does he whisper in her ear!?) or pondering why the birds came in Hitchcock's The Birds, the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, Broken Flowers, Fight Club, No country for Old Men and even the Dark Knight all present endings and elements throughout that provide intense interpretations and lend themselves as prime subjects for Zoom-In analysis. However, one that presents itself as a highly metaphorical and highly ambiguous film is the Coen Brother's 1991 film, Barton Fink. The first film to win all three major awards (Palme D'or, Best Director, and Best Actor) at the Cannes Film Festival. Also, it was unanimously chosen for the Palme D'or.

The entire film presents itself as a metaphor for heaven and hell. Barton Fink is played by John Tuturo (what ethnicity is this guy!? He plays everything) who is a critically acclaimed playwright who is hired to a contract in Hollywood to make the transition into film. He claims to write scripts for and about the "everyday man." After being offered to bunk up in a Hollywood suite, he insistintly declines in order to stay in an average hotel called the Hotel Earle. When Chet (Steve Buscemi, the hotel clerk) first appears he comes out of a door on the floor after it takes him a long while to reach the top, like if he was ascending from the underworld. - The word "six" is said three times in the elevator. - Hotel Earle can be an anagram of the words Hell and Erato, the Greek Muze of lyric poetry.

Charlie (John Goodman) is Barton Fink's neighbor who Barton feels an attachment to. Most people concur that Charlie represents the devil. Instead, I think that Charlie represents the repressed rage that "common men" trapped in dead-end lives feel. The pealing wallpaper and heat represent the rage stewing just under the surface, the flames are when Charlie's pent-up anger and resentments finally explode to the surface. Barton struggles through writing his first film, with deadlines about a wrestler. He seeks aid in the help of a famous writer's wife (Audrey) who he ends up sleeping with and he wakes up to her dead (slashed, bloody) body next to him. He finds out that Charlie is a serial killer who chops off people's heads from the police who question Barton after finishing his script. The studio hates the script and Charlie arrives at home to his apartment lit on fire by Charlie who kills the police investigators that are waiting for him with a shotgun.

The Hotel beings to burn and the wallpaper (which has been ripping off throughout the movie continues to rip away). Charlie then says my favorite line in the movie, as the apartment is burning to the ground: "If you need me, I'll be in my room." He then says he went to visit Barton's parents on the East coast where he is from and leaves Barton a gift in a box.

Barton leaves the apartment and walks on the beach where he sits down in front of a beautiful women which resembles exaclty the picture of a woman on the beach that has rested on his wall of the hotel room that he had gazed at for realease throughout his time spent there. This brings us to the last lines of the film between the woman and Barton:

Beauty: It's a beautiful day.
Barton: Huh?
Beauty: I said it's a beautiful day.
Barton: Yes. It is.
Beauty: What's in the box?
Barton: I don't know.
Beauty: Isn't it yours?
Barton: I don't know. You're very beautiful. Are you in pictures?
Beauty: Don't be silly.

The questions arise: what is in the box? what does the girl in the picture come to real life represent? and finally what does the wallpaper ripping off mean?

Here are some explainations I have dug up:

First of all this is like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction it is not meant to be known. I have always thought it was Barton's mind. He couldn't write before but once he got his mind back he was free to write away. Also at the end he finds out that Capital Pictures owns him and his mind so when the girl asks if that is his box he responds "I don't know" meaning he doesn't know if it belongs to him or to Capital Pictures.

Now this of course isn't supposed to be taking literally I know his mind isn't actually in the box but it is symbolic of it.

ALSO:

The suggestion seems to be that's it's Audrey's head. Yet, there's a very "Pulp Fiction" aspect to it as well where we're not really meant to know. And yet, more than in "Pulp Finction"- where the mystery remains much more sublime than any attempt at explantion- we seem invited to seek out an interpretation here to find one that is more symbolic than literal. Barton's "mind" or "the truth" are good ones- "mind" could also be interpretted as Barton's creativity or even his soul (much like those slightly tedious interpretations of Marcellus's briefcase- I reckon it works better here.) The only real clues we have are the size of the box and Mudnt's confession that he lied and that it doesn't really belong to him (ie. does that mean it's Audrey's head or something belonging to Barton?)

However, I think it's significant that Barton doesn't actually open the box- therefore doesn't actually release his mind/creativily/soul. The way I like to look at it is that it is that very mystery of not knowing what's in the box that finally releases his creativity (and so leaves the explanation unknown-like Pulp Fiction). The point that Barton also confesses that he doesn't know what's in the box- and therefore might mean that he doesn't know if he still owns his own creativity- is a good one, but it could work on this level too- ie. that he still doesn't know what's in the box and is- perhaps- still feeding of that mystery. Who knows? Do we really need to know? Sometimes unanswered questions are more inspirational than answered ones.


Personally I thought that what was in the box was the head of his parents who he went to visit, meaning that when you go to hell, you bring everyone you know down with you. What did you think?

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 91% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 7.5 out of 10

Although there is a lot of ambiguity and the movie defintly pulls on the critics strings hitting all the right notes, it lacks audience appeal, but a great flick for those who love to interpret movies. If only judging it as a well written story with long lasting affect I would agree with RT, however when popping this movie into a wide appeal audience it won't be for everyone.

I Am Legend

The premise of I Am Legend had great promises. It was a highly anticipated movie that settled for less than it was capable of. Will Smith's charisma and Francis Lawrence's ability to endeavour in make believe made this movie's potential out to be Castaway meets 28 Days Later. Unfortunately a sub-par script (the film was actually green -lit even before the script was written!) that wavered far too much from the novel it was supposed to based on and digital, rage-filled zombies halve in dramatic interest with every second that passes. Why does Hollywood insist on using CGI for special effects? It ruins movies; my only beef with The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent's face when he became Two-Face. It ruins the realism the authenticity and when its purpose it to raise the pleasures of voyeurism it does the opposite for me. CGI ruins movies when used on people. However, CGI is an incredible tool when used on inanimate objects, disasters and cityscapes. The way director Francis Lawrence manages to turn New York city into a run-down, immaculate ghost-town taken over by vegetation (plants were transported via trucks from Florida to dress up the city streets as if weeds had overtaken them) is an admirable feat! And he's smart enough to let Smith be Smith. But there's only so much you can do with CGI monsters that don't seem right for this kind of sci-fi scenario. Guerillmo Del Toro with Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth has proven that films can be so much better without CGI band-aids and taking the time and funding for old fashioned make-up. Coincidently Del Toro was Smith's first choice to direct the film, but turned it down to do Hellboy II. Del Toro could have saved this train wreck. How much scarier would the zombies have been if they were given a 28 Days Later makeover? Basically in the long run You're left gawping at a $100 million worth of a futuristic B-movie.

In anticipation for this review I read the novel by Richard Matheson, I want to tell you exactly where the movie failed its 1954 original counterpart. The book is based on a disease which creates vampires, who were once "legend" that turn out to be very much fact as the disease spreads and wipes out the entire human race except for Robert Neville. Neville boards up his home and goes out during the day to get supplies and food. Pretty much like the movie, right? No, in the movie they aren’t vampires at all, they are zombie-like humans infected by a disease. A disease which somehow (inexplicably) gives the super-human strength. As put by a film critic "Before the diseased-yet oddly superhuman villains start to appear en masse, I Am Legend works surprisingly well." Admittedly, there is a scene where the CGI zombies are huddled in a dark corner of a building pumping their backs back and forth while Neville tries to save his wandering dog without being seen. This scene was very chilling and pretty scary. Unfortunately one scene can't save $100 million.

The zombies start to evolve and get smarter, placing Neville in a trap. In the novel, the vampires evolve into day-walkers and send a girl to spy on Neville, pretending she's never been infected. Neville discovers her true self and after running away the day walkers capture Neville and perform an execution at their hideout, killing the last man alive. There is a complete role reversal in the end as Neville ironically becomes legend and the vampires become fact. The title makes sense to the novel in that vampires are folklore or legend, but in the movie it makes no sense as the creatures that end up killing Neville aren't legend but freaked-out science accidents. As stated in a very accurate film review "This new version of I Am Legend completely perverts the meaning of the title, losing the clever dark irony and turning it instead into something heroic rather than something tragic." The ending to the film is abrupt with a sudden solution to the earth's problems and in a single, selfless heroic act Neville passes the cure on to an escaping woman who takes it away to save the world. How many times have we seen a similar scenario? Typical Hollywood.

In the movie, Neville is faced at the end of a dock about to get eaten by the zombies, but of course (out of nowhere) in the nick of time comes a woman and her son who have somehow been surviving on a boat to save him. Hollywood is infected with fairy-tale endings and heroism that are so frequent that "Hollywood" films have become predictable to film viewers across the globe with their typical endings, ego driven protagonists and perverse twists on what they call "tragedies." As one critic has put it "the infantile prioritizing [in I Am Legend] that occurs when Hollywood wants to be inspirational, the hero's everyman crisis of religious faith is supposed to be as important to audience as his struggle to save humanity from distinction."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 69% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it an emphatic 4 out of 10

There is a fine line between make-believe and make believable and unfortunately I Am Legend forces the viewer to flirt with the latter. Go for the thrills, for some nerve-gnawing suspense, for the wonderful production design and for the opportunity to spend some time with Will Smith (if you like him at all), but this is film is not the stuff of Legend.

The Strangers

I must admit, I don't have a lot of experience critiquing teen slasher films or the horror genre in general but I will outline my criteria in a horror/slasher film so that you can decide whether you will agree or disagree with the following analysis of The Strangers.

1) The scare factor must be there. I think that the longer I am caught thinking about the movie afterward, the more the movie was able to do its job. I can forget a drama quite quickly and still have respect for it, but a horror film must stay with me.

2) There must be blood. If it's a film with murders and violence, don't butter it up for me: show me the reality of the situation. I want to see a guy in a bathtub lathering up with a bloody piece of brain. Anything less that realistic is patronizing the audience. HOWEVER, that being said anything more than what is realistic can get gratuitous, outrageous and lets face it just silly (none of us want to see Rambo 4 again).

3) Characters. We need motives, secrets, twisted back stories, development and most importantly in a horror film when there is a small amount of relatability to the killer it makes it that much more creepy/thrilling. Think about it, none of us (I should hope) are capable of murder, but when there's that tiny pinch of a killer where in the back of your head you think "I know how that feels" or "I know someone just like this guy," you feel a chill up your spine as if to say "I think I know this guy." Case in point: American Psycho, we know the yuppie culture and we see guys like Patrick Bateman in the media, even walking in the streets. Which is what makes films like American Psycho more than simple slasher or horror films, they are dramas.

Which brings me to The Strangers. This film had all the thrills of a teenage horror film, jumpy scenes when you open the curtains, classic injured legged victim crawling away from the slowly walking murderer, on and on thematic tricks that we've seen before. I swear, the formula for directing a slasher film is so common now that Hollywood must have them available to order in value meals now. Unfortunately, there was no super-sizing here. The film starts where it ends (which is part of the problem) in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. The location is just as appropriate as the plot, which is also in the middle of nowhere. The premise is simple, a couple having relationship troubles come together and have a fatalistic cry for eachother's love (sooo cliche) when in the end are moments away from being stabbed quite literally and metaphorically in the heart.

The film manages to spike your scared senses for the first hour, but it manages to carry on for another 20 minutes. When a friend of the couple comes to visit and ends up fooling them into thinking he's the actual murderer, he turns the corner where the couple is waiting with a shotgun to kill whoever comes into the room...he gets his brains splattered on the wall like a spaghetti food fight. It is clear at this point that The Strangers had run out of gas. Before this point however it really managed to tickle the spine and keep me scared.

As far as my 3 criteria goes, number one: it managed to scare me and keep me jumping but it was quite forgettable (I barely remembered I watched it to write this review); number two: It had a decent amount of blood at a realistic rate, bravo! Finally three: I was so detached from the characters that I wanted them to die. I was cheering for the strangers. Liv Tyler (who I saw in person at Jimmy Kimmel) and Scott Speedman (great in Felicity) do a fine job though I must say with a typical script.

In conclusion, for those who have seen the film I would like to dispel the apparent Hollywood tag that the movie was "based on true events." The True Story Behind the New Movie "The Strangers" is a mixture of three stories.

The killers, a principle male assailant and female accomplices, is based upon Charles Manson and the Manson killings.

The frantic "there's blood everywhere" 911 phone call and "bounding to a chair and stabbing" was based on the killings in Cabin 28.

The basic story of a couple being terrorized by a group of people was based on the famous killing in the Czech Republic, which was also made into a French Film titled Ils, translated to mean "Them."

In the Czech Republic murders, an Austrian couple are terrorized in their vacation home by three teenagers and are later killed in the forest when they try to escape. BUT, a concrete source for this alleged crime has yet to be found other than countless blog postings, leading most people to believe that the story was engineered much like the Blair Witch Project, to give Directors a legal excuse to claim that it was based on a "True Story."

In the Cabin 28 murders, the daughter of a woman walks into a cabin where her mother, brother, and brother's female friend were staying only to find them stabbed and hammered to death. She calls 911 frantically repeating "there's blood everywhere," which there was although no one heard anything all night.

This took a few hours to finally piece together, but I noticed that no one else had figured it out and wanted to be the first to say, "I cracked the story."

The Strangers True Story claim is definitely true, but a combination of several stories to appeal to general audiences. That's Hollywood, but, as scary as it may be, also real life.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 43% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a benefit of the doubt rating at 5 out of 10

Although it is worth showing to a group of school girls, even pansy assed boys at a sleepover, it didn't do it for me. I wanted to to have nightmares, instead I laugh when I think of someone wearing what looks like a paper bag over their head to hide thier face. Although, if you are looking for a movie to give you a little scare and some decent thrills while cuddling on the couch, without a "zoom-in" type of analysis (an over-analysis) and are attracted to the teen slasher genre I think you will enjoy this film.

No Country for Old Men

Let me start off by saying that writing a review for this film is a painful challenge. I am having difficulty even starting to explain the brilliance of the Coen Brother's greatest film. It is ironic that the premise of the film can be so simply explained, however the film itself would require an excruciating discourse in order to qualify the themes, motives and properly capture the characters themselves in one review. Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy the film's premise is simple: a botched drug deal causes an ensuing cat-and-mouse drama, as three men crisscross each others paths in the desert landscape of 1980 West Texas. The film's protagonist Llewelyn (Josh Brolin from Goonies) discovers a suitcase of money on the scene of the drug deal and as a result Chigurh, a serial killer (Javier Bardem) must chase him down while the local Sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) struggles to catch up to the two while on a personal journey of discovery for himself. IMDB reports "Contrary to most successful films made from books, much of the film's action is taken word for word from [Sheriff] Cormac McCarthy's novel and to boot occurs in the same order of events. Bell's final speech in the film, for instance, can be read on the final page of the book."

The film itself takes upon itself great burdens of great emotion and intriguing passages into a character that carries death with him everywhere he goes. The film is best put by Roger Ebert as a "masterful evocation of time, place, character, moral choices, immoral certainties, human nature and fate." The theme of fate is one that I would say dominates the film's premise. What is the fate of Llewelyn? What is the fate of those who cross the path of Chigurh's coin toss? What is the fate of those that continue to live in monotonous routines without end or dynamism? What will be the fate of Chigurh? Who lives? Who dies? And finally, what conclusions will the sheriff reach about fate, life and his journey as he embarks to solve his own personal puzzle while solving the surface mystery? I can't help but dip it into the horror genre as it startles and scares the viewer, however it is so much more than a horror or mystery movie as the viewer is not only startled, mortified and caught guessing, but also attempting to paint each character's circumstances of isolation along with how they are ironically connected. All three characters are loners in three different ways and yet they are all trying to find each other. Llewelyn is the only intentional loner whose main intention is to remain unfound, uncompanioned and yet ironically is the only one who is married. Chigurh is a nomadic loner who takes upon himself a grim reaper burden to find others in order to either make sure they take advantage of the life he has saved with the flip of a coin, or allows fate to end their path which allows him to continue on his own. Finally the Sheriff is a loner not because of anything he has brought upon himself, but because the forces and people around him either continue to die or push themselves away and he vexes himself in an attempt to make sense of it all. While all three characters are isolated in their own unique ways, they are placed in a very isolated setting, in the middle of nowhere desert to further contribute to the loner motif.

Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: Sir?
Anton Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: I don't know. I couldn't say.
[Chigurh flips a quarter from the change on the counter and covers it with his hand]
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Call it?
Anton Chigurh: Yes.
Gas Station Proprietor: For what?
Anton Chigurh: Just call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Anton Chigurh: You need to call it. I can't call it for you. It wouldn't be fair.
Gas Station Proprietor: I didn't put nothin' up.
Anton Chigurh: Yes, you did. You've been putting it up your whole life you just didn't know it. You know what date is on this coin?
Gas Station Proprietor: No.
Anton Chigurh: 1958. It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Look, I need to know what I stand to win.
Anton Chigurh: Everything.
Gas Station Proprietor: How's that?
Anton Chigurh: You stand to win everything. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Alright. Heads then.
[Chigurh removes his hand, revealing the coin is indeed heads]
Anton Chigurh: Well done.
[the gas station proprietor nervously takes the quarter with the small pile of change he's apparently won while Chigurh starts out]
Anton Chigurh: Don't put it in your pocket, sir. Don't put it in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.

IMDB.com reports some amazing facts about the film:

Heath Ledger had been in talks to play Llewelyn Moss, but withdrew to take "some time off" instead.

The Coen Brothers used a photo of a brothel patron taken in 1879 as a model for Anton Chigurh's hair style. Looking at its weirdness after getting the hair cut, Javier Bardem said "Oh no, now I won't get laid for the next two months".

In the novel (but not in the movie), Sheriff Bell says of the dope-dealers, "Here a while back in San Antonio they shot and killed a federal judge." McCarthy set the story in 1980. In 1979, in San Antonio, Federal Judge John Howland Wood was shot and killed by rifle fire by a Texas free-lance contract killer named Charles Harrelson. Actor Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells in the movie) is his son.

The weapon used by Anton Chigurh is a captive bolt pistol. It is most widely used in the slaughter of cattle to stun the animals before they are butchered.In conclusion, I'd like to know others interpretations of the final piece of dialogue in the film by Sheriff Ed Tom Bell when he shares a dream he had and then the movie ends immediately afterward:

Ed Tom Bell: Alright then. Two of 'em. Both had my father in 'em . It's peculiar. I'm older now then he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember to well but it was about meeting him in town somewhere, he's gonna give me some money. I think I lost it. The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin' through the mountains of a night. Goin' through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and there was snow on the ground and he rode past me and kept on goin'. Never said nothin' goin' by. He just rode on past... and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up.

Personally, I think his dream fully illustrates the isolation that the Sheriff feels as an individual and as a result of what is around him in an isolated place. It also justifies the title, that the cruel landscape with its cruel characters that still roam it for whom or why he cannot explain, other than to think that it ain't no country for old men like himself (just as his father passed him by in his dream and had his time, it's a changing world and now its his time to realize that he can't handle it anymore and should retire). I am interested in reader's comments for this film as the interpretations of each character can be highly ambiguous, which contributes to the film's raw complexity.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 94% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

Each character's complexity and background could engage a round table discussion for hours. The conclusion of the film immediately urges the viewer to watch it again and the themes of the film take stabs at a new side of darkness that has previously been either unexplored or done without success.

Atonement

Keira Knightly and James Mcavoy star in one of the best films of 2007. This film without a doubt made my top 5 list of last year. Based on the novel by Ian McEwan it unexpectedly captured the surprise ending of the book with perfect plausibility and without a hint of abruptness. The film is anything but rushed as the story lags along with what could seem as a bore to some viewers but the story is driven by a dark secret and interlaced with emotions from the main characters that makes the viewer love, hate and empathize with every character in the film at one point or the other. James Mcavoy considered the script the best he had ever read.

The story proves what human nature is capable of and justifies from each perspective presented in a messy love triangle. The director Joe Wright shows each significant event of the film from different viewpoints, which makes the viewer understand the motives behind each character. Briony Tallis is the story's main character, who even at 13 years old, has a jealous love interest in James Mcavoy's character Robbie Turner. She witnesses a moment of sexual interest between her sister and Robbie (which is seen from multiple perspectives) before she endorses a lie that causes the couple to separate and hold a forbidden love for each other. Without revealing the lie or what ensues as a result, I will just comment on the story itself as a whole.

Robbie enters the Second World war years later, and it seems that with each year that follows, the lie continues to consume Briony. Her character begins to daydream in polarized directions, from being with Robbie to what would happen if she revealed her lie. The story makes attempts to prove to the viewer the drastic consequence of a famished love that cannot be seized. The story skips years at a time evolving the lie into remorse followed by guilt which turns into Briony's anguish where she realizes that she not only has ruined her own life but the life of her sister and the only man she ever has truly loved, Robbie (who never loved her). She actually presents herself as a very innocent person, but proves that most people have secrets, hers turns out to be a very dark and malicious one which her selfishness holds onto not only to protect herself but because she still cannot stand the fact that Robbie belong to anyone else but her.

Briony writes a novel at the end of her life expressing her regret that she held inside for what turns out to be her entire life but in the book she gave an ending different from the reality, had been her chance to give her sister and Robbie the hope and the happiness that they had deserved— and that she had stolen from them. The novel is, therefore, her "atonement" for the naive but destructive acts of a 13-year-old child, which she has always regretted.
The film closes with a scene of a simple, joyful moment that Cecilia and Robbie might have had, if events had played out differently.
The direction of this film is not only extremely unique because of the many perspectives given of the exact same event or scene but it holds probably one of the greatest single-shot takes (5 1/2 minutes) I have ever viewed which takes place on Dunkirk beach and done in only four takes (the third one was used). It was conceived out of necessity, for the crew only had a day to film and had limited time with the 1,000 extras and had to shoot before the tide would come in and wash away the set. To give you an idea of what ensued in the scene, imdb reports:

"Shooting the five minute Dunkirk beach scene was arguably the toughest portion of shooting. The shooting schedule dictated that the scene must be completed in two days. However the location scouts report indicated the lighting quality at the beach was not good enough until the afternoon of the second day. This forced director Joe Wright to change his shooting strategy into shooting with one camera. The scene was rehearsed on the first day and on the morning of the second day. The scene required five takes and the third take was used in the film. On shooting, Steadicam operator Peter Robertson shot the scene by riding on a small tracking vehicle, walking off to a bandstand after rounding a boat, moved to a ramp, stepped onto a rickshaw, finally dismounting and moving past the pier into a bar."
A little personal side-note: The green dress Keira Knightly wears in the film is one I was able to see first hand in my trip to Hollywood this summer which was encased in a glass case in Universal Studios. Imdb states that "The dress has been named "the best of all time" by InStyle magazine, exceeding some classics as Audrey Hepburn's little black dress in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), Marilyn Monroe's white dress in The Seven Year Itch (1955) or Vivien Leigh's red dress from Gone With The Wind (1939)."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 83% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 9/10

Memorable scenes which stay with you for days, even weeks. The film presents one of the greatest love stories I've seen in years with a truly ironic, dark catch 22 situation for the main character. Although the film can be criticized for being slow-moving, I found the repetition of scenes and spaces between dialogue necessary to elicit the finer emotions that the story reveals not only in each character, but in the viewer as well. In fact, if someone attempts to say this movie was too "boring" or slow I not only disagree with you, I disrespect your entire taste in movies. This is a must see. I cannot wait until the Blu-ray is released as the cinematography and scenery in the film will be worth the wait in 1080p.