American Beauty

Title: American Beauty (1999)
Director: Sam Mendes
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Kevin Spacey
Rating: R
122 minutes

I just watched this again in my film lecture class. It told me a lot about the people around me who were watching and specifically made me want to deck the guy behind me who muttered “faggot” under his breath, but he was a very large guy and I am not. The movie follows the last section of Lester Burnham’s (Kevin Spacey) life. He wakes up one morning and realizes just how dead he has been and how much his daughter, Jane (Thora Birch), and his wife, Carolyn (Annette Bening), hate him. After meeting Jane’s friend, Angela (Mena Suvari), Lester begins fantasizing about her and changing the dull rut his life has settled into to.

Kevin Spacey is as good as he usually is. His best moment is toward the end when Lester realizes that he is happy. He makes the progression from catatonic cubicle occupant to happy free hamburger flipper. The shift is evident in every aspect of Spacey’s performance. His posture changes; his speed of speech changes; his speech pattern changes; his gait changes. Spacey as Lester becomes a whole new person.

To be completely honest, I have never been an Annette Bening fan. She isn’t someone whose acting makes me want to throw molotov cocktails at the screen (Keanu Reeves), but I have never found her to be just spectacular. Here she is good. I think she is often overshadowed by the superbness of Spacey’s acting. She definitely adds some much needed comedy and is a decent foil for Lester. I just am always wanting a little more from her.

The last actor I am going to discuss, simply due to not wanting to write a 1,000 word review on a movie that has been out for over 10 years, is Chris Cooper as Jane’s boyfriend’s Dad. He is Colonel Frank Fitts, US Marine Corps. He holds his household in an iron grip. Things must happen on his terms and in his definitions. Cooper is both frightening and heart-breaking in the role. In 1999 Michael Caine, Tom Cruise, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jude Law, and Haley Joel Osment were up for Best Supporting Actor. In my opinion, Cooper was better than Cruise, Law, and Osment and at least on par with Caine and Duncan.

Sam Mendes wants the viewer to be aware that someone is directing this movie. Sometimes these intrusive directing styles can steal subtlety from the film and make it a lesser movie. Luckily, this is not one of those cases. Mendes in conjunction with the cinematographer, Conrad Hall, work the camera in magnificent ways. The way the shots are framed and the angles the actors are filmed at elevate the characterizations and impact. Some of the most interesting camera work is when we are seeing Jane’s boyfriend, Ricky’s (Wes Bentley), hand-filmed footage. It has a much more raw and honest element about it. Those feelings map on to the relationship between Ricky and Jane and their association to the rest of the characters.

The final brilliant enhancement is the score by Thomas Newman. Particularly in Lester’s fantasies, the score situates the viewer into the mindset needed for the scene. As with the directing, this is not a subtle, shy score. It is wonderfully intrusive for the audience. With someone who did not fully understand the theme and evolution of the film, the score could have ended up like The Krays, where I had the strongest desire to simply mute the entire movie and read the subtitles. Instead it teases the viewer into the head of Lester Burnham.

All these enhancements and strong performances would be useless if the script were not of the quality that it was. Alan Ball is the screenwriter and his eerie understanding of the death of personality that can exist in the suburbs make this movie what it is. The subject matter could have slipped easily into a vulgar and disturbing movie, but Ball knew where to take the story to and stop. The script also has the style of dialogue that Ball has quickly been known for. Ball’s idea is the strong foundation that this film is built from.

Well I made it to just over 700 words. Sometimes I don’t know when to shut up. This movie has so many levels of complexity while still maintaining a sense of reality. If that reality were missing, this could slip into Christopher Nolan’s style. Instead what makes it so strong is the strong anchor it has in its realism. Annette Bening and Mena Suvari are good in their parts. The rest of the cast is great. Mendes, Ball, and Newman take this movie to the most extreme they can before drawing back to avoid a caricature. At the basest level, this is a story about a man coming alive again and this movie wonderfully succeeds.

********** 10/10

Eat, Pray, Love

Title: Eat, Pray, Love (2010)
Director: Ryan Murphy
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Julia Roberts
Rating: PG-13
133 minutes

I haven’t read the book. I never really had an interest in seeing the movie for the movie. I didn’t mind seeing it because I saw it with friends. The movie follows Liz Gilbert (Julia Roberts) after divorcing her husband. She dates a wannabe actor and then decides to spend a year abroad. She starts in Italy (eat), goes to India (pray), and ends in Bali (love). On her travels she meets a colorful cast of characters that help her learn about life and herself.

While this is not Julia Roberts’ best movie, the problems are not due to her. She is not off-putting or completely awkward in the role. The character is surprisingly annoying. She comes across as very self-involved. Despite her life being in a disarray, everyone she comes across is better for having met her.

The only actor whose performance I really like is Richard Jenkins as Richard. I like the actor quite a bit. His character all seems to be one of the few that shows a genuine believable emotion. All the others are very obvious about their acting. Part of it is the characters. They all are too wonderful or too damaged or too static.

The directing also is decent. The shots show off the beauty of the scenery and situations. All the visuals are right for the settings and characters. The thing that brings the film down is the story. I have mentioned the immense problems with the characterizations, but it goes to more than that. This movie is supposed to be about a character who is so emotionally lost that she has to travel the world to get a better understanding of herself. She never seems to really want to become a better person. It all is superficial. I never believe the character for an instant.

From all the hype about the book, I expected at the very least a decent movie. The flaw stems from the book though. It is not the fault of anyone involved. Without changing a lot about the source material, no one could fix the problem with the main character. The best thing about the movie is the poster. I doubt this is how Roberts wanted to jump back into leading roles. At least she got a good trip out of it.

*** 3/10

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Title: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Director: David Fincher
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett
Rating: PG-13
166 minutes

I think the premise is extremely intriguing. Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) ages backwards. He is born a creepy old baby. His mother dies in childbirth and after briefly considering infanticide, his father leaves him on the steps of an old folks home. He is raised by the black caretaker, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). He meets Daisy (Cate Blanchett) and through their lives their paths cross again and again. Daisy grows older while Benjamin looks younger and younger.

Brad Pitt makes this movie. He is able to hold a child-like curiosity and maturity, while still looking like an old man. Then he has to have an old soul while appearing 22. The most convincing element, in my opinion is when Benjamin surprises Daisy in New York. You can see his heart breaking and yours almost breaks with it. He exhibits some of the carefree ease he did in Thelma and Louise. This is one of Pitt’s best performances in a long while. Despite his condition and his turmoils in love, he always see the beauty in what he has been given and the opportunity that could be wasted. He is able to travel the world like a young man, but still retain the wisdom of age.

I would not say this is Cate Blanchett’s best performance, but there are great points to it. Particularly when Daisy is pushing Benjamin away or trying to drag him closer. I don’t think her performance as the old Daisy is particularly intriguing. Blanchett does great in extremes and well in the in-betweens.

The cinematography is utterly gorgeous as well. There are several shots that would make gorgeous and expressive photographs. It enhances the beauty and meaning of the film in a way that makes the plot and actors the stars. The camera angles and positioning are also deliberate and compelling. There is a particularly beautiful scene in Paris in one of those butterfly wing sequences.

My biggest problem was Tilda Swinton. I have never really found her to be an entertaining actress. Here she plays a woman Benjamin meets in Russia named Elizabeth Abott. I never really believed her or the chemistry between her and Benjamin. Who can’t have chemistry with Brad Pitt? Luckily she is the movie for a brief time, especially considering how long the movie is. I would argue the only performance I really enjoyed was as the White Witch. She can’t express emotion with any conviction or believability.

The movie is beautiful and has wonderful acting from Pitt. He makes Benjamin heart-breaking and inspirational and tragic and beautiful Fincher used the story in the best way possible. These two are the shining stars in this movie. The rest for the most part is good. Swinton is not. Still this is a movie that is worth seeing. I understand, however, that some dislike movies this long and some may find the pacing boring. If it went faster, it would disrupt the simplicity Fincher somehow managed.

******** 8/10

Wall Street

Title: Wall Street (1987)
Director: Oliver Stone
Genre: Crime, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas
Rating: R
126 minutes

I had never felt a huge need to see this movie, but with the sequel coming out soon and me on the fence about seeing it, I decided it was time. Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is an up-and-comer in a job involving the stock market. I never know officially what his job is. I guess he’s a stock broker. Anyway, the pressure is on him to hook a whale. That whale is Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Bud gets sucked into the luxurious and exciting world of Gekko and as such gets involved in insider trading. The movie then turns into Bud trying to decide from the powerful, capitalist Gekko and his hard-working dad, Carl (Martin Sheen).

I think the only interesting and compelling performance in the movie is Michael Douglas’s. His Gekko is probably one of the best characters on the eighties. He is vicious and greedy and charming and charismatic. He is all the things that moves a good villain to great. Douglas plays the character with vigor and enjoyment. He was a fantastic choice that kept Gekko from becoming a complete sleezeball.

Now the rest of the cast is mostly trash. I will say I liked Martin Sheen as Bud’s dad and John C. McGinley as one of Bud’s co-workers. Charlie Sheen, however, has the emotional range of a chalkboard. He fakes inner conflict in an extremely obvious way. He is not invested in the character like he should have been. His performance, which could have been dynamic and good, comes across as wooden and uninterested.

Daryl Hannah is supposed to be Darien Taylor, Bud and Gekko’s love interest. Her acting is really just inappropriate. She seems to find levity in scenes which are supposed to be serious and intense. Her chemistry with Sheen in practically non-existent. This woman who is supposed to thrive in these rich and powerful circles and be desirable to titans of industry comes across as a blonde bimbo.

I also think that there were some problems with some of the cinematography. Specifically, there were several tight shots that made thing unnecessarily choppy and seem disorganized. There was also the opposite problem, oddly long shots that served no purpose but muddied the view and distracted from the story.

I don’t think there is any point in buying the movie. Overall it is not good enough due to the weakness of the protagonist and the love interest for the two characters. Douglas’s performance is though a must-see. I would tentatively argue it is the best of his career. Since the only returning character with much screen time appears to be Douglas and the movie has some actors I like, I will most likely see the sequel. I am weary of the casting of Shia LaBeouf, but I will give it a chance. It is a shame though that this amazing performance by Douglas is stuck in such a mediocre film.

**** 4/10

Inception

Title: Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Drama, Sci-fi
Lead Actor(s): Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page
Rating: PG-13
148 minutes

Christopher Nolan is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. Inception is trippy and thinky and great. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the best “extractor” around with a very preoccupied subconscious. Extractors go into people’s dreams to unlock secrets for other people. Cobb and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are recruited for a big job and they must build a team including a forger, Eames (Tom Hardy), an architect, Ariadne (Ellen Page), a chemist, Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and the benefactor, Saito (Ken Wantanabe) to go deep into a mark’s mind.

Cobb has the most story in the movie and it is very complicated. DiCaprio handles such an intricate character with the taut skill he has become adept at. That being said, I would like to see him as a lighter character. His recent choices for characters never have a chance to smile and he was just as good at characters that smile. Back to his performance in this movie, I completely understand why Nolan only intended for DiCaprio for the role. This character is constantly tormented by personifications of his subconscious. He literally faces his evils in a more concrete way than the average person can dream. Cobb, however, feels that he has to continue. It doesn’t matter if he puts his whole team at risk. This gravity ways on DiCaprio as heavy as an anchor. Every movement, facial expression, every inflection is defined by this evil.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely magnificent. He is half of the comedic relief (the other being Hardy as Eames) and also a more balanced and level person than Cobb. He is more dimensional than Cobb as well. Gordon-Levitt is just fun to watch in the movie. DiCaprio is tormented and marvelous, but Gordon-Levitt just helps pull the audience away from a constant and sharp decline with Cobb. Gordon-Levitt has really grown into a fun and talented actor.

The one actor I was probably most disappointed with was Ellen Page. She was great the first 20-30 minutes, but as soon as she started discovering Cobb’s back story, I thought she dropped the ball a bit. I know that Page can do serious, even frightening. She proved this in Hard Candy. As such I am not entirely sure why when things got darker, she distanced herself from the character. I think Gordon-Levitt’s character would have been just as effective in the role this character had to play.

The directing and writing, both done by Nolan, were interesting and made the movie more of an experience. I am dying to know how he did those hallway scenes. I also want to say I loved the villain. There were times where it was so utterly unsettling. The villain really bumped the movie to the next level. I am trying not to give too much away because it would ruin the movie and the ad campaign was so careful to reveal so little. That is how I like my trailers. They need to leave some mystery so I don’t come out of the theatre feeling like I could have saved my money and just watched all the trailers to get to the end.

If Inception is not recognized for certain elements come award season, I will be very disappointed and it will probably just make me like Nolan more. I urge everyone to see this movie. This is what great movies can be. They don’t have to be in 3-d, if they have a good plot, fun and interesting characters, and the director can use his imagination. Too many directors are relying on 3-d to make their movies. If Avatar had not been in 3-d, there is no way it would have made the massive amounts of money it did. It certainly would not have been nominated for Best Picture. I will now get off my soapbox and give one last plea to see this movie. There have been practically no good movies, not made by Pixar, out this summer and finally this arrived. If it were not for Ellen Page, this movie would have gotten a 10.

********* 9/10

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

I just want to mention that last night I saw the touring company of Beauty and the Beast last night and highly recommend anyone who has a chance to do so.

Title: Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Director: Woody Allen
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall
Rating: PG-13
96 minutes

This movie is not as good as Beauty and the Beast, but still enjoyable. Also the title is ridiculously fun to say. Two American best friends travel to Barcelona for very different reasons. Vicky (Rebecca Hall) goes to further her studies on Catalan culture and specifically the work of the artist Gaudi. Cristina is a restless soul who hasn’t found what she wants in life. They meet a celebrated and sexy artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) who still feels responsibility for his ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz), whom he still loves. Both Americans fall for the painter and Cristina develops a relationship with the painter, while Vicky marries her fiance.

I enjoy Johansson’s performances in Woody Allen films. In some instances she has been the best aspect of the movie. She is really comfortable in the role. Cristina wants to feel like her odd triangle of a relationship is right for her, but isn’t. She loves the idea more than the reality. She wants to be more of the European sensibility, but still doesn’t know where the hell she fits in.

Javier Bardem is wonderful as the sexy, Latin painter. The last movie I saw of his before this was No Country For Old Men. He convincingly went from a homicidal, asexual psychopath to a seductive, talented artist. He is very much defined by the women he is with. With Vicky he is particularly cerebral. He is far more calculated in his interactions with people and his behaviors. With Maria Elena he is reckless and wild. Almost feral at times. He is overwhelmed by passion for anything he is doing. With Cristina he is a mixture of both that I would define as more artistic. He sees the angles and beauty of things, but is not so filled with it as to lose himself.

Cruz and Hall are the utter opposites of each other. Cruz’s Maria Elena is brash, impatient and all id. Cruz loves those characters because, in my opinion, she understands them. Halls is conservative, critical, crushingly down-to-earth. Cruz is strong in these wild women. Hall seems unsure of herself. I don’t know if this is due to the strong talent surrounding her, her lack of connection with the character, or something else. Another rather weak point in the movie is the narrator. I think it detracted from the film in a way that took the audience out of the experience of watching the movie.

I love how the movie ended. It is very Woody Allen and a good return from some of his more recent missteps. This is a unique and interesting romantic movie. There are some scenes involving homosexuality, subtitles, and large amounts of sexuality. As always if you are not comfortable with any of these things, this movie may not be for you.

******* 8/10

The Prestige

Title: The Prestige (2006)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Drama, Mystery
Lead Actor(s): Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale
Rating: PG-13
130 minutes

Until today I did not realize that Christopher Nolan directed this, but I should have known stylistically. The movie is about the rivalry between to magicians stemming from the death of one of their wives at the other’s hands. Each becomes obsessed with the other. Christian Bale portrays Alfred Borden and Hugh Jackman is Robert Angier.

Jackman’s wife (Piper Perabo) is the one that is murdered. Following this Angier descends into a madness and obsession with Borden. Even shoots him. Borden debuts a trick where he seemingly teleports from one side of the stage to another. Jackman is wonderfully at varying between the lowest obsessive depression to the high experienced after completing a trick successfully. He also portrays a double for Angier to replicate the vanishing act. His double is a slobbering drunk. Jackman is just as good there as he is as Angier. When Jackman plays a character that has reason for happiness, his joy is palpable.

Bale’s character is a bit harder to wrap one’s head around. He is, however, very well-suited for the role. He is much quieter and reserved than Angier. He also has far more tumultuous relationships with those around him.  His wife even states that she can tell the days he loves her more than magic and the ones he doesn’t. He is powerful in his reservation. This makes the times when he does appear to lose control much more startling.

There are several good supporting actors. Michael Caine plays an illusionist engineer named Cutter who has at one time been a friend to both leads. Scarlett Johansson is originally Angier’s assistant sent to spy on Borden, but ends up falling in love with him. My favorite casting though is David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. If there is ever a biography of him brought to screen, Bowie needs to play that role.

The only thing I don’t particularly like is one of the two twists of the movie. It seems to come from nowhere and does not fit with the rest of the film at all. Unfortunately that is a big part of the movie and it is rather jarring at the end. It also doesn’t help that the first time I watched it was at 3 a.m. and I was exhausted by the time the ending came around. On subsequent viewings though, it was just as jarring. It really takes away from what could have been an utterly great film. I still suggest watching it because the performances are still wonderful and the rest of the film is very interesting and entertaining.

******** 8/10

Doubt

Title: Doubt (2008)
Director: John Patrick Shanley
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman
Rating: PG-13
104 minutes

This was released the same year that Mamma Mia!. I just want to mind you of this fact as I discuss Meryl Streep role in the movie. It is 1964. A nun, Sister Aloysius (Streep), believes that something untoward is going on between a new priest and a young, black boy. A young nun, Sister James (Amy Adams), is drawn between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius and her trust in people and her own misgivings.

The fact that Streep went from playing a hippie singing ABBA songs to playing the scariest, most righteous nun in existence in the same year and with equal ability and conviction is astounding. She even looks substantially older in this film than in the previous. The whole movie is based on her conviction in her intuition. As Aloysius she is stricter and more feared than the priest. Her arguments with Father Flynn in her office are especially engaging. Her accent is also quite good. My absolute favorite scene is the last one and specifically the last minute of the movie. Those few seconds make her performance.

I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance, but wanted him to be more likable. He was decently, but I think the dynamics would have been better if he had a little more Tom Hanks in his performance. His sermons were compelling as any good priest should be. The attendants seem to like him. Even the mother of the boy seemed to like this man to a degree. I felt, however, that he was not as amiable when interacting with the students or the fellow nuns/priests. Again the arguments in Aloysius’s office were especially compelling.

The audience was supposed to sympathize with Amy Adams’s character. I think she played the naive, optimistic Sister James wonderfully. She wants to believe the best in people, which I think is a good quality in someone who has devoted themselves to the church. There are times she stands up to Aloysius, but she for the most part tries to smooth everything over and please people. She loves what she does and doesn’t want to cause waves in any fashion. I believe her entire character can be summed up in the line, beautifully delivered to Streep, “You just don’t like him! You don’t like it that he uses a ballpoint pen. You don’t like it that he takes 3 lumps of sugar in his tea. You don’t like it that he likes ‘Frosty the Snowman’ and you are letting that convince you? Of something that’s terrible… Just terrible….”

Because this movie is so faithfully adapted from a play (the author directed and wrote the screenplay), there are some scenes and conversations that last for upwards of 15 minutes. I do think that the director needs a bit more experience behind the camera. There were camera angles that seemed there only because he had seen other movies do them. He knows how to work with actors and material, but the visual aspect needs a little work.

The movie is worth seeing based on Streep’s performance alone. The story is remarkably interesting as well. It takes on a very taboo subject and does it well. I think that if the director gets a bit more experience and confidence in the visual aspect, he can become a great film director. I really encourage watching the movie and finishing it. That last scene stayed with me for quite a while.

******** 8/10

Edge of Darkness

Since it was father’s day, I watched this movie with my dad instead of going to see Toy Story 3. I am hoping to see it sometime this week so the review should be up soon, although I am sure it is amazing.

Title: Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Genre: Crime, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Mel Gibson
Rating: R
117 minutes

I am not the biggest Mel Gibson fan. He is a decent actor, but I strongly believe there are better ones out there. This, however, is Gibson’s first leading role since Signs. The movie begins with his character, Thomas Craven, a Boston homicide detective, at the train station to meet his daughter, Emma, a trainee at a nuclear energy facility. She gets horrible sick during her first dinner home and as they head out the door to go to the hospital, a man yells, “Craven” and blasts her away with a shotgun. Although initially thought to be the intended victim, Craven eventually realizes that it doesn’t make sense and delves into his daughter life to find her killer.

As I said I am not a huge fan of Gibson and I have not been around too many Bostonians, but it seems like he did a good job replicating the accent, especially considering he was raised in Australia. I also have to admit the man can stare blankly. He only did it immediately following his daughter’s death, but it seemed the perfect reaction. There were times I questioned his cop personality and part of it was the actor and part of it was the director (for instance when he finds his daughter’s apartment was broken into, he immediately rummages through her stuff without gloves, not very cop-like). His reactions to certain other moments are also a bit too civilian for a veteran homicide detective. He isn’t bad, just not great.

The actor I loved in his role was Ray Winstone as Jedburgh. I can’t completely explain what the character does. He seems like a cleaner, but I can’t be sure. He has his own sense of morality and seems to thoroughly enjoy his job. He had this perfect quietness about him. I love actors that seem to hold this immense power while sitting perfectly still, sipping Brandy. I also particularly liked how he threw the line “Pills, pills, pills – not like when we were kids – it was pills, pills, pills of a very different context” to straight-laced, Catholic Craven.

I had a problem with the editing and some of the choices made by the filmmakers. There were a lot of editing missteps, in my opinion. It felt like they got rushed on time and then decided to cut the last hour of story into 30 minutes. I also feel like they pushed Craven seeing Emma after his death too much. There were also a lot of simple inconsistencies that could have easily been taken care of.

It isn’t a bad movie. It’s not particularly good, but not bad. Not for the queasy due to the particularly gory scenes. I wouldn’t own it, and wouldn’t pay to see it. It was nice to watch with my dad and grandfather for father’s day though.

***** 5/10

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Title: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
Director: Terry Gilliam
Genre: Drama, Fantasy
Lead Actor(s): Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro
Rating: R
118 minutes

This is a weird movie, but nothing less should be expected from Terry Gilliam. Johnny Depp plays a character named Raoul Duke, which is basically Hunter S. Thompson. Benicio Del Toro is Dr. Gonzo, Duke’s lawyer and friend. The entire movie is a lot of drug trips with some events in between.

Johnny Depp always immerses himself in a character and this one is no different. All the clothes he wears at one point belonged to Thompson. Thompson cut the bald patch into Depp’s hair. The car belonged to Thompson and Depp followed Thompson around for four months to pick up the author’s inflections and tendencies. I believe the only other actor that could have ever played this role convincingly is Jack Nicholson. It is that type of character that could seem like a bad parody in the wrong actor’s hands, but in Depp’s the unbelievability is actually believable, if that makes sense. The facial expressions Depp uses are like a slightly toned-down Jim Carrey. Depp’s voice is radically different from any other character I have seen him play, but fits this character perfectly. Depp really does an astounding job with an incredibly difficult character and that is totally due to his commitment to the character.

Del Toro’s performance isn’t quite as good as Depp’s, but that is to be expected. His trips are less believable than Duke’s. This isn’t to suggest that I didn’t like Del Toro’s performance, but compared to the excellence of Depp’s, it is disappointing.

Tobey Maguire makes a short appearance as a balding hitchhiker and is hilarious in the role. First off, it is the most unique performance of Maguire’s I have seen. Secondly, Maguire was a surprising casting choice in my opinion. He usually plays the puppy dog hero. The only other exception would probably be his role in Brothers, which I haven’t seen but he looks terrifying in it. The hitchhiker is so freaked out by Duke and Gonzo that he actually leaves in the middle of the desert on foot.

I also cannot imagine any other director than Gilliam at the helm of this movie. He has such a unique vision in his films and this story is in need of that type of vision. The way the camera moves during the trips, particularly during the drive in the desert is utterly perfect. Only Gilliam could take a movie that is basically a movie about two guys tripping their way through Vegas and make it into a decently coherent and interesting movie.

The movie is quite good. Depp and Gilliam are the perfect choices for the different parts of the film. Del Toro isn’t quite as great, but I love the dedication to the source material and the dedication to the film. It is a fun and crazy film that may make you feel like you were on a trip from andrenichrome after watching it.

******** 8/10