"Melancholia" may be the most accessible Lars Von Trier film I've ever seen. (However, for a director who often goes out of his way to alienate, repulse, and irritate his audience, that is not saying much.) "Melancholia" is beautifully shot and visually lovely to look at; gone is the difficult visual minimalism of films like "Dogville". Also gone is the gory brutality that is often part of Von Trier's films (especially his last film, "Antichrist".) "Melancholia" is a thoughtful, fascinating film told in two distinct, yet overlapping, parts.

The first part, "Justine", is a realistic, sad family drama which tells the story of a young bride who implodes on her wedding day. Just married to a handsome man, promoted by her boss, and treated to a lavish party by her rich brother-in-law, Justine has every reason to be happy. Except she's not. Behind her forced smile, she's hiding a dark depression. By the end of the night Justine's depression, along with the selfishness and dysfunction of those around her, cause her to destroy both her brand new marriage and her career, and spiral into a dramatic depressive breakdown. Von Trier seems to have a deep interest in female protagonists who are being crushed by the expectations of those around them. In films like "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark", the characters were treated to sordid and gruesome abuse, but in the first half of "Melancholia", Justine is a more or less ordinary person suffering in a more conventional and relatable way.

The second part of the film, "Claire", puts the focus on Justine's older sister. Claire is concerned about the reports in the news that a previously unknown planet, named Melancholia, will be passing close to the Earth's orbit.... While most scientists believe that the planet will pass at a safe distance, there are those who also believe that an imminent collision will mean the end of the world. Claire's anxiety about the situation builds as the planet comes closer. Claire is also dealing with her sister's (Justine) post-wedding nervous breakdown. As the planet grows ever closer to Earth, the tension builds, until the characters are left to deal with the very real possibility that the world is going to end.

By splitting the film up into two parts in this way, "Melancholia" explores the themes of loss, destruction, impermanence, and loneliness, first on an intimate scale ("Justine") and then on a global scale ("Claire"). Although the film is provocative and often painful, it's more subtle and nuanced than any of Von Trier's other films I've seen, and perhaps more affective.

This pains me, since there is something within this film that is so amazing I feel it needs to be regarded as such, but three stars, while not awful, is certainly telling to the quality of this film as a whole.

Does that make sense?

First, the movie. The film follows the true story (as much can be true in a film `inspired' by real events) of David Marks, a troubled young man looking for ways to rebel against a family that controls his every move (subconsciously, which is the best way). When David meets and falls for Katie, it seems as though his life may start to iron out. He walks away from his father `real estate' clutches and ventures off into a life all his own with Katie, but darkness erodes all happiness when David allows his father's manipulations to reel him back to New York, back into life in the Marks' family. All tumbles downhill, rather rapidly, when familial tendencies begin to separate David and Katie until, one day, Katie disappears.

For me, it is this point of the film where things start to just derail. I understand the whole `inspired by real events' angle, and so I encourage even the bizarre, but the `made for TV' way in which the films later scenes are shot take away from the terror one should feel and actually gives this film a `Lifetime' movie feeling.

The film does a 180, from decently engrossing thriller to complete disaster.

So, this leaves one thing to be discussed...the very reason for which the films first half is so stellar; Kirsten Dunst. I recently wrote an entry for my blog about the amazingness that was Kirsten Dunst in this film, and so I'm just going to quote that here (slightly doctored to reflect this review and not the article I initially wrote)....

"Then we have Kirsten Dunst, who just marvels with all sorts of layered emotional relevance in `All Good Things'. Talk about a brilliant performance in a really bad film. Kirsten plays Katie Marks, a real person (come on Oscar, why aren't you biting) who disappeared, `allegedly' at the hands of her deranged husband. The one thing that Dunst's character, and performance, has (in spades) is serious emotional collapse. One blogger mentioned that you could see Kirsten visibly age as she uncovers the truth about her husband. I totally concur with this explanation of her devastatingly real performance. As she slowly uncovers realities surrounding the family she's married into, you can see a hollowness erode her beautiful features. She remains human despite the dramatic overtones (she never resorts to Hollywood's overtly obvious understanding of melodramatic `emoting') and delivers a quietly natural performance. When she does unleash her suffering, it is with haunting desperation. She completely collapses within her character's knowledge. It's just a shame the film collapses the moment she leaves it."

Yeah, that pretty much sums it all up. She acts circles around the rest of the cast, including Ryan Gosling, who suffers from poor character development (the script seems to skeletal when all is said and done) and really bad makeup. I wish I could say skip the film, but you need to at least watch the films first half. The moment Dunst leaves the scene though, you can take your exit as well. The film just can't recover from such a tragic loss.

Crazy/Beautiful is a groundbreaking emotional story about two young lovers, Carlos(Jay Hernandez) and Nicole(Kirsten Dunst), on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Carlos is a straight-A-student whose priorities are to graduate and gain acceptance into the naval academy. Nicole is a disgruntled 17-year-old whose priorities include finding distractions to cope with the loss of her mother. She has no college ambition, she likes to get lost in wide variety of drugs and sexual activities and she swears she will never trust anyone again after her mother's suicide. When Carlos meets Nicole for the first time, he finds her "scary" because she is extremely unpredictable with her wild behavior. Nicole falls strangely in love with Carlos and believes that they should always be together. When Carlos finds himself in the position in which he must choose between Nicole and his school work, he chooses her. The two fall madly in love and a number of situations fall into play because of this. This movie was one of the most emotional pieces Kirsten Dunst has ever been in and it describes a situation far beyond the comprehension of anyone who was not actually in one. I think she executed the role perfectly. Jay Hernandez gave an excellent performance as well as the young, determined Latino boy in love. I thought this was an excellent movie and I hope you do too.

Most teen comedies nowadays are so mindless, unfunny, and unrealistic that they aren't even worth watching. Although this movie is pure "chick flick", it's nothing like today's teen-sex comedies starring Chad Michael Murray, Lindsay Lohan, and Hilary Duff.

"All I Wanna Do", set in the early sixties, tells the story of Odette Sinclair, who is sent to an all-girls boarding school after her parents discover her plans to have sex with her boyfriend. Though reluctant at first, Odette befriends the school's biggest troublemakers, Verena, Tinka, Tweety, and Momo. They have their share of adventures with the boys, their classmates, and their teachers. But the girls aren't prissy--they're smart, sassy, funny, and ambitious, and when they find out that their school is merging with an all-boys academy, they pull off their biggest heist yet.

The acting in "All I Wanna Do" is brilliant; the writing is smart, funny, and filled with political humor of the 60s; the characters are real; and, the movie is funny, sexy, and memorable. It's a level above the standard teen-sex romps, more mature but still fun for younger and older teens. You can watch it again and again over the years and find something new with each viewing--"All I Wanna Do" is definitely worth your time.

Art films, even great ones, will always have their detractors ...with accusations of pretension & the like. I'm not going to insult anyone who didn't like Melancholia with the standard "go watch Transformers or the latest Sandler flick" attitude. That's why they make 31 flavors. Besides, I love a good popcorn movie as much as anyone. But I kinda feel bad for the bashers of this film in the same way I feel bad for those who don't enjoy Mozart along with their Nirvana. And this is an orchestral, majestic art-house masterpiece ...full of beauty, pain, immorality, love, lust, fear & a dash of sci-fi. What a departure from LvT's usual shock treatment. It stayed in my thoughts for days.

Even if they didn't like it, I can't imagine a real movie lover not at least seeing the craftsmanship in this movie. I just can't take seriously any one-star reviews of this. I think those ratings are a backlash from the rather arrogant "go watch Transformers instead" type comments from the artsy crowd. So if you didn't get into this, that's cool. But the one-star "worst movie ever" reviews have zero cred.

"Whodunnit?" This movie tries to answer that -- in 1924, a star-studded boat trip went wrong when someone got shot, and the truth of it was never investigated. This is one thing that might have happened. The actors appear to be enjoying themselves romping through Roaring 20s decadence, but rise to the occasion when genuine acting is called for. It's like an Agatha Christie murder mystery, except no Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot.

A bunch of Hollywood glitterati arrive at a boat belonging to William Randolph Hearst, a rather obnoxious Hollywood mogul. Also on the boat is Marion Davies, Hearst's actress mistress, who is being actively pursued by Charlie Chaplin (who recently got his sixteen-year-old costar pregnant), a cool-and-calm eccentric novelist Elinor Glyn, irritating columnist Louella Parsons, fading superproducer Thomas Ince and his frustrated girlfriend, and a slew of others. Rumors fly about Marion and Charlie's suspected affair, and though Hearst doesn't want to believe it, the clues pile up -- with the assistance of Ince, who wants Hearst to be his business partner. A single gunshot threatens all of them...

This is one of the movies that probably won't appeal to the average viewer, simply because a lot of the people in it, with a few exceptions like Chaplin and Davies, are not now remembered clearly. But if viewers can shut off their "hey, I don't know who that was" signals, then they will find a sort of whodunnit without the detective, a juicy soap wrapped up in a mystery wrapped up in a "Hollywood what-if" tale. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the last part is a bit anticlimactic and the buildup is rather insubstantial -- the biggest buildup is Hearst tearing through the boat in search of Chaplin.

...

Kirsten Dunst shines brightly as Marion Davies, showing both a deeply conflicted young woman and a flirty party girl. She's never been better, even if she does wear a giant butterfly on her head. (Weird headpieces are a constant in this movie -- watch for Tilly's birdcage) Cary Elwes of "Princess Bride" returns as a desperate man who will go the extra mile to revive his career. Edward Herrmann plays a very intriguing Hearst, who is both obnoxious and tender, jealous and angry, controlling and generous. Eddie Izzard plays an insincere predator as Chaplin, who cares more about the conquest than about the woman; Joanna Lumley is rather underused, but she imbues all her scenes with a hilarious dry wit; Jennifer Tilly plays an irritating flibbertigibbet who has an unexpected cunning streak.

The dialogue is fast, dry and enjoyable -- one of my favorite lines was "Hollywood, a land just off the coast of the planet Earth." There's some sexual content (nothing too graphic) and a fair amount of profanity; teens who like Kirsten Dunst particularly will enjoy this, but younger kids will be bored silly.

This is not the movie that will appeal to the bubble-brained. But anyone who likes witty dialogue, sparkling costumes, a well-thought-out plotline and the shivering thrill of wondering if this was how it happened will think "Cat's Meow" is the cat's pajamas.

This pains me, since there is something within this film that is so amazing I feel it needs to be regarded as such, but three stars, while not awful, is certainly telling to the quality of this film as a whole.

Does that make sense?

First, the movie. The film follows the true story (as much can be true in a film `inspired' by real events) of David Marks, a troubled young man looking for ways to rebel against a family that controls his every move (subconsciously, which is the best way). When David meets and falls for Katie, it seems as though his life may start to iron out. He walks away from his father `real estate' clutches and ventures off into a life all his own with Katie, but darkness erodes all happiness when David allows his father's manipulations to reel him back to New York, back into life in the Marks' family. All tumbles downhill, rather rapidly, when familial tendencies begin to separate David and Katie until, one day, Katie disappears.

For me, it is this point of the film where things start to just derail. I understand the whole `inspired by real events' angle, and so I encourage even the bizarre, but the `made for TV' way in which the films later scenes are shot take away from the terror one should feel and actually gives this film a `Lifetime' movie feeling.

The film does a 180, from decently engrossing thriller to complete disaster.

So, this leaves one thing to be discussed...the very reason for which the films first half is so stellar; Kirsten Dunst. I recently wrote an entry for my blog about the amazingness that was Kirsten Dunst in this film, and so I'm just going to quote that here (slightly doctored to reflect this review and not the article I initially wrote)....

"Then we have Kirsten Dunst, who just marvels with all sorts of layered emotional relevance in `All Good Things'. Talk about a brilliant performance in a really bad film. Kirsten plays Katie Marks, a real person (come on Oscar, why aren't you biting) who disappeared, `allegedly' at the hands of her deranged husband. The one thing that Dunst's character, and performance, has (in spades) is serious emotional collapse. One blogger mentioned that you could see Kirsten visibly age as she uncovers the truth about her husband. I totally concur with this explanation of her devastatingly real performance. As she slowly uncovers realities surrounding the family she's married into, you can see a hollowness erode her beautiful features. She remains human despite the dramatic overtones (she never resorts to Hollywood's overtly obvious understanding of melodramatic `emoting') and delivers a quietly natural performance. When she does unleash her suffering, it is with haunting desperation. She completely collapses within her character's knowledge. It's just a shame the film collapses the moment she leaves it."

Yeah, that pretty much sums it all up. She acts circles around the rest of the cast, including Ryan Gosling, who suffers from poor character development (the script seems to skeletal when all is said and done) and really bad makeup. I wish I could say skip the film, but you need to at least watch the films first half. The moment Dunst leaves the scene though, you can take your exit as well. The film just can't recover from such a tragic loss.

5 stars out of 5 = Masterpiece

Elegant, sophisticated, beautifully scripted, acted, paced, & filmed, "Interview with the Vampire" is among my top five favorite Vampire movies. No other Vampire film, other than Gary Oldman's Oscar worthy performance in "Bram Stoker's Dracula," delves as deep in a character study of Vampires & how it would be like to be a Vampire from their point of view.

A broad 200 year perspective of the life of Brad Pitts Vampire character, "Louie," the reluctant Vampire who finally succumbs to his fate of feeding on human blood, & in his quest for enlightenment of what he is, he finds out, if anything, he is a Vampire.

The story of a surprisingly great performance of Tom Cruise's, "Lestat," who sees "the dark gift" as everything he could ever want, except companionship, what he wants the most, & realizes the least. Cruise steals the show in his glee for sucking the blood out of the living, & his indignation for turning "Louie" in to a Vampire that still has respect for human life, in a barrage of cold blooded murders, & ranting at "Louie" with black comedic hilarity, yet shocking indifference to life, to the point of sadomasochism . Also, a very young Kristen Dunst's, "Claudia", who also steals the show & matches Lestat bite for bite in the quest for blood, & the sport it brings. A hugely great & complicated performance for such a young girl!

"Interview with the Vampire" is a thinking man's horror film, one that reaches down deep, not just to bring you cheap scares & shallow predictable characters, but a rich tapestry of what it means to be a Vampire, & all the consequences that goes with it.

Cat's Meow is based on events that took place one November weekend in 1924 when the financial mogul William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann) invited a group of celebrities to his yacht. The occasion was to celebrate the birthday of the film producer Thomas Ince (Cary Elwes). Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard) was also among the invitees. There were also some rumors prior to the trip that Chaplin fancied the actress Marion Davies (Kirsten Dunst) who was Hearst's beloved girlfriend. The birthday cruise became an envious love triangle which has death as its destination.

Peter Bogdanovich tells this particular Hollywood scandal in a convincing manner as the story is focused on the love triangle between Hearst, Davies, and Chaplin. The other characters add a lot of intrigue and color to the film as they all have their own motives for being on the yacht. The cast performances are solid and the mise-en-scene elevates the cinematic experience. However, the film never reaches it full potential as similar stories have done in the past where a murder is committed in a remote location. This hurt the integrity of the overall cinematic experience, but the film still offers the audience a good cinematic experience.

This mock documentary is a spoof about a teenage beauty pageant. It centers around what purports to be the oldest such pageant in existence, the Mount Rose American Teen Pageant in Minnesota. Look for wonderful performances by Kirsten Dunst, as the pretty, but poor, girl who would be Queen, Ellen Barkin, as her trailer trash mom, Allison Janney, as their supportive and endearing neighbor, and last, but certainly not least, Kirstie Alley, with a priceless Minnesotan accent, who is nothing short of fabulous as the rich, maniacal, beauty pageant director who will stop at nothing to see her daughter, effectively played by Denise Richards, win the pageant.

It is a black comedy which centers around who will win this pageant. As it is a mock documentary, the camera enters into the lives of the front runners. It is a very funny spoof and a great parody of pageants. As the pageant draws near, the front runners begin experiencing a series of calamities, and the body count begins to rise. It is totally irreverent and, at times, quite funny. Denise Richards' talent segment, in particular, is a riot.

Who will win this pageant? Watch the film and find out. You will not be disapoointed. You may even be surprised.

ALL THINGS GOOD is a polished little film based on a true story that while it may not have the visual gruesome detail of the usual thriller tropes of films, it is terrifying in its presentation of personality variations that produce a shuddering reaction on a purely intellectual level for the audience. It is both a love story and a missing persons/murder mystery based on a still unsolved case that continues to haunt New York investigators and reporters and detectives. What writers Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling have created from known and newly discovered facts, speculation and court records results in a psychological examination of a powerful New York family, obsession, love and loss. The film relates incidents that began in 1972 and end in 2003 and at this time the truth is still unknown. Director Andrew Jarecki uses a superb cast and a fine sense of voice-over narration to interweave the puzzling history with the gradual dissolution of each of the characters involved.

Sanford Marks (Frank Langella) is one of the wealthiest owners of Manhattan real estate, the current head of a family that has long dominated the New York scene with its power and money. Marks is aging and is relying on his son David (Ryan Gosling) to take over the family business: he sends David out to the brothels, and filthy hotels and porn houses to collect rent. David is reticent to be a part of his father's business: he is a deeply disturbed young man, having witnessed his mother's suicide leap as a child. David meets a tenant in one of the properties - Katie McCarthy (Kirsten Dunst) who longs to go to medical school but at present has no income to support that dream.... The chemistry between the two is magnetic and despite David's father's objection that Katie is not of 'their kind of people', David decides to marry Katie and move to Vermont to open a Health Foods store - a move that makes the couple ectsatic, but is financed by Sanford Marks who eventually convinces David to sell his haven and move to New York to stay with the family business.

In their Manhattan home (and in their country lake front home!) the couple flourishes until Katie mentions she'd like to have children - a force that drives David back into violent behavior resulting form his witnessing his mother's suicide: David can't understand why Katie would want anything but the obvious life of wealth they enjoy. The shell is cracked and the subsequent events include Katie becoming pregnant only to be forced by David to terminate the pregnancy, Katie's disappearance after uncovering the facts about the sources of wealth of the family, David's descent into drugs and irresponsible behavior, and ultimately his leaving New York for Galveston, Texas where he lives a life disguised as a woman, his only friend being another old runaway Melvin Bump (Philip Baker Hall) who David engages to do away with a 'problem confidant' (Lilly Rabe), after which Bump is killed and dissected and tossed into the river. The murders are never solved nor is the mystery of Katie' disappearance. A trial (the source of the voice-over throughout the film has been the lawyer's interrogation of David in the year 2003) fails to resolve anything and the film ends with the message that David Marks is at present a real estate broker in Florida.

Frank Langella is superb as the heartless father who drives his family like cattle in the quest of power and wealth. Ryan Gosling offer a multifaceted performance of the deeply disturbed David and is match by Kirsten Dunst's bravura performance as Katie, the simple bright girl whose life is quashed by a powerful family's sickness. The brilliant cast, including the performances by Philip Baker Hall and Lilly Rabe - daughter of the deceased Jill Clayburgh), has excellent cameo roles by Diane Venora, Trini Alvarado, David Margulies, Nick Offerman and many more. This is a tough film to watch because at the bottom of it all is that it is true and the cases are unsolved. It makes us cringe but it is a very fine film.