The Tree of Life (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

Here is a movie that transcends all that is cinema, liberating itself from conventions and defying the norms of what is normal. All for the act of artistic splendor. The movie is impossible to talk about, plot-wise, because the plot is very dense and it’s not the most important attribute in this movie.

The movie is filled with awe inspiring visuals, from the cosmos up in space, to the dinosaurs in the primordial times. The movie also focuses its attention to a family in Waco, Texas, representing the origin and coming life, its hardships, its tragedies, and its uplifting progression to the place above and beyond our life. Terrence Malick is the mastery of beauty in his images. Every scene and every shot is meticulously composed with pure thought. Here is a movie that doesn’t have much of a story and because so, there are some leeways in directing.

The movie appears like a professional movie with the sense of that National Geographic beauty and the uplifting sense of a spiritual movie, in that, the collection of videos and images were nothing but absolute wonder. Never have there been such a movie about perfect tranquility since 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unlike the two second rule of editing, the shots linger on for a while in order for us take hold of the image. Cutting it short for cinematic purposes would ruin the meaning. In many ways, people will hate this movie for being slow, for going nowhere, and because of Terrence Malick. There is also the collection of irrelevant images that do seem to be there for a reason. We have some images of space, the dawn of man, and a brief scene with dinosaurs. The space nebulas set to a requiem opera is possibly the object of desire in this movie that will cease people to think.

Despite having only just a collection of awe inspiring shots of nature and beauty, I wanted more. The movie alone is pretty long, but I wouldn’t mind if it was longer. At this point, I need not stare at my watch and the movie does a wonderful job of doing away that temptation. At this point, I point this out to Terrence Malick, the director. I’ve never really appreciated his movies and have been against the man himself for having a weird sense of penning his movie, and his strange recluse life. After watching this movie, I will take back all that I’ve said about him.

With this, I do have one large regret. I should have seen it in theaters, where the transcendence would’ve grabbed me even more. Because of my petty arguments about Terrence Malick, I lost the will to pay to go see it in theaters. Now, I have to find midnight showings in faraway places in order to watch this movie in theaters as punishment for not giving our hated people a chance. This movie is not just an experience; it was a journey with no end. It's a powerful gripping movie that gives us the images. It's now our job to figure out what it means.

A Separation (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            It has been a very long time since a profound foreign-language film has this much recognition and praise. In fact, this movie seems to have gain universal praise, and that's saying something considering that this movie is placed in the Third World cinema category. In the other years, guessing which Foreign film will win is the same as guessing with a blindfold on. This year seemed to have no contest whatsoever. The movie in itself speaks to a universal audience with marital troubles, paternal issues, and even issues involving murder, despite their Islamic culture that the Western culture is not too familiar with.

            The movie starts with a family divorce with the mother wanting to leave the country with her daughter due to the unsuitable living conditions and father wanting to stay in order to help care for his elderly father who suffers from Alzheimer's. The movie then follows up with a pregnant care taker who takes care of the elderly father, only to leave in disaster as we find out that she tied the father to the bed in order for him to not leave the house. There are also allegations of theft and follows a miscarriage.

            The film later focuses on a back and forth argument over whose fault it was for the miscarriage, as well as accusations over the truth. While all of this is happening, we, the audience become witnesses. In order ways, we become the jurors of this movie and simply watch and evaluate the evidence as everyone shouts accusations back and forth. The movie becomes so unbearable that I literally heard people crying in the theater, and yet the movie is about people arguing and holding secrets. There are no obvious clichéd crying moments or moments where we pity the main character.

            I applaud this movie with its bold and daring screenplay that does what screenplay text book states. There is a written principle that's extremely hard to pull off and that is to establish a rising action and make it rise like stair cases. Even though this is what the text book example is and what everyone does, I dare anyone to find a movie this year that follows that logic. To me, this movie starts off with an interesting premise and as the movie goes on, the situation only gets more interesting. So much that a part of me actually wanted to stop watching this movie due to the situation while the other half wanted to see how the movie will end.

            Not every character does the right thing. Not even the children in the movie. Everybody has their flaws that situate itself appropriately in the movie. The father is arrogant and too proud, the mother is persistent with leaving the family, the daughter wants to live and defend her father, despite the danger and threats from the care taker's husband, who really is always in a raging fit. Everybody has their demons swept under the rug and in the end, no one is a bad guy nor are they good guys. They are honest depictions of a situation that makes everyone lose. It is very profound that the film sheds light on these normal people as though they could be applied to any country and the story could still be the same. Maybe instead of swearing on the Qu'ran, the main characters have to swear on the bible, and the end result will still be the same. What I'm saying is that this movie is flexible in its portrayal of people we might consider the new "evil Middle-East" enemy, but deep down, we are also like this family, we share their same ideals, and cultural boundaries have nothing to do with it.

            It was pretty difficult choosing over whether this movie should be the best movie of the year over The Tree of Life but I think this decision is final. I think The Tree of Life would become the new 2001: A Space Odyssey, where it gives a sparse story in order for us to interpret it  on our own. This movie, on the other hand, gives us everything and in the end, we still have to make it up for the disbelief it left us in the end. The Tree of Life was strikingly rich in its visual splendor while A Separation barely had any. In fact, the movie had very little to no music. However, despite not having the up-to-date camera, or the technical splendors that can only come out of the wallet of a major studio, the movie aims at centering the one core goal of any film and striking it perfectly, and that is telling a compelling story. Although it is hands down the best foreign film of this year, I will officially say that this movie is the best movie of the year.

Thoughts about the 2011 Oscar Nominations

            Ever since 2007, I wait for the 5:30 AM announcements for the long awaited list that shows which movies move on to the finals, that is, the Oscar nominations. We get by the Golden Globes, the Critic's Choice Awards, and the BAFTA nominations, which are similar to the Oscar nominations, and finally, I typically ask myself, "why am I wasting my life with the Oscar prediction?" Every year, there is some sort of a surprise with the nominees, and every year, I give a great big shout out moan to the deflation that subjugated my expectations.

            This year is a big year, surprisingly, for the non rated-R movies and surprisingly, the only Best picture nominee that was Rated-R was The Descendants, which really should've been PG-13 for its mild use of language. However, because so, two of the most talked about Rated R movies of this year was snuffed; Drive, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. As of now, there are lynch mob hate replies upon hate over this nomination list, and I am no different for I too am part of this lynch mob over the movie Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. For one, this movie was not praised by the critics, and the box office doesn't show much support. The movie received mixed to negative reviews and has a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 6.2 rating on IMDB. The movie only landed one other nomination for a supporting role that, on other words, robbed from some other great performances.

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
is now the new Jar Jar Binks of the Oscars.

            Why did this movie get nominated? This movie is an all American movie, despite not being anywhere in the American Film Institute Top 10 list. It's a movie that uses 9/11 and revolves around that event to draw out some forced sentimentality, basically, another way to move people into "truthiness" that this movie is superior. However, in Ebert's review in this movie, he states that a catharsis can never be found after 9/11, basically saying a movie revolving around 9/11 cannot be uplifting or inspiring. The other reason why this movie is respected is because of how its "make you feel good" sentimentality rubs off to the voters instead of the different artistic movies. I guess there is that old root of people hating the "different" things, and both Drive and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo fell in this trap. This is why The King's Speech won instead of the thought provoking wakeup call of The Social Network, Black Swan, and Inception, evidently, my three favorite movies of 2010. Drive was an action movie gone artistic and professionally different, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a large mystery surrounding around the theme of rape. Even though these two would hold up much longer, they really have no place in the Oscars and will probably be remembered as something better. Possibly, in the near future, The Tree of Life will become the new 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Drive will gain a cult status after seeing people wearing the scorpion jacket.

            The Supporting Actor nominations felt a strong shockwave with Max Von Sydow being nominated in the movie. Even though Sydow is a great actor in his past work, did he really merit a nomination? To me, this year had two big surprises in the Supporting roles. The first is the fact that Andy Serkis in his outstanding motion capture role as an ape from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, showing that motion capture can be respected and elevated to the art of acting, and Albert Brooks' return to the screen with his surprisingly sadistic role in Drive, despite being a comedian and the voice of Marlin from Finding Nemo. none of these were acknowledged, and instead, we get a nomination from someone who doesn't even speak in the movie. The Oscars still do not believe that motion capture is acting and will never adapt to that change, and I do not know why they snubbed Albert Brooks for making a comeback. The way I see it, you either adapt or die, according to Billy from Moneyball. Maybe they are giving Max Von Sydow the nominations because he's an old actor who'll never give up. Maybe they gave it to him because of compensation. If they really wanted to acknowledge Sydow, then why don't they give him an honorary award? Or why didn't they acknowledge him in other good movies? He was great in movies like The Exorcist and Hannah and her Sisters, and yet the Oscars finally recognize him in some movie that was not really his for the taking.

            With that said, I feel that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close does not merit any nominations for it's not a typical Oscar movie. It's a political suck up in an organization that's known to be heavily political with its movies and industries. The fact of the matter is, the movie has a target audience, and everyone else will just have to stick with it, like the Star Wars prequel. At least the Oscars kept a tradition where at least one of the Best picture nominations is a terrible movie to me. Some other fails were The Reader, and The Blind Side.

            Another aspect that didn't work was the fact that there were only two nominations for Best Original Song. What the heck happened? I originally believed that the best song was "The Living Proof" from The Help, and even that movie's song isn't nominated. Rio gets a nomination, and yet, they don't appear to be that popular. In fact, the song seems cheaply made for a movie that would appear in the MTV movie award. And so, by default, the obvious winner is The Muppets. But was "Man or a Muppet" their best song? "Life's a Happy song" was a cheery song that became a sort of theme song for the movie, and "Pictures in my Head" was the absolute tear jerking song. Why weren't these songs nominated instead?

            Although the Oscar nominations are somewhat of a farce, it is not without some pleasant surprises. I was surprised with Demian Bichir's nomination from A Better Life and I actually support that nomination, despite him not having no chance of winning, and despite not actually seeing that movie. Though I will admit, I still am a tad bit bitter over Michael Fassbender not getting a Best Actor nomination for Shame. I like the fact that both Margin Call and A Separation are scoring nominations for Best Original Screenplay, and I also like the fact that John Williams is also getting a nomination for his work on The Adventures of Tintin score.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (4 Stars - 4 Stars))

            Imagine a horrible series that got better by ten folds from the previous movie? The third Mission Impossible was a giant leap from its flaccid predecessors, and now, this latest one has made it better. The movie is directed by Brad Bird, an animation director who decided to go to live action, putting himself in danger this time. In fact, he puts himself in a situation that's so dangerous that most live action directors will dare not step near it. Because so, the movie seems to be a lot more dangerous and a lot more fun as a result of the danger. The way I see it, there is the brave soul, such as Brad Bird, who switch from animation to live action, and the live action directors who switch to blue screen stuff, such as George Lucas.

            The movie starts with an explosion at the Kremlin after Ethan's team had just recently infiltrated it. The IMF (Impossible Missions Force) is now taken full responsibility for the explosion in order to prevent nuclear retaliation, all the while, the IMF team are now faced with being man hunted, and finding the real culprit. So much is at risk and this is only just the exposition. The risks are so high, and yet, this movie is going to its fun roots which is basically, stop the bad guy before he takes over the world. I like the fact that the movie had a simpler plot. The bad guy is going to send a nuclear bomb to the US mainland, and the IMF has to stop him from doing so.

            Like the previous movie, Ghost Protocol relies on real danger rather than the dangerous situations that the screenwriter merely makes up. Instead of infiltrating a made up place, with the tripping lasers and the ventilation shafts, this movie used a real building that no sound man, no matter how brave or stupid, would try to attempt such a stunt. At one point, Tom Cruise had to literally scale the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world by a landslide, and the phrase, “never look down,” might have came in handy. In fact, because so, we are always tempted to look down at the nauseating heights, and because so, looking down gave me Vertigo in my seat. The camera simply looks down and all that is heard is the large gust of wind. The pure silence of the scene also added to the nauseating scene and if I can't handle that in the theater, then I don't know how the crew handled it with the IMAX cameras. How is it that any man can do this and not get scarred from it, even with all of the safety harnesses strapped on?

            The movie utilizes its creative limitations and stretches beyond what is normal and what is dangerous in real life. After the crazy dastardly insane stunts on the tower, Ethan then proceeds in a chase scene, in a sand storm. Who does that? The sand storm added to the suspense as we can never see what's up ahead of us. The movie also shows the IMF infiltrating the Kremlin, breaking out of prison, and pulling off a fake negotiation with real nuclear bomb codes.

            Each and every one of the Mission Impossible had a different take. The first one attempted was made like a thriller, obviously boring me with its bland deceptive storyline. The second was also a thriller muddled with pointless action scenes and an ending that had no purpose. The third was a pure full out action movie that had a tremendous amount of internal motivation, a first in the series. The fourth on the other hand was almost adrenaline rushed action in which everything had a sense of thrilling action put forth. Even catching up to a train had a lot of action filled moments that’ll skip a heartbeat. However, there are some personal motivations to add inside. There is a small follow up from the third movie about Ethan's wife and it has to do with the integrity of the IMF team.

            The movie does an excellent job of actually utilizing the whole team and even though Ethan Hawk is still the main character, there is an appropriate amount of screen time with each and every one of the characters. we have Jane,(Paula Patton), Benji (Simon Pegg) as the tech guy, and Brandt (Jeremy Renner) as a chief analyst who has a dark secret. Because this movie is about the disavowed IMF team and because they're out for blood and revenge, the team is more important than just Ethan himself.  

            So why did I like this movie so much? My expectations were somewhat low and this movie was a huge surprise in terms of execution. There are plenty of other good action films to watch; such as James Bond, or Die Hard, but this is the one time where I actually find this movie on par with those two. They've taken a used and worn out series and overcharged it. They made me appreciate the fact that this is the "make you feel awesome" action movie of the year. We've seen everything in terms of action and violence, especially in the Transformers series, but this movie was so much of a breath of fresh air. After the complaints of the series, I've always said, "give us what we want." Brad Bird replied, "I've got something better."

The Descendants (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

Paradise is deceptive according to the opening of this movie by Alexander Payne, and although he's a great comedy director, there are some down to Earth moments that define this movie more as a drama rather than a dramedy. The movie opens with a jet ski and it ends in peace and tranquility. However, the movie is a huge wakeup call to what defines a comedy. For so long, I've seen some great comedies, and some that are too immature. This particular comedy has a great deal of sympathy for the main character and his situation. For a comedy, this movie is very depressing and serious, much like his last movie, Sideways. For an Alexander Payne movie, there is a real connection felt with not just the main character, but with several.

The movie is about Matt King, a descendant from Hawaiian royalty, and despite the title, "The Descendants," the movie doesn't really dwell in this fantasy like aspect. Instead, Matt is in a situation where his wife was in a boating accident and might never recover. Not only that, he now has to take care of his two daughters, Alexandra, a troublemaker in boarding school, and Scottie, a troublemaker in elementary school. To top that off, Matt realizes that his wife had cheated on someone and the movie goes off on a hunt for this mysterious masked lover. Then, there is Sid's character, who seems to follow the main characters around and is constantly asking for trouble. Why? Because his name is Sid. At one point, he starts laughing at someone because of her dementia. Right off the premise, we see that George Clooney’s character has some responsiblity juggling to do, even though his juggling talent seems rusty, metaphorically that is.

Because so, there are some funny situational moments in the film that only this film can deliver. We see Matt frantically putting on slippers and running over to his friends’ house after finding out his wife cheated on him. For a comedic situational movie, this movie is extremely realistic, from the location, to what the characters would do, to the documentary like footages shown in the beginning. I was shocked that there are homeless people on the island of paradise. For one, Matt does indeed find the lover at one point, but we, as the audience, would expect Matt to beat the living crap out of this guy. Instead, there is hesitation, skepticism, and a lot of sneaking around. I would be doing the same thing.

We’ve been in situations before where we are forced to spread the news. I for one hate those moments where it’s up to me to “pass it on.” Because so, I felt that it was easier to emote towards Matt and what he had to go through as a father, as a friend, and as a husband. There’s also the concept of someone on life support, and although not many people have experienced what it was like to have someone dear to you on life support, but I have. When I saw this movie, I saw my grandpa on the bed, rather than Matt’s wife, and to me, those hospital moments were painful to endure.

The movie does a rich array of scenic views of Hawaii, as well as the pessimistic view of it. I personally went there before on Oahu, Kauai, and the Big Island, and I for one think that the Big Island is overrated. Possibly two-thirds of the island is all desert and rocks. But aside from that, there is one particular moment where we do see some landscape images of Hawaii and in its entire splendor. What’s also interesting is the use of relaxing Hawaiian music that’s really there to create irony; much like the movie Brazil, and how the Brazilian theme is used in the dystrophic backdrop.

I was not much of a huge fan of Sideways, although it was still a good movie. I never got into the movie because I couldn't relate to these characters. One was getting married and was on a sexual fling, while the other one is a failed writer who seems to be in a mid-life crisis. The huge emphasis is through wine, and like Jack's character, I think they all taste the same. With The Descendants, there was more of a personal connection with this movie, and because so, I think this movie trumps Sideways. We’ve seen moments where the parents themselves do not know what to do. We’ve seen moments where even the parents don’t make the right decisions, and it’s important that this movie depicts a real person, despite him descending from royal ties. What's more important is that it's truly a remarkable family movie about a dysfunctional family, done in a realistic way.

I’ve called Alexander Payne as an overrated director, being that I was not a big fan of his last two films and his short from Paris Je’Taime, however, I deeply apologize for that remark and see him as a great director and over all story teller. There was one line that got me admiring the script. “To me, my daughters are like the archipelagos of Hawaii in that they are considered the same family but they are distant apart.” They are all ”There seems to be a huge buzz over Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 but I see more potential through the adapted work of this smaller movie, even though the book was probably extremely insignificant to the Harry Potter books.

The Artist (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            I would never think to say that the best movie of the year 2011 would be coming from a movie that's black and white, and is silent. There were many surprises with the selection of movies this year. With Drive, the director got a clichéd movie idea and made it thoughtfully unique. With The Tree of Life, the movie gave a new breath of meaning despite having a very minimal story. However, this movie had the biggest surprise for me as a moviegoer in that, usually I can only be surprised at something new, while this movie has old and traditional written all over it. There are plenty of great movies that are black and white and/or silent; however, they are only often shown in student films and is recognized as a waste of time to the mainstream world. However, this movie is not mainstream. As described in its title, the movie is artistic.

            The movie has a charm and style of Singin in the Rain, plus they share the same storyline with the introduction of sound in film. There is the wife character who resembles closely to Lina Lamont, and there is also some tap dancing numbers that was once deceased but is now resurrected by this movie. The movie also shares the consequences of Sunset Blvd., in which both movies talk about the downfall of certain stars who never transitioned to the talkies, except George Valentin doesn't fall in the same trap as Norma Desmond; however, he does go broke instead of staying in a strange fantasy. Lastly, the movie also has the basic idea that was shown in All About Eve, in which one normal person becomes a star while the other star goes into downfall. Also, the movie does contain some Vertigo reference through the music, and a dinner scene that was copied from Citizen Kane. In effect, this movie is a tribute and a culmination of the great past works that's forgotten from the normal mainstream audience.

            Like any silent movie, there is no dialogue that can muck the screen up, In fact, there is one scene in which Peppy speaks a statement and corrects herself, thus showing two title cards. If she were actually speaking, there would be no punch line. Also, because the movie is black and white, there is no distraction from the performance for we are no forced to adhere to the characters, something I wish I can do with all movies. Because the movie is a silent movie, there are moments that are literally dead silent. Although awkward it might be, these moments offer us some breathing room for uncertainty as well for us to emote in a theater.

            The movie that responds in the opposite direction in that it's not technologically advance nor does it contain the latest gadgetry of the modern age. Instead, it's simply a silent black and white movie. The director, of whom I can't even pronounce his name, has finally showed us something miraculous by going in reverse, like a Salmon upstream. While everyone is trying to make their movies better looking, Michel Hazanavicius does the opposite by reverting the movie into its core beginnings.

            However, a great hero is nowhere without his trusty sidekick, and in this movie, the right hand man is not even a man at all, but a simple dog who's extremely talented in himself. Like Charlie Chaplin's The Kid, there is a lovable charm between these two characters, especially when there is a gestured gun involved. In theater, there was a flood of "awe" every time the dog does a trick.

            The strange matter of this movie is that it represents itself in the context of the real world. In the movie, George tries to open his own silent movie that's great looking and artistic. However, the movie gets overshadowed by Peppy's talkie that entertaining but not so great as Peppy herself thought George's movie was brilliant despite having no dialogue. This illusion showed that no matter how great The Artist was, it will be overshadowed by a popular movie that's up to date with its technology. I remember watching Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and how it had great images from the IMAX camera; however, it didn't have the strong resonance as this movie. In fact, this analogy can also be shared with Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans and The Jazz Singer. The Jazz Singer was a very popular movie at its time, but Sunrise withstood the test of time as one of the greatest silent movies of all time. Now this analogy is saying something. Hopefully this movie withholds the test of time for its artistic quality.

            Jean Dujardin appears before the stage with a wonderful sense of charisma and a loving smile that'll touch the same was with Walt Disney. He plays the main character, George Valentin, an actor who labels himself as a artist, and like all artists, he is full of pride. Because the world is ever changing, with the new technical ability to talk in movies, George is falling behind. The movie starts with a movie screening, starring the great George Valentin. Ironically, the movie within the movie starts with George's character being interrogated to talk, summing up the main focus of the plot of the movie.

            The music for once plays wall-to-wall, and there is that lavish try hard orchestra that engulfs 50% of the movie instead of being muddled in noise and talk. With this, there is a tremendous amount of showmanship involved, as well as a great deal of risk taking involved in order to pull off one of the greatest movies of the year.

            Every time I see footages of people watching silent movies, I see them having a good time, laughing, crying, and emoting in extremities. A really good movie in this day and age cannot even come close to that and this movie comes pretty close. However, with most movies, there is a blank silence in the theaters. For once, a movie in the 21st century actually got me emotionally invested as it did with the audience watching a silent movie in the late twenties, and that's saying something.

            I've never clapped in a theater, but this movie made me react differently. With silent movies, there were always applause and I am always curious as to why the reception in silent movies were much better than talkies. Perhaps there is a larger caliber of work and dedication to silent films. Maybe it's because silent movies are more character oriented rather than visually oriented. At the end, there was an applauded clap that came as would a screening of a silent movie. The only thing missing was when the artist came out and took a bow before the audience.

War Horse (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            It's interesting how in most westerns that there is the hero, or the lone ranger who rides with his noble steed, usually heading west towards the setting sun, looking back at his accomplishment. This movie is far different and more interesting in that the star is the horse, bathe in the warm yellow sun as if he himself is the hero of the story.

            In a year where everybody is trying hard to be different, new, and innovative, here is a movie that sticks to the old cores on how a traditional, cheesy yet awe inspiring Academy award movie can get. Typically, there is always a movie that shines through the group of movies and it's usually the big looking movie that's professionally done.

              Steven Spielberg has created a culmination of two of his separate artistic designs; his whimsical charm that's kid friendly and even fantasy like, and the raw gritty realities of the world that requires no directing sugar coating. In this movie, there is a pretty long exposition that establishes the friendship between a horse named Joey and a boy who takes care of him. The exposition might be a tad bit long, but it does a wonderful job of showing that these two characters are inseparable. here, we see the two plowing a ground that's full of rocks and weed, and later, we see the two outracing a car.

               The next part consists of Joey being used in the army, and the narrative does something interesting here in that Joey goes through an episodic journey, going from one master to another, from one nationality to another. Joey belonged to a British captain, to two German deserters, from a French girl, and so forth. The movie works in a strange way where each character changes because of this very horse, much like the movie Forrest Gump. some were inspired by Joey's extraordinary gift of endurance, speed, and perseverance. Others see him simply as a horse, after all, a horse does not follow the concept of nationality.

                 This begs an interesting perspective in a war movie. Usually, there is the war movie cliché in which the main character is forced to go through a draft and shoved into the bitter reality and turmoil of war. In this case, it is an animal that's shoved instead. How would the horse survive as oppose a human? How will it get home to its loved ones, and how will it handle the deaths of those around him? Sure the movie can be a bit clichéd at times, but it follows its cliché in an interesting way. Instead of a comrade dying in the hands of the main character, what if the person was dying in front of the horse?

                  However, more so, we grow to love a horse. We know when it feels happy, sad, remorse, and we feel its pain. At one point, we see it in so much pain in that my mind went outside the fourth wall and wondered if how the Animal Humane society got this scene through. All of this will pay off, my friends, in an ending that got some sniffles in the audience. Because this movie is by Spielberg, there is a long journey ahead in order to reach the long awaited fulfillment that's shown at  the end of the road, and that is something that's worth feeling, especially in a war movie that contains suffering and death.

              Janusz Kaminski, the cinematographer of Steven Spielberg, does a wonderful job of setting a story entirely through its shot. There are those same gritty moments that reminisce Saving Private Ryan, however, the movie also has a beauty side to it that only beautiful sunsets and Western movies can fathom.

            John William's score shines bright with its powerful, yet simplistic symphonic sound. In the past, we've heard him do Jazz; such as from Catch Me If You Can, to Ethnic; such as Munich, and Memoirs of a Geisha, and the stylish action movies, such as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, and The Adventures of Tintin. However, the score is fresher and a lot more moving than his past work. It has the grand sound of the American Nationalism taken from Aaron Copland, sounding similar to Saving Private Ryan.

            The movie is the best looking World War I movie since A Very Long Engagement, with the whole No Man's Land look. There has never been a huge interest with World War I; however, I find it fascinating. The concept of No Man's Land is fascinating in its gritty and muddy  type of warfare, the usual rain and cold feeling of being in the mud soaked trenches, as well as the humanity of how soldiers will run out in the open in front of enemy fire in order to get to point B.  The movie has the great sense of war in it, as well as a powerful character to follow. It's not surprising that this movie, a simple movie about a horse, will be the talk of this year. I was looking for a professional comeback from the strange Spielberg action/adventure movies, and this movie did more than suffice.