Inception

Overall Score: 84

Director: Christopher Nolan

Run Time: 148 mins

Rating: PG-13

Viewer Bias: 10

I must preface this by acknowledging that I love "Inception" director Christopher Nolan. "Memento" is brilliantly confusing, "The Prestige" is wonderfully clever, and both "Batman" outings are arguably the best of the super hero genre. Nolan's clever direction is only surpassed by his refreshingly intellectual writing. Nothing is ever as it seems and the audience needs to have half a brain to understand Nolan's films. Clearly, I had a bias in place. Nevertheless, "Inception" delivers upon my already outrageously high expectations. My only concern is that lack of hype that seems to be surrounding the film. It hasn't been given the commendation it deserves for a film that I would suggest as "The Matrix" of this new decade.


Direction: 9

Absolutely fantastic from start to finish. However, there are a few moments of cross cutting toward the end of the film where I heard a few giggles in the audience because of the somewhat ridiculous nature of the sequence. Nolan directs his already talented cast well and keeps the audience guessing throughout the entire film. That uneasy tension and continual self-reflexivity on the part of the audience is vintage Nolan and makes for a great escapist summer movie that perhaps belongs in Oscar season.


Editing: 8

As I just mentioned, a few cross cuts feel a little awkward because of the nature of the scene. However, the clever editing only deepens the audience's participating into the mystery of the film. For a film that takes some time to ingest, its pacing is very quick.


Acting: 8

"Inception" relies more on Leonardo DiCaprio than what the film's trailers may suggest, but the film does not suffer for it. The gifted cast again adds to the film's suspension of disbelief and is a direct catalyst an outstanding presentation.


Writing: 8

For a film this confusing, the writing does its job. Nolan felt compelled to throw in several terms to describe the act of invading a subject's dream and subconscious. Moreso than a few Harry Potter books it seems. Overall, the writing was fine albeit a little jargony.


Story: 10

The story behind "Inception," like "Memento" or any other Nolan film, is its bread and butter. This "smart" film is almost a reward for moviegoers whom have grown tired of mindless comedies rife with crude and immature humor (read: any Will Farell movie). "Inception" is a rare, completely unique idea that "The Matrix" is its closest semblance. Rightfully, I will not divulge details about the film's plot. Fans of "The Dark Knight" will ultimately enjoy "Inception" for its creative layer-upon-layer story similar to The Joker's many schemes in the capped crusader picture. "Inception" is one of very few films where the price of admission is easily worth it based on its story alone.


Cinematography: 8

The camera work of "Inception" is a cross between a summer blockbuster flick and horror film. You have your big picture shots at the same time you have your creepy, intimate close-ups. Inline with the rest of the film's excellent presentation are a few interesting shots to illustrate a few key concepts in the film's story.


Special Effects: 7

Again, the film's trailer is a little misleading. One receives an impression the film will be saturated with amazing special effects of buildings crumbling, city market merchandise exploding and sky scrappers folding upon themselves. Unfortunately, what you see in the trailer is nearly the full extent of these "wow" special effects. However, a jaw-dropping zero-gravity fight sequence, with what appears to be minimal CGI, is the true highlight of the film visually.


Music: 7

Composer Hans Zimmer is one the best film music composers of modern day. However, by the end of the film the reverberating fog horn noise heard throughout the film's trailer was almost painfully noticeable. Aside from that, the music again sustains a quick tempo and flows between scenes to add additional tension between scenes similar to "The Dark Knight." A clever tactic.


Wow Factor: 9

Yes, wow! "Inception" is easily the best film of the year, and with 10 nominations should, earn an Oscar nomination. There are few directions the film could have taken given limitless possibilities associated with dreams. I couldn't help but feel, at times, the film had some lost potential. I could have used a few more "folding landscape" scenes to really draw me into the fantastic nature of the film. However, Nolan ironically kept everything more grounded in reality than he needed to. My guess is that this is an intentional choice given the endless debated and painfully mysterious and gratifying ending to the film.

FILM - 84

Moon

Overall Score: 82

Director: Duncan Jones

Run Time: 97 mins

Rating: R

Viewer Bias: 9

Moon was not a widely released nor widely publicized film despite it's raved reviews during the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. It's not that it's too much or an arty film or that it was low budget or perhaps that it was too intellectual (then again, compared to Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, maybe I'm wrong) so I don't know why it was never shot into the stratosphere. Given the solitary space theme and a monotone robot ally in GERTY, I was expecting something similar to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the resemblance ends there. Moon is flat out a great film, that is well acted and includes an incredibly intriguing and engaging plot. I'm my opinion it bests The Hurt Locker.


Direction: 9

Moon is wonderfully directed. The subtle pacing is certainly not too slow, but slow enough for the audience to savor each scene while taking a moment to wonder what's going on. Perhaps secrets in the film's story were revealed too early in the film, but that also gave it an already unique story a different structure. Sam Rockwell does a superb job carrying the entire film on his shoulders, yet the film never feels stale. A truly excellent direction showcase that flew under the radar.


Editing: 7

A few awkward scenes here and there create a few leaks in an otherwise flawless craft including a just plain cheesy CGI shot of an ejection pod from the lunar base. However, the film's quick editing make Rockwell's duplicated presence feel natural and completely believable.


Acting: 10

The entire film is carried by Sam Rockwell and this is the role of his career. One could hardly considered a bit-part by Dominique McElligott a co-staring role - and the next best bet is Kevin Spacey as the voice for the HAL 9000-esque GERTY - so Sam Rockwell is it. In Parent Trap style, Rockwell plays two very different roles as the same character at the same time and even finds himself in a tussle with...himself. Fantastic acting in a fantastic role and it's a shame he didn't receive any Oscar nods.


Writing: 6

There's nothing too outstanding in a film that resorts to the occasional flurry of profanity, then again it can add to the film's realism as well. Nevertheless, the film's dialogue left something to be desired and didn't necessarily inspire paradigm-shifting though that highlights the film's larger theme which may be way Moon was passed over come Oscar time.


Story: 9

It seems simple enough, you have a three-year contract to live on the Moon (alone) harvesting the Sun's energy and sending it to Earth until you eventually find yourself. Sure, everyone knows being alone and space can make you a little crazy, but a flat out copy of yourself is a bit of a stretch. A slow beginning, yet sudden obscurity of a seemingly normal existence makes Moon a film that is only restricted by the novelty of its plot. It may easily fade into a tandem of psychological, science-fiction quasi-independant films, but it is an amazing ride the first time through and does include an interesting and subtle critic of the abuse of corporate management of employees viewed as tools. You could easily make a sociological connection there.


Cinematography: 8

I was shocked at how interesting Moon's cinematography was. Actually, the film's closest relation to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Great use of color coupled with some surprisingly vivid special effects make the overall look of Moon its biggest surprise.


Special Effects: 8

For a science-fiction, psychological space film, Moon hardly leans on any of its special effects. However, scenes involving the Rockwell's moon-crafts are clean and well imagined. As mentioned earlier, however, there are a few moments early in the film when the CGI doesn't feel quite right.


Music: 9

The music behind Moon helps to blend the experience together. The serene, yet haunting piano scores are just enough compel a bit of intrigue into every scene. In this case, the score complied by Clint Mansell added another level to an already stellar presentation.


Wow Factor: 7

Ironically the initial wow factor of the film may end up hurting the film in the future. Similar to The Sixth Sense or Memento, I see Moon as a film that may lose a little of its poignancy in successive viewings.

FILM - 82

Iron Man 2

Overall Score: 72

Director: Jon Favreau
Run Time: 124 mins
Rating: PG-13

Viewer Bias: 8

The first Iron Man was great. You take a slightly lesser known Marvel superhero, add a ton of wit from star Robert Downey Jr., backed with creative dialogue, set it in a possible real-world scenario and you have one of the most under-anticipated, overachieving summer flicks of 2008. Iron Man's second casting is quite the opposite, heavily anticipated and flows as gracefully as a hunk of metal. Nevertheless, Iron Man 2 is a decent summer film and a worthy beginning to what looks like a dismal summer movie season.


Direction: 6

Somewhere director Jon Favreau lost his way with Iron Man 2 and let it jet a little too far out of control. He simply tries to do too much with Iron Man 2's story and inserts too much of himself in the process. Many scenes feel too immature and outlandish to be grouped with its predecessor and Downey's performance is almost completely without any of the charm of Tony Stark's first test flight.


Editing: 8

The film's editing is typical in both the sense that its a summer movie flick and - possibly more appropriate - because its a superhero movie. It's nothing to shout at, but it gets the job done.


Acting: 7

The Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man 2 is not the Robert Downey Jr. in the first Iron Man. I equally blame the film's not-so-great writing and story as much as I do Downey's acting - he only has so much he can work with. Similarly, Gwyneth Paltrow did not do anything to warrant additional character development to Pepper Potts, in fact, her character seems more like a back seat to others in this venture. Invading the film are a slue of tacked on characters that produce a film too full of supporting characters that both Downey and others are reduced to nearly one-dimensional characters. Great superhero films are the result of a well-developed villian and Mickey Rourke was barely given enough screen time to even explain his character's motive.


Writing: 7

The writing in Iron Man 2 ranges from tolerable to mildly laughable. All the wit of its predecessor is gone only to be replaced with overly simplified dialogue between characters. Oh, I vant my beurd!


Story: 5

Enough has already been said of Iron Man 2's outlandish story that nearly singlehandedly shorthands the film. The easiest illustration of how the film suffers is by detailing all of the subplots that attempt to make a cohesive story in Iron Man 2: Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) wants to kills Tony Stark seemingly because of a feud between both of their fathers, Tony Stark faces depleting health because of the chest implant that keeps him alive, Pepper Potts becomes the CEO of Stark Industries which challenges her relationship with Stark, the "government" wants access to the Iron Man suit, archival Justin Hammer wants to create an equivalent to the Iron Man suit, Stark revitalizes his deceased father's dream with a technology summit and faces issues lingering issues, Natsha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson - yes, he's in it) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) try to induct Stark into a new alliance called The Avengers (future movie?) and Stark's military mate Lt. Col. James 'Rodey' Rhodes (Don Cheadle) finds himself as a sidekick to Stark. Sound like a little too much? It is.


Cinematography: 7

Since you spend so much time trying to figure out what's happening - see above - you don't have much time to notice the film's cinematography. It seemed about average, nothing special.


Special Effects: 8

Iron Man 2 had a touch knack of creating noticeable special effects, especially toward the film's end. However, I can't fault it too much concerning its subject matter in the first place.


Music: 7

To be honest, I really don't remember it.


Wow Factor: 9

I have to reward this film for its "wow factor" because that is its sole purpose. Given that, I could of certainly used a little more action. I remember thinking throughout the film that a little kid that can't and won't follow a story or listen to dialogue is going to be completely bored with this movie.

MOVIE - 72

Sherlock Holmes

Overall Score: 76

Director: Guy Ritchie

Run Time: 128 mins

Rating: PG-13

Viewer Bias: 8

Sherlock Holmes was released theatrically on Christmas day - during Oscar season. Therefore, many critics may over-think Sherlock Holmes when it is simply an entertaining movie released during a season when every film out there is trying to hit home its "artsy" style or is a cheesy Christmas movie. However, taking a look at if for the first time on the Blu-Ray release and months after The Hurt Locker napped Oscar away from Avatar (thank you) it's easier to just sit back and watch a movie just for entertainment. If you're in the mindset to watch a "movie" and not a "film" Sherlock Holmes is a lot of fun with a few stumbles along the way.


Direction: 7

Director Guy Ritchie produced an entertaining movie-going venture released at the height of Oscar season - see above. However, the film's acting feels a little too loose despite some rather impactful visuals and a great story.


Editing: 7

The film's editing worked very well in conjunction with its strong cinematography. Most notably were the film's process shots which provided a first-person insight into Holmes's thought process.


Acting: 6

I really don't mind Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, or Rachel McAdams (I'm not familiar with villain Mark Strong), but I was sadly disappointed with their acting in Sherlock Holmes. I had a very difficult time even understanding Downey and his less than superb British accent and I was looking for a more pompous personality from him. Sort of like an English Tony Stark. For whatever reason Rachel McAdams was absolutely terrible and unconvincing. Finally, Jude Law gave the best performance in the film although not too memorable.


Writing: 9

The writing in Sherlock Holmes was superb. From the witty banter between Holmes and Watson to the meticulous detail and careful attention given to each intrinsic examination made by the detective, the writing was fresh and intelligent. Certainly a welcome surprise in a mystery/action flick.


Story: 8

I was worrying about the story throughout most of the film. Not having a strong grasp of any background surrounding the Sherlock Holmes tales, it was hard for me to expect anything aside from the knowledge that he was supposed to be the world's greatest and most astute detective. I could understand how the film's villain - Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) - acts as a logical juxtaposition from Holmes with his magical insight into the fantastic, but I was afraid the film was taking a turn in favor of the evil magician. Luckily, the wit and careful logic of Holmes wins out and so does the story for making me think twice about its direction.


Cinematography: 9

Another strength of the film was its cinematography. The varied palette of creative shots adds another artistic dimension to the film and showcases its set design and special effects. Of course, dramatic, slow motion shots are always a plus when done correctly.


Special Effects: 7

Although the art direction of the film added to the illusion of 19th century England, some of its special effects were...noticeable. One clear example was a flailing spool in one scene in a metal shipyard. Jude Law may have narrowly escaped the 2-ton piece of vulcanized steel, but he was in no clear danger because of how painfully obvious CGI which is the the biggest complaint against an over-reliance on CGI special effects (Indiana Jones).


Music: 7

Throughout the film, I keep contemplating the music and how it interacts with each scene. A majority of the film's musical score is as whimsical as Downey's and Law's interaction with one another with of a few of Hans Zimmer's more brutal and heavy-handed themes similar to the Pirates of the Caribbean. However, it does its job for the most part - I just wouldn't run out and buy the soundtrack.


Wow Factor: 8

Sherlock Holmes does come with a few "wow" moments - mainly from its cinematography - but it's story isn't so bad either. This is a summer movie that found it's way to Christmas Day.

MOVIE - 76

Public Enemies

Overall Score: 70

 

Director: Michael Mann

Run Time: 140 min
Rating: R

Viewer Bias: 6

I was expecting a lot of good things from "Public Enemies" and after a theatrical run and a decent amount of time on store shelves I finally got a chance to see it. I have to say, I was not overly impressed. As you will see in the following categories, nothing really excelled in the film with a lot of potential in not only it's story concept, but in its cast. I guess maybe it was too much to ask from a summer blockbuster film - especially from the slew of poor films we saw last summer.  

Direction: 7

Long-time director Michael Mann takes the helm in this one and is given a talented and award-winning cast. Mann seemed to focus heavily on contrasting the thieving, yet merciful gangster John Dillinger (Depp) with the just, yet deadly FBI commander Melvin Pruvis (Bale). It seems as though this juxtaposition became too heavy of a focus, however, since Dillinger's motivational love interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) is not fully examined and the Frechette character is absent throughout most of the film. I was left feeling like the film was missing something and I was expecting more.

Editing: 7

The editing of the film was not poor, but was uninteresting. There were a few awkward shots that could have been cut short, but other than that, things seemed to piece together well.

Acting: 8

As I mentioned earlier, this was a pretty well-crafted cast who somewhat met their potential. Depp, Bale, and Cotillard all portrayed their character's with genuine interest although Bale's depiction of Pruvis seems to fall a little flat. Depp was forced to add a few dimensions to Dillinger - being that he is the main focus of the film - but he doesn't seem to take anything to the next level or add any twists like we have seen in some of his other performances. Finally, Cotillard had little to work with and eventually shines in her interrogation scene.

Writing: 7

As you will see in the following category, I was expecting a little more interplay between Depp and Bale throughout the film and their one encounter does lead to some clever dialogue. However, I don't remember any inspirational writing throughout the film that capitatived my interest or at least illuminated any paradigm-shifting traits in either the characters or the story.

Story: 7

Any film that is translated from actual events is limited to its source material. Nevertheless, I was looking for more from "Public Enemies." Following notorious American gangsters John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd during a crime wave in the 30s, I was expecting a lot more interplay between the gangsters, more bank heists, and a lot of more interaction between Depp and Christian Bale's character, Melvin Pruvis, who is charged with tracking down Depp/Dillinger. I was under the impression that we were going to see a more direct competition between Depp and Bale, instead of isolated scenes displaying each character's inner motivations.

Cinematography: 6

Right away it is easy to spot that the film was shot with a collection of steady-cam cameras in what appears to be an attempt to mimic television crime dramas with a more personal and intimate feel. If you can get over the intentionally shaky camera, it would be a fine visual look if the film had a modern setting. However, this film is grounded in 1933 and that visual style does not seem to match a film with a historical context. Additionally, the steady-cam washes out a lot of color and gives the film too raw of a look. Some static shots would been more appropriate.

Special Effects: 6

True, there was little opportunity for special effects in a film set in the 30s and based on a true story. However, the film gives a glimmer of hope in one scene that it fails to repeat. When John Dillinger was first arrested and transported, the film cuts from the film footage to what looked like actual footage taken during the event. This is only done once and would have helped to encase the film with a historic foundation if additional photos or video were integrated in other points in the film.

Music: 8

It's bad when I can't remember the music a few days after watching a film. From what I remember, it wasn't terrible, but it was obviously not memorable.

Wow Factor: 8

I wasn't really looking for a lot of "wow" here, but there were a few interesting moments nestled throughout the film - the end specifically. I was mostly surprised that the film didn't focus too heavily on the actual bank robberies and more so on its characters.

MOVIE - 70

The Shining

Overall Score: 81

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Run Time: 146 min
Rating: R

Viewer Bias: 10

I have taken an entire class on the films of Stanley Kubrick, therefore I understand some of the inner dynamics of the "Kubrickian" style of film making. Having some knowledge and basis of Kubrick's body of work is essential to uncovering the themes, motifs, symbols, and overall mastery of Kubrick's work.

Although the original novel of "The Shining" was written by Stephen King, the film version of "The Shining" is entirely Kubrick's. Stanley Kubrick was forced to allow King to write the first draft of the screenplay, which Kubrick promptly tossed. This created quite a dispute between King and Kubrick which was never resolved. This is a Stanley Kubrick film.


Direction: 8

Here's the thing, the directing of the film is fantastic, but Kubrick could only work within the limitations of his actors. Although Jack Nicholson gives perhaps the best performance of his career, Shelley Duvall and youngster Danny Lloyd give poor performances. In both interviews and a documentary, shot by Kubrick's daughter Vivian, it was apparent that Duvall did not have a very good working relationship with Kubrick as he constantly pushed Duvall to reshoot scenes: a staple of Kubrick's directing. However, this relationship - and perhaps bad casting - yielded some awkward acting and that tends to be the fault of the director.

Also, as with every Kubrick film, there are some pacing issues. Sometimes long cuts work; other times it's just too much.


Editing: 8

The editing is fantastic and is where the root of the film's suspense is drawn from. However, Kubrick's pacing issues often come from editing which intentionally makes the audience uncomfortable. It's a matter of personal taste although I would assume that the majority of movie going audiences would not appreciate this style and may at times be bored.


Acting: 7

No one would run around a giant hotel flailing their arms like a duck while holding a knife running away from a crazed husband but apparently Shelley Duvall thought so. Duvall's acting can annoy at lot of audiences and my class had a lot to say after we viewed the film. I personally had more problems with Danny Lloyd. I know he was only about six years old when they shot the film, but he needs to learn to open is mouth when he speaks. Maybe I'm being too hard since I can imagine a film like this would be hard to grasp for a child, but he bothers me.

On the other hand Jack Nicholson gives his best performance in this film. The dramatic range and convincing insanity he portrays from Jack Torrance is staggering. From minor facial twitches when confronting Duvall in the film's final act to the universal disingenuous demeanor of America's middle class in the film's first "interview" act, Nicholson plays a dramatic character that morphs from the American "every man" to the American "axe murderer." If you need any more convincing, check out Vivian Kubrick's documentary on the DVD to see just how Nicholson prepares for his axe wielding scenes.


Writing: 6

The overtones of the disgruntled American middle class are intertwined in the writing, but are typically lost on the audience. The dialogue does its job and little more, no fantastic monologues here.


Story: 6

I have never read King's novel of "The Shining," but from what I have been told, it's pretty stupid. Ghosts? Killer Shrubbery? No thank you. Although Kubrick's film may include ghouls - at least the paranormal - it is a psychological thriller and not a science fiction thriller. With the way the story progresses and the film is shot, the audience is challenged to decipher if the events of the film are imaginary or supernatural. Where King places the danger in the paranormal, Kubrick ignites a more terrifying reality - horror within the American family. The closeness and isolation of film reflects the American family and isolation that family members can feel when horror strikes within the home. That transcends stupid ghosts and malicious flora, it becomes commentary, and to some - art.

Cinematography: 10

This is perhaps one of the best shot films ever made. The larger the screen, the greater the experience. The camera often tracks directly behind characters providing a nearly first-person viewpoint. This subjectivity allows the audience to engage the film from the narrowed view of each of the characters. Ironically, the camera work of the film allows the huge hotel to feel very small and that suffocating feeling is increased along with the film's suspense. The first shots of the film are wide, expansive shots of Colorado which eventually dwindles down to the confinement of a confusing hedge maze.

Special Effects: 7

There were was no need for special effects in the film. For a horror film, there is little why way of gore and the film's minor amounts of gore was done relatively well. Make-up work was fantastic.

Music: 10

The editing, cinematography, and music are the three key elements that comprise the suspense of the film. Composers Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind exquisitely created a soundtrack that adds to the tension of the film ten fold. Long held notes and the prickling of strings are common horror film musical techniques but were implemented perfectly in "The Shining." The soundtrack absolutely services the film to its fullest potential.

Wow Factor: 9

This is a frightening film yet different from the typical horror films we see today. Kubrick was a director known for his psychological take on stories and that is the true beauty of "The Shining." The complete package from the film's score to its visual look can create just as visceral of a reaction as many of today's goriest films with about a tenth of the gore. A horror masterpiece and one of my favorite scary movies. Happy Halloween!

FILM - 81

Frozen River

Overall Score: 75

Director: Courtney Hunt

Run Time: 97 min
Rating: R

Viewer Bias: 8

As a former student of film, I have a soft spot for productions that are nominated for Academy Awards. The only reason this particular film caught my interest was based on lead actress Melissa Leo's Oscar nomination for "best actress" and director/screenwriter Courtney Hunt's nomination for "best screenplay written directly for the screen." Therefore, I already place this film on a higher pedestal. Additionally, this film is shot similarly to "The Wrestler" which can bore some audiences although I feel it provides some authenticity to the screen.


Direction: 9

"Frozen River" is Courtney Hunt's first production as a feature film director and it is a fantastic initial entry. Everything in the film molds together and flows with incredible grace. Normally a film that is essentially a family drama set in a northern climate tends to waver on the boring side, but Hunt is able to latch and maintain viewer attention with her writing, camera work, and obvious skillful work with actors. A fantastic first film.


Editing: 8

The continuity and attention-grabbing charm of "Frozen River" is thanks to its wonderful editing. Editor Kate Williams understands the importance of pacing in a film and understands how long to hold a shot in a given moment and circumstance. By allowing the camera to rest on an actor for just a second longer than what feels comfortable allows the acting - if it's good - to shine through and this cast does in spades.


Acting: 8

Melissa Leo provides a better performance in this picture than Kate Winslet in "The Reader." In fact, "Frozen River" is a much better film as well. Leo invokes a genuineness in her character - Ray Eddy - in almost the same way Mickey Rourke showcased a defeated man in "Randy 'The Ram' Robinson" in "The Wrestler." Playing a struggling mother of two children who was recently abandoned and robbed by her husband, Leo conveys the shear desperation and maturity of a woman forced to conduct illegal business for the betterment of her family. Supporting actress Misty Upham also plays a wonderfully dynamic character in Lila Littlewold. She provokes anger, hatred, and sympathy from the audience. This is a gifted cast with great direction.

Writing: 9

There are few other films where you can find more honest and genuine dialogue. Every line feels appropriate and Hunt understands that sometimes silence is the best choice. However, there is no grand, inspirational monologue here, jut plain hearted writing straight from the heart to the screen.


Story: 7

The story is not anything that seems too out of the ordinary as it basically boils down to a typical family drama surrounding the desperate need for money during none other than Christmas. However, the Leo's serendipitous meeting with Upham takes the film on a tangent with an interesting twist. The interesting juxtaposition between Leo's hardships and illegal immigrants risking their lives and any security they have to come to America calls into question the very luxuries we enjoy every day. Many subtleties in both the story and overall production is the charm of "Frozen River."


Cinematography: 6

The cinematography is appropriate, but is hardly memorable. There are several "reflection" shots in mirrors which is just about the oldest trick in the book, but a nice touch since a majority of the viewing audiences will never pick up on what it signifies. Nevertheless, there isn't much you can do with a snowy up-state New York landscape.


Special Effects: 6

There aren't special effects and there is no cause for any in a film like this. However, there were a few scenes that were way too dark for me to make any sense of. I'm not sure if it was my TV or perhaps the lighting during production.


Music: 7

The music was rarely present. I think that perhaps there was little by way of a soundtrack or maybe since the story and production does such a good job of captivating the audience that the lack of music is hardly noticeable. I still wouldn't run out to buy the soundtrack or even care to hear any of it again.


Wow Factor: 7

Once again it was a delightful surprise to take a typical family drama in turn it into a mildly suspenseful adventure that maintains a viewer's interest. There are a few moments of legitimate danger and genuine suspense that warrants a slight spectacle. Of course the appropriate twist is made in the film's climax and resolves the story in somewhat of an expected manner.

Movie - 75