DaveDiggler

"The American" is a psychological character study with a taut, gripping plot. The films opening scene is brutal, unforgiving and never flinching. A cold, dark opening that is completely unpredictable sets the table for the rest of the film. The open sequence is one of the most daring character introductions in recent film. It may, moments in, shock audiences and loose their empathy or capacity to care for the main character, Jack, played wonderfully by George Clooney.

This is an almost muted performance from Clooney that was sparsely written and incredibly demanding. Clooney, however, brings maybe his top acting performance to date as "The American" exemplifies a gradually maturing body of work. Clooney is asked to convey paranoia, fear, desire, solitude, love, affection, passion and longing through, mostly, just his eyes and facial expressions. Director, Anton Corbijn, handles this slow, brooding paced film with a confidence and maturity of a veteran director. He doesn't force dialogue in places it's not needed in fear of losing audiences. When Jack does speak, he speaks clearly, efficiently and doesn't mix words. There's a great deal of power and truth behind the few words he does utter, which make them all the more impacting.

"The American" will be a very hard watch for most people. There are no grand action sequences, there is little dialogue and there is very little character development, especially from side characters. The film is directed like a film from the early 70s. Corbijn gives his characters room to breath without giving much detail on who they are, gives the plot room to unfold naturally and effortlessly, which in turn creates for an edge-of-your sit thriller. His direction is subtle, but extremely effective. There is a pay off to "The American." There is an empathic character in Jack that we do wish to change and gain some sort of redemption, which he begins to seek as a desperate alternative for living. Corbijn does a phenomenal job of showing how Jack's past haunts his present day and how Jack goes from no longer allowing himself just to forget the past, but to come clean and change. By the end of the film Jack is no longer living just to stay alive, but he's living to escape his profession, which he is very good at, and to find love or some semblance of peace and happiness.

Most of the film we see Jack on the brink of maintaining sanity and fighting his paranoia's at every waking second. Each and every person he runs into, he sees as his potential murderer. The tension that this creates and the unpredictability of all the surrounding characters, who are even more vague and unknowable than Jack, made for a very thrilling and suspenseful film. We don't know these people, what they're capable of or what they're thinking. And neither does Jack. We find ourselves in his paranoid state.

The film ends abruptly, although not unexpectedly, and without any mercy for Jack. Just as we started with guns blazing, bodies falling, people dying quickly and without mercy, we leave this world the same way we came in. It's a hard and difficult world to live in and one that can wear on the conscience of the most callous of men. "The American" is one of the very best films of 2010 and George Clooney gives an intuitive performance reminiscent of Gene Hackman in "The Conversation."

"The Town" is an excellent film that does have its flaws. It is, however, one of the best films made of 2010 (maybe the best film of th year). Ben Affleck really proves himself as a serious filmmaker with his follow up to "Gone Baby Gone," which was among the best films of 2007. The direction is amazing and Affleck really impresses me here, far more than the aforementioned "Gone Baby Gone," which was standard fare that is the exact opposite of "The Town." "Gone Baby Gone" relied more on story, dialogue and acting whereas "The Town" relies on great execution of a rather unoriginal script. If there is a major negative aspect of the film is it's complete unoriginality. It's a remake of "Heat." Plain and simple. Thats what it is.

The shootouts are phenomenal and they're the best since "Heat," which are, pretty much, the best ever. It's a great little crime movie that yes, we've seen done before, but the performances and the craftsmanship are impeccable. That's really what makes it quite good. Its an extremely entertaining film, and for people who gravitate towards the genre (such as myself), should really enjoy it (unless they have some hatred towards Ben Affleck).

Jeremy Renner, who plays a Joe Pesci spawned stereotype, is truly amazing. He takes a blandly written character and makes him a really intense, nearly unpredictable person. He steals scene after scene he's in. It's the one true standout performance of the film. Affleck, the actor, is much better than expected, but not completely convincing as the leader of the Charlestown heist team.

You can enjoy it for what it is: a well done crime film with heavy action and good acting, or you can pick it apart for being unoriginal, which it is. If you sit and think about all the flaws of the film you can convince yourself it's an average to terrible movie. When I sit and watch it, I'm drawn in and entertained from start to finish.

The robbery sequences are gripping thanks to top notch directing, editing and sound mixing. The suspense is amazing. The ensemble cast is terrific. It's the kind of movie so entertaining that it will constantly bring me back to it. It's a magnificent achievement that does everything it sets out to do. It's one of the best films I've seen all year.

I really can't find anything in "Citizen Kane" worth liking. Do I see what the big fuss is about? Sure. And it is one of the best looking and most well made film of the 40s (from what I've seen. I admittedly don't watch many films from the 40s, because of bad experiences with "great" films such as this). "Citizen Kane" is a monumental achievement because of some of the technical aspects. I have no reason to watch "Citizen Kane" ever again though. I don't particularly like any of the acting, and the story is just dull to me. I don't watch movies for editing, camera work, lighting or technical achievements. Those aspects of filmmaking certainly can greatly help or hurt a film, but without a good script, and without good acting, you just have a good-looking movie. That's the case with "Citizen Kane." Supremely directed and extremely well crafted for its time, but I just didn't care for the man or the exposition of most scenes.

A lot of directors can make a good-looking film, and a lot have. The remake of "All the King's Men" is wonderfully shot, but the movie is a complete mess that is just butchered by the director (most noticeably the atrocious casting and the shampoo commercial-esque editing). "All the King's Men" does have a good performance from Penn, but that's about it. Other than that? It is a terrible movie. "Citizen Kane" is not that bad and Welles' direction is far better, but I think it's a similar case were two movies look a lot better than anything that's happening between the characters, or within the story. The characters might be exquisitely framed, but I just didn't care what they had to say.

It is masterfully made for its time and it is a greatly influential film. That's what it is remembered for and what it was always be remembered for. Rosebud comes second. If you rate a movie purely on direction, then you probably give it a high score. If you don't, then your taste will dictate how effective it was. For me, "Citizen Kane" is another major disappointment to add to the heap of "disappointing classics."