ZildjianDFW

"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford", written and directed by Andrew Dominik, and starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck, is one of the most striking and memorable films I've seen lately. I'd heard about the film before – heard that it had been a commercial flop, but was widely regarded as an underrated masterpiece, and one of the greatest westerns of our time. So I finally gave it a go, and boy, I heard it right! It's hard to pin down what it is that makes this film so great. I mean, sure, the acting, cinematography, music, etc. all play a big role. But there's something else going on here, some kind of cinematic alchemy at work that you don't see everyday. The film is haunting, beautiful, dreamlike yet piercingly real. There's something incredibly elemental about it. You can feel the coldness of the wind against your cheek, the warmth of the fire on your feet. You can feel the dirt underneath its nails, the water as it runs down its face.

The story, based on an (especially then) obscure novel by Rob Hanson, concerns the relationship between the two titular characters: Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and Bob Ford (Casey Affleck). The title pretty much gives away the central event, but the film also covers the time leading up the big event, as well as its aftermath. Just in terms of period detail, it's probably one of the most realistic and historically accurate westerns I've ever seen.

On its visual merits alone, it's an incredible watch, one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. This should come as little surprise to those familiar with the cinematographer, Roger Deakins, but even so, this film is one of the jewels in his already illustrious crown. The look of the film is like old photographs of the era, or artwork from the likes of Andrew Wyeth. It is at once gritty and beautiful, realistic and otherworldly. Its use of light and shadow, natural scenery, and blurring effects at the edges of the screen also stand out. There are only a handful of filmmakers whose work you can mute and simply enjoy as visual experiences, among them Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Terry Malick, to name three. This film easily qualifies in this category.

The acting is also excellent, though generally understated. Brad Pitt, who can often be a hit-or-miss actor, hits here with a vengeance. It's easily one of the most subtle performances I've ever seen from him, and his screen presence alone would've made an Oscar nod warranted. Casey Affleck is also great, sometimes even stealing the scene from Pitt, and his ability to make us feel several things about a character at one time is impressive. The supporting roles, played by notable actors such as Sam Rockwell, Mary-Louise Parker, Jeremy Renner, Sam Shepard, Zooey Deschanel, and Michael Parks, round out the cast beautifully.

The music, by Australian artists Nick Cave and Warren Ellis (both of them new to film scores) is incredibly beautiful, capturing the folk music spirit of the Old West, and compliments the tone and atmosphere of the film remarkably well.

If one forced me to find one criticism of the film, it would be that it's a little too long. But I don't like making that claim, because I can't help thinking of the Emperor Joseph II, who criticized one of Mozart's operas for having "too many notes". Mozart reportedly replied, "Which notes would you like me to remove, your highness?" Though I have the subtle feeling that the film is longer than it strictly needs to be, I can't think of any one scene or sequence that could be removed without diminishing the film somehow.

All in all, it's a wonderful film, and it's a crime that it isn't more well known than it is. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It will burn itself into your memory.

Okay, where to begin? Well, I've been a big fan of Terrence Malick for a while now, and I've been following this movie for around a year now (I know of others that have been following it longer). Though I was very excited about it, I tried to keep my enthusiasm contained. I didn't want to over-hype it, lest I be let down in a bad way. It was hard, hearing, as I did, the very positive reviews from critics, as well as the fact that it won the top prize at Cannes. When I finally plopped myself down in the theater seat, I was hoping for the best, but half-expecting the worst. Thankfully, the other half was right.

"The Tree of Life" is a masterpiece, even by Malick's standards. Less a traditional narrative than a free-form, stream of consciousness vignette of childhood scenes and nature shots, the film manages to capture in a way few films do the essence of childhood, of family. Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) reflects on his relationship with his difficult and disciplinarian father (Brad Pitt) and loving mother (Jessica Chastain). The two parents represent the film's primary theme: love versus selfishness ("grace" and "nature", as the film calls them, respectively). Over the course of the film, Jack struggles to reconcile their philosophies. The film builds up to a conclusion that's abstract and rife with religious overtones; some people may be put off by how the film ends, but to me, it seemed a logical and satisfying conclusion.

The acting is solid throughout. Brad Pitt, in particular, was convincing and charismatic, giving a performance that deserves at least a nomination from the Academy, I believe. Jessica Chastain was absolutely luminous, and I look forward to her future career, since I believe this film will definitely open doors for her. Sean Penn wasn't in the film a whole lot, and had very little dialogue, but he performed his role admirably. The child actors were especially great – none of them are professional actors, and yet, they were incredibly natural.

One of the film's most controversial sequences is one near the beginning of the film; a reel-long look at the birth of the Universe and early life on Earth. The images are often breathtakingly beautiful, and the special effects, overseen by Douglas Trumbull, impressed me deeply – this isn't just assembly-line CGI, but real art. I found the whole sequences transfixing, but apparently some people struggled through it.

The cinematography, by Emmanuel Lubezki, is glorious. Malick's always had a keen eye for beautiful and striking imagery, but I think he may well have outdone himself this time. Even if the film had no other positive attributes, it would still be a beautiful film to look at. Alexandre Desplat wrote the score, but most of the soundtrack consists of classical pieces.

Now, it goes without saying that this film isn't for everyone. That goes for a lot of movies, but it especially applies to art films like the ones Malick makes. If:

a.) You are a cynic who doesn't like "sentimental rubbish" b.) Spiritual undercurrents offend you c.) You a uncomfortable with films that experiment with the rules of film storytelling d.) You distrust films that aspire to be more than a cheap way to kill two hours e.) You have a short attention span

…I'd recommend you spend your time elsewhere.

But to those who are receptive and sensitive to it, this film is a real treat, a feast for the senses, for the mind, and for the heart, an experience the likes of which only come along once in a blue moon. Malick may well have given us his magnum opus with this one. It's a film that'll stick in your brain for some time and give you something to think about. Savor it. I know I did. And I will for years to come.

When Carl Theodor Dreyer made this film in 1928, he wasn't yet the fixture of European cinema that he would be in later years. He had made several films in Denmark, now rarely seen. But this film was a revelation, and single-handedly put him on the map – four more great films followed (at long intervals): Vampyr, Day of Wrath, Ordet, and Gertrud, establishing Dreyer as one of Europe's predominant filmmakers.

The Passion of Joan of Arc, based on actual court records from the time, tells the story of Joan of Arc's trial and execution. It says little, and shows nothing, of her earlier exploits, and in that way, it works very much as a passion story (as its title implies). Stylistically, it's a striking film, showing images that will burn themselves on your memory. It makes heavy use of close-ups, highlighting the subtle facial expressions of the characters, who didn't wear makeup for the film. Many of the camera angles are unlike anything I've yet seen in silent films.

Maria Falconetti gives a mesmerizing performance as Joan. The raw emotion she conveys is remarkable, and it amazes me still how much she was able to say with her eyes. It's a shame that this is the only movie she made that can be easily found today (she made two minor films about a decade earlier.

Another haunting characteristic of the film is the fact that it has no musical accompaniment. This is the way Dreyer wanted it to be seen, and luckily, the version I saw held true to his intentions. The stark silence was unsettling at first, but was soon forgotten, even seeming to heighten the experience.

The film seemed to almost fly by to me, right up to its haunting and powerful final minutes. This film is a true masterpiece. Highly recommended.