The Tree of Life review

Throughout the history of film, many directors have been utterly fascinated by time as a concept. The passage of it, how it affects people, if it's possible to alter it. The great filmmaker Terrence Malick is certainly interested in time, but to leave it at that would be doing him an enormous disservice. Malick is interested in time, but he looks at it differently. Time is a force of nature for Malick. No different than the vast and rolling storm clouds he photographed in Days of Heaven. No different than the expansive plains of the Southwest in Badlands. Time is an unstoppable entity that is intertwined with anything and everything. One does not outrun it any more than they would outrun a mountain. It is simply always present and moving. Malick's film, The Tree of Life, looks at time as a constant fluid, moving back and forth, flowing together like paint mixed with water. In the movie, the audience follows the creation of the universe, from beginning to end, juxtaposed with the evolution of a small family of five in the 1950's American Midwest. Malick descends on childhood, watching them grow and change. Marital disputes and stick ball in the streets set against the backdrop of the literal infinite. Another filmmaker with different intentions might see this small family life vs. big universe story as an opportunity to show how insignificant and small we as a human race are. To show that little problems do not matter at all and it is all going to end eventually. Malick just isn't that cynical. It is quite possible that small familial difficulties don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make them any less emotional and heartbreaking as a supernova or formation of a galaxy. Malick shoots these grand solar system movements with the same awe-filled eye as he shoots a small child looking up at sunlight coming through the trees. The small child is Jack O'Brien (Hunter McCracken), an average and sometimes troubled boy growing up mid-twentieth century. His father (Brad Pitt) is a rough man who treats his children with discipline and occasional anger. The actions of Mr. O'Brien seem cruel and abusive by today's standards, but they were less so at the time. And Mr. O'Brien does love his children and wife. He wants nothing but the best for them. His methods are tough and painful, but in his mind this is what will make them strong for the gritty "real" world that lies ahead in their path of life. In the end he accepts the error of his ways. "I wanted to be loved because I was great; A big man. I'm nothing. Look at the glory around us; trees, birds. I lived in shame. I dishonored it all, and didn't notice the glory. I'm a foolish man." He knows he did bad things. But he changed. Nature, as a whole, did not change. It is still as glorious as it has ever been, unblinking and constant. As Jack grows up to be a man, he works as a disgruntled architect in New York. The wind swept fields and everlasting summer nights of his youth have been replaced by looming skyscrapers and fixtures of metal and glass. Jack is unhappy. "Everyone is greedy. It's getting worse." he says. It seems something big is on the horizon, something grander than before. In what seems to be dreams Jack treks through desert terrain and surreal landscapes, filled with women in white dresses and door frames, leading to where? Jack is looking for answers. Is there a God? Why was his brother killed so young? Is he important? Malick does not know the answers to these questions, although he is interested in the answers. The film is better for it. It is not a movie of staunch facts and mathematical answers, but of hopeful questions and wide eyed amazement. The Tree of Life is a film of ambition matched only by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet, it is a remarkably different film. Malick resembles Kubrick in his visual eye for epic events and philosophical intrigue in the unknown and the beginning of time. Where they differ, is in the way the two portray these grand sweeps of time. Malick is warmer. He has more faith in humanity, despite their multitudes of flaws. He is also looking at the whole of time in a different way. Where Kubrick saw it as a beginning-to-end type manner, eventually coalescing with a trippy divergence into another reality, Malick sees the history of time as a series of rivers, flowing into each other with a constant fluidity. It makes for a glorious and incredible viewing experience. The film itself really is not for everyone. In the most rigid sense of the word, it does not have a plot. It looks at life in an impressionistic manner, showing a series of moments and feelings. In the way Malick has portrayed it, I felt it to be remarkably powerful. However, if one is looking for the usual plot formula, they shouldn't be looking here. Yet, I would say it does have a plot with a beginning, middle, and end. It is the story of everything. Not just life itself, and even more than the universe. Time. It is the story of time.      

Nightcrawler review

Blinding neon light and thick smog choke Los Angeles. People drive along the endless labyrinth of roads and interstates to get where they are going. The destination is not important. Not now. They are oblivious to the fate that has already befell them. A bump in the road, an extra drink at dinner, a reckless teenager coming home from a house party. The sparks are visible, the screaming cuts through the thick night air, the steel on the iron horse grows hot. The car flips. All they see is red covering asphalt. How did this happen? A light shines from somewhere above, they look up. Am I dying? A face. Gaunt, focused, horrifying. Whatever it is it cannot be human. It's red eyes glare down at them like two coins made of molten lead. It is the face of the devil, and it is the hour of judgement. "If you're seeing me, you're having the worst day of your life." This devil is Louis  Bloom, the main character of Dan Gilroy's debut film, Nightcrawler. A type of  cameraman who films disasters as they happen and sells the footage to television stations. He is determined and fierce. Focus like a laser beam. Bloom has the feral look and inherent loneliness of Travis Bickle in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver, but he has the sickening drive and sociopathic tendencies of Daniel Plainview in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. Bloom is a hard working maniac fueled by some severely perverted ideas and a need to annihilate the competition. He's Michael Corleone with a camcorder. A malicious grim reaper stalking the streets of LA. Where there is trouble, Lou Bloom is there. With Nightcrawler, Dan Gilroy has crafted a slick, cynical, and over-the-top satire that parallels films like Network. It is massively entertaining, emanating a kinetic energy that keeps a viewer totally sucked in. It's frightening and powerful. Most of the film's muscle comes from Jake Gyllenhaal's performance as the crazed protagonist. Gyllenhaal has been steadily rising as an actor in recent years, being the standout in films like End of Watch, Prisoners, Enemy, and many others. Nightcrawler may be his best yet. Hell, I would even go as far as to say he gives the very best performance of the year. Bug eyed, emaciated, and greasy, Gyllenhaal creates a palpable persona totally his own. He owns the movie like no other actor could. Nightcrawler is a very good movie in many ways, but Gyllenhaal looms over everything like some kind of freakish God, truly inhabiting the role. He is so transcendent here, it's much easier to forgot the movies flaws, which it has a few of. This is Gilroy's first movie, and you can see him occasionally struggling. As I mentioned above, Nightcrawler is a film of many influences. At times, you can see Gilroy leaning too much on them for support. There were a few scenes that seemed directly taken out of Taxi Driver and There Will Be Blood. It's hard to ignore, and does hinder the film at times. Gilroy is working with a few themes here. Media and how we as a society treat it, the bastardization of the American Dream, and greed. He does struggle to really go in depth with some of them, and the movie definitely could have benefited from some more fleshing out. Yet, I still cannot deny how crazy, entertaining, and energetic the film is. Robert Elswit does a fantastic job with the cinematography here. The movie looks great, and there are some landscape shots of LA that are downright haunting. Oscar worthy stuff. It's a wonderfully creepy tapestry of neo-noir and character study. Gilroy has made a good film here. Gyllenhaal has made a great one. Nightcrawler portrays a dark, morally ambiguous, pre-apocalyptic world of greed and evil. It is a fear-inducing world much too close to our own. And one I wouldn't mind visiting again. 

Life Itself review

Often when a particularly good movie ends, I'll sit in the theater and watch the credits for a while. Not because I'm incredibly interested in the end credits or anything, but because I have just witnessed something wonderful and need some time to soak it in. I'll sit there in the movie theater thinking: Wow. Sometimes a film is so damn good I'll need a few minutes to realize that yes indeed, I did just witness that. Other times a film is so achingly beautiful I'll have to wait a while for my emotions to run their course. Sometimes a film reaches for great heights and achieves these heights that all I can do is sit and stare at the screen in awe. Steve James' newest documentary on the great movie critic Roger Ebert did all of the things I just mentioned. After the film finished, I was left looking at the screen in tears knowing full well that not only had I just watched a wonderful film, but I had watched the wonderful life of a wonderful man. Pretty much every modern film critic owes something to Roger Ebert. He was the jolly, movie loving grandfather to us all. Bestowing his film knowledge and general happiness to the world. This documentary perfectly captures that sentiment, but it does something else too. It radiates the absolute joy that was Ebert and his life, but it doesn't sugarcoat the gritty stuff either. Often a documentary on a famous person who has passed on will devolve into nothing but idolatry and hero worship. One of the worst movies of last year, Salinger, was a documentary on the life of J.D. Salinger. That awful film did nothing but bow down to the life and works of Mr. Salinger for the first half of the movie before poking at the possibilities of conspiracies in the man's life. Awful cinema. Life Itself does no such thing. It looks admirably at Roger, but it also shows that the guy could be (for lack of a better word) an asshole sometimes. It shows the sometimes comical fights he had with his friend, business associate, and rival Gene Siskel. It shows the detestable taste in women Ebert had before he met his wife Chaz. It shows the time in his life where he had a serious drinking problem. Those parts can make you cringe, but the movie wouldn't be honest if they didn't show these parts. Roger Ebert was no saint, and I'm sure he would've wanted us all to know that. In addition, director Steve James doesn't shy away from showing Roger as he was when he died: very, very sick with his entire lower jaw missing. He even goes as far as to show Ebert being fed through suction with a straw. It's sometimes grotesque and makes you want to look away, but it's brutally honest and this information needs to be in there. What really struck me about Life Itself is how heartfelt it was. So much so, that the ending drove me to tears. You'd have to be made of stone not to. I did not cry because the film was overtly sad. It is sad, but not overwhelmingly so. I cried because I was so taken by this one man's love, life, legacy, and just astounding awesomeness in general. The emotion and devotion of his wife, Chaz. The love of Roger expressed by hard faced German filmmaker Werner Herzog. The scenes with Ebert during some of his last moments. These alone are enough to bring anyone to tears. Pieced together in this wonderful film, they make for an emotional powerhouse. I have to give the director of this film, Steve James, a lot of credit. Making a documentary like this seems incredibly difficult. So much ground to cover (An entire lifetime, literally!) in about two hours. Yet, James does it with a smooth and assured hand. He makes it entertaining and funny and sad and happy and fantastic. I am gushing a bit now, but I don't care. This film is terrific. It's fitting really, that a lover of movies should go out with such a good one. Go see this film. Even if you aren't or weren't that into Ebert's work. Just as a cinemaphile one should see this. The few cameos by Martin Scorsese are reason enough. For a film focused around a dead man, Life Itself feels so incredibly alive. It's hopeful. Normally I would give a film a star rating at the end of my reviews. But it feels redundant to stick some star on a film like this. It's great, I don't need a star to convey this. Here's my consensus: Life Itself is so many different kinds of wonderful. A great tribute to Roger Ebert, and cinema in general. Happy Viewing to all. 

Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies to keep up with all my film related opinions and such.               

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore review

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore is the worst Martin Scorsese film I've ever seen.

This isn't saying much, considering half of the guy's films are absolute masterpieces. I'm sure it's hard for him to measure up to his past successes like Raging Bull and Goodfellas every time he makes a movie, but he usually makes something great, if not better. He's bound to make a dud every once in a while, and even though I didn't like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, it's in no way a dud. I consider Scorsese to be my favorite director, and I've seen most of his work. If you asked me my favorite movie, although this is a frustratingly hard and unfair question to ask, I'd probably reply with Goodfellas. I recently saw Scorsese's 1974 effort, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed. The film's about a housewife named Alice Hyatt (Ellen Burstyn) who's fed up with her rough and insensitive husband and mundane suburban life. She wanted to be a singer, but instead she's confined to cleaning dishes and dealing with her smart mouthed son Tommy (Alfred Lutter). That is until her husband is killed in a freak car accident. Leaving her without a man and independent for the first time in her life. So, Alice sets off to do the one thing she knows how to: sing. Thus begins the journey. First off, this movie isn't terrible. I wouldn't even call it bad. Yet, it's not especially good. I had a lot of problems with it. Alice and her kid talk a lot of smack to each other during the film. At times it's cutesy and even witty, but after a while I was starting to think Alice was just a really crappy parent. The kind of parent that, while maybe not a bad person, is terrible with children. The kind that yells at their kid in the park in front of everyone when he drops his ice cream or complains one too many times. That made it really hard to feel sympathy or connect with the character of Alice at all. Her character was supposed to have flaws and be a bit of a damaged person, but she wasn't supposed to be as bad as the film accidentally makes her out to be. Their were times when I was obviously supposed to be feeling sad for Alice, but I wasn't. She was a mediocre person whose parenting skills were cringe worthy. How could I sympathize with that? In fact, there were very few people in the film at all who I could connect with on any level. The only person who I liked at all was Jodie Foster's character, Audrey. But she's only in the film for about twenty minutes. That wasn't the only problem. The film uses sappiness and crying scenes as a crutch to make up for it's lack of substance in other areas. It gets tiring after a while. When this movie came out it was portrayed for it's strong female character. While I applaud the writer on making a movie only about a girl, I don't think she was as strong as people thought. Alice has her willful moments, and for a while you think she really can live independently without a man. But in the end she succumbs and ends up falling in with another dude. It's supposed to be a happy ending, but maybe it should be looked at as a tragedy? I did have a lot of issues with the movie, but it really wasn't all bad. Although her character annoyed the hell out of me at times, Ellen Burstyn gives a terrific performance here as the titular character. She won an Oscar for the role, and I can see why. She portrays her character with a realism often absent from many performances. She's sad and angry, but she doesn't overdo it. If you're going to watch this for anything, do it for Burstyn's wonderful performance. Martin Scorsese has done better things, but his direction here is sharp and great. His fast and constantly moving camerawork is ever present here, and it really gives the film a boost. The film has a lot of issues, but Martin Scorsese really has nothing to do with them. The guy is a master director. This was nominated for Best Screenplay at the Oscars back in the 70's. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure why. It does have the occasional bit of smart dialogue and I guess it portrays it's characters somewhat honestly but it resorts to cliches and the dialogue is too unrealistic and stilted too often. I really didn't feel that it was that impressive of a screenplay. If I can say one thing for the movie, is that it's not boring. Although I obviously had a dearth of problems with it, I was entertained throughout the whole film. Alice is a lesser installment to Scorsese's canon but it's not bad by any means. Just very, very flawed. I suppose it's worth a watch, although I'd just skip it and watch Taxi Driver again. Happy Viewing. Remember to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Thanks!

8 1/2 review

Federico Fellini's 1963 film, 8 1/2, won the Best Foreign Film award at the 1964 Oscars. It's number 10 on Sight & Sound's Top 250 films. It has a 97% Rotten Tomatoes score. It's on Roger Ebert's Great Movies list. Martin Scorsese lists it as one of his favorite movies, and his favorite Italian film of all time. As does Woody Allen. 8 1/2 is obviously a highly acclaimed film. Watching a highly acclaimed movie like this can be quite hard. You have all this expectation and buzz built up around it, often it can be hard for the film too live up to it. I remember watching Citizen Kane and being a little disappointed by it. You also don't want your opinion to be swayed. When you're told a film is the greatest of all time, it's awful difficult to enjoy the movie with a clear mind. Regardless of all the accolades and acclaim 8 1/2 received, it's a really fantastic movie. I watched it on Saturday. It's Monday now and I've already watched it twice. It is that good. The film is about film, essentially. More so, it's about the lack of film. Director Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni) is trying to make a movie, but nothing seems to be going his way. He's over budget. His wife is mad. His mistress is causing trouble. The producer of his movie keeps pressuring him to start production, but he has serious creative block and cannot do so. He's supposed to be making this movie, but he has nothing to make. He's exhausted and has really no clear idea on what to do. His only real reprieve is in his dreams and fantasies. There he has control over everything. In one very famous dream sequence, Guido has all the women in his life all in one harem. He's very happy and seems to have them all under control, but then they rebel and he tries to tame them to no avail. Even in his most wonderful fantasies Guido is losing control. Claudia Cardinale (of Once Upon a Time in the West fame) plays his muse and dream girl, also named Claudia. She comes to him in dreams to comfort him, but in real life she brings no such comfort. I've only very recently become interested in Federico Fellini. The only other film of his I've seen is La Dolce Vita, which was very good in its own right. Even after watching only two of his movies, I'm starting to see his style. 8 1/2 I think is the best representation of it so far. The two films have very similar themes and story: a man (coincidentally played by Marcello Mastroianni both times) who is going through a creative crisis, falling victim to infidelity and writers block. What's most obvious to recognize is Fellini's wonderful and camera work. Even those who aren't as infatuated with his movies as I seem to be can at least appreciate his awesome direction. He dances his camera around his characters, adding to the story and making his already great films just that much better. But he isn't only a technical director. The story here is great, as is the way he tells it. The only other filmmaker deal with creative troubles as accurately and wonderfully is Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze with Adaptation. With 8 1/2, Fellini really captures the spirit of frustration enormously well. And he does it in such an entertaining manner. Anyone who has ever embarked in making a movie, or really anything creative at all, can sympathize with Guido's hopeless plight. We often laugh at his troubles, but only because we really understand them ourselves. Many have called 8 1/2 surrealist. I'm not sure if I would completely group it under that category, but I'd definitely say it has some surreal elements to it. The movie opens with Guido in a traffic jam. In his car, he is trapped and his vehicle is slowly filling with a gas. Soon, he frees himself and begins to fly. He is a kite, his leg is bound to a string. He falls to the beach. He wakes up. Surreal and strange, yes, but there are only a few of these fantasies peppered throughout the film. In my opinion, it's a very grounded and realistic movie. Dealing with a filmmakers myriad troubles and issues, occasionally resorting to strange dream sequences. Don't get me wrong though, I absolutely loved the surreal moments in the film. Fellini handles dreams better than almost any director I've seen. The fantasy moments don't feel out of place or serve as clunky placeholders, they add a lot and just make the film all the more rich and beautiful. 8 1/2 has a few moments that drag on, but they are only a few. The rest of the movie is 100% awesome. It's a must see, not only for filmmakers and writers, but for everyone. Every single person can, in some sense, relate to Guido. Plus, it's just pure and wonderful movie making that everyone should see at least once in their life. Me? I may have to watch it a few more times. Happy Viewing guys. Don't forget to like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies and follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies if you haven't already.

The Gold Rush review

Charlie Chaplin is one of the names synonymous with cinema itself.
Other people like that are John Wayne, Orson Welles, and Humphrey Bogart. People so deeply ingrained in the mythology of movies, that without them it seems as if film would cease to exist. They're the stars and directors of the "greatest" films ever made. People who embody the spirit and face of old Hollywood. They make what we consider to be classics. They were the Martin Scorseses and Al Pacinos of the past. Often, people seem to brush off classic movies as the kind of stuffy and obsolete garbage that snobby film professors drool over. What these people forget, is why these movies were deemed "classic" in the first place. They were entertaining, very well made, and they stood the test of time. Charlie Chaplin's 1925 picture, The Gold Rush, is one of these movies. It's listed on the AFI's Top 100 list and Sight & Sound's Top 250 films list. However, one should never judge how good a movie is by what others think of it. If a movie is heavily lauded by critics, there is a good chance it's a terrific film. But it's always important to form your own opinions on movies. The Gold Rush is one of those films that is just as good as its Rotten Tomatoes score (which is 100% if you were wondering). I spent the entirety of the movie with a big dumb grin on my face. I've only seen one other Charlie Chaplin film before, The Kid. It was quite good, but he's only improved with The Gold Rush. It's just as light and fun as it is genius and dramatic. Even though not one word of dialogue is spoken, I wasn't bored for a minute. The basic plot of The Gold Rush is Chaplin's classic character, The Little Tramp, takes to Alaska in the late 1800's to strike gold and get rich. In the process, he makes several friends and has some fun. In one particular scene, Chaplin sticks forks in two bread rolls and does a dance. It's classic scenes like that that keep you watching. A casual glance of any Charlie Chaplin film would make it seem like they're all sappy and light hearted. True, large chunks of the film are quite enjoyably light, but Chaplin knows how to create real drama and a character you really care about. The Tramp is comical and silly most of the time, but he's also very poor and lonely. He wears the same tattered clothing all the time and isn't so lucky with women. He dances around and makes many jokes, but he also has to go home and freeze and starve half to death in a shabby cabin that isn't even his. At one point in the movie, The Tramp must shovel for hours to make enough money to throw a New Years Eve dinner for some new friends. When the night finally comes, they all forget to show up. He's a sad character, but he's also always somewhat happy. And Chaplin never gives you a bitter and morose ending. That's the beauty of these films. They can be happy, sad, and exciting, but they always end making you feel warm and good. The Gold Rush reminds you of the magic of the movies, if you needed reminding. How they can make you feel, and just how damn good they really are. The Gold Rush is fun for all ages. Adults will  appreciate the character of The Tramp and his trials and troubles. The kids will love his funny slapstick. Everyone will enjoy the movie as a whole. If you can't understand why critics love these movies so much, watch one. Then you'll understand. Happy Viewing. If you haven't already, you should follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!

The Wind Rises review

Who knew an animated movie about planes could be so damn touching.
I have never seen a Hayao Miyazaki film until now. I am a bit ashamed of this fact, but it is true. People have always raved about Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke, I just never got into any of it. After watching his newest film, The Wind Rises, I know I've been making a huge mistake. The Wind Rises was pretty terrific. It's about a budding young aviation expert and engineer named Jiro Horikoshi. When Jiro was a child, he dreamt of airplanes. They fascinated him on another level. Then he grows up and works for a company making planes for the Japanese and German governments. He is a genius, having the best mind for aeronautics in the entire company. Jiro tries to be a successful engineer, while also having a personal life and keeping a sane in a world filled with war and hurt. Soon he finds love, but many obstacles stand in his way. This is the story of Jiro Horikoshi. This is The Wind Rises. As I said before, I am in no way versed in the works of Hayao Miyazaki. So I wasn't familiar with his style or anything like that. In fact, the only reason I saw this movie in the first place was because it got nominated for Best Animated Film and was supposed to be good. I had medium expectations because I never really was a fan of anime. Yet, The Wind Rises "rose" to any expectations I had and made me just stare in wonder at the movie screen. Which is fitting because in a way, The Wind Rises is all about wonder. Wonder and dreams and even movies themselves. Tragedy too, but mostly wonder. Jiro is captivated by aviation and engineering as soon as he comes in contact with it. His awe and wonder is 100% genuine. He compares planes to dreams, and they appear in his dreams. It may seem far fetched, but I think  Miyazaki is talking about his (or anyone's) love of film. I completely related to Jiro's love and fascination of aviation, except with movies instead. It made a lot of sense to me. It could be that I am just unconsciously projecting my own thoughts and persona into the story. If that's the case (which it most likely is), I applaud Miyazaki even more. To make a film so emotionally relatable is amazingly hard. What he has done, is created a movie about wonder and the importance of dreams. Then pumped the movie with hope and a good story, to create the ultimate cathartic film. The movie has many dream sequences throughout it, often really helping display its themes. One in particular, shows Jiro looking in amazement as his idea for a plane be brought to life through the power of his dreams. Anyone who has ever made a film, or really done anything creative, can relate to this. The sense of sheer joy at seeing your creation come alive, even if it's just in a particularly vivid dream. All the use of hope and wonder is great, but it'd be useless without a decent story and the other things that make a good movie. Luckily, The Wind Rises has all these things. And it does them quite well.  It also keeps a nice balance between whimsy and historical tragedy, not blurring the lines between them and not going overkill on either one. Keep in mind, although this is an animated movie, it isn't necessarily for your kids. While it has a lot of wonderful visuals and things that they may enjoy, it's also about World War II and tuberculosis. The story is sad at times, but it's also a great story. Occasionally it borders on overplaying the emotion factor, but it never actually does overplay it. The voice actors are great at breathing life into the story too. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very solid as Jiro, as he usually is. Emily Blunt teams up with her Looper co-star as his love interest, Nahoko. Mae Whitman plays Jiro's sister, but she came off very whiny and annoying. Maybe that's just the "little sister" character, but it didn't make her any less grating. Frozen won Best Animated Film at the Oscars. I haven't seen it, and it probably is good, but I highly doubt it's better than The Wind Rises. And I do wish this had taken home the award, however impossible that may be. The Wind Rises is as successful in storytelling and thematic tools as practically any of the better films of last year. Apparently, this is Hayao Miyazaki's last movie. This makes me quite sad, for I'm just getting started on this guy. Happy Viewing everyone. Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.