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.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier review

The Winter Soldier is a pretty fitting title considering our weather recently, am I right? Right? Okay, I'm sorry. That was stupid, I know.
Captain America is the perfect superhero for today. Iron Man is cynical and sarcastic. Batman is dark and brooding. Superman, while cool, is an alien we can't really relate to. Wolverine is just too damn angry. Captain America is just a really nice guy. He's very strong and has an invincible shield, but at the end of the day he's just a kid from the 40's trying to do the right thing. We can learn a lot from a guy like that. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the best comic book movie since The Dark Knight Rises, and Marvel's best film since The Avengers. It's fun, entertaining, thematically heavy, and just awesome. It's not perfect, and the editing gets a bit messy at the end, but damn is it fun. Captain America 2 is about Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) adjusting back to life in the real world. It's also a little bit about saving the world and stopping a big conspiracy within SHIELD, but mostly it's about him trying to return to normal after waking up about 70 years in the future. He tries to get a girlfriend and live life normally, but all that is hard when you're a super soldier for an elite government agency. Things get even more complicated for poor Steve Rogers when a mysterious and dangerous villain working for the evil Hydra agency called The Winter Soldier comes around killing people. Life is tough for Steve Rogers. Chris Evans was never a great actor before the Captain America movies. He was pretty awful in the Fantastic Four movies, and then was in a bunch of random crap that no one saw. Finally he got critical and commercial success with Captain America: The First Avenger. It was a decent film, but no one really talked about his performance. They should. Evans portrays naive and clueless perfectly. He's playing what's essentially a glorified Boy Scout, except he does it in such a way that you really love him for it. Scarlett Johansson helps support his performance really well with hers. She plays the sarcastic and beautiful Black Widow. We last saw her play her in The Avengers. She was good, but given nothing to do. Here she's given more of a story and pushes along the film effortlessly. Her character is really funny too, and Johansson delivers the lines expertly. Resently, it seems like she's had a bit of a resurgence. She gave an awe inspiring voice performance in Her, then she did this, and most recently she starred in Under the Skin. Scarlett has always been an amazing actress, (if you don't believe me go watch Lost in Translation) but recently she's been starring in more projects. I hope she keeps it up. Samuel L. Jackson plays the exact same character he almost always plays nowadays here, but it's entertaining as hell! Jackson looks like he's having a ton of fun here. And it's tons of fun to watch him work. Robert Redford is here for a little also. He's decent and does his job, but his performance is nothing special. The obvious best part of this film is the action sequences. I could be wrong, but I think the directors must have gotten the fight coordinators from The Raid for this movie. The fight scenes are that well choreographed. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo seem born to direct super hero movies. They direct with the assurance of Joss Whedon, and their own specific style. I'm glad they're coming back for Captain America 3. I did have a few issues with this movie. For one, there were a few interlocking and continuous fight scenes towards the end. They're good, but it gets really messy. Characters start blending together and it becomes hard to see what's going on. My other problem was with the character of The Winter Soldier. He shares the title with Cap himself, yet he's barely in the movie. Besides being a henchman to the main villains, he's barely in the movie. For anyone who has read any of the comics can tell you that his character deserves better treatment than he's given here. Those are my only real complaints here. It's a really entertaining and astoundingly well done super hero flick. A huge step up from the disappointment that was last year's Iron Man 3. I came this movie very warily because of Iron Man 3, and it really was a gigantic improvement. This is a really fun film, what else can I say? I give Captain America: The Winter Soldier 4.1 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing! Remember to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies if you haven't already.      

Noah review

In the beginning there was nothing. And then there were movies, and they were good.

Noah tells the age old story of Noah's Ark. God makes man. Man turns evil. God entrusts Noah, the one good man, to build a boat and save all of the animals. Noah builds boat. God floods Earth. Humanity starts anew. We've all heard the story a million times before, and it's been made into numerous films. Why would anyone want to see it rehashed again? Believe me, if it weren't for the guy directing Noah, I would never have even considered seeing it. Darren Aronofsky is a pretty great director. I haven't seen everything he's done, but I've seen enough to know he's talented as hell and can make a damn good movie. Requiem for a Dream was the best anti-drug film I've seen since Trainspotting, and the most effective one I may have ever seen. Pi was weird, but also a work of sheer genius. Therefore, I trusted Aronofsky to make a decent film without just repeating what's already been said a million times before. Basically, I was looking to Mr. Aronofsky to do more than just tell the story. Which, despite some issues, is exactly what he has done. The film starts out in the beginning. The VERY beginning. Before everything. It goes on to tell the basic history leading up to Noah himself. God creating the world, Adam and Eve eating the apple, and Cain killing Abel. Cain spawned a whole civilization load of ancestors, all of them horrible criminals and barbarians. Only Seth, Cain's other brother, was able to have some decent offspring. The last of the line of Seth, is Noah and his family. They are an honest and devout people in a strange world of scavengers, cannibals, and warriors. Noah's family lives a life of wandering, just getting enough food to survive. All while fighting off bandits and various undesirable people. That is, until Noah has a dream. In the dream, God tells him to build an ark. So, he does. Noah builds the ark with the help of some giant fallen angels, called The Watchers, and after some intense battles with some of the sons of Cain, the Earth floods and he sets sail. Obviously, at this point Aronofsky needs to create some real story. Noah just chilling on a boat for two hours wouldn't really cut it. So, he adds in some drama like having Noah's adopted daughter get pregnant. And there's a stowaway on the ship. All that does feel a tad contrived, but it's not for naught. While uneven feeling at times, these events move the story along at a quick pace and allow for the movie to go places where it really does need to go. The plot can get messy, but Aronofsky is skilled enough to clean up what he can towards the end. Plus, his near flawless direction helps a lot. There's also a sub plot involving Noah's son Ham that I found to be fairly interesting and well done. Noah relies heavily on CGI for its visuals, but Aronofsky uses the CGI very well. CGI in the wrong hands can result in something like Transformers 3 or the Star Wars prequels. Darren Aronofsky om the other hand, uses his CGI to make beautifully striking images of the vast and expansive ocean that covers the Earth and the universe that lies beyond. He handles this movie more like it's a fantasy epic, and less like a Bible story. Which in turn makes it more interesting and much more admirable. Anyone can adapt a Bible story, it's been done since movies were invented. But I've yet to see someone be so creative and brave when making a biblical film. It feels incredibly clunky at parts and it's messy at times, but in the end it's kind of astounding. I walked out of the theater feeling hopeful. Not necessarily for humanity, but for the movie industry. Noah is a project Aronofsky is obviously passionate about. Because of his deep commitment to the project, and the amount of money he was given, Noah has become something more than a Biblical epic or church movie. Something else entirely. Aronofsky has humanized the character of Noah. He's made him angry, and scared, and a little bit insane. He's not the Bible thumping do-gooder portrayed in those Sunday school cartoons. He's a damaged man holding on to the weak threads reality, like many of the characters in Aronofsky's films. That's what makes this movie so powerful and so awesome. Russell Crowe gives a stellar performance in the title role, which certainly helps. Noah building his ark is a portrayed as a massive undertaking that takes a lot of faith, passion, and time. The film is a lot like that, with Darren Aronofsky as Noah. Unsure of his success, he goes forth with the massive project of making something grand. I think it's safe to say he has succeeded. Whether you're a devout believer or not doesn't matter, Noah is much more than a Bible movie and can be experienced as so. It's far from perfect, but it's the best job that probably can be done. I applaud Aronofsky for his skill and effort. Noah isn't his best film, but it's his most ambitious and it's certainly his biggest. I can congratulate him on ambition alone, the fact that he has succeeded in some sense is really astounding. So yes, the movie is good. I give Noah 3.9 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing. If you haven't done so already, you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.      

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 Grand Budapest Hotel review

The Grand Budapest Hotel is quite 'grand'. Although I am trying to be funny and use a pun with the movie's title, it's still a fairly accurate thing to say. The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson's most ambitious movie to date. It's grand in its scale and vision. It has a large and epic story, spanning years, yet feeling very small indeed. The film is like some strangely wonderful adventure film that one would get if they were to mix North By Northwest and The Thomas Crown Affair and then stick it in Wes Anderson's subconscious. It succeeds on all counts. Mainly because of the artistic genius of writer/director Wes Anderson. Anderson is one of my favorite filmmakers. I put him up there with greats like Martin Scorsese, Spike Jonze, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Woody Allen. He's great at capturing quirky little slices of life somewhere, and then infusing it with his wonderfully distinct style I've come to know so well. I love every Anderson film, mostly because of how much I enjoy and appreciate his style. His most critically lambasted film, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, is actually one of my favorites. Partially because of how evident his style is in it, and partially because I felt it had so much to say. Too often, Wes Anderson's movies are called 'light' or 'fun but meaningless'. This couldn't be further from the truth. Every one of his movies has tons to say. The Grand Budapest Hotel has a lot to say. But it's also really entertaining, incredibly well made, imaginative, and filled with that awesome Anderson style. The film starts out with a young girl opening a book titled "The Grand Budapest Hotel". Then it shows an old writer, played by Tom Wilkinson, talking about his time at the hotel. Then it goes to years earlier. The writer is much younger (now being played by Jude Law), and talks to the hotel's owner named Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham) about his time at the hotel in its prime and how he came to own it. So begins the expansive and exciting tale of M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and a young Zero throughout pre-war Europe. Involving murder, intrigue, love, art thievery, prison break, and of course, The Grand Budapest Hotel in all of its Anderson-esque glory. As you may be able to tell, I absolutely loved The Grand Budapest Hotel. I may even call it Wes Anderson's best film to date. Here, Anderson has crafted a pitch perfect and wonderful film that is so much fun to watch. But it's also about pre-war troubles and fear, love, and imagination. What's really great here is Anderson's wonderful sense of ambitious vision. He has created a concise and beautiful world, that isn't actually as beautiful as it looks at second glance. Ominous soldiers, roadblocks, and eerie and murderous strangers (played classically by Willem Dafoe). The world of 'Grand Budapest' is sort of like the hotel itself: Pretty and grand on the outside, with it's own seedy underbelly. Anderson makes it all work so damn well. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson has succeeded with everything he failed to do in 2004's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and 2009's Fantastic Mr. Fox. Don't get me wrong, I adored both of those movies with all my heart and rank them as some of my favorite films, but every issue they have Anderson addresses and fixes in this picture. The Life Aquatic was ambitious and action packed and made great use out of Anderson's auter style. Yet, the film occasionally dragged and some of the sequences felt off. I loved it, but it wasn't perfect. The Grand Budapest Hotel is as imaginatively and technically ambitious, if not more so, as The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. But it's done in a much better and more efficient way. It's character's are also more developed and much more interesting than the other ones in his films. The casting certainly helps. The film is chock full of celebrities with everyone from Jude Law to Tom Wilkinson. It's filled with Anderson regulars like Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman, and also great actors new to his films like Ralph Fiennes and Jude Law. Ralph Fiennes give's a terrific and commanding performance in the movie's lead. Newcomer Tony Revolori is more than decent as his sidekick. Harvey Keitel shows up for a funny and very entertaining role as a bald and tattooed thug. 'Grand Budapest', while large in scale, also manages to create a small dollhouse type atmosphere that is evident in other Anderson films. But it's done better. It is done very, very well. The Grand Budapest Hotel is the work of an experienced filmmaker who is more creative than all of Hollywood put together. And it is a wholly wonderful film. It would be worth seeing just for Harvey Keitel's small but great performance. Luckily, Anderson adds so much more to see. If you want to rewatch a film, halfway through watching it the first time, it is probably a damn good movie. And yes, I think I do believe this is Wes Anderson's best movie. I am certain this will make my favorite films of the year list, and I highly recommend you see it. If you have already seen it, maybe go see it again. I give The Grand Budapest Hotel 4.8 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing!

You can 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.  

Capote review

Philip Seymour Hoffman died recently. The entire world of cinema went into shock when it happened. Some of his favorite performances of mine were in The Master, The Big Lebowski, and Magnolia. He won a Best Actor Oscar in 2006 for his role in Capote. I had heard for a long while that he was great in the film, but I never brought myself to watch it. So recently I sat myself down, and watched Capote. Boy, have I been missing out. Capote was a fantastic film. It combines great acting and writing, with Zodiac-esque tension and plotting. It's expertly crafted and I really did enjoy it. The movie is part biopic and part true crime thriller. It documents a tumultuous part of writer Truman Capote's life from around 1959 to 1962 as he researches the Clutter family murders for his book, In Cold Blood. I haven't read any of Truman Capote's novels or short stories. After watching the movie, I certainly am quite interested. He was an interesting man, Hoffman's performance really capitalizes on this in the best way possible. He gets the accent perfectly. He gets all of Capote's little tics, understanding his demons and problems fully. There's one scene in particular where Truman is talking to one of the killers, seeing him off to his execution. Hoffman makes the scene as powerful as movie scenes get. Raw, emotional, and just damn terrific. He isn't inhabiting the character, he is the character. I think he one hundred percent deserved his Oscar for this, the guy was truly fantastic. I think his performance in Capote is tied with The Master for his best performances he has ever given. Catherine Keener also gives a solid performance as To Kill A Mockingbird writer and good friend of Truman Capote, Nelle Harper Lee. She does a good job of supporting Philip Seymour Hoffman, but she isn't given much of a time to really shine. Keener has little powerful moments, but isn't given even a whole scene to herself. It's not a huge problem, but Catherine Keener is a great actress who isn't used to her full potential here. Luckily, that is one of the few complaints I have with Capote. Hoffman does a spectacular job here, but the movie has many other terrific aspects to it besides his wonderful performance. For starters, it's really well directed. Bennett Miller has only directed this, Moneyball (which I unfortunately haven't seen yet), and some movie called The Cruise. I don't know how this compares with his other projects, but I can tell just from this that he is talented.The film has a very polished, yet cold, feel to it that reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Zodiac. Each scene is framed and lighted perfectly, capturing the emotions of the scene and the feel of the era. He's also great at creating a suspenseful mood for the film. Working along side him is writer Dan Futterman, who wrote a terrific and Oscar nominated screenplay for Capote. His dialogue is great, and the way he writes the story really boosts the film in a great way. Futterman humanizes his characters very well. Making Truman Capote more than a big name author and making the two murderers look like more than just evil faces on the front page of the New York Times. In the end I really felt as if I understood the plight of the criminals and of Capote's issues. The film as a whole is a haunting and absorbing slice of history that is really, really well made. Often biopics are just a series of it's subjects achievements, eventually leading up to the inevitable death of the subject. Capote overcomes those problems by focusing on just one part of Truman Capote's life and then looking at that moment in the best way possible. Some biopics, like Lincoln, are informative yet very boring. Capote is really informative yet also very entertaining and interesting. It makes me really miss Philip Seymour Hoffman and appreciate what a fantastically awesome actor he was. I highly recommend you watch it. I wouldn't be surprised if I watched it again soon. Happy Viewing guys. If you haven't already, you can like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies and follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies. Thanks!