Edge of Tomorrow review

Tom Cruise is awesome. Stop trying to deny it.
When Edge of Tomorrow started its marketing campaign it very much came across as a run-of-the-mill sci-fi action flick that was probably going to be very mediocre. The only reason I was interested in it was because of the cast and the director. Doug Liman, though he's had a few shaky movies since, is the director of the excellent first Jason Bourne film. Emily Blunt was terrific in Looper, and I was looking forward to seeing her do a science fiction flick again. Tom Cruise, despite all the hate he gets, is one of my favorite actors and I'll watch him in practically anything. Plus, Tomorrow is written by The Usual Suspects scribe Christopher McQuarrie. Sure, the trailers looked very bleak and stale. But with the people involved, how could it go wrong? The answer is, it couldn't. Edge of Tomorrow is a fun, exciting, and just really awesome movie. It's the kind of summer blockbuster fare we should be seeing in the movie theaters. It's about William Cage (Tom Cruise) for the army. Aliens have invaded Earth and he's trying to sell the war to the public. A series of events lands him unprepared in the thick of battle. Soon, he dies. But reaction with alien blood makes him relive the same day over and over when he dies. What follows is one of the best action movies of the year. Although Tom Cruise has made some impressive dramatic turns in films like Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July, recently he's been mainly an action star. Cruise is always able to bring an air of suave badassery to his action pictures. Here, he not only carries that action star persona, but exercises his serious dramatic acting chops as well. The guy is extremely capable of carrying a movie and he shows that here. Yet, he doesn't need to carry the film on his shoulders. Emily Blunt is excellent here. She plays this sort of Joan of Arc type solider who helps Cruise's character defeat the alien onslaught. She's funny, cool, and perfectly delivers some of the films best dialogue. Of course, these great performances wouldn't be much without a script. I can enjoy a decent action flick regardless of a great script. But that doesn't mean the movie will be very good. A film with solid and believable characters and good dialogue can only be good. Edge of Tomorrow is filled with great set pieces and edge-of-your-seat action, but it has a damn good script also. Christopher McQuarrie is a more than capable screenwriter. He's done some great stuff, but he's also done some not so great stuff. This movie is him at his peak. Everything just clicks. The premise may seem a little familiar, and it is. Movies like Groundhog Day have dealt with the living the same day over and over again plot before. And the whole alien thing is nothing new. It's the way McQuarrie crafts his story and his characters that make this film seem fresh. Not only is the film tense and awesome, it's actually very funny. I found myself laughing out loud at some scenes. Weirdly enough, the comedy doesn't feel out of place at all. The terrific cast certainly helps with that also. Doug Liman hasn't really made a great movie in a number of years. Luckily, this is his comeback film. Liman seamlessly directs the action sequences. A movie like this could fall into a jumbled incoherent mess under a different director (think McG with Terminator Salvation). Liman makes it work really, really well. Edge of Tomorrow may seem like just a summer blockbuster, and that is what it is. But it's more than that. It's a good summer blockbuster. Really good. Most big movies seem like they put in human characters and emotion just because they have to. This movie seems like the characters and emotion are in there because the makers of the movie actually want them in there. It's fun and all, but it's also a solid movie on its own. I give Edge of Tomorrow 4.3 out of 5 stars. Remember, to keep up with my reviews and movie stuff in general you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.    

Aguirre, the Wrath of God review

There are few things I appreciate more in a movie than ambition.
Big, grand landscapes and bigger and grander ideas. Movies like Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey that strive to be something more and succeed in doing so. I think that's why I liked Werner Herzog's 1972 film, Aguirre, the Wrath of God, so much. The movie tells about a failed Spanish expedition to El Dorado. The trip is initially led by Gonzalo Pizarro (Alejandro Repulles). After things start to break down, he sends Don Pedro de Ursa (Ruy Guerra) and Lope de Aguirre (the titular character, played awesomely by Klaus Kinski) on a separate party to search out El Dorado. Things go bad quickly and Aguirre mutinies, overthrowing Pedro de Ursa. Lope de Aguirre then begins his descent into insanity, bringing his entire crew with him. So, before I saw this film, I knew director Werner Herzog only by his role in the Tom Cruise actioner Jack Reacher and by the few documentaries he's made. I had no idea what to expect. I had heard very good things about this movie, but I didn't really know what I was getting into. That was probably a good thing. Aguirre, the Wrath of God is beautiful, horrifying, and deliberately strange. After I watched it, I had no idea what to make of it. Honestly, I didn't even decide if I liked it until a few days after seeing the film. I think that's good. Most great movies take time before they make their presence and meaning clear to you. They seep into your bones and invade your consciousness. I love big Hollywood blockbusters as much as the next guy. Yet, most of them are missing the towering cerebral quality that movies like this have. What's really interesting is how sparsely written this film is. Apparently, Herzog didn't figure out the dialogue for some scenes until moments before shooting. I've never said this for any movie before, but the dialogue doesn't matter for Aguirre. Werner Herzog's hypnotic images of the Amazon are enough on their own. Paired with the ambition and ideals of it's main character, this film makes for an intimidating watch. Watching this movie gave me actual chills down my spine. I've never seen any movies Herzog has directed before. But by seeing just this I can tell he is a fantastic director. The score, by German group Popul Vuh, plays a big part here. It's frightening and cold, yet hopeful and heavenly at the same time. It fits the movie so, so well. The opening scene shows looming mountains, shrouded by thick white clouds. The score sings like a choir of angels from hell. Herzog's camera cuts to below the clouds where the army of Spaniards make their way down the dangerous mountain pass. Without the music alone it's haunting. With the score, it stays in your memory long after the credits have rolled. I can't finish this review without pointing out Klaus Kinski's awesome performance. Here he's playing an insane man, and I've never seen anyone do it quite like this. His eyes blankly look into the camera and his face twitches. Every aspect of this film is hauntingly beautiful in its own way. Kinski's performance is no exception. Aguirre, the Wrath of God seems like it's too ambitious and messy to work. Under less skilled hands, the film would collapse under its own weight. With Herzog, Kinski, and Popul Vuh; the movie becomes a masterpiece of epic proportions. I recommend it for sure, but don't be too quick to form an opinion on the film. Let it soak for a while. Then, you may understand it's insane genius. Happy Viewing. You can like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies and follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies.

X-Men: Days of Future Past review

Summer. The time for movies with big explosions, big stars, and bigger budgets. Often, these movies are shameless CGI fests with barely a plot (I'm looking at you The Amazing Spider-Man 2). Once in a while, a film will come around that not only satisfies our hunger for things blowing up, but also is a good movie in general. The newest X-Men film does that. X-Men: Days of Future Past is the newest installment in the canon of X-Men films. It's set in a dreary post-apocalyptic future where mutants are being hunted by giant super-robots called Sentinels. The plot involves one of the mutants, Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), sending Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to the early 1970's to stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage). Trask is the scientist who invents the Sentinels and killing him would only kick start the mutant hunting program and ensure the mutants a dark and painful future. Plus, there's a bunch of other stuff that happens involving more time travel and mutant stuff that I don't need to mention here. I know, that sounds incredibly convoluted. Movies about time travel often fall victim to being convoluted, even more so when you throw in a bunch of superheros and government plots. Yet, somehow X-Men: Days of Future Past doesn't feel convoluted and overtly confusing at all. It glides along at a pace rarely seen in a Bryan Singer movie, and doesn't stumble at the parts when things get tricky. It's probably Singer's most confidently directed film since The Usual Suspects. Best of all? It's fun. Like, really fun. Most of the past X-Men flicks have been too serious for their own good. The X-Men comics are very funny and tongue and cheek. A dark, serious tone doesn't work all that well for it. That's why the last film, X-Men: First Class was so great. Sure, it kept a straight face during the intense battle sequences and moments of extreme duress, but it never forgot to relax and smile a bit either. Bryan Singer never seemed to be able to fully grasp that concept in his X-Men movies. Not to say they were all bad. X-Men 2 was decent and fun, but it still had many issues. It seems Singer has learned a thing or two since then. X-Men: Days of Future Past is probably the best X-Men film since First Class. I sincerely mean that. It balances tension and comedy marvelously. The actors here are all at their best. Michael Fassbender, who's mostly a dramatic actor, plays his character with an expertise rarely seen in superhero films. James McAvoy is doing the same. My only complaint on the acting spectrum is Nicholas Hoult. He didn't do a bad job, but he really didn't stand out either. Hoult just kind of looks surprised and gasps when needed. The script didn't give him a whole lot to do, so it's not entirely his fault, but he could have tried a little harder. The screenplay itself dealt with the plot and characters very, very well. I've seen time travel movies butcher themselves from problems with that. This movie dances around it's time travel anomalies quite well. Despite all those great things, the dialogue here wasn't very good at all. It wasn't actively atrocious, but it came out very cliche and flat. Some memorable lines include "No!" and "Why did you abandon us!". I couldn't help but chuckle a bit at parts. Other than that I thought the movie was incredibly solid and super (pun very much intended) entertaining. I really liked how they set this film in the 70's. It worked really well with the characters and material. As I said above, the fun and light vibe is so much better for the X-Men films than the dark and brooding. That's why the last two films have been, in my opinion, the best of the series. Superhero movies are meant  to be enjoyable popcorn entertainment. Yet, they also need a heart and some actual plot that's at least somewhat original. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 couldn't do any of that, and that's why it was bad. X-Men: Days of Future Past was able to pretty much completely achieve equal levels of entertainment and emotional and thematic weight. I'll admit it. I kind of loved this movie. It was good. The ending (which I won't spoil) did irk me a little, but I can let it slide in favor of the rest of the movie. This isn't the best movie of the year, but it certainly isn't the worst. And it probably will end up being the best superhero film of the year. If you want to have some fun at the theater, this is the movie to see. I give X-Men; Days of Future Past 4 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing. Also, if you haven't done so already: you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. 

Eyes Wide Shut review

I'm just going to get this out of the way right now, this is not the kind of movie you want to watch with your mother. Stanley Kubrick is a universally renowned cinematic genius. Practically everyone acknowledges that the guy is seriously good at making movies. Whether it's Barry Lyndon or Full Metal Jacket, his movies are always expertly crafted and very interesting. I count him as one of the best directors ever. He's made some of my all-time favorite films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. The one film of his that really seems to polarize people is his last, Eyes Wide Shut. Whenever I'd talk to people who had seen this movie, they'd scoff and exclaim how it's a "bad" film and that Kubrick was off his rocker when he made it. I just recently watched Eyes Wide Shut and I can honestly say it is in no way his worst film. Nor is it a "bad" film. I can see why people wouldn't like it though. It's about a New York doctor named Bill Harford (Tom Cruise). He lives a comfortable and happy existence with his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) and young daughter (Madison Eginton). One night, Alice reveals to Bill that she once almost had an affair. She tells him that she was willing to give away everything, her family and job included, just to sleep with this man. Understandably shaken by all this, Bill goes off into the streets of NYC on a surreal journey of sex, exploring the deepest depths of the human soul. Sorry about the long synopsis, but I feel it's necessary to really understand what I'm talking about with this movie. So, as I was saying, I can understand why people didn't like Eyes Wide Shut. It's filled with some very uncomfortable scenes involving very uncomfortable, uh, physical acts of love. This can be a bit unnerving. Believe me, I was quite unnerved. At times it almost seemed like Stanley Kubrick was trying to make the audience as uncomfortable and scared as possible. There's one scene involving a very strange masquerade party that will probably be forever engraved in my mind. Although that's not entirely a bad thing. Kubrick is trying to make us really look at this movie and ask, "What exactly is right?". Is Cruise's protagonist a good person? Does he have morals? I'm not entirely sure. This film is really delving into the human mind and ultimately asking "What makes us tick?". People who have an immediate negative knee-jerk reaction to this movie obviously need to think about it more before making a final opinion. Right after I watched this movie, I didn't have an opinion. I still needed to digest it all. After some time, I've decided Eyes Wide Shut is a few hairs short of a great movie. It's incredibly well directed and well made. Kubrick's direction is as sharp as ever. He seems to be especially attracted to tracking shots of characters here, and it works very well. The guy always is doing interesting things with the camera. Few directors are as technically creative as Stanley Kubrick. He never really focuses on his actors in most of his films. He directs his actors spectacularly here. He lingers on the hurt confusion that envelops Tom Cruise's face. The look of jealousy and lust on Nicole Kidman. Eyes Wide Shut is a delicate machine. Kept well oiled and with all parts correctly working, it does it'd job wonderfully. If one little piece fell out of place, the movie would fall to shambles. Luckily, that is not the case. Many people give Tom Cruise a lot of crap for his personal life. Because of this, his acting is often overlooked. He's given some terrific performances in films like Born on the Fourth of July and Tropic Thunder. His performance here is no exception. His character, Dr. Bill Harford, is confused and scared. Things are going incredibly badly for him, and he's not even sure what's real anymore. Cruise's performance is subtle, and that's why it works so well. Nicole Kidman does a good job as well, playing equal parts jealous wife and loving and caring partner. This movie reminded me a lot of Martin Scorsese's 1985 film After Hours. It's a night-long odyssey into the dirty trenches of a hellish New York City. The difference being the protagonist in After Hours, played by Griffin Dunne, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cruise's character is deliberately plunging himself into this nightmare. That makes it almost all the more interesting, and all the more surreal. Eyes Wide Shut is the kind of film that will certainly get better with repeat viewings. I haven't even completely figured it out yet, but I know there's more to it that I didn't even pick up on yet. This isn't Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, but I can tell it's exactly the movie he wanted to make. This is the vision as Kubrick imagined it. And that itself is enough to admire. Happy Viewing. If you haven't done so already, please follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Thanks!

Crimes and Misdemeanors

If The Coen Brothers and Woody Allen joined consciences and then made a movie, that movie would be Crimes and Misdemeanors. And I mean that in the best way possible. Woody Allen is the king of comedy in my mind. There scenes in his 1977 film, Annie Hall, that make me laugh harder than practically anything else. I love his brand of cynical New York humor. It really clicks with me. What I particularly like, is when he acts in his own movies. No one delivers his dialogue better than himself. His role in Hannah and Her Sisters is one of the funniest and more brilliant comic performances I may have ever seen. I really do love his comedies. It's his dramatic stuff that I'm not such a fan of. I was incredibly disappointed with his newest movie, Blue Jasmine. It felt very stuffy and seemed to take itself a little too seriously. Although many people love it, I was more than let down with his 2005 film, Match Point. Although I'd be willing to rewatch it and see what I think now. I was a little worried about Crimes and Misdemeanors. It was supposed to be slightly more dramatic than his earlier stuff. Woody's drama work has never wowed me, so I was very cautious when going into this movie. I shouldn't have been. Crimes and Misdemeanors blends taught drama and side splitting comedy like few films I've ever seen. It works so well on so many different levels. Allen knows exactly what he wants to say, and boy, does he say it well. It's about a successful ophthalmologist, Dr.Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), who is having an affair with an unstable women named Dolores (Anjelica Huston). Things with Dolores are going south for him, and she is starting to threaten his own life and marriage, so Judah must do something drastic. And do it fast. Meanwhile, a struggling documentary filmmaker, Clifford Stern (Woody Allen), has fallen in love with another women (Mia Farrow). In a nutshell, Crimes and Misdemeanors is about infidelity (a reoccurring theme in Allen's movies), morality, and the human condition. But Allen deals with these films in a joking and wonderful manner, never taking himself too seriously. That's what makes this film work so well. It reminded me of a Coen Brothers film in the sense that it develops a near perfect balance between a comedy flick and a dark crime thriller. Similar to something like Fargo, Barton Fink, or Blood Simple. There are moments, for example, when Clifford Stern makes a documentary on Alan Alda's character. A phony television producer, Lester. The film put's Lester in a negative light. This angers him so much he fires Clifford. You see him later walking in a park with Mia Farrow saying "What was he so angry for? You'd no one had ever compared him to Mussolini before." It's a very funny scene. But it's paired with murder, adultery, suicide, and serious philosophical questions. In the hands of a more inept director and writer, this would turn into an uneven mess. With Woody Allen in charge, it becomes a something truly great. Martin Landau's plight seems dark and even claustrophobic. The plight of Woody Allen's character is like something out of a Woody Allen movie. Who knew they'd go together so well? Crimes and Misdemeanors asks "Who is right in this situation?" "Who is the hero?" "Is anyone to be trusted?" The answer to those questions? Well, I'll let you watch the movie.  Overall, Crimes and Misdemeanors is a fantastic outing by the neurotic master of comedic infidelity, Woody Allen. Great acting, a sharp screenplay, and terrific direction make this a modern classic. I'm sure it's one for everyone will enjoy. Me? I'm just looking forward to when I can watch this again. Remember! You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing.        

Under The Skin review

If Eraserhead-era David Lynch time traveled to today and directed a movie about aliens, I imagine it would look somewhat like Under The Skin. Except it probably wouldn't be as good as the actual movie is.

In old cheesy sci-fi flicks, and even in some more recent movies, aliens are always humanoid. They may have purple skin or weird space suits, but they always resemble humans to a fault. Whether in appearance, language, or technology, it seems science fiction writers can't get away from humanity when creating an alien race. Under The Skin doesn't have this problem. The extraterrestrial in Under The Skin takes the form of a Scarlett Johansson-looking Scot, but underneath it's something completely different. Something alien to our world. With thoughts, needs, and desires completely different than that of any human. I think it's the fact that this movie addresses how strange and alien actually aliens would be that makes it so interesting. It also addresses how strange and alien our world and culture would look to an outsider. Director Jonathan Glazer and his leading lady, Scarlett Johansson, portray these factors with the utmost skill and strangeness. Under The Skin is technically about an alien on Earth taking men and harvesting them for some unknown purpose. But that's not really important. The film is really about fear, confusion, and humanity itself. Big themes, I know. But this movie isn't afraid of big themes. What it really embraces are the big questions. The main protagonist here, Scarlett Johansson's alien character, spends a decent chunk of the film driving around Scotland to pick up men and then bring them back to her apartment where they're never seen again. When she first meets a guy, she always asks if he's alone. Whether he has a family, if he's traveling with anyone, does he have any friends. She wants to take people that won't cause a ruckus if they drop off the face of the Earth one day. She asks if they're alone. In life maybe they are, but not in the universe. When the movie starts out, Johansson has all the power. These men she finds are practically drooling at her to the point where they die, blinded by her hypnotic beauty. As the film progresses, she starts to lose this power. You can see her character scared and confused by people and Earth in general. At one point she trips in the street and passers-by rush to help her, the look of confusion is incredibly telling of her character. Scarlett Johansson barely speaks at all in the movie, but she deserves an Oscar simply for the way she communicates through her face. Whether she's utterly emotionless, or horribly frightened and confused, Johansson gives a marvelous performance. This may sound ridiculous, but I think it's the most honest portrayal of an alien that's ever been captured on film. Aliens probably wouldn't be all-knowing and confident. They're like snakes: dangerous, but more scared of us than we are of them. Things we take for granted like eating and even just regular human interaction become odd and even scary to an alien. Johansson embodies this horrified confusion so, so well The person involved with this movie I have to applaud most is writer and director Jonathan Glazer. His direction here is breathtaking. Every shot is clear and beautiful, haunting and meaningful. The imagery here is flawless. Just the shots of the Scottish countryside are awe-inspiring. The way he holds the seemingly meaningless shots like a hand tapping to music or an ant crawling, make those shots seem as important as the entire movie. And in some ways, they are. Glazer uses single shots to paint an entire picture and deliver so much emotion and information. He doesn't need dialogue. The last scene has been burned into my mind since I watched this last night, and that's saying something about the power of cinema. Many people have deemed this film as Kubrickian. I'm a huge Stanley Kubrick fan myself, but I don't really see a connection. I think people were trying to connect this and 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is understandable but wrong. They're two great films, but two completely different films. The only thing Kubrick-esque about Under The Skin is it's pacing. In most of his movies like Barry Lyndon and 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick has this very slow, yet very riveting and deliberate pacing. Glazer uses a similar technique here. When watching this, I was in between deeply enthralled and utterly bored. And I mean that in the best possible way. Nothing is really happening, yet it feels like something profound and horrific will happen soon. I literally was on the edge of my seat most of the movie. If anything, Under The Skin is completely original. I have never seen a movie, technically and narrative-wise, like Under The Skin. It's completely it's own. One more thing. This film is an all around sensory experience, and I highly recommend you see it in the theater while you can. It's not just visuals. The soundtrack is incredibly eerie and it's use of sound in general is spectacular. Overall it's a very well-made movie. It marries it's sounds and images in such an amazing way, that it all permeates your soul. That sounds very pretentious and a little ridiculous but it's 100% true. In a world of reboots and The Amazing Spider Man 2, maybe that's just what we need. This film is in no way for everyone. Some may find it too weird. Some may find it boring. I found it riveting, original, and even a little prophetic. I believe that's enough to deem this a great movie. Or at least one we should be thinking and talking about. I give Under The Skin 4.8 out of 5 stars. Now stop reading my review and go see the movie! Remember to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.          

Barton Fink review

Barton Fink is sort of the long-lost soul child to Adaptation. Yeah, that seems about right.
For a writer, the worst antagonist, enemy, and foe to do battle with is the blank page. Vast, blank, and intimidating. All those ideas that once bustled and inhabited the busy streets of your conscious mind have long since deserted you. And now you must face the dreaded blank page. The Coen Brother's 1991 film, Barton Fink, is kind of about the fearful blank-page battle. But it's also about so much more. The movie is about a somewhat successful playwright from Brooklyn in 1941, the titular character, Barton Fink (John Turturro). Barton is hired by a big shot producer (Michael Lerner) to write a write a wrestling picture over in Hollywood, despite having never worked on a movie before in his life. He's put up in a shoddy hotel with a nosy but kind neighbor named Charlie (John Goodman), who's "damned interested" in what Barton has to say. When Fink tries to write, he finds he's all blocked up. And that, is when the trouble really begins. I'm a little bit of a huge Coen Brothers fan. I even consider The Big Lebowski and Fargo to be two of my all-time favorite movies. So, it's no surprise to me how much I liked Barton Fink. I've loved practically every thing I've seen by The Coen's, but recently their style has changed ever so slightly. I really liked Inside Llewyn Davis, True Grit, and A Serious Man but they were all departures from the Coen's of Fargo and The Big Lebowski. Burn After Reading was the only one of their newer works to come close to the feel of their older stuff. Their newer films are really good, just different. Barton Fink feels very much like a movie made by Joel and Ethan Coen. I mean that as a sincere compliment. It's stamped with their trademark sharp dialogue (one scene involving private investigators was so funny and well written I practically burst out of my chair laughing) and strange characters, with their usual cool and inventive camera work. It's textbook Coen, yet at the same time it's one of the more original things they've ever done. It feels so much like them, but it's also very fresh and very new. Not that they are ever really stale and old. What I'm saying, is this is so very much a film by Joel and Ethan Coen, but it's not predictable and repetitive of their other works. Barton Fink is a very strange and surreal movie. The ending in particular is up for interpretation. I could go on for hours debating if it's a metaphor for Barton's inner mind or is it a metaphor for hell or what certain things mean, but what would be the point? It's a portrait of a writer, a funny cynical look at Hollywood, and a good old fashioned murder story all wrapped into one. It's like The Coen Brothers got together with Alfred Hitchcock and Billy Wilder and made this movie. And the results are fantastic. In the film, Fink wants to write something from the depths of his soul that will change the way we watch movies and theater. He wants to create a whole new kind of theater for the common man, all while pleasing the critics. The big shot Hollywood producers want him to write a crowd-pleaser filled with all action sequences. The film of Barton Fink isn't exactly either of those, but it is a nice mixture of both. The entire movie is filled with great things. From the whip-smart screenplay to the highly impressive direction. The performances are top-notch too. John Turturro plays Barton Fink quite well and Michael Lerner is hilariously good as the over-the-top movie producer. It's John Goodman who really steals show. He plays a (seemingly) insignificant character by the name of Charlie Meadows, a traveling insurance salesman with stories to tell. Goodman is terrific in his roles and always fun to watch. He's no different here. In fact, I can count his performance in Barton Fink as one of his all-time best. He's that damn good! Michael Lerner was the only actor here who got an Oscar nod, but I think Goodman truly deserved it. Barton Fink is an undisputedly weird movie. It's surrealism and character study wrapped up in a slow burning murder mystery. In no way is it for everyone. The beginning starts off slow, but once it get's going, boy does it go. I really loved Barton Fink. It's not my favorite outing from the Coen's, but it's one I surely won't forget. Because not only is it entertaining and interesting, but it's a really personal film from them and that's partially what makes it so good. If anything, Barton Fink portrays the dreaded battle with the blank page very, very well.
If you haven't already you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitMovies. Happy Viewing everyone!