Robot Love

Pixar, how DO you do it? How can you slap a bunch of junk and metal together and make something so adorable? WALL-E looks excellent, as usual. Another Pixar gem...yawn. Just kidding! I wonder if it ever gets tiring being so brilliant. Probably not. Anyway, I love WALL-E already. He's such a neurotic mess. And he's so cute! I just want to hug him. I can't wait for this film...and to buy a
WALL-E toy.

Impaired Vision

I'm not as well-versed in current events as I should be, but I know enough to know that American is on the verge of imploding, or possibly exploding, if the innumerable enemies we've made "saving the world" take action against us. I know how important this upcoming election is. I dutifully voted in the Illinois primary, even though Illinois always goes Democrat and would of course pick Barack Obama because he's from here and is our senator. I'm glad that a lot of Americans are finally waking up. I don't follow politics too closely, but I've never seen the primaries get so much coverage. It's electric. And it's about time people are realizing how bad things are. Maybe too little too late, though.

I don't hate America. In fact, I love America. I just hate our government and our policies and all of the stupid mistakes we've made, particularly during the Era of the Moron, or the current Bush administration. Really? He got elected for a second term? I'm still in disbelief. Anyway, I don't get how America can be so arrogant. We've only been around for a tiny fraction of the time that most nations have been around. In roughly 230 years, we've managed to wreak so much havoc. There are two illuminating documentaries that scrutinize our most grievous military/political errors - Errol Morris' The Fog of War (Vietnam), released in 2003, and Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight (Iraq), released in 2007. Yes, I love Michael Moore and think his films are brilliant, but it's a much different approach, one not necessarily geared toward mass, relatively unbiased education. Don't get me wrong, I really do love him. I just think that people seeing his films already have their minds made up. Their political views are decided. His films aren't necessarily about converting as much as amplifying your pre-existing beliefs, one way or another. His films are also more manipulative, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. People need to be manipulated out of apathy sometimes.

But if I had to pick two documentaries that are imperative for all Americans to see, the two most essential, I'd choose The Fog of War and No End in Sight. These films have very strong viewpoints, but they're accessible to a diverse audience. They're not abrasive like Michael Moore, but they still pack a furious punch. These films can definitely convert people. I won't really talk about The Fog of War anymore, because this is my review of No End in Sight. The last thing I'll say is that The Fog of War might just be the best documentary I've ever seen, and it's one of my top ten favorite films of all time. I can't wait to see Errol Morris' new film that's supposed to be released this year. It's called Standard Operating Procedure and examines the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. I smell Oscar. Errol Morris is the best documentarian ever.

No End in Sight mainly focuses on the beginning of the war in Iraq - the policies, decisions, and chain of events that have led us to the disaster we're stuck in today - but it's very comprehensive and takes you basically to the present (the present at the end of filming at least). I didn't know most of this information, so watching this was eye-opening. It made me sick. Everything just went so wrong. And a really small group of ignorant people were making blind choices that would affect millions. They still are. Most of the people interviewed in the documentary describe being intentionally kept out of the loop. There were good people, knowledgeable people, who could have helped the situation, but they were constantly thwarted. It's so depressing. We're doing to Iraq what we did to Vietnam. We totally decimated Vietnam. And for what? The United States has a tendency to fight for so long that we forget what we were fighting for in the first place. Now, we're destroying Iraq.

Why can't we just get our noses out of everyone else's business? Who made us the world police? Why is it our "duty" to bring democracy to other countries? What's so great about democracy when America is as bad as it is now? It just floors me that the government thinks we have the authority, the God-given right, to terrorize people. That's right. Americans are terrorists. That's how the rest of the world sees us. I don't understand how we can spend so much money and effort fixing another country when there's so much crime, poverty, homelessness, disease, education problems, you name it, in our own country. We certainly have no business throwing stones.

But we're so humanitarian, right? We just want to help people and bring them the beautiful gift of democracy. What about all the genocide that we let slide? Where were we when people were being slaughtered in Rwanda? I guess we only care when our economic interests are involved. If there was oil in Rwanda, we'd have been right there, instead of being air-lifted out with the embassy dog. I know I'm getting carried away, and I'm not sure I should be waving my politics around this much (extremely liberal, by the way, if you couldn't tell), but I'm so amped up after watching this film. That's how powerful it is, and it's a remarkable thing when a film does that.

No End in Sight was written, produced, and directed by first-time filmmaker Charles Ferguson. What an extraordinary accomplishment. He's obviously very passionate, but his approach is very level-headed, so you really pay attention. It seems like an unbiased recitation of the facts, and it basically is, although you can still discern his own political views. The material is wonderfully and masterfully handled. The aesthetics are great - the editing, music, cinematography. It's so meticulously constructed, and the combination of footage and interviews is perfect.

No End in Sight should be mandatory viewing for all Americans. They can start by showing it in schools. It should win the Oscar for Best Documentary this year. It's informative, provocative, moving, chilling, and downright terrifying. It's everything a great documentary should be and more. It reminds me very much of Errol Morris and specifically The Fog of War. Trust me when I say that's the highest compliment I could give a film.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

Christina Ricci, This Is Your Life

Dear Christina Ricci,

I am staging a career intervention for you. You're very talented and have given some phenomenal performances in your life, but you've been making some lousy choices lately. You're lost and confused. Here are three examples of how you've gone horribly astray:

1. Black Snake Moan - Your character is a disgrace to all women. It's disgusting. This is one of the most misogynistic pieces of crap I've ever seen, and by starring in it, you condone it.

2. Penelope - After playing a self-loathing, oversexed bitch in heat looking for a man to tame her in Black Snake Moan, now you're trying to be a role model for young girls in a PG movie? I realize this was shot before Black Snake Moan, but it's coming out after it, and it's a perplexing follow-up. What image exactly are you going for? The trailer for Penelope made me want to vomit. It looks like one of the moronic movies ever, with a gag-inducing, cringe-worthy premise. And, for all the millions the film cost, the pig nose couldn't look more fake. Skimping on the make-up department might not be a wise idea when you're making a movie about a girl with a freaking pig nose. You look ridiculous What were you thinking? Penelope looks awful, awful, awful.

3. Speed Racer - I don't care if the Wachowski Brothers are behind it. It looks stupid. Sue me.

In conclusion, stop it. Please. Just stop. Maybe it's time to get a new agent and reevaluate your career. You're better than this.

Sincerely,
A Horrified and Concerned Fan

The Review of the Film with the Longest Title in the History of Cinema by the Critic Lisa Draski

I am only typing the full name of this film once: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. There. Hereafter, it shall only be known as Assassination, which itself doesn't exactly roll over the fingertips, but it's better than the alternative. I've never been a big fan of westerns, but I think the genre has been wonderfully reinvented lately. Most notably, the Coens did it with No Country for Old Men, and Paul Thomas Anderson did it with There Will Be Blood. With Assassination, Andrew Dominik, in only his second directorial effort, has earned his place on that esteemed list. That's pretty gosh dang-tootin' impressive.

I love the new western, and I love where these people are taking it. They're less about showdowns at high noon and constant gunplay and more about deep internal conflicts, psychological drama, and meticulous character development. I didn't think I'd like Assassination at all, but it was a must-see just because of all the buzz. It's a long film. I mean, it's really long. And I think it does lag occasionally, mostly in the beginning, but it's a sprawling story that sort of quietly and confidently unravels over almost 2 hours and 45 minutes. It's a sprawling story to match the heavenly sprawling cinematography by the incomparable Roger Deakins. I believe that Dominik is in total control of the story at every second. I do think it's a tad boring at points, and maybe it could have been trimmed a little, but I think I might appreciate it more if I watch it again. Then again, it might still be a little boring. The plot also lost me sometimes. I was a bit hazy on the details and motivations every now and then. Plus, all of the supporting characters seemed to blend together, and when they'd mention someone, I'd think, "Who the heck is that?" That tends to happen to me with these testosterone fests.

Other than that, I can't find many flaws with this film, and those flaws are so minimal compared to the greatness overall that I can easily forgive them. The script is impeccable. It's based on a book by Ron Hansen and written for the screen by Dominik, and there are moments when it sounds like poetry. I was hypnotized by the words, as well as the breathtaking images. Roger Deakins is one of the best cinematographers in film history. No question about it. I can't believe he's never won an Oscar. He's a double nominee this year for this and No Country for Old Men. The cinematography is so different in them, too, even though they're both westerns. He should get an Oscar just for being so diverse. His work is fantastic in both, but Assassination is better. It's astonishing. I haven't seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly in a long time, and I still think Janusz Kaminski's work in that can't be beat, but Deakins' cinematography in Assassination rivals Kaminski's for the best of the year. It might even be better, but I'd have to see The Diving Bell and the Butterfly again to make that decision. Deakins captures every mood just right, and he's a master at hues (yellow-gold in candlelight, cool blue in the wintry landscape, blazing white in the hot sun). It's like he's rediscovering all the colors of the rainbow before our eyes. I heard someone say that each frame could be a painting because everything is so beautiful. I totally agree. It's a wonder to behold. Deakins is a true artist.

Of course, the visual style can't only be attributed to Deakins. Dominik has an incredible vision, and this is such a huge project to undertake. The scope is just mind-boggling. I really admire his finesse and expertise, and I think he's a formidable talent with lots more greatness to come. The score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis is exquisite. It's powerful, memorable, and emotional. The Oscar nominees for Best Score this year are such a joke. Where is this on that list? It makes me so mad.

I didn't want to like Casey Affleck in this film. I actually didn't for quite awhile. He's an annoying weasel. But that's the character of Robert Ford, I said to myself. But no, it was more annoying that necessary. Plus, I didn't think he did anything special. It was very average for most of the film. There are some moments of brilliance, though, and there's a very discernible character arc that's pretty amazing when you really look at it. I was really blown away by certain scenes, but he's consistently excellent in the last half hour. Overall, I think he does deserve his Oscar nomination. He certainly doesn't deserve to win, and I know there are other people I'd rather put in his place. But if I'm looking at the situation as it is and not being able to change anything...yeah, he deserves it.

However, he's not in the right category. Casey Affleck and Brad Pitt have equal screen time, and they're both leads. Someone like Sam Rockwell would be a supporting character in this film. It's similar, but trickier, with No Country for Old Men. Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, and Javier Bardem are essentially all leads, but because there are three main characters and the screen time is pretty equally divided, they're all considered supporting. I suppose it must make sense somehow to the people running the awards, like maybe it's less confusing that way, or they're trying to distribute the wealth by placing people in categories in which they have better a better chance at winning, but after tons of scientific research, I have yet to discern any real rules or patterns. I don't get how their minds work.

I know how mine works, though. In my awards, I put all three of them in the supporting category. When it gets to three or more leads, it's really ambiguous. They're either all leads, or they're all supporting. It's almost too close to call with the lead versus supporting issue for this film, so it has to be up to personal interpretation. It's a tough one. I just think where one goes, the others should follow. I believe it's more of an ensemble, and it's sort of like they're playing three aspects of one person. They're very interconnected, but they rarely interact. So that's why I'm calling them supporting performances. "Supporting" doesn't mean that they're any less important or brilliant either (all three are geniuses) - it's just a technicality. If I HAD to pick a lead in No Country for Old Men, I think it would be Tommy Lee Jones, just because of what his role means to the story. Josh Brolin would be second, and Javier Bardem would be third (even though Javier is never third in my heart...dreamy sigh). But for Academy purposes, they're all supporting performances, and for once, the Academy and I seem to be in agreement. Anyway, I'm biased, and I want Javier Bardem to win, and he wouldn't stand a chance in the Best Actor race against Daniel Day-Lewis (in the actual awards and in my own version of the awards). He owns the supporting category, and I like it that way.

Sorry for the digression. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Casey Affleck is most definitely a lead, so it's not fair that he's in the supporting category. Regardless, it's not his fault. And I'm not going to let that detract from the merit of his performance, which I think is pretty great. The real crime here is how overlooked Brad Pitt has been for his performance as Jesse James. He's phenomenal! Of what I've seen of him, this is his best work. He's charming, ruthless, and utterly convincing as the notorious criminal tortured by his inner demons and past misdeeds. It's a subtle, heartbreaking, revelatory performance. If they (meaning "the man," or awards shows) want to call these supporting roles, Brad Pitt should be nominated instead of Casey Affleck for Best Supporting Actor. Actually, I'd wager that Brad Pitt deserves a Best Actor nomination more than George Clooney. But not more than Emile Hirsch. Ahh, awards season, thou dost mock me.

Assassination utilizes a lot of narration. I initially thought it was irritating, but it grew on me. By the end, I was eating it up. I also have to mention the homosexual vibe I got from the film. This might just be my over-analytical brain at work, but I've seen so many Production Code films and have been trained by the best to look for subtext everywhere. To me, there seems to be a sexual attraction between Jesse James and Robert Ford. I think it's a fundamental part of Ford's idolization of James, but I think James eventually reciprocates the feelings. Even if I'm just imagining it, which I don't think I am, I find it fascinating.

I find so much about Assassination fascinating. This is another film that makes me want to devour all the information out there about the subject, in this case Jesse James. I really love this film. It's funny, suspenseful, surprising (which is especially remarkable considering the title tells you what's going to happen), dramatic, and moving, not to mention an exhilarating piece of cinema. The last half hour is as good as anything I've ever seen. It's absolutely genius. I'll be haunted by that last half hour and especially by the final minutes, the very ending, of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford for a long time. Hmm, I swore I wouldn't type out the whole title again. Oh well, it deserves it.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

One Size Doesn't Fit All

Death to Smoochy is as bad as you've heard. In fact, it's infinitely worse. I only saw about 15 minutes of the movie total, but that was all I could take. 10 seconds is enough to get the gist. It was like an assault on all my senses. I had to stop watching before I gouged my eyeballs, tore out my hair, and severed my ears à la van Gogh. Even then, I can't erase the inane melodies and garish visuals from my memory.

Danny DeVito directed this pathetic mess, this steaming pile of cinematic excrement, and Robin Williams and Edward Norton star in it, as Rainbow Randolph and Smoochy the Rhino respectively. Ugh. It's just vile on all levels. I think they were aiming for subversive, but they only attained stupid. Williams and Norton play wildly popular stars of children's television (in what universe, I'm not sure). These characters are so unlikeable and creepy that I think real parents would have them locked up or put on some neighborhood watch list. The only person I feel sorry for is Catherine Keener, who still tries her best and shines like she always does.

DeVito, Williams, and Norton should be ashamed. Williams and Norton don't try AT ALL. Robin Williams' career has been plummeting steadily since Good Will Hunting, and this might be the worst of the worst. I can't believe Edward Norton is in this movie. He's one of this generation's finest actors, and it's just sad to see him trapped in that miserable rhino suit. But he could have tried to make it better, you know, by ACTING, and he didn't. It's just awful.

I'll leave you with these words from the opening number, sung by Robin Williams and his midgets (the film's word, not mine). This is Rainbow Randolph's theme song. As you read the words, try to imagine Robin Williams singing in the most off-key way possible (he sounds like a moose), gyrating awkwardly to the hideous choreography, mugging painfully, and all slapped together with the worst dubbing I've possibly ever seen in a movie to the most unmelodic music ever. This particular opening fiasco is so bad that I was compelled to watch it multiple times, and then I was punished by having the song in my head for days.

"Friends come in all sizes
That's a fact! It's true!

All colors of the rainbow

from mauve to blue...

Their names may not be different

and their shoes may not match

One might say 'grasp' while the

other says 'snatch'

Some like to toss while others

like to caaaaaatch...

Beeeeeecause...

Friends come in all sizes

Take it from me! Golly gee! Size

never matters when you want some

friendly patter

From a pal who is true and can

lift you when you're blue

You can count on him and he can

count on yooooooouuuuu!

It'ssssss truuuuuue... It'sssssss truuuuuuuuuue....that...

(big finish)

Friends come in all sizes!"

That last line is repeated about a dozen times in a dozen different inflections by Williams, each more creepy and annoying than the last. I typed that out word for word from the script. Actually, I embellished the last two "It's true"s because I wanted to convey how agonizingly drawn out they are. Apparently, as if writing this script wasn't offensive enough, grammar isn't very important to screenwriter Adam Resnick either. Bad grammar is such a peeve of mine. Ever heard of a comma? Sheesh. And yes, it actually says "big finish." Well, that's a fact, it's true - Death to Smoochy IS finished, big-time.

Rating: 1/2* (out of 5) - Only because of Catherine Keener and its few amusingly awful moments.

Game Over

The trailer for Michael Haneke's 2008 U.S. version of Funny Games, starring Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and a charmingly evil Michael Pitt, is one of the best I've ever seen. It gets me so pumped up (I've watched it multiple times because it's so good), and it made me really psyched to see it. Now, after seeing Michael Haneke's original Austrian version of Funny Games, released in 1997, I'm not so excited anymore.

It's apparently a shot-by-shot remake, and that's totally cool if a director does that for his or her own film (ahem, Gus van Sant), especially when it involves translating it into another language and making some requisite changes to present it to another audience. But, after watching Funny Games, I'm depressed. I'm left with a sour taste in my mouth. Even after a couple days, the bile of this film is still fresh.

It's about a well-to-do couple on a vacation at their summer home on the lake, and two preppy, self-congratulatory pricks come over and take them hostage. The bet: Will they survive the night? The main problem with the film, and there are many, is that I don't care about the characters at all. The ruffians enter the picture so quickly that there's no chance to bond with the family. I don't know them. Why does it matter what happens? So, allegedly Haneke is trying to make some statement about the media and desensitization of violence. Whatever. It doesn't work. If you're going to take it to that level, you have to really shove the audience's face in what you're trying to denounce. I hate to say it, but Irreversible, a film that makes me nauseous, does the anti-violence thing better. Funny Games is too smug and passive to say anything intelligent or profound.

It's not suspenseful, engaging, or remotely interesting. I was bored to tears watching it. There's not enough sex or violence to be considered exploitation, but there's not enough plot or character development to call it a real film either. At least being exploitative would mean Haneke was making a stand and taking a risk. It's an interesting concept and could have been powerful. Instead, this is the safest "cautionary tale" I've ever seen. It's timid, bland, and totally unsuccessful. It's pointless! Nothing happens. It irritated me that I wasted over an hour and a half of my life watching it.

There's nothing special about the filmmaking. In fact, it's mind-numbingly boring. The visuals are static and unimpressive. Haneke loves long takes, and there's one that lasts for ten minutes. Ten minutes! To his credit, it's the most emotional part of the film and probably the most successful, but it's largely due to the acting and not his camera positioning. For my liking, it's too far away from the action, and it loses its power after a few minutes. A close-up might have been nice, but I guess character identification and empathy would be too much to ask.

This film just makes me so angry! My blood is literally boiling right now. There are a few moments in the film during which the bad guys look directly into the camera and annoyingly address the audience. It's a cute gimmick for about a second, but it gets old fast, and its basic function is to insult the intelligence of the audience. Seriously. Haneke believes his viewers are idiots. There's no respect whatsoever. He wants to point the finger at you, to make you feel complicit in the violence. That's all well and good if it's done right, and a better director can do that and make it work because you believe that he or she also accepts responsibility. Haneke has a superiority complex. He thinks he's better than the audience. There's no sense that he feels complicit in the violence and how the media does this and that. He's above the problems of society. He doesn't recognize that he's a part of it, and he doesn't want to do a damn thing to change it. He's a lazy, conceited, apathetic jerk.

The only redeemable aspect of this film is the acting. Actually, I only like two performances, but they're enough for me to give it the rating I'm going to give it, and the only reason I'm giving it that at all. Susanne Lothar and the late Ulrich Muhe are fantastic as the terrorized couple. It's so tragic that Muhe died so young this past year, just after The Lives of Others came out and all the critical acclaim he received for it. He's a terrific actor, so I was thrilled to see him in something else. Still, Lothar and Muhe bring credibility and emotion to a film that doesn't deserve it. Muhe doesn't have much to do, so Haneke couldn't even use him right. But he's great at what he does do, and so is Lothar. Too bad they didn't get to do it in a better movie.

I still want to see the new version of Funny Games, because I love Naomi Watts, and Michael Pitt looks phenomenal in it. I'm willing to give it a chance, although I'm very weary. I just wanted to say that before I launch into my final rant.

I have no problem with arthouse films, but Funny Games is pretentious arthouse crap. But I don't want to insult pretentious arthouse crap. To be pretentious, there has to be some level of intelligence, and I don't think there is here. So, it's just crap trying to pretend its artsy and high-brow. It's completely inconsequential. It accomplishes nothing. It's definitely not shocking or audacious like Haneke thinks it is. It's cheap, cold, impersonal, accusatory, and blatantly insulting. With Funny Games, Michael Haneke apparently set out to undermine the Hollywood system, its conventions, and the all-encompassing culture associated with it. He failed miserably. The result is a film as shallow, ineffectual, and loathsome as the media-obsessed society he hates so much. Odd, then, that he would remake this piece of trash in Hollywood. Hmm, there's a word for people like him. Oh yeah. Hypocrite.

Rating: * (out of 5)

Money Matters

Even though I'm still outraged by the insanely obscure, unfair, and bewildering Foreign Film Oscar nominees this year, I feel a little more at ease after having actually seen one of them. It's called The Counterfeiters, from Austria, and it's worthy of its nomination. It's not the film's fault that the Academy suffered some sort of stroke during the selection process. It's a Holocaust film, which inherently has Oscar written all over it. I think it's pretty much assumed that a Holocaust film will garner all sorts of awards and nominations, even if it's not totally deserving. I know this might sound morbid, but I love Holocaust films. I think it's important to see these films, no matter how difficult or painful it may be to watch, because knowledge is power. Okay, so maybe that sounded like one of those "The More You Know" ads from NBC, but you get my point. Only by learning from the mistakes of the past can we prevent mistakes in the future. There we go, that sounded better.

The Counterfeiters, directed by Stefan Ruzowitsky, is not the best Holocaust film I've ever seen, but it's definitely one of the most unique. For one thing, it's only a little over an hour and half. I challenge you to find another Holocaust film that's even close to that running time. I don't think any Holocaust movie I've seen before clocks in under two hours, and they're usually much longer. I like that this film does that. Not every Holocaust film has to be this grand epic. I think there's a lot of expectations placed on films about the Holocaust. The most common complaint seems to be: "It's not serious enough." Serious enough compared to what? There's always this ambiguous standard these films are measured against. Look at Life is Beautiful. People thought that was positively blasphemous. A comedy about the Holocaust? How dare he! Black Book is a phenomenal film about the Holocaust, but it's also a fun thriller. Is that wrong? I'm sure people think so. I just don't buy that argument about something not being serious enough. It really ticks me off.

I don't think these films need to meet a certain seriousness quota. I certainly don't believe any of the films I've seen or heard about treat the subject matter flippantly. Maybe there are a few bad eggs, but I haven't come across them yet. Everyone is well aware of the subject's gravity. There's also always drama mixed in with the comedy or the "lighter" fare. I guess that's a big consideration when making a film about the Holocaust: Do the filmmakers have a moral responsibility to the subject matter? I don't have the answer to that. But I do have my opinion, and my opinion is that people need to chill out. Not every Holocaust film has to make you weep for days on end or feel like you've been punched in the stomach. We know how awful it was, and it's important to remember that, but sometimes it's healthy to laugh about something that's so atrocious. Laughter heals. As the great Preston Sturges wrote in Sullivan's Travels, "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have?"

That being said, The Counterfeiters is not especially funny. There are some funny moments, but overall it's serious. Serious enough, even. What's different about it is that it's not really about the camps and the horror and the big picture. It focuses on a very small and, I think, a very unknown part of the Nazi war machine, and that's counterfeiting. The main character is Salomon Sorowitsch (a gaunt Karl Markovics), a notorious counterfeiter, the best around. He's a Jew, and when he finally gets busted for counterfeiting, he gets sent to a concentration camp. He spends years in this camp until he's transferred to a new one. At this camp, a massive counterfeiting operation is in effect. The Nazis are using Jews with previous related work experience (printers, graphic artists, etc.) to mass-produce phony currency. Salomon's reputation precedes him, and he is put in charge of quality control. The main goals are to successfully produce the pound and, ultimately, the dollar. This is Salomon's opportunity to prove he can manufacture the dollar, but his moral dilemma (and the dilemma for all of them) is that he's doing it to finance the Nazis' cause.

The Jews working on the counterfeiting are prized by the Nazis. The Nazis need them. They're treated much better than the rest of the inmates and are even segregated from them, only hearing cries and gunshots from a distance. Salomon is especially valuable because of his skill. He wants only to survive at first - "survival" is his mantra. But soon the moral implications weigh on him. The moral compass of this film is a young idealist named Burger (August Diehl). He wants to revolt. He can't stand the thought that their survival is helping the Nazis win, and he's sickened by the fact that they have it so good when others are being slaughtered in the same camp. There are other memorable characters, like Kolya (the sweet, young art student that Salomon takes under his wing), Herzog (a higher-ranking Nazi in charge of the camp with a totally bizarre wife), and Dr. Klinger (the Jews' doctor, with obligations to the Nazis, but himself a Jew).

This is a fascinating film, and it's based on a true story. Operation Bernhard, as this counterfeiting outfit is called, really happened. The cinematography is raw, gritty, and visceral. The acting is beyond excellent. For me, the stand-outs are Sebastian Urzendowsky as Kolya, August Diehl as Burger, and Karl Markovics as Salomon Sarowitsch. Urzendowsky is so moving, and Diehl brings such fire and passion to his performance. But I was most impressed with Markovics. It took me a little while to warm up to him. I wasn't sure what to make of him at first, because he's a very unconventional choice for a leading man. He's not easy to like. He's short, scrawny, and balding. His face is worn, oddly proportioned, and almost scary. He's just not a particularly good-looking guy. But I guess that's the Hollywood prejudice ingrained in me. Shame on me. But he grew on me, and I started to think he was kind of sexy. I still do. There's my confession du jour. I guess I'm the weird one now.

So, I'm not superficial, at least not more than my share, and his acting is what stunned me. He emits so much strength from his small frame. It's easy to believe these people would adopt him as their leader. He's powerful, frightening, and compelling, and he perfectly conveys the character's cunning mind and also his moral conflicts, all with the slightest facial expressions, minimal movements, and careful vocal delivery. It's a very subtle performance, but it's brilliant. I hope to see Karl Markovics in more films.

I had a great time watching this film and was very engaged. Okay, it took me about twenty minutes to really get into it, because it begins painfully slow. But it totally picked up, and the momentum was there until the end. The score is the most awful part of this film. It's a bizarre hodgepodge of different musical styles, and the songs are often totally incongruous with the mood or the scene. The music detracts from the story too much at times. Other than that, I really, really liked The Counterfeiters. A lot. But something is holding me back. I guess in the end, I think it's a forgettable film. Sure, I remember it now, but by the end of the year, it'll be buried in the depths of my memory. I like the short format, and I felt like I got to know the characters really well, so that wasn't what was lacking. It didn't need to be a second longer. I guess I just didn't connect with it emotionally.

And I'm sticking by what I said earlier - every Holocaust movie doesn't need to be a tearjerker. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Just as a film, any film, I'm not left feeling much after it. There's no resonance. I enjoyed it so much when I was watching it, but now I'm just like, "So what?" It's a really great film, don't get me wrong. I totally recommend it. But it falls short of excellence. It's sort of like the counterfeiters in the film. The Nazis first want to master the pound, and once they do that, their ultimate goal, the holy grail if you will, is the dollar. Well, The Counterfeiters definitely attains the pound, but it doesn't quite reach the dollar.

Rating: **** (out of 5)