Prom Night in Mississippi (2008)

2.5 STARS

Directed by Paul Saltzman
Produced by Paul Saltzman, Patricia Aquino
Written by Paul Saltzman

Starring Morgan Freeman, participating interviewees

Runtime 1 hour, 30 min.
Worldwide Gross N/A
Genres Documentary

Prom Night in Mississippi is in many ways exactly what its title suggests. But what differentiates the prom at Charleston High School from other schools' is that up until 2008, the Mississippi school ran two - one for white students and another for black. In 1997, Academy Award-winning actor and Charleston resident Morgan Freeman suggested the ASB create an integrated prom, with all the funds coming from his own pocket. His idea went by ignored until 2008, when Freeman made the proposition again. This time, the school accepted Freeman's offer.

Directed by Paul Saltzman, Prom Night is a documentary that follows Charleston teens as their school prepares for the event. You'd think that in a documentary with such a powerful topic, you'd see both sides of the argument equally. This sadly isn't the case for this film. Though the opposing view point is explored and is slightly supported by some of the interviewees, I never saw that strong, opinionated racist asshole that I waited 90 minutes for. I wanted this. Show us the enemy, let us dissect their opinions and find the faults in them. Though the racism of some of the town's residents is spoken of and is consistently referred to, Saltzman fails to ever get one of them on camera.


I can see how hard it could be to get someone with such a disowned opinion to appear on camera, but it appears to me that Saltzman either didn't want one to appear or simply didn't try hard enough. In a small Mississippi town, a person with outspoken, racist beliefs was nowhere to be found? I find this hard to believe. Prom Night was filmed, edited and released in less than a year - an obvious sign that more work could have been done.

As it is, Prom Night is a sloppy, stereotypical teen documentary. It's clear that Saltzman needs a more developed sense of drama. With an amazing, once-in-a-lifetime topic such as this, Prom Night could have been amazing and incredibly revealing. It might have even jerked some tears. But this isn't that sort of film. For instance, various popular music songs are used in transitions as filler content. This not only dates the film, but adds an overwhelming sense of cheesiness. And do we really need this in a documentary film? If you want to listen to bad pop-rap in a movie, go watch Norbit. I just don't want it in films like this one. Even good rap music would seem out of place here. I just don't see documentaries as a forum to advertise the newest hit by Kanye West.

But the film isn't a complete train wreck as I've suggested. There are some good interviews to be seen here and some of the interviewees are really interesting to listen to. Saltzman also succeeds in that he's able to keep your interest. Though its content could have been more exciting, this is a documentary and there's nothing so boring that makes me want to stop watching. But where there's success, there's more flaws.

It's final scene is disappointing. We've been waiting all film long for the prom and it's boring, uninteresting shots of dancers? Yes, the film is about a prom. Dancing is expected. But the shots should at least feel meaningful. In this case, they don't. An element that contributes to this is the uneven editing and cinematography. There's some shots that could be shown more effectively through editing and alternative camera positioning. Most of the prom scene's shots are boring wide shot angles, while the event's frenetic activity suggests that the camera should be placed differently. It's like the equipment and crew are battling against each other.

I had very high hopes about Prom Night in Mississippi. When I read the film's plot, I actually said "Wow." This could have been an amazing film. However, it let me down greatly. On the other hand, this film will most definitely open some eyes - the best possible reward for a documentary filmmaker. If done differently, it could have been a sure contender for the Academy Award for Best Documentary. But as it is? Sadly, no.

Prom Night in Mississippi is currently unrated.

The Queen (2006)

4 STARS

Directed by Stephen Frears
Produced by Andy Harries, Christine Langan, Tracey Seaward
Written by Peter Morgan (based on real life events)

Starring Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell

Runtime 1 hour, 37 mins.
Worldwide Gross $123,384,128
Genres Drama, Historical, Biography

As the ruler of one of the world's most prosperous countries for 57 years, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain has earned the respect of her nation and the revere of other world leaders. However, as an important figurehead of modern ideals, her private life is often kept under lock and key. This is what The Queen bases itself on.

Following the death of Princess Diana of Wales, Elizabeth (Mirren) shrouds herself and her family from the press and refuses to make a statement, with the belief that the death of Diana is a "private affair". For five days, against the warnings of newly elected Prime Minster Tony Blair (Sheen), Elizabeth decides to keep her family in the comfort of their private estate in Scotland. In doing this, the press begins to write nasty things about her and she begins to lose the respect of her people.

Throughout the film, screenwriter Peter Morgan subtly examines many things. How much privacy is too much? Why did Elizabeth stay in Balmoral? Did the throne's rocky relationship with Diana affect Elizabeth's decisions? Is it always crucial to keep traditions if they harm the feelings of others? Is it always right to succumb to the wishes of the people? Though many questions are pondered during the film's hour and a half running time, the script never seems too confusing. This is because Morgan makes the right decision to explore only one idea at a time.

However, where the script succeeds it in a way also fails. Though the film's slow pace adds to its quality, it also gives the story a lagging feeling. If you want an exciting film, this isn't it. But I recognize this as a simple fact, not a negative quality. The truth is, if you want a fair, accurate portrayal of the Queen of England, you couldn't get any more spot on.

This is no doubt in part because of the stupendous acting by Helen Mirren. She plays the role with an ease so fluid, you could think she were the queen herself. Remarkably, she performs just the perfect amount of drama without being over the top, something some actors these days have problems with. Her portrayal makes you interested in the film and attached to her character. She also gives off just the perfect amount emotions to make you not only question the character's motives, but to sympathize with her as well.

One thing I don't quite like is the performance by Michael Sheen. His main problem is that his mannerisms seem over the top. It's almost as though he's trying too hard. However, I can very much understand how hard it would be to portray a living person. But while Mirren strives to achieve excellency, Sheen's performance as Tony Blair could've been so much better. His performance wasn't altogether terrible, but it no doubt has much room for growth. This role is one that if played right could do great things for you. Sadly, this just wasn't the case for Sheen.

Another thing I don't quite like is that we don't seem to get a lot of background information on the film's many characters. As I'm not a resident of Great Britain, many of the characters introduced I was unfamiliar with. Morgan sometimes throws in some background about the queen, revealing in conversations that she was young during the abdication of the throne and that she was a mechanic in World War II. When this information was given, I felt like I could appreciate the character more. So why didn't Morgan do this more often? This is after all a historical drama.

If you love history, if you love drama or if you love effective, intimate Hollywood biographies, The Queen is your film. There's great things to be seen here. Helen Mirren's acting is a must see, Peter Morgan's screenplay is, with reservations, well-written and Stephen Frears' directing is smooth and effective. Though it might be altogether forgotten five years down the line, The Queen is a sparkling diamond in the rough.

The Queen is rated PG-13 for brief strong language.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

4.5 STARS

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Produced by Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel Lupi, Joanne Sellar
Written by Paul Thomas Anderson (based on Oil! by Upton Sinclair)

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier

Runtime 2 hours, 38 min.
Worldwide Gross $76,181,545
Genres Drama, Historical

1898. A lonely, barren desert. A man (Day-Lewis) is alone and trying to mine for oil when a scaffold falls down and presumably breaks his leg. In order to get help and further his business, he slowly crawls to the nearest town. It is from the start of There Will Be Blood that we see firsthand just how determined Daniel Plainview is to get what he wants.

The story progressively jumps to 1902, 1911 and 1927, in each period Daniel's greed and lust for wealth being embedded deeper in his soul. Just one of the great things about Blood is its story. Daniel Plainview is a nasty character. Yet the screenplay is so well written, I never wanted to stop watching. At first, I didn't see any bad in Daniel. He was determined, kind and even loving. But there's many secrets that Daniel keeps from us. Only towards the end of the film are his true intentions revealed.

Most of the film centers on the 1911 time period, which starts off when Daniel is confronted by a simple man named Paul Sunday (Dano). Paul talks about a stretch of land in the small town of Little Boston, California, supposedly filled to the brim with oil. This of course interests budding oil aficionado Daniel. When they go to the town, a series of events occur that slowly bring Daniel up from aficionado to oil-guzzling millionaire. In this period of transition, his morals are questioned by the local preacher (also played by Dano) and are tested with his son (Freasier). It is this theme of morality that is a central aspect in Blood.

The screenplay is perfect. The struggle for morality between Daniel and Eli the preacher is enough to keep you hooked. Daniel and Eli each have their own ideas about morality. Which one is right? You could right an entire thesis about that alone.

Another great thing about Blood is Robert Elswit's Academy Award-winning cinematography. Many of his shots are simply breathtaking. Each movement of the camera is essential. Each lighting choice is crucial. A great example of his work is in the oil bursting scene, when the camera tracks Daniel in a way that breathlessly captures the entire surrounding environment.

Another thing I love about this movie is its score, composed by Jonny Greenwood. It's extremely fitting. The ambience of it moves almost effortlessly throughout the film's scenes. In general, the film's technical elements are what make it what it is. Academy-Award nominations went to its art direction, editing and sound.

One thing that most people think of when seeing this film is its acting. Daniel Day-Lewis does indeed give an enthralling performance. His skills as an actor drive the film forward. He's marvelous in every scene.

The only problem I have with this film is the casting of Paul Dano. I liked his work in Little Miss Sunshine, but he just doesn't seem to fit here. Some of his scenes are quite good. The "baptism" scene with Day-Lewis is particularly strong because of his acting. But some of his scenes are a bit uneven. For example, the "arthritis/casting out the ghost" scene in the chapel is over-dramatic for my taste. His overplayed shrieking gets annoying as well.

However, the vast majority of There Will Be Blood is spot on. I have very little complaints. There Will Be Blood is artistic, beautiful, meaningful and incredibly well done. It's a testament of how riches and greed can corrupt a man and how dark and disturbing an industry can be. Blood is an American epic in the best sense of the word; destined to one day become a classic.

There Will Be Blood is rated R for some violence.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

3.5 STARS

Directed by Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez
Produced by Robin Cowie, Gregg Hale
Written by Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez

Starring Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C. Williams

Runtime 1 hour, 26 min.
Worldwide Gross $248,639,099
Genres Horror, Suspense, Drama

Remember this film? It's hard not to. In case you don't know already, The Blair Witch Project is about three student filmmakers who go off into the woods to shoot a documentary about "The Blair Witch" of Burkittsville, Maryland. They start off by interviewing local townspeople, drinking beer and chilling out like normal college students. But once they wander off into the woods, things swiftly change.

After shooting for about a day, the team starts to get lost. The crew (Leonard, Williams) get restless and angered by the misdirection of their leader (Donahue). By the second night in the woods, they begin to be hassled by something in the Maryland woods. The harassment is small at first - small noises and such. At first, they believe someone from the town has followed them. But as the situation gets deeper and creepier, they subtly start to believe it's something else.

There are many faults in this film. First of all, it seems like they're always bitching about something. And the drama is incredibly overplayed. Needless to say, this dramatic arguing gets very annoying. But this may not be the fault of the actors. The directors made the decision to expose their ensemble to a week in the woods with rationed food and no break, which of course doesn't ensure the best performances possible.


Something else I have a problem with is the pacing. Editors Myrick and Sánchez barely give the audience a chance to adjust to each new twist in the plot. This is mainly a problem in the segues between day and night. There never seems to be a sense of time. There's just "day" and "night". One second they're talking in broad daylight and next, they're running through the forest in the dark.

Now onto the good in this film. First, it's unlike many other horror films of its time. Compared to the "slash and smash" gore fest typically seen in horror films and commonplace in 90s cinema, this film takes a more Hitchcock approach to things. Throughout the story, we never see hard, concrete evidence of the film's villain until the end of the film. And in a way like Hitchcock's own Psycho, the audience always seems to be guessing what exactly is going on. In the end, this adds to the film's suspense and to how effective it is.

One thing that to this day continues to amaze me is the strength of the film's actors. Though not Oscar-worthy by any means, the performances in this film are at times stellar because of one little thing. They are improvised. In parts of the film, it seems that the film is entirely scripted, while instead, the actors were required to create their own dialogue. This makes some of the scenes in Witch incredibly strong. The "motivation" scene between Leonard and Donahue is so effective, it's hard to believe that it was made up on the spot.

A monologue that most people remember is the "apology" scene by Donahue. Though her lines are obviously cheesy, you've got to give this girl some credit. Here's your motivation: you're tired, you've been in the woods for seven days, your directors are questionably insane, you're getting less and less food each day and now you have to make up an incredible monologue of which will drive the film towards its end. Stressful? I'd say so. And Donahue achieves her goal with flying colors. Who doesn't remember the apology scene after watching it? It's incredible. It's safe for me to say that Heather Donahue is an amazing improvisational actress. Without her, this film would not be what it is.

Another brilliant thing about The Blair Witch Project is its cinematography. Though the actors (who also doubled as camera operators) had little to no experience with a camera, there are many beautiful shots in this film. One is the infamous apology scene. Throughout the scene, Donahue's face is only half shown, bringing the focus of the shot straight to her eyes. After the film was released, Donahue admits this as a complete mistake. Supposedly, she thought her whole face was in the frame the whole time. Nevertheless, it makes for a great shot.

But this isn't just a one-time occurrence. There's other nice shots to be seen here, from capturing just a breath of cold air in a tense scene to cropping a character's face in a way that a large amount of tension is showcased. However, the actors' lack of prior knowledge sadly works against them as well. Many scenes are unbelievably shaky and out-of-focus. Though this sometimes works effectively, it often doesn't. The camera's shakiness can often get tiring.
One thing to keep in mind about this film is its success at the box office. With an initial investment of about $22,000, the film made almost $249,000,000 - 11,000 times its value. To be fair, after being bought at the Sundance Film Festival by Artisan Entertainment, $25 million was spent in marketing. This was no doubt a catalyst of the film's success. However, the box office receipts still make Witch one of the most successful independent films of all time.

All in all, The Blair Witch Project is a great film to watch. Though it sometimes takes itself too seriously, it often is entertaining enough to slide by. It's cheesy and annoying. But you've got to love it. Even if it doesn't scare you, there's decent acting and at times brilliant cinematography (serendipitous as it may be) to be seen here. And if you give it a chance, the film can be quite frightening as well. This makes Witch a decent movie and an intriguing one at that.

The Blair Witch Project is rated R for language.