My sole concern with recommending this movie is that it won’t be for everyone.  After watching it through once, I had a rough feeling for the plot; however, if the lack of a lucid plot is going to completely turn you off from a movie, save yourself the exasperation of watching Mulholland Drive.  If, on the other hand, you’re fine with watching a movie as a full experience instead of a simple story, you’ll be in for a treat.  If you like watching the same movie more than once, well, then, you’ll be golden, because the moment you calm down from watching it the first time, you’ll want to see it again.

The main characters are portrayed by Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring; they split four characters between the two of them (or at least, I think that’s the case. Difficult to determine, exactly).  They both take every scene seriously, and without their inspired acting I don’t think the confusing narrative would have held together.  Watts’ performance as a naive Hollywood newcomer will haunt you. Don’t write off her acting in the first half of the film when she’s still in wide-eyed-mode; by the end she turns the movie into a tour-de-force and in retrospect will have been acting brilliantly the entire way through.  Of course, that’s assuming you halfway figure out the plot. Either way, she’ll make you feel, probably terrible but feel nonetheless, which is the greatest gift a movie can give you.

Concerning the plot – I haven’t said much, and I don’t plan to.  It’s essentially a noir-mystery-psychological-thriller.  However, the movie works equally well as a series of powerful scenes rather than a coherent story, so don’t worry about picking up on everything your first time through.  Treat it like an opera; even if you don’t speak Italian you can still sense what’s happening.

In all honesty, my mere words couldn’t do this movie justice.  You should rent it, and watch it, repeatedly.  The worst that could happen is you’ll hate it, and know to stay away from the “mind-bending” genre in the future.  (Other examples: Vanilla Sky, Memento, Pi, Donnie Darko). But if you enjoy it, I strongly suspect it will become a staple in your collection; a powerful, upsetting movie that you don’t want to watch over and over again, but you need to in order to feel right again.

The switch from seedy city to suburban school leads to some delightful moments that help to lighten the mood. Taken at face value, the story is quite depressing, but luckily the writer/director Rian Johnson manages to balance what’s actually occurring with the hilarious discontinuity between the actors’ appearances and their lines; “the folly of youth” never sounds as funny as when one teenager mutters it towards another. A house party features a hostess playing a sultry jazz piece while she’s wearing an evening dress; the students drink champagne and scotch and mingle in huge, open, hard-wood-floored personal libraries – all of this is absurd when you actually look at the age of the actors. But my word, does this juxtaposition work.

The story centers around Gordon-Levitt’s ex-girlfriend Emily (portrayed by Emilie de Ravin, of Lost fame), but the true female lead is Nora Zehetner as the femme fatale Laura. Both women are mixed up in a drug deal gone sour (in this case, it involves a missing brick of heroin) that Gordon-Levitt is struggling to untangle after the untimely demise of Emily. He plays the reluctant hero well, but Zehetner as Laura really shines, and steals every scene she’s in with her knowing smile and lightning-fast switches between charming and frigid.

The story arc itself follows the typical detective story device where one person’s clue leads to another; along the way there’re the expected setbacks of gangs, thugs, and the vice-principal-as-crooked-police-officer. It all leads up to a meeting with the kingpin; the participants are kindly served by his mother, who offers cookies and milk. I won’t spoil the surprise, but know that the ending will feature a distinct return to the darker side of the story, and leave you satisfied with the film as a detective-noir as well as a high school tale.

As far as low-budget (only half a million dollars) films go, Brick is a gem, with an engaging storyline and an amusing hook with the high schoolers acting as gangsters. Don’t miss excellent performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Nora Zehetner; if you’re anything like me, the first thing you’ll do after seeing Brick is try to convince some friends to watch it again with you.

Pretty easily, and pretty hard, as it turns out. After viewing it I’m convinced the only reason it’s still talked about is the star power it had behind it. Let’s start with those stars, shall we?

First of all, the only character of any sort of worth is the yuppie Ben Stiller, who is portrayed as the pseudo-villain of the movie. He makes a mistake by selling Winona Ryder’s (terrible) documentary about her deadbeat friends to a television company (which is the only way it would ever be seen by more than 5 people) and she doesn’t like what the company does with it in the editing room. He profusely apologizes, but to no avail. Meanwhile, this mistake is apparently enough to drive Winona to Ethan Hawke, her stereotypical grunge friend who has treated her terribly the whole movie, and their happy ending.

Also there’s no facing it: each character is a stereotype of the 90’s; if only it could have been done in a way that wasn’t so grating. I understand that it was trying to be a period piece, but the whole idea is to include different social groups without making them caricatures of themselves. Plus, the only character (besides the Yuppie) who gets a semi-respectable job is Garofalo, who becomes the manager of… quick, think of an early 90’s brand… that’s right… The Gap! At this point the movie feels like it was written by someone who read about the 90’s in an encyclopedia, but never lived through it. There was more than the grunge v. yuppie tension, The Gap, gay men (they were around long before the 90’s, my friends), and AIDS. The writers needed to either go with a broader overview (which I admit, would have been difficult and still maintain and coherent story) or perhaps narrow the focus of the movie. Instead, they did neither, and the movie suffers terribly.

The most damning part for me was that Reality Bites is a much worse, star-studded version of the movie Singles, which came out two years before it and focused specifically on the lives of Seattle singles. More impressively, it included characters that felt real instead of forced, and respectfully portrayed the zeitgeist of the early grunge years without resorting to cheap stereotypes; all this while including characters from different social circles. Perhaps most importantly, it included cameos by multiple Seattle grunge bands, thus preserving the authenticity of the film beyond all doubt.

Some people have said that this movie shows exactly what its title claims: that reality bites. The only problem is, the cast doesn’t seem to learn this lesson; they realize shooting film with a handheld camera and not selling the tapes won’t make money, but instead of getting a real job, they resort to scamming Daddy’s gas card for money. If only they had learned a valuable lesson about their great expectations, there might have been just enough of an ending to save this movie. Unfortunately, it pales in comparison to the authentic 90’s movie that preceded it by two years, and I see no reason to ever watch Reality Bites when one could instead watch Singles.

Evidently, Woody Allen considers it one of his finest films, and I’m not surprised by this. The film, like all good dramas, will occasionally overwhelm you with the feeling that you’re watching a play. Since I’m no expert, it’s hard for me to say why this is; usually, it’s the extended, dialogue-heavy scenes that beget this feeling. The drama feels real, as if it could involve someone you knew. There’s also a refreshing lack of special effects, which brings the actors’ performances to the forefront of the film.

As far as the cast goes, I have mixed feelings. The main character, played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, makes a convincing oily tennis pro, but sometimes acts so unlikable you’re forced to wonder what the other characters could possibly see in him. The supporting cast, however, is solid all the way through, with Scarlett Johansson’s out-of-work American actress seeming distressingly close-to-home. Unfortunately, some of her interactions with Meyers feel a bit forced, as if the writing/directing was just a tiny bit off. The unnaturalness of people’s interactions is something that often bothers me in Woody Allen movies, and the moments during Match Point that you remember Allen wrote and directed it are its weakest moments.  Thankfully, they’re few and far between, and if you can let them slide you’ll truly enjoy the film.

The pacing of each individual scene itself is excellent, although some better indicators for the overall passage of time would have been appreciated; perhaps some seasonal indicators? Simply having a character mention a holiday is a cheap and forgetful way to show where we are in the narrative, especially when the passage of time is so important to the plot. Inserting such details gracefully allows the viewer to really sit back and enjoy the movie; sometimes, I think things like this are more important to overall enjoyment than the plot itself.  It’s like a band of average musicians who’ve practice consistently with each other: they’re a lot tighter, and sound better, than four incredible musicians still trying to learn how to play with each other.

Scarlett Johansson’s character is one which should absolutely evoke sympathy in anyone watching the film; she is consistently abused by almost every other character. If you’re not careful, however, the subtle implication – that she’s a bit loose when drinking, which is an activity she enjoys too much – will overwhelm any feelings of sympathy, and you’ll realize you could almost rationalize what becomes of her. It’s either a subtle jab by writer/director Allen at your prejudices, or possibly a telling fact of our society that accidentally slipped into his writing; either way, you’ll notice it and it should give you pause.

The truth is that some parts of the movie will probably annoy you; it’s not the meat of the movie that’s the problem, but the garnish. This is a good movie that could have been great, but the ball was dropped on a lot of the details that could have pushed Match Point from memorable to unforgettable.

The plot itself is breathtakingly simple: there was a zombie apocalypse. That’s really pretty much it. By the time the movie is halfway through, you’ll be attached to the characters’ dysfunctional family, and start worrying about the ending; after all, in a zombie movie either people need to die, or they find a safe haven or cure.  Either way, the ending will always be a little disappointing, either because “what the hell I don’t want the zombies winning!” or “Jesus that’s lame, and how did the helicopters find them anyways?” Luckily, Zombieland avoids the whole issue by ending the movie when the story would start to slow down, which was a good move by writers Reese and Wernick. Director Fleischer is able to lead the movie where it needs to go, all while balancing the gore and the laughs; this is usually not an easy task, and he deserves credit for this.

Of course I’d be lying if there weren’t some complaints.  The CG for the most part is passable, but you might notice it sometimes if you’re looking for it (apparently I do?).  It’s possible to gripe about the short length, and fans of the zombie genre might be disappointed as the zombies themselves are ancillary to the story. Depending on your sense of humor, you might find some of the jokes too gross or too stupid (but what does it say about me that I loved them all?). However, Abigail Breslin as the youngest member of the cast does an admirable job; Woody Harrelson is vintage Woody, Jesse Eisenberg is his typical Jesse nerd, and Emma Stone plays the female lead and will make you fall in love with her character, despite her propensity for abandoning her friends. This isn’t a thespian awakening for any of them, nor should it be; they play the movie straight when need be which allows the jokes to work. The closest thing to “range” any of them need to show is playing stoned – don’t worry, they’re more than able.

If this isn’t worth the price of admission for you, I think you might be seeing movies for the wrong reason. You should see them to be entertained, and I can guarantee you Zombieland will do just that.

So, sit back, and let the movies begin!