Hipsters (Stilyagi — Russian for ‘stylish guy’) is a widescreen eye- and ear-candy Russian rock musical. The scene is 1955 repressive Moscow. By night, a group of young adults dresses up in outrageous clothes and acts out their vision of America: rock-and-roll, trendy cocktails, great dancing and (most notably) the clothes. Oh, the clothes. Imagine the brightest colors in the most clashing over-the-top style, filmed with a look that’s a cross between Kodachrome and full-saturation Technicolor. Sneak in a bit of classical Russian cinematography. (Remember those exaggerated closups in the Odessa Steps scene in Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin?) Then add an awesome mostly big-band soundtrack of bebop, boggie-woogie and rock. Maybe even a hint of rap in one late song. Throw in some great performances and beautiful young Russian women, and you start to get an image of what Hipsters is really like.

Hipsters deservedly won four Nika Awards (the Russian equivalent of our Academy Awards) for costume design, production design, sound and best picture. It was nominated for five more. We saw the U.S. premiere at a late-night screening. I don’t think there’s a U.S. distributor for this film yet, but hopefully it will get picked up so you’ll at least have a chance to see it in major cities. Highly recommended for a fun night out.

Full disclaimer: I’m an Ellsberg fan boy. To me, he’s an American Hero, which I believe even more after seeing this movie and hearing him speak. I went to Berkeley in the ’60s. I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. I was a Watergate  junkie, covering the Senate Watergate Hearings for Visnews (now Reuters Video). And as if last night’s screening of The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers wasn’t something I was predisposed to enjoy, sitting to my left were former Alaskan senator Mike Gravel and former California congressman Pete McCloskey, both of whom appear in the film and played important roles in Ellsberg’s disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. (Interesting side note: Gravel, a former Democrat is now a registered Libertarian, while McCloskey a former Republican is now a Democrat.) Oh, and Daniel Ellsberg and his charming wife, Patricia were in attendance and took questions after the film. I’ve used the word “charming” too much in the past ten days of the film festival, but there’s no better word to describe this woman and this couple’s obviously still-fresh romance. Ellsberg is now a very youthful 78.

For those too young or too old to remember the story, Ellsberg worked at the RAND Corporation reporting indirectly to Robert S. McNamara at the Pentagon. Ellsberg helped gather data that was used by McNamara and Lyndon Johnson to build a bogus case for the escalation of the Vietnam war, which Ellsberg would come to regret. (McNamara would also come to regret his recommendations, but that was later and in another movie.) Locked up under Top Secret classification, Ellsberg found hard evidence that four U.S. presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson) all lied to America about what was really going on in Vietnam. Ellsberg smuggled 7,000 pages of classified material out of the RAND Corporation’s Santa Monica offices, copied them, and gave them to the New York Times and 16 other newspapers who published the documents as the Pentagon Papers during 1971. (They had to serialize the publication in this manner because court injunctions against individual newspapers kept forcing Ellsberg to repeatedly move to different publishers.) Nixon’s ordering a break-in of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office was one cause of his impeachment and ultimate resignation.

Publishing classified documents was an act of civil disobedience. Ellsberg was indicted on charges under the Espionage Act and could have been sentenced to 115 years in prison if convicted. The charges were dismissed because of an incredible array of government and prosecutorial misdeeds.

But enough history. Read it all on Wikipedia or, better yet, try and see this movie. It’s a first-rate documentary by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith, but one which plays almost like the political thriller that the true story was. It’s an excellent combination of interviews, newsreel footage and stills. Ehrlich told us that the only way they could get some great footage of Walter Cronkite’s coverage of Nixon was because Nixon had recorded and saved all the network-new broadcasts and that she (Ehrlich) could therefore get the material from public archives. Apparently it would have cost them too much to get the footage from CBS.

The Most Dangerous Man is still new, and I don’t know if or how it will be distributed. Educational institutions can buy a DVD from the filmmakers’ web site, but it’s not available to the general public. Keep your eye out for this film, which is particularly poignant on this eve of President Obama’s decision about expanding the war in Afghanistan. It all sounds so familar.

The original title Rööperi refers to an area of Helsinki known as a previous haven for the mob. Re-titled Helsinki for its North American premiere yesterday, this film  initially appeared to be just another one of those “gritty underbelly” crime dramas that seem to be a common theme of what we in the U.S. get to see from Finland. But while it is indeed a mobster flick, it is one of the best of that genre and one of my favorite films so far at this year’s Mill Valley Film Festival.

The top-grossing film in Finland this year and based on a true story, Helsinki is about a collection of thugs with big aspirations, but who’s individual lives take very different turns. Kari (Kari Hietalahti) is too attached to his mom. Tom (Samuli Edelmann) falls in love and tries his best to go straight. Krisu (Peter Franzén) ends up on his own and falls prey to a variety of problems.

Helsinki is violent, bloody and funny (in that Finnish kind of way) but the performances are what stand out as extraordinary. Most notable is Franzén who gives one of the best performances in any movie this year, regardless of the country of origin. The script is excellent and the look and sound are great.

I had a chance to speak to Franzén for a few minutes after the film. He has played roles in CSI:Miami and other U.S. productions, but I have a feeling he and the other cast members are big stars in Finland. This guy is going to land and excel in some Hollywood film soon, and he’ll then make his mark on American cinema. Franzen is married to Irina Björklund, who was also at the screening. They live in Los Angeles with their young daughter.

If you’ve ever directed anything, even a school play, you’ll love Zombie Girl: The Movie. It’s one of those ‘making of’ documentaries with a few twists. Most notably, the documentary itself is a high production-value film about the making of a very low-budget amateur movie. In this case, it’s about Emily Hagins’ middle-school zombie film, Pathogen, which she started at age 11 and completed at 13.

Zombie Girl works well on so many levels. At the top of that list is watching Emily’s confidence grow over the course of the project. The film opens with her being asked about the shot list for the day. She doesn’t have a clue. “Oh, I think a wideshot and maybe a few closeups.” Later on she’s whimpering orders such as “Where do you want to die?” But by the last day of filming, she’s tellin’ ’em where to go and what to do.

On another level, it’s all about Emily’s relationship with her parents, particular her mother who is at once extremely supportive of Emily’s project, but at the same time owning too much of it herself.

Along the way, it’s entertaining, funny and sometimes agonizingly painful. There are great side-stories, too, such as the involvement of a local Austin film critic and a friend of Peter Jackson’s. (Emily wrote to and received a reply from Jackson when she was in the third grade.) The pacing is excellent until the last 15 minutes or so, when the film seems to have trouble calling it a wrap.

Apron Strings is a 2008 film about prejudices: interracial, intercultural, socio-economic and sexual preference. It’s set in New Zealand. Most of the characters are of Indian descent. (Combine India and New Zealand and you have a fascinating accent.)

Okay, so maybe it’s a woman’s movie, if there is such a thing. My wife gives Apron Strings an A. The film started with promise: a title sequence with visually sensual closeups of Indian food being prepared. But I found the concept of tying everything to food and cooking one that quickly grew tiresome. My wife was completely wrapped up in the characters and their stories: two estranged sisters, a half-Indian gay son who’s trying to get in touch with his lost Indian side, a troubled mother with a vegan daughter having an out-of-wedlock baby and a drunk/gambler/loser son. And that’s just the start. For me, it was way too much to accept. The script is weak. Most of the actors are only so-so. (There are one or two good performances.) And that cinematography that teased me during the opening credits, became annoying. Too much fancy lighting. And sound that sucked. Skip it.

Update: Last night I reviewed Up in the Air and gave it a B rating. Somehow I manged to forget one of the most-objectionable aspects of the film: the product placements. The film was filled with American Airlines, Hertz and Hilton. I mean everywhere. Someone suggested it was actually intentional on the part of director Jason Reitman. True, the plot ties in with travel-related company loyalty programs, but this was ridiculous and interfered with the film far more than it supported it. Besides, the screening was sponsored by American Airlines. I think that discredits the ‘intentional’ theory. After thinking about it for these past 24 hours, I’ve downgraded Up in the Air to a B-. At this rate it could be a solid C by Sunday.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Jason Reitman’s new film, Up in the Air, which opens Christmas Day. It’s a competent movie, with some truly touching and funny moments. It just wasn’t special in the way we’ve come to expect from this young filmmaker’s earlier features, Thank You for Smoking and Juno. Reitman’s script is good, just not as good as Diablo Cody’s script for Juno. Hearing the director describe what Up in the Air means to him during tonight’s Q&A made me appreciate it that much more, but future audiences won’t have the benefit of those comments.

One highlight is George Clooney, who steps out of his usual slick role. He’s still charming — he is George Clooney, after all — but in this role he shows a vulnerability that I don’t recall seeing in his previous performances. Clooney plays  Ryan Bingham, a corporate downsizing consultant who spends his entire life flying from city to city, laying people off. (Yes, Reitman has updated his script started seven years ago to incorporate the current unemployment crisis.) Bingham is the “bad guy” but, as Reitman said tonight, “with a heart.” This is in contrast to the young MBA-ish Natalie (played by relative newcomer Anna Kendrick) who is revolutionizing the layoff biz by firing people via teleconferencing.

Also very good is Vera Farmiga who plays Alex, Bingham’s female soul mate. Reitman may have chose the name Alex for it gender ambiguity, for in both character and plot Ryan and Alex have reversed their roles from what we’ve come to expect in most stories. (I can’t say more without being a plot spoiler.) Yes, we get to see George Clooney’s softer, feminine side.

The music in Up in the Air is quite good, and everything else is, as I said, competent. It just wasn’t special enough to earn more than a B rating. Opening December 25, it may get a lot of sentimental support from the critics. It is a more mainstream film than Reitman’s earlier pix and it was apparently a big hit at the Toronto Film Festival.

Updated October 15.

Not the normal film-festival fare, Pierrot Le Fou is a Jean-Luc Godard film from 1965. It was at this year’s Mill Valley Film Festival because the lead actress (the terrific and stunning Anna Karina) was supposed to be here. Unfortunately, she recently broke her foot so the best she could do was phone in her greetings from Paris. Luckily, we knew that in advance.

Wikipedia says this is a great example of postmodern film, which translates into a movie that is (a) often surrealistically confusing, and (b) highly inventive and entertaining so long as you just go with it. I quickly gave up trying to comprehend the big picture and just sat back and enjoyed the filmmaking. My wife, on the other hand, insisted on understanding as much as possible with the result that she didn’t enjoy it as much as I did.

Some of the metaphors are awkward, but it’s a 44-year old film, after all. It’s also Jean-Paul Belmondo at his best. For 110 minutes of fun and ’60s Godard nostalgia, rent Pierrot Le Fou.

I guess you’d call Storm a German international war-crimes prosecution thriller. Kerry Fox is superb as Hanna, an extremely confident prosecutor trying to land a conviction of a former Yugoslavian National Army commander. She’s got interference coming from all directions including trouble with her boss and co-workers, problems with witnesses and issues with the court in the Hague.

The rest of the cast was also good. I particularly liked Rolf Lassgård who played Jonas, Hanna’s ambassador boyfriend. (He was also terrific in a great 2006 Danish/Swedish film, After the Wedding.)

Storm is a high-production value film (ie, healthy budget), but has way too much hand-held camera work. C’mon, guys. Either shoot the whole film hand-held or use the technique for effect. But what’s the point of filing 75% in that style? (Maybe it was less than 75%, but it became annoying.) There were good dolly and locked-down shots, too, and the lighting was fine, so I really don’t get what they were trying to do.

Storm is a 2009 German film, but it’s mostly in English with a few subtitled scenes in other languages. It won the Amnesty International Film Prize (and others) at the 2009 Berlin Film Festival.

A Chilean/Mexican feature, La Nana (The Maid) is one that’s still growing on me, a few hours after the screening.

Raquel has been the live-in do-everything maid for an upper-class Chilean family for 23 years. For that matter, it’s really the only family or relationships she’s ever had, and that’s why things have gotten a bit weird around the house.

La Nana keeps us on the uncomfortable edge of not knowing if we’re supposed to be afraid of Raquel or for her. It’s hard to tell if she’s a good guy, bad guy or both. It’s not even clear whether we’ll ever really understand what makes her tick, but we want to and the plot and character keep moving, so we don’t give up.

If that sounds unpleasant, it’s actually an engrossing comedy with undertones that occasionally border on even the horror-film genre. (How’s that for a confusing description?) Writer/director Sebastian Silva weaves his way through the personality of this very complex character played brilliantly by Catalina Saavedra. And you’ll love Sonia, a cameo role played by Anita Reeves. The film deservedly won a Grand Jury Prize at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. Saavedra won a Special Jury Prize for her performance.Don’t go too far out of your way to find La Nana, but if it’s showing nearby by all means see it.

(Yes, today was a three-documentary day.) Okay, so here’s another one of those liberal expose films — this time, all about the sins of bottled water. And being a good liberal, I was all set to be shocked and called to action. But Tapped just didn’t work for me.

Good topical/social-issue documentaries are essentially journalism. The consistently best are probably the shows from WGBH’s Frontline series. You might not agree, but I’d put An Inconvenient Truth in that category, too.But Tapped isn’t in that league.

The issues surrounding bottled water — e.g., we pay more per gallon for it than we do for gasoline — are legitimate, and one could make a legitimately journalistic film that gets people all riled up. Unfortunately, Tapped forgoes real journalism. Even Michael Moore’s films are more honest than this. Tapped makes its cases mostly by implications. As a trivial example, there are repeated shots of a dirty plastic water bottle sinking slowly in a tropical ocean. Did the filmmakers just happen to get that shot time after time, or was there a diver positioning ot over and over again. Okay, that’s a silly example, but its typical.

After it convinces us of how evil the Nestlé company is for stealing the water of Newfield, Maine, the film jumps to references of cancer and other awful diseases. No explanation. No connection, at least at first. Just innuendo and association. Never any real facts that connect bottled water (and the plants that manufacture the bottles) to cancer. Yeah, they do eventually get there, but it’s all so implicit and not very good science. Again, I’m sure the manufacture of plastic water bottles is poisoning people who live nearby and good science on this exists, but Tapped doesn’t bring this to that conversation.

The film is also overproduced. Too slick. Too much doom-and-gloom music. Why can’t they trust the content to stand on its own? You’ll get the idea by visiting the film’s web site, but you may not want to. Not only does it have a Flash splash page, it also maximizes your browser to full screen. That alone is an unforgivable faux paux and just shows how over the top this project is. Stop buying water in plastic bottles, but skip this movie, too.