The Tale of Despereaux (2008, U.S.)

I went to see this one with my mom, who teaches fourth grade and loves this book. It's hard to look at a kids' movie objectively, because what engages the young mind and what engages the adult mind are two entirely different things. However, I can say that as kids' movies go, this one was probably up there.

The voice talent was definitely great. Ciarán Hinds, Robbie Coltrane, and Emma Watson were all great choices. I would say that Dustin Hoffman was born to be a voice actor. Matthew Broderick (Despereaux, ironically) I could have lived without. I've never been a huge fan of his. Also, it is very strange to have an adult man's voice coming out of a mouse who is supposed to be a kid.

Perhaps I look down on children too much, but it seemed like the plot was fairly complex for the genre, thought I appreciated this aspect. I loved how the lives of three main characters were tied together, how there was a bit of mystery and suspense, how the princess was just a supporting role. One interesting thing was that Despereaux was almost nauseatingly moralistic; I wish the lessons could have been more subtle. Still, they were good lessons—even the smallest person can have the stoutest heart, doing the right thing, the importance of family, being oneself.

Since I clearly don't have a very structured opinion of this movie, I'll just toss in a few more random, un-review-like comments. First, it is incredible to me how many chidlren's stories revolve around soup. Second, what is with this need to animate inanimate objects? When you already have talking mice and rats, do you really need to have a random collection of vegetables and other culinary debris turn into a genie sidekick? But then, what do I know? Maybe kids love that stuff.

Rating: 3.0

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, U.S.)

This film was truly stunning. It was creative and original. The cinematography was beautiful. The acting was fantastic. The makeup is a shoo-in for an Oscar for sure. The music could have been stronger, considering it was composed by Alexandre Desplat (one of my favorites), but it was really wonderful too.

I cannot say enough about Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt—they are truly phenomenal actors. Both play their characters from their mid-teens to very old age (although in Pitt's case, his external and internal ages are the exact opposite), and they do so in the most convincing manner, even down to aging their voices.

The plot of this film was multi-layered. On the one hand, you have a man who is discovering himself and life in a much different way than everyone else does. He is lonely and feels like an outcast because of his special circumstances. He is wise as a "young man" because he's learned so much from the perspective of an elderly man. On the other hand, you have a great love story about star-crossed lovers who have terrible timing but who are fated to be together. And if you had a third hand, on that hand would be the meaning of family and its discovery in unlikely places. Life lessons and romance all mixed together with a mostly serious—though sometimes playful—tone.

If I had to recommend one movie from 2008, this would probably be it. I look forward to seeing how many Oscars this one can grab!

Rating: 5.0

Milk (2008, U.S.)

Of course I've seen biographical films of prominent historical figures, mostly Queen Elizabeth. Milk was an entirely different experience, since I'd never heard of Harvey Milk or his amazing crusade in Californian politics, advocating for civil rights for the gay citizens of San Francisco.

I really only want to talk about two elements of this film—the acting and the general plot. I'll start with the acting. I have never, never liked Sean Penn. In my opinion, he plays the same character over and over again. Not a very pleasant character either. I was pretty enraged when he stole the Oscar in 2003 for playing that same character in Mystic River. After Milk though, I have to retract my previous doubt as to his acting ability. Not only did he play a character completely different from any I've seen him play before, but he played it insanely well. He was charismatic, sweet, endearing, friendly. The few scenes that required any physical display of homosexuality were also well played. (As a side note, these scenes were not used too frequently and they were tastefully understated. Very well handled.) I have never been so impressed with Penn. All of the other actors were amazing too. My friend who I saw it with couldn't stop saying how funny Emile Hircsh was. I thought Diego Luna was pretty amusing as well. But of all the supporting roles, I was most impressed with James Franco, who I've never seen as a particularly strong actor before. His part was understated but very important. I think he could have easily gotten in Penn's way, but he stayed in the background and supported instead. It was well done. These four men just did a wonderful job playing characters outside of their normal ranges.

As to the story, it was straightforward but moving. Obviously, it echoes current events regarding gay rights, and it gave the (mostly) men involved faces and voices. They're people, and they're just like any other people. They deserve their civil rights. Of course you'd never hear me or anyone else who'd see this movie denying that fact, and those who deny it would never see this movie (and therefore potentially be swayed), so that doesn't accomplish much as a tool of activism. But it was well-made, nonetheless. The simple story of a man who found himself at the head of a movement, who ultimately lost his life after changing the lives of thousands for the better. I think "simple" is the best word I can use for this one. It just follows this man from his 40th birthday to his assassination 8 years later, told partially through his own narration in a tape made in case of his death by assassination. All of the main characters were real people, no composites. (And, of course, the film ended with pictures of the real people and what they did after Milk's assassination.) Nothing was overdone. It didn't seem preachy at all, though it easily could have. Instead it was just simple and touching. Wonderful.

Oh, and one last thing: score by Danny Elfman was markedly un-Danny Elfman. But it fit the film perfectly.

Rating: 4.0

Australia (2008, Australia)

I have been looking forward to this film for years, quite literally. It was wonderful, as I expected. Other than that, there was little that was what I expected.

Australia is definitely an epic. It's about a country, yes. But it's also about a woman, a man, a little boy, an old Aborigine. It's about love and about hate. Family, friendship, business, war, hardship, tradition, culture, belonging. It definitely felt like a loving tribute to a way of life that is no more. In that way, it was the romance it was marketed as. But the romance was not between Kidman and Jackman, but between the filmmakers and their homeland.

It goes without saying that the acting was phenomenal, but I'll say it anyway. Nicole Kidman is one of my all time favorites, and she was in perfect form. At the beginning of the film, she is amusingly uptight, but by the end she is a self-assured, strong woman who knows her priorities. She plays both roles with equal strength. Kidman definitely overshadows Jackman, although he too is quite good in his role as The Drover (he's never given a proper name, which somewhat annoys me). The real star of the show, however, was Brandon Walters, the boy who plays Nullah, a half-aboriginal child that Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) meets in Australia. He was absolutely charming and a stunning actor, especially considering it was his first project. The rest of the cast was also great. There were many minor Australian actors that I recognized that others probably wouldn't, but I enjoyed seeing them in such a high-profile film. And it was good to see David Wenham in a major supporting role, since I haven't seen him in awhile; he was even great as a bad guy.

As I said about the acting, the backdrop of this saga was also phenomenal, obviously. Luhrman truly captured the rugged majesty of the outback, the incredible sight of 1500 head of cattle being droved, the horror of war (when the town of Darwin is bombed), and all the rest. It was visually stunning, to say the very least. I really don't know how else to say it.

And to the main event—the plot. I expected Australia to be all about the romance between Kidman and Jackman. Instead, it was about a woman from England who discovers the magical draw of the land down under. She meets a half-caste boy who doesn't fit in anywhere and who needs a mother. She meets a strongly independent man to love, a man who loves her back as an equal partner. She learns about what's worth fighting for, and she finds herself as well. It is a beautiful story.

And of course I have to say something about the score, which was composed by David Hirschfelder. The only film I can think of off the top of my head that Hirschfelder scored is Elizabeth, in which he did an incredible job integrating a period feel. I think the same can be said of the Australia score. It also had a markedly old western feel. At times it was just incredibly overstated and upbeat, such as when they head off droving. It was kind of off-putting at first, but I decided that it was well orchestrated. It made it seem as if the film was produced in the era it depicted, which was kind of cool.

I thought that the best part of Australia was how The Wizard of Oz is wound through the plot. Sarah tells Nullah the story to comfort him, and he relates "Somewhere over the Rainbow," which she sings to him, to his culture's ideas of dreaming and stories. The song weaves through the entire movie and one line from The Wizard of Oz reappears in the dialogue. They eventually see the film at the theater. And of course, Nullah (who narrates the film—another element I love), is telling his own story of "a land called Oz." It was beautifully integrated.

See this one.

Rating: 4.5

Rachel Getting Married (2008, U.S.)

I only went to see this one because two of my friends wanted to see it. I never thought I would live to see the day when the following sentence would pour from my brain to the page, but here it goes: The best part of this movie was Anne Hathaway.

I know. Turns out that when she's not playing a flake, she does have the ability to play a character who's... not a fake. (To be fair, I did also think she was pretty good in Brokeback Mountain.) She plays a girl fresh out of rehab, reunited with her family in her childhood home for her sister's wedding. Hathaway portrays the myriad of emotions and reactions in an overwhelmingly convincing manner. Her interactions with her sister, parents, various friends and family members, and another former junkie are wrought with complexity. You can really get in her head.

Other than that, the film was one long snooze-fest. The family Rachel is marrying into is just too weird. As is the wedding. And the other guests. It seems to me that if you want your audience to relate to a character, you should make her surroundings and the other characters more familiar to the average viewer. There should be more "everyman" types and fewer of the unique crazies that overrun this one.

Really, that's all I can remember to say about this one. It was way too drawn out for what it was. A character study can only go on for so long. I was dying to leave the theater and go to bed by end, which hasn't happened to me in years. I doubt I would recommend this to anybody. (Although my two friends seemed to quite like it. So who knows, you may want to try it.)

Rating: 2.0

Girl, Interrupted (1999, U.S.)

It is a good thing that I didn't see this film back in the day, although I have been wanting to see it for years. (Angelina Jolie is one of my all time favorite actresses—why have I not seen her Oscar-winning performance yet?) The reason I say I shouldn't have seen it is because it was spot on. Winona Ryder's character is institutionalized, and rather than getting better, she gets crazier. Because she's surrounded by other people who are genuinely crazy and/or have become crazy there. Then she takes charge of herself and heals herself.

But enough of that. Acting. Was. Brilliant. Angelina Jolie was brilliant, of course. It's strange to see how much maturity she had as an actress even when she was a bit of a wreck of a person. Perhaps that helped her in roles like this one. In any case, she was perfect. As was Winona Ryder. I've gained more and more respect for her recently. She's more than just a shoplifter and Depp's ex!

I would recommend this to anyone, but especially any female who's found her sanity in question at sometime in her life. This film is beautifully sad. It's about the human experience from a point of view rarely taken. It's about women finding themselves and each other and getting through the tough times. It's about the unfairness of life and the things we do to make it through the day. It's about being alone. It's about friendship. It's about putting the pieces back together. Wonderful film.

Rating: 4.0

Twilight (2008, U.S,)

Here we go, the moment everyone's been waiting for. I saw the midnight premier of Twilight, like the huge nerd I am. I adore the books (well, at least the first three), and I tried very hard to go into this with little to no expectations, since I knew it would never live up. (I can't think of a single movie that I've liked more—or even as much as—the novel it was based upon.)

First let me say that it was super fun to go to the midnight showing with a bunch of squealing, swooning high schoolers. They were all just too funny. You could tell the crowd had almost all read the book, because there were so many parts that were just SO overdone where we all just died of laughter. For example, when Edward first catches the scent of Bella's blood—she walks into the classroom in front of a fan, her hair blows out, and the camera pans to Edward who looks like he's about to vomit. The entire theater erupted into peals of laughter, because it just looked ridiculous. The same goes for the pained expression that never left Japser's face. And Edward's horribly cheesy line—"Hold on, spider monkey!" It was all just beyond ridiculous, but it was kind of fun because of that.

On the whole, the film stayed remarkably true to the book. They actioned it up a bit, but not so much that it detracted from the story. The main thing that bothered me was that it seemed entirely too rushed, like the Cliffs Notes version of the book. (This is kind of how I feel about the HP series, but HP's definitely worse in that respect.) One of the best parts of the book is the suspense of this slowly unfolding mystery/romance together, and the pace of the film was just too fast for that. But again, the general feeling was there, so I can't complain. We all thought the dance studio scene was going to be destroyed, but it was really okay.

What else, what else? Casting was fabulous. The one person I was hesitant about was Carlisle, but I think I actually liked the guy. Charlie was not anything how I pictured Charlie, but not bad. And Edward... Let's just say I nearly hyperventilated every time he was on screen. Boy did he pull off the smoldering eyes. I also liked all of the siblings, particularly Emmett. And the guy who played Billy Black was perfect, if a bit too young.

Special effects were terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The running, climbing up trees, ripping people's heads off, and especially Edward's sparkly skin were a major let down. Mostly it all looked cheesy and fake. I knew they would never pull off the sparkly skin, and of course it could have been worse, but yeah. Mostly he looked kind of blurry, if anything.

Music was also terrible. I hate it when potentially timeless films (okay, it may be a stretch to put Twilight in that category) use modern music. Especially trendy or bad modern music. For one thing, it really dates the movie, and for another thing, it detracts from what's going on in the movie. I have a huge thing for scores though—9 times out of 10, a good score means a good movie. Carter Burwell, who composed the score for Twilight, is one of my favorite film composers (albiet toward the bottom of the list). And while he did have one theme that was especially good ("Bella's Lullaby," to be exact), the rest of the score just didn't have the power, beauty, and—dare I say it?—sublime quality it could have had. Also, while "Bella's Lullaby" was good, it wasn't good enough to be the "Bella's Lullaby." (You Twilighters know what I mean.)

The last thing I didn't really like was the ending. They had a perfect ending, just like in the book (that would be the prom), and a perfect shot that would have been a beautiful freeze frame to end on. Instead, they have to show creepy Victoria watching them and looking all vengeful. Okay, I get that you want to set up the second movie, but seriously? Twilight begs for a romantic ending over an ominous ending—there's plenty of room for that in later installments.

Overall, it was kind of hard not to like this one, in a twisted sort of way. I (and the rest of the theater) laughed way too much at parts that shouldn't have been funny. (I did this in the book too, but not to such an extreme extent.) But it's okay to laugh when you tell yourself, "Hey, it's a teen vampire romance!" They also added some jokes that were quite Meyer-esque. And we librarians loved hearing Edward Cullen saying, "You can Google it!" and Bella going to a book before researching on the internet. Like with HP, the casting was great. (Did I mention how swoon-worthy Rob Pattinson was? Gah.) And that was pretty much what made it great, the cast.

To use a metaphor from the movie itself, this one definitely wins the Golden Onion (something Edward and Bella win in biology for doing their lab the best—definitely not in the book). It was amazing, but it was awful. Like a golden onion. Ha ha.

It's quite difficult to objectively (and succinctly!) review a movie based on a book I love so much, but I've tried my best. So here's a quick and dirty summary, just in case:

An Academy Award winner? No. A worthy guilty pleasure? Most definitely.

Rating: 4.0

Changeling (2008, U.S.)

Obviously I was going to see this one, because I absolutely adore Angelina Jolie. And she was nothing short of brilliant in this one. Brilliant.

I truly cannot say enough about this film. The cinematography was astounding , from the very first black and white fade to color until the final fade back to black and white. (Very effective in introducing the film, a sort of eerie "once upon a time.") The costumes were perfect (and let me tell you, Jolie should have been a '20s/'30s film star—she rocked that cloche hat). Mis en scene in general was good. Very few anachronisms.

And the score was incredible. I nearly died of shock when I saw it had been written by Clint Eastwood. It was mostly a serious of variations on a very simple theme, using a violin (I think) and a solo trumpet. It fits the time period well with its slight jazziness, but it especially fits the plot because it is so dark and sad. I actually bought the score, and I'm glad.

The film was much darker than I thought it was going to be. Obviously, the disappearance of a child is enough to make a film pretty depressing, but add to that police corruption, a serial killer, and an eery psychiatric hospital, and wow. It was a very strange, subtle kind of suspense, and it was very effective.

This is really the first Clint Eastwood film that I've really, really liked. (Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil isn't bad, but it doesn't hold up compared to Changeling.) Angelina Jolie really made it what it was, but I think it would have been good even without her (though I'm glad we'll never know). This film blew me away, and I would definitely recommend it.

Rating: 4.5

The Philadelphia Story (1940, U.S.)

Have you read my review for Sabrina? I almost should just copy and paste it here. Almost.

Obviously, anything with Cary Grant in it is going to be far superior to anything with Humphrey Bogart, in my humble opinion. Although, they really are very different. Kind of like Katharine Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn.

This one really had a complicated, five-sided love "triangle." Cary Grant is Katharine Hepburn's ex-husband. She's engaged to another guy. And then two reporters show up to cover the wedding—the female reporter loves the man, and then the male reporter falls for Hepburn. It's a bit hard to keep up at times.

As situational comedies go, it's complex but entertaining. I especially liked that there was no telling who was going to end up with who at the end until the very last second. Again, it's not my favorite old romantic comedy, but it really is quite good. And I adore Cary Grant, have I mentioned?

Rating: 3.5

Quantum of Solace (2008, UK)

I. Love. Daniel. Craig. There is no other Bond for me. To be fair, I've only ever seen the Brosnan and Craig films. And Casino Royale was my first Bond, and I already had a soft spot for it because I'd seen them filming it. But still.

The plot of Quantum of Solace was very typically Bond, probably more so than Casino Royale. Bad guys doing something extremely technologically complicated, creative, and deviously evil. (And as far as evil plots go, this one really takes the cake—but I don't want to give it away.) Sexy women getting in the way, sleeping with Bond, getting killed off. Car chases, shootouts, and explosions. Only this time, Bond had more than duty motivating him—he had revenge. And he very subtly reaches toward revenging Vesper's death. It's not an obvious plot point, but it nicely ties QofS with CR. I love continuity.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start with the beginning. I did not like the opening credits, nor the new theme song performed by Jack White and Alicia Keyes. (Surprising, because I do love Jack White.) I just don't think anything could touch "You Know My Name" and the clever gambling theme of the CR credits. I liked the "cut out" looking men more than the CGI women, even if it was less "Bond."

The opening scene of QofS is a car chase. I'm back and forth on car chases overall; they have to be really well done to get my attention. And while this one was pretty cool, the jerky camera movements were just a bit too much. It's hard to appreciate a scene when your eyes can't focus on it! It also took me awhile to figure out what was happening. Apparently the beginning of this film takes place directly after the end of the last film. Again, love the continuity—don't love that Bond was wearing a different suit. Confusing!

After that, it was all great. I'm still a bit confused on some of the plot points, but as far as I can tell, every Bond film takes at least two viewings to work out the kinks of who did what and why. The casting was fabulous. Of course I love Craig and Dench, so no surprises there. The actors who portrayed the main Bond girl and the main villian were both amazing. Olga Kurylenko was both fragile and tough, and she definitely held her own. Mathieu Amalric can only be described as "slimy." They were perfect.

The cinematography was well done (from gritty to stunning, depending on the . The score was understated and effective (though again, it didn't touch CR either). The choreography (I'm talking fight scenes here) was realistic and yet very dance-like (if that makes sense).

I'm pretty much dying to see it again.

Rating: 4.5

Sabrina (1954, U.S.)

Generally I love Audrey Hepburn, and Sabrina is supposed to be a classic, but this one gets a general rating of "eh." It was okay. Maybe I've just seen one too many rich man / poor girl films. One too many love triangles. Also, I'm just not that much of a Bogey fan, which I'm sure didn't help.

Don't get me wrong, it was still pretty funny and romantic, and the class truly puts modern romantic comedies to shame. But it was no Roman Holiday or It Happened One Night.

I'm not going to strongly recommend it, but I'm not going to dismiss it outright either. It has its merits. It's a classic. Maybe if I was in a different mood when I watched it I would have loved it. But it is worth seeing, one way or the other.

Rating: 3.0

What a Way to Go! (1964, U.S.)

Yet another film recommended by Stefanie. I don't really want to say too much about it, because it will give a lot away. Pretty much this woman's mother wants her to marry a rich guy who's a jerk. Instead, she runs off and marries a poor guy who she loves. Except then he becomes a rich jerk and dies. Rinse, wash, repeat. She marries man after man, and the same thing happens. The cast of husbands is absolutely fabulous. I especially loved Dick van Dyke, of course.

My favorite part was how she compares each marriage to a type of film. For instance, her marriage to Dick van Dyke's character was like an old silent movie. They filmed a parody of their life together, silent film style. It was great. And they did the same thing for every marriage. I loved it.

Overall, an absolutely hilarious and altogether fun film. The only thing I didn't like that much was the ending—more specifically, the surviving husband.

Rating: 4.0

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008, UK)

My friend Stefanie recommended this film to me, saying it was one of the best situational comedies since the Golden Age of cinema. She was definitely right. In fact, since it was set in the late 1930s, it might as well have been filmed in the late 1930s.

There was plenty of situational comedy, as well as some pretty witty one-liners. Romance, a hard-working main character contrasted with some pretty shallow other characters, set against the backdrop of an emerging war... The only thing I didn't like was the message that finding a man is the only thing that will make your life complete or even worth living.

You can't help but love Amy Adams. She adds a spark to whatever project she's involved with, I think. There's just something about her. And I never knew that Frances McDormand was so amusing.

If you're looking for an enjoyable, relaxing evening with a few good laughs, I'd definitely recommend this one.

Rating: 4.0

Rendition (2007, U.S.)

This film was both better and worse than I anticipated. Of course the cast was wonderful. I rather wish Reese Witherspoon would do more serious movies, because she has so much potential. Meryl Streep gave me the creeps, which must mean she was successful in her role. And I can never hate Jake Gyllenhaal, although it may not have been his strongest performance ever.

I love films that depict the United States in a less than perfect light—because we're not perfect, so it's good to have a dose of realism every now and again. Especially when it has current relevancy.

I think my favorite part of this film was the fact that there were two (or you could possibly count three) parallel stories which seemed to have only the slightest overlap. They were much more tied together than one would think, and the flexible time structure added a lot to this element.

The weakest part was that as emotional as the whole concept was, there was very little emotion that came across obviously in the execution of the plot. The potential was there, but underused.

Overall, I would recommend this one. It will make you think twice about counter-terrorism.

Rating: 3.5

Sexo por compasión (2000, Mexico)

I really don't have much to say about this one.

I thought I wanted some more magical realism films in my life, but I'm seriously beginning to rethink this thought. This film was essentially about a small village that had been sucked dry of life. People were moving away, there was only one child, and everything was black and white. Then Dolores's husband leaves her again, and suddenly she starts sleeping with every man in town, and the town is rejuvenated. The color comes back. Everything is rainbows and sunshine. And the woman (who now calls herself Lolita), is not a whore but a saint.

It makes no sense, and I can't even pretend to have liked it. I'm sure there must have been some redeeming qualities (for instance, the use of black and white for part of the movie and color for the other part), but mostly it was just stupid. And I can't be more eloquent than that, so I'm giving up.

Rating: 2.0

I Was a Male War Bride (1949, U.S.)

I adore Cary Grant, and this film is a Cary Grant film. That's pretty much enough said right there. It was absolutely hilarious and quite risque for the '40s. There was all kind of sexual innuendo and cross dressing and overall bending of traditional gender roles.

It was also interesting because it was like two movies rolled into one. Part one was how these two people who got on each other's nerves fell in love. (Think It Happened One Night for the military.) Part two was how the man dealt with being a role traditionally reserved for women.

Slapstick comedy and witty puns galore. I laughed out loud over and over again. If you need a laugh or a Cary Grant fix, this is definitely a great choice.

Rating: 3.5

The Duchess (2008, UK)

I am almost embarrassed to say that I was not familiar with Georgiana Spencer's story before I saw this film, and I didn't realize it was going to be a huge depression-fest.

Still, it was absolutely wonderful. Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes are both brilliant actors, of course. Even if the rest of the film was horrible (which it wasn't), those two would make the entire thing worthwhile. Their portrayls of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire were incredible. The duke was vile, the duchess sympathetic. I really cannot say enough about them, so I won't say anything. Well, maybe one thing—both of them look amazing in wigs. Fiennes looked like he was born to his powdered wig, and Knightley is never better than when she's in a historic role, with gorgeous dresses and fancy hair.

The entire visual aspect of the film was beautiful. Costumes, scenery, everything. The 18th century is probably my favorite when it comes to aesthetics, and this film didn't disappoint. Rachel Portman's score was complementary and not overwhelming.

I enjoyed the historic drama, as I usually do. But in the last couple of years, I have become more interested in the Foxite era, although I haven't had much opportunity to get into it. So to have that background to this story was quite interesting.

And the plot was a really heartbreaking look at the life of one woman whose husband flaunted his mistress in front of her, who was denied her one true love, and who sacrificed everything for her children. It was beautiful and sad and wonderful. Definitely bittersweet. And the Duchess of Devonshire was an admirable, strong woman. A great character. A great film.

Rating: 4.0

Aimée & Jaguar (1999, Germany)

As I mentioned in my last post, Blockbuster loves recommending films to me. For some reason, it really thinks that I like "gay interest" films, as they're labeled. But hey, I'm open-minded, so I watch them.

This film is about a Jewess and the wife of Nazi soldier (also called a "conformist") who fall in love during the later years of World War II. They create a little domestic world for themselves with the conformist's children and a tight group of lesbian friends.

And that's enough to fill two hours of film. Imagine all of the obstacles faced by these two—the Nazi party, the one's Jewishness, their lesbianism, the conformist's husband, the Jewess's jealous ex-girlfriend... Quite fascinating.

The film is based on a true story, taken from the memoirs of the conformist. and yet the film is narrated by the Jewess's ex-girlfriend as an old woman (who meets the conformist in a nursing home in Berlin). This combination gives an already unique film an interesting twist.

I would recommend this film for those who like history, thwarted romance, films told in flashbacks, or gay interest pieces.

Rating: 3.5

Like Water for Chocolate / Como agua para chocolate (1992, Mexico)

Blockbuster loves to recommend movies to me, and sometimes I'll listen, like in this case. After all, how many times did I shelf the novel this film was based on when I worked at GCPL? Also, new foreign film is always nice.

I had mixed reactions to this one. On one hand, it had a really great love story with a twist—very dependent on Mexican culture. The main character falls in love with a man, but because she is the youngest daughter, she must never marry but instead care for her mother until her mother's death. So the man marries her sister to stay close to her. I'm not sure whether that's romantic or messed up, but there you go.

Decades of heartache and drama ensue. One sister runs off with the Mexican revolutionaries, one is married to the other's one true love, and the third tries to forget her heartache through cooking. So while most of the story was quite good, I feel like the cooking was supposed to be a lot more central to the plot. The main character was born on the kitchen table, after all. She does make everyone sad when she cries in the batter of her sister's wedding cake, then she makes everyone horny when she cooks a dish with roses that the man brings her, but otherwise, food takes a backseat to the rest of the story. I believe it was probably more integral in the book, like it was in the film Eat Drink Man Woman.

Overall, it really is a good film. The family drama, the romance, the food, the insight into early 20th century Mexican culture. I especially loved the ending and the use of magical realism throughout. In fact, I think I will start looking for more films that employ magical realism. And I would recommend this, even though I've only given it a mediocre rating.

Rating: 3.5

W. (2008, U.S.)

Of course I thought I was going to like this one. And I was right. It was great. Oliver Stone is a wonderful director, and while he clearly isn't Bush's biggest fan, I think he did his best to make the film as unbiased as possible.

Blogger is silly and will only let me tag so many things per post, so let me list who portrayed all the major characters—Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush), Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush), James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush), Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney), Michael Gaston (General Tommy Franks), Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld), Ioan Gruffudd (Tony Blair), Toby Jones (Karl Rove), Thandie Newton (Condaleeza Rice), and Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell). If this doesn't sell this film to you, I don't know what would. All of these actors were so absolutely brilliant that I almost forgot that they were actors and not the actual people. And then there was Josh Brolin. Wow. To be able to play such an interesting character over a span of 40 years with such authenticity is sheer, undeniable brilliance. Stefanie (who I saw this film with) had the same reaction as me—by the end, we were convinced that we were watching Dubya and not Brolin. Amazing, amazing, amazing acting. I cannot say enough about the whole cast, and especially about Brolin.

Besides the great acting and the high level of realism, I also love the flashback method of storytelling (as I always do) and the clever, clever score. The flashbacks attempted to parallel his early life with how he behaved as president. He was (apparently) a wild, alcoholic, irresponsible boy who couldn't hold down a job and was an embarrassment to George Sr. He decided to get it together and go into the family business by running for the House of Representatives, but he was "out-Texased" by the democratic candidate. Then somehow he becomes governor of Texas, and then God calls him to run for president. (H.W. didn't want him to run for governor and overshadow his brother Jeb, who he seemed to be much prouder of.) You feel bad for poor W. But at the same time, you recognize that trying to prove oneself to one's father is a terrible motivation for becoming president and that this man was not qualified for the job. (Kind of like another politician whose primary experience is as a state governor...)

Then there was the music. There was an interesting arrangement of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background when Bush and his cabinet are in a meeting to decide whether or not they're going into Baghdad. It gave me goosebumps—and not the good kind. Especially when the cabinet took part in their customary prayer at the end of the meeting. There were also several uses of a chirpy song about Robin Hood, primarily when Bush was wandering around his ranch followed by a troop of his not-so-merry men (and Condoleeza). It fit perfectly, with all its lyrics about feared by the evil and loved by the good, added to its goofy sound.

I liked George H.W. Bush in this film. I never thought much about him before since he was president when I was too young to care, but based on this he wasn't so bad. I liked how they had him tell W. that he had disgraced the Bush family name. However, in case this is less than accurate, he says this in a dream that W. has. That way, the idea was introduced but not implied as fact. I thought that was very subtly clever.

The last thing I will mention is the ongoing baseball field scenes, which culminated with the excellently done final scene. Apparently, center field is where Bush is able to think the most clearly. (His most successful job is as a baseball team owner, in fact.) Whenever he is trying to make a tough choice, they show him zoning out and imagining himself into center field. The last scene shows a fly ball coming towards him, and he keeps looking for it and looking for it, but he never sees it again. And that was a perfectly executed simile, right there. It was also a great way to end it. No hopeful messages, no preaching via end titles, no scrambling to choose a good final scene that really happened... It was wonderful.

I would give this film a 5, but I just wish there was more in it. Obviously, time is an issue and it can't go on forever, but I wanted it to. And since this is my blog, I can take half a point off for leaving me wanting more!

Go see this film. And don't "misunderestimate" it!

Rating: 4.5

Nights in Rodanthe (2008, U.S.)

Obviously, I love Nicholas Sparks. I thought the film adaptations of Message in a Bottle and The Notebook were both very good. I went into this one with pretty low expectations, however. First, I don't really like Richard Gere. Second, although I haven't read Nights in Rodanthe in ages, I do remember that it wasn't one of my favorite Sparks novels.

The movie was pretty good, I suppose. Richard Gere was a lot better than usual, and Diane Lane is great, of course. The character that stole the show from those two, however, would be the house where most of the action took place. It was so unique and gorgeous. The North Carolina coast and the hurricane were also breathtaking scene-stealers.

While it was somewhat romantic (inevitably), it felt out of sync. Some parts of the story were painfully extended, while others were rushed through. The stupid guys making all kinds of noise behind me did not help.

Anyway, if you like this kind of movie, you'll like this movie.

Rating: 3.0

Adaptation. (2002, U.S.)

What a crazy, crazy, crazy film. I don't even know what to think of this one or what the point was, exactly.

The story is about a man (played by Cage) who is writing a screenplay of a book written by a woman (Streep). The book is entirely about orchids (and quite boring, from what I gather). The man lives with his loser brother (also played by Cage), who decides to become a screenwriter as well.

The screenplay isn't going well, so the man decides to look farther into the story—and all kinds of bizarre things start happening / are revealed.

I can't lie. I thought this one was quite slow and often boring. Nicolas Cage was adequate, but not great. Chris Cooper, who played a minor (but integral) role, definitely stole the show.

You'd really have to see this one for yourself. But I will say one thing for it—it was different.

Rating: 2.5

Bruce Almighty (2003, U.S.)

I completely forgot this movie was in my queue. I'm not sure why it was to begin with—maybe because Amy likes it.

It was okay. Clearly, nobody can play God like Morgan Freeman. He was great. The best part of the movie, probably.

Parts of it were somewhat funny, the "hero" learns a moral lesson, life goes on. It could have been a lot better; it could have been a lot worse. And that's all I've got on this one.

Rating: 3.0

Bringing Up Baby (1938, U.S.)

What can I say about this one? It's a classic—absolutely hilarious. I love Cary Grant, and I'm also quite fond of Katharine Hepburn. Add a domestic leopard, mistaken identities, and strange situations, and you can't go wrong.

This one just has to speak for itself. It's a classic, and if you want a good laugh, this will do it.

Rating: 4.5

Rancid Aluminium (2000, UK)

What a strange movie. I'm not sure if there was a point. There was a plot, but at the end all I could think was, "Why?" The major idea of the movie was that a man (Ifan)'s father dies and leaves him the family company, even though the son's best friend (Fiennes) put more work into the company. The friend is jealous and smart. So he convinces the son that they're going bankrupt and enlists Russian mobsters to (it seems) steal his friend's money and then kill him.

His motivations made no sense. The Russians' role made no sense. The son's affair with the mobster's daughter made no sense. The vague ending made no sense.

I guess this just wasn't my cup of tea, but it did have Joseph Fiennes in it, so I had to try. (Random note: I think they trimmed his eyelashes so he wasn't as attractive. Some attention to detail!) The best things about this one were the acting (of course) and the score. It was almost like the score was one big joke. It was overdramatic, diverse, and just plain odd. But it fit perfectly, and really added something. If you're big on original (by which I mean unique) film music, it's worth watching just for that.

Rating: 2.5

Speed Racer (2008, U.S.)

One guess why I watched this bit of silliness—yeah, that would be Matthew Fox. I love that man, and I loved him as Racer X. Add to that the brilliant, truly comic-book inspired score by Michael Giacchino, and the whole thing was worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, this was a good family movie. The Wachowski brothers did a great job of creating this brightly-colored science fictional world, where car racing is a way of life. It was almost overwhelming to the point of distraction, all this color and such.

The movie's got great messages about family, fighting against the corrupt capitalist upper-class, doing the right thing, etc. The cast was really high-profile, which was a bit incongruous with this type of movie. (The last thing I saw Emile Hirsch in was Into the Wild, so seeing him now as Speed Racer was even stranger.) The plot was confusing at times, but it all became clear in the end.

As I seem to have really lost my gift for description, I think I'm going to give up on this review. Suffice is to say that for the type of movie this was, it was really good. Oh, and did I mention Matthew Fox?

Rating: 3.5

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006, U.S.)

What an incredibly unique film. I didn't have any expectations going into this one; in fact, I only had a vague idea what it was about. But it was something special.

It's about a guy who commits suicide (presumably because his girlfriend leaves him). However, the afterlife for suicide victims is almost exactly like this life—only it's more drab, more depressing, filled with other suicides, and nobody is allowed to smile. So this guy finds out the girl he killed himself over committed suicide too, and he begins a journey to find her. Of course what he finds instead is himself, some friends, and, ironically, a little bit of meaning in life.

This was perhaps one of the most bizarre fantasies I've ever seen, from "miracles" to a black hole under the seat of a beat up car to accidental residents of a strange purgatory. The acting was great. The story was a fresh take on an old theme, the setting was fittingly drab, and the ending was both disheartening and uplifting all at once.

Brilliant.

Rating: 4.0

Hard Candy (2005, U.S.)

I just don't even know what to say about this one. A pedophile (or is he?) versus a 14-year-old girl (slash psychological torturer?). Who do you want to win this battle? I'm not sure.

The film's intense. Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson did some of the most brilliant acting I've seen in ages. The plot was intriguing, the suspense gripping. Really well done, and with a total of five actors (although most of the action dealt with only two).

It's an amazing film. I can't say that you will enjoy it because of its dark themes and how uncomfortable it will make you feel, but you can't argue against its value as a work. (Hence the lack of a strong rating one way or the other.)

I just don't have anything else to say. You'd have to see it for yourself.

Rating: 3.0

Mary, Queen of Scots (1971, UK)

After I saw Anne of the Thousand Days and didn't fall in love, I didn't have high hopes for this one, which was also directed by Charles Jarrott. But it was great.

Of course Vanessa Redgrave is a wonderful actress, and I've seen her in several films, but this was the best role I've seen her in, I think. And Glenda Jackson might be my all-time favorite Queen Elizabeth. I love Cate Blanchett, and I loved Bette Davis, but Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth was the most "real" characterization. She seemed like a regular person, but grouchy and headstrong and not entirely likable. Probably how she really was. (Side note: Jackson is now an MP. How cool is that?)

I liked that this film spanned many decades of their relationship and took the opposite approach than the usual one. I wish that there could have been more of everything... But that seems to have been the trend recently.

The score was typical of all period pieces from the late 1960s and early 70s, but it was still good. And Ian Holm as a young man with black hair and beard... too strange.

So overall, this was pretty much what you would expect from a film of its type, but a bit better. If you like this kind of thing, you'll like Mary, Queen of Scots.

Rating: 4.0

Lust, Caution / Se, jie (2007, China)

I wanted to see this because it's Ang Lee's newest film after Brokeback, and I haven't seen any of his Asian films besides Eat Drink Man Woman. Plus I'd heard pretty good things about it.

It was... okay. Elements of it were really great. The cinematography, the costumes, pretty much everything visual was wonderful. The score was also beautiful, and it stuck with me days after I watched it, and I only realized today that it is by one of my favorite composers, Alexandre Desplat.

The plot was incredibly intricate and hard to follow. This could have to do with the language. Even though I had subtitles (obviously), I sometimes find Asian films harder to follow than, say, French or German films. Perhaps because the intonation is just so different.

The historical detail was probably a bit much for the average viewer, but I liked it. I also liked the neo-noir feel.

Here's the thing. There was supposedly a lot of sex in this movie. Unfortunately, Blockbuster only had the R-rate (not NC-17) version, which meant a lot of these scenes were cut out (I'm assuming). I say "unfortunate," because I feel like I must have missed a lot of dialogue, etc. that would have helped me understand the characters, the plot, and just everything in general.

I think perhaps rewatching this one might give me a better impression—but I don't know if I feel up to it.

Rating: 3.0

Dances with Wolves (1990, U.S.)

I have fallen quite behind in posting, so my impressions on this (and the next few) film(s) isn't that fresh.

I watched this film because, as I always say, "the moms love it." "The" moms being women of my mother's generation in general. I'm not much of Kevin Costner fan, which is why it took me so long to see it.

I liked it. It was long, meandering, and often "boring," which are qualities I often value in a film when other people wouldn't. The biggest problem was the amount of psychological development going on in the main character which was probably more evident in the novel, but it was translated to the screen fairly well, for the most part.

I really just don't have much to say about this one. It's one of those movies you just have to see and experience yourself. You can't help but get invested in John Dunbar's life—hours pass by, and you forget there's a world outside the film. Sometimes, that's exactly what I want from a movie.

I think I would have rated this one higher if a) there was more—more everything, not that there was time for it, or b) if the ending was more satisfying somehow.

Rating: 3.5

Y tu mamá también (2001, Mexico)

I pretty much had the same reaction to Y tu mamá también as I did to The Human Stain. It was really quite wonderfully done, and yet I wished there was something more. And again, I couldn't quite put my finger on what that "more" would be.

Let me start by saying that I think Alfonso Cuarón is great. After all, he did direct my favorite of the first five Harry Potter films (Prisoner of Azkaban) as well as the absolutely brilliantly done Children of Men. Clearly, he has some flexible skills.

This film took a road trip sex-fest and turned it into an examination of life, love, and friendship. It's about growing up. It's about living the life you want to live before it's too late. It's about the stuff of friendships, especially those forged from opposite sides of the tracks. And in the background is the beauty of Mexico and traditional life and the changing nature of the country. Yet for all that, it's still funny in addition to being touching and dramatic.

Superb acting. Superb writing. Superb cinematography. I think that only two things are keeping me from giving this one a higher rating. First, the guys were just a little too "teenage" for me. Which was the point, I guess, and it wouldn't have worked any other way, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the typical behavior of typical boys. Secondly, the ending left me reeling with questions. Mainly, "Why did their friendship turn out the way it did?" Definitely a thought-provoker, from the instant the credits start rolling.

Rating: 3.5

Love, Honour, and Obey (2000, UK)

What a weird one from Natural Nylon. But then, I guess you couldn't expect anything else. A clash of London gangters. Violence, profanity, sex jokes, friendships, love, marriage... Jonny Lee Miller narrates the film in a clown costume. Scenes of all of the characters singing karaoke are spliced into the main storyline. Jude and Jonny's friendship is paralleled to Sadie and Ray's pending nuptials. (Hence the "love, honour, and obey.")

I read a review of this on imdb, and the reviewer said "It wasn't bad. It wasn't good." And that's about what I thought of it. Parts of it were really brilliant—the time structure, the random karaoke and clown-narration scenes, the relationship foil, the ongoing erectile dysfunction side plot (now there was a surprise). On the other hand, it seemed too violent, too vulgar, too unrealistic, too pointless. So not good, not bad. On the other hand, I am curious to see some other Natural Nylon productions now.

I don't really know what else to say about this one. It is definitely one of a kind, if nothing else.

Rating: 3.0

The Human Stain (2003, U.S.)

I saw this movie on TV a couple of years ago and had an overall good impression of it, but I didn't see the whole thing from the beginning. So I decided to watch it again. (Also, I needed a bit of a Wentworth fix before Prison Break stated back on Monday... but that's a post for another day.)

To begin with, The Human Stain has a stellar cast—Sir Anthony Hopkins, Nicole Kidman, Wentworth Miller, Gary Sinise. Even Ed Harris, who I normally could live without, is quite good in this film. Add to that a wonderful score by Rachel Portman, who's one of my favorites. (Little surprise here—Portman has been nominated for two Oscars and has won a third... the first woman to do so.) So all in all, the film just couldn't be bad.

And the plot is also quite great. Coleman Silk, a seemingly white man born of black parents, living his life as a Jewish classics professor, is accused of making a racist remark, which costs him his wife and his career. Nobody knows about his heritage, but the viewer discovers it through flashbacks of his young adulthood. (Enter Wentworth Miller, who was great in this role. Interestingly, Miller's father is supposedly black, though you may not know it to look at him. I bet this role was strange for him.) At this point, other people start coming into Silk's life. A white-trash woman (Kidman) with an abusive ex-husband (Harris) and a closet full of skeletons. A novelist (Sinise) suffering from writer's block and hiding out from the world.

Through his interactions with these people and the accompanying flashbacks, Silk's history slowly unfolds. It's about racial idenity and living a lie and how it changes a person and his life. It was really well crafted, yet I found myself wanting more. I felt like I was having to make to many connections / analyze too much myself. It just could have had more... something. I feel like I need to read the book to get the whole story now. In fact, I think I will.

So I liked it, but I could have liked it more.

Rating: 3.5

Black Books (2000-2004, UK)

I just finished watching the entire show Black Books, a very short British sitcom of three series, six episodes each. It was hilarious. It's written by the man who plays the main character, an Irish comedian by the name of Dylan Moran.

Moran plays Bernard Black, the owner of the store Black Books. He doesn't like customers, but he does like to smoke, drink, and live in absolute filth. He is grouchy and grumpy and just too funny for words, perhaps one of the best characters I have seen in a sitcom / episodic show for quite some time. (I can't count the characters of my beloved serials, of course.)

If you need a laugh, watch this one. Seriously.

Rating: 4.5

Dinotopia (2002, U.S.)

One guess as to why I picked this one out. The correct answer would be Wentworth Miller. I finished re-watching the first three seasons of Prison Break this summer break, and I was ready for a Wentworth fix. Since season four doesn't start for another week, I started looking for films. And I discovered this rare gem of a kid's movie, made-for-tv, and starring a 30-year-old Went as one of two teenage brothers who are in a plane crash and find themselves on a strange island called Dinotopia. The inhabitants of this island include both humans and dinosaurs, who coexist in peace. It's based on a series of books for children.

And it was actually quite great, as kids' movies go. Quite refreshing after some of the crap Disney has churned out in recent years. What an amazing undertaking. Nearly 3/4 of the film had to have some sort of CGI becauses of all the dinousaurs, and the actors did an amazing job of acting to the air, I think. Of course, the CGI dinosaurs were not what you would expect were you thinking Jurassic Park. They're much less terrifying—even the T Rexes. Even their appearance is brief and as minimally frightening as possible.

Of course, you have to give it a little flexibility in judgement, since it is a non-rated movie for children. For instance, as an older viewer, I would have liked to know what brother the girl chose in the end, since one of them kissed her and one of them told her he was falling in love with her. I guess the younger viewers don't care about those things though. Or the fact that some of the dialogue was exceedingly cheesy. Or the fact that the story really beats you over the head with its "lesson."

But despite these things, or maybe because of them, I really did like this movie. It was really a great fantasy world for children, with beautiful scenery that could really insipire a young imagination. It was four hours long, and I found myself wishing that it could be even longer. In fact, I liked it so much that before I even got to disk two, I was asking my mom if she would be allowed to show this movie to her fourth-graders.

Perhaps I've just had so much adult-type stress in my life recently that I needed to feel like a kid again. This was the way to go.

Ratin: 4.0

The Machinist (2004, Spain)

Apparently The Machinist is a Spanish film, and its official name is El Maquinista—and here I always assumed it was American. (It does take place in Los Angeles.) Spain seems to be more open to brilliant filmmaking than all of the Hollywood studios that turned this one down. And it was brilliant. I can't say that I loved it, because my spine was crawling throughout the entire film, but I can say that it was bloody brilliant filmmaking. At the end, all I could do was stare at the screen in a dumbfounded manner, stifling the urge to voice random strings of expletives. It was just that mind-boggling.

The plot was complex and twisted and left one guessing. Everything you thought you knew about it turns out to be wrong. While you can guess some plot twists, others just hit you like a ton of bricks. As psychological thrillers go, this one is tops. (Although I think "thriller" is the wrong word. I don't know what's better.) Aside from the well-written script, the primary driving forces behind the suspense were an eerie score and incredibly ominous camera angles—if one can describe camera angles as such. Taking all of these elements together... One hell of a ride. Add to that some interesting symbolism, a lesson in morality, and great acting—did I say brilliant?

And we can't review this without mentioning Christian Bale and his unhealthy devotion to perfecting a role. The loss of 63 pounds, to the point where he looked that malnourished, is both impressive and revolting. True, it really did add to the role, but he is still a great actor without the physical modifications. Weight loss aside, this really was one of the best roles I've ever seen him in. He really looked like he was slowly losing his mind. Wow.

A final summary: truly terrifying. It will give you goosebumps and make you look over your shoulder in the dark, but in the end the only thing that's there to scare is what's inside the human mind. Which makes the film that much more effective.

Rating: 4.0 (not entirely sure about this)

Gone Baby Gone (2007, U.S.)

I have to agree with what a lot of people have been saying—Ben Affleck makes a much better director than actor. His brother is definitely the better actor. Still, even though I'd seen Casey Affleck in plenty of movies before, since seeing The Assassination of Jesse James, I've been unable to think of him as anyone but Robert Ford. Once I get used to him as a new character, I definitely begin to enjoy the new movie more.

I don't have much to say about this film. It was okay. It wasn't quite "just another mystery," but it was close. There were definitely more (and better) twists, but I spent a lot of the movie not quite sure what was going on, so it was hard to enjoy. Once I got to the ending and it all came together, I thought "Wow, good stuff." It just took too long to get there. The ending definitely leaves you something to think about and discuss over the dinner table though.

Other positive aspects of the movie: cast/acting, score by Harry Gregson-Williams (who I've loved since the brilliant Kingdom of Heaven score)—especially "Opening," end credits song by Alexi Murdoch (who I also love, and I wish I could get my hands on this new song), and... that's about it. So pretty much the cast and the music.

Besides the deep philosophical/moral questions I was left with after this film, I did have one other question: why does every movie I see that takes place in Boston involve squalor, crime, and corrupted cops/politicians, etc.? I used to think Boston was a nice place, until I started watching movies. Hmmm.

Rating: 3.0

Mamma Mia! (2008, U.S.)

I didn't have very strong feelings about this film one way or the other, but there hasn't been much else to see in the theater this summer, and my ABBA-fan friend needed some serious cheering up, so I decided to take her to Mamma Mia!. I do not regret it at all.

I love musicals, of course. The '70s, on the other hand, I am not so fond of. Consequently, I've never listened to ABBA. Big mistake. All of the numbers in Mamma Mia! are catchy and fun—so fun that you might just want to run home and buy the soundtrack, like I did. The dance sequences are just absolutely ridiculous (and often hilarious), but they work really well. It's obvious that the script was written for the music rather than the music being written for the script, but it worked well that way.

Of course I have nothing but good things to say about the actors. Amanda Seyfried probably has a good career ahead of her, and she has a beautiful voice. Meryl Streep I like more and more as she gets older. Of course I love Colin Firth, and he was great. And I was so excited to see Stellan Skarsgård in a part where he wasn't a bad guy or some such (i.e. Bootstrap Bill)—actually, he was so adorable in this film I could just eat him up. Of the three "dads" in the movie, Pierce Brosnan was my least favorite. I've never been a big Brosnan fan, but he was still pretty good. I don't know about his singing though. Well, to be fair, his voice wasn't awful, but he sure does make funny faces when he sings. I think it's from trying to maintain an American accent.

So I don't know what else to say. Great music. Beautiful scenery. Fun dancing. Hilarious situational comedy. Stellar cast. Ends with a twist. Good, good stuff.

Rating: 4.0

Breakfast on Pluto (2005, Ireland)

Now these are the kinds of things I watch when my odd (but wonderful!) friends recommend films to me. We have Jeff to thank for this one.

Breakfast on Pluto is the story of Patrick "Kitten" Braden, whose mother abandons him after his birth—he is the illegitimate child of the priest in the small Irish village. He begins cross-dressing from a young age. He hangs out with other unusual kids—a bohemian girl, a boy with Down's Syndrome, and a future IRA revolutionary. He causes a lot of trouble in his Catholic school. In other words, he's just an odd duck. But he always, always stays true to who he is inside, no matter how much external forces threaten him or not take him seriously. (He continually has to tell people that he can take things seriously, but that they are too serious.)

So Kitten tells the story of how he sets out for England to find his long-lost mother, the strange things that happen to him along the way, and what he really finds in the end. It's about his character, and it's about his journey. That, combined with the interesting method of story-telling (he actually gives chapter titles and tells his own "autobiography") and the "big" themes (gender identity, cultural/Irish national identity), make this film unique. There are touching moments, funny moments, uncomfortable moments... It's just great.

And Cillian Murphy? Wonderful.

Rating: 3.5

Anne of the Thousand Days (1969, UK)

Here's another one of those movies that it seems like I should have seen by now. It's one of Jennifer's favorites and it's about Tudor England. My kind of movie.

As far as portrayals of Anne Boleyn go, I thought this one was pretty good. She was shown as a strong, self-willed woman who wasn't going to let anyone tell her what to do, be he king or kin. That's the norm for her character I guess, but I thought that Geneviève Bujold did an exceptional job with this facet. However, I thought her relationship with the Earl of Northumberland could have been significantly strengthened. They seemed to be in love, but she gave up quite easily. Her relationship with Mary was also non-existant, but I guess we come to expect otherwise with the recent release of The Other Boleyn Girl.

The casting of Richard Burton as Henry VIII seems so obvious. Don't get me wrong, he was okay, but I just don't think he pulled it off, charisma-wise. (Come to think of it, I can't say that anyone has done Henry justice; perhaps Burton does come the closest.) The chemistry between Bujold and Burton was weak, I thought, so that didn't help matters.

Otherwise, this film was exactly what you'd expect of such an undertaking. Often oversimplified and cliched, but still entertaining. The "thousand days" of the title were quickly glossed over too. Most of the film was the courtship, then Elizabeth was born, then she was 3 and Anne was executed. Those 1000 days just flew right by! Anne apprently sacrifices herself so that Elizabeth won't be a bastard; she's all nobility and craziness. (Oh, how historical aftersight can futher dramatize these things!) I thought it was overdone, though well done. Then there was the ending, where young Elizabeth hears the cannons signalling her mother's death, and she goes walking off into the garden, away from the camera. Quite corny, but still touching. I appreciated that this filmmaker didn't feel the need to put an awful caption beneath the image of the toddler.

One more note: The score to this film was composed by Georges Delerue, who I am very familiar with, since he composed a boatload of scores for François Truffaut. It was a bit over the top, as his scores often are, but it fit quite well.

Overall, entertaining if taken a bit too quickly and with less emotion than this story requires. (It was not the "passionate and shocking love story" of the tagline.)

Rating: 3.5

Batman Begins (2005, U.S.)

I saw this film once at a party at my apartment junior year of college, but there was a lot going on and I didn't really see most of it. That might be because the first 45 minutes or so are kind of a drag. Really, that was my main complaint with this one. If the first 45 minutes were squashed into 10, the whole thing would be better. (Unlike The Dark Knight, which was even longer but never felt that way.)

Otherwise, I have only good things to say about it. Some of my favorite actors, a collaboration of two of my favorite composers, and my favorite bad guy from the "Batman" TV series I watched as a kid—the Scarecrow. I say he was my favorite... He scared me to death, but then isn't that what bad guys are supposed to do? Not to mention, Cillian Murphy is on the top of my all time creepiest actors list. Don't get me wrong, I love him. He is absolutely fantastic. But even the movies I've seen him in where he played a good guy, like Cold Mountain or The Wind that Shakes the Barley, he still gave me the creeps. Probably because the first thing I ever saw him in was either 28 Days Later or Red Eye. Now that was some perfect casting.

Christian Bale is also a very strong actor. I've been watching more and more of his work recently, and I don't think I've seen anything that I haven't liked. If only he wasn't paired with an awful actress like Katie Holmes... Maggie Gyllenhaal was a great replacement there.

The last thing I'll say is about the visuals of the film. They're great. The way that they created Gotham was amazing, exactly as I've always imagined it—dark and dirty, but with some unexpected beauty here and there. Perfect playground for Batman. In fact, I think that's the one thing that was better in this film that in Dark Knight. The mood of the city, a very "Gotham" feeling. Good stuff.

Rating: 4.0