Farewell My Concubine / Ba wang bie ji (1993, China)

This was either something recommended to me by one of my multicultural friends or by Blockbuster, I can't remember which. I watched it about a week ago over the span of several days. Sadly, I have been so incredibly busy that I haven't really had time to watch any movies, especially not in one sitting. I guess it wasn't really fair to this film to break it up like that, but I was tired, and it is kind of slow and sometimes confusing.

Overall, I did enjoy it. It was quite facinating—it spanned five decades of extreme change in China, incorporating the story of two lifelong friends and the Chinese opera Farewell My Concubine. I learned a lot, but there were parts where I wish I knew more about Chinese history, since the filmmakers assumed the audience would be familiar with it and didn't explain. (Their main audience was Chinese, after all.) I think this was the main reason I didn't give it a higher rating, whether that's fair or not.

But like I said, it was fascinating, and I would recommend it highly to anyone with an interest in China, foreign cultures, music, or history. I feel like I know so much more about the world and human nature after watching it. It was complex and dramatic—and facinating. Did I say that already?

Rating: 3.0

Pirates of the Caribbean (2003, U.S.)

I was skimming through the enormous list of movies I've seen, and it was five years ago today that I first saw The Curse of the Black Pearl. Following the path started by Heath Ledger, there was another thing that led me on the journey to becoming a cinephile. Love it. (When it first came out, I saw it 8 times "in the theater"—5 in the regular theater, 1 at the dollar theater, and 2 at the Georgia Tech theater.)

This might have been when I started the print version of my movie journal. I fell in love with Johnny Depp, I fell in love with Orlando Bloom, and I fell in love with Klaus Badelt / Hans Zimmer (because apparently one takes a lot of cues from his mentor).

Anyway, of course it got the highest rating possible! Happy Anniversary, Pirates.

Rating: 5.0

The Dark Knight (2008, U.S.)

I have never been too into the whole comic book genre, but I have seen several of them and have generally enjoyed them. I have seen the 1989 Batman as well as parts of Batman Begins, and I enjoyed them well enough. However, the most beloved Batman to me was the animated series from 1992, which I can remember watching with my brother. That, and Mask of the Phantasm. If you asked me when I was a kid who the best of all the superheroes was, I would have said Batman, hands down. So I'm not sure why I never got really into the live action films... I think that might change now. (Or at least when I have time to watch more.)

Of course, even if I wasn't already into Batman, I would have seen this movie. Because I adored Heath Ledger. First, he was the one who really got me into movies in the beginning, at the rather late age of 18. When I started my DVD collection back then (which now numbers nearly 200), the first five films consisted of four Heath Ledger movies. I now own 8 of his films, and I have seen 5 more, plus the TV series Roar. So nearly everything he's ever done. He was a brilliant, brilliant actor.

And he was brilliant in this. I can't tell you how chilling and spot on his performance was. Of course it's inevitable that it will be compared to Jack Nicholson's, and I have to say that I think Ledger's was better. To be fair, though, they were quite different portrayals—although Nicholson's was typical Nicholson (formulaic) and Ledger's was typical Ledger (original and brilliant). He was just incredible, and I can't really verbalize it any better, so I won't try.

Of course the rest of the cast was stellar as well. I won't bother listing them all—just look at the first 7 people listed in the credits. I will say that the portrayal of Two-Face was particularly well done.

Plot was complex and often hard to follow, although a lot of that could be because the sound was off in the theater, and the score was much louder than the dialogue. It definitely needs a second viewing to iron out all the details in my head, but I loved the complexity. I also need a second viewing to judge the score when it's not blaring in my ears—something tells me I won't be disappointed, because how can a Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard joint venture go wrong?

I'm glad there's really anything else I want to see this summer, because that just means I can go see The Dark Knight again (and maybe again!) when it's on the $5 Club.

This was another tough one to rate, because I don't know if I "really liked" it or "loved" it. But then there is Heath, and I know I loved him.

Rating: 4.5

The Man on the Train / L'Homme du train (2002, France)

What an interesting film. It was quite slow and required a lot of thinking (at least if one was to appreciate it fully), and I'm afraid I was a bit too exhausted to be watching it when I did. However, I did enjoy it. It was about a bank robber and a retired French teacher who met randomly and wished they could have the other's life. It was quite subtle and required the viewer to read much further into little conversations and actions. Several days after viewing it, I am left with only a vague feeling of the whole, which is probably why I have so little to say about it. I will say that the ending was a total surprise, and quite incongruent to the rest of the film. But it was decidedly the best part. Interesting.

Rating: 3.5

My Blueberry Nights (2007, ?)

I put a ? in place of the country because I'm not quite sure about the country. I thought this was a U.S. or UK indie film, but imdb says "Hong Kong / China / France." So who knows?

I wanted to see this one when it came out in theaters, but it was a limited release so I never did. It was definitely worth the wait!

Although I was hesitant about Norah Jones as the main character, she was actually a decent actress. And while one or two of her songs was used in the soundtrack, there was no "look at me singing karaoke" or "...to my boyfriend" or "...in the shower." So that was a relief. Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, and Natalie Portman all play people she meets on this journey to find herself and define herself without a man in her life. She teaches them and they teach her, but in a very subtle way. (To give you a point of comparison, it was not like Chocolat in its "look at us help our friends grow as people!")

The acting was great, of course. Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, and Natalie Portman (in order of appearance) are all amazing actors, and their performances were spot on and understated enough to not steal the show from Jones. Also, I've been seeing more and more of David Strathaim recently, and I've really enjoyed his stuff.

This was Kar Wai Wong's English-language debut, and it definitely makes me want to go see more of his Chinese films. He does some fascinating things with close-up angles, with what looks like hand-cameras, with general structure. (To give examples: extreme close up of blueberry pie with melting ice cream, using the cafe's security camera as a POV, interrupting with frames thay say "Day x, y miles from New York.") Very neat stuff with a somewhat nouvelle vogue feel, I thought.

So I really liked this a lot. It's hard not to compare this to other films I've watched recently and give it it's own rating independent of them... I couldn't rate it as high as Jeux d'enfants, for example, but I also liked it more than Gods and Monsters. Can I give it a 4.25?

Rating: 4.0

Gods and Monsters (1998, UK)

I watched Gods and Monsters a couple of days ago. The main reason I decided to watch it was Sir Ian McKellan—also Blockbuster recommended it to me because of my other rentals. (Side note: I think that Blockbuster thinks that I want to watch nothing but GLBTQ films.) Then I found out that Brendan Fraser was in it, and I seriously reconsidered.

But I'm glad I watched it. It was quite interesting. It's about the director of such classics as Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. Apparently he was very openly gay, and it caused him a lot of trouble in his career and personal life. This film explores the final days of his life, leading up to his suicide in 1957. I loved the fact that it was a somewhat true story. I love that it was about the Golden Age of Hollywood. I loved that I didn't hate Brendan Fraser for once. I loved the incorporation of Whale's stroke/mental instability that led to increasing numbers of flashbacks. I loved piecing his history together.

And I loved Ian McKellan. This role was exactly how I've always pictured Sir Ian in real life—very British, very neat and polished, and very unashamed of his sexuality. He was brilliant. And almost sexy. Not to mention the fact that his acting was the most brilliant I've ever seen. (I always figured he had the potential, but I haven't seen enough of his movies to know for sure. Yeah, he's great.) Lynn Redgrave was also perfect.

So, although this isn't one of those films you could watch over and over, it was still wonderful. Adding all the good bits together gives it a pretty high rating for a non-repeater.

Rating: 4.0

We Are Marshall (2006, U.S.)

I meant to see this movie when it came to the dollar theater, but I never quite made it. (Main attraction being, of course, Matthew Fox.) Mom bought it recently, so I finally got to see it, two years later.

It was okay. I mean, it was sad, vaguely hopeful, and Matthew Fox was in it. Past that, it could have used more of everything. I felt like I spent a lot of the movie reading emotion into the characters that wasn't actually portrayed, just because I thought it should be there. I don't know if this was bad acting, scripting, or directing, but it wasn't nearly as moving as it could have been.

What else is there really to say about this one? If you haven't seen it, you haven't missed much—especially if you're a big fan of the emotional sports films like Remember the Titans, Miracle, and the rest. I guess that's to be expected from a director whose main movie projects were Charlie's Angels—I and II.

It wasn't a total waste of time, but... eh. Maybe I would've liked it better without a raging headache. And if Matthew Fox's horrible dye-job wasn't so distracting.

Rating: 3.0

Meet Joe Black (1998, U.S.)

Clearly this is not the first time I've seen this movie, but I just watched it again, and I have to gush about it, on the record. I love this film. So much that it gets the highest rating. So much that I call it a "film" and not a "movie." So much that listening to the score makes my heart want to burst into a million pieces. It is a masterpiece. It's definitely one of two films that I am certain would be in my top five... If I could ever settle them all in. (The other, of course, is Amélie.)

The story is beautiful. It's about life and death, love and purpose. The score by Thomas Newman remains my favorite film score of all time. (He's composed tons of great ones... Look him up on imdb, and I'll guarantee you've seen at least one of the films he has composed for—I myself have seen about a dozen.) It is incredibly powerful in a very soft sort of way. If that makes any sense. Maybe it would be clearer to say it just reaches in, grabs you by the heart, and won't let go.

Anthony Hopkins is a great actor. He deserves that "Sir" in front of his name. And as for Brad Pitt, I would say this is one of the best, if not the best, performance of his career. He essentially plays two different characters, and he plays them so differently that you can tell they're different before he even speaks or moves his body much—a movement of the eyes is enough to do it. Now that is acting. His portrayal of "Young Man in Coffee Shop" is exactly the kind of guy a girl would want to fall in love with. His portrayal of Joe Black touches the exact right notes of that sublime power mixed with uncertainty and hesitance as he first experiences the human condition. His performance is nothing short of moving. And by the end, I can't help but loving life, feeling hopeful, and feeling emotional every time I see fireworks.

And yet Pitt is supposedly embarrassed by this film, or so he was quoted as saying in October 2007. You can find this on imdb: "Brad Pitt was so embarrassed by his performance in movies Cutting Class, Meet Joe Black, and Seven Years In Tibet, he's apologized to film critics. He admits some of his roles in the late 1980s and 1990s were not his strongest - and agrees with movie critics who claim his earlier work is not his best. But Pitt insists the experience has made him a much better actor. He says, 'I believe I'm quite capable and we, as people, can learn to do anything, and that's proof of it! And my education is on film, on record! Now I can take on anything that comes my way and find truth in it an do a pretty good job.'"

I find this unbelievable. I've never seen Cutting Class, but I'll admit it doesn't look so good. But Meet Joe Black and Seven Years in Tibet are both magnificent films. How can you go back and say that Seven Years in Tibet, a film that moved people (and offended the Chinese so much that it got Pitt banned from China), is an embarrassment? Obviously it was a big deal. And maybe Meet Joe Black was a huge financial flop in 1998, but people love it now. (And hey—my mom paid the $4.50 for me to see it in 1998!) So who cares if it made money? It's beautiful. Beautiful. And the acting was not bad. In fact, I can't think of one thing I've ever seen Pitt in, whether the movie was good or bad, in which his acting was bad. He's just brilliant, and that's all there is to it.

And this movie is brilliant as well. If you haven't seen it, you MUST. "Sooner or later, everyone does," as the tagline said....

Rating: 5.0

Wanted (2008, U.S.)

So I would probably see this movie no matter what, because I have a HUGE girl-crush on Angelina Jolie. Also, Atonement got me interested in James McAvoy (only as an actor, I don't think he's gorgeous like some girls do), and I haven't seen him in anything else (with the exception of Wimbledon, in which he had a tiny role). Then there's Morgan Freeman, and you know how I feel about him. Add that all together with a really awesome preview, and I was pretty excited about it.

So here's my recommendation: if you have a weak stomach and want to see this one, bring something to vomit in. It was incredibly violent, and not the stylized, clean, Matrix-type violence I was expecting. It was more much more crude, like 300 but less fake, like No Country for Old Men but more thought out. It was disgusting.

Aside from the violence, everything else was great. The plot was interesting, engaging, and somewhat complex (in a good way); the violence was like a beautiful dance (well, plus the blood and gore); the narration was personal and yet distant (and spot on); and Angelina Jolie was, of course, beyond sexy. Morgan Freeman was in a somewhat god-like position, which is exactly where he belongs. I have definitely decided James McAvoy is a great actor. His character was vaguely reminiscent of Edward Norton's in Fight Club (see below), but it was still him. Great acting all around.

Oh, very interesting note here: while watching the credits, I was shocked to see "Music by Danny Elfman." Of course, I adore Danny Elfman. And I had really liked the score of Wanted. But never in a million years would I have put the two together. Usually I would describe his work as "whimsical," but this was harder, more driven. It almost made me think of techno. I definitely need to re-listen to the score and try to pick out the Elfman in it.

If I had to describe Wanted using other films, I would say that it was like The Matrix (styled violence, bullet time, etc.) mixed with Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Angelina Jolie, assassins, etc.) mixed with Fight Club (violence, narrative style, etc.) And yet it really was unique, one of a kind. Minus the extreme violence (which I just really can't handle), I would've given this one a 4.5. As it is, I can't quite do it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it -- although I could have done either. Which leads us to our default rating.

Did I mention how sexy (and badass) Angelina Jolie was?

Rating: 3.5

Hancock (2008, U.S.)

Will Smith has been in some pretty awful movies (in my opinion). Case in point: Men in Black, Wild Wild West, Bad Boys... But he's a great actor. Truly great. And while this was just another Will Smith action flick, it wasn't just another Will Smith action flick. I would have waited to see this when it came out on DVD, but again, Mom wanted to see it.

It was definitely not what I expected. It was funny, it was dramatic, there was a bit of action, there was some weird, angsty, (interracial--good for you, Hollywood!) romance. The premise was actually quite good, and while the execution was slightly lacking, it still turned out well. The only part that really bothered me (and detracted from the film) was Hancock shoving one man's head up another man's rear. That was just disgusting and stupid and didn't do anything for the movie at all. So that was disappointing.

Also, the score was pretty good, alternating from subtle to in-your-face super hero-ish music. I believe I've seen several movies with music by John Powell, but I don't think it's ever stood out so much. So I think that was a good thing.

Overall, I would recommend you see this one, if you like heroes, Will Smith, or summer blockbusters. (I would probably give this a 3.5 on a normal day, but I can't give it the same score that I just gave Fool's Gold. So it gets a 4.0.)

Rating: 4.0

Fool's Gold (2008, U.S.)

I really had no intentions of seeing this movie, but Mom is here visiting and she wanted to see it, so I gave in. Really, it has a great cast -- Kate Hudson, Matthew McConaughey, Donald Sutherland, Ray Winstone... I know that Kate and Matthew have been in several silly movies (item: How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days). Not that they're bad movies, they're just not great works of art. They are pretty good actors, however. Donald Sutherland is supposed to be hot stuff, and I personally thing Ray Winstone is a genius. So the caliber of actors definitely toned up what could have been a terrible movie.

Okay, so a lot of the plot didn't make sense and was just downright stupid. But it actually pulled off a touch of character development, the plot involved solving an historical mystery (although the answers came to them a bit too easily, it was still somewhat well done), and it was pretty damn funny. This was probably due in part to the fact that it was directed by a guy who does some pretty "solid" romantic comedies. (Andy Tennant also directed Hitch, Sweet Home Alabama, and Fools Rush In.)

So I wouldn't buy it, I probably wouldn't see it again (unless I happened to catch it on TV), but it was still entertaining and not a waste of time.

Rating: 3.5