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