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