Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011, U.S.)

I have heard a lot of people say that they liked this one better than the first one, and I have a hard time deciding whether I agree or not. I remember liking the first one a lot when I first saw it, but when I rewatched it about a week ago, I only liked it about as much as anything else. So, hard to say. Still, this movie was great.

I think I said it before, but I'll say it again. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. have such chemistry on screen, to the point where they really don't need any leading ladies. Not in a romantic sort of way or anything, but their witty banter and physical comedy seem interrupted by a lady's presence. They're just too funny. Still, the other actors were good too. I was so excited to see Noomi Rapace out of her goth Salander gear and with a few more healthy pounds on. She made a very good gypsy. The guy who played Moriarty was also eerily good, with that nerdy, seemingly good-natured facade masking pure evil. Oh, and Stephen Fry as "Shirley's" brother = priceless!

The plot was very twisty and convoluted and involved a big conspiracy, and it was fun to watch the whole thing unwind slowly and with such Holmesian flair. I don't want to give anything away, but it was definitely big. And the ending... wow-wee! So shocking, so funny, so entertaining.

And to save my favorite guy for last: Hans Zimmer is just a musical genius, and I loved his soundtrack for this movie. It's no POTC, but it's definitely heading in that direction. His compositions were all very original sounding, but with a hint of inspiration from the plot or setting. It's hard to explain what I mean, but there were some pieces that seemed very Victorian and some that seemed very industrial, etc. The best ones, however, were the ones that were gypsy inspired, with the fiddle and all. Just perfectly done.

I would definitely watch this one again.

Rating: 4.5

One Day (2011, U.S.)

I had been looking forward to this movie for ages. I read a review of the book in Library Journal or Booklist last year before it was first published in the U.S., bought it for the library, and read it as soon as it came out. I loved it. Of the 122 books I read last year, it was one of only 7 that I gave five stars to. I thought the concept, the writing, the everything was absolutely stellar. Therefore, I guess it was inevitable that the movie could only pale in comparison.

I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)

I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)

Rating: 3.5

Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (2011, U.S.)

This movie is an excellent example of how low expectations can really improve one's enjoyment of a movie! I knew from the second that I read "the scene" in Breaking Dawn that the movie was going to end up being a cheesy B horror film, for at least five minutes. Then I kept hearing bad reviews of the movie, and I said to myself, "Well, duh." But really, it wasn't that bad.

To begin with, the wedding was beautiful. It wasn't quite how I pictured it in my head, but I liked their interpretation. Bella's dress was stunning, in my opinion, and Kristen Stewart looked incredibly beautiful. I loved how they reused their prom song for the wedding background music. I loved how everyone else literally disappeared from the scene while they were getting married, showing how they were the whole world to each other. I really loved their wedding kiss, which was long without being R-rated, sweet, romantic, and so laced with meaning. Oh it was just beautiful!

Visually, it was very well done too. I already mentioned the wedding. There were a lot of beautiful establishing shots of the island, Washington forests, the waterfall where they swim, Rio (the giant Jesus!), and the like. I loved the use of montages, namely the island time one and the Renesmee one. The one on the island showed them hiking, playing chess, swimming, talking, and just being together, and I thought it perfectly crystallized and captured that honeymoon feeling and their connection. Hard to explain. (Also, I loved their use of the red and white chess pieces from the front of the book. That was pretty clever, and I don't think they've done that since the first movie... not that a ribbon and a rose petal are easy to incorporate.) The shots of teenaged Renesmee were very dreamlike and actually made me want to like her, which is quite an accomplishment—I really kind of hated her in the book. Bella's dream the night before the wedding was really well done, but something makes me not want to go into detail and give it away. The honeymoon love scene was close to perfect. I figured they would go the book route and just "fade to black" and wake up in the morning with feathers flying (which didn't get left out, yay!), but they actually showed it. It was tasteful and beautiful and it definitely looked like soul mates being together for the first time. That was one of many scenes that was quite moving. One other visual aspect I was impressed with was the makeup on "sick" Bella. Until now, most of their makeup has involved making humans look like pale vampires with golden/red eyes and beautiful looks. Bella's transformation into a ravaged, hollow-eyed, broken girl was pretty incredible, especially in contrast. (On the other hand, I was less impressed with vampire makeup. Carlisle's hair looked greasy, Rosalie's nasty black eyebrows continue to irritate me, Alice isn't as cute without spiky hair, and Irina's—yay, Maggie Grace!— eyes didn't look like the contacts were set quite right, to give a few examples.) Anyway, I think this might have been the most visually appealing of the movies so far.

So what was wrong with it? I'll start with the obvious. The birth scene. No. Still, it could have been a lot worse. In fact, I thought Bella's broken bones, especially the spine, were quite underdone. There was no fountain of blood at the birth, which you might consider underdone but that actually made the scene fit better. (There was still chewing, but you can't see it, so again that really helped. The whole scene was not the B movie bloodbath I had anticipated, which was the biggest relief ever.) The effects of the venom injection are shown though a sort of CGI vein interior, which was sort of cheesy and reminded me of a Magic School Bus episode. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how they would have accomplished this otherwise, because they don't have the benefit of Bella's Ernaline monologues like the book has. Also on the subject of point of view, I thought that losing Jacob's perspective during the pregnancy was a loss for the movie, which is ironic since I didn't like that narrative choice in the book. (You have to admit that it's weird for the first 3 books and 2/3 of the fourth book to be told from one perspective and then 1/3 of the last book to be told from another.) I missed the scenes of Jacob trying to imprint and his snarky comments and his anger at Edward, Bella, "Blondie," and just about everyone else in the world. It took a lot of emotion away. Also on the subject of werewolves, the pack has a big meeting where they do their talking in each other's heads thing, and it was really stupid. Their voices were sort of edited to sound all echo-y and more raspy and just fake in general, and I thought that scene in particular (or any scene with inner wolf conversations in general) would have been a lot less ridiculous and more effective if they just used normal voices.

On the subject of actors, poor Billy Burke didn't have as many funny moments as previous movies, which was sad. On the other hand, Pattinson and Stewart's chemistry was off the charts. The way they oriented around each other in scenes (as Bella's mom notes in the previous movie), the way they look at each other, the love scene, the wedding kiss, the chess matches... I swear their connection was palpable. Rather breathtaking, really. As for everyone else, they were basically standards and really irrelevant to the story. I would have liked more from Taylor Lautner, but I felt the fault was not his but the scripts. He did do a lot with his body language to convey emotion he was never able to vocalize.

Probably the most disappointing thing was the music. The score wasn't bad, and the soundtrack might not have been either, but I didn't think it was used to the same effect as earlier soundtracks. (Can anyone think of baseball anymore without hearing "Supermassive Black Hole" in their head? I can't!) The music may have been good, but it just didn't stand out. The one exception was, as I mentioned before, the reuse of "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," which gave the movies and the characters' relationship an agreeable symmetry.

So overall, I quite liked it. That may be mostly because my expectations were so low, but hey... I'll take what I can get!

Rating: 4.0

Anonymous (2011, U.S.)

Wow. I am so glad that this film was finally released near me, because I loved it. It was absolutely absorbing from the first second, as we follow an actor who's running late into the play he's introducing. (That actor, incidentally, is Derek Jacobi, who I later found out from reading Bill Bryson's biography of Shakespeare is a very strong believer in the Shakespeare-didn't-write-Shakespeare school. He must have been thrilled to get this role!) Basically the story goes that the Earl of Oxford wanted his plays performed to influence the political climate, but he didn't want his name attached to them. He tried to get Ben Jonson to put his name to them, but Jonson didn't want to. Somehow Shakespeare, who is an absolutely ridiculous, full of himself, almost air-headed actor, ends up having the plays attributed to him.

I don't know if I have ever seen a more convincing alternate history. All of the "evidence" seemed entirely plausible (although how accurate it was and what was excluded for convenience's sake, I can't say). The plot lines that involved the queen having illegitimate babies without anyone knowing seemed a bit of a stretch, but once the babies were men it worked a lot better. Anyway, for the most part the plot was fascinating, and I liked how they framed the story as a play in modern New York. (It was especially neat at the end, when during the credits the screen shows the audience filing out of the theater, just as the audience in the movie theater was doing. Weird but cool!)

I can't say enough about this cast. Really, wow. A majority of the cast was composed of people who are good, strong actors (mostly British) who I am familiar with but who the average movie-goer wouldn't necessarily recognize. All of the young earls— Southampton (Xavier Samuel), Essex (Sam Reid), and young Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower)—were so convincing as these godlike golden boys, beautiful warriors, sons of privilege. I was especially enraptured with Bower's performance. His range of emotion was really powerful. Of course, the two women who played Elizabeth, Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson, were perfectly cast. (Has Redgrave ever played the queen before? She was great! It was weird to see Richardson as Elizabeth when I was first introduced to her as Catherine Parr in The Tudors.) David Thewlis and Edward Hogg as the Cecil men, elder and younger, were sharp and conniving, very snake-like. Sebastian Armesto was a serious Ben Jonson, passionate about his work, with dark eyes that looked like they'd been strained by candlelight one too many times. Rafe Spall as Shakespeare... I don't know what to say. He was definitely the comic relief. So funny, so self-centered, so obviously not a writer. He was good. Even with all of this fabulous talent, the real star of the show was Rhys Ifans. I have seen him in many different things (Rancid Aluminum, Vanity Fair, Enduring Love, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Deathly Hallows) and I'm always impressed by his range and skill. Enduring Love is an especially impressive performance from him. But this film might have been his best ever. I have never seen him perform such a commanding character before. I don't think it's necessarily that his acting has matured, because he's always been so good. It's more like this was the role he was always meant to play. His presence dominated every scene he was in. Amazing.

Okay, I've gone on about the cast forever, but they really were that good! Now I don't want to bore with descriptions of music and scenery and lighting and costumes, but suffice is to say that they too were simply incredible. I especially loved the panoramas of Elizabethan London, which just looked so realistic. I also had the same reaction that I had to The Conspirator—I felt like I could smell the smoke from flickering candles and smell the sewage in the gutter and taste the pints of ale in the pub. Really, really great work. One thing that bothered me about the music is that several of the period songs they used had been used before in Elizabeth, or Elizabeth: The Golden Age, or Shakespeare in Love, or some other Elizabethan drama. It's great music and it fits the time, but surely there must be more than five songs that have survived. I know, minor complaint, but when you're an avid watcher of every Elizabethan film you can get your hands on, these are the things you notice.

All in all, probably one of the best movies I've seen in ages. I would almost be tempted to give it a 5.0, except for a few plot details that didn't quite work for me. Still, as I said, it was an engaging, interesting plot with an unparalleled cast, stellar mis en scène, and fitting period music. Definitely a must for fans of the theater, Elizabethan England, and possibly Shakespeare too (unless you don't want to hear that he didn't write his work).

Rating: 4.5

The Conspirator (2010, U.S.)

Hmmmmm, I can't decide about this one. There is no denying that the lead actors were awesome. I've been a fan of Robin Wright since she was Robin Wright Penn and James McAvoy for... well, awhile anyway. (Probably 2007. You know why.) Their acting absolutely transported me, and Wright was particularly inspired. You know how it's all going to end, but you can't help but think the strength of her character and her convictions will be enough to change the outcome. To a lesser extent, McAvoy's character's determination to follow the letter of the law does the same thing. The supporting cast was filled with talented, big name actors as well. I'd say this film was a casting triumph.

Just as impressive as the actors was the entire period feel. The sets and lighting were incredible. I felt like I could nearly smell the smoke from guttering oil lamps and hear the crinkle of crinolines. It's rather hard to explain just how realistic it was. Fabulous work.

Even though the subject of the War can seem rather tired sometimes (especially around here), I really enjoyed the choice of topic. While the assassination of Lincoln is a frequent choice of content to include, he is always pictured as the blessed martyr and the conspirators as evil criminals. (I won't get into the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, bordering on becoming a tyrant as John Wilkes Boothe proclaimed, holding onto the Union at all costs despite the People's wishes. But anyway.) I thought the movie was pretty balanced and not hateful to the South as many fictionalized versions of the assassination are. In fact, the men of the president's cabinet seemed so corrupt, their trial of Surratt so unconstitutional, that they seemed to be the villains. I have to say that it was refreshing. The blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens in the 1860s was very upsetting, and I wonder how many people realize how strongly yesterday's civil rights violations echo today.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the film finished on a sour note. (Well, besides the anticipated unhappy ending.) This was a literal sour note. The music, which up until that time had been subtle, period-appropriate instrumentation, morphed into modern music almost the second the credits began to roll. It was very jarring and threw me right out of the world of the film. Very bad choice.

Rating: 4.0

Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (2004, U.S.)

I don't have too much to say about this documentary, but I did want to mark that I have watched it. We're reading A People's History of the United States and Voices of a People's History of the United States for one of my book clubs, discussing a few chapters each month. This month a few of us met to watch this film about Zinn's life and work. Of course, anyone who is interested in the subject matter will like this documentary, and if you're against Zinn's ideas you probably won't like it. For myself, I'm amazed that there was once a person in the world who cared so much and worked so hard to make this country, and this world really, the place it should be. The challenges that Zinn faced just because of his beliefs and his work should be enough to make any mere mortal give up thousands of times, but he never did. He was a truly exceptional person, and I wish I had been able to see him speak while he was alive. This film was an interesting, though too brief, insight into the man and his work.

Rating: 3.5

Puss in Boots (2011, U.S.)

Soooooooooo cute. I always thought that Puss in Boots was the best character from the Shrek movies, and now that I have two little orange fuzzballs of my own, I have to say I'm even more biased. Of course, the cat jokes were all hilarious to me (and to the friend I saw it with, who is not really a cat person). I laughed out loud several times. Antonio Banderas is such a good voice actor, and the rest of the cast was pretty good too. The plot was definitely weird. It involved Humpty Dumpty, Jack and Jill, the goose that lays the golden eggs, Jack's beanstalk... it was bordering on ridiculous, but somehow it worked. The one negative thing I will say about it is that Humpty Dumpty is just creepy, in his looks, his mannerism, everything. I don't know why, but he made me think of a pedophile. So that was a bit off-putting.

I can't say enough about the main focus of this movie, however. Of course, that's Puss. He's one of those characters like Jack Sparrow who could salvage any movie. (Well okay, that's not a fair comparison, but I thought that was true of good old Jack until POTC4!) Totally worth it for Puss, Banderas, and funny cat jokes.

Rating: 4.0

The Ides of March (2011, U.S.)

I went to see this with my mom because she wanted to see it, and it was better than my other option. Why did I not want to see a movie with the sexy and talented Ryan Gosling, you ask? Well, aside from the fact that I fluctuate between finding George Clooney passable and downright annoying, this subject matter just didn't interest me at all. The matter of politics is depressing enough in the real world without having to see it in a fictional world too. What kind of escapism is that, I ask?

Well, it went just about as expected. Gosling was stellar, of course. Clooney was actually pretty good. (This was not one of those movies when I wanted to yell "Shut up, you irritating man!") The supporting cast—Marisa Tomei, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright—was obviously a strong one. I couldn't say one bad thing about the acting. I also learned a whole lot about the campaigning process, from logistics to worker motives to the sordid details of life on the road. The plot was complex and certainly engaging.

But. When it comes down to it, I left the movie feeling distinctly unhappy. Is there really any resolution? Did the characters grow? Why was this film made and why do we watch it? It wasn't unsettling exactly, or depressing, or entirely off-putting. But leaving a movie with that empty sort of feeling makes me feel all out of sync. It's one thing to be sobbing and depressed, but feeling out of balance with the world is something I just don't like.

Still, I think the movie has many things going for it, and it is the perfect movie for the right kind of viewer. I wouldn't be surprised if it got some Oscar nods.

Rating: 3.0

Midnight in Paris (2011, U.S.)

 Has it really been almost three and a half years since Woody Allen finally made me start my film blog? And again I say, "Good ending, Woody Allen!"

But to begin with, perhaps I should tell him "Good beginning!" instead. The first several minutes of the film are comprised entirely of scenes from Paris, both tourist destinations like the Eiffel Tower and local hangouts like street cafes. It was beautiful, it really set the scene by introducing Paris as its own character, and it made me think repeatedly, "I've been there!" It was a nice little trip, and all this before the credits began to roll.

To begin with the concept: I loved it! It's a bit like The Polar Express. Gil, who has escaped from his fiancee Inez and her parents, is wandering the city when, at the stroke of midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up as if the meeting was predetermined. Soon he's wandering the much livelier streets of a Paris that has been gone for 90 years, meeting his idols and letting his inner self blossom. How many of us long to retreat to an earlier time, one that we hold in our imaginations as a Golden Age? For Gil, it's Paris in the 1920s. For Adriana, who he meets in the '20s, it's la Belle Epoque. As Gil says, "That's what the present is. It's a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying." His whole journey of self-discovery is colorful and humorous but also beautiful, and it is oh-so-Woody-Allen.

The casting was excellent, although I felt a little backwards regarding the leads. Normally I love Rachel McAdams, and she was very good in this movie. The only problem was that usually she's sweet and loveable or savvy and spunky. Here, her character was a shallow, annoying socialite. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Owen Wilson (I much prefer his brother), usually finding him to be quite annoying. In this case, he was the loveable one. Strange to get used to that big trade-off. He was good, but the remainder of the ensemble cast was stellar. In the modern world, Michael Sheen as Inez's irritating, superior friend Paul was spot-on. French first lady Carla Bruni as a museum guide was understated. In the 1920s, I adored Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald (the more movies I see her in, the more I like her). Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott was a good counterpart. Corey Stoll was an incredible Hemingway; to be honest, I had to remind myself that he was an actor and not the author several times. Kathy Bates was perfect as the outspoken Gertrude Stein (think Molly Brown toned down about 20 notches). Adrien Brody, one of the most underrated actors in the world I think, was a wonderfully vibrant Salvador Dalí. "Rhinoceros!" (Much different from Pattinson's portrayal in Little Ashes, but equally believable.) I was pleased to see Gad Elmaleh in a non-French (language/country of origin) film, because he has a great range of expressions (which may come from having a mime for a father) that lend themselves to brilliant comedy and worked very well as the detective here. And of course the lovely Marion Cotillard is always a classy, sexy, talented addition to any cast, especially a period piece.

I don't know quite how to describe my feeling watching this film other than to use the word "transported." It was really wonderful, thought-provoking, amusing. I would recommend it to anyone, but especially to those with a love of Paris or early 20th century art/culture, or a nostalgic longing for any bygone time.

Rating: 4.0

The Help (2011, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the year. I have to say to preface this review that I'm starting to hate it already. Not because it was a bad book, not because it was a bad movie, but because suddenly a bunch of people who never read have decided they're going to start reading and I have to buy 10,000 copies of the one book to keep them all happy, in lieu of buying a nice variety of things that regular readers can enjoy. I would also like to add that I read it before anyone knew it was going to be a movie. So there. Off the soapbox and onto an objective as possible review...

I liked it, and had it been a stand-alone movie and not based on a book, I would have been really impressed with it. However, I wasn't that impressed. Because despite my grouching, the book truly was phenomenal, even ground-breaking. The characters were more alive than almost any book I've ever read. Their lives were complicated, their relationships were complex, and their personalities were too. In the movie they were much, much flatter. Not flat exactly, but not well-developed either. I don't think that's any fault of the actors, however. Every female character—Minny, Aibileen, Skeeter, Hilly, Celia, the mothers, and even little Mae Mobly—was portrayed with the utmost skill and believability. (The men less so, but then male characters are very peripheral to the story anyway.) Though within the solid, skilled ensemble cast, Janney and especially Spacek nearly stole the show. I think the ultimate source of such a dulled down version was the screenwriting. I don't think the actors were given enough to work with. The struggle wasn't written like a struggle (especially because there were fewer maids and fewer stories told). They watered down things like Minny's abusive husband and Aibileen's dead son. The core plot was there, but the heart and soul and feeling of the story seemed absent.

Besides the great acting, there were many other good elements as well. The period scenes and costumes, for example, were awesome. The score was standard Thomas Newman. The story was fundamentally the same. But all this doesn't fix a weak script that lacks the punch of the original. (I especially missed Minny's line that if she were Mammy she'd tell Scarlett to stick those curtains "up her little white pooper," and other classics like that.)

Overall, a good movie. But if you really want to be moved, inspired, and entertained, read the book.

Rating: 3.5

Last Night (2010, U.S.)

I have to say that I was very disappointed in this movie. The cast was pretty awesome (though I've never cared much for Eva Mendes), but they gave less than stellar performances. Keira Knightley, for example, is one of the most talented actresses working now, in my opinion. Sam Worthington has a great reputation. However, did I believe they were married for a single second? No. They had absolutely no chemistry. Worthington didn't seem to have much chemistry with the woman he had an affair with either, however. Guillaume Canet (who I was thrilled to see in an American movie, incidentally), seemed to have more chemistry with Knightley, plus he was adorable and charming like he always is. Of all the characters I liked him the best, because he was the most true to his idea of love. The others were all too easily tempted into unfaithfulness, and I saw few, if any, redeeming qualities in them.

My dislike for the characters just made it too hard to like the movie, even if it was stylistically and narratively well-done. I think the absolute best part (besides Guillaume Canet) was the score, which was very heavy on piano, interesting and lovely. It's unusual for me to buy a score if I didn't like a movie (and often the score can make the movie), but I would get this score though I would never watch the movie again. This is the second Clint Mansell score I've heard, and the first was just as impressive (Black Swan). I will definitely keep an ear out for him.

Rating: 1.5

Cleopatra (1963, U.S.)

I've always planned to watch this movie, so I'm not sure what took me so long to get around to it. I think I was inspired to finally watch it because I've been having my love of historical fiction renewed in novels, so I thought I should have one in films too.

So what do I have to say? It was long. Looooooong. I have no problem sitting through Meet Joe Black, Titanic, or Gone with the Wind (even after countless viewings), and they don't seem long at all. Cleopatra, however, seemed like it would never end. I think it would have been much, much better if it was made into two movies as originally planned. (I gather they combined it into one so as to cash in on the Burton-Taylor affair, since Burton doesn't appear in the first part.)

Aside from the length, my main reaction was horror at the countless anachronisms. The sets and the costumes were just absolutely ridiculous. It looked exactly like what it was—a 1960s Hollywood version of the ancient world. Taylor's costumes were especially awful. Yes, some of them were quite beautiful, but they were a far, far cry from anything Cleopatra would have actually worn. (On a more positive note, they did an incredible job aging Cleopatra over the course of the film, mostly with her hair but partially with makeup. Good work.) I'm cringing just thinking about the costumes and sets, especially considering that this won Oscars for set design and costuming. The horror! (I guess the criteria don't include accuracy. They were beautiful except for that, really.) What else? The music was way over the top, very brassy sounding. I guess that's pretty standard for this kind of film from this time period, but boy did it grate. Oh, and don't get me started on how inaccurate a lot of the history was here. Obviously, it goes without saying.

The saving grace of this film, as far as I'm concerned, was in some of the acting and writing. Some of the writing was bland, some of the acting was bad, but there were parts that simply shone. Harrison, Burton, and Taylor all delivered some of the most passionate performances I've seen. Harrison was nearly inspiring with some of his speeches as Caesar. Burton's anger-filled rants were a sight to behold. And Taylor was so full of life, whether she was speaking words of love, rage, or anything in between.

Overall I'm glad I saw this, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Rating: 2.5

Cowboys & Aliens (2011, U.S.)

This is not my kind of movie at all. Yes, I like science fiction, and yes, I've recently discovered that I like some westerns, but I would never see this movie in a million years. But. Daniel Craig! Harrison Ford! I would have been missing out if I'd missed it, so thank goodness for that.

I had no idea what it was even about (aside from the obvious cowboys and aliens) before I went to see it, so I will fill in a bare bones plot here. Basically a man (who turns out to be Jake Lonegan, played by Craig) wakes up with no memory of who he is and with a weird mechanical cuff attached to his wrist. It is revealed quickly that he is, for want of a better word, quite a badass. He can fight. He's witty. And let's face it, nobody looks sexier in chaps and a cowboy hat. Nobody. (That alone makes the entire movie worth watching. Seriously. He's that sexy.) When he finds his way to town, alien aircraft start snatching the townsfolk out of the sky, including the son of the rich cattle baron Dolarhyde (played by Ford). The remaining townsfolk (woman played by Wilde, a young boy, a dog, a preacher, the doctor/store owner, Dolarhyde, and Lonegan) head out to find the aliens and get their kin back. In the process, they have some very scary encounters and discover what exactly the aliens are after.

Visually, the movie was pretty awesome. The western scenery was sometimes stark, sometimes beautiful. (On that note, the score felt the same way. It had a western feel and not a sci-fi feel. Even when the music said "the aliens are coming!" it could have just as easily been "the Indians are coming!" or "a stampede is coming!") The costumes seemed very accurate (except perhaps the tightness of Craig's chaps, and I am definitely not complaining about that). The spaceships were cool. The alien's home base was dank and creepy. The one thing I didn't like (which is probably why I don't like alien movies in general) is how disgusting the aliens were. Don't get me wrong, they were really well done, and I know they're the bad guys, but do they really have to be so slimy and nasty? I mean, their chest cavities open and they have extra three-fingered hands in there next to their pulsing heart/lungs/whatever it is. Disgusting. Effective I guess, but yech! Also they like to use their teeth on people, which is vile. That excessive violence and gore and yuckiness just isn't my thing, so that took away from the experience.

Still, the more I thought about this movie after the fact, the more I liked it. Yes, the ending felt a little too easy, but the journey was more important. It had the feel of an old western, but without the racist portrayal of Indian enemies. Instead, the enemies were really nasty, greedy extraterrestrials. And when that concept feels so plausible, you have to admit that the movie was well done. Some aspects, like Lonegan's mind-activated weapon cuff thing, seem a bit ridiculous when you think about them, but somehow it still doesn't require the suspension of disbelief that you'd expect. It's hard to explain.

The acting was, of course, phenomenal. The supporting cast was made up of actors with a lot of talent and familiar faces. Ford was on the ball, and it was nice to see him in a role that accepted his age, didn't treat him as a romantic hero, and let his talent shine in another form. And Daniel Craig. Wow. I already mentioned the sex appeal, of course, but his acting talent is practically unparalleled. He has the most expressive face I have ever seen. Just his eyes convey so much. (I always say he has the best crazed man expression, with darting eyes and heavy breathing.) Even when he's perfectly still, all the way down to his face muscles, you can see countless emotions flickering through his eyes. It's fascinating to watch. In this role, like his role as Bond, he is manly, in charge, and yet emotionally weak (though he tries to hide it). He also plays his humorous lines and physical comedy (mostly involving Dolarhyde's idiot son) with this understated feel and a straight face. Brilliant. (Another positive aspect of the film was the writing, which was sometimes funny in very straight-shooting, serious, dry, manly sort of way, if you get my meaning.) Basically, my reasons for seeing this movie, Ford and Craig, were what made it stand out so much. It would have been okay, and even good, without them, but they made it as great as it is.

I'd recommend this to the right sort of viewer, and even to those who think this might be a bit out of their comfort zone. You just have to see it to appreciate it!

Rating: 3.5

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011, U.S.)

This was a really fun comedy. As I was adding all the tags for this post, I realized that it comes to us from the same directors as I Love You, Phillip Morris. They have a strange gift, those two.

The concept of this movie was quite fresh, the actors were great, the writing was funny. The whole thing just worked. To start with the concept: a woman (Moore) has an affair (due to a midlife crisis) with a coworker (Bacon) and wants to divorce her husband (Carrell). The husband starts spending a lot of time in a bar bemoaning the fact, where a hot young ladies' man (Gosling) overhears him and decides to take the older man under his tutelage. (Ladies' man, meanwhile, has his eye on a special girl in the bar, who is very reserved, doesn't fall for his tricks, and is wrapped up in a loveless relationship already.) While all this is happening, the middle aged couple's 13-year-old son has fallen in love with his 17-year-old babysitter, who in turn has fallen in love with his dad. This seems very complicated and confusing, yet the execution of all these overlapping stories is flawlessly done, perfectly illustrating the many types and facets of love.

This is in large part due to the excellent writing. From the very beginning, there are some laugh out loud, hilarious lines. One of my favorites was something Moore's character said to explain her midlife crisis, along the lines of: "You know when I told you when I had to work late? I really went to go see the new Twilight movie by myself, and it was so bad. Why did I do that?" There's just witticism after witticism, along with some funny physical comedy. (I especially love Gosling repeatedly slapping Carrell to make him snap out of it.) It all culminates with an excellent scene that brings the entire cast together. It's visually and verbally funny, as well as touching, sad, and very real.

The actors really help pull this off. I have mixed feelings about Steve Carrell, but like his performance in Dan in Real Life, I thought he was wonderful here, as a father, lover, friend, man, person. Gosling, as usual, was great. This wasn't his best ever movie, but he was still on his game. And boy was he sexy with his playboy mannerisms, perfectly tailored suits, self-confidence, and naked sauna scene! The supporting cast was also strong, especially the kids. They gave clever, believable, funny performances.

I think the only reason I couldn't give this a higher rating was because I didn't like how much Moore's character got away with. She was such a hypocrite, causing huge messes that everyone else cleaned up and then apologized to her for. Also, I'm always hesitant when a character has to dramatically change (a la Grease) to get the girl/guy. Otherwise, really great romantic comedy/family drama/ensemble piece.

Rating: 3.5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011, U.S.)

I want to be able to give this one more than Part 1, so it's getting a 3.0. Really, it was a struggle to give it more than a 2.5. Look, I love Harry Potter. The first few movies were quite good, and I was on the verge of loving Half Blood Prince because it was so bloody hilarious (though that clearly was the wrong tone to take). But. But but but.

The plot has been slowly and steadily losing momentum when it should be more and more action-packed. Although that's not quite the right way to phrase it, because the focus has shifted so far toward action, special effects, stunts, etc. that plot, character development, symbolism, etc. seem to have fizzled. I knew that by this point in the films a lot would make no sense, just because so many plot threads have been dropped. So that wasn't as much of a let-down as it could have been, due to internal preparation.

Still, it's hard to watch an adaptation of a novel that is so fundamentally about characters and the fight between good and evil and have all those key elements watered down. In fact, if you watch this film without reading the books or watching any of the others, you'd be hard pressed to identify just what's so wrong with Voldemort and the Death Eaters anyway. Life at Hogwarts doesn't look so bad, just especially organized with a very dark and gloomy ambiance. Where are the horrible, soulless adults enslaving the students? Well, there's just not time for all that if we're going to show all the explosions, epic Voldemort vs. Harry wand battle with blazing lights that might as well be lightsabers, etc. Even key moments that were so suspenseful and nail-biting in the book (I'm talking mainly about the Gringotts vault break-in here) were so diluted that they felt like they were put there just because they were supposed to be there, and the fear and excitement were completely removed. Even the horror of Horcruxes and the importance of their destruction seemed to vanished, replaced with a formulaic "destroy x, y, and z in order to achieve completion of Harry Potter equation." Meanwhile, the Hallows seem to become completely irrelevant. The Elder Wand's loyalty is important, yet its full power is mostly ignored. The Resurrection Stone serves its purpose, but with little fanfare (despite being one of the most moving parts of the novel) or explanation. And the Invisibility Cloak? What cloak? Not a mention. Very strange.

The thing that bothered me the absolute most, however, was the battle of Hogwarts, and it really sums up my feelings about most of the later series and this movie in particular. Yes, it was visually pretty cool. But emotionally, it was barren. Mrs. Weasley's classic line was there, but rather than focusing on a mother's fierce protection of her daughter, the focus of the moment is on Bellatrix's visually interesting (to be generous) demise. (Really, she like explodes into a bunch of black bits. What is that about?) All of the required deceased are there laying in the Great Hall at the end of the battle, but those scenes are robbed of the heart-wrenching quality of the novel. It's hard to explain, but the shots of rows of dead (and especially the most beloved) had an unemotional, detached feeling. It just wasn't good. I think the later filmmakers lost sight of what's important in the Harry Potter universe, something the earlier filmmakers had a better grasp of. They've traded human emotion and character for special effects, and the trade weakens the heart of a truly epic human story.

I hate to complete trash the visuals, because some things were strikingly done. Harry's version of King's Cross Station was phenomenal. (Also, that scene was pretty cut and paste from the book, so that was nice.) The ruins of Hogwarts were beautiful and sad. The Fiendfyre was pretty sweet. The passages beneath Gringotts were perfectly cavelike. (Sidenote: many of these things repeatedly reminded my friend and I of the places of Middle Earth, namely Moria, Helm's Deep, and Minas Tirith. I guess similar sights and events are inevitable in good v. evil fantasies, but it was still amusing.) The darkened halls of Hogwarts felt coldly realistic. So sets win over special effects.

Of course I don't repeat all the things I've said before about the great casting and how much the child actors have grown (as actors, not as children to adults). There were some surprising and talented people in minor roles who I didn't even recognize (especially Hinds as Aberforth Dumbledore). That role especially highlights the talent of the wardrobe and makeup departments. Maybe the were worn out, but a lot of the performances seemed lackluster, even compared to the first part of this film. Again, this could have been more because of the formulaic feel of the script, but who knows.

Scores since the early days seem to have been either memorable or not. Part 1's score didn't stand out to me (at least at the time, maybe it's great), but parts of this one did. The song that I especially loved, loved, loved was "Lily's Theme" (I looked up the name), which opens the film. It has that ethereal, otherworldly female voice sound that I love and the melody was beautiful yet eery and haunting. It was repeated during Voldemort's farewell, if you will, as little pieces of his cloak drift through the air in front of the ruins of Hogwarts, and it really struck a chord (har har) there. I loved this one song so much that I wanted to go back and buy the rest of the soundtracks I don't own (I only have 1-3). I also liked that they returned to their roots. Although the score for Deathly Hallows is a far cry from Sorcerer's Stone, the credits music sounded like it had come straight from the first film. It really tied everything together and brought the viewer back to the feeling of Harry's first trip from Platform 9 3/4. The transition from the final song of the film into the credits was smooth too, perhaps because the last scene was nearly identical to the book's epilogue, another journey from 9 3/4. Really well done. I really want to run buy the five scores I need to finish my collection.

Anyway, my overall feeling with this movie is, "Well I'm glad that's over." They weren't bad. In the early days they were quite good. But they just strayed so far from the important core of the novels that it was hard to hold on. Time for me to go reread the tales of the Boy Who Lived, the way they were meant to be told.

*edit: I almost forgot. We saw this on July 31, which I remembered is Harry's birthday. Now that was a happy accident for a nerd!*

Rating: 3.0

True Grit (2010, U.S.)

I was absolutely stunned by this one. Finally, a western I could enjoy! After watching such modern and acclaimed westerns (featuring some of my favorite actors) as Appaloosa and 3:10 to Yuma, I was beginning to think that they just would never be my thing. So I was thrilled with my small victory here, because True Grit just blew me away.

I've never read the book or seen the original movie, but I have read that this version was a much closer adaptation of the book. If so, the book must be something else too. This film had the absolute best dialogue I have ever heard. It was oddly formal but it flowed so well and was often witty and amusing. Just fantastic. I think it definitely deserved the nomination for best adapted screenplay, and having seen the winner (Social Network), I do understand the tight competition.

The acting was phenomenal. Brolin, Damon, and Bridges all delivered the funniest lines with the most dry, deadpan expressions. Bridges was especially talented in that regard. Damon spent half of the movie with his tongue bitten through and his mouth swollen, and portraying that without looking ridiculous took some serious skill. With just those three men, this film already had an incredibly strong cast, but the real show-stealer was young Hailee Steinfeld. Although Bridges' character was the one who supposedly had the titular "true grit," I think Steinfeld (and her character, Maddie), was really the one with true grit. She was a real firecracker and a strong young actress, and watching her was truly a joy. I thought that Melissa Leo's supporting actress Oscar was ridiculous, and now I know who the hands-down winner should have been. Heck, she should have been nominated for best actress; her character was the central one. Absolutely stellar. Truly, the writing and acting in this film just defy description. You have to see it to understand how good it really is.

I also love the score. Carter Burwell is (sometimes) one of my favorite composers. At times, he writes perfect scores that bring the story alive, and at times he writes unmemorable, unfitting scores. This one was definitely the former. It's hard to describe (this seems to be a theme here), but it sounded very American, slightly western, and somehow peaceful. It fit beautifully with the film.

This brings me to my two small complaints. First, the transition from Burwell's score to the vocalized credits music was just too abrupt, jarring me out of the mood of the film. It really fit okay, but the transition could have been better. Of course, it was less noticeable than it could have been, following the worst bucket-of-cold-water-type moment in the film. I was completely immersed in the world of the film, enjoying the dialogue, the music, the western landscapes, when suddenly appears a mistreated (and then essentially murdered) horse. It's just one of my pet peeves, but I absolutely hate it when horses die in the movies. In a war movie, thousands of men can die without me blinking, but when the first horse falls I just start cringing. So in this otherwise enthralling film, I was suddenly thrown out of my enraptured viewing and back into reality with the death of this poor horse. Don't get me wrong, it works for the plot and Maddie's reaction is heart wrenching, but personally it was hard for me to get back into things and enjoy the rest of the film.

But overall, this was truly incredible. I find the Coen brothers to be very hit or miss when it comes to their films and my taste, and this was pure hit, hit, hit. A very pleasant surprise.

Rating: 4.5

Larry Crowne (2011, U.S.)

This was a very refreshing "romantic comedy," as far as that label goes. It wasn't focused on romance that much, and it was a very quiet sort of funny. It was also remarkably timely for the genre.

Loveable Larry Crowne works at a Wal-Mart-esque store that's downsizing. Despite his repeated Employee of the Month status, he's the only one without any college education, so he's the one that's let go. No longer able to afford his home, he defaults on his mortgage (to the bankers amusing chagrin). No longer able to afford his SUV, he sells it and buys a Vespa. Determined to make something better of himself, he enrolls in community college. Yes, it's his professor who he ultimately forms a romantic attachment to, but that's not what this movie is all about.

Larry takes hold of his life and lives it to the fullest despite his setbacks. He joins a "Vespa gang," a bunch of much younger people with zest and a taste for life. He works hard in school. He takes a job at his friend's diner (despite never wanting to work in food service again) because it pays the bills. Even when he falls for his teacher (who is married), he's a gentleman and he helps her as a friend with no ulterior motives. He is a wonderful, loveable, admirable person, and his character alone made this movie a joy to watch. Tom Hanks was great (a welcome transition after those horrible Dan Brown adaptations).

Despite the surreal quality of his life (Vespa gang, lottery-winning neighbor with a perpetual yard sale, crazy econ professor, way-too-fun speech class, falling for a prof), it had an amazingly real feel anyway. It makes you feel like good things can happen to good people, even after bad things bring them down. It's sweet and hopeful and endearing and even funny. A really wonderful flick. I was shocked at all the bad reviews it got.

I'm calling this the "subtly sweet and sneakily feel good movie of the year." Watch it.

Rating: 4.0

Heaven (2002, Germany)

This was an enthralling, beautiful, sad, uplifting film. It is definitely one of a kind. Philippa seeks revenge for her husband's death by planting a bomb, but instead of killing the intended target, the victims are innocent bystanders instead. When she is arrested and interrogated as a terrorist (they don't believe her story about her husband), one of the officers is the young Filippo. He forms this inexplicable attachment to her and tries to help her escape.

Somehow the couple falls in love, and it seems improbable and inevitable all at once. They become twins, from their clothes to their hair to their situation to their already matching names to their quest for something more (perhaps the titular heaven). The effect is rather stunning, as is much of the composition. One shot of them standing under an enormous tree during a beautiful sunset is absolutely breathtaking. Their shadows meld together so that they become one person, a process begun by their previously mentioned physical transition.

Despite its simplicity, the plot seemed very confusing at times. I think this is probably because it was such a symbolic piece. The opening scene was especially jarring, though even it made sense in the end. I would give this a 3.5 because of its shaky plot foundations, but between the symbolism, the cinematography, and the powerful acting (Blanchett and Ribisi were incredible), this film really grabbed me somehow. A very pleasant surprise.

Rating: 4.0

Black Death (2010, Germany)

Ew. Ick. Ugh. Why did I watch this movie? Oh yeah, medieval tale featuring Sean Bean and Eddie Redmayne should have been a win.

Admittedly, the plague is not exactly a cheerful subject, but did it have to be quite so gory? And violent? And graphic? I've read a lot of reviews that talk about how detailed and well-written the plot was, but to me it was very thin and more of a loose frame for repeated and senseless violence. It was almost too simple and too complex (in the sense that it was a huge stretch to work out the point). Calling it "gothic horror" just seems too generous to me.

Of course, as I mentioned (and as should be obvious to anyone who follows my movie-viewing preferences), the main reason I watched this one was for the actors. Sean Bean is the man. Or he usually is. In this one he was just a gruff, violent fanatic with an agenda, and it didn't suit him at all. Eddie Redmayne (as evidenced in previous posts) is my newest favorite actor, and I've yet to see any role to which he didn't do justice. This one might have been the first. He was good, but not great. (Though to be fair, it could have been a poorly written script. It was a bit over the top.) Still, his normal talent shone through here and there. There's one spot in particular where he does something irrevocable (I won't go into further detail to avoid spoilers), and when he realizes what he's been manipulated into doing, his response is classic Redmayne. Well played.

Even the most devoted Bean/Redmayne fans probably want to avoid this one. I want to wash my eyeballs after seeing this violent plague-fest.

Rating: 1.5

Glorious 39 (2009, UK)

I'm not sure where to begin with this one. It was a brilliant idea with beautifully done cinematography and an absolutely stellar cast (such a good cast, in fact, that I didn't have room to tag them all), but somehow it just didn't click for me.

The plot is just a bit too confusing to explain, so it's difficult to review this one. Suffice is to say that the first half of the film had me hooked, but I spent the second half scrambling to keep up and untangle the plot in general and the characters' motivations in particular. The cast was brilliant: Romola Garai, Eddie Redmayne, Bill Nighy, Christopher Lee, Jeremy Northam, Charlie Cox, David Tennant, Julie Christie... just fabulous. They worked well as individual actors and as an ensemble. The WWII-era costuming and sets were very well done, and some of the details perfectly illustrated the horror of the time and of Anne's experience in particular. (The house pets being put to sleep during the war and the displaced diplomats' children were especially vivid.)

This film had amazing, amazing potential, but the pieces just didn't fall into place for me. I wanted to like it. I loved parts of it. But the whole was just incomplete (if you'll excuse the obvious contradiction).

Rating: 2.5

Bride Wars (2009, U.S.)

I have to say that I was underwhelmed by this one. I really think that Kate Hudson is the queen of romantic comedy (although this wasn't really a rom-com, strictly speaking) and I have developed a new appreciation for Anne Hathaway, plus the concept looked good. I thought this was going to be a really cute, really funny little chick flick, but it just wasn't that great.

Sure, there were some funny moments, but they could have been funnier. They also had great set-ups for potential jokes that were left hanging. It's even possible that Hudson is losing her touch. On top of all this, I just didn't think it was that well written. Neither of the relationships, much less both, seem strong enough to lead to marriage. On the other hand, the girls' friendship seemed strong enough that it wouldn't fall apart with the slightest tension as it did. A lot of pieces didn't mesh. Also, I saw the "twist" ending coming from about 20 or 30 minutes into the flick, which doesn't say much for the writing/plotting.

A good word to characterize this one is weak. Weak characters, weak writing, even weak acting. For a Hudson rom-com fix, see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. For a Hathaway rom-com fix, see Love and Other Drugs.

Rating: 2.5

La Cage aux Folles (1978, France)

Basically everything I said about the American remake applies here. Except this is the kind of comedy that just works 100x better as a French film than an American film. (See Dinner for Schmucks and Le diner de cons/The Dinner Game. And in a strange twist, La Cage aux folles and Le diner de cons had the same writer.)

Very funny. Very French. And that's about all I've got.

Rating: 3.5

I Love You, Phillip Morris (2009, U.S.)

I don't even know where to begin with this movie. The fact that it was based on a true story just blows my mind. Man with super-Christian wife announces he's gay, moves to Florida to live the lifestyle, supports himself by committing fraud, his boyfriend dies of AIDS, he goes to prison for his crimes, he falls in love with another inmate, he becomes a lawyer to get his lover out of prison... and it only gets more unreal from there. It's bizarre.

I did find myself laughing out loud quite a bit, but I don't know if it was due to the absurdity of the entire plot or whether it was actually funny. I've never been a huge Jim Carrey fan (my favorites of his are the more "serious comedies," The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine), to the point where I feel like he almost detracts from a movie. Still, his completely over-the-top style worked for this over-the-top story. And Ewan McGregor. I just love him, and I've always thought he was a good actor. This role just proved how versatile he is. He was stellar as this sweet, soft-spoken, golden-haired, gay, minor criminal. I too wanted to shout, "I love you, Phillip Morris!"

This whole flick was far from what I expected, but it was entertaining, funny, strangely engaging, and definitely interesting. And did I mention Ewan McGregor?

Rating: 3.5

Little Fockers (2010, U.S.)

I remember loving the first two movies in this series even though I'm not usually a big comedy fan. (Usually I find jokes too crude or racist or otherwise tasteless.) So I was looking forward to the third movie, because I figured they would keep coming up with fresh, funny material. I mean, we start with meeting the girlfriend's parents, we move onto the very different in-laws meeting each other, and then we go to the whole life with kids deal. There should be lots of humor about having kids! But despite the title of the film, that's not what the movie was about at all. The parts with the kids were the best, the funniest, the most touching... but they were few and far between. Mostly it was about Jack passing on the mantle of head of the family to Greg and about Greg earning extra money by promoting sex drugs for a sexy pharmaceutical rep (which of course leads to suspicions of infidelity).

I liked the actors, for the most part, but I felt like all the non-Jack grandparents (Danner, Streisand, and Hoffman) deserved much more screen time, because they were spot on and still funny. The same is true of the twin five-year-olds, who were clever, amusing kids. To quote another spot-on reviewer on IMDB, "Owen Wilson was on auto-pilot and Jessica Alba was in the film just because of her looks.Surely Alba should get a better agent because all she does is strip off in her films." Precisely. Wilson was the same old same old and Alba was just there to look sexy. Any attractive woman could have played the role, which is unfortunate because Alba really is a decent actress. Then there's the star. Stiller had a few good moments, but otherwise seemed pretty bland. Then again, that could have been the spectacularly boring script.

Because, oh yeah, the most important thing about this movie? It just wasn't that funny. It just felt repetitive and not fresh at all. It didn't do anything for these great characters who had been so well-written in the past. It was just unfortunate all around. I can't even think about it any more. I almost want to give it a 2.0 (didn't like it), but because of a few shining moments (like Jack's wife trying to get him to do a sex role play thing at Roz's professional suggestion), I'm bumping it up one.

Rating: 2.5

Tangled (2010, U.S.)

I had heard lots of good things about this movie, and it was cute. The story is the basic Rapunzel story, except she's a whole lot more involved in her fate than in the tale I remember. Her standard Disney animal sidekick is a little chameleon named Pascal, who is absolutely adorable. Her adoptive mother is suitably evil. The prince of the story is replaced with a sort of charismatic highwayman named Flynn Rider, which added a lot to the story since he had his own set of problems to add to hers. (They meet as he flees from palace guards when he and two hulking cronies steal the kidnapped princess's crown from the castle.) The hulking cronies (who turn against Flynn quickly) are perfect specimens of grunting stupidity. Rapunzel is spunky and determined. The animation is bright and fetchingly done. (One element that I absolutely loved were the floating lanterns that the entire royal city released on the anniversary of the princess's birth, which were just breathtakingly beautiful and pure magic, even in animated form.) I liked the first person narration that framed the story with quasi-prologue/epilogues. The plot is pretty strong. The only thing I thought was weak was the songs, which were just okay, but they were no Aladdin or Little Mermaid or even Enchanted. Otherwise, good stuff.

Adventure, humor, romance, and a happy ending... It's typical Disney fare and enjoyable as these things go. A fun twist (or tangle) on a classic story.

Rating: 3.5

Love and Other Drugs (2010, U.S.)

I was really surprised by how much I liked this movie. Of course I was excited to see it because I love Jake Gyllenhaal, though I've never been especially fond of Anne Hathaway. (What made me decide I didn't like her? It seems like everything I've ever seen her in, I've been impressed. Maybe her voice bothers me? I can't figure it out! I guess from now on, I'll say I like her a lot.) Anyway, this movie was great. A lot of movies from the 1990s feel very dated, but this movie made last year about the 1990s felt not quite nostalgic, not quite historical, but something like that. Instead of feeling "so 1990s," it felt like it was recreating a sort of idealized '90s. It's hard to explain, but in any case, it worked well.

The setup was also very effective. It opens showing Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) selling electronics (very '90s electronics!) to men, women, old ladies with equal success. The brief scene really defines Jamie as a born salesman and charmer. And the ensuing tryst with the manager's girlfriend in the storeroom defines him as a born womanizer... and charmer. It's quite a surprise when we next find him at his wealthy parents home, with a father and sister who are doctors and a brother who is a software millionaire. His background seems so unlikely with his current life.

Anyway, he eventually gets into selling pharmaceuticals for Pfizer, mainly trying to get doctors to prescribe Zoloft instead of Prozac. The insight into the drug industry is absolutely fascinating. I don't really know that much about it, but it felt realistic to me, at least. And there is a lot of industry humor thrown in that was truly amusing, and once he starts selling Viagra, it only gets better. Normally I'm not into crude humor, and one would think that selling a sex drug and jokes about its use and situational comedy (think long-lasting erections) would not amuse me at all, but it was actually done fairly tastefully and made me laugh out loud. Surprising.

In the middle of all this drug-selling, Jamie meets Maggie, a woman of 26 with early-onset Parkinson's Disease. Her character was so complex it was nearly staggering. There's her disease and her worries about it and her refusal to be defined by it. There's her art. There's her undefined job, which involves taking senior citizens to Canada where they can afford their prescriptions. (Yet more commentary on the drug industry.) There's her desire for frequent no-strings sex and refusal to be in a relationship, even when it's obvious to the viewer that she's falling in love. Anne Hathaway was absolutely stellar in her performance, down to her shaking hands and lethargy (caused by her illness) and up to her flawlessly-performed emotional breakdowns. Paired with Jake Gyllenhaal's charming, selling, womanizing Jamie, it just really worked. Great stuff. (I also have to insert a side note on a subject I don't usually take the time to comment on: sex scenes. Some were strangely detached feeling, which I suppose is good since it was a no-strings relationship in the beginning. But one was especially beautiful once they were more together... It's raining outside and it's shot through the window, so all the viewer sees is the watery, unfocused forms of very gentle lovers on a lovely deep red bedspread. It was quite beautiful.)

Basically, it had all the hallmarks of the best of the best romantic comedies, but I almost don't want to call it that. Mostly the comedy came from his job and the romance was much more dramatic (and far from funny), and these two elements were combined flawlessly. Added to the very unique characters and plot, the quasi-nostalgic (or whatever you want to call it) feel, the interesting details of the pharmaceutical industry and Parkinson's disease, and some wonderful performances, this was one of the best "romantic comedies" I've ever seen.

Rating: 4.0

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say about this one, so I won't say much. I think the whole thing is just tired. I loved the first one when it came out (so much that I saw it 8 times in the theater before buying it on DVD the day it came out). I really liked the second and third ones (when nobody else seemed to), though I thought they should stand alone more like the first one did. Now somehow, I was really disappointed by POTC4, while every other review I've read seems to call it as good as the first one or even the best of the four. What?!

Change is good, and their stories were definitely complete, but that didn't stop me from missing Will and Elizabeth. Instead, Penelope Cruz appears as a former flame of Jack's. Now normally she irritates me to no end, but I thought she was actually pretty good in this movie and even had believable chemistry with Depp (who, I doubt I have to tell you, was just as awesome as ever). But then we have her father Blackbeard, played by Ian McShane. They keep talking about how evil he was, but I just didn't see it. He definitely wasn't as evil as Davy Jones, he wasn't as evil as Cutler Beckett. Heck, he wasn't as evil as Barbossa was in the first movie. This was especially disappointing because normally I find Ian McShane to be a very strong actor. So that's it for new main characters. Secondary characters? Forget about it! There was no Pintel and Ragetti, no Annamaria, no Mr. Cotton (or parrot), no midget worth his salt, no Marines-turned-pirates. Even Mr. Gibbs was rather blah in all this. Instead, we have a priest who was captured by Blackbeard, who is constantly preaching about the importance of faith and who falls in love with a mermaid. The preaching was downright annoying, and the romance was a chemistry-less flop. (No pun intended. Get it? Mermaid!)

The plot was also a huge disappointment. The third movie sets up the story of Jack off to find the Fountain of Youth, because he's terrified of death and wants to live forever. Instead, we find him on a quest for the fountain of youth for somebody else, and he doesn't seem that disappointed when it's not for him. That just doesn't make sense for his character, which further illustrates how badly done the characters were in this movie. Actually, I was really excited in the beginning because it started off with an amazing bang. Jack fights with a pirate who's masquerading as Sparrow, and their fight scene is beautifully choreographed and actually someone reminiscent of the Jack/Will sword fight in the first one. Then Jack is captured and brought before the king of England. Their scene together is great, especially Jack's escape attempt when he's almost more focused on getting a bite of cupcake than getting away. (That is classic Jack, so you can see why I had a good feeling about the movie.) Then he's tearing through the streets in a carriage filmed with flaming coal, which was pretty sweet, and I'm still thinking, "This movie is going to be great." And then he hooks up with Blackbeard, and it's all downhill from there. The remainder of the plot is meandering and boring, especially when added to the flat characters. There are extra plot points (like the whole mermaid thing, and especially the mermaid/preacher romance) that could have been left out entirely or at least done much, much better. Then the ending makes no sense at all. What a travesty.

On top of all that, the score was underwhelming. I had listened to the previews on iTunes before seeing the movie, and it seemed very guitar heavy (like they were going for a more modern South American/Caribbean feel) and didn't quite work. In the context of the movie it was passable, but it didn't stand out and it wasn't nearly as memorable as the first three scores. Like the stories, the music is getting tired too.

There were some pretty awesome special effects. I already mentioned the fiery coal carriage careening through the streets. The other awesome thing was that Blackbeard keeps all the ships that he has defeated in bottles in a cabinet on his ship. The bottles were full of thunder and lighting and crashing waves, and ***spoiler alert*** even Cotton's parrot appeared in the bottle with the trapped Black Pearl. Because of this whole bottle thing, a definite sequel is implied. It could be good, based on the hints, but then the whole search for the Fountain of Youth hinted at in At World's End sounded good too. So we'll see.

Rating: 2.5

Never Let Me Go (2010, UK)

I just don't even know where to start with this film. To call it "heartbreakingly beautiful" would be the understatement of the century. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It was so wonderful that I even watched the "making of" featurette, which I don't do too often. (Ironically, the last one I watched was another British boarding school setting—Like Minds.)

The concept is similar to that of The Island, but rather than being action-packed and set in the future, it is set in a very slightly alternate past and is more psychological, reflective. Basically, a group of children (possibly clones) are brought up in boarding schools and lectured on good health and the like. At 18, they move to homes around the country before beginning the process of fulfilling their purpose, which is to donate organs to "real" people. (That is the broad concept. More specifically, the story focuses on three friends and their relationships with each other.) I thought that setting it in the past is much more effective, because it is so much more plausible. Only a slight change in medical technology, no fast cars, advanced gaming systems. Just life as we know it with a slight change. The message is subtly different from the earlier film as well. It's more about accepting fate, making the best of the time you're given, and not being afraid to love. The difference is especially apparent in the operation scenes, though you'd have to see them both to know what I mean.

The mise en scène is striking and adds a lot to the story. The colors are all muted, sometimes dreary but mostly soft. The same can be said for the sounds. There isn't too much ambient noise, just things like gentle breeze and waves, quiet birdsong, and the like. It creates a sad, almost bleak and haunting feel, sort of like a waking dream. They also used a lot images that were simple but somehow beautiful, like a lot of broken toys laid out on a table, a bird sitting on a teapot, an abandoned and rusted boat on a lonely beach, a glimpse of the crescent-shaped scar on Tommy's back. One image that especially stuck with me was the children singing their school song toward the beginning. The way it was filmed made them seem so young and innocent, and it was heartbreaking because as a viewer, you know that they're headed nowhere. The importance of art to the story, and the manifestation of Tommy's inner self in his strange, wonderful drawings also adds to the sad and dreamlike feel.

Of course, the film wouldn't have been nearly as effective without the absolutely stellar cast. I've always been a fan of Keira Knightly (Ruth). I was very impressed by Carey Mulligan (Kathy) in An Education. And I could tell from The Social Network that Andrew Garfield (Tommy) was someone to watch. But in this film, and together, they were beyond brilliant. The chemistry between all three of them was palpable. They were three friends being ripped apart by the cruel circumstances of their fate. On top of this, the first half hour or so focused on them at age 12, and the child actors they cast might as well have been the three older actors 15 years ago. They look the same, have the same vocal inflections and mannerisms. Incredible. (In the making of, I learned that they made a special effort to cast kids who looked the same, and that their adult counterparts read through scenes with them and coached them as to how they would act. Very effective.) Toward the end, there's a shot of Kathy (Carey Mulligan's character) in a car, and for a second I actually thought they had flashed back in time and it was her 12-year-old self. That's how close they were. The adult actors also had to age from 18 to 28, and for Donors that can be a long and hard 10 years. The actors were fantastic in acting the emotional and physical changes of those 10 years, and the hair/makeup/costuming/whoever department did a fantastic job as well. Of all the actors, however, I just can't say enough about Andrew Garfield. His character is very complex, a big-hearted boy who has fits of rage, is nervously shy around other people and yet the object of two girls' affections, quiet and wise. He acts all these things to perfection. The most powerful scene in the entire film is one of him screaming in anguish and rage (which strikingly and powerfully echoes a similar scene that his childhood counterpart had) that goes beyond heart-wrenching to gut-wrenching. The overall film gave me the feeling that my heart was breaking into a million pieces, but this scene of Garfield's was especially powerful and moving. I won't lie, it made me sob. And sob. And sob. Truly magnificent and intense, a distillation of the feel of the rest of the film.

The score for this film was perfect. So perfect and so beautiful that the credits hadn't finished rolling but 5 minutes ago before I was on iTunes downloading it. I hate to pull out that old favorite phrase of mine, but the score really was heartbreakingly beautiful. It's hard to explain, but the feeling I get from listening to it is like the stream of time is slowly, inexorably flowing by the characters and there's nothing they can do to stop it but capture a few moments of love and beauty. Imagine that in musical form, and that's Rachel Portman's stunning score. I also mentioned the children singing the school song earlier, but one additional piece of music that really made the movie was a cassette that young Tommy gave to young Kathy with the song "Never Let Me Go" on it. She listens to it as a young woman and as an adult (and presumably quite often in the interim), and both the young actress and the older one have a wealth of emotions flitting over their faces as they listen to it. The song is perfect of the film, and the way it was used was even more perfect. I really just can't say enough about the music. (Or the acting, or the mise en scène, or the writing, etc. etc. etc.)

I loved the whole thing. Kathy's final words are a perfect, haunting conclusion: "All of us complete. Maybe none of us really understand what we've lived through. Or feel we've had enough time." I can't wait to watch this again or to read the book. Definitely planning to do both. *edit: It's tomorrow, and I just watched it again before I had to return it to the library. It was just as good the second time, and I really just want to watch it again now. This film is one that will be stuck with me for ages, I think. I've used these words several times before, but I'll say it again: very haunting, very powerful, very beautiful, very heartbreaking.*

Rating: 5.0

Blue Valentine (2010, U.S.)

This film was very well done. It reminded me a little bit of Rabbit Hole, in that it was a portrait of a marriage falling apart as the spouses tried to hold onto the pieces. It also had very strong actors in the lead roles. Ryan Gosling (Dean) and Michelle Williams (Cindy) are absolutely phenomenal as a young working class couple, both from dysfunctional families. They've had hard lives and made the best of things, and their marriage seems unlikely, their parenthood more so. I doubt the movie could have been as effective without their superior acting skills, or those of Faith Wladyka, the surprising talented girl who plays their daughter.

The composition also added to the overall effect. Nearly everything seemed dark and gritty. What I know about working class families, I know from the movies, but to me this felt more realistic than any other movie I can remember. From an anniversary at a sex motel to constantly burning cigarettes to riding on the city bus, I felt like I had stepped into this reality that I have never seen. Williams and Gosling were transformed into their characters.

Two other elements that really made the film work were the music and the use of flashbacks. The music seemed to consist of things I could imagine Dean actually listening to, so it felt natural with the plot. The flashbacks give little pieces of Dean and Cindy's early relationship that serve to illustrate both why they fell in love with each other and why little (though widening) cracks have appeared in their marriage.

Like I said, very well done. I think the only reason I didn't give it a higher rating is because I just felt so darn despondent after I watched it. It's strength is in its reality, but I guess I was just not in the mood for such a strong dose.

Rating: 3.0

Rabbit Hole (2010, U.S.)

This film was very difficult to watch, but really quite superb. I suppose in essence it is a domestic drama, because it is about the state of a marriage following the accidental death of a young child. Howie wants to go to group therapy and watch home videos and maintain his son's presence even in his absence. Becca, who left her job at Sotheby's to be a mother and is stuck at home all day, would rather hide the physical evidence of their son's life, forgoing therapy. Instead, she finds herself following the teenager who hit four-year-old Danny with his car; eventually, they begin meeting. While each spouse is trying to heal in their own way, their marriage is suffering.

To begin with, the script was very well-written. It's obvious to me why the original play won the 2007 Pulitzer. (Side note: the writing definitely feels like a play with the minimal number of characters and simple settings, sort of like 2005's Prime.) Eckhart and Kidman were phenomenal, and they made already strong writing simply leap off the screen. Their broken moments, their fights, their falling away from each other, their tentative attempts at physical intimacy, their reactions to things as little as a broken flower in the garden or as big as the dog their son was chasing into the road that fateful day... simply incredible acting. I've always thought highly of Nicole Kidman, and I'm beginning to build quite a favorable opinion of Aaron Eckhart as well. (From dry comedy in Thank You for Smoking to the fabulous portrayal of Two Face in The Dark Knight, he's making quite the impression on me.)

I quite enjoyed the score as well, which was at times sad and at times hopeful, perfectly expressing the film's emotions and adding to a truly heart-wrenching story. Wonderful stuff.

Rating: 4.0