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