Moonrise Kingdom (2012, U.S.)

This movie is a charming coming-of-age tale, but beyond that it's hard to describe. These two pre-teens meet each other and become pen pals. The girl is from a dysfunctional, seemingly wealthy family on a New England island, and the boy is an orphaned ward of the state attending camp on the island. They decide to run away together.

There are many laugh-out-loud moments and touching moments alike. The ensemble cast was very well put together, and the new young actors who played the runaway children were especially brilliant.

As I said, it's very hard to describe this whimsical, strange movie, but it is definitely worth seeing.

Rating: 3.5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012, U.S.)

I hate to say it, but yawn. I was kind of expecting it, to be honest, but it was still disappointing anyway. It started out so well with the arrival of the dwarves, invading Bilbo's home and pantry, cheerfully singing their clean up songs and mournfully singing their treasure songs. I was pretty excited then, because those early scenes in Bilbo's hobbit-hole were perfect. It was all downhill from there.

Mainly the problem is that a book, essentially a children's fairy tale, that should have been made into one movie is being stretched painfully into three. "Like butter scraped over too much bread," if you will. They drew out things that hadn't happened in the books, bringing characters on screen that were simply mentioned by other characters, namely Radagast the brown. Him and his stupid bunny sled were ridiculous. The book is mostly from Bilbo's point of view, and I certainly don't remember any description of what the dwarves were doing while he was lost in the dark in the Misty Mountains, and the giant fat albino goblin type thing that they encountered was just stupid. Also as much as I love them, I could have done without Elrond and Galadriel. Ugh, huge parts of it were just frustrating.

I'm being generous and giving this a 3.0 because of course Middle Earth was as beautiful as always and the casting of Bilbo and the dwarves was great and the early scenes were so enjoyable, but honestly it was just boring for huge parts. Very sad. Should have been one movie only. Duh.

Rating: 3.0

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, U.S.)

Oh, how sad I was to find this movie so run-of-the-mill. I had heard such great things about it and I'm a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, but alas, it just felt like every other super hero movie, really.

I'm not sure what it was. The cast was great: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans usually stand out to me. Sally Field and Martin Sheen were really great as Peter's aunt and uncle. I enjoyed the focus on the science aspect. The action scenes were good. So why did it seem to fall flat?

The only thing I can think of is that I was not convinced by "The Lizard." His initial transition was good, but then he just seemed to fall on the corny side as far a supervillains go. So that's really all I can come up with. It was good, but it didn't blow me away. Another victim of hype.

Rating: 3.5

Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012, U.S.)

I am stunned! I really didn't like the second half of Breaking Dawn (the book), so I expected the movie to be even worse. Mainly, I absolutely hated that stupid kid. However, in the movie you can actually see why she was so appealing to everyone, which makes the second half so much more sensible!

But I get ahead of myself. I want to start with how amazing the credits were. I'm getting them confused in my head (opening and closing), but I believe it was the opening credits that were all black and white with hints of red, really artfully done. The closing credits did this amazing thing where it showed the final words of the novel from the novel, and it felt like a book closing with this sort of finality. Then they did the kind of credits were all the main actors were pictured from the entire series, which furthered that feeling. Pretty awesome on both ends.

And the middle was really good too. Like I said, the kid was not annoying. They simplified the whole "Jay" sideplot to work with the movie. The supporting cast of vampires was really amazing, although I have to say a big part of why I didn't give this a 4.5 is because I felt like they were all short changed on screen time. The big fight at the end was just amazing, especially with all the twists that I had managed to completely forget from the book. I was completely nail-biting, which was completely unexpected.

Everyone belittles "KStew" and "RPattz," but I continue to think that they're both great actors. Maybe this isn't the best vehicle for them, but still. Stewart does a convincing job as someone finally getting in touch with her real self. The contrast between the awkward human and the graceful vampire is very obvious if you compare the early movies to this one.

I thought this was a strong ending to the series, particularly with the above-mentioned credits that tied the movie into the book and tied all the movies together. I'm looking forward to a marathon when it comes to DVD.

Rating: 4.0

You Only Live Twice (1967, UK)

Well, talk about ridiculous! I feel like I should have seen all these old Bond films before the new ones, because the picture I had of him in my head (cemented by the modern films) was much less cheesey!

On one hand, this one had some pretty amazing elements, including an epic car chase and some hints and Japanese culture. Also, Bond's "assassination" at the beginning of the film was pretty sweet. On the other hand, it got downright racist (particularly when Bond was disguised as a "Japanese man") and the whole SPECTRE-stealing-spaceships-from-space thing was just plain silly!

I'm a bit at a loss on this one. I loved parts; I hated parts. I just don't know.

Rating: 3.0

Skyfall (2012, UK)

First I have to say how interesting it was to watch this right after watching Thunderball. Instead of sharks, Skyfall had komodo dragons. Instead of Domino, Sévérine. Both had underwater scenes, though Skyfall's were much better (and shorter). Bond was recovering a hard drive instead of nuclear weapons, but the mission was similar. He makes love in a glass-walled shower instead of a glass walled-steam room. He spent time at the beginning recovering from grievous injury. The day was partially saved by homing devices from Q. All these strange similarities, and which movie was better? Skyfall by a landslide. (Though don't get me started on how a large part of this movie was very Home Alone!)

It's also interesting how much the Bond movies say about the society in which they're made. Connery's are so very '60s. Craig's are so very 21st century. These days we're much more concerned with how characters got where they are, back stories and raking over emotional coals and exploring the psyche. Connery's Bond was much more action, sex, and martinis in comparison. M had a quasi-speech in front of many government officials saying that her department was still relevant in this day and age because of how things have changed (the exact reason the government thought they were becoming obsolete). She talks about how our enemies no longer have faces but operate in the shadows. It was fascinating, and in addition to being a great plot point, it also speaks to why Bond is still relevant in the 21st century. But anyway.

To start with the beginning: It was very interesting how much happened before the opening credits, but it worked pretty well. On the other hand, the way they set things up made it impossible to use the classic gun barrel shot in the opening credits and it had to be reserved for the ending instead. A bit disappointing. I thought Adele's song was perfect. It harkened back to the days of classic Bond, very smooth and sexy. Unfortunately, the imagery on the credits was just too much. It tried to blend modern elements with the classic elements, and it just made me feel like I was getting sea sick in Willy Wonka's tunnel, if you know what I mean. It's unfortunate because some pieces were exactly right, and if they hadn't been so ADD and emphasized those elements, the credits could have been just right. (Therefore Casino Royale still wins for credit images and music!) As for the rest of the score, Thomas Newman is one of my favorites of course, and I thought he did a good job of fitting in rather than standing out, which worked for the film.

Of course Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond, and this was a great movie. There was tons of action, but it didn't feel like too much like Thunderball did. The opening chase through Istanbul via car, motorcycle, foot, and train was awesome. I mean awesome. This is the first time I've seen Ola Rapace (former husband of Noomi) in action, and he did his scenes well. Sadly I don't think he had the opportunities for close-up facial acting like the parkour runner of Casino Royale did. Still, his scenes with Craig were sweet. They have another fight in Shanghai with all this neon lighting in the background so there is this amazing silhouette effect going on as well. (Craig later has a silhouette scene against a backdrop of fire which is also sweet.) So anyway, there is a lot of action and it is all beautifully choreographed and filmed. It was just a joy to watch.

The acting was also good. I was especially fond of Naomie Harris as Eve. (I saw where they were going with her character from a million miles away, so that was kind of disappointing, but she still stood out.) Her chemistry with Craig was also great. Judi Dench... what can I say? Daniel Craig was of course magnificent. And Javier Bardem... wow. The guy has creepy down to an art form! The cadence of his voice, his mannerisms, everything about him was just... yeah. Also of note was the chemistry between Bond and Q.

The plot was great, but I also wanted more more more! There was all this hinting about M's past, and a little comes to light, but it just wasn't enough. Ditto Bond's. I can't say much more without giving a lot away. In fact, almost everything I want to say is a spoiler! I will finish by saying that there was a hinted return to the "glory days" of Bond. They were clearly testing out some one liners, a classic Aston Martin showed up, certain characters appeared. It should be interesting to see where things go from here.

Rating: 4.5

Thunderball (1965, UK)

At first I was enjoying this movie, but to be honest I think the ending completely killed it. I'm glad to see elsewhere online that I'm not the only one to think that while the underwater fight sequences were cool, they dragged on and on to the point where I honestly lost interest. My attention drifted for awhile before I snapped back and watched the last few minutes.

Until then, it was pretty clever. I liked SPECTRE's complicated plan to steal a NATO plane and two nuclear weapons, which was complicated and bordering on ridiculous but still strangely plausible. I liked Largo and his lair, complete with man-eating shark pool. I liked his mistress Domino, who is essentially trapped with Largo, her role in Bond's mission, and her penchant for only black and white clothes. The early part of the movie where Bond is recovering from injuries at a health-spa type place was interesting because it showed that he was only human (although I could have done without the jetpack escape from the fight that put him there).

Overall it was a good one, but I could have used more traveling and edited-down underwater sequences.

Rating: 3.5

Notting Hill (1999, UK)

I was reading (and loving) this book called From Notting Hill with Love... Actually by Ali McNamara, basically a chick lit whose main character loves chick flicks. Of course she mentions this one constantly, and since I've never seen it, I decided to give it a go.

So, eh. To start with, I just have never seen the appeal in Hugh Grant. Sure, I liked him in Bridget Jones as the skeazy Daniel Cleaver, and he's definitely attractive, but his nice guy roles are never that enjoyable to me. I like Julia Roberts quite a bit, and one of my all-time favorite chick flicks is My Best Friend's Wedding, but for some reason I had a bad feeling about this one. Maybe it's the smirk she has on in poster.

Yeah, the concept was cute, but I wouldn't it make more sense for a chick flick to be about a famous man falling for a normal woman, instead of vice versa? I mean, that would make the predominant audience swoon. (Though I do love a man in a bookstore!)  And the whole romance was really sweet. The spilling orange juice, the awkwardness of the first meeting... but then she randomly kisses him and it feels very disjointed, and that's the whole basis for their continuing relationship. I feel like if the initial attraction made more sense and flowed more smoothly, the good parts about the rest of it would have seemed great. (For instance, him having to interview her and pretending to be a journalist from Horse & Hound!)

And okay, I always say that I love Rhys Ifans and he is an under-appreciated actor, but in this case, I had too much of him the second he was on the screen. His character is dirty, both literally and figuratively, and he just made my skin crawl. Why was he there? Sure he made Hugh Grant's character look even more charming (and normal!) in comparison, but for the most part his ewwww factor completely took away from the story. For that alone, I went from a 3.0 to a 2.5.

There are better chick flicks out there. I need to go have a Bridget Jones lovefest to rinse this one out of my brain. And just as a side note, in case anyone is even reading this or cares, apparently there's going to be a third Bridget Jones movie. Now that's what I call good news!

Rating: 2.5

Goldfinger (1964, UK)

This movie was so stupid but it was my favorite one so far! I mean, the superspy has to stop a fat German guy who is a bit crazy, kills women by dipping them in gold, and plans to break into Fort Knox! (Not to mention Oddjob, his nutso Korean henchman who can kill people with a fling of his razor-sharp bowler hat!) A fellow movie buff said that if I thought that Dr. No was bad I would hate this one, but somehow its common elements (corny villain in a corny lair, mostly) were terrible in Dr. No but good here.

The locations weren't so exciting here. Switzerland was nice, but then it was Florida, Baltimore, and Kentucky. I guess that's exotic to a posh guy from Britain. Still, the model of Fort Knox was pretty realistic looking, which was cool.

An interesting aspect of this one was Pussy Galore and her Flying Circus. First, Honor Blackman is still the oldest Bond girl ever cast, and yet I thought she was sexier than many I've seen. It might have been her voice. Second, her female pilots are very girl power. Sure, they wear stupid sexy outfits, but they're pilots. That's pretty impressive for 1964. (I gather in the book they were acrobats and cat burglars, so this was a definite upgrade.) I thought that her manner, crew of self-reliant ladies, and initial disinterest in Bond all subtly suggested lesbianism, but quickly dismissed it from my mind. However, turns out the Pussy Galore of the book actually was gay. Now that really is risky for the 1960s, though it certainly explains the name (and why she doesn't fling herself at Bond like a bimbo). So far she's my favorite Bond girl because she's so self-possessed, self-assured, and self-aware. (Of course plot-wise I still love Vesper Lynd, but she's not exactly her own woman.)

So the verdict here is ridiculous but good!

Rating: 4.0

From Russia with Love (1963, UK)

I definitely liked this more than Dr. No because there was more plot and less ridiculous villain's lair. Basically he knows that the Soviets are trying to ensnare him with a sexy female agent, but MI6 is so desperate for the decoding device she has that they don't care.

After a weak start in the Caribbean in the first movie, Bond really starts his travels here—Istanbul, Venice, Zagreb... There are also scenes in Russia, though he's not there. Sure the less than crystal-clear quality that we're used to in modern movies and the dated clothing might have taken a bit away, but I still loved the scenery. I think the ability to see the world is one of the best things about the Bond movies.

We also begin to see here that Bond has friends conveniently placed throughout the world (most of whom turn out to be jovial middle aged men) and that while he treats women as disposable when it comes to sex, he does care about women as people too. (Exhibit: worry over fate of Russian spy.)

Things are looking up as I continue to work my way through Bond.

Rating: 3.5

Romantics Anonymous (2010, France)

This was a cute enough movie with some good underlying serious issues, but I was still a bit disappointed. Having heard it described as Amélie meets Chocolat, I was expecting greatness. It wasn't bad, it just didn't live up to its hype—or its potential.

I did love the two main actors. Both were absolutely endearing and... I can't think of the word. Normal and average don't quite get it. Maybe ordinary? I think the title must have been a play on words, because while they were both secretly romantics, they were also overemotional (mostly anxious). Their anxiety was fascinating to watch. It was of course overplayed for comedy, but it also rang true. It was a delicate balance that ultimately succeeded.

 The setting was also a lot of fun. They work in a struggling chocolate factoring that needs rescuing, and all four of their coworkers are just right and all a bit stereotypical. Two mothering middle aged women and two young, slender, androgynous men who are all invested in the company and in the lives of their boss and the new employee.

So with all this charmingness, how did it fall short? There were just too many places were things were set up for a perfect line or plot twist that never happened. Everything was too easy (even for a romantic comedy) and a brilliant concept ultimately went to waste. I would still recommend it, just not too enthusiastically.

Rating: 3.5

Dr. No (1962, UK)

I decided to start watching the James Bonds films from the beginning, since I've only seen the Daniel Craig ones and maybe one or two Pierce Brosnan ones. I don't know if I'll get all the way through them, but we'll see what happens.

This wasn't quite the "wow" opening that I was expecting. Even the opening credits were a bit odd. They included three different songs that abruptly, rather than smoothly, transitioned. The dancing girl silhouettes in neon colors were very Bond, but they didn't seem to fit the rest of the movie. I was also a bit disappointed with the intro to Bond. The only reason he's "Bond, James Bond" is because the girl he's talking to introduces herself the same way first. Also, he seemed to fall on the sleazy side of the sexy/sleazy line when it came to sleeping with girls. I mean, knowingly sleeping with someone you're about to arrest... Shouldn't there be a law against that for government agents?

Anyway, I found the rest to be delightfully corny. Ursula Andress was a very sexy Bond girl, and I loved that he laughed at her name—Honey Rider. The supervillain was supercorny, as was his underground lair. I'm not quite sure about MI6 sending off an agent to do work that should be the CIA's business, particularly for a first outing, but still a fun flick.

Rating: 3.5

The Dark Knight Rises (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. What just happened? I saw this with my brother, who was seeing it for the second time, and his reaction seemed pretty close to mine, even knowing what was going to happen. It was so confusing. I feel like I'm throwing the word "disjointed" around a lot these days, but that's just what it was. The timeline was very unclear. It seemed like events were happening very close together, but suddenly a change in the weather indicated that it had actually been months or more. (I think we decided that the main timeline, not counting flashbacks, was a little over a year.)

The acting was good, the sets were good, the costumes were good, the Bat-toys were awesome (I love that motorcycle thing)... But the plot was just overly ambitious and the writing lacked flair. The villain Bane was supposed to be the coolest villain of all time, but I found him almost ridiculous. His face mask is never adequately explained, his voice was supposed to sound creepy and just ended up getting on my nerves, and various plot twists (which I won't give away) completely ruined the power he had as a villain and all of the impassioned speeches he gave (probably the best writing in the movie). Perhaps a lot of the let down stems from being the third in a series where the first was really fresh and the second was well-crafted and featured one of the most brilliant performances by one of the most brilliant actors of his generation (Heath Ledger). Or maybe it was just that unwieldy. It's hard to enjoy something when you're trying so hard to keep up. It's one thing with a foreign film or intense drama, but a super hero movie... I like smart movies with capes, but this wasn't smart, at least in its entirety.

I am having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, so I'll give it up. Stick to the first two installments.

Rating: 2.0

Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging (2008, UK)

How fitting... Immediately after a middle-aged romantic comedy, I see a teenaged romantic comedy! The series of books that this movie was based on might have been the only young adult books that I read as a young adult. When I saw that they had made a movie, I was so excited. But it didn't come to the States, and it didn't come to DVD. We have just changed from dish to cable and gotten many new channels, and I've spent the last few days flipping and watching random stuff, something I haven't done in at least 5 years. Long (and pointless) story short, I turned to Nickelodeon or ABC Family or some such channel the second this movie was started. I was psyched!

I loved Georgia Groome. I didn't really have a picture of Georgia Nicholson clearly in my head (at least anymore), but she was exactly right. I also liked the actors who played her parents and Robbie (who kind of reminded me of a mix between Logan Lehrman and someone else I can't quite put my finger on). The movie was funny like the book (though maybe not as funny as I would have found it 13 years ago), and also really cute. It is definitely the Bridget Jones for the younger set. It was charmingly British and wonderfully uplifting for non-perfect girls everywhere.

I would definitely watch this again—bonus points for the nostalgia factor. I also keep telling myself that I need to reread these books sometime soon. Maybe now's the time!

Rating: 4.0

Hope Springs (2012, U.S.)

This was a cute movie. It's nice to see the middle aged equivalent of romantic comedies popping up here and there. While this wasn't as funny as It's Complicated, it was much more thought-provoking. It was very simply plotted (a couple goes to out-of-town marriage counseling) but unflinchingly honest. The humor was the humor of reality, and at times it could even be called uncomfortable.

Meryl Streep is just lovely and brilliant, of course. Tommy Lee Jones was beyond perfect as the husband. I can't even put into words how he embodied the character of a set-in-his-ways, taking-his-wife-for-granted, slightly curmudgeonly man of a certain age. As a couple, they had the perfect chemistry, for lack of a better word. I could easily believe that they were a couple of more than 30 years, living in the same house in separate bedrooms and dealing with the issues they speak to their counselor about. Speaking of the counselor, Steve Carell didn't stand out here, but he was perfect as a therapist gently nudging his clients into discovering themselves and the issues in their partnership. Letting Streep and Jones shine with his understated performance was the best possible choice.

I would definitely recommend this to ladies (and gentlemen) of a certain age.

Rating: 3.5

Sarah's Key (2010, France)

My book club read this novel for August, so we decided to get together and watch the movie too. I think every single one of us was disappointed. We all felt that it was very disjointed, and we wouldn't have known what was going on if we hadn't read the book. The only person who hadn't read more than the first few chapters verified our reaction. With a novel of relatively short length and few characters, there really wasn't any reason for it to be so hard to follow.

It was also painfully unemotional. The book was moving, but the movie felt perfunctory. The only moment when I felt anything was when Sarah opened the closet. My heart nearly broke at the amount of emotion the young actress conveyed. However, with the magnitude of the story unfolding, other moments should have been heartbreaking too—particularly in the Vel' d'Hiv, in Drancy, at the Dufaure's... I could go on.

Kristin Scott Thomas wasn't bad, but honestly I got sick of her. Even though a majority of the novel also follows Julia, here it just felt too much. This was especially true because both of the actresses who played Sarah (as a child and as a young woman) were phenomenal. The best way I can think to describe both of them is "arresting" or perhaps "captivating." I was very surprised to see that the adult Sarah, Charlotte Poutrel, only has one other small credit to her name. Maybe she's not a great actress when she starts speaking, but her silence and the expressiveness of her eyes were enthralling.

Anyway, I probably wouldn't recommend this one, though I'd definitely recommend the book.

Rating: 2.5

The Artist (2011, France)

It is so clear to me how this lovely, charming, wonderful film won so many Academy Awards this year. I would have loved to have seen it on the big screen, because it was just wow, and a theater would have made it even more so.

Seriously, everything about it was just magical. A silent film about the silent film era is a strange but successful subject. Modern audiences could be thrown off by the lack of speech, but the actors convey so much with their faces and bodies, and the absolutely stellar score (heavy on the jangly piano) does the rest. I smiled, I laughed, I cried, I loved it!

They captured the era with the subject, the sets, the costumes, the score (especially the score—maybe the best Oscar-winning score of all time!), the title cards, the props, the everything. Yet the story of a man who suddenly finds himself obsolete (and in love with the new face of the future, to boot) was timeless. Really, the story was just... charming. I was enraptured. I even loved the use of blatant symbolism (like when he sinks into a sand pit in his final silent film) despite (and maybe because of) its obviousness. George Valentin has this dream where suddenly there is noise everywhere but he can't speak, and it was just brilliantly executed. Brilliantly.

As I mentioned, the actors were incredible and portrayed a wide range of emotion flawlessly. (Dare I include the adorable Uggie, who played The Dog? He was much better here than in Water for Elephants!) Dujardin certainly earned his Oscar. He was every inch the charmer, but he was also believable when he fell on hard times too. (When he finally did speak his only two words of the film, I felt the urge to clasp my hands to my chest and grin like an idiot.) He makes the viewer fall in love with him and mourn for the world he represents, a world that is vanishing for him and has already slipped into the fog of the distant past for us. But Bérénice Bejo was just as good as Dujardin, and sometimes even better. Her Peppy Miller was vivacious, effervescent, and so full of life that I kept expecting her to pop out of the scene at any second. Her megawatt smiles and flamboyant dance moves and ceaseless energy were hard not to fall in love with too. But her character had a big heart too, as her occasional tear-filled eyes illustrated well. Seriously, I've said it twice in this paragraph already, but I just fell in love with them both. I don't see how any film lover could avoid succumbing to their sparkling charms. Captivating doesn't even begin to describe Dujardin, Bejo, or the entire film.

I could ramble forever. This is a love letter to the movies, and it bears reading and rereading by cinephiles everywhere. (The fact that audible language plays such a small role makes it even more accessible to film lovers worldwide.)

I can't wait to watch it again. Did I mention I was in love and entirely charmed?

Rating: 5.0

Magic Mike (2012, U.S.)

Yes, I saw this movie. In the theater, no less. But just to be clear, it was my mom's idea, not mine! (And yes, I saw a male stripper movie with my mother. Fun times!) I think the theater experience really added to this one, because I was in a sold out crowd with at least 99% women. I'm not even sure there was one man in the audience. When we left the theater, the three employees waiting to clean up were all young-ish men, and they all had this sweet but knowing grin on their faces. Then when we were in line for the restroom afterwards, the lady in front of me turned around and said, "I sure hope my husband's awake when I get home!" How could you not like a movie with an experience like that?

Really, I did enjoy this movie, and not just for the obvious reasons. There actually was a plot. Mike wants to make enough money (or get a loan from uncooperative banks) to start his own custom furniture business, but when he takes a new guy under his wing, his dreams get farther and farther away. He repeatedly tells people that he is not his job. However, while we do learn a lot about his job and the life that goes with it, I have to say that I was disappointed that we don't learn more about his coworkers. I really like Joe Manganiello and Matt Bomer, but they and the others were hardly more than background scenery.

Still, Channing Tatum would have stolen the show no matter what. (Forget Matthew McConaughey... he was sketchy and old-looking, though perfect in his role as club owner.) Maybe Tatum isn't the best actor in the world, but it's always so hard to tell. He has this inherent charm that makes you like him. I think it lives in his dimples. Anyway, he is also an incredible dancer, and a lot of his performances were really more hip hop than striptease, but mesmerizing all the same.

This one is really one of a kind, and I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. But the ending kind of ruined it for me. It was way too abrupt, and I didn't like how things ended for Mike or his protégé. When the screen faded to black after the last scene, I thought, "Really?!"

Still, it was pretty good, and I would certainly recommend it to the ladies (and maybe even watch it again myself) to see the magnetic Mr. Tatum dance.

Rating: 3.5

All Good Things (2010, U.S.)

Mom and I were looking for something to watch on Netflix, and this popped up while we were scoping out Ryan Gosling movies. Neither of us had ever heard of it, but it sounded interesting and we liked the two main actors. I really enjoyed the first half or so. They explore the characters and their relationships quite well, and it had all the makings of a complex psychological movie. (In fact, something about it really reminded me of another movie, but I can't think of what it was to save my life. Maybe Fractured? Or maybe one of many psychological films featuring Eddie Redmayne—Like Minds, Savage Grace, Glorious 39? I just don't know!)

Gosling was his usual impressive self, particularly in scenes where he was supposed to be demonstrating signs of some sort of mental illness, possibly schizophrenia. Dunst was also very good, sweet and open and a perfect balance to Gosling. Their relationship was very believable. The disintegration of their relationship was very believable. It was executed simply and effectively, and I liked the subtle flashback method that they used as well.

There was just something about the ending that didn't ring true. It felt awkward and fake compared to the rest of the film, which felt honest and real. I think I would have really liked, or even loved, this movie, but I just didn't feel great about the end.

Rating: 3.5

Brave (2012, U.S.)

This movie was an altogether pleasant surprise. The previews really only give a glimpse of what it's really about (a welcome relief after Dark Shadows). I saw this with my mom, which made it even better because it's really a great mother-daughter movie. While a lot of the story is about girl power and Merida finding her way and being herself, it's also about Merida and the Queen listening to and understanding each other. It was really lovely. I hate to give away more of the plot, because it really was surprising, but suffice is to say there are clever lines, action, unexpected twists, lots of Celtic-ness, and bears!

The music was awesome. It sounded like the type of music you'd expect in an animated family film, but it also sounded very Scottish. It set the perfect tone. I also liked many of the other sound aspects, including the voice actors and effects. You can see little blue things by Merida in the poster; in the movie, they are will-o'-the-wisps that help lead Merida to her destiny. The noise that they made was really impressive—cooing, sweet, eerie, otherworldly. If I ever thought about what a will-o'-the-wisp sounded like, that would be it. Just a slice of how good the sound was. I also liked the animation. Merida's hair was like it's own character, and I loved her horse and little brothers and the bears too. I also thought the scenery, from glens to ancient stone circles, was that balanced blend of realistic and fake that works so perfectly in animated movies.

Obviously, I was impressed. I would recommend it for all ages, and especially for mothers and daughters and Celt-lovers.

Rating: 4.0

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. This movie was almost a complete disappointment. Usually I defend Kristen Stewart to all haters, because she really is a great actress. She wasn't bad here, but she didn't stand out either. But neither did Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, or any other great actors that peppered the cast. In fact, I thought Charlize Theron bordered on bad, because everything she did seemed so overacted, to the point of melodrama. Honestly, the whole thing was pretty melodramatic

Perhaps it was the writing or maybe the directing, but it just seemed ridiculous. Visually it was quite stunning, but on the other hand it seemed like they relied entirely too much on visual effects to the detriment of the plot. The nugget of plot was so good too.

It was also very distracting that every other minute something presented a visual reminder of another fantasy film, particularly The Lord of the Rings. (Down to the Tree of Gondor that graced KStew's armor... that was a bit much.) James Newton Howard is one of my favorite composers, and some of his pieces here were spot on, but he didn't quite win my favor this go round, because even his score echoed LOTR occasionally. Altogether strange, and you'd really have to see it (and be very familiar with the trilogy) to see all the subtle echoes. It was disconcerting.

I would recommend this to die-hard fans of any of the cast and people who like their fairy tales nice as dark (as they were intended), and even to LOTR fans who take pleasure in yelling, "Copycats!"

Rating: 3.0

Dark Shadows (2012, U.S.)

Well, it's impossible not to like a Burton/Depp/Carter/Lee/Elfman lovefest, particularly with the additions of Eva Green and Jonny Lee Miller, but I almost came close here. I think the big problem was that there was so much hype for this movie, and therefore so many previews, that it seemed like I had already seen the whole thing before I saw it. (Did you follow that sentence?)

Maybe I'm worn out with the aforementioned lovefest, because acting, directing, music was all exactly as I would anticipate. I guess it's harder to be thrilled when you expect great things every time. So yes, it was great in a way, but it already felt old. So that was frustrating. I'm sure I'd recommend it, particularly if you were a fan of the show, a fan of the dream team, and haven't seen any of the previews. If it felt fresher, it would have been much more memorable.

Rating: 3.0

W./E. (2011, UK)

I was somewhat hesitant about this one because it was directed by Madonna, and that worried my inner historian. I didn't need to be worried at all. This film was beautiful. The music, the costumes, the sets... everything brought the time period(s) to life. (Yes, even the 1990s were spot on, without being stereotypical.)

I really like Abbie Cornish, but this wasn't my favorite role of hers. (See Candy for pure, unadulterated brilliance.) The real show stealer was Andrea Riseborough. I don't think I've seen anything of hers before, and I don't think I'll ever see anything of hers without thinking, "That is Wallis Simpson." (Oops, I lied. She was Chrissie in Never Let Me Go. What a change!) She completely sweeps the viewer up in her whirlwind. As she says, she's not beautiful but she dresses well. She does everything with style and flair, and it's easy to see how Wallis captured the prince's interest with her infectious personality, carefree manner, and her caring heart.

The use of parallels between Wally and Wallis, 1998 and 1936, were really well done. It's really impossible to do justice to the subtly as Wally becomes obsessed with Wallis, partially to escape the unhappiness of her own marriage. I loved the part when she went to see Mohamed al Fayed to ask if she could read the Duchess of Windsor's private letters, telling him that she wanted to know what the commoner gave up for the king, since everyone focused on what the king gave up for the commoner. (Though not explicitly mentioned, this line of reasoning obviously had an effect on Fayed, whose son had died the previous year while in a relationship with Diana. Well done parallel that further makes 1998 a perfect counterpoint to the 1936 plot.) The film really was about two women in two very different relationships and what they gave up for the men they loved, why they did it, and whether they could live with their choices. Oh, I'm not explaining it well at all. Basically they are very, very different, and yet each of stories really sharpen the clarity of the other's. I also liked the use of water and mirrors as a sort of symbolism.

Anyway, this film is very well done, very artistically done. It says a lot about the struggles and decisions that women sometimes face through the stories of two strong, self-possessed women. I would definitely recommend it.

Rating: 4.0

Birdsong (2012, UK)

Oh, Eddie Redmayne. You could be watching paint dry and I would be utterly captivated. You merit at least a full additional star for yourself in every movie. You are beautiful and brilliant with your too-wide mouth and your piercing eyes and your childlike freckles and your one-of-a-kind voice.

Excuse me. Now that I got that out of the way... This was a beautiful piece. I'm really curious to read the Sebastian Faulks novel that it came from. (I watched Charlotte Gray a long time ago, before the blog, and I remember really enjoying it too. It's also from his loosely connected France Trilogy.) The juxtaposition of Stephen's life before and after the war is amazing. They did a great job of contrasting bright and lovely greens in the idyllic 1910 countryside with the dusty, depressing browns of that same country covered with trenches. Stephen learns really important life lessons that he needs both personal tragedy and global tragedy to understand. It's hard to explain this, but it's the core of Birdsong.

I liked basically everything about this. Obviously, I think Eddie Redmayne is a genius. He has such an emotive face and a strong range. I think this was the first I've seen of Clémence Poésy (outside of Fleur in Harry Potter), but she was utterly perfect for the role too, as was Joseph Mawle, who plays a miner in the trenches who helps Stephen on his path to enlightenment. The rest of the cast was good too, but those two stood out.

I already mentioned the perfection of the mis en scène. I also found the music to be very powerful. It was very piano-heavy, and many of the songs were simple, relying on repeating series of 3 or 4 notes. It fit the tone perfectly. (Incidentally, this is, as far as I know, only the third score I've heard by Nicholas Hooper. His HP6 score was a big tone-perfect standout for me too.)

Oh, I'm just not doing it justice. I spent nearly 3 hours with the mini-series, plus extra time for the special features, and I loved every second. It was beautiful, heartbreaking, well-acted, realistic, enlightening, and powerful. Highly recommended.

Rating: 4.5

The Lucky One (2012, U.S.)

Yawn. I haven't really loved any post-2003 Nicholas Sparks books, but The Lucky One made me think that he was heading back in the right direction (though it is awfully reminiscent of Message in a Bottle to be its own story). The movie was kind of eh. If it tells you anything, this is the first Sparks movie that hasn't made me cry. At all. And I am a huge movie crier. Considering the fact that there are some pretty emotional scenes, I have to think that the filmmakers just didn't do the best job bringing it to the screen.

Zac Efron has grown up a lot. I wouldn't say he's the best actor in the world, but he seemed perfect for this role and he was hot. (There, I said it!) I liked Taylor Schilling, but I would have liked her more if she was playing someone like Theresa in Message in a Bottle. She didn't seem too old for this role, but because she seemed way older than Efron, it didn't work so well. It felt kind of Mrs. Robinson. But the kid who played her son was just adorable and absolutely perfect, so that was nice. Then there's Blythe Danner, who can make any movie better!

I liked a lot of the settings, including the treehouse over the river, the rundown place Logan was renting, and the dog kennels. It definitely had a unique feel, and it really helped the flagging plot. It also felt very Southern, in a nice way. I loved the final shot on the road with the sun seeming to set everything on fire. It was truly beautiful.

Obviously this movie has some things to commend it, including casting and setting, but I think the writing and directing must have been pretty weak, because overall the movie felt pretty weak. Still, worth a watch, especially if you're a fan of all things Sparks and/or sappy romance.

Rating: 3.0

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953, U.S.)

This wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as Some Like It Hot. I guess men hiding as women from gangsters makes a better story than a woman out to land a sugar daddy (not that there wasn't an element of that in the other). Monroe was good, but her character was just so irritating! However, I loved Jane Russell. She's a snappy, shrewish, self-contained, awesome lady!

The best part of the whole thing was Jane Russell singing "Anyone Here for Love?" with the men's Olympic team in the background wearing tight, skin-toned short shorts doing all kinds of acrobatics. It was huh-larious. Probably worth watching just for that!

Rating: 3.5

The Tree of Life (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say. At all. Because what just happened? At first I thought I was going to love it. I mean, visually it was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The score was completely out of this world, like a best of the eerie sounding classics. (Hard to describe the subset of music I'm talking about exactly, but it is a type of music I enjoy a lot. I would love to own this soundtrack.) Then there was original music composed by one of my all time favorite composers, Alexandre Desplat. Brad Pitt wasn't bad, but this wasn't my favorite performance of his. I thought Jessica Chastain was the real star of this film, which was unfortunate because she often seemed so peripheral. Overall, it was visually and aurally stunning, and the seed of the plot was good.

But. But but but. It just tried so hard to be artsy and impressionistic that it seemed silly instead. There were dinosaurs, for crying out loud. The sound mixing was not the best, so the score often overpowered whispered lines. I found myself having to turn on subtitles a lot. The part about adult Jack could have added a lot, but I don't think it was made clear enough. Plus, Sean Penn reminded me why I never liked Sean Penn (until Milk made me want to give him a second chance).

It could have been really great, but it just tried too hard and was too self aware. So instead of brilliance and beauty, I was left with a lot of annoyance and exhaustion.

Rating: 1.5

Some Like It Hot (1959, U.S.)

Watching My Week with Marilyn made me realize that I have hardly seen any of Marilyn Monroe's movies. I've seen Monkey Business (an absolutely wonderful Cary Grant/Ginger Rogers flick by Howard Hawks in which she has a very small role) and I've seen The Misfits (Clark Gable's final film based on a story by Monroe's husband Arthur Miller), but neither of those are her best remembered roles at all.

So what can I say about this? What a strange movie for the '50s! We think of that decade as super up-tight, and yet here we have a gender-bending, cross-dressing comedy about musicians and gangsters. I quite enjoyed it, really. I can see the Monroe appeal. That breathy voice when she says, "It's me, Sugar!" Pulling a flask out of her garter. She's just sexy and innocent and completely enthralling. Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis are both hilarious, but they are totally eclipsed by her sun. This movie had all the things you could ask for in a comedy. There were so many funny lines and physical situation comedy, particularly having to do with gender identity issues. My biggest complaint is that I didn't like which man she picked. Still, you can't have everything and it was funny funny!

Rating: 4.0

The Three Musketeers (2011, U.S.)

What an enormous letdown. I haven't read the book or seen any other adaptations, but I am familiar with the story. They seemed to stick to the general idea of the plot. Lots of action, recovery of a diamond necklace to save the queen's neck, all for one and one for all, and all that jazz.

I don't know what it was, but this movie just wasn't good. The cast was phenomenal. I mean, I love Ray Stevenson, Orlando Bloom, and Logan Lehrman; Christoph Waltz is a brilliant actor; Til Schweiger and Mads Mikkelson are two of the best typecasted bad guys in the business; and I liked Matthew Macfayden in the only thing I've seen him in (The Pillars of the Earth). So I just can't believe that such a cast could come off so silly and talentless, which leads me to believe that directing and especially scripting were a travesty. Even the funny lines just weren't funny.

Visually it was often quite engaging though anachronistic. A lot of the hair distracted me too. Bloom's looked ridiculously big, and Lehrman's looked like a wig that was going to fall off at any second. The fight scenes were  mostly well-choreographed, but they got kind of boring after awhile, especially when elements reminded me of POTC choreography. Speaking of which, there were a lot of phrases in the score that seemed to be lifted directly from POTC. I kept thinking to myself, "Oh, I just made that up, I didn't actually hear that." But then I would hear it again or hear another slightly-too-familiar phrase. That kept lurching me out of the story.

Overall, very frustrating and disappointing. Despite the fact that the cast boasts some of my must-follow actors, I wouldn't recommend this at all.

Rating: 2.0

My Week with Marilyn (2011, U.S.)

I've never been a big Marilyn Monroe fan. Not that I don't like her, just that I've never really seen any of her movies for some reason. I think the only two I've seen are Monkey Business (which she's hardly in at all) and The Misfits, during which I was busy scrutinizing Clark Gable's performance. Still, Michelle Williams got lots of awards nods for this, and everyone knows that I adore Eddie Redmayne, so I gave it a try.

It was quite good, and certainly interesting. The authenticity of Williams' performance was somewhat eery at times, particularly in Monroe's vulnerable or unguarded moments. (A scene of her innocently singing in the bath especially sticks in my mind.) It really says something about her caliber as an actress that the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench seemed to pale in comparison. Her talent continues to surprise me, and I don't know why. Still, this performance stands out, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the role posterity remembers her for.

The plot was really engaging, as a troubled but spectacularly famous woman spends a week falling in love with (and breaking the heart of) a younger, less worldly man—and probably her own too. The insight into celebrity and personhood were fascinating. Redmayne and Williams certainly had chemistry, but it was a delicate, fragile, newborn sort of chemistry... which of course worked perfectly for the film. I feel no need to mention that Redmayne was very good, although for once he didn't steal the show. Williams was just that good.

I enjoyed the score a lot as well. It seemed fairly piano heavy, lightly jazzy, very 1950s. It fit perfectly with the film. This is the first work of Conrad Pope's that I've heard, so I'm curious to hear more. Speaking of 1950s, I will mention that sets, props, and costumes were also historically delicious. Every element of this piece just comes together wonderfully to immerse the viewer in the era. Really, delicious is the perfect word for that lovely 1950s feel.

When you get down to it, not much actually happens here, and even less is resolved, but the whole film is a wonderful character study and that is what made it so great. I would certainly recommend it.

Rating: 4.0

The Hunger Games (2012, U.S.)

So, this book is probably one of my favorite books of all time, and definitely my favorite YAF sci fi. I did go to the movie with absolutely no expectations because I didn't want to be disappointed, and that really helped. As could be expected, the bulk of the plot remained while the complexities of character relationships, motivations, and feelings were unfortunately watered down. I talked about this a lot with the people I went with, and several of the examples that we came up with had no easy fixes in film format. Therefore, I'd have to say the filmmakers did the best they could. (I was still sad about Haymitch, Cinna, and Effie's watered down personalities, especially.)

The thing that stood out the most to me was the sets. I mean, wow. The arena was exactly as I had pictured it. The mountains and forests of Katniss's home were just like the ones where I live, which is kind of where I imagine District 12 to be. And her village was just so Appalachia. On one hand it felt like a stereotype of West Virginia, but on the other hand it felt exactly real. Amazing stuff. The capital was also well done, but I felt like we didn't see enough of it. The same goes for costumes. Cinna getting Katniss ready for event after event before the Games sticks in my head, and yet we only see her at one interview and the big presentation of tributes before the Games start. (I have to say though that her interview dress with body glitter was gorgeous and her and Peeta's flame costumes were interesting, but not quite as breathtaking as I had hoped.) Again, what frustrated me the most was that they did such a good job with so many things, but there just needed to be more, more, more.

Acting was very strong. I think Jennifer Lawrence was a perfect Katniss. I liked Gale and Peeta too, although they were just good, not stellar. (This could partly be because the whole thing is about Katniss and her girl power, but I do remember having stronger impressions of the boys, especially sweet Peeta, when I read the book. Still, it's been years, so who knows.) Also notable were the little girl who played Rue (not quite how I pictured her, but I'll never picture her any other way now—those eyes!), Stanley Tucci as Caeser Flickerman (his cheesy personality practically leaped off the screen), Elizabeth Banks as Effie (though her character wasn't written well, because her purpose was vague and her screen time was minimal), the guy who played Cato (holy hot and evil, Batman!), Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (he was definitely lacking in screen time, and his transformation/the complexity of his relationship with the tributes was weak, but he did a lot with what he had), and Lenny Kravitz as Cinna (interesting choice, but I really liked him in the role, though I wish he had more screen time too... and more fierce glitter eye shadow).

So, how many times have I said that James Newton Howard is brilliant? I don't know that this score would necessarily be one that I'd buy to listen to all the time, but it definitely complemented and enhanced the movie. The tribal sounding music with drums during the tributes' training particularly stands out in my mind, though I also remember some haunting songs in emotional scenes or during establishing shots of District 12. Brilliantly done.

Yeah, clearly the trend here is that I wanted a lot more, but I think they mostly remained true to the spirit of the book. As always, I wonder whether I would have been lost in parts (or not gotten as much out of them) if I hadn't read the book, but I don't think I would have. (Unlike a certain HP7 I could mention...) I can't decide between a 4.0 or 4.5, but I don't think I would use the word "love" here, so I guess it has to stay a 4.0. Close call though.

Rating: 4.0

Melancholia (2011, Denmark)

I am enraptured.

Apparently this is the most "polished" film that Lars von Trier has ever made, which he wasn't pleased about. I haven't really seen enough of his films to form a complete judgement, but I think this film really showcased his artistic genius and creative eye without frustrating the viewer, which makes it just about perfect.

Basically, the film is told in two parts, one focusing on each sister. The first is about Justine and takes place during her wedding reception. (Her new husband is played by Alexander Skarsgård, and I think we all know how much I adore him!) Justine is clearly suffering from depression and is having a hard time staying in the moment. Meanwhile, a new planet has appeared from the other side of the sun. The second part is more about her sister Claire, who clearly suffers from clinical anxiety. The planet, dubbed Melancholia, appears to be on a crash course with the earth (though Claire's husband says it won't happen).

So that's the bare bones of the plot, but it is just so beautifully complex that it's hard to describe. It seems like a lot of reviewers didn't like it because they didn't understand it; they were looking for planets crashing, big Hollywood entertainment value. A large percentage of reviewers seemed to like Part 1: Justine and were frustrated or hateful about Part 2: Claire. I think this is because they didn't understand it. Many people understood that Justine was depressed, but they didn't understand Claire's anxiety, and they didn't like Claire. I, however, have more firsthand experience with mental illness than I would like to have, and it was clear to me that both sisters were ill in different ways and that Claire's illness goes unremarked because she is so busy trying to take care of Justine, whose illness is much more obvious to strangers. Anyway, the planet of Melancholia seemed to be a metaphor for the sisters' illnesses. Justine's is hidden (behind her sometimes sunny personality?) as Melancholia is at first. It goes largely unremarked and misunderstood. Claire's is overwhelming, inescapable, and she feels out of control as the planet comes rushing toward Earth. The approach of Melancholia causes her to panic because she can't control it, and that is a fundamental component of anxiety.

So anyway, yes. To summarize the plot, we have sisters, mental illness, metaphor, planetary collision. The acting was phenomenal. Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg made me believe both that they were sisters with a strained relationship and that they were mentally ill. It's hard to catalog all the minute expressions and glances that made up their performances, but needless to say, they were exquisite and didn't overact at all. The quality of acting really contributed to the success of the film. Toward the beginning, we see Justine and Michael in the limo on their way to the wedding reception, and their looks and giggles and kisses were so infectious and convincing, I felt like I really was intruding on the loving bliss of happy newlyweds. And it only continued from there. The chemistry between all the actors, even the young boy who plays Claire's son, was magical.

In terms of other elements, I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that the film was visually stunning. It opens with a long (very, very, very, very long) montage of the moments directly before the planets collide at the end of the film, and even though it was a disconcertingly long intro, it was so beautiful that it was hard to mind. This was also when the film's primary music was introduced—Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. It set the perfect mood and continued to hold the entire film together to the end.

I could go on forever. I can't wait to see this film again. It's so intelligent, beautiful, heartbreaking, wonderful, thought-provoking, and strangely real. The last film I loved this much was probably Never Let Me Go, and we all know how I felt about that. (Strange that they're both shockingly realistic but technically sci-fi. I could have stumbled on the perfect genre here.) I'd recommend this to everyone, but especially to those with sisters or firsthand experience with mental illness. It's hard to watch in that regard, but it really strikes a chord.

Wow.

Rating: 5.0

J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)

On the one hand, this was a very interesting and entertaining movie. I knew next to nothing about Hoover before, and I found his relationships with his mother, Helen Gandy, and Clyde Tolson to be quite fascinating. The cast of the movie was out of this world. Of course Dame Judi Dench is one of my all time favorites, and her performance as Mrs. Hoover was very nuanced, I thought. Armie Hammer was pretty good, and Naomi Watts was spot on, as usual. I loved everyone playing small roles of big people, from Robert Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower to Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple. They were all very well cast. Then of course there was Leonardo DiCaprio, probably the most talented actor of his generation, who just became Hoover. He nailed both the intimidating, intelligent public persona and the insecure, unsure inner man. I think poor Leo gets a bad rap just because of Titanic, but a) his acting was great in that movie, and b) I have never seen him give less than a brilliant performance in another movie, either. Just think about What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Gangs of New York, The Departed, even lighter movies like Catch Me If You Can. I don't really think he's attractive, but boy can he act.

Anyway, it obviously wasn't the acting that was underwhelming in this movie. I think it must have been the script. There were so many instances when I felt like a bit more dialogue or a more lingering camera shot could have added a lot more meaning to a moment. It also could have suffered because they were trying to cover so much of his life at once while picking the most important professional and personal moments and not having enough of either. That was pretty frustrating.

Another frustrating thing was the makeup. It was eery how well they did DiCaprio's makeup as he aged. I could have believed they shot the film over 50 years! For Watts, they did a good job of adding wrinkles and things and making her look much older than she is, but her character didn't seem to age nearly enough to match Hoover's aging. The worst job was on Hammer, who went from a young man to a sort of fake looking, spotty, clay-headed geriatric. He didn't even look like a real person in his elderly form. That was very off-putting.

The costumes and sets were also brilliantly done. The cinematography was dark, dark, dark, which served many functions. It made the movie feel historical. It emphasized the secretive nature of their work in the Bureau. And it served as a reminder of the parts of Hoover that were hidden from the public.

So this movie was good, but I just felt like it was missing something. I wanted a lot more from it than I got. However, it is certainly worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

This Means War (2012, U.S.)

I'm going back and forth on this one, between liking and really liking. It certainly stands out in the romantic comedy genre with its unique plot. Spy versus spy? Perfect set up for both verbal and physical comedy, totally unrealistic but still enjoyable. Not only is the love triangle aspect pretty well done, but the focus is more on the competition between the guys that the relationships with the girl.

That being said, Reese Witherspoon totally stole the show from the guys. I think she is just great. She's strong in dramatic roles and perfect in romantic comedies, and she always adds a touch of class to the most ridiculous movies. I loved her position as a consumer product tester, which was a unique job for a heroine and also contributed some good joke potential. She was adorable dancing around her kitchen to rap music, and so witty when she basically told FDR (who tried to pick her up in the video store by choosing a movie for her) that she could pick apart his moves and she obviously wasn't he was looking for. She was great. I liked Chris Pine as FDR—very cute, very full of himself, very smooth. But I really loved Tom Hardy as Tuck—modest, adorable, thoughtful, not shy so much as reserved. (Side note: while I was imdb-ing this movie, I saw a discussion board about how ugly his teeth are and how they detract from his appearance. It's funny, if you search for pictures of him online, you only find him with his mouth closed. But I never noticed his teeth, so I guess they added to his character.)

I didn't see the ending coming at all, including who she would choose. My friend explained to me why she had to choose the one she did, but I was rooting for the other team, so I didn't like it! Still it was surprising and fun, so I'll bump it up above the standard romantic comedy 3.5.

Rating: 4.0

Beginners (2010, U.S.)

This was just a lovely, thought-provoking, touching indie film. From the previews, you'd think it's a comedy about a grown man whose 75-year-old father suddenly comes out. That's kind of what it is, but it is so much more than that.

Following his father Hal's death, Oliver's primary relationship seems to be with his father's dog Arthur (an adorable Jack Russell whose thoughts sometimes appear to the audience via subtitles). He projects his own feelings onto Arthur, using the dog as an excuse to stay in seclusion. His work as a graphic artist, his friendships, and his mental health are all obviously suffering. When his friends force him to attend a costume party, he meets Anna, a French actress in town for work, and they seem to have an immediate connection. However, he struggles with the budding relationship. In flashbacks, we can see that this may stem from his mother's unconventional parenting, his parents' passionless marriage, and his continuing struggle to come to terms with father's sexuality and, more specifically, his jealousy of Hal's much younger lover.

I offer this brief plot summary because I don't think the previews do the film justice at all. I'd hate to think of people blowing this film off as another comedy that uses the gay lifestyle as easy material and missing out on a really special work. Watching Hal come alive as he embraces his true nature and finds companionship not just with a lover but with a large network of friends is just beautiful. (I especially love the scene when he has his hospital room packed with friends drinking a toast to him and they get in trouble with the nurse for having alcohol.) He's coming alive while coming to terms with his death, and then his son has to do the same thing. Oliver has to choose whether to cling to his grief or to take a chance on love, which is even harder for him because he has no example to follow.

I'm doing an awful job of explaining this, but clearly it was a complex film, though in a simple, very human way. Of course Christopher Plummer was great, a scene stealer in almost all of his scenes. Ewan McGregor's character was very different from anything I've seen him play before, both innocent and mature at once. And I thought Mélanie Laurent was perfect in her role. She almost seemed a blend of the French actress and struggling actress sterotypes—impoverished, bohemian, classy, sexy, spontaneous, shy yet sociable. The writing for this film was so good that almost any actors would have made it good, but these three made it great. (*edit: Christopher Plummer's Academy Award? Totally deserved and one of the few categories I had an opinion on and was rooting for! Also, oldest every winner... Go him!)

Anyway, I'll stop now. In summary, it's really worth seeing, whether you're interested in the parent/child aspect, the coming out aspect, the figuring out how love works aspect, the dealing with death aspect, or even the dog with thoughts aspect. A true gem.

Rating: 4.5

The Tempest (2010, U.S)

I'll be honest, I had a very hard time focusing on this film. I think I'm just too stupid for Shakespeare, so I had difficulty understanding what was going on a lot of the time. I read The Tempest for my Shakespeare class in college, but my memory of the plot was vague at best. Perhaps I should have read the Cliffs Notes before watching this.

For the most part, however, I have nothing but good things to say about this film. Helen Mirren is incredible, and I absolutely adore Djimon Hounsou. (Side note: I can't believe this is the first new movie I've seen with him since I've started this blog. He is a show stealer—The Island, Blood Diamond, even Tomb Raider, and especially The Four Feathers. Love love love him.) He was a very engaging Caliban. The rest of the cast was also made up of very solid acting talent, although to be honest I could live without Miranda. The sets were also beautiful. Ariel and all his accompanying special effects were a bit weird, but I guess they're supposed to be.

So I don't know if I would recommend this to anybody or not. Shakespeare fans would probably be unhappy about the gender change of Prospero (although it is Helen Mirren, people), and non-Shakespeare addicts would probably be underwhelmed. So there you have it... a quality film that I just can't get too excited about. Very sad.

Rating: 2.5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011, U.S.)

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way to begin with: the Swedish one was better.

With that said, this was what you'd expect an adaptation of the book to be, just like the Swedish version was. The plot was simplified some (I really didn't like what they did to the ending, but I won't spoil it), though it retained all the key elements to prevent the story from changing. Still, I felt it was overly simplified in places, almost like they were assuming the American audience would prefer a less intellectual plot in favor of a more action-based one. (For instance, why did Mikael not go to prison? That really bothered me. Why was Millennium suddenly this hugely staffed publication instead of a struggling moral voice?) Not that there was more action in this one than the Swedish one, but it felt more action-y. There wasn't more sex or nudity in this one either, and yet that part felt more pronounced as well. Very strange. I think it must be something about how Scandinavians make sex seem like a natural part of life, while Americans make it seem like a racy, commercial thing added just to sell tickets. But let's not get on our anti-America soapbox today.

A lot of elements were better in this version. One thing I liked was the technological bits, how they showed Mikael and Lisbeth stitching all this information together on the computer. The time-lapse pictures of the parade were especially well-done; it helped me visualize the process in a way I hadn't been able to before. I also liked the flashbacks to the day of the bridge accident. They were really well done, and the way they were filmed, with whatever filters or whatnot they used, really gave it the feeling of a memory that was clear but starting to fade around the edges. Probably the best part was the soundtrack, which was just perfect. I can't remember the soundtrack to the Swedish version at all, but this one was chilling, suspenseful, advancing, retreating, startling in all the right places. Famous metal musician as composer for this film... perfect choice.

So of course that leaves me with casting, a major influence on how good adaptations are, especially of this book. Well, Rooney Mara is no Noomi Rapace. She was okay, and she was a decent actress, but she didn't completely embody the role the way Rapace did, physically or mentally. Rapace was transformed into Salander, while Mara was an actress playing the role of Salander. That's my opinion, anyway. (Part of this is also due to makeup/costuming, which also wasn't as good as the Swedish version.) The rest of the cast was pretty darn good, though. I liked Christopher Plummer for Henrik a lot. Daniel Craig was a pretty sweet Mikael. (In fact, he shares strange similarities to the Swedish version actor, who also has that craggy sort of face and compact body. But Craig is a lot sexier.) When I saw Robin Wright, I realized that she's sort of how I pictured Erika all along, except maybe younger... but again, she was a lot like the Swedish actress (except her age). And I just adore Stellan Skarsgård, so I was psyched when I saw that he was in it. When I realized what role he was playing, I was shocked, but of course he was perfect. The man can act. (Props to them for actually casting a Swedish actor, too.) So all in all, a pretty strong cast, with the exception of the titular girl. My main complaint was the accent issue. Obviously, Skarsgård has a light accent. Plummer also seemed to adopt a light accent. Craig sounded like he was trying to do a strong Swedish accent sometimes, but sometimes it morphed into something resembling his Russian accent and sometimes into something resembling his American accent. (His was sadly the most distracting and annoying. I love him anyway.) Wright had a very strong accent, although how accurate it was, I couldn't say. Then most of the rest of the cast sounded American. So that whole thing was a major consistency problem for the film. Look, we know it's an American movie that takes place in Sweden and they're speaking in English anyway, so if you want to go ahead and have American accents for everybody, that's fine. If you want to try to coach everyone to have Swedish accents, that's fine too. But make up your mind and do it all the same. Sheesh.

Anyway, that is all. My general opinion is that you should read the book, but if you don't like to read you should watch the Swedish version, but if you can't stand subtitles you should watch the American version. But I'm warning you, it's just not as good and you'll be missing a lot.

Rating: 3.5