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