film is my drug of choice

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

2012-01-08T15:30:00.055-05:00

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

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

2011-12-30T15:45:00.025-05:00

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

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

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

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

I would definitely watch this one again.

Rating: 4.5

One Day (2011, U.S.)

2011-12-11T18:58:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

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

2011-12-11T15:43:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

Anonymous (2011, U.S.)

2011-12-10T23:41:00.069-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.5

The Conspirator (2010, U.S.)

2011-11-19T19:16:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train

2011-11-18T23:42:00.015-05:00

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

Rating: 3.5

Puss in Boots (2011, U.S.)

2011-11-16T22:35:00.025-05:00

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

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

Rating: 4.0

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

2011-10-08T21:11:00.036-04:00

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.0

Midnight in Paris (2011, U.S.)

2011-09-10T15:07:00.094-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

The Help (2011, U.S.)

2011-08-21T21:22:00.063-04:00

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

Last Night (2010, U.S.)

2011-08-08T22:32:00.033-04:00

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

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

Rating: 1.5

Cleopatra (1963, U.S.)

2011-08-02T22:59:00.036-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 2.5

Cowboys & Aliens (2011, U.S.)

2011-08-01T18:59:00.046-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

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

2011-07-31T21:25:00.057-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

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

2011-07-31T16:50:00.114-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.0

True Grit (2010, U.S.)

2011-07-19T22:33:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.5

Larry Crowne (2011, U.S.)

2011-07-16T23:51:00.036-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

Heaven (2002, Germany)

2011-07-15T23:43:00.034-04:00

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

Black Death (2010, Germany)

2011-07-01T19:45:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

Rating: 1.5

Glorious 39 (2009, UK)

2011-06-28T19:55:00.027-04:00

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.)

2011-06-24T19:36:00.031-04:00

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)

2011-06-19T17:11:00.008-04:00

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.)

2011-06-17T22:49:00.000-04:00

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.)

2011-06-11T19:18:00.040-04:00

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.)

2011-06-05T22:44:00.001-04:00

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.)

2011-06-01T22:53:00.059-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

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

2011-05-22T18:50:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 2.5

Never Let Me Go (2010, UK)

2011-05-21T21:34:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 5.0

Blue Valentine (2010, U.S.)

2011-05-14T22:42:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.0

Rabbit Hole

2011-04-29T23:45:00.008-04:00

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

Water for Elephants (2011, U.S.)

2011-04-24T17:03:00.013-04:00

I have been looking forward to this film for ages. On one hand, I was very nervous about them ruining one of the best books of all time. (It's definitely in my top 3, if not my favorite book, period.) On the other hand, such a powerful story with the fascinating, detailed description of Water for Elephants has a lot of potential for greatness. (And with a knockout tagline like "Life is the most spectacular show on earth," it better live up to that potential!) I was also one of the few people who cheered for the casting of Rob Pattinson. (Twilight aside, he is a brilliant, brilliant actor. See: Little Ashes, Remember Me, The Bad Mother's Handbook, The Haunted Airman, and even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.) I was actually more hesitant about Reese Witherspoon, although I do love her too.

So what's the verdict? It was a beautiful film. It wasn't the book, but it was a fairly strong adaptation. (It was one of the best since Gone with the Wind, I'm tempted to say—and about a thousand times better than the adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife.) Mostly what was lost were the details of riding the rails, life in a circus, and relationships between characters. It wasn't enough to take away from the story, just enough that it didn't have the same sense of total immersion I felt while reading the book. (One detail that really bothered me was the number of liberty horses in Marlena's act. The description in the book really stuck with me, and my memory tells me she had 12. In the film, she only had 4. It's not that her act wasn't good, it's just that it was supposed to be the main attraction and didn't have the same grandeur I expected. Even 6 would have been okay, but 4 was too few! Yes, I am picky.) The only other thing really missing was on-screen time for Old Jacob. His thoughts on aging were real gems, and I wish Hal Holbrook had more of an opportunity to make the old man shine as much as the young one.

On the subject of actors, wow. Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought Pattinson was stellar. He captured the innocence, uncertainty, and compassion that are so definitive of Jacob's character. Reese Witherspoon was also wonderful and quite lovely. I've read that many people think they lacked chemistry, but I thought they had a sort of quiet chemistry, and their love for each other was built through their mutual love of animals. On that front, three cheers for Tai, the elephant who played Rosie. The Jacob/Marlena relationship would have been lost without her. The real unexpected talent came from Christoph Waltz, who I vaguely remember from Inglorious Basterds. (I was too busy trying to work out the plot of that movie to appreciate the acting, I suppose.) He was phenomenal as August. From his abusive rages to broken tears, from suave charmer to ruthless businessman, he didn't overact anything but truly conveyed that August was subtly but undeniably insane. Unfortunately for him, the script focused more on Jacob and Marlena, underwriting his part, which also served to cloud his motivation a bit as the climax approaches. Waltz did a lot with a little, in my opinion. I feel safe in going ahead to predict another Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this performance.

I don't even know where to begin on the costumes and sets. They were breathtaking. From the Cornell classroom to the home of Polish immigrants to the hospital to the forest to the train to the bigtop to the Chicago speakeasy to the office of the modern day circus, everything was perfect. The train, especially, seemed to almost be its own character. The costumes ranged from beautiful to grungy, simple to elaborate. Marlena's performance ensemble was an especially strange one, but kind of fun. And Reese Witherspoon was absolutely stunning in every costume, from simple clothes with a brightly polka-dotted scarf in her hair to form-fitting silk evening gown. August's ringmaster's get-up was probably the most circus-y element of the entire film, and I loved it.

The one thing I was surprised to be disappointed by was the score. James Newton Howard is one of my all-time favorite composers. While he's had some average scores with average movies, he's also given some wonderful films the extra push to make them truly great. (Two examples are Defiance, which had the most hauntingly beautiful score that makes my heart break when I listen to it, and the 2003 Peter Pan, which has such a magical score I can almost believe in fairies.) It's not that this was a bad score; in fact, it was quite good, and much stronger than countless other composers could have provided. I guess I was expecting this score to do for the circus the same thing that his Peter Pan score did for Neverland—bring it alive, transport me to the world of the film even when I'm not watching it. It just didn't quite cross that threshold, though it has some very nice themes (see especially "Did I Miss It?" and "Circus Fantasy"). I hate criticizing him, because I would have praised the efforts of any other composer on this score. I just expect something more from him, I guess.

In short, this was a beautiful, gritty, romantic, heartbreaking, powerful film, and I loved it. I may have even given it 5 stars if it wasn't based on a novel. I can't wait to see it again (especially because I don't always appreciate/enjoy a film as much if I've been anticipating it for so long—that anticipation can make it awfully difficult to focus). I also can't wait to read the book for a third time; the sooner the better.

*Special note: I have to say that for anyone who lives in NoVA or Texas and is lucky enough to be near an Alamo Drafthouse theater, you must see it there. The circus-themed preshow included a flea circus cartoon, a Droopy cartoon, an excerpt from Dumbo, Charlie Chaplin, Groucho Marx, and two songs from the Elvis flick Roustabout, among a few other things. It was awesome!*

Rating: 4.5

The Town (2010, U.S.)

2011-04-06T22:52:00.010-04:00

I think Ben Affleck is a pretty strong actor who has made some pretty unfortunate choices in his career (mostly involving Armageddon and romantic comedy—he's a much stronger dramatic actor.) His writing/directing skills aren't too shabby either, but to me this script had one major flaw. A huge part of the plot (or so it seems) is that one of the bank robbers kidnaps a teller during the robbery, and they think that she might be able to identify them. So Affleck's character starts flirting with her to find out what she knows. Eventually, they embark on a serious relationship, and there's a lot of tension involving whether she'll find out who he is. Then suddenly, that plot thread is dropped for no apparent reason. It drove me just a little bit crazy.

The acting was very patchy as well. Like I said, I think Affleck is great. Pete Postlewaite, who plays a florist/crime lord-type character, was awesome. Jeremy Renner has driven me crazy from the first time I saw him. I don't know that he's a bad actor per se, but every character he plays (that I've seen) seems to be a cocky, white trash sort. That makes it a bit hard to appreciate him. (This was also my feeling toward Sean Penn until I saw Milk, so maybe I just haven't seen the right performance yet.) The strangest was Blake Lively as Renner's sister, who just did not work for the part. In fact, it took me quite awhile to figure out who she was supposed to be. While everyone else has fairly standard (or even weak) industrial Massachusetts accents, I kept thinking she was supposed to be Eastern/Central European, and I couldn't figure out how this would fit the story—until I realized she was just supposed to sound like a lower-class New Englander. Yikes.

The bank robbery element was pretty cool, as those things go. Watching the dynamics of the gang and the planning that went into a job (especially the very interesting Fenway Park robbery) was interesting, as was learning about life in Charlestown. I had never heard of the "bank robbery capital of the world" before.

The ending was pretty sweet also, though of course I won't give it away. It's unfortunate that such an interesting storyline was dragged down by a cast of mixed skill and a script of mixed effectiveness. It was so close to being good, but all the pieces just didn't fall into place. It could have been a lot stronger. Still, if you judge it strictly as a crime flick and not as the character drama/social commentary it was clearly meant to be, it was pretty darn good.

Rating: 2.5

The Fighter (2010, U.S.)

2011-04-04T23:12:00.007-04:00

I never really had much interest in seeing this, because I'm just not a big sports movie sort of gal. But after all the Oscar buzz, I decided I better check it out anyway. Besides, I have great respect for the talents of Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, and Amy Adams.

Basically, it's exactly what you'd expect it to be. Poor guy from Lowell, Massachusetts tries to follow in his older brother's athletic footsteps, but not his drug-addicted, law-breaking ones. He wants to maintain his relationship with his brother, who he loves and once respected, even though his brother is dragging him down. He wants to get out of the neighborhood and away from his overbearing mother and gaggle of sisters. He wants to earn enough to support his daughter. He wants to be with the woman he loves even though his family doesn't approve. He struggles, he triumphs, the end.

I hate to oversimplify the plot and make it sound like I'm mocking it, because I'm not. The acting was phenomenal, as you would expect from Bale (a well-earned Oscar), Wahlberg, and Adams especially. The real surprise to me was Melissa Leo (another well-earned Oscar) and the 5? 6? sisters. Between all those women, the two men, and Adams (who played Wahlberg's girlfriend), the dynamic was astounding. The family felt like a big, crazy, female-dominated family, and there was especially no love lost between the sisters and the girlfriend. Realistic stuff, and funny in a sad sort of way. Excellent ensemble.

When it comes down to it, though, it's just another sports movie to me. Exceptionally well acted, and probably interesting to those with an interest in the subject, but all the brilliant acting chops in the world wouldn't make this my favorite movie. It's just not my thing, and I appreciated it for what it was. (Probably a must for sports fans in general, boxing fans in particular, Massachusetts residents, and fans of the lead actors.)

Rating: 3.0

Source Code (2011, U.S.)

2011-04-04T20:15:00.011-04:00

I have very mixed feelings about this one. It definitely had a very interesting concept for a science fiction thriller. And it had the one-of-a-kind, sweet, sexy, boy-next-door, unlikely-hero Jake Gyllenhaal. Some good special effects (exploding trains and the like). A hint of romance. A dash of (misplaced?) patriotism. Lots of promise, but it just didn't come together well.

It's not that it was confusing. At first it was a bit confusing, as I got the hang of the plot. In fact, it was a bit confusing for Coulter (Gyllenhaal), and the viewer figures out what's going on as he does, which was pretty good for the plot. As far as sci-fi action flicks go, this seemed pretty strong for the most part, especially considering it took place over and over again in the same 8 minutes with the same handful of characters on the same train.

I was mostly frustrated because the developing romance didn't make much sense, and the ending made no sense at all. It felt like they were going somewhere else with the story, but the original ending was too depressing so they rewrote it to be conveniently-ever-ever. (This is just a theory, but that's how it felt to me.) Both of these things made the whole thing feel forced and ruined the effect. I barely convinced myself to go up to 3.0 instead of 2.5.

I would recommend this to anyone who's desperate for a good sci-fi thriller (a somewhat under-used genre in today's market, it seems to me). Yes, even though I didn't rate it higher, the kernel of the story was very good; just the execution was lacking. I also recommend it to diehard Jake Gyllenhaal fans (like myself). He really carried this movie. He has a very quiet, underrated talent and plays the tough yet tender hero very well.

Rating: 3.0

RED (2010, U.S.)

2011-03-21T21:10:00.009-04:00

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Look, I am not a huge Bruce Willis fan, but I thought the concept of this one looked pretty good, and the "supporting" cast (Mirren, Malkovich, Freeman, Urban) was a dream. And when I first started this, watching Frank Moses (Willis) go about his boring, retired day, I thought, "Hey, this might be good." It was all downhill from there. The characters were great, and they could have populated a great movie. Instead, they have this meandering plot that makes very little sense. The characters just aren't used as well as they could have been, and many of them have too little screen time. (One even bites the dust before the end, which was quite a shock.)

Verdict? A forgettable, disappointing waste of time. Especially because it had the potential to be great.

Rating: 2.0

127 Hours (2010, U.S.)

2011-03-13T15:01:00.007-04:00

This was a strangely engaging film, based on a true story that I actually remember from the news at the time. Basically, Aron Ralston goes out hiking alone in the Utah canyons, has his arm pinned under a boulder, and is trapped for five days before he amputates his own arm with a pocketknife. Grim stuff.

The film was very well done. The opening credits were an interesting montage of crowded city scenes and nature, showing a stark contrast. Once the story gets going, it starts out with enough scenes to show Aron's character, a laid-back, easy-going, friendly hiker who is more into being in nature than communicating with humans. Once he gets on his bike out in the canyons, his exuberance is almost contagious. It would make even the most sedentary person want to get out there and do something in nature.

Once he's trapped, I'm a little torn on my feelings. Probably because I have a love/hate relationship with James Franco. During some parts he gives a powerful, moving performance, but at other times it's like he's a stoner who thinks he's James Dean. Way too much. Still, most of the performance is talent rather than melodramatic overacting. This part also has some very interesting and well-used special effects that emphasize his condition. One of the best was from the inside of his water bottle as he sucked the last few milliliters out. It's hard to describe, but it was fantastically done. Then they show a montage as he dreams of going to a party with lots of beer, watching a soda commercial, etc. Basically, it has the effect of making the viewer feel his thirst. Very neat.

Other than these interesting effects and montages, the music was the most phenomenal part. I guess I'm not surprised, coming from the composer of the stellar Slumdog Millionaire score. I don't know how else to describe it except to say that it sounded like America when he looked out over the canyons. And the painful, screeching music used when he cut through his tendons while freeing his arm made me grit my teeth in pain, like it was my arm being severed. Wow.

So overall, quite a well-done film. I don't know if I would call it an inspiring survival story, because that's not what it felt like. It was more like an historical recreation—this is how it was. Even if the former was its intent and it didn't accomplish its aim, it was still a very engaging, thoughtful movie.

Rating: 3.5

The Social Network (2010, U.S.)

2011-03-12T21:42:00.004-05:00

I was absolutely immersed in this film within the first five minutes. It amazes me how quickly they made a movie about such recent history, with a wealth of mostly accurate detail. Truly fascinating.

The acting was very strong. I think the only other movie that I've seen Jesse Eisenberg in was Adventureland, which I also loved him in. However, I think he was even better in this. From the very first, his witty, sarcastic, fast talking makes him the picture of the arrogant, insecure intellectual. He was definitely the sun around which all the other actors/characters orbited. Though none of them touched Eisenberg in terms of talent, most of the other actors were fairly strong. Even Justin Timberlake, who I was more than a little wary to watch, wasn't bad.

This is a dark film, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps the dark, mostly nighttime settings were symbolic. (Then again, maybe computer nerd types mostly work at night.) Even the brightest scene in the Facebook offices toward the end of the film didn't seem "light." It was a clinical, lonely sort of whiteness. It's also dark in that there are many betrayals and broken friendships. This has to be the unhappiest movie about a billionaire ever made. (Well, perhaps discounting Marie Antoinette and other non-modern billionaires.)

I can't even think of another movie I've ever seen about such modern history/pop culture, so it's hard to compare this to anything, but I will definitely say that it paints an interesting picture of the world we live in and the dark side of the birth of a company we take for granted daily. I would highly recommend this to anyone.

Rating: 4.0

The King's Speech (2010, U.S.)

2011-02-26T15:23:00.008-05:00

The trailer for this film was pretty badly done, if you ask me. I still went to see it because I knew that any film with Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter had to be a winner. On top of that, what could be better than a film about a relatively unknown part of British history?

What can I say? Obviously those three were fantastic, as were most of the supporting actors. The chemistry between Firth and Rush was especially wonderful, particularly in their therapy sessions. The film was enlightening. It was well written. The score meshed perfectly. The cinematography was beautiful. I felt like I'd stepped into the 1930s. Sure, it wasn't the most fast-paced movie. But it was engaging and moving and informative and even somewhat inspiring. I knew it was going to sweep Best Picture and the Best Actors at the Oscars.

This one was a very unsurprising surprise, if you will, and well worth watching.

Rating: 4.0

The Birdcage (1996, U.S.)

2011-02-20T17:31:00.007-05:00

A gay Miami club owner and his star performer/domestic partner must put on a straight front when their son brings his fiancee's right-wing senator father and his wife to meet them. Does that sound like a winning comedy of errors, or what?

The children were underwhelming. I can live without Calista Flockhart. Dan Futterman was okay. The parents really stole the show. Gene Hackman was an amusing mockery. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane were at times hilarious and at times touching as a couple.

It takes a delicate balance to be so laugh-out-loud funny and brings-tears-to-your-eyes heartwarming and not to over-the-top with the social commentary, and this movie was a perfect balance. Great fun!

Rating: 3.5

Whiteout (2009, U.S.)

2011-02-02T21:58:00.007-05:00

This was a surprisingly good movie. I've seen a lot of bad reviews on it, but you have to keep in mind that's it's not supposed to be an Academy Award winner. It's supposed to be a scary, unlikely suspense flick.

Basically, a U.S. Marshall stationed at the American station in Antarctica must investigate a murder, and a special UN agent comes to help her investigate. They also get some assistance from a helicopter pilot and the station's doctor. The investigation turns up a string of bodies, a buried Soviet plane from the '50s, a smuggling operation, and all kinds of other fun stuff. When the rest of the station leaves for the season, this handful of people is left behind. Whiteouts and other dangerous situations abound, and the murder appears out of the blizzard with no warning.

Is it silly? Yes. But is it scary in its way? Yes. It's a fun, mindless flick, exactly what it's supposed to be.

Rating: 3.5

Luftslottet som sprängdes (2009, Sweden)

2011-01-27T19:24:00.006-05:00

Larsson's novels were very complex and involved a lot of detail about Swedish politics. The films, especially this third film, was much more simple, but still a passable adaptation. The first was definitely the best. This was an interesting look at the Swedish legal system. Apparently the judges/jury, prosecution, defense, and witnesses just sit in a big circle and talk it out! It makes it difficult to believe that the corruption that's the basis for these stories could possibly occur in such a country.

My biggest complaint about this installment was the abrupt ending. It just felt way too sudden. Otherwise, my comment would all be repetitive from the two other films. I will repeat, I think for the second time, that Noomi Rapace is a stellar actress. I look forward to seeing her in more movies.

Rating: 3.5

Black Swan (2010, U.S.)

2011-01-23T17:05:00.010-05:00

I really don't know how to rate this film. I'm giving it a 3.0 because I could appreciate all the technical aspects—acting, cinematography, score, costuming, writing. It really was phenomenal. On the other hand, I don't remember the last time I felt so psychologically damaged after watching a movie. I guess you could consider that to be some powerful filmmaking, but I was completely out of sorts for the rest of the day and just can't give it more.

The use of colors was quite well done. There was a very monochromatic scheme, mostly whites, blacks, and grays. Perhaps the colors were symbolic. Nina (Portman's character) wears a lot of gray, while the other dancers wear white and Lily (the slightly evil nemesis) wears black. There's an occasional splash of pink (inevitable in a ballet film), though most of it appears in her "innocent" bedroom.

I was very impressed with the score, which incorporated a lot of crashing ballet-type music, which gave voice to Nina's state of mind and gave the film a frantic feel. It also added to the terror.

Of course the acting was superb. I've always seen Vincent Cassel as a lively, playful, mischievous man, very French and sexy in a fun sort of way. This film gave him a whole new persona. Much more masculine, dangerous, powerful. He is very talented. Natalie Portman is another brilliant actor, with one of the most expressive faces I have ever seen. The way her eyebrows dip down when she cries make her look so childlike, and she seamlessly transitions from innocent to terrified to terrifyingly chilling. She really looked like she was having a mental breakdown. A truly powerful performance, and I knew she would win the Oscar for her role.

Lastly, what an ending. Obviously I won't give it away, but I will say that I didn't see that coming. On the other hand, I don't know how it could have ended otherwise. Pretty stunning.

Rating: 3.0

The Yellow Handkerchief (2008, U.S.)

2011-01-16T21:56:00.009-05:00

This is a film about an unlikely trio of three very lonely people. Martine is a beautiful teenager who feels trapped in her backwater Louisiana town. When Gordy, an awkward itinerant, stops in town, she somehow ends up in his convertible, heading across the river. Then they pick up Brett, a quiet man who was just released from prison. When a storm (Hurricane Katrina) hits, they take shelter in a hotel together. As they continue their journey through the destruction of Louisiana after the hurricane, they begin to piece together solutions to each other's loneliness. Martine senses Brett's loneliness, and Brett senses Gordy's. They help each other find the answers that they can't find for themselves.

The beauty of this film is in its simplicity and in the quiet brilliance of the actors. I don't know if I've ever seen William Hurt in action, but this role seemed tailored for him. Kristen Stewart, who I always say is an under-appreciated actor, was solid in this role (although it seemed almost like it didn't offer he much of a challenge). And Eddie Redmayne has yet to cease amazing me. I can't think of a single person who plays the socially awkward, sweetly well-meaning, intelligent young man as well as he does. Breathtaking. Add to that the slow, almost languid pace and the authentic Louisiana scenery, and you've got a winner.

I liked this film. I think the main thing that would have made me like it more was if the focus was spread more evenly across the ensemble. Although there are arguably three main characters, the focus is obviously on Brett. More balance would have improved an already wonderful film.

Rating: 4.0

Fallen (2006, U.S.)

2011-01-10T22:24:00.010-05:00

I decided to watch this made-for-TV movie because I wanted to see Paul Wesley in another role besides that of Stefan in Vampire Diaries, a role he was clearly born to play. He wasn't bad here, but this movie was obviously a terrible vehicle for any young actor.

Basically this is a cheesy, low budget flick about an adopted boy who discovers that he is the son of a fallen angel, and his destiny is to save the world, in so many words. The special effects are obviously low budget. The writing is terribly lame. The plot could have used a lot of fleshing out.

The one saving grace was that some of the acting is really stellar. Paul Wesley was good, though he's much better as a vampire than an angel. The real show-stealers were Tom Skerritt as Ezekiel and Hal Ozsan as Azazel, both fallen angels who walk the line between good and bad. Skerritt was a sort of witty, wise, slightly crazy old man. Ozsan was a witty, sexy, irreverent bad boy. Between these three actors, they kept this one from being a total tragedy. But it was awfully close.

Rating: 2.0

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004, U.S.)

2011-01-03T23:10:00.006-05:00

I'm not sure why I wanted to watch this film or what I expected from it. I figured it was a modern classic, since it had been released by Criterion. Also, I'd see anything with Cate Blanchett, because she's brilliant.

Mostly, I just found it to be odd. The plot was based on an entirely bizarre premise, and many of the developments didn't make much sense. The characters seemed mostly flat and their relationships forced. Ultimately, this famous comedy didn't strike me as funny at all.

I really just don't have much to say, because I'm still asking myself what just happened.

Rating: 2.5

Eat Pray Love (2010, U.S.)

2010-12-28T20:20:00.006-05:00

Eh. The movie was better than the book, but that definitely didn't take much. And that's really about all I have to say about this movie. The scenery could have been exploited to much better effect. The writing could be stronger, but again, you have to consider the source material. I was most disappointed by the acting. I've always found Julia Roberts to be a very solid actress, and here she seemed weak. Whether it was the script or her, I couldn't say. I hope it was the former; on the other hand, her complete lack of chemistry with Franco or Bardem could have contributed.

I guess if you liked the book, you would like the movie. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste your time.

Rating: 2.5

Powder Blue (2009, U.S.)

2010-12-24T18:48:00.010-05:00

Ugh, I don't know what to say about this movie. I think a brief plot summary should say it all: four Los Angeles residents (a mortician, an ex-con, a suicidal ex-priest, and a stripper) are brought together on Christmas Eve by a mixture of circumstances. Mix in a transsexual prostitute, organized crime, a terminally ill child, an absentee father, Jessica Biel in general, and Patrick Swayze as a strip club owner, and what do you get? A nasueating, over-the-top, poorly-acted melodrama that is basically a vehicle for Jessica Biel to take her clothes off. TERRIBLE.

I gather this was supposed to be a profound, gritty look at the intersecting lives of people with hard luck, and maybe a change or two here and there could have made a big difference. Better actors definitely would have. The lead character as a waitress instead of a stripper probably would have. Less forced writing may have too. Of the four main characters, Ray Liotta was wooden, Jessica Biel did her standard melodramatic overacting (and she did not look sexy at all, which she was clearly supposed to), Forest Whitaker was inconsistent, and Eddie Redmayne was (can you guess?) entirely brilliant.

In fact, I may have given this one 0 stars if it weren't for Redmayne—I would give him 5 stars on his own, which averages out to 1.5 for the entire thing. He plays this awkward, sweet mortician named Qwerty, of all things. Watching him tenderly put headphones playing ethnic music on a young deceased Hispanic woman made it worth watching this travesty. (Although watching his character character inexplicably fall for Biel's was quite painful.) The boy has talent; it's almost magical.

So unless you love Eddie Redmayne like I do, save yourself from watching this absolutely horrible piece of trash.

Rating: 1.5

Like Minds (2006, UK/Australia)

2010-12-20T20:21:00.011-05:00

I definitely have to watch this one again, because even though I know what happened, I need to know why. This is a very dark, layered, psychological drama.

Det. Mackenzie (Roxburgh) calls Sally (Toni Collette), a forensic psychiatrist, into his investigation to psycholanalyze teenage Alex (Redmayne) to determine whether he could be guilty of murdering his disturbed/disturbing classmate Nigel (Sturridge). In a series of interview sessions, she learns the story of their twisted, complicated relationship, discovering that though dead, Nigel's psychological effect on Alex is undiminished. Despite all evidence to the contrary, she begins to seriously doubt his guilt.

Practically everything about this film, an independent drama by a first-time director, was incredible. One thing that especially struck me was the haunting score. It had this sort of ethereal female voice mixed with low orchestral instruments that truly captured the disturbing tone of the film. The dark lighting with a few splashes of color for emphasis further added to the tone.

The cast was a mixed bag. The school boys, Strurridge and Redmayne, were brilliant. It's true that I have a bit of a weakness for Redmayne, but he truly is a genius. In this role he walks the line between the innocently accused and the psychotic guilty, as the viewer isn't meant to know which he is until the end. Roxburgh was passable; he was a run-of-the-mill police inspector and didn't stand out one way or the other, which I expect was the intent. The most unfortunate cast member was Collette, who was supposed to be a great and compassionate psychiatrist but who was mostly wooden and underwhelming.

I was very interested in the title, which was originally Like Minds in the UK and Australia (it was a co-production) and was changed to Murderous Intent in the United States. The title can significantly change the way you interpret a film as you watch it, and it is especially true of this film and these titles.

Overall, this was an intense, brooding, disturbing, dark, creepy film, and it definitely stayed with me after I watched it. I get chills just thinking about it. This is another one I really need to watch again, knowing how it ends. I think I would have given this one a higher rating if the adults were better actors and some of the plot (mostly the secret society weirdness) wasn't so out in left field.

Those who are easily (or even not-so-easily) disturbed should beware, but if you love having your skin crawl, this is well worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

The Tourist (2010, U.S.)

2010-12-19T17:50:00.007-05:00

I mostly avoided all descriptions, reviews, and previews of this movie, except for the very first teaser trailer. Basically, I didn't care what it was about and I didn't want to have my opinion influenced beforehand. I love Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie, and I couldn't wait to see them in action together.

This was a cute movie. Not exactly the adjective one would expect for a spy film, but there you have it. It's also quite slowly paced for the genre, so if you don't go in expecting a nail-biter, you shouldn't be disappointed. Basically anything can happen when you mix romantic comedy with espionage. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, this is not. (Then again, Depp and Jolie don't have the chemistry Jolie and Pitt had—but who could?)

The story? Elise sits next to Frank, an American tourist, on a train going to Venice. Her intent is to trick the police into believing Frank is her elusive lover, who is a mysterious fugitive. Frank (who is a nerdy, socially awkward math teacher) finds himself pursued by both the police and the mobster who Elise's lover owes money to. Elise finds herself falling for Frank (which is helped along by the fact that her lover has continually let her down) and vice versa (though it causes him nothing but trouble). There are several plot twists that should probably feel sudden but instead feel almost like a mild surprise. Somehow, it works well.

The cast is fantastic. Depp and Jolie are great actors, especially in the roles of nerd and seductress, respectively. Paul Bettany plays the lead inspector, and I wish he had a more prominent role. There's just something about him. Toss in Rufus Sewell as the stranger, and it was a solid cast.

I also thought the score was fabulous. Even if the film was a bit slow for the genre, the music said, "This is a spy flick!" I do love James Newton Howard.

I'm looking forward to re-watching this, knowing where all the twists and turns go.

Rating: 4.0

Savage Grace (2007, U.S.)

2010-12-18T19:18:00.009-05:00

So, here I go on my quest to see every Eddie Redmayne film I can get my hands on! It has to be said that in my (so far limited) experience, he makes any film he's in exceptional.

Savage Grace is based on the real life murder of Barbara Baekeland, wife of the grandson of the inventor of Bakelite plastic. So one goes into this film knowing that young Tony is going to murder his mother in the end, and that what the film is ultimately about is not the destination (as it were) but the journey. The problem is that with the scripting, Tony seems to have very little motivation until the final days before the murder. Yes, he has a pretty bad upbringing, especially considering he's a wealthy child, and yes, his parents alternate between suffocating and neglectful, but still. The motivation just didn't seem that strong, nor was his mental illness that apparent. Watching this, I wouldn't have been surprised to hear he murdered his father rather than his mother; that's how off it seems.

It's interesting that much of what is presented in the movie never happened according to some firsthand accounts, and even the murder wasn't staged as it was occurred actuality. In this case, I think the true story would have made for much more gripping drama.

Parts of this film were extraordinary. For instance, as they take snapshots of this affluent life in the 1940s through the 1970s, the subtle changes in dress, decoration, and the like are very well done. And of course, acting is key here. Brooks Baekeland wasn't very memorable and Tony's grandmother was good (though she played a minor role). Hugh Dancy stood out as a gay man who was a sort of professional society companion. Julianne Moore, a very talented woman, was both lovable and loathe-able as Barbara Baekeland, a perfect combination. And Eddie Redmayne, of course, was brilliant beyond words. Watching him murder his mother, pick up the phone to order takeout, and then eat out of the white Chinese box with chopsticks while sitting next to his mother's body is just chilling. The combination of vulnerability and ruthlessness, childishness and maturity, is especially striking when portrayed by his genius. He really makes this one worth watching.

Rating: 3.0

The Pillars of the Earth (2010, U.S.)

2010-12-16T18:57:00.009-05:00

I can't even begin to describe how wonderful this mini-series was. I worried about it doing justice to the novel, one of the greatest books I've read in my life. Thankfully, I had the benefit of watching this several years after reading the book, so it wasn't as fresh in my mind as it could have been, leaving me able to judge the series for itself. It was definitely watered down, but not in a bad way. For instance, the novel largely lost my interest at the end when it spiraled into an obsessive religious recounting of the murder of Thomas a Becket, whereas the mini-series focused on the beauty and glory of the completed cathedral, a much more important aspect of the work, if you ask me.

It was a truly magnificent undertaking. The historic backdrop (I loved that Maud, a personal favorite historical figure of mine, was not made out to be a villain), the setting, the varied individuals who the viewer becomes invested in or quickly comes to hate, the perfect and often moving music (one perfect step shy of majestic, sometimes moving, often reflective of the monastic setting). Love scenes, tragic deaths, wife beatings, and the like were handled well, painting a vivid portrait but still tasteful and not too graphic. (Some of the battles I thought were a little much, with sprays of too-bright blood, but not enough to take away from the overall effect.) In addition to the beautiful scenery, the costuming (and makeup in particular) were incredible. They did a wonderful job of subtly aging characters. And even though the plot was significantly condensed to fit into 8 hours, the writing was often beautiful and the plot clear. Wonderful.

However, the truly overwhelming part of the series was the actors. Ian McShane and Donald Sutherland were as great as I have come to expect. Several actors, particularly Natalia Wörner (Ellen), Hayley Atwell (Aliena), and Matthew Macfayden (Prior Phillip), who were previously unknown to me, were pleasantly surprising and perfect for their roles. Rufus Sewell, who I've seen in many films and always respected, never would have crossed my mind as the man to play Tom Builder, but seeing him I can't imagine anyone else playing the role anymore. He was spectacular. This entire ensemble had such chemistry, melding together to truly bring the world of Kingsbridge to life. You feel the frustration, fear, love, anger, hope, faith, and all the other powerful emotions driving the lives of these men and women as they struggle for happiness in an unfair world. Almost magical, really.

But the real star of the show was Eddie Redmayne (Jack Jackson). I think I'm in love. (In other words, I am greatly anticipating following his career.) I had seen him before in minor roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and The Other Boleyn Girl (they sure do love him for British historical!) and something about his face struck me enough to remember him from one to the other to this one. He truly has the most incredible face, beyond perfect to portray Jack. He has very strong jaw and cheek bones (okay, a weakness for me!) that give him just enough sexiness to explain the girls' attraction to him, but he also has the freckles and red hair and puppy dog eyes that give him the air of an innocent, sweet little boy who is originally a near-mute for shyness. Really, what a face. Anyway, as I said I've only seen him in minor roles before, so this is the first time I've been able to see some real acting, and saying I was impressed would be a huge understatement. He was Jack Builder. I can't explain it better than that. From the near-mute young man to the growing artist to the man in love to the fulfilled and successful builder, he played every aspect of Jack's maturing character with such artistry. I was really in awe. (I probably don't need to tell you that there will probably be many Eddie Redmayne films reviewed here in the next few weeks.)

I can only say that this series was sensational. I struggled to stretch it out, and I managed to split it into three days. It was difficult, because I was so engrossed I wanted to completely submerge myself in it, but I loved it so much I wanted to make it last. So three days wasn't too bad!

I can't do it justice. If you love historical drama, well told stories, exceptional acting, beautiful settings (I didn't even mention how extraordinary the cathedral was!), you must watch this. Powerful, wonderful stuff. I just loved it.

Rating: 5.0

The Kids Are All Right (2010, U.S.)

2010-12-15T20:21:00.005-05:00

I have some lesbian friends who told me this was a great movie, the first "mainstream" film they've seen that portrays same-sex parent families as families like any other, and I do agree with that analysis to some extent. To begin with, Nic and Jules and their kids Joni and Laser seem like any other family, eating dinner, playing Scrabble and ping pong, having fights, and getting ready to send the oldest child to college. In some ways, it seemed healthier than the average family—with two moms, there was much more communication, a very positive part of the family.

Of course, the main arm of the plot is a problem that would be much less common in a straight family—the kids search out and meet their sperm donor, who becomes a part of their lives and even starts an affair with one of their moms. (This part really threw me. She cheated on her wife with a man?! Horrible.) This created quite a soap opera feel without getting too trashy.

I loved a lot of this movie. There were some funny parts and some parts that made me tear up. I didn't care 100% for the way they treated Paul (the donor), acting like he purposefully broke up their family when meeting them wasn't even his decision (though he did act poorly quite often and was generally a self-centered big-head). Still, I thought it was a touching story about what makes a family and how we struggle though the tough parts because we love each other. Jules' monologue on marriage—"If only I read more Russian novels, I might..."—was especially priceless.

I liked the cast too. Julianne Moore is great. Mia Wasikowska (who I only know as Alice in Wonderland) was perfect as the older kid. And I don't know if I've ever seen an Annette Bening film, but perhaps I should make an effort. She was fabulous in this movie, and I loved her especially in this good ensemble.

Open-minded people will enjoy this family's story. I doubt closed-minded people would even watch it, and if they did they'd find something wrong with it, but I thought it was lovely.

Rating: 3.5

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010, U.S.)

2010-12-11T16:59:00.008-05:00

I can't believe how much I loved this movie. It was completely unique, fresh, nerdy, and fun. From the opening credits (which have little cues to the rest of the movie, if you pay attention), it was just so fun. I can't think of a better word to describe it.

A lot of movies based on graphic novels either don't have the graphic novel feel or else they try too hard. This one was perfect. It made good use of a panel-like technique, but not too often. It was just enough to maintain the feel and emphasize certain shots without being overkill. The same went for "sound effects" written in during fights, for ringing phones, etc., as well as other video game-esque additions, such as lives up, power bars, and the like. One of my particular favorites was an angry girl who cursed a lot and always had a censor bar and beep appear over her mouth to cover F-bombs. Scott asks her how she does it; the character's awareness and acceptance of such abnormal elements in their lives added that much more to the movie.

Basically, the story is quite simple. Scott Pilgrim is a 22-year-old in Toronto who was dumped a year ago by a girl who became famous with her band (while his continues to struggle). He dates a 17-year-old Chinese Catholic schoolgirl. Then he falls for an American Amazon.ca carrier named Ramona, and he has to battle her seven evil exes to be able to date her. The story worked really well. For one thing, the characters were remarkably realistic considering the fantastical situation they're in. (Also, great supporting cast—Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman, and especially Kieran Culkin.) Secondly, the fight scenes with all the exes were excellent and, yes, fun. They were intensely choreographed so that they didn't seem violent at all, but rather the bloodless fighting you see in video games. Lots of flashing lights, special effects, and then the bad guy dissolves into a pile of coins.

The music was also something special, channeling video game music from the very beginning, with the beeping Universal theme. It also had a strong overlapping presence in the characters' world, like when Scott beats his head against a pole, echoing the rhythm of the music.

This movie is great fun for the generation of early 20-somethings who live in an irresponsible world filled with music, video games, and romantic angst, but also for those of us on the fringes (for instance, those of us who have close friends or family in this world). Really, this movie is great fun for anyone, and I am shocked and pleased to recommend it highly.

Rating: 4.5

The Bad Mother's Handbook (2007, UK)

2010-12-07T20:29:00.008-05:00

This was a really surprising and wonderful film, especially for a made-for-TV deal. It's about being a mother (as the title implies), but I think it was also about being a daughter too. Karen is a 33-year-old teacher's assistant who wants to go to Paris, and when she gets her birth certificate for her visa, she finds out she was adopted. Meanwhile her daughter Charlotte, who was born when Karen was 16, breaks up with her boyfriend when she finds out he's cheating, only to find out that she's pregnant.

That's what it's about, but it's not really about what it's about. It's more about the relationships, how they process their feelings, how their relationships with their mothers affected their own motherhood, why they made the choices they did. What they do becomes irrelevant, or perhaps inevitable. It's subtly and beautifully done. I especially loved the grandmother, who was obviously suffering from some sort of dementia and chattered to imaginary companions all day, mostly about her memories of Karen as a girl.

I think all mothers and daughters can appreciate this film, even if you weren't adopted, a teen mother, or a combination or product of these situations. Men play a very limited role in this film. Even Daniel (a lovable loser, portrayed in a perfectly understated performance by Robert Pattinson), who becomes Charlotte's friend, helper, and quiet but strong support, is a very unobtrusive presence for such a central figure.

In fact, the whole thing had an understated simplicity that you just can't help but appreciate. I teared up a few times, I'll admit. A moving, authentic work.

Rating: 4.0

Metropia (2009, Sweden)

2010-12-05T19:41:00.005-05:00

I have to copy the plot summary from imdb to make this make sense: In the near future, oil reserves are nearly depleted and Europe is connected by a series of underground tunnels. While navigating these tunnels, Roger hears a voice in his head. Seeking a way to rid himself of the voice only leads Roger deeper into a bizarre conspiracy of control at the highest reaches of government.

This is rather oversimplifying, but it's difficult to explain. As you can see from the poster, this had the most interesting animation style I've ever seen. I couldn't quite decide whether it was 2-D or 3-D. The correlation between voice actors and characters was interesting as well. Roger looked vaguely like Vicent Gallo, while Stefan looked even more like Alexander Skarsgård. Yet these two characters also looked like each other a bit (which is a part of the story, not coincidence). So that was all pretty neat.

The world that they created in this dystopian future Europe was fascinating. The superior public transportation system, which is such a positive aspect of European life now, becomes the symbol of the worst parts of life in the future. Consumerism (and objectifying a specific woman in commercials for a specific product) gives the corrupted leaders a means of control over the populace. The colors are mostly black and gray, and only a few things stand out. Most noticeably Roger's dull red jacket, the model's brilliant blond hair, and the bright blue color of the shampoo she's advertising.

I can't fully do this film justice. The concept, the mood, the animation, the voice acting—all were superb. I highly recommend it, especially if you like something a little different every now and then.

Rating: 3.5

Babies (2010, France)

2010-12-05T18:01:00.010-05:00

This was a very simple, sweet, engaging documentary. It's about four babies in the first year of their very different but very similar lives in San Francisco, Tokyo, Mongolia, and Namibia. The contrast between countries was interesting, to say the least. I do wonder how realistic it was, for two reasons. First, people may act differently in the presence of a camera in their lives. (Perhaps this isn't true of babies, but it would be true of their parents.) Second, editing can make footage a lot different than the reality. However, it seemed pretty real to me.

Inevitably for this type of documentary, the four lives were distilled into fairly one-dimensional portraits. The San Francisco baby's life alternates between having very hands on parenting and being left alone. Both of her parents were present in her life, with lots of reading, music, toys, activities, etc. The Tokyo baby was surprisingly similar to the San Francisco baby. For my taste, there were way too many bright colors in Tokyo, but otherwise it seems to be nice to be a baby in Japan. The Mongolian baby lives in an isolated area. You almost never see the father, and the mother appears only slightly more often. His brother constantly hits him until he cries, and cows, goats, cats, and roosters are running all over him all the time. It's a miracle nothing bad happened to him. The Namibian baby's mothers seems to sit around all day with another woman, mostly doing nothing but occasionally talking or grooming. (They must do more—perhaps new mothers are given "time off.") Of all the babies, the Namibian baby had the most unhygienic upbringing you could imagine, but of the four he almost seemed the happiest, rarely crying.

In all the footage they used, I felt like they could have included a bit on bedtime in addition to the rest of the day (mealtimes, bathtime, playtime, etc.). I did like how they showed the present day "babies" (around age five?) in the credits. Also, the music was a bit weird, oddly chipper, but it was somehow the perfect soundtrack to unify four lives in very different geographies.

This is oddly enthralling considering the lack of dialogue, plot, or even the "message" (or central theme) of most documentaries, but it's really worth watching, no matter your taste.

Rating: 3.5

Flickan som lekte med elden (2009, Sweden)

2010-12-04T22:51:00.012-05:00

Inevitably, a film adaptation of a complex, multi-layered suspense/mystery novel of the outstanding caliber of Larsson's work just isn't going to have the same impact. True, a lot was too oversimplified (for instance, the sex trade angle, a huge part of the novel's plot, never made sense in the film). Also, the fight between Paolo, Miriam, and the German was way too *bang* *pow* super-choreographed.

Still, a lot of it carried over well. It was very dark and suspenseful. I still think the casting for Lisbeth was excellent, though Mikael was on and off. The music was eerie and dark, perfect to set the appropriate tone. Good stuff, especially if you haven't read the book but even if you have.

Chilling, powerful, engaging, and very Swedish. Good stuff.

Rating: 3.5

Letters to Juliet (2010, U.S.)

2010-12-03T23:26:00.009-05:00

I thought that this movie looked really cute, and I like Amanda Seyfried quite a bit. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed.

The whole thing felt way too contrived, with stilted dialogue that almost bordered on wooden at times (and had a false ring a majority of the time). Overall, the writing was terrible. Aside from the dialogue problems, a lot of the plot was just too much of a stretch when it could have been much smoother. Parts were too easy, convenient, and basically unrealistic. I think "oversimplified" is the best word I can come up with.

The actors weren't bad. Seyfriend wasn't her best, but still cute. Her fiance was a Mexican actor playing a goofy maybe-Italian, which was a very strange choice. They do get extra points for casting Vanessa Redgrave, who is an absolute film goddess. I did like the male lead, who had very good comedic timing. He had a very strong (and to my untrained ear, accurate) British accent, but every now and then it went a little weird—turns out he's Australian. He also had something in his face (though not his acting) that reminded me of Heath Ledger, which was odd.

Anyway, this was a sweet concept that was terribly executed. Very unfortunate.

Rating: 2.0

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010, U.S.)

2010-11-27T01:45:00.006-05:00

I heard a lot of people say this was a boring film because they spend so much time wandering around doing nothing. On the contrary, I found it to be way too fast-paced. They're galloping around the countryside, accomplishing their tasks with seeming ease. It completely negated the epic David and Goliath, hopeless battle for Good that they're fighting, practically belittling their efforts.

I know one shouldn't judge movies based on one's knowledge of the books, but in this case I just can't help it. Of all of the Harry Potter films, I thought this one was the weakest adaptation. Of course, I rather expected it to be. They've been dropping threads of the plot and relationships since the beginning (or perhaps since the fourth movie), so with the final installment, it was impossible to weave together the complete, complex tapestry.

Of course, I still maintain that this undertaking put together one of the greatest casts, and this installment brought almost every participant together. Though it was inevitable to miss Hogwarts, the various settings, from nature to Malfoy Manor to the Ministry to a London street to a snowy graveyard in Godric's Hollow were all beautifully rendered.

I'm glad Dobby had his day, even if it was very "Oh, remember Dobby? He has a very close relationship with Harry even though you don't know anything about it, so he's going to come save his friend now!" Ugh. Even worse, however, was the thing that came out of the locket horcrux. It was way over the top and super cheesy. And greenish—think "dead faces in the water" and the army of the dead and all the other cheesy parts of Lord of the Rings times about a trillion and plus gratuitous nudity. Shiny nudity at that. So even Catherine Hardwicke could be proud! As you can tell, it annoyed me quite a bit.

The music doesn't stick out in my head too much, but I can only assume that it was good, since Alexandre Desplat is one of my favorite composers.

I still look forward to the second part of this film, but I won't get my hopes up.

Rating: 2.5

Morning Glory (2010, U.S.)

2010-11-10T17:12:00.006-05:00

I had absolutely no idea what this movie was going to be about, but I saw it just because I adore Rachel McAdams. It was really a unique film. A young television producer gets a new position and must revive a struggling morning show program that consistently falls behind Good Morning America and its ilk. She fires the sleazy male cohost and lands a star news reporter (through a loop in his contract) who hates morning shows and constantly fights with the producer, his cohost, and everyone else.

Basically, this was a great ensemble drama with a slight twist of witty comedy. Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Patrick Wilson, and Jeff Goldblum wove their parts together in seamless harmony. It was very cleverly written and a lot of fun. On the other hand, the drama side really makes you root for the show and hope it gets better ratings, even if you (like me) aren't the kind of person that cares about morning shows at all.

I liked this one quite a bit, but I especially bumped it up from 3.5 to 4.0 just for Rachel McAdams. She's just so cute, savvy, sexy, and spunky. I love her. Did I mention that?

Rating: 4.0

Walk the Line (2005, U.S.)

2010-10-11T21:59:00.008-04:00

Here's yet another biographical film that never really interested me, but suddenly when I was cataloging it at work, I just had to see it. It was an excellent choice.

Reese Witherspoon was phenomenal as June Carter. Joaquin Phoenix was okay, though he was rather on and off. Toward the end he was amazing, and he also was in his drugged haze. His early singing was rather weak and might have been better if it was lip synced. His voice was much stronger at the end, especially in Folsom Prison and in Ontario. However, he had a majorly crazy singing face that looked like he was constipated or in pain or two seconds away from passing out. Maybe Johnny Cash really looked like that while singing, I don't know, but it was a bit off-putting. In terms of the rest of the cast, Tyler Hilton as Elvis was the worst casting choice ever, but I absolutely loved Jerry Lee Lewis. The chemistry between the entire cast was absolutely palpable.

Watching this gave a very good sense of musicians' road life in the middle decades of the 20th century. The costumes, props, and sets were perfect vehicles to transport the viewer back 50, 60 years.

The film seemed to go on forever, but not in a bad way. It was like I was so lost in the story that I had to wake up and readjust to reality when it was over. I even watched the deleted scenes, which I don't often do with this kind of film. I thought that too much was left out of the story, though I recognize the need to edit and thought they picked events well. I'm amazed that I was so interested that I wanted more. In fact, I went straight back to the library and checked out Johnny Cash's greatest hits.

Magnificent.

Rating: 4.5

Cutthroat Island (1995, U.S.)

2010-10-10T21:02:00.009-04:00

I didn't realize this when I watched it, but apparently this movie bankrupted the production company and is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the biggest box office flop of all time.

I didn't think it was that bad, though it was very 1995. The score was no Pirates of the Caribbean, but it was pretty good pirate movie music nonetheless. The plot was decent plot, and the script was sprinkled with mildly amusing one-liners and good fight scenes.

Every now and then I would notice an anachronism, such as the cannons not rolling backwards when fired in an early fight scene, but in a later scene they were. Small compared to the whole female pirate, treasure maps on scalps, and other odd elements of the story.

Still, if you like campy pirate flicks, this one's for you.

Rating: 3.0

The Adventures of Milo and Otis (1986, Japan)

2010-10-09T22:17:00.010-04:00

I remembered this movie very fondly from my childhood. I couldn't remember what it was about, other than the obvious cat/dog friendship. I decided to check it out from the library to "watch with my cats," two orange tabbies. This ended up being quite amusing, because one of them sat and watched almost the entire thing, and the other investigated for at least a few minutes.

You really have to appreciate the dedication of a crew that would spend four years filming live animals. I gather that there were some accusations of animal cruelty, but I don't know what came of that. It seemed to me that most of the action was realistic in terms of animals' real lives. I was surprised to see that the two had litters of kittens and puppies, which I don't recall from my childhood viewings. Still, it was done tastefully enough that a young child can watch it without figuring out what's going on (as I must have once).

I was shocked to find that I still loved this movie, which I have such fond memories of, as an adult. I think this is a wonderful, wonderful family movie. Very sweet. And two out of two cats agree!

Rating: 4.0

Easy Living (1937, U.S.)

2010-10-09T21:16:00.005-04:00

This is precisely what you'd expect of a mistaken identity comedy of the 1930s. In other words, very sweet and very enjoyable.

When J.P. Ball, a wealthy financier, gets sick of his wife's spending habits and throws her sable coat out the window, it lands on struggling single gal Mary Smith. This sets off a chain of events that causes her to get fired from her job, convinces hotel manager Louis Louis to think she's Ball's mistress, and leads her to meet Ball's son, who's also out looking for work to get out from under his father's control.

If this was one of those screwball comedies starring Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, it would be a lot different. I don't know if "sexier" is the word, considering we're talking about the 1930s. "Smarter" may be the word, both in the sense of "hipper" and "cleverer." One should avoid comparisons though, because as I said, this one was very sweet. I do love the sassy ones, but I liked this one too—it's nice to have a little variety.

Rating: 3.5

Lords of Dogtown (2005, U.S.)

2010-10-03T19:12:00.007-04:00

This is the second 1970s biographical film I've watched this year, and it surprised me as much as The Runaways did. The subject matter isn't exactly the kind of thing that appeals to me, but I watched it because I've been meaning to for ages, since I plan to see every Heath Ledger film eventually. And I'm actually glad I did.

This film really captured the time, the movement, the people. Everything about it, from the costuming to the setting to the scripting to the acting, was perfect. It was especially great because I learned something I didn't know anything about.

The relationships between the boys were powerfully captured. In fact every relationship (parents, girlfriends, mentors, enemies) was so complex and real. I wish I could describe how strong these characters and their relationships were projected. It was the people, more than the plot, that made this film.

And of course, I can't make it through Heath Ledger movies anymore without crying. I thought I would make it through this one until they show his character, Skip, all alone, no longer his own boss, singing to himself and contemplating a bottle. Ledger could convey the emotion of loneliness better than anyone I've ever seen. (I do wonder what the deal is with his flat American accent though.) I would say his last scene was the best of the movie, but it had a lot of competition.

I wish I could do this one justice, but I can't. Please just take my word for it that this is a wonderful, moving, fascinating film, and remember that this is the word of a person who has approximately zero interest in the 1970s, skateboarding, California, teenage boys, or practically any other thing associated with this one.

Incredible.

Rating: 4.5

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010, U.S.)

2010-09-29T21:59:00.011-04:00

I truly hope the subtitle doesn't imply they're planning a sequel, because this one wasn't very good. It was better than some other things I've seen lately, but still, not great.

In my humble opinion, Jake Gyllenhall is one of the most talented actors of his generation. What was he thinking accepting this movie? He wasn't bad as an action hero, but he's much more attractive and convincing as the slender, nerdy boy next door or as a sweet, shy but self-assured cowboy (as in Proof and Brokeback Mountain, two of my favorite performances of his). Who was this buff hero? Also, he had a strange, mild accent of no discernible origin. I guess it was supposed to be Persian, but I don't know. At least you can still say it was consistent though.

There was some good action here, but the plot was a bit hard to follow at times. If this makes any sense at all, part of their failure was the introduction of an object's concept without showing said object (i.e. the titular sands of time). It didn't work.

The music was underwhelming, which was a disappointment to me. A score can make or break a movie, and a good score here would have made it a bit more bearable. (Especially disappointing because I usually love Harry Gregson-Wililams' work.)

I can say that there were a few mildly amusing lines. Alfred Molina was especially funny as an anti-tax, anti-government "small businessman." Almost incongruous in ancient Persia, but somehow it worked for this particular movie. On the other hand, his character and other things meant anachronisms all over the place. If you're looking for anything close to historical accuracy, look elsewhere.

Further faults? Predictable villain. Pretty tepid, weak romance—the movie would have been better off without it at all. Eh. Oh, and then there's the weird déjà vu feeling, a product of the very Aladdin feel at the beginning and the very Gollum at Mount Doom climax. Does that give too much away? Oh well, if you don't see it now, you're not missing much.

Rating: 2.0

Fireball (2009, Canada)

2010-09-26T18:33:00.008-04:00

So, I watched this in an attempt to erase the memory of The Lost Samaritan out of my head and replace it with a better Ian Somerhalder. I should have known better. Hello, look at this poster. That about sums up the movie.

A violent football player, Draven, wants to get revenge on all the people who've done him wrong. Somehow his body chemistry changes and he becomes a human torch. A fire investigator and a federal suit try to track him down, as he sets fire to everything. The big finale takes place in a nuclear plant.

Yeah, terrible. This is beyond B. There are no words. Bad writing, bad acting, bad scoring, bad everything. I don't know how I made it to the end. Don't watch it.

Rating: 1.0

Ondine (2009, Ireland)

2010-09-26T15:25:00.006-04:00

I was rather intrigued by the concept of this film. Also I hadn't seen an Irish film in awhile, and I was curious to see what kind of film would cause Colin Farrell to leave Hollywood and return to Ireland.

Syracuse, who's better known as Circus because of his drunken antics, has a disabled daughter whose mother he's estranged from. He's a fisherman, and one day he catches a beautiful woman in his net. She says her name is Ondine, which means "she came from the sea." His daughter thinks Ondine is a selkie; Circus thinks he's falling in love.

Ondine is a modern Irish fairy tale, but it has all the magic and darkness of old Irish fairy tales and all the bleak realism of modern Irish life. I guess you could call it magical realism. It is damp, poor, sad, magical, beautiful, wonderful Ireland at its best. The contrast between the fantasy story and the true story is perfectly balanced. The score was mostly this (I can't help using the word yet again) magical-sounding guitar music which fit perfectly. And Colin Farrell was brilliant, a strong choice for the role of an almost weak and broken man. The girl who played Ondine was also talented, and the girl who played the daughter nearly stole the show.

Beautiful. Magical. Highly recommended.

Rating: 4.0

The Lost Samaritan (2008, Germany)

2010-09-24T19:20:00.008-04:00

Terrible. Terrible! I was feeling the need to watch something with Ian Somerholder in it, and this was a definite mistake. An accountant has a long night at the office, and on the way home helps an injured motorist, which leads to him becoming the target of two dangerous assassins. I can't even remember how. Then he gets home to find his wife cheating on him, and the assassins follow him there, so he goes to a cafe and the waitress ends up tagging along on his adventures. How does any of this make sense? There's no clear plot, and that's the least of the problems with this travesty.

The music was way over the top music. I gather that this movie was made in Germany, and all the German actors who were supposed to be Hispanic or white Americans still had German accents. The script was ridiculous, writing beyond terrible. The one major "why" of the plot was never answered. The accountant's relationship with the waitress makes no sense. And to top it off, the girl's not even sexy and she tries too hard.

What was Ian Somerhalder thinking? He's a pretty talented actor. This was just sad.

Rating: 1.5

The Dinner Game (1998, France)

2010-09-17T20:25:00.008-04:00

As I was watching this film, it occurred to me that it seemed very familiar. Turns out that it was the inspiration for the American movie Dinner for Schmucks. This is a perfect example of how much more class the French have than Americans. This movie was pretty entertaining, whereas the American one just looks tasteless.

Pierre and his friends have a weekly meal where they must bring an "idiot," competing for the best one. Pierre's idiot meets him at house (and how he gets him there is convincing enough to be believable), but Pierre's had a back injury and can't go. His idiot tries to help him, and naturally does everything wrong and aggravates every situation.

It's pretty funny for what it is. I'm a little iffy on comedies that rely on mocking people for laughs, but because it ends (and this is not really a spoiler) with the jerk learning from the idiot, it works out okay. This is another very French one. Didn't like it as much as the last one I watched, but still enjoyable.

Rating: 3.0

Après vous (2003, France)

2010-09-05T23:24:00.007-04:00

Antoine is a maitre d' in Paris. He's a good man who always says "yes" to everyone, and there's some strain in his relationship. So when he's late for dinner, he takes a shortcut home through the park, where he finds Louis hanging himself over a woman. Louis attaches himself to Antoine, who finds him a job at his restaurant and attempts to fix his life. Of course this involves Antoine meeting Blanche, the woman Louis was killing himself over, and Antoine falls for her too. Hijinx ensue.

This film was very French and very entertaining. Not just anyone can pull off the dark comedy, the love triangles, the bizarre but almost realistic antics. The French are just gifted that way. I enjoyed this one, and I would definitely recommend it.

Rating: 3.5

Fargo (1996, U.S.)

2010-09-05T01:30:00.007-04:00

I don't even know where to begin with this movie. I almost can't even see why it's a cult classic. Jerry is in deep financial trouble, and his rich father-in-law is a jerk, so he decides to have his wife kidnapped and have her father pay the ransom. Basically every character is incompetent, except for the heavily pregnant sheriff investigating. There's a lot of violence, a lot of death, a lot of Minnesota accents.

I guess some people might find it funny, but it's just not my type of humor. Mostly I was impressed by Frances McDormand's performance as the sheriff. The rest of it, I could have lived without.

Still, I'm glad that I finally got around to seeing this cult classic.

Rating: 2.5

Repo Men (2010, U.S.)

2010-09-01T20:43:00.009-04:00

Remy is a repo man for The Union, a company that installs artificial organs and takes them back when the owners can't pay their debts. After a job-related injury, he wakes up to find himself the owner of a state of the art heart. When he can't pay, he goes on the run, and his former partner is sent after him.

The concept wasn't bad, although I fail to see why his company wouldn't have covered a work-related injury. (Though to be fair, their boss was pretty evil.) The music was pretty cool, very smooth and jazzy, which lent a nice contrast to the constant action. The huge twist ending was also exciting. However, mostly I found the whole thing to be entirely too graphically violent.

Rating: 2.5

Europa Europa (1990, Germany)

2010-08-28T22:24:00.008-04:00

This film would be almost funny if it wasn't so tragic, which is probably why almost every description one can find about it uses the term "irony." Everything that happens to young Solomon simply strains credulity, and yet they're true. As he stumbles from Germany to Poland, as he ends up in a communist Russian boarding school, as he ends up a war hero in the Nazi army, as a Hitlerjunge. But always he is a scared, lonely boy who is hiding his true identity from a world at war, and it is impossible not to become deeply invested in his story and to hope his deception is powerful enough.

Marco Hofschneider was perfect as the sweet, innocent, scared, lost boy.

The music sounded familiar, though I couldn't place it, and it definitely fit the plot. It sounds like something serious and bad is inevitably, inexorably creeping toward him, one step at a time, just like he's always one step from discovery in every situation he finds himself. It's the sound of Fate steadily closing in.

I would recommend this wonderful, powerful film to anyone and everyone. Truly incredible.

Rating: 4.0

Wake (2008, U.S.)

2010-08-21T19:38:00.009-04:00

It seems like I've been saying this a lot lately, but this film was truly one of a kind. It's about a girl whose sister died young. Carys can't feel anything, and she wants to be able to cry. So she uses a connection with a friend who works for a mortuary and starts going to the funerals of strangers. At one funeral, she meets Tyler, the fiancé of the young deceased. His eulogy touches her, and she finds herself lying to him about being a friend of the family. They start a friendship, they both help each other grieve, and eventually they become more than friends.

I've rarely seen such a successful genre-blend. There was the obvious drama (revolving around death and family) and romance angles. Then there was a mystery, because there's a question about how the fiancée died (and Tyler might have done it). Then there's some extreme suspense when Carys and Tyler are alone in a cabin in the woods and Carys fears for her life. There's some pretty funny black comedy. And they all blend together so well that you can never quite settle into watching; your mind has to be actively engaged in the film to keep your mental footing.

I thought that the last shot was just too easy, but otherwise, wow. It was quite a roller coaster—funny, sad, suspenseful, romantic. A great indie film that definitely deserves a wide audience. Prepare to be surprised.

Rating: 4.5

Plunkett and Macleane (1999, UK)

2010-08-21T17:11:00.010-04:00

I liked this one, but I would have liked it a lot more if it was set up better. The first 20 minutes and the entire rest of the film seemed like two different movies. The beginning was incredibly violent and graphic, popping out eyeballs and digging up smelly corpses. All of this leads to an impoverished gentleman and a run-of-the-mill poor guy start crime scheme in 1748 London. The gentleman (Miller) gets into the social events of the aristrocracy, finding out who is carrying a lot of cash and where they hide their money, and the two become gentleman highwaymen. The poor one (Carlyle) wants to earn enough to go to America, and impoverished one just wants to be a gentleman.

The grittiness lent extreme realism, but it also turned my stomach a little bit. The plot took awhile to pick up because the first scenes were so irrelevant, but when it got going, it was engrossing. It mixed action, a hard-luck drama (with class wars), romance, and a bit of black comedy too. I especially loved Jonny Lee Miller, who was adorable and hilarious. Alan Cumming was interesting as an aristocratic, flamboyant bisexual. Liv Tyler wasn't annoying like she usually is.

One thing that really stuck out was the music, which was partially modern pop/rock (like they were going for the A Knight's Tale feel, though not as successfully) and partially instrumental music that sounded like the type of music you would hear in a modern crime comedy where the "bad guys" are really "good guys." (Instead it was an historical crime quasi-comedy where the "bad guys" are really "good guys.")

If you're looking for something different with a strange feel, this one is worth a watch.

Rating: 3.5

Outing Riley (2004, U.S.)

2010-08-18T22:22:00.011-04:00

This was one of a kind. One of five siblings in an Irish Catholic family with a recently deceased father is gay, and his sister (who knows) wants him to come out to his three brothers—an immature pot head, an internet porn-addicted stock broker, and a repressed Catholic priest. The contrast and interaction between these siblings was good. They had a great dynamic, and one could almost believe they were really related.

There were many funny lines, a sweet story, and it majorly broke the fourth wall. Bobby (the main character), says he pretends his life was like a movie, then he does things to make it clear his life was a movie, like pausing the frame to introduce characters, talking directly to the audience, and even stopping to ask the sound man's opinion on his life.

The music was like traditional Celtic mixed with mild '90s rock, a strange combination, yes, but it worked. Chicago was also obviously important to the writer. The city was almost its own character—he highlighted neighborhood restaurants, the fountain, Lincoln Park Zoo, and more.

I think this is my favorite coming out movie of all the ones I've seen. Also, Nathan Fillion!

Rating: 4.0

A Single Man (2009, U.S.)

2010-08-11T21:21:00.013-04:00

Wow. This is a truly beautiful film, but in a quiet, understated way. Basically, it's about a man who was in a long term relationship, and his partner dies in a car accident. Because they're gay, the man isn't able to properly or publicly grieve.

It was directed by a fashion designer, which I thought was very clear in the overall look. Everything was brown, white, tan, and black, but then there are moments of bright color, like a little girl's dress—why that? When George remembers the deceased Jim, everything turns into this reddish gold, glowing tone, which is very effective in making his memories feel pleasant and warm, especially in contrast to the stark, painful present.

Colin Firth is absolutely phenomenal. His performance is so subtle and detailed and believable. He was George Falconer. The rest of the cast was good too, but they didn't shine as much as Firth. They also had a great script to work with. It used poetic writing without being saccharine. I thought the plot was more effective than if a woman was mourning her husband because a) he is a man and therefore less able, or allowed, to share his grief with anyone and b) because he is gay and therefore has to hide his love for Jim and therefore his grief.

A lot of the film revolves around the importance of human connection to pull George back from his suicidal grief. It's the "stranger" (student) who does more than George's close and intimate friend. The writer also uses a Huxley novel to talk about minorities and fear. In a college class he teaches, George compares the Nazi fear of Jews to the current fear of homosexuals, and he compares the fear of the unknown (from which most persecution of minorities stems) to the pervading fear of being alone. It was well done, much more smoothly than I can explain it.

The score was one of the best I've heard in awhile, especially as a companion to the film. It is understated for the most part, lovely but unremarkable until the end, when it is very heavy on the violins and much more prominent, as if an audio parallel to the clarity George is finally getting.

The 1960s sets and costumes were beautiful and realistic, which gave the movie a strangely dated feel when the subject matter seemed so current. It really underlines the fact that we have the same problem with gays that we've had for years, and that it's a really backwards mindset to have. Paired with the classroom discussion of Nazi antisemitism, it subtly says, "This is just as prejudiced and just as ridiculous." It was so subtle that I didn't even notice it until I started thinking about the film afterward. I do wonder why they chose a 1960s setting. I see why they didn't use present day and why they wanted to use a post-WWII setting. It's just interesting because the last movie I saw about a socially unaccepted sexual relationship was An Education, which was also set in the 1960s. I guess it's just a good decade to show a parallel with the current hypocritical decade, sexually repressed/judgemental and sexually open all at once. Interesting.

Rating: 4.5

Despicable Me (2010, U.S.)

2010-08-07T23:01:00.007-04:00

Despicable Me was a very strange movie. A super villain named Gru loses his place as the world's worst villain, replaced by a nerdy kid who goes by Vector, smart smart but not world-smart. To break into his arch-enemy's lair, he adopts three girls from an orphanage that sells cookies so that they can infiltrate Vector's fortress.

I wish they had focused more on Gru doing despicable things at the beginning. I loved watching him waltz into Starbucks and using a freeze gun to cut in front of everyone in line. I guess this was the kind of movie that's made for plot rather than character development, but with such a good lead character, it's a shame they didn't spend more time on him. (Side note: why are villains always eastern European? What stereotyping!) I also loved his minions, who were adorable and hilarious.

I don't often notice sets unless they're really out of the ordinary, but the "sets" in this were awesome, especially in the two villains' lairs. The furniture, technology, built-in shark tanks, weapon systems, and more were really cool. This definitely couldn't have been pulled this off in a live-action film. Gru's big dark house in an otherwise cookie cutter neighborhood also gave me a laugh.

The use of Pharrell Williams as a composer was an interesting addition to the movie. It varied in feel from serious spy to goofy and then a combination of the two, plus some weirdly unexpected R&B. The title song, "Despicable Me," was awesome. So awesome that I want to download it and make it my personal theme song.

Rating: 3.5

The Ghost Writer (2010, France)

2010-08-06T21:20:00.007-04:00

I love Ewan McGregor, and Olivia Williams is incredibly talented, so she carries a good deal of the weight of this film. Acting talent is very important in this type of slow-building suspense, where there's no obvious threat but instead a creeping feeling that something's wrong. The atmosphere is equally important, and it was dark and chilling.

I found the plot a bit strange, alternating between inexplicably complex moments and stagnant inaction. It wasn't bad per se, I just kept waiting for something to happen or something to make sense. Sometimes it was the good, suspenseful kind of waiting, but sometimes it was just a bit dull.

The last 60 seconds of the film were the absolute best. I love a good plot twist, and while part of this twist should have been more predictable, the other part came out of nowhere and completely made the film. Amazing what an ending can do to improve one's final impression of a film!

Rating: 3.0

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005, U.S.)

2010-07-30T21:20:00.005-04:00

I had to do it. Cute little Taylor Lautner! But I have to say, if I was a kid or had kids, I would really like this one.

The characters are really good. The main character is just an average boy with an extraordinary imagination. The heroes aren't the most heroic; they have flaws. Lavagirl is clumsy and Sharkboy alternates between tough, vulnerable, funny and a smartass. (He's even part animal... Jacob Black much?) So adorable.

The characters, adventures, and scenery seemed to come right out of a kid's mind (which in fact it did—it came from the mind of the director's son). I bet it looked really awesome in 3-D.

I can't decide whether to call a lot of the jokes cheesy or corny, because there was definitely a lot of food involved in the scenery especially. Either way, it was fun. And I loved the bad puns, especially the ones from Mr. Electric, the villain (aka Mr. Electricidad, the teacher).

In addition to all the fun and adventure, there was a good message to kids about keeping their dreams and making the important ones into reality. Sweet little movie, good for boys and girls.

Rating: 3.5

Post Grad (2009, U.S.)

2010-07-30T21:16:00.009-04:00

This was a cute little movie. Alexis Bledel is a girl who has just graduated with an English degree and wants to get her dream job at her dream publishing house. She doesn't, and she has to deal with unemployment. Meanwhile, her best friend is in love with her and she starts fooling around with her much older Brazilian neighbor. So she loses her friend, another important thing in her life.

I thought it was both laugh-out-loud funny and touching. Michael Keaton as her father and Carol Burnett as her grandmother were especially hilarious. Without the comedy and the romance, her post grad life felt like a mix of my post-college and post-grad school experiences, which is probably part of why I liked it so much. I think any college graduate can relate.

Not many comedies can impress upon the viewer the important things in life—family, love, hard work, being happy with who you are and what you do. All that and a few laughs too. Good stuff.

Rating: 4.0

The Runaways (2010, U.S.)

2010-07-27T19:53:00.011-04:00

Color me surprised. I didn't know anything about The Runaways and I've never really liked late '70s/'80s music, but I was curious to see Kristen Stewart in this one. I already thought she was an underrated and quite brilliant actress, but this one really convinced me. I love how she is so unafraid to look ridiculous, wearing silly clothes, rocking the ugliest hairdo, and singing like a fool. And wow, she was Joan Jett. The even bigger surprise was that Dakota Fanning, who I've absolutely loathed in the past, was almost as good as Cherie Currie. Between the two of them and the rest of the cast, there was a great dynamic that lent an excellent sense of realism to the film.

Costumes and makeup were stellar. I was investigating The Runaways' website and some of the costumes matched their tour pictures to a tee. Sets, script, everything made the period come alive.

This was a fascinating biopic that made me enjoy music that I'd never liked and taught me something that I never knew and entertained me all at once. That is a successful film if I ever heard of one. I'd love to see it again. A real cherry bomb!

Rating: 4.0

Death at a Funeral (2007, UK)

2010-07-24T15:07:00.008-04:00

This one was different from the opening credits. I absolutely adored the score, which was fun and familiar sounding. It was cheerful and upbeat, yet slightly ominous at the same time.

Death at a Funeral is very British and an interesting ensemble drama. When a large family gathers for a funeral, there are all kind of interesting dynamics going on, from fighting couples to competing brothers to love triangles to hidden secrets that cause all kinds of trouble.

You'll laugh out loud, you might tear up a little, and your jaw will definitely drop multiple times. See it to believe it!

Also, I love Alan Tudyk. Love him.

Rating: 3.5

Salt (2010, U.S.)

2010-07-23T21:00:00.009-04:00

I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with Roger Ebert, but I think it has come. He gave it four out of four stars, saying that "It's gloriously absurd. This movie has holes in it big enough to drive the whole movie through." Amen. It's like a super cheesy and preposterous 1950s spy film but with the realism that comes from modern day film techniques, and this is a very disconcerting combination. You could almost say it was so ridiculous it was good.

A lot of the plot devices lacked clarity, but I can't go into without giving away the ending. I did figure out one plot twist thanks to an episode of Lost, which was kind of fun for me.

Of course, I love Angelina Jolie more than anyone else I know. She makes an excellent action hero (see Tomb Raider). Apparently she's been wanting to do a spy franchise, and I wish this had a better script so they could make a franchise out of it. I do have to say thank goodness Tom Cruise dropped out, because this movie would have been ten kinds of awful with him instead of her.

Besides Jolie, the three best parts were the action, the setting, and the music. A lot of the action was based on Salt running and running and running from her pursuers, rather than explosions and shooting (though there was a good share of that too). The filming took place primarily in D.C. and was really well done. And the score (by one of my favorite composers) was perfect. If I had listened to it without the movie, I would have said to myself, "This would make good spy music!"

Don't expect much, and you'll be entertained. Especially if you like Angelina Jolie.

Rating: 3.5

Little Children (2006, U.S.)

2010-07-22T22:57:00.008-04:00

Kate Winslet is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, if not all time. And Patrick Wilson is great when the psychologically disturbing and dramatic stuff (see Hard Candy). So a film with such a small cast that revolves around the two of them is sure to be a winner.

In an upper-middle class suburb, the lives of a woman with a porn-addicted husband, a man with a disinterested wife, a disgraced ex-cop, and a convicted sex offender dance around each other. It's hard to tell how they'll align (despite the common neighborhood), but eventually all runs together.

I guess this is supposed to be a film about people who can't control their impulses, but to me it seemed more like a film about people who are trapped in unhappy lives and deal with them in inappropriate ways.

It was sad watching these people pathetically run their lives into the ground. And while it was a powerful film, I think it was just too bleak for me. Still, definitely worth watching.

Rating: 3.5