Moonrise Kingdom (2012, U.S.)

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

The Help (2011, U.S.)

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

Walk the Line (2005, U.S.)

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

A Single Man (2009, U.S.)

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

An Education (2009, UK)

In the 1960s, Jenny is a bright, pretty, young school girl whose father pushes her and pushes her to become a perfect candidate for Oxford. She is more interested in cultural things like music and art, and she wants to live in Paris. When she meets David, a man twice her age, he begins to introduce her to these things. Her parents don't see anything improper about it. If anything, her father pushes Jenny at David, thinking he will improve her chances at Oxford.

This film was really subtly done. It was easy to picture this happening in the 1960s, a much different time. It was very well written and performed. Carey Mulligan is a great young actress. She was excellent at portraying a young girl who was coming of age in the midst of a very awkward situation. Even at a tender age, she was more mature than her elders.

This was a very slow-paced, artsy sort of film. If it were a novel, you'd probably call it literary fiction. It probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it was well done.

Rating 3.5

Girl, Interrupted (1999, U.S.)

It is a good thing that I didn't see this film back in the day, although I have been wanting to see it for years. (Angelina Jolie is one of my all time favorite actresses—why have I not seen her Oscar-winning performance yet?) The reason I say I shouldn't have seen it is because it was spot on. Winona Ryder's character is institutionalized, and rather than getting better, she gets crazier. Because she's surrounded by other people who are genuinely crazy and/or have become crazy there. Then she takes charge of herself and heals herself.

But enough of that. Acting. Was. Brilliant. Angelina Jolie was brilliant, of course. It's strange to see how much maturity she had as an actress even when she was a bit of a wreck of a person. Perhaps that helped her in roles like this one. In any case, she was perfect. As was Winona Ryder. I've gained more and more respect for her recently. She's more than just a shoplifter and Depp's ex!

I would recommend this to anyone, but especially any female who's found her sanity in question at sometime in her life. This film is beautifully sad. It's about the human experience from a point of view rarely taken. It's about women finding themselves and each other and getting through the tough times. It's about the unfairness of life and the things we do to make it through the day. It's about being alone. It's about friendship. It's about putting the pieces back together. Wonderful film.

Rating: 4.0