W./E. (2011, UK)

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

One Day (2011, U.S.)

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

Love and Other Drugs (2010, U.S.)

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0