I just don't know what to say. At all. Because what just happened? At first I thought I was going to love it. I mean, visually it was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The score was completely out of this world, like a best of the eerie sounding classics. (Hard to describe the subset of music I'm talking about exactly, but it is a type of music I enjoy a lot. I would love to own this soundtrack.) Then there was original music composed by one of my all time favorite composers, Alexandre Desplat. Brad Pitt wasn't bad, but this wasn't my favorite performance of his. I thought Jessica Chastain was the real star of this film, which was unfortunate because she often seemed so peripheral. Overall, it was visually and aurally stunning, and the seed of the plot was good.
But. But but but. It just tried so hard to be artsy and impressionistic that it seemed silly instead. There were dinosaurs, for crying out loud. The sound mixing was not the best, so the score often overpowered whispered lines. I found myself having to turn on subtitles a lot. The part about adult Jack could have added a lot, but I don't think it was made clear enough. Plus, Sean Penn reminded me why I never liked Sean Penn (until Milk made me want to give him a second chance).
It could have been really great, but it just tried too hard and was too self aware. So instead of brilliance and beauty, I was left with a lot of annoyance and exhaustion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
James Stewart plays a widowed farmer with many children who lives in the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War, and he doesn't participate in the war because he doesn't think it is "his" war. When his youngest son, Boy, is mistakenly captured by the Union, he and his whole family become very active in the war, searching for Boy no matter who falls in their paths.
Of course the scenery was beautiful, even if it was probably Oregon or Washington rather than Virginia. (You can't trick a resident of the Valley!) The writing was good, and it was really insightful on the subjects of war and peace, race and family, love and marriage, honor and duty. And James Stewart was just phenomenal, funny in a serious way, if that makes any sense. (I hate to compare him to Billy Burke in Twilight, but that's the closest thing I can think of.)
This is a really good western and "war" film. (I use quotes because it wasn't a war film in the sense that it had lots of fighting and action but because it was about war. Think Gone with the Wind-style "war" film.) I really liked this one.
What a great (though disturbing) documentary! I learned a lot. I kept a lot of notes of fascinating things I learned that I could share, but you just can't get the full effect if I rattle them off. Food, Inc. is a great documentary that looks into the world of the corporate controlled food industry
The one positive thing they showed was a farm in the Shenandoah Valley (near where I live). It is a beautiful farm with beautiful, grass-eating cows. The cows eat, fertilize, and harvest the grass. Other cows, which are raised in terrible conditions, are corn-fed, which requires altering diet and shipping in corn, hauling away manure, etc. Anyway the point is that this farm was beautiful and I wish I could get all my food there, because all the corporate meat plants and genetically modified seed businesses just make me sick.
I've never known many documentaries to have stellar scores, but this one was pretty great. The music was ominous in beef plants, slow and peaceful in the Shenandoah Valley (kind of like the Brokeback Mountain score), creepy (creeping music like a bad guy's coming, sort of) when they're talking about a surveillance team from a genetically modified soybean company persecuting farmers who save, clean, and reuse seeds.
As the Virginian farmer said, the food we eat may seem like cheap food, but it's expensive in terms of environmental, societal, and health costs. True and fascinating!
A young girl and her sister and left in an orphanage by their father, who never comes back. They grow up, finding work as barmaids and seamstresses. She has an affair with a Baron, giving her entry into society and the opportunity to pursue her gift of designing hats. Then she falls in love with an English businessman, complicating her life further.
A good story, and supposedly based on the real life of Coco Chanel, who I know nothing about. Therefore, I'm unable to judge historical accuracy, which is probably a good thing for me.
Setting and costumes brought the period to life amazingly beautifully. (Definitely deserved the Best Costume nomination for the Oscars.) The writing, music, and everything else was great too. But even if it was awful, Audrey Tautou would have made it a winner. She is a beautiful, fragile, strong, talented actress. She was Coco Chanel.
The film ends right as Coco has gotten a toehold in the fashion world. The title Coco before Chanel is a fitting one. It's a bit unclear at the end how she manages to become so successful and how she deals with her personal tragedies. I loved the file shot of Coco sitting dispassionately, reflected infinitely in full-length mirrors, surrounded by models wearing her fashions. There's nothing like a movie with a memorable final shot. Good stuff.
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.
I loved this movie. I don't know much about Sherlock Holmes, so I don't know how true this was to the original characters. But it was wonderful on its own. Above all, it was absolutely laugh-out-loud funny. There was also an excellent mystery that had all the appearance of being rooted in fantasy but having a perfectly realistic explanation.
There was great chemistry between the cast. Robert Downey Jr. has never been my favorite, but he was great, especially with Jude Law as his sidekick. And Rachel McAdams is one of the most underrated actresses of all time. Usually her performance is really subtle, but here she was so over the top, exactly what the role called for.
I haven't seen too many films lately where the scenery or special effects really stood out, but this was definitely one. Victorian London popped off the screen like it was filmed 150 years ago and yesterday all at once.
I have been dying to see this film, which took way too long to come into wide release (considering the number of times I've seen the preview at other movies). My friend Stefanie and I have tried to see it twice already, but complications arose both times. Needless to say, when we saw it today the anticipation was intense. It was a lot different than I imagined it would be; not disappointing, exactly, just different.
I loved that it was a character-driven film, and that very little about those two characters was explicitly defined. Instead, they relied on their actions (and reactions) to allow the viewer to interpret their characters. Sometimes one was the protagonist and the other the antagonist, and it would change again in an instant. I guess I don't need to say that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both phenomenal. They both have such expressive faces (and especially expressive eyes), that I feel like I can read their thoughts like words written across the face.
The plot was intense. a married couple with two children suddenly realizes that the life they're living isn't the life they wanted, and they take out all of their anger on each other and themselves. They try to start a new life, making plans to move to Paris, where the husband thinks people are "more alive." Things start to look better until their plan starts unraveling, and they both go a little bit crazy. One of the taglines, which I love, is "How do you break free without breaking apart?" Even though this film takes place in the '50s, you can easily see it taking place today. There is some definite social commentary about how we live the lives society tells us we should instead of the lives we want. It's beautiful. Interestingly, the character who seems to really see the world as it is and who has the best grip on reality is the neighbor's insane son.
And as we watch Winslet and DiCaprio brilliantly tear each other apart and put each other back together, Thomas Newman's haunting (and somewhat repetitive—but in a good way) score echos them in the background. The score is simply executed, like the rest of the film.
This film is a good one, and I would recommend it. Just be prepared to feel some gut-wrenching despair and to reevaluate your life.
Okay, here are my picks for this year's Oscars. I'm excluding nominations for stuff like sound editing (how would I know who was best?) and documentaries/foreign films/shorts (since I haven't seen any from the category and know nothing about them). Here's the key:
* a film I've seen
My pick to win
The actual winner
Best Motion Picture of the Year
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Ceán Chaffin, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall Frost/Nixon: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Eric Fellner
*Milk: Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks
*The Reader: Nominees to be determined
*Slumdog Millionaire: Christian Colson
Notes: I am too in love with Benjamin Button to even contemplate anything else winning. It was just too good. There are a few films I'm surprised not to see here, but then when has the Academy ever listened to me?
*edit: 2/20/2009 I just saw Slumdog Millionaire, and I loved it. I'm really torn now.*
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Richard Jenkins for The Visitor Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon *Sean Penn for Milk
*Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler
Notes: This is going to be a tough competition. There's been a lot of buzz about these movies, and based on the previews for Frost/Nixon and the Wrestler, Langella and Rourke are definitely contenders. Sean Penn was incredible in Milk, but I still don't think he deserved the win for Mystic River, so not winning this one would even it out. Also, I think Brad Pitt is long overdue for an Oscar. The fact that he was only nominated once before this is inconceivable. And this was definitely one of his best performances yet. If he doesn't win, I will be unhappy.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
*Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married *Angelina Jolie for Changeling Melissa Leo for Frozen River Meryl Streep for Doubt *Kate Winslet for The Reader
Notes: This one is also tough. First, why did Cate Blanchett not get nominated for Benjamin Button? The woman deserves at least that. As for the rest, it's no secret that I love Jolie and Winslet. Jolie was great in Changeling, but if she was competing against herself in other roles, I'm not sure if she'd win or not. On the other hand, the same is kind of true for Winslet. But this is her 6th nomination, and like Pitt, she deserves one. So I'm going to pull for her (even though I would be just as thrilled if Angie won another). Still, I have never liked Anne Hathaway, and she was wonderful in Rachel Getting Married. Something tells me she will end up being the real winner, but I refuse to pull for her!
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
*Josh Brolin for Milk Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder Philip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt *Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight *Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road
Notes: Heath. Need we say more? He was robbed in 2005 for Brokeback, and I don't think anyone can deny his Joker was incredible. If he doesn't win, this might just be the last year I watch the Awards. *edit: Michael Shannon was really great in Revolutionary Road, so he definitely deserved the nomination... just a comment. I'm still all for Heath.*
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams for Doubt Penélope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona Viola Davis for Doubt *Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler
Notes: I've barely seen any of these, but I'm going to make a wild guess at Amy Adams for this one, because I think she's good.
Best Achievement in Directing
*Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire *Stephen Daldry for The Reader *David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon *Gus Van Sant for Milk
Notes: Just because I love it.
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Frozen River: Courtney Hunt Happy-Go-Lucky: Mike Leigh *In Bruges: Martin McDonagh *Milk: Dustin Lance Black WALL·E: Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Jim Reardon
Notes: I don't really have enough to go on in this category, but I remember being surprised when I saw In Bruges that it was so funny and moving all at the same time. Which probably comes down to good writing.
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Eric Roth, Robin Swicord Doubt: John Patrick Shanley Frost/Nixon: Peter Morgan *The Reader: David Hare *Slumdog Millionaire: Simon Beaufoy
Notes: Again, I just love it.
Best Achievement in Cinematography
*Changeling: Tom Stern *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Claudio Miranda *The Dark Knight: Wally Pfister *The Reader: Roger Deakins, Chris Menges *Slumdog Millionaire: Anthony Dod Mantle
Notes: Seems like I pick the visually stunning films to watch! Of all of these, I think Benjamin Button was best. I loved Changeling and really liked The Reader and Dark Knight, but Benjamin Button just seems right for this win. *edit 2/20/2009 Uh oh, now I've seen all five, and Slumdog was visually stunning too!*
Best Achievement in Art Direction
*Changeling: James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo *The Dark Knight: Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando *The Duchess: Michael Carlin, Rebecca Alleway *Revolutionary Road: Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt
Notes: Period pieces always win art direction. It's a fact.
Best Achievement in Costume Design
*Australia: Catherine Martin *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Jacqueline West *The Duchess: Michael O'Connor *Milk: Danny Glicker *Revolutionary Road: Albert Wolsky
Notes: Look, a bunch of period films got nominated! 19th century, scattered 20th century, 17th century, 1970s, 1950s. I get the feeling that the more elaborate the costumes, the more likely an Oscar is. Which is why I'm going for The Duchess.
Best Achievement in Makeup
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Greg Cannom *The Dark Knight (2008): John Caglione Jr., Conor O'Sullivan Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008): Mike Elizalde, Thomas Floutz
Notes: I decided Benjamin Button would win makeup before I even saw it was nominated. The aging done on Blanchett and Pitt was too incredible. I will be beyond shocked if this doesn't win.
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Alexandre Desplat *Defiance: James Newton Howard *Milk: Danny Elfman *Slumdog Millionaire: A.R. Rahman WALL·E: Thomas Newman
Notes: This is probably the hardest category for me, because I will be disappointed for almost anyone who doesn't win. Desplat, Howard, Elfman, and Newman are four of my all time favorite composers. But of the three of these films I've seen, I can easily say that Defiance will win, since my immediate reaction to the film was that the score was the best, best part. It was haunting, beautiful, perfect.
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron *The Dark Knight: Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Timothy Webber, Paul J. Franklin Iron Man: John Nelson, Ben Snow, Daniel Sudick, Shane Mahan
Notes: I'm a sucker for this film.
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Bolt: Chris Williams, Byron Howard Kung Fu Panda: John Stevenson, Mark Osborne WALL·E: Andrew Stanton
Notes: I haven't seen any of these, but I've just heard too much hype about WALL·E to think it won't win.
Defiance was astounding. So astounding that I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for more Oscars. The story was incredibly moving, all the more so because it was based on a true story. It is really a testament to the human spirit. These brothers' ability to create a community and protect their people and their culture in the face of extreme hardship is inspiring, all the more so because they each stayed true to their beliefs. I thought that the story was well-adapted without making it over-dramatic/emotional while still impressing upon the audience the magnitude and meaning of this quietly heroic undertaking.
The acting was brilliant. I was really impressed with Jamie Bell, a 22-year-old kid who played the youngest brother with a perfect mix of innocence and maturity. Liev Shreiber's character was rough and stoic, and his gruff demeanor never faltered. Daniel Craig stole the show, as I knew he would. That man has talent. Pure talent. All three maintained convincing Eastern European accents too, which was an added bonus. (Word on the street is that the other recent WWII film, Valkyrie, has a scattering of British and American accents where there should be German ones.)
On top of the acting and the subtly told story, the music and scenery just put it over the top. Really, listening to James Newton Howard's beautiful, haunting score filled with violin solos by Joshua Bell while watching beautiful shots of Eastern European forests would have made this film worth seeing by itself, no plot necessary. More movies should be filmed on location. James Newton Howard should do more scores. (His Peter Pan score is one of my all-time favorites.) I can't reinforce enough how much these two elements contributed to this film. And if Defiance doesn't win the Oscar for Best Original Score, I will truly be blown away.
I was torn between "liking" and "really liking" this film. Obviously, I recognize that it has some astounding qualities—hence the word "film" instead of movie."
First, the acting. I adore Kate Winslet, and this was one of her best performances yet; she definitely deserves her Oscar nomination. It's unfortunate that one has to spend most of a movie looking completely hideous to get a nomination, but I guess that's just how it is. Her characterization of Hanna Schmitz was subtle and well done; even her accent was consistent. I was also impressed with David Kroß, the 18-year-old German who played young Michael Berg opposite Winslet. (Fiennes played the old Michael Berg.) He is an incredible actor for being so young, and he was able to convincingly portray this boy as a young teenager and then an older law student. He did adult scenes tastefully (and again, convincingly) as if he's been doing this for years. It was only his fifth movie. Lastly, Ralph Fiennes. I go back and forth on whether he is a good actor or not, but in any case I don't think this film was his best. His personality seems to be nonexistant, though this perhaps enables Winslet to shine even more as an old woman.
The plot is definitely not action driven. I would perhaps call it a "slice of life" approach, as it shows key scenes from young Berg's relationship with Hanna, her war crimes trial, and their lives as they age. I really liked that it wasn't in-your-face, instead relying on the viewer to immerse himself in this place and pick up on small details. It was like a character study of Hanna and her relationship to Berg—and to the truth. A very intelligent, high brow kind of film.
One thing that really bothered me was that towards the end, the viewer finds himself trying harder and harder to read into the two characters' motives; their behavior doesn't make sense (perhaps because I personally would have responded to what happened in a different way), and their thoughts are veiled. I think it's clear that this was an adaptation of a book, and there is likely much more elaboration on the thought processes in the novel. This is one weakness of adopting this kind of novel to the screen. (I'll have to read the book to verify.)
Lastly, two of the most important factors: music and setting. I love that almost the entire movie was filmed on location. The viewer can really get a feel for beautiful countryside where Berg and Schmitz spent their summer affair and the urban feel of Berlin. Filming on location is a very wise move in most movies, in my opinion. And the score was lovely. I'd never heard of Nico Muhly, but something tells me he's going places.
I'm not quite sure whether I'd call this one a classic that will stand the test of time, but it is definitely a must-see for this year at least.
I pretty much had the same reaction to Y tu mamá también as I did to The Human Stain. It was really quite wonderfully done, and yet I wished there was something more. And again, I couldn't quite put my finger on what that "more" would be.
Let me start by saying that I think Alfonso Cuarón is great. After all, he did direct my favorite of the first five Harry Potter films (Prisoner of Azkaban) as well as the absolutely brilliantly done Children of Men. Clearly, he has some flexible skills.
This film took a road trip sex-fest and turned it into an examination of life, love, and friendship. It's about growing up. It's about living the life you want to live before it's too late. It's about the stuff of friendships, especially those forged from opposite sides of the tracks. And in the background is the beauty of Mexico and traditional life and the changing nature of the country. Yet for all that, it's still funny in addition to being touching and dramatic.
Superb acting. Superb writing. Superb cinematography. I think that only two things are keeping me from giving this one a higher rating. First, the guys were just a little too "teenage" for me. Which was the point, I guess, and it wouldn't have worked any other way, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the typical behavior of typical boys. Secondly, the ending left me reeling with questions. Mainly, "Why did their friendship turn out the way it did?" Definitely a thought-provoker, from the instant the credits start rolling.
