Anna Karenina (2012, UK)

Sheesh. So it was easier to get through this movie than it was to get through the novel, but I didn't like it nearly as much as the Vivien Leigh version. For one thing, the whole artsy, pared down stage setting thing was just too much. They were trying way too hard to be clever with that one, and it took away from the story. A lot. Plus the adaptation completely missed the purpose of the book, although that seems to be true of every AK adaptation I've seen. At least Levin seemed to have a more prominent role here than in the Leigh one, which helped.

Also, I was majorly unimpressed with the casting. I know, normally I think Knightley and Law are awesome, but here they were completely blah. Of course, it could have been the uninspired script. And the guy who played Vronksy... ugh. I did love Matthew Macfayden as Oblonsky, however. He's awesome.

And Marianelli's score was beautiful. Really helped carry things!

Rating: 3.5

World without End (2012, UK)

It wasn't Pillars of the Earth, but it was still quite good. Almost everything paled in comparison to Pillars, from casting to script adaptation. I thought the adaptation largely missed key points from the novel, which was unfortunate. I hate to be so critical, because it was really good, but it could have been phenomenal instead of just great. Still, I would watch it again. And again and again. And that's about all I have to say on that!

Rating: 4.0

Les Misérables (2012, UK)

I have such mixed feelings on this one. I loved parts and I really disliked parts. I had never seen this musical in any form before, so I'm not sure how much of that is the musical and how much is the adaptation. For instance, I thought that a lot of the story was very jerky and disjointed. In middle or high school I had read an abridged version of the novel, and I remember there being a lot more to it than was found in the musical. I remember there being more Fantine, more of young Cosette, more of Marius and his buddies, more to Jean Valjean's story and his relationship to Javert... just more everything! In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me I'm not wrong: "the novel elaborates upon the history of France, the architecture and urban design of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love." So clearly the point of the story suffered in the condensing process and made the historical parts of the plot harder to follow.

Anyway, to the music. I really enjoyed the big "group" numbers, "Look Down," "ABC Café / Red and Black," "One Day More," and "Do You Hear the People Sing?" I liked the Thénardiers' "Master of the House" for similar reasons, but I didn't like the Thénardiers at all. I don't know if they were solely for comic relief for a musical with a very serious subject or if Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were just too over the top (somehow I think it's the latter), but they were just too distracting. I also thought a lot of the individual numbers were overdone, as if they were trying to perform on stage and project the emotion, forgetting that the audience is much more immediate in film. They had the right idea, but it was just too much. For instance, Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" and Valjean's "Valjean's Soliloquy." However, I was absolutely enchanted by young Cosette's "Castle on a Cloud" and thought Éponine's "On My Own" and Marius's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" were beautifully done. (Although I must say, despite my love for Eddie Redmayne, I thought a little bit of that song was out of his range. Either that or his voice cracks way too much when he is crying and singing!) In general, I thought Éponine, Marius, young Cosette, and the ABCs were the big standouts in this film. Lastly, I was very underwhelmed with both Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe's singing abilities. Jackman wasn't terrible, but I think he would be much better with more chipper-sounding music. Crowe just didn't enunciate or emote much at all, which made his multitude of songs very jarring (despite some seemingly beautiful lyrics about the stars especially).

Of course visually it was stunning: sets, costumes, makeup, hair. The main exceptions were the Thénardiers (who just stood out too much visually as well) and the prostitutes who Fantine takes up with (they were garish, as they should have been, but something about them was too much as well). My friend informs me that the role of the priest was played by the "original" Jean Valjean, so that was cool too.

Now I've downloaded the soundtrack so I can start listening and memorizing the words, which will help me get a better feel before I watch it again. I also think I may need to read the book (unabridged this time), because it really is a fantastic tale and I know there's so much more to it.

Rating: 3.5 

Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012, U.S.)

I am stunned! I really didn't like the second half of Breaking Dawn (the book), so I expected the movie to be even worse. Mainly, I absolutely hated that stupid kid. However, in the movie you can actually see why she was so appealing to everyone, which makes the second half so much more sensible!

But I get ahead of myself. I want to start with how amazing the credits were. I'm getting them confused in my head (opening and closing), but I believe it was the opening credits that were all black and white with hints of red, really artfully done. The closing credits did this amazing thing where it showed the final words of the novel from the novel, and it felt like a book closing with this sort of finality. Then they did the kind of credits were all the main actors were pictured from the entire series, which furthered that feeling. Pretty awesome on both ends.

And the middle was really good too. Like I said, the kid was not annoying. They simplified the whole "Jay" sideplot to work with the movie. The supporting cast of vampires was really amazing, although I have to say a big part of why I didn't give this a 4.5 is because I felt like they were all short changed on screen time. The big fight at the end was just amazing, especially with all the twists that I had managed to completely forget from the book. I was completely nail-biting, which was completely unexpected.

Everyone belittles "KStew" and "RPattz," but I continue to think that they're both great actors. Maybe this isn't the best vehicle for them, but still. Stewart does a convincing job as someone finally getting in touch with her real self. The contrast between the awkward human and the graceful vampire is very obvious if you compare the early movies to this one.

I thought this was a strong ending to the series, particularly with the above-mentioned credits that tied the movie into the book and tied all the movies together. I'm looking forward to a marathon when it comes to DVD.

Rating: 4.0

Dr. No (1962, UK)

I decided to start watching the James Bonds films from the beginning, since I've only seen the Daniel Craig ones and maybe one or two Pierce Brosnan ones. I don't know if I'll get all the way through them, but we'll see what happens.

This wasn't quite the "wow" opening that I was expecting. Even the opening credits were a bit odd. They included three different songs that abruptly, rather than smoothly, transitioned. The dancing girl silhouettes in neon colors were very Bond, but they didn't seem to fit the rest of the movie. I was also a bit disappointed with the intro to Bond. The only reason he's "Bond, James Bond" is because the girl he's talking to introduces herself the same way first. Also, he seemed to fall on the sleazy side of the sexy/sleazy line when it came to sleeping with girls. I mean, knowingly sleeping with someone you're about to arrest... Shouldn't there be a law against that for government agents?

Anyway, I found the rest to be delightfully corny. Ursula Andress was a very sexy Bond girl, and I loved that he laughed at her name—Honey Rider. The supervillain was supercorny, as was his underground lair. I'm not quite sure about MI6 sending off an agent to do work that should be the CIA's business, particularly for a first outing, but still a fun flick.

Rating: 3.5

Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging (2008, UK)

How fitting... Immediately after a middle-aged romantic comedy, I see a teenaged romantic comedy! The series of books that this movie was based on might have been the only young adult books that I read as a young adult. When I saw that they had made a movie, I was so excited. But it didn't come to the States, and it didn't come to DVD. We have just changed from dish to cable and gotten many new channels, and I've spent the last few days flipping and watching random stuff, something I haven't done in at least 5 years. Long (and pointless) story short, I turned to Nickelodeon or ABC Family or some such channel the second this movie was started. I was psyched!

I loved Georgia Groome. I didn't really have a picture of Georgia Nicholson clearly in my head (at least anymore), but she was exactly right. I also liked the actors who played her parents and Robbie (who kind of reminded me of a mix between Logan Lehrman and someone else I can't quite put my finger on). The movie was funny like the book (though maybe not as funny as I would have found it 13 years ago), and also really cute. It is definitely the Bridget Jones for the younger set. It was charmingly British and wonderfully uplifting for non-perfect girls everywhere.

I would definitely watch this again—bonus points for the nostalgia factor. I also keep telling myself that I need to reread these books sometime soon. Maybe now's the time!

Rating: 4.0

Sarah's Key (2010, France)

My book club read this novel for August, so we decided to get together and watch the movie too. I think every single one of us was disappointed. We all felt that it was very disjointed, and we wouldn't have known what was going on if we hadn't read the book. The only person who hadn't read more than the first few chapters verified our reaction. With a novel of relatively short length and few characters, there really wasn't any reason for it to be so hard to follow.

It was also painfully unemotional. The book was moving, but the movie felt perfunctory. The only moment when I felt anything was when Sarah opened the closet. My heart nearly broke at the amount of emotion the young actress conveyed. However, with the magnitude of the story unfolding, other moments should have been heartbreaking too—particularly in the Vel' d'Hiv, in Drancy, at the Dufaure's... I could go on.

Kristin Scott Thomas wasn't bad, but honestly I got sick of her. Even though a majority of the novel also follows Julia, here it just felt too much. This was especially true because both of the actresses who played Sarah (as a child and as a young woman) were phenomenal. The best way I can think to describe both of them is "arresting" or perhaps "captivating." I was very surprised to see that the adult Sarah, Charlotte Poutrel, only has one other small credit to her name. Maybe she's not a great actress when she starts speaking, but her silence and the expressiveness of her eyes were enthralling.

Anyway, I probably wouldn't recommend this one, though I'd definitely recommend the book.

Rating: 2.5

Birdsong (2012, UK)

Oh, Eddie Redmayne. You could be watching paint dry and I would be utterly captivated. You merit at least a full additional star for yourself in every movie. You are beautiful and brilliant with your too-wide mouth and your piercing eyes and your childlike freckles and your one-of-a-kind voice.

Excuse me. Now that I got that out of the way... This was a beautiful piece. I'm really curious to read the Sebastian Faulks novel that it came from. (I watched Charlotte Gray a long time ago, before the blog, and I remember really enjoying it too. It's also from his loosely connected France Trilogy.) The juxtaposition of Stephen's life before and after the war is amazing. They did a great job of contrasting bright and lovely greens in the idyllic 1910 countryside with the dusty, depressing browns of that same country covered with trenches. Stephen learns really important life lessons that he needs both personal tragedy and global tragedy to understand. It's hard to explain this, but it's the core of Birdsong.

I liked basically everything about this. Obviously, I think Eddie Redmayne is a genius. He has such an emotive face and a strong range. I think this was the first I've seen of Clémence Poésy (outside of Fleur in Harry Potter), but she was utterly perfect for the role too, as was Joseph Mawle, who plays a miner in the trenches who helps Stephen on his path to enlightenment. The rest of the cast was good too, but those two stood out.

I already mentioned the perfection of the mis en scène. I also found the music to be very powerful. It was very piano-heavy, and many of the songs were simple, relying on repeating series of 3 or 4 notes. It fit the tone perfectly. (Incidentally, this is, as far as I know, only the third score I've heard by Nicholas Hooper. His HP6 score was a big tone-perfect standout for me too.)

Oh, I'm just not doing it justice. I spent nearly 3 hours with the mini-series, plus extra time for the special features, and I loved every second. It was beautiful, heartbreaking, well-acted, realistic, enlightening, and powerful. Highly recommended.

Rating: 4.5

The Three Musketeers (2011, U.S.)

What an enormous letdown. I haven't read the book or seen any other adaptations, but I am familiar with the story. They seemed to stick to the general idea of the plot. Lots of action, recovery of a diamond necklace to save the queen's neck, all for one and one for all, and all that jazz.

I don't know what it was, but this movie just wasn't good. The cast was phenomenal. I mean, I love Ray Stevenson, Orlando Bloom, and Logan Lehrman; Christoph Waltz is a brilliant actor; Til Schweiger and Mads Mikkelson are two of the best typecasted bad guys in the business; and I liked Matthew Macfayden in the only thing I've seen him in (The Pillars of the Earth). So I just can't believe that such a cast could come off so silly and talentless, which leads me to believe that directing and especially scripting were a travesty. Even the funny lines just weren't funny.

Visually it was often quite engaging though anachronistic. A lot of the hair distracted me too. Bloom's looked ridiculously big, and Lehrman's looked like a wig that was going to fall off at any second. The fight scenes were  mostly well-choreographed, but they got kind of boring after awhile, especially when elements reminded me of POTC choreography. Speaking of which, there were a lot of phrases in the score that seemed to be lifted directly from POTC. I kept thinking to myself, "Oh, I just made that up, I didn't actually hear that." But then I would hear it again or hear another slightly-too-familiar phrase. That kept lurching me out of the story.

Overall, very frustrating and disappointing. Despite the fact that the cast boasts some of my must-follow actors, I wouldn't recommend this at all.

Rating: 2.0

The Hunger Games (2012, U.S.)

So, this book is probably one of my favorite books of all time, and definitely my favorite YAF sci fi. I did go to the movie with absolutely no expectations because I didn't want to be disappointed, and that really helped. As could be expected, the bulk of the plot remained while the complexities of character relationships, motivations, and feelings were unfortunately watered down. I talked about this a lot with the people I went with, and several of the examples that we came up with had no easy fixes in film format. Therefore, I'd have to say the filmmakers did the best they could. (I was still sad about Haymitch, Cinna, and Effie's watered down personalities, especially.)

The thing that stood out the most to me was the sets. I mean, wow. The arena was exactly as I had pictured it. The mountains and forests of Katniss's home were just like the ones where I live, which is kind of where I imagine District 12 to be. And her village was just so Appalachia. On one hand it felt like a stereotype of West Virginia, but on the other hand it felt exactly real. Amazing stuff. The capital was also well done, but I felt like we didn't see enough of it. The same goes for costumes. Cinna getting Katniss ready for event after event before the Games sticks in my head, and yet we only see her at one interview and the big presentation of tributes before the Games start. (I have to say though that her interview dress with body glitter was gorgeous and her and Peeta's flame costumes were interesting, but not quite as breathtaking as I had hoped.) Again, what frustrated me the most was that they did such a good job with so many things, but there just needed to be more, more, more.

Acting was very strong. I think Jennifer Lawrence was a perfect Katniss. I liked Gale and Peeta too, although they were just good, not stellar. (This could partly be because the whole thing is about Katniss and her girl power, but I do remember having stronger impressions of the boys, especially sweet Peeta, when I read the book. Still, it's been years, so who knows.) Also notable were the little girl who played Rue (not quite how I pictured her, but I'll never picture her any other way now—those eyes!), Stanley Tucci as Caeser Flickerman (his cheesy personality practically leaped off the screen), Elizabeth Banks as Effie (though her character wasn't written well, because her purpose was vague and her screen time was minimal), the guy who played Cato (holy hot and evil, Batman!), Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (he was definitely lacking in screen time, and his transformation/the complexity of his relationship with the tributes was weak, but he did a lot with what he had), and Lenny Kravitz as Cinna (interesting choice, but I really liked him in the role, though I wish he had more screen time too... and more fierce glitter eye shadow).

So, how many times have I said that James Newton Howard is brilliant? I don't know that this score would necessarily be one that I'd buy to listen to all the time, but it definitely complemented and enhanced the movie. The tribal sounding music with drums during the tributes' training particularly stands out in my mind, though I also remember some haunting songs in emotional scenes or during establishing shots of District 12. Brilliantly done.

Yeah, clearly the trend here is that I wanted a lot more, but I think they mostly remained true to the spirit of the book. As always, I wonder whether I would have been lost in parts (or not gotten as much out of them) if I hadn't read the book, but I don't think I would have. (Unlike a certain HP7 I could mention...) I can't decide between a 4.0 or 4.5, but I don't think I would use the word "love" here, so I guess it has to stay a 4.0. Close call though.

Rating: 4.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

Never Let Me Go (2010, UK)

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

Water for Elephants (2011, U.S.)

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.)

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

Luftslottet som sprängdes (2009, Sweden)

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