The Tempest (2010, U.S)

I'll be honest, I had a very hard time focusing on this film. I think I'm just too stupid for Shakespeare, so I had difficulty understanding what was going on a lot of the time. I read The Tempest for my Shakespeare class in college, but my memory of the plot was vague at best. Perhaps I should have read the Cliffs Notes before watching this.

For the most part, however, I have nothing but good things to say about this film. Helen Mirren is incredible, and I absolutely adore Djimon Hounsou. (Side note: I can't believe this is the first new movie I've seen with him since I've started this blog. He is a show stealer—The Island, Blood Diamond, even Tomb Raider, and especially The Four Feathers. Love love love him.) He was a very engaging Caliban. The rest of the cast was also made up of very solid acting talent, although to be honest I could live without Miranda. The sets were also beautiful. Ariel and all his accompanying special effects were a bit weird, but I guess they're supposed to be.

So I don't know if I would recommend this to anybody or not. Shakespeare fans would probably be unhappy about the gender change of Prospero (although it is Helen Mirren, people), and non-Shakespeare addicts would probably be underwhelmed. So there you have it... a quality film that I just can't get too excited about. Very sad.

Rating: 2.5

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 3.0

La Cage aux Folles (1978, France)

Basically everything I said about the American remake applies here. Except this is the kind of comedy that just works 100x better as a French film than an American film. (See Dinner for Schmucks and Le diner de cons/The Dinner Game. And in a strange twist, La Cage aux folles and Le diner de cons had the same writer.)

Very funny. Very French. And that's about all I've got.

Rating: 3.5

Rabbit Hole (2010, U.S.)

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

The Dinner Game (1998, France)

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

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

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

Rating: 3.0

The History Boys (2006, UK)

In 1980s Yorkshire, a close-knit group of gifted boys works their way through school, sport, and sex, all trying to get into Oxford while enjoying their education. This film is a character study with an ensemble cast, which is pretty ambitious if you ask me. However, the group was very good, and you could really believe they really were a bunch of school boys who'd known each other forever. The group dynamic was fascinating, probably the best part of the film.

It was at times sad and at times funny, but it was always real. Triumphs, disappointments, and above all the ennui of the smartest, most charismatic guys you've ever seen trapped in a stifling, uncreative educational system. The only real support they get is from an aging teacher who sometimes touches his students inappropriately; the strangest thing is that he doesn't seem ill-intentioned, and they all like him anyway. Like I said, interesting characters.

Rating: 3.0

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951, U.S.)

I'm ashamed to say this, but I had absolutely no idea what A Streetcar Named Desire was about. And I have to take this opportunity to say how shameful it is the way all the DVD cases show a sexy looking Marlon Brando smoldering away. Aside from the fact that Brando is the complete opposite of sexy in this movie, he is also not the star.

Vivien Leigh as Blache DuBois was overwhelming. She was Blanch DuBois, that fragile, fading Southern lady/slightly loose/desperately lonely/mentally ill woman. Incredible. You can just feel yourself struggling to understand what's going on in her head, even though it was perfectly clear on her face—if your own mind was complex enough to comprehend. I really don't think anyone but Vivien Leigh could have played it. To be fair to Brando, he would have looked brilliant next to anyone else, but Leigh stole the show. However, he was also incredible as the scummy, crude, cruel, animalistic Stanley. The two together... Words cannot describe.

And really, that's all there is to say about it. A dark, well-written, literary play brought to the screen by the greatest director of the 1950s and two unparalleled actors with perfect photography. No wonder it's a classic.

Rating: 4.0