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

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 

You Only Live Twice (1967, UK)

Well, talk about ridiculous! I feel like I should have seen all these old Bond films before the new ones, because the picture I had of him in my head (cemented by the modern films) was much less cheesey!

On one hand, this one had some pretty amazing elements, including an epic car chase and some hints and Japanese culture. Also, Bond's "assassination" at the beginning of the film was pretty sweet. On the other hand, it got downright racist (particularly when Bond was disguised as a "Japanese man") and the whole SPECTRE-stealing-spaceships-from-space thing was just plain silly!

I'm a bit at a loss on this one. I loved parts; I hated parts. I just don't know.

Rating: 3.0

Skyfall (2012, UK)

First I have to say how interesting it was to watch this right after watching Thunderball. Instead of sharks, Skyfall had komodo dragons. Instead of Domino, Sévérine. Both had underwater scenes, though Skyfall's were much better (and shorter). Bond was recovering a hard drive instead of nuclear weapons, but the mission was similar. He makes love in a glass-walled shower instead of a glass walled-steam room. He spent time at the beginning recovering from grievous injury. The day was partially saved by homing devices from Q. All these strange similarities, and which movie was better? Skyfall by a landslide. (Though don't get me started on how a large part of this movie was very Home Alone!)

It's also interesting how much the Bond movies say about the society in which they're made. Connery's are so very '60s. Craig's are so very 21st century. These days we're much more concerned with how characters got where they are, back stories and raking over emotional coals and exploring the psyche. Connery's Bond was much more action, sex, and martinis in comparison. M had a quasi-speech in front of many government officials saying that her department was still relevant in this day and age because of how things have changed (the exact reason the government thought they were becoming obsolete). She talks about how our enemies no longer have faces but operate in the shadows. It was fascinating, and in addition to being a great plot point, it also speaks to why Bond is still relevant in the 21st century. But anyway.

To start with the beginning: It was very interesting how much happened before the opening credits, but it worked pretty well. On the other hand, the way they set things up made it impossible to use the classic gun barrel shot in the opening credits and it had to be reserved for the ending instead. A bit disappointing. I thought Adele's song was perfect. It harkened back to the days of classic Bond, very smooth and sexy. Unfortunately, the imagery on the credits was just too much. It tried to blend modern elements with the classic elements, and it just made me feel like I was getting sea sick in Willy Wonka's tunnel, if you know what I mean. It's unfortunate because some pieces were exactly right, and if they hadn't been so ADD and emphasized those elements, the credits could have been just right. (Therefore Casino Royale still wins for credit images and music!) As for the rest of the score, Thomas Newman is one of my favorites of course, and I thought he did a good job of fitting in rather than standing out, which worked for the film.

Of course Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond, and this was a great movie. There was tons of action, but it didn't feel like too much like Thunderball did. The opening chase through Istanbul via car, motorcycle, foot, and train was awesome. I mean awesome. This is the first time I've seen Ola Rapace (former husband of Noomi) in action, and he did his scenes well. Sadly I don't think he had the opportunities for close-up facial acting like the parkour runner of Casino Royale did. Still, his scenes with Craig were sweet. They have another fight in Shanghai with all this neon lighting in the background so there is this amazing silhouette effect going on as well. (Craig later has a silhouette scene against a backdrop of fire which is also sweet.) So anyway, there is a lot of action and it is all beautifully choreographed and filmed. It was just a joy to watch.

The acting was also good. I was especially fond of Naomie Harris as Eve. (I saw where they were going with her character from a million miles away, so that was kind of disappointing, but she still stood out.) Her chemistry with Craig was also great. Judi Dench... what can I say? Daniel Craig was of course magnificent. And Javier Bardem... wow. The guy has creepy down to an art form! The cadence of his voice, his mannerisms, everything about him was just... yeah. Also of note was the chemistry between Bond and Q.

The plot was great, but I also wanted more more more! There was all this hinting about M's past, and a little comes to light, but it just wasn't enough. Ditto Bond's. I can't say much more without giving a lot away. In fact, almost everything I want to say is a spoiler! I will finish by saying that there was a hinted return to the "glory days" of Bond. They were clearly testing out some one liners, a classic Aston Martin showed up, certain characters appeared. It should be interesting to see where things go from here.

Rating: 4.5

Thunderball (1965, UK)

At first I was enjoying this movie, but to be honest I think the ending completely killed it. I'm glad to see elsewhere online that I'm not the only one to think that while the underwater fight sequences were cool, they dragged on and on to the point where I honestly lost interest. My attention drifted for awhile before I snapped back and watched the last few minutes.

Until then, it was pretty clever. I liked SPECTRE's complicated plan to steal a NATO plane and two nuclear weapons, which was complicated and bordering on ridiculous but still strangely plausible. I liked Largo and his lair, complete with man-eating shark pool. I liked his mistress Domino, who is essentially trapped with Largo, her role in Bond's mission, and her penchant for only black and white clothes. The early part of the movie where Bond is recovering from injuries at a health-spa type place was interesting because it showed that he was only human (although I could have done without the jetpack escape from the fight that put him there).

Overall it was a good one, but I could have used more traveling and edited-down underwater sequences.

Rating: 3.5

Notting Hill (1999, UK)

I was reading (and loving) this book called From Notting Hill with Love... Actually by Ali McNamara, basically a chick lit whose main character loves chick flicks. Of course she mentions this one constantly, and since I've never seen it, I decided to give it a go.

So, eh. To start with, I just have never seen the appeal in Hugh Grant. Sure, I liked him in Bridget Jones as the skeazy Daniel Cleaver, and he's definitely attractive, but his nice guy roles are never that enjoyable to me. I like Julia Roberts quite a bit, and one of my all-time favorite chick flicks is My Best Friend's Wedding, but for some reason I had a bad feeling about this one. Maybe it's the smirk she has on in poster.

Yeah, the concept was cute, but I wouldn't it make more sense for a chick flick to be about a famous man falling for a normal woman, instead of vice versa? I mean, that would make the predominant audience swoon. (Though I do love a man in a bookstore!)  And the whole romance was really sweet. The spilling orange juice, the awkwardness of the first meeting... but then she randomly kisses him and it feels very disjointed, and that's the whole basis for their continuing relationship. I feel like if the initial attraction made more sense and flowed more smoothly, the good parts about the rest of it would have seemed great. (For instance, him having to interview her and pretending to be a journalist from Horse & Hound!)

And okay, I always say that I love Rhys Ifans and he is an under-appreciated actor, but in this case, I had too much of him the second he was on the screen. His character is dirty, both literally and figuratively, and he just made my skin crawl. Why was he there? Sure he made Hugh Grant's character look even more charming (and normal!) in comparison, but for the most part his ewwww factor completely took away from the story. For that alone, I went from a 3.0 to a 2.5.

There are better chick flicks out there. I need to go have a Bridget Jones lovefest to rinse this one out of my brain. And just as a side note, in case anyone is even reading this or cares, apparently there's going to be a third Bridget Jones movie. Now that's what I call good news!

Rating: 2.5

Goldfinger (1964, UK)

This movie was so stupid but it was my favorite one so far! I mean, the superspy has to stop a fat German guy who is a bit crazy, kills women by dipping them in gold, and plans to break into Fort Knox! (Not to mention Oddjob, his nutso Korean henchman who can kill people with a fling of his razor-sharp bowler hat!) A fellow movie buff said that if I thought that Dr. No was bad I would hate this one, but somehow its common elements (corny villain in a corny lair, mostly) were terrible in Dr. No but good here.

The locations weren't so exciting here. Switzerland was nice, but then it was Florida, Baltimore, and Kentucky. I guess that's exotic to a posh guy from Britain. Still, the model of Fort Knox was pretty realistic looking, which was cool.

An interesting aspect of this one was Pussy Galore and her Flying Circus. First, Honor Blackman is still the oldest Bond girl ever cast, and yet I thought she was sexier than many I've seen. It might have been her voice. Second, her female pilots are very girl power. Sure, they wear stupid sexy outfits, but they're pilots. That's pretty impressive for 1964. (I gather in the book they were acrobats and cat burglars, so this was a definite upgrade.) I thought that her manner, crew of self-reliant ladies, and initial disinterest in Bond all subtly suggested lesbianism, but quickly dismissed it from my mind. However, turns out the Pussy Galore of the book actually was gay. Now that really is risky for the 1960s, though it certainly explains the name (and why she doesn't fling herself at Bond like a bimbo). So far she's my favorite Bond girl because she's so self-possessed, self-assured, and self-aware. (Of course plot-wise I still love Vesper Lynd, but she's not exactly her own woman.)

So the verdict here is ridiculous but good!

Rating: 4.0

From Russia with Love (1963, UK)

I definitely liked this more than Dr. No because there was more plot and less ridiculous villain's lair. Basically he knows that the Soviets are trying to ensnare him with a sexy female agent, but MI6 is so desperate for the decoding device she has that they don't care.

After a weak start in the Caribbean in the first movie, Bond really starts his travels here—Istanbul, Venice, Zagreb... There are also scenes in Russia, though he's not there. Sure the less than crystal-clear quality that we're used to in modern movies and the dated clothing might have taken a bit away, but I still loved the scenery. I think the ability to see the world is one of the best things about the Bond movies.

We also begin to see here that Bond has friends conveniently placed throughout the world (most of whom turn out to be jovial middle aged men) and that while he treats women as disposable when it comes to sex, he does care about women as people too. (Exhibit: worry over fate of Russian spy.)

Things are looking up as I continue to work my way through Bond.

Rating: 3.5

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

W./E. (2011, UK)

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

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

My Week with Marilyn (2011, U.S.)

I've never been a big Marilyn Monroe fan. Not that I don't like her, just that I've never really seen any of her movies for some reason. I think the only two I've seen are Monkey Business (which she's hardly in at all) and The Misfits, during which I was busy scrutinizing Clark Gable's performance. Still, Michelle Williams got lots of awards nods for this, and everyone knows that I adore Eddie Redmayne, so I gave it a try.

It was quite good, and certainly interesting. The authenticity of Williams' performance was somewhat eery at times, particularly in Monroe's vulnerable or unguarded moments. (A scene of her innocently singing in the bath especially sticks in my mind.) It really says something about her caliber as an actress that the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench seemed to pale in comparison. Her talent continues to surprise me, and I don't know why. Still, this performance stands out, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the role posterity remembers her for.

The plot was really engaging, as a troubled but spectacularly famous woman spends a week falling in love with (and breaking the heart of) a younger, less worldly man—and probably her own too. The insight into celebrity and personhood were fascinating. Redmayne and Williams certainly had chemistry, but it was a delicate, fragile, newborn sort of chemistry... which of course worked perfectly for the film. I feel no need to mention that Redmayne was very good, although for once he didn't steal the show. Williams was just that good.

I enjoyed the score a lot as well. It seemed fairly piano heavy, lightly jazzy, very 1950s. It fit perfectly with the film. This is the first work of Conrad Pope's that I've heard, so I'm curious to hear more. Speaking of 1950s, I will mention that sets, props, and costumes were also historically delicious. Every element of this piece just comes together wonderfully to immerse the viewer in the era. Really, delicious is the perfect word for that lovely 1950s feel.

When you get down to it, not much actually happens here, and even less is resolved, but the whole film is a wonderful character study and that is what made it so great. I would certainly recommend it.

Rating: 4.0

Glorious 39 (2009, UK)

I'm not sure where to begin with this one. It was a brilliant idea with beautifully done cinematography and an absolutely stellar cast (such a good cast, in fact, that I didn't have room to tag them all), but somehow it just didn't click for me.

The plot is just a bit too confusing to explain, so it's difficult to review this one. Suffice is to say that the first half of the film had me hooked, but I spent the second half scrambling to keep up and untangle the plot in general and the characters' motivations in particular. The cast was brilliant: Romola Garai, Eddie Redmayne, Bill Nighy, Christopher Lee, Jeremy Northam, Charlie Cox, David Tennant, Julie Christie... just fabulous. They worked well as individual actors and as an ensemble. The WWII-era costuming and sets were very well done, and some of the details perfectly illustrated the horror of the time and of Anne's experience in particular. (The house pets being put to sleep during the war and the displaced diplomats' children were especially vivid.)

This film had amazing, amazing potential, but the pieces just didn't fall into place for me. I wanted to like it. I loved parts of it. But the whole was just incomplete (if you'll excuse the obvious contradiction).

Rating: 2.5

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

Like Minds (2006, UK/Australia)

I definitely have to watch this one again, because even though I know what happened, I need to know why. This is a very dark, layered, psychological drama.

Det. Mackenzie (Roxburgh) calls Sally (Toni Collette), a forensic psychiatrist, into his investigation to psycholanalyze teenage Alex (Redmayne) to determine whether he could be guilty of murdering his disturbed/disturbing classmate Nigel (Sturridge). In a series of interview sessions, she learns the story of their twisted, complicated relationship, discovering that though dead, Nigel's psychological effect on Alex is undiminished. Despite all evidence to the contrary, she begins to seriously doubt his guilt.

Practically everything about this film, an independent drama by a first-time director, was incredible. One thing that especially struck me was the haunting score. It had this sort of ethereal female voice mixed with low orchestral instruments that truly captured the disturbing tone of the film. The dark lighting with a few splashes of color for emphasis further added to the tone.

The cast was a mixed bag. The school boys, Strurridge and Redmayne, were brilliant. It's true that I have a bit of a weakness for Redmayne, but he truly is a genius. In this role he walks the line between the innocently accused and the psychotic guilty, as the viewer isn't meant to know which he is until the end. Roxburgh was passable; he was a run-of-the-mill police inspector and didn't stand out one way or the other, which I expect was the intent. The most unfortunate cast member was Collette, who was supposed to be a great and compassionate psychiatrist but who was mostly wooden and underwhelming.

I was very interested in the title, which was originally Like Minds in the UK and Australia (it was a co-production) and was changed to Murderous Intent in the United States. The title can significantly change the way you interpret a film as you watch it, and it is especially true of this film and these titles.

Overall, this was an intense, brooding, disturbing, dark, creepy film, and it definitely stayed with me after I watched it. I get chills just thinking about it. This is another one I really need to watch again, knowing how it ends. I think I would have given this one a higher rating if the adults were better actors and some of the plot (mostly the secret society weirdness) wasn't so out in left field.

Those who are easily (or even not-so-easily) disturbed should beware, but if you love having your skin crawl, this is well worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

The Bad Mother's Handbook (2007, UK)

This was a really surprising and wonderful film, especially for a made-for-TV deal. It's about being a mother (as the title implies), but I think it was also about being a daughter too. Karen is a 33-year-old teacher's assistant who wants to go to Paris, and when she gets her birth certificate for her visa, she finds out she was adopted. Meanwhile her daughter Charlotte, who was born when Karen was 16, breaks up with her boyfriend when she finds out he's cheating, only to find out that she's pregnant.

That's what it's about, but it's not really about what it's about. It's more about the relationships, how they process their feelings, how their relationships with their mothers affected their own motherhood, why they made the choices they did. What they do becomes irrelevant, or perhaps inevitable. It's subtly and beautifully done. I especially loved the grandmother, who was obviously suffering from some sort of dementia and chattered to imaginary companions all day, mostly about her memories of Karen as a girl.

I think all mothers and daughters can appreciate this film, even if you weren't adopted, a teen mother, or a combination or product of these situations. Men play a very limited role in this film. Even Daniel (a lovable loser, portrayed in a perfectly understated performance by Robert Pattinson), who becomes Charlotte's friend, helper, and quiet but strong support, is a very unobtrusive presence for such a central figure.

In fact, the whole thing had an understated simplicity that you just can't help but appreciate. I teared up a few times, I'll admit. A moving, authentic work.

Rating: 4.0

Death at a Funeral (2007, UK)

This one was different from the opening credits. I absolutely adored the score, which was fun and familiar sounding. It was cheerful and upbeat, yet slightly ominous at the same time.

Death at a Funeral is very British and an interesting ensemble drama. When a large family gathers for a funeral, there are all kind of interesting dynamics going on, from fighting couples to competing brothers to love triangles to hidden secrets that cause all kinds of trouble.

You'll laugh out loud, you might tear up a little, and your jaw will definitely drop multiple times. See it to believe it!

Also, I love Alan Tudyk. Love him.

Rating: 3.5

The Escapist (2008, UK)

This was a great cerebral drama. It's hard to elaborate on the best points without giving away the ending, but suffice is to say that a lot of the elements that don't feel quite right suddenly make way too much sense in the end.

Frank Perry is more than 10 years into a life sentence without parole, and he decides to escape when his estranged daughter becomes ill. He gets a group of cons together and they arrange an escape. After they leave the prison, the rest of the film takes place in the tunnels, sewers, and underground rivers of subterranean London.

The acting is phenomenal, of course. I've never been a huge fan of Brian Cox, but he was pretty great as Frank Perry. Dominic Cooper is strong as the sexually abused young new con, and Joseph Fiennes is, as always, one of the best actors of all time.

Most of the action seemed to be shot with a hand-held camera, and it made it feel like it was a first-person account of the breakout.

I expected a twist at the end, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what pieces weren't lining up. When the twist came, I was floored. It was one of those endings that made the whole film incredible. Good stuff.

Rating: 4.0

The Last Station (2009, UK)

It's really hard to explain what this film is "about." Basically it follows the last days of Leo Tolstoy's life, his relationship with his wife, and his relationship with his closest friends and advisers. He's torn between revolutionary ideals and taking care of his family's needs.

Using Tolstoy's secretary (played by a very talented James McAvoy) and his relationship with a fellow revolutionary as a sort of contrast to the relationship of the aging Tolstoy and his long-time wife is very effective.

With a cast of very talented actors, a unique historical story, and a realistic period feel, this was an enjoyable film.

Rating: 3.5