W./E. (2011, UK)

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4.0

One Day (2011, U.S.)

I had been looking forward to this movie for ages. I read a review of the book in Library Journal or Booklist last year before it was first published in the U.S., bought it for the library, and read it as soon as it came out. I loved it. Of the 122 books I read last year, it was one of only 7 that I gave five stars to. I thought the concept, the writing, the everything was absolutely stellar. Therefore, I guess it was inevitable that the movie could only pale in comparison.

I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)

I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)

Rating: 3.5

Black Death (2010, Germany)

Ew. Ick. Ugh. Why did I watch this movie? Oh yeah, medieval tale featuring Sean Bean and Eddie Redmayne should have been a win.

Admittedly, the plague is not exactly a cheerful subject, but did it have to be quite so gory? And violent? And graphic? I've read a lot of reviews that talk about how detailed and well-written the plot was, but to me it was very thin and more of a loose frame for repeated and senseless violence. It was almost too simple and too complex (in the sense that it was a huge stretch to work out the point). Calling it "gothic horror" just seems too generous to me.

Of course, as I mentioned (and as should be obvious to anyone who follows my movie-viewing preferences), the main reason I watched this one was for the actors. Sean Bean is the man. Or he usually is. In this one he was just a gruff, violent fanatic with an agenda, and it didn't suit him at all. Eddie Redmayne (as evidenced in previous posts) is my newest favorite actor, and I've yet to see any role to which he didn't do justice. This one might have been the first. He was good, but not great. (Though to be fair, it could have been a poorly written script. It was a bit over the top.) Still, his normal talent shone through here and there. There's one spot in particular where he does something irrevocable (I won't go into further detail to avoid spoilers), and when he realizes what he's been manipulated into doing, his response is classic Redmayne. Well played.

Even the most devoted Bean/Redmayne fans probably want to avoid this one. I want to wash my eyeballs after seeing this violent plague-fest.

Rating: 1.5

The King's Speech (2010, U.S.)

The trailer for this film was pretty badly done, if you ask me. I still went to see it because I knew that any film with Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter had to be a winner. On top of that, what could be better than a film about a relatively unknown part of British history?

What can I say? Obviously those three were fantastic, as were most of the supporting actors. The chemistry between Firth and Rush was especially wonderful, particularly in their therapy sessions. The film was enlightening. It was well written. The score meshed perfectly. The cinematography was beautiful. I felt like I'd stepped into the 1930s. Sure, it wasn't the most fast-paced movie. But it was engaging and moving and informative and even somewhat inspiring. I knew it was going to sweep Best Picture and the Best Actors at the Oscars.

This one was a very unsurprising surprise, if you will, and well worth watching.

Rating: 4.0

The Pillars of the Earth (2010, U.S.)

I can't even begin to describe how wonderful this mini-series was. I worried about it doing justice to the novel, one of the greatest books I've read in my life. Thankfully, I had the benefit of watching this several years after reading the book, so it wasn't as fresh in my mind as it could have been, leaving me able to judge the series for itself. It was definitely watered down, but not in a bad way. For instance, the novel largely lost my interest at the end when it spiraled into an obsessive religious recounting of the murder of Thomas a Becket, whereas the mini-series focused on the beauty and glory of the completed cathedral, a much more important aspect of the work, if you ask me.

It was a truly magnificent undertaking. The historic backdrop (I loved that Maud, a personal favorite historical figure of mine, was not made out to be a villain), the setting, the varied individuals who the viewer becomes invested in or quickly comes to hate, the perfect and often moving music (one perfect step shy of majestic, sometimes moving, often reflective of the monastic setting). Love scenes, tragic deaths, wife beatings, and the like were handled well, painting a vivid portrait but still tasteful and not too graphic. (Some of the battles I thought were a little much, with sprays of too-bright blood, but not enough to take away from the overall effect.) In addition to the beautiful scenery, the costuming (and makeup in particular) were incredible. They did a wonderful job of subtly aging characters. And even though the plot was significantly condensed to fit into 8 hours, the writing was often beautiful and the plot clear. Wonderful.

However, the truly overwhelming part of the series was the actors. Ian McShane and Donald Sutherland were as great as I have come to expect. Several actors, particularly Natalia Wörner (Ellen), Hayley Atwell (Aliena), and Matthew Macfayden (Prior Phillip), who were previously unknown to me, were pleasantly surprising and perfect for their roles. Rufus Sewell, who I've seen in many films and always respected, never would have crossed my mind as the man to play Tom Builder, but seeing him I can't imagine anyone else playing the role anymore. He was spectacular. This entire ensemble had such chemistry, melding together to truly bring the world of Kingsbridge to life. You feel the frustration, fear, love, anger, hope, faith, and all the other powerful emotions driving the lives of these men and women as they struggle for happiness in an unfair world. Almost magical, really.

But the real star of the show was Eddie Redmayne (Jack Jackson). I think I'm in love. (In other words, I am greatly anticipating following his career.) I had seen him before in minor roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and The Other Boleyn Girl (they sure do love him for British historical!) and something about his face struck me enough to remember him from one to the other to this one. He truly has the most incredible face, beyond perfect to portray Jack. He has very strong jaw and cheek bones (okay, a weakness for me!) that give him just enough sexiness to explain the girls' attraction to him, but he also has the freckles and red hair and puppy dog eyes that give him the air of an innocent, sweet little boy who is originally a near-mute for shyness. Really, what a face. Anyway, as I said I've only seen him in minor roles before, so this is the first time I've been able to see some real acting, and saying I was impressed would be a huge understatement. He was Jack Builder. I can't explain it better than that. From the near-mute young man to the growing artist to the man in love to the fulfilled and successful builder, he played every aspect of Jack's maturing character with such artistry. I was really in awe. (I probably don't need to tell you that there will probably be many Eddie Redmayne films reviewed here in the next few weeks.)

I can only say that this series was sensational. I struggled to stretch it out, and I managed to split it into three days. It was difficult, because I was so engrossed I wanted to completely submerge myself in it, but I loved it so much I wanted to make it last. So three days wasn't too bad!

I can't do it justice. If you love historical drama, well told stories, exceptional acting, beautiful settings (I didn't even mention how extraordinary the cathedral was!), you must watch this. Powerful, wonderful stuff. I just loved it.

Rating: 5.0

The Court Jester (1955, U.S.)

I saw this film for the first time when I was 10 years old, and I loved it from that moment until this day.

Danny Kaye was a funny, talented man, and this one showcases his talent like nothing I've ever seen.

The basic plot is that the rightful kind of England, an infant with a purple pimpernel birthmark, has had his throne taken by an evil man. A group in the forest, led by a Robin Hood-type character, is trying to restore the throne to the baby. Somehow, a sweet and somewhat simple man named Hawkins (Kaye) ends up posing as the king's new court jester, to infiltrate the court. The princess falls for Hawkins, the king falls for Hawkins' partner in crime, the princess's maid is a witch who starts casting spells and poisoning cups. This is where one of the best comic scenes in history happens. "The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle. The chalice from the palace is the brew that is true!" But then one cup breaks, and we have to worry about the flagon with the dragon!

Add song, dance, more witty dialogue, and some classic physical comedy and this has to be one of the best comedies of all time. Like I said, I love it.

Rating: 4.5

The Duchess (2008, UK)

I am almost embarrassed to say that I was not familiar with Georgiana Spencer's story before I saw this film, and I didn't realize it was going to be a huge depression-fest.

Still, it was absolutely wonderful. Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes are both brilliant actors, of course. Even if the rest of the film was horrible (which it wasn't), those two would make the entire thing worthwhile. Their portrayls of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire were incredible. The duke was vile, the duchess sympathetic. I really cannot say enough about them, so I won't say anything. Well, maybe one thing—both of them look amazing in wigs. Fiennes looked like he was born to his powdered wig, and Knightley is never better than when she's in a historic role, with gorgeous dresses and fancy hair.

The entire visual aspect of the film was beautiful. Costumes, scenery, everything. The 18th century is probably my favorite when it comes to aesthetics, and this film didn't disappoint. Rachel Portman's score was complementary and not overwhelming.

I enjoyed the historic drama, as I usually do. But in the last couple of years, I have become more interested in the Foxite era, although I haven't had much opportunity to get into it. So to have that background to this story was quite interesting.

And the plot was a really heartbreaking look at the life of one woman whose husband flaunted his mistress in front of her, who was denied her one true love, and who sacrificed everything for her children. It was beautiful and sad and wonderful. Definitely bittersweet. And the Duchess of Devonshire was an admirable, strong woman. A great character. A great film.

Rating: 4.0

Rancid Aluminium (2000, UK)

What a strange movie. I'm not sure if there was a point. There was a plot, but at the end all I could think was, "Why?" The major idea of the movie was that a man (Ifan)'s father dies and leaves him the family company, even though the son's best friend (Fiennes) put more work into the company. The friend is jealous and smart. So he convinces the son that they're going bankrupt and enlists Russian mobsters to (it seems) steal his friend's money and then kill him.

His motivations made no sense. The Russians' role made no sense. The son's affair with the mobster's daughter made no sense. The vague ending made no sense.

I guess this just wasn't my cup of tea, but it did have Joseph Fiennes in it, so I had to try. (Random note: I think they trimmed his eyelashes so he wasn't as attractive. Some attention to detail!) The best things about this one were the acting (of course) and the score. It was almost like the score was one big joke. It was overdramatic, diverse, and just plain odd. But it fit perfectly, and really added something. If you're big on original (by which I mean unique) film music, it's worth watching just for that.

Rating: 2.5

Breakfast on Pluto (2005, Ireland)

Now these are the kinds of things I watch when my odd (but wonderful!) friends recommend films to me. We have Jeff to thank for this one.

Breakfast on Pluto is the story of Patrick "Kitten" Braden, whose mother abandons him after his birth—he is the illegitimate child of the priest in the small Irish village. He begins cross-dressing from a young age. He hangs out with other unusual kids—a bohemian girl, a boy with Down's Syndrome, and a future IRA revolutionary. He causes a lot of trouble in his Catholic school. In other words, he's just an odd duck. But he always, always stays true to who he is inside, no matter how much external forces threaten him or not take him seriously. (He continually has to tell people that he can take things seriously, but that they are too serious.)

So Kitten tells the story of how he sets out for England to find his long-lost mother, the strange things that happen to him along the way, and what he really finds in the end. It's about his character, and it's about his journey. That, combined with the interesting method of story-telling (he actually gives chapter titles and tells his own "autobiography") and the "big" themes (gender identity, cultural/Irish national identity), make this film unique. There are touching moments, funny moments, uncomfortable moments... It's just great.

And Cillian Murphy? Wonderful.

Rating: 3.5

I'll Sleep When I'm Dead (2003, UK)

What a cheerful film to watch right before bed. From start to finish, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead was remarkably depressing. It was like one giant meditation on the value of a person, wasted lives, how a city can change one's personality irrevocably. There was rape; there was suicide; there was loss, loss, loss.

Of course, I can't say enough about the acting. Clive Owen and Jonathan Rhys Meyers were both brilliant, of course. JRM was very convincing as a victim whose mind was broken -- it was chilling to watch. Clive Owen spent most of the movie bearded, and while that mostly obscured his facial expression, it only made it that much more obvious how well he can act with just his eyes -- not to mention that expressive voice.


I always like the movies that explore the relationship between brothers, for some reason, and this was no different. It was almost easy to forget that they were brothers, however, since they never share a scene, and their attachment to each other is tentative but strong. Fascinating.

The ending leaves you feeling a bit unresolved and thoughtful. All in all, an interesting piece.

Rating: 3.5