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

Savage Grace (2007, U.S.)

So, here I go on my quest to see every Eddie Redmayne film I can get my hands on! It has to be said that in my (so far limited) experience, he makes any film he's in exceptional.

Savage Grace is based on the real life murder of Barbara Baekeland, wife of the grandson of the inventor of Bakelite plastic. So one goes into this film knowing that young Tony is going to murder his mother in the end, and that what the film is ultimately about is not the destination (as it were) but the journey. The problem is that with the scripting, Tony seems to have very little motivation until the final days before the murder. Yes, he has a pretty bad upbringing, especially considering he's a wealthy child, and yes, his parents alternate between suffocating and neglectful, but still. The motivation just didn't seem that strong, nor was his mental illness that apparent. Watching this, I wouldn't have been surprised to hear he murdered his father rather than his mother; that's how off it seems.

It's interesting that much of what is presented in the movie never happened according to some firsthand accounts, and even the murder wasn't staged as it was occurred actuality. In this case, I think the true story would have made for much more gripping drama.

Parts of this film were extraordinary. For instance, as they take snapshots of this affluent life in the 1940s through the 1970s, the subtle changes in dress, decoration, and the like are very well done. And of course, acting is key here. Brooks Baekeland wasn't very memorable and Tony's grandmother was good (though she played a minor role). Hugh Dancy stood out as a gay man who was a sort of professional society companion. Julianne Moore, a very talented woman, was both lovable and loathe-able as Barbara Baekeland, a perfect combination. And Eddie Redmayne, of course, was brilliant beyond words. Watching him murder his mother, pick up the phone to order takeout, and then eat out of the white Chinese box with chopsticks while sitting next to his mother's body is just chilling. The combination of vulnerability and ruthlessness, childishness and maturity, is especially striking when portrayed by his genius. He really makes this one worth watching.

Rating: 3.0

Europa Europa (1990, Germany)

This film would be almost funny if it wasn't so tragic, which is probably why almost every description one can find about it uses the term "irony." Everything that happens to young Solomon simply strains credulity, and yet they're true. As he stumbles from Germany to Poland, as he ends up in a communist Russian boarding school, as he ends up a war hero in the Nazi army, as a Hitlerjunge. But always he is a scared, lonely boy who is hiding his true identity from a world at war, and it is impossible not to become deeply invested in his story and to hope his deception is powerful enough.

Marco Hofschneider was perfect as the sweet, innocent, scared, lost boy.

The music sounded familiar, though I couldn't place it, and it definitely fit the plot. It sounds like something serious and bad is inevitably, inexorably creeping toward him, one step at a time, just like he's always one step from discovery in every situation he finds himself. It's the sound of Fate steadily closing in.

I would recommend this wonderful, powerful film to anyone and everyone. Truly incredible.

Rating: 4.0

Speak (2004, U.S.)

I feel like I am always saying this, but anyone who underestimates Kristen Stewart is an idiot. I have never seen this more clearly proven then watching this film, in which she plays a high school freshman who was raped. She can't speak about it, and becomes selectively mute. Meanwhile, her friends turn against her, her parents don't understand her, her teachers either pick on her or don't notice her.

The range of emotion Stewart portrays, from sheer joy with her friends, to terror, to emptiness, to courage, to a million other infinitesimally different ones, is beautiful. Her face is just incredibly expressive. It's just as interesting to watch her face as she walks down the street as to watch scenes where more action happens. I could rave about her performance forever.

The various devices the filmmakers use to tell the story are artfully employed. The mixed use of flashback and first person narration voiceover is very successful in painting a haunting picture of the mental condition of a traumatized girl. So too is the use of tree symbolism, although the whole "healing through art" thing is rather overdone in film, if you ask me. Lastly, the music was lovely and understated, setting just the right mood.

This film took a very painful subject and made it accessible to teenagers. It was heart-wrenching without being cliche. It was moving, especially because the main character was the perfect balance of fragile and strong.

I would strongly recommend this film. Especially if you want to see a 13-year-old with as much talent as a classically trained, middle-aged woman.

Rating: 4.0

Snatch. (2000, UK)

I watched this movie because Brad Pitt is in it. I had absolutely no idea what it was about before I watched it, and I was a bit shocked. Essentially, it's one big heist film. There's a diamond, and there are a bunch of different people who want it. Insert varying amounts of comedy and drama, much intrigue and plotting, and general randomness.

I kind of liked it. It was quite complex and well-planned. On the other hand, the violence was just a bit too much for me, as is often the case. However, if you like violent flicks about crime with more than a touch of comedy, this is definitely a good one to see. I can recognize that it is great for what it is.

Rating: 2.5

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, U.S.)

This film was truly stunning. It was creative and original. The cinematography was beautiful. The acting was fantastic. The makeup is a shoo-in for an Oscar for sure. The music could have been stronger, considering it was composed by Alexandre Desplat (one of my favorites), but it was really wonderful too.

I cannot say enough about Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt—they are truly phenomenal actors. Both play their characters from their mid-teens to very old age (although in Pitt's case, his external and internal ages are the exact opposite), and they do so in the most convincing manner, even down to aging their voices.

The plot of this film was multi-layered. On the one hand, you have a man who is discovering himself and life in a much different way than everyone else does. He is lonely and feels like an outcast because of his special circumstances. He is wise as a "young man" because he's learned so much from the perspective of an elderly man. On the other hand, you have a great love story about star-crossed lovers who have terrible timing but who are fated to be together. And if you had a third hand, on that hand would be the meaning of family and its discovery in unlikely places. Life lessons and romance all mixed together with a mostly serious—though sometimes playful—tone.

If I had to recommend one movie from 2008, this would probably be it. I look forward to seeing how many Oscars this one can grab!

Rating: 5.0

Australia (2008, Australia)

I have been looking forward to this film for years, quite literally. It was wonderful, as I expected. Other than that, there was little that was what I expected.

Australia is definitely an epic. It's about a country, yes. But it's also about a woman, a man, a little boy, an old Aborigine. It's about love and about hate. Family, friendship, business, war, hardship, tradition, culture, belonging. It definitely felt like a loving tribute to a way of life that is no more. In that way, it was the romance it was marketed as. But the romance was not between Kidman and Jackman, but between the filmmakers and their homeland.

It goes without saying that the acting was phenomenal, but I'll say it anyway. Nicole Kidman is one of my all time favorites, and she was in perfect form. At the beginning of the film, she is amusingly uptight, but by the end she is a self-assured, strong woman who knows her priorities. She plays both roles with equal strength. Kidman definitely overshadows Jackman, although he too is quite good in his role as The Drover (he's never given a proper name, which somewhat annoys me). The real star of the show, however, was Brandon Walters, the boy who plays Nullah, a half-aboriginal child that Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) meets in Australia. He was absolutely charming and a stunning actor, especially considering it was his first project. The rest of the cast was also great. There were many minor Australian actors that I recognized that others probably wouldn't, but I enjoyed seeing them in such a high-profile film. And it was good to see David Wenham in a major supporting role, since I haven't seen him in awhile; he was even great as a bad guy.

As I said about the acting, the backdrop of this saga was also phenomenal, obviously. Luhrman truly captured the rugged majesty of the outback, the incredible sight of 1500 head of cattle being droved, the horror of war (when the town of Darwin is bombed), and all the rest. It was visually stunning, to say the very least. I really don't know how else to say it.

And to the main event—the plot. I expected Australia to be all about the romance between Kidman and Jackman. Instead, it was about a woman from England who discovers the magical draw of the land down under. She meets a half-caste boy who doesn't fit in anywhere and who needs a mother. She meets a strongly independent man to love, a man who loves her back as an equal partner. She learns about what's worth fighting for, and she finds herself as well. It is a beautiful story.

And of course I have to say something about the score, which was composed by David Hirschfelder. The only film I can think of off the top of my head that Hirschfelder scored is Elizabeth, in which he did an incredible job integrating a period feel. I think the same can be said of the Australia score. It also had a markedly old western feel. At times it was just incredibly overstated and upbeat, such as when they head off droving. It was kind of off-putting at first, but I decided that it was well orchestrated. It made it seem as if the film was produced in the era it depicted, which was kind of cool.

I thought that the best part of Australia was how The Wizard of Oz is wound through the plot. Sarah tells Nullah the story to comfort him, and he relates "Somewhere over the Rainbow," which she sings to him, to his culture's ideas of dreaming and stories. The song weaves through the entire movie and one line from The Wizard of Oz reappears in the dialogue. They eventually see the film at the theater. And of course, Nullah (who narrates the film—another element I love), is telling his own story of "a land called Oz." It was beautifully integrated.

See this one.

Rating: 4.5

Aimée & Jaguar (1999, Germany)

As I mentioned in my last post, Blockbuster loves recommending films to me. For some reason, it really thinks that I like "gay interest" films, as they're labeled. But hey, I'm open-minded, so I watch them.

This film is about a Jewess and the wife of Nazi soldier (also called a "conformist") who fall in love during the later years of World War II. They create a little domestic world for themselves with the conformist's children and a tight group of lesbian friends.

And that's enough to fill two hours of film. Imagine all of the obstacles faced by these two—the Nazi party, the one's Jewishness, their lesbianism, the conformist's husband, the Jewess's jealous ex-girlfriend... Quite fascinating.

The film is based on a true story, taken from the memoirs of the conformist. and yet the film is narrated by the Jewess's ex-girlfriend as an old woman (who meets the conformist in a nursing home in Berlin). This combination gives an already unique film an interesting twist.

I would recommend this film for those who like history, thwarted romance, films told in flashbacks, or gay interest pieces.

Rating: 3.5

Love, Honour, and Obey (2000, UK)

What a weird one from Natural Nylon. But then, I guess you couldn't expect anything else. A clash of London gangters. Violence, profanity, sex jokes, friendships, love, marriage... Jonny Lee Miller narrates the film in a clown costume. Scenes of all of the characters singing karaoke are spliced into the main storyline. Jude and Jonny's friendship is paralleled to Sadie and Ray's pending nuptials. (Hence the "love, honour, and obey.")

I read a review of this on imdb, and the reviewer said "It wasn't bad. It wasn't good." And that's about what I thought of it. Parts of it were really brilliant—the time structure, the random karaoke and clown-narration scenes, the relationship foil, the ongoing erectile dysfunction side plot (now there was a surprise). On the other hand, it seemed too violent, too vulgar, too unrealistic, too pointless. So not good, not bad. On the other hand, I am curious to see some other Natural Nylon productions now.

I don't really know what else to say about this one. It is definitely one of a kind, if nothing else.

Rating: 3.0

The Human Stain (2003, U.S.)

I saw this movie on TV a couple of years ago and had an overall good impression of it, but I didn't see the whole thing from the beginning. So I decided to watch it again. (Also, I needed a bit of a Wentworth fix before Prison Break stated back on Monday... but that's a post for another day.)

To begin with, The Human Stain has a stellar cast—Sir Anthony Hopkins, Nicole Kidman, Wentworth Miller, Gary Sinise. Even Ed Harris, who I normally could live without, is quite good in this film. Add to that a wonderful score by Rachel Portman, who's one of my favorites. (Little surprise here—Portman has been nominated for two Oscars and has won a third... the first woman to do so.) So all in all, the film just couldn't be bad.

And the plot is also quite great. Coleman Silk, a seemingly white man born of black parents, living his life as a Jewish classics professor, is accused of making a racist remark, which costs him his wife and his career. Nobody knows about his heritage, but the viewer discovers it through flashbacks of his young adulthood. (Enter Wentworth Miller, who was great in this role. Interestingly, Miller's father is supposedly black, though you may not know it to look at him. I bet this role was strange for him.) At this point, other people start coming into Silk's life. A white-trash woman (Kidman) with an abusive ex-husband (Harris) and a closet full of skeletons. A novelist (Sinise) suffering from writer's block and hiding out from the world.

Through his interactions with these people and the accompanying flashbacks, Silk's history slowly unfolds. It's about racial idenity and living a lie and how it changes a person and his life. It was really well crafted, yet I found myself wanting more. I felt like I was having to make to many connections / analyze too much myself. It just could have had more... something. I feel like I need to read the book to get the whole story now. In fact, I think I will.

So I liked it, but I could have liked it more.

Rating: 3.5

Gone Baby Gone (2007, U.S.)

I have to agree with what a lot of people have been saying—Ben Affleck makes a much better director than actor. His brother is definitely the better actor. Still, even though I'd seen Casey Affleck in plenty of movies before, since seeing The Assassination of Jesse James, I've been unable to think of him as anyone but Robert Ford. Once I get used to him as a new character, I definitely begin to enjoy the new movie more.

I don't have much to say about this film. It was okay. It wasn't quite "just another mystery," but it was close. There were definitely more (and better) twists, but I spent a lot of the movie not quite sure what was going on, so it was hard to enjoy. Once I got to the ending and it all came together, I thought "Wow, good stuff." It just took too long to get there. The ending definitely leaves you something to think about and discuss over the dinner table though.

Other positive aspects of the movie: cast/acting, score by Harry Gregson-Williams (who I've loved since the brilliant Kingdom of Heaven score)—especially "Opening," end credits song by Alexi Murdoch (who I also love, and I wish I could get my hands on this new song), and... that's about it. So pretty much the cast and the music.

Besides the deep philosophical/moral questions I was left with after this film, I did have one other question: why does every movie I see that takes place in Boston involve squalor, crime, and corrupted cops/politicians, etc.? I used to think Boston was a nice place, until I started watching movies. Hmmm.

Rating: 3.0

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

We Are Marshall (2006, U.S.)

I meant to see this movie when it came to the dollar theater, but I never quite made it. (Main attraction being, of course, Matthew Fox.) Mom bought it recently, so I finally got to see it, two years later.

It was okay. I mean, it was sad, vaguely hopeful, and Matthew Fox was in it. Past that, it could have used more of everything. I felt like I spent a lot of the movie reading emotion into the characters that wasn't actually portrayed, just because I thought it should be there. I don't know if this was bad acting, scripting, or directing, but it wasn't nearly as moving as it could have been.

What else is there really to say about this one? If you haven't seen it, you haven't missed much—especially if you're a big fan of the emotional sports films like Remember the Titans, Miracle, and the rest. I guess that's to be expected from a director whose main movie projects were Charlie's Angels—I and II.

It wasn't a total waste of time, but... eh. Maybe I would've liked it better without a raging headache. And if Matthew Fox's horrible dye-job wasn't so distracting.

Rating: 3.0

Wanted (2008, U.S.)

So I would probably see this movie no matter what, because I have a HUGE girl-crush on Angelina Jolie. Also, Atonement got me interested in James McAvoy (only as an actor, I don't think he's gorgeous like some girls do), and I haven't seen him in anything else (with the exception of Wimbledon, in which he had a tiny role). Then there's Morgan Freeman, and you know how I feel about him. Add that all together with a really awesome preview, and I was pretty excited about it.

So here's my recommendation: if you have a weak stomach and want to see this one, bring something to vomit in. It was incredibly violent, and not the stylized, clean, Matrix-type violence I was expecting. It was more much more crude, like 300 but less fake, like No Country for Old Men but more thought out. It was disgusting.

Aside from the violence, everything else was great. The plot was interesting, engaging, and somewhat complex (in a good way); the violence was like a beautiful dance (well, plus the blood and gore); the narration was personal and yet distant (and spot on); and Angelina Jolie was, of course, beyond sexy. Morgan Freeman was in a somewhat god-like position, which is exactly where he belongs. I have definitely decided James McAvoy is a great actor. His character was vaguely reminiscent of Edward Norton's in Fight Club (see below), but it was still him. Great acting all around.

Oh, very interesting note here: while watching the credits, I was shocked to see "Music by Danny Elfman." Of course, I adore Danny Elfman. And I had really liked the score of Wanted. But never in a million years would I have put the two together. Usually I would describe his work as "whimsical," but this was harder, more driven. It almost made me think of techno. I definitely need to re-listen to the score and try to pick out the Elfman in it.

If I had to describe Wanted using other films, I would say that it was like The Matrix (styled violence, bullet time, etc.) mixed with Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Angelina Jolie, assassins, etc.) mixed with Fight Club (violence, narrative style, etc.) And yet it really was unique, one of a kind. Minus the extreme violence (which I just really can't handle), I would've given this one a 4.5. As it is, I can't quite do it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it -- although I could have done either. Which leads us to our default rating.

Did I mention how sexy (and badass) Angelina Jolie was?

Rating: 3.5