All Good Things (2010, U.S.)

Mom and I were looking for something to watch on Netflix, and this popped up while we were scoping out Ryan Gosling movies. Neither of us had ever heard of it, but it sounded interesting and we liked the two main actors. I really enjoyed the first half or so. They explore the characters and their relationships quite well, and it had all the makings of a complex psychological movie. (In fact, something about it really reminded me of another movie, but I can't think of what it was to save my life. Maybe Fractured? Or maybe one of many psychological films featuring Eddie Redmayne—Like Minds, Savage Grace, Glorious 39? I just don't know!)

Gosling was his usual impressive self, particularly in scenes where he was supposed to be demonstrating signs of some sort of mental illness, possibly schizophrenia. Dunst was also very good, sweet and open and a perfect balance to Gosling. Their relationship was very believable. The disintegration of their relationship was very believable. It was executed simply and effectively, and I liked the subtle flashback method that they used as well.

There was just something about the ending that didn't ring true. It felt awkward and fake compared to the rest of the film, which felt honest and real. I think I would have really liked, or even loved, this movie, but I just didn't feel great about the end.

Rating: 3.5

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

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

Blue Valentine (2010, U.S.)

This film was very well done. It reminded me a little bit of Rabbit Hole, in that it was a portrait of a marriage falling apart as the spouses tried to hold onto the pieces. It also had very strong actors in the lead roles. Ryan Gosling (Dean) and Michelle Williams (Cindy) are absolutely phenomenal as a young working class couple, both from dysfunctional families. They've had hard lives and made the best of things, and their marriage seems unlikely, their parenthood more so. I doubt the movie could have been as effective without their superior acting skills, or those of Faith Wladyka, the surprising talented girl who plays their daughter.

The composition also added to the overall effect. Nearly everything seemed dark and gritty. What I know about working class families, I know from the movies, but to me this felt more realistic than any other movie I can remember. From an anniversary at a sex motel to constantly burning cigarettes to riding on the city bus, I felt like I had stepped into this reality that I have never seen. Williams and Gosling were transformed into their characters.

Two other elements that really made the film work were the music and the use of flashbacks. The music seemed to consist of things I could imagine Dean actually listening to, so it felt natural with the plot. The flashbacks give little pieces of Dean and Cindy's early relationship that serve to illustrate both why they fell in love with each other and why little (though widening) cracks have appeared in their marriage.

Like I said, very well done. I think the only reason I didn't give it a higher rating is because I just felt so darn despondent after I watched it. It's strength is in its reality, but I guess I was just not in the mood for such a strong dose.

Rating: 3.0

127 Hours (2010, U.S.)

This was a strangely engaging film, based on a true story that I actually remember from the news at the time. Basically, Aron Ralston goes out hiking alone in the Utah canyons, has his arm pinned under a boulder, and is trapped for five days before he amputates his own arm with a pocketknife. Grim stuff.

The film was very well done. The opening credits were an interesting montage of crowded city scenes and nature, showing a stark contrast. Once the story gets going, it starts out with enough scenes to show Aron's character, a laid-back, easy-going, friendly hiker who is more into being in nature than communicating with humans. Once he gets on his bike out in the canyons, his exuberance is almost contagious. It would make even the most sedentary person want to get out there and do something in nature.

Once he's trapped, I'm a little torn on my feelings. Probably because I have a love/hate relationship with James Franco. During some parts he gives a powerful, moving performance, but at other times it's like he's a stoner who thinks he's James Dean. Way too much. Still, most of the performance is talent rather than melodramatic overacting. This part also has some very interesting and well-used special effects that emphasize his condition. One of the best was from the inside of his water bottle as he sucked the last few milliliters out. It's hard to describe, but it was fantastically done. Then they show a montage as he dreams of going to a party with lots of beer, watching a soda commercial, etc. Basically, it has the effect of making the viewer feel his thirst. Very neat.

Other than these interesting effects and montages, the music was the most phenomenal part. I guess I'm not surprised, coming from the composer of the stellar Slumdog Millionaire score. I don't know how else to describe it except to say that it sounded like America when he looked out over the canyons. And the painful, screeching music used when he cut through his tendons while freeing his arm made me grit my teeth in pain, like it was my arm being severed. Wow.

So overall, quite a well-done film. I don't know if I would call it an inspiring survival story, because that's not what it felt like. It was more like an historical recreation—this is how it was. Even if the former was its intent and it didn't accomplish its aim, it was still a very engaging, thoughtful movie.

Rating: 3.5

The Yellow Handkerchief (2008, U.S.)

This is a film about an unlikely trio of three very lonely people. Martine is a beautiful teenager who feels trapped in her backwater Louisiana town. When Gordy, an awkward itinerant, stops in town, she somehow ends up in his convertible, heading across the river. Then they pick up Brett, a quiet man who was just released from prison. When a storm (Hurricane Katrina) hits, they take shelter in a hotel together. As they continue their journey through the destruction of Louisiana after the hurricane, they begin to piece together solutions to each other's loneliness. Martine senses Brett's loneliness, and Brett senses Gordy's. They help each other find the answers that they can't find for themselves.

The beauty of this film is in its simplicity and in the quiet brilliance of the actors. I don't know if I've ever seen William Hurt in action, but this role seemed tailored for him. Kristen Stewart, who I always say is an under-appreciated actor, was solid in this role (although it seemed almost like it didn't offer he much of a challenge). And Eddie Redmayne has yet to cease amazing me. I can't think of a single person who plays the socially awkward, sweetly well-meaning, intelligent young man as well as he does. Breathtaking. Add to that the slow, almost languid pace and the authentic Louisiana scenery, and you've got a winner.

I liked this film. I think the main thing that would have made me like it more was if the focus was spread more evenly across the ensemble. Although there are arguably three main characters, the focus is obviously on Brett. More balance would have improved an already wonderful film.

Rating: 4.0

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

Shutter Island (2010, U.S.)

Much better than the last film I saw that was based on a Dennis Lehane novel. DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshal who goes to a federal penitentiary for the mentally insane on a tiny island in Boston Harbor. With his partner, his mission is to find an escaped and highly dangerous prisoner. However, the doctors and administrators on the island are less than helpful, hurricane-type weather blows in, and Daniels is plagued by hallucinations/dreams of his deceased wife and experiences during World War II.

This is the kind of slowly building suspense that is all about creepy atmosphere and psychological drama, and it was very well executed. DiCaprio is a stellar actor, of course, and he definitely carried the movie. When it comes time for the big plot twist at the end and the memorable last line, he nails it.

Scorsese made a very interesting choice, and instead of having the film scored, he used a collection of instrumental classics. It worked perfectly. Some of the songs were beautiful, but the best one were creepy and frighteningly suspenseful. They did an especially effective job when Teddy and his partner first drive through the gates of the compound. It made me want to shout, "Turn around, don't go in there!"

You'd have to see this one to believe it. I just can't say much without giving away the ending. Which, I think, is a pretty good recommendation for the film.

Rating: 3.5

Alexander (2004, U.S.)

Despite featuring one of my all time favorite actresses (Jolie), it took me six years to see this historical drama (one of my favorite genres) because I'd heard such awful things about it.

Let me tell you—they were right. It was like a historical documentary forced into fiction form, therefore combining the dullness that most people (though not I!) associate with history and the inaccuracy of fiction.

Let's see. A very human drama was told with a total lack of human emotion. I was able to infer that Alexander had a very troubled, complex, almost passionate relationship with his mother, yet it falls flat. The best example of a real, passionate relationship is Alexander's almost romantic friendship with Hepastian (one of his warriors) and even it is dull. The dialoge and physical blocking always seemed to stop right when you were about to grasp something important. In the same vein, you never get a clear idea as to character motivations. Why do these men do what they do?

As I hinted before, this is supposed to be an epic film, it should be an epic film, but it's just not. The music, however, if very epic. Which just reinforces the lack of epic-ness. To further reinforce this debacle, there is what I call "the red scene." I cannot even begin to describe. The whole film has been relatively slow and vaguely historically realistic, and suddenly there is a battle in India that turns into a massacre, and everything is awash in red. Not in an "oh it's bloody" sense, but in a "we used the filmmaker's equivalent of MS Paint and splashed red all over our film!" Utterly ridiculous.

For an epic, war-filled film, that was about the most exciting thing that happened—and I even saw the director's cut, "newly inspired, faster paced, more action packed!" What exactly was this inspired by? If this is faster paced, I hate to see how slow the original was. And action? There were essentially two big battle scenes, one of which was the red one.

I've always thought pretty well of Oliver, Stone, but I have to say I lost a bit of respect for him. He thought his film failed because audiences didn't like the very faint homoerotic undercurrents. Stone, admit that it was because your film was awful!

What did I learn about history? Alexander is supposed to be so Great, but from what I can tell from this film, he didn't even make it home from his conquering expedition, didn't actually rule Macedon (at least in person), and he didn't really "conquer" all the East (instead returning rule to local rulers). So is this historically inaccurate or is he remembered for the size of his dreams rather than his accomplishments? I don't know. I do know that the film Alexander will be remembered for the size of its director's vision rather than his actual accomplishment!

Rating: 2.0

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

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009, U.S.)

I say it every time, but it's impossible not to compare the movie to the book. I loved Audrey Niffenegger's book. A huge part of the book was character development, flashbacks, and overall complexity. The film was just a Cliffs Notes version.

Still, if taken alone, the movie was not bad. Firstly, the casting was perfect. Rachel McAdams was made to play parts like this. Beautiful, artistic, romantic. (Think Allie in The Notebook.) I was hesitant about Eric Bana, but he wasn't bad either. Even their chemistry was pretty good.

Although this was very, very abbreviated from the novel (which I think is destined to become a classic), I think I would have liked it a lot if I hadn't read the book. The acting was perfect, the concept was fascinating, the music was beautiful. One thing I did like more in the movie was the "watered down" ending. It was really the same, but with enough change to make it easier to stomach and more romantic.

I've essentially said a whole lot of nothing here. Basically, it wasn't the book, but it was good enough to make me sob a bit.

Rating: 3.5

(500) Days of Summer (2009, U.S.)

I have never been more wrong about how much I'll like a movie based on the preview. It was pretty awful. A sweet, adorable, wonderful guy falls in love with a stupid, horrible, shallow bitch. Errr, girl. This was reinforced by the fact that I've always loved JGL and disliked Zooey Deschanel.

There are some interesting elements, such as when JGL busts out into a cheerful song and dance in the middle of the street and everyone dances like it's Bollywood and cartoon birds fly around the air. It's priceless. They also attempted to use flashbacks to illustrate how Summer was never interested in Tom, and he was misreading the situation. The only problem was that it was already painfully obvious the first time the scene was played.

This is a case of a great idea with terrible execution.

Rating: 2.0

The Business of Fancydancing (2002, U.S.)

I really liked The Business of Fancydancing more than Smoke Signals. To begin with, I thought the theme was much more complex. It was about belonging and identity—tribal, racial, sexual, and family- and employment-related. It was about life and death. It was about how hard it can be to come home.

Perhaps the best part of the film was how multiple styles and viewpoints and time frames were woven together so uniquely. Alexie also incorporated snippets of his poetry (masquerading as the main character's poetry, of course) in between scenes, which I found very effective.

The acting was also incredible. Evan Adams, who played Thomas Builds-the-Fire in Smoke Signals, played a very, very different character in this film. His range is amazing. All of the supporting players were also great, especially Gene Tagaban, who played Aristotle. Strangely, this is his only film, although he is a storyteller and performer by trade. He conveys raw emotion as if it truly belongs to him, and not to the character written on the page. And if I may interject an irrelevant comment, he has beautiful hair.

And of course, the shots of eastern Washington, the reservation, and Seattle were all beautiful.

Rating: 4.0

London (2005, U.S.)

This film had a good concept. A guy and girl with an on-again/off-again dysfunctional relationship are very off-again, but they show up at the same party. Through flashbacks and dialogue, the viewer learns of their past together.

Here's the thing. The execution was terrible. The acting was horrible. The characters were self-interested, shallow wastes of space. The flashbacks were good in theory, but too disjointed in practice. (Of course, that could have been the bad acting.)

That's all I've got. It was just kind of stupid.

Rating: 2.0

Duplicity (2009, U.S.)

This film was all anyone could ask for. It's funny. It's smart. There's romance. There's espionage. There's Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. This totally redeems Owen for the travesty also known as The International.

First of all, the plot is completely over the top. Two companies trying to beat each other out in the market for hair care products or lotion or some such silliness. They are so extreme about corporate secrecy that they have whole security teams protecting the chemical formulas and laying false trails for the competitor. Enter Ray and Claire, who may or may not have known each other before and who may or may not be on friendly terms. Each is the head of security for one of the companies, and they may or may not be working together to fleece both of their employers.

It is truly remarkable the way the filmmakers integrated this complex plot with a touch of romance and a lot of humor. The writing was superb, and I was very impressed. Of course Owen and Roberts were great, although it was very strange to see them together for the first time since Closer without attributing some of their earlier characters' characteristics to the current set. But eventually that wore away, and their chemistry and acting skill was very apparent.

One other thing I have to say about this film is this—what a score. Of course, I'm biased because I love James Newton Howard, but I actually didn't realize it was his until the credits. Two of my favorite scores are his—Peter Pan and Defiance. Peter Pan is whimsical but beautiful, very fairy-ish. Defiance (which is my opinion was robbed, robbed, robbed of the Oscar by an infinitely inferior score) is heartbreakingly beautiful, tragically lovely, whichever set of seemingly contradictory terms you want to use. Anyway, I could gush about him all day. The point is, this score was very different, but just as perfectly appropriate to its film as the other two I mentioned. It was lighthearted and upbeat. (This part reminded me a bit of the Catch Me If You Can score). It had a hint of sneakiness that fit with the espionage, but also a hint of something else more appropriate to the romantic aspect. It was masterfully done.

I don't think I can offer any higher recommendation for a film like this than these two words: Fun. Smart.

Rating: 4.5

Slumdog Millionaire (2008, UK)

I didn't know anything about this movie other than the fact that everyone was talking about it, it was nominated for tons of Oscars, and Stefanie insisted that I see it. As usual, I did what Stefanie said. Unlike her last disastrous suggestion (Montenegro), I loved it.

Everything about it was great. The cinematography was beautiful. The acting, especially that of the very young children, was convincing. The story was always moving and sometimes funny. The score was okay, but I really don't think it was Academy Award-worthy. (It was just average music by an Indian composer, and I can only assume that it won because it was "different.")

I love character-driven films, and this definitely falls in that category; it follows the same three children from the time the main character is about 5 until he's 18. The use of flashback (another technique I love) is employed in a fascinating manner. The "present" shows Jamal in a jail being interrogated about how he could know all the answers to the questions in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, which he is one question away from winning; he is suspected of cheating. Flashbacks show Jamal answering questions on the show. Flashbacks from there show events from Jamal's childhood where he learned the answers to these questions.

I also love the complexity of the "aboutness." On one level, it's a coming of age story. It's also a rags-to-riches story. It's also about the relationship between brothers. It's about the reality of life in Mumbai and its slums. And it's also a love story.

Words to describe this one: complex, beautiful, heart-wrenching, stunning, unique.

Rating: 5.0

Revolutionary Road (2008, U.S.)

I have been dying to see this film, which took way too long to come into wide release (considering the number of times I've seen the preview at other movies). My friend Stefanie and I have tried to see it twice already, but complications arose both times. Needless to say, when we saw it today the anticipation was intense. It was a lot different than I imagined it would be; not disappointing, exactly, just different.

I loved that it was a character-driven film, and that very little about those two characters was explicitly defined. Instead, they relied on their actions (and reactions) to allow the viewer to interpret their characters. Sometimes one was the protagonist and the other the antagonist, and it would change again in an instant. I guess I don't need to say that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both phenomenal. They both have such expressive faces (and especially expressive eyes), that I feel like I can read their thoughts like words written across the face.

The plot was intense. a married couple with two children suddenly realizes that the life they're living isn't the life they wanted, and they take out all of their anger on each other and themselves. They try to start a new life, making plans to move to Paris, where the husband thinks people are "more alive." Things start to look better until their plan starts unraveling, and they both go a little bit crazy. One of the taglines, which I love, is "How do you break free without breaking apart?" Even though this film takes place in the '50s, you can easily see it taking place today. There is some definite social commentary about how we live the lives society tells us we should instead of the lives we want. It's beautiful. Interestingly, the character who seems to really see the world as it is and who has the best grip on reality is the neighbor's insane son.

And as we watch Winslet and DiCaprio brilliantly tear each other apart and put each other back together, Thomas Newman's haunting (and somewhat repetitive—but in a good way) score echos them in the background. The score is simply executed, like the rest of the film.

This film is a good one, and I would recommend it. Just be prepared to feel some gut-wrenching despair and to reevaluate your life.

Rating: 4.0

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

Girl, Interrupted (1999, U.S.)

It is a good thing that I didn't see this film back in the day, although I have been wanting to see it for years. (Angelina Jolie is one of my all time favorite actresses—why have I not seen her Oscar-winning performance yet?) The reason I say I shouldn't have seen it is because it was spot on. Winona Ryder's character is institutionalized, and rather than getting better, she gets crazier. Because she's surrounded by other people who are genuinely crazy and/or have become crazy there. Then she takes charge of herself and heals herself.

But enough of that. Acting. Was. Brilliant. Angelina Jolie was brilliant, of course. It's strange to see how much maturity she had as an actress even when she was a bit of a wreck of a person. Perhaps that helped her in roles like this one. In any case, she was perfect. As was Winona Ryder. I've gained more and more respect for her recently. She's more than just a shoplifter and Depp's ex!

I would recommend this to anyone, but especially any female who's found her sanity in question at sometime in her life. This film is beautifully sad. It's about the human experience from a point of view rarely taken. It's about women finding themselves and each other and getting through the tough times. It's about the unfairness of life and the things we do to make it through the day. It's about being alone. It's about friendship. It's about putting the pieces back together. Wonderful film.

Rating: 4.0