World without End (2012, UK)

It wasn't Pillars of the Earth, but it was still quite good. Almost everything paled in comparison to Pillars, from casting to script adaptation. I thought the adaptation largely missed key points from the novel, which was unfortunate. I hate to be so critical, because it was really good, but it could have been phenomenal instead of just great. Still, I would watch it again. And again and again. And that's about all I have to say on that!

Rating: 4.0

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 

Sarah's Key (2010, France)

My book club read this novel for August, so we decided to get together and watch the movie too. I think every single one of us was disappointed. We all felt that it was very disjointed, and we wouldn't have known what was going on if we hadn't read the book. The only person who hadn't read more than the first few chapters verified our reaction. With a novel of relatively short length and few characters, there really wasn't any reason for it to be so hard to follow.

It was also painfully unemotional. The book was moving, but the movie felt perfunctory. The only moment when I felt anything was when Sarah opened the closet. My heart nearly broke at the amount of emotion the young actress conveyed. However, with the magnitude of the story unfolding, other moments should have been heartbreaking too—particularly in the Vel' d'Hiv, in Drancy, at the Dufaure's... I could go on.

Kristin Scott Thomas wasn't bad, but honestly I got sick of her. Even though a majority of the novel also follows Julia, here it just felt too much. This was especially true because both of the actresses who played Sarah (as a child and as a young woman) were phenomenal. The best way I can think to describe both of them is "arresting" or perhaps "captivating." I was very surprised to see that the adult Sarah, Charlotte Poutrel, only has one other small credit to her name. Maybe she's not a great actress when she starts speaking, but her silence and the expressiveness of her eyes were enthralling.

Anyway, I probably wouldn't recommend this one, though I'd definitely recommend the book.

Rating: 2.5

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

J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)

On the one hand, this was a very interesting and entertaining movie. I knew next to nothing about Hoover before, and I found his relationships with his mother, Helen Gandy, and Clyde Tolson to be quite fascinating. The cast of the movie was out of this world. Of course Dame Judi Dench is one of my all time favorites, and her performance as Mrs. Hoover was very nuanced, I thought. Armie Hammer was pretty good, and Naomi Watts was spot on, as usual. I loved everyone playing small roles of big people, from Robert Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower to Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple. They were all very well cast. Then of course there was Leonardo DiCaprio, probably the most talented actor of his generation, who just became Hoover. He nailed both the intimidating, intelligent public persona and the insecure, unsure inner man. I think poor Leo gets a bad rap just because of Titanic, but a) his acting was great in that movie, and b) I have never seen him give less than a brilliant performance in another movie, either. Just think about What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Gangs of New York, The Departed, even lighter movies like Catch Me If You Can. I don't really think he's attractive, but boy can he act.

Anyway, it obviously wasn't the acting that was underwhelming in this movie. I think it must have been the script. There were so many instances when I felt like a bit more dialogue or a more lingering camera shot could have added a lot more meaning to a moment. It also could have suffered because they were trying to cover so much of his life at once while picking the most important professional and personal moments and not having enough of either. That was pretty frustrating.

Another frustrating thing was the makeup. It was eery how well they did DiCaprio's makeup as he aged. I could have believed they shot the film over 50 years! For Watts, they did a good job of adding wrinkles and things and making her look much older than she is, but her character didn't seem to age nearly enough to match Hoover's aging. The worst job was on Hammer, who went from a young man to a sort of fake looking, spotty, clay-headed geriatric. He didn't even look like a real person in his elderly form. That was very off-putting.

The costumes and sets were also brilliantly done. The cinematography was dark, dark, dark, which served many functions. It made the movie feel historical. It emphasized the secretive nature of their work in the Bureau. And it served as a reminder of the parts of Hoover that were hidden from the public.

So this movie was good, but I just felt like it was missing something. I wanted a lot more from it than I got. However, it is certainly worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

Anonymous (2011, U.S.)

Wow. I am so glad that this film was finally released near me, because I loved it. It was absolutely absorbing from the first second, as we follow an actor who's running late into the play he's introducing. (That actor, incidentally, is Derek Jacobi, who I later found out from reading Bill Bryson's biography of Shakespeare is a very strong believer in the Shakespeare-didn't-write-Shakespeare school. He must have been thrilled to get this role!) Basically the story goes that the Earl of Oxford wanted his plays performed to influence the political climate, but he didn't want his name attached to them. He tried to get Ben Jonson to put his name to them, but Jonson didn't want to. Somehow Shakespeare, who is an absolutely ridiculous, full of himself, almost air-headed actor, ends up having the plays attributed to him.

I don't know if I have ever seen a more convincing alternate history. All of the "evidence" seemed entirely plausible (although how accurate it was and what was excluded for convenience's sake, I can't say). The plot lines that involved the queen having illegitimate babies without anyone knowing seemed a bit of a stretch, but once the babies were men it worked a lot better. Anyway, for the most part the plot was fascinating, and I liked how they framed the story as a play in modern New York. (It was especially neat at the end, when during the credits the screen shows the audience filing out of the theater, just as the audience in the movie theater was doing. Weird but cool!)

I can't say enough about this cast. Really, wow. A majority of the cast was composed of people who are good, strong actors (mostly British) who I am familiar with but who the average movie-goer wouldn't necessarily recognize. All of the young earls— Southampton (Xavier Samuel), Essex (Sam Reid), and young Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower)—were so convincing as these godlike golden boys, beautiful warriors, sons of privilege. I was especially enraptured with Bower's performance. His range of emotion was really powerful. Of course, the two women who played Elizabeth, Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson, were perfectly cast. (Has Redgrave ever played the queen before? She was great! It was weird to see Richardson as Elizabeth when I was first introduced to her as Catherine Parr in The Tudors.) David Thewlis and Edward Hogg as the Cecil men, elder and younger, were sharp and conniving, very snake-like. Sebastian Armesto was a serious Ben Jonson, passionate about his work, with dark eyes that looked like they'd been strained by candlelight one too many times. Rafe Spall as Shakespeare... I don't know what to say. He was definitely the comic relief. So funny, so self-centered, so obviously not a writer. He was good. Even with all of this fabulous talent, the real star of the show was Rhys Ifans. I have seen him in many different things (Rancid Aluminum, Vanity Fair, Enduring Love, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Deathly Hallows) and I'm always impressed by his range and skill. Enduring Love is an especially impressive performance from him. But this film might have been his best ever. I have never seen him perform such a commanding character before. I don't think it's necessarily that his acting has matured, because he's always been so good. It's more like this was the role he was always meant to play. His presence dominated every scene he was in. Amazing.

Okay, I've gone on about the cast forever, but they really were that good! Now I don't want to bore with descriptions of music and scenery and lighting and costumes, but suffice is to say that they too were simply incredible. I especially loved the panoramas of Elizabethan London, which just looked so realistic. I also had the same reaction that I had to The Conspirator—I felt like I could smell the smoke from flickering candles and smell the sewage in the gutter and taste the pints of ale in the pub. Really, really great work. One thing that bothered me about the music is that several of the period songs they used had been used before in Elizabeth, or Elizabeth: The Golden Age, or Shakespeare in Love, or some other Elizabethan drama. It's great music and it fits the time, but surely there must be more than five songs that have survived. I know, minor complaint, but when you're an avid watcher of every Elizabethan film you can get your hands on, these are the things you notice.

All in all, probably one of the best movies I've seen in ages. I would almost be tempted to give it a 5.0, except for a few plot details that didn't quite work for me. Still, as I said, it was an engaging, interesting plot with an unparalleled cast, stellar mis en scène, and fitting period music. Definitely a must for fans of the theater, Elizabethan England, and possibly Shakespeare too (unless you don't want to hear that he didn't write his work).

Rating: 4.5

The Conspirator (2010, U.S.)

Hmmmmm, I can't decide about this one. There is no denying that the lead actors were awesome. I've been a fan of Robin Wright since she was Robin Wright Penn and James McAvoy for... well, awhile anyway. (Probably 2007. You know why.) Their acting absolutely transported me, and Wright was particularly inspired. You know how it's all going to end, but you can't help but think the strength of her character and her convictions will be enough to change the outcome. To a lesser extent, McAvoy's character's determination to follow the letter of the law does the same thing. The supporting cast was filled with talented, big name actors as well. I'd say this film was a casting triumph.

Just as impressive as the actors was the entire period feel. The sets and lighting were incredible. I felt like I could nearly smell the smoke from guttering oil lamps and hear the crinkle of crinolines. It's rather hard to explain just how realistic it was. Fabulous work.

Even though the subject of the War can seem rather tired sometimes (especially around here), I really enjoyed the choice of topic. While the assassination of Lincoln is a frequent choice of content to include, he is always pictured as the blessed martyr and the conspirators as evil criminals. (I won't get into the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, bordering on becoming a tyrant as John Wilkes Boothe proclaimed, holding onto the Union at all costs despite the People's wishes. But anyway.) I thought the movie was pretty balanced and not hateful to the South as many fictionalized versions of the assassination are. In fact, the men of the president's cabinet seemed so corrupt, their trial of Surratt so unconstitutional, that they seemed to be the villains. I have to say that it was refreshing. The blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens in the 1860s was very upsetting, and I wonder how many people realize how strongly yesterday's civil rights violations echo today.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the film finished on a sour note. (Well, besides the anticipated unhappy ending.) This was a literal sour note. The music, which up until that time had been subtle, period-appropriate instrumentation, morphed into modern music almost the second the credits began to roll. It was very jarring and threw me right out of the world of the film. Very bad choice.

Rating: 4.0

Midnight in Paris (2011, U.S.)

 Has it really been almost three and a half years since Woody Allen finally made me start my film blog? And again I say, "Good ending, Woody Allen!"

But to begin with, perhaps I should tell him "Good beginning!" instead. The first several minutes of the film are comprised entirely of scenes from Paris, both tourist destinations like the Eiffel Tower and local hangouts like street cafes. It was beautiful, it really set the scene by introducing Paris as its own character, and it made me think repeatedly, "I've been there!" It was a nice little trip, and all this before the credits began to roll.

To begin with the concept: I loved it! It's a bit like The Polar Express. Gil, who has escaped from his fiancee Inez and her parents, is wandering the city when, at the stroke of midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up as if the meeting was predetermined. Soon he's wandering the much livelier streets of a Paris that has been gone for 90 years, meeting his idols and letting his inner self blossom. How many of us long to retreat to an earlier time, one that we hold in our imaginations as a Golden Age? For Gil, it's Paris in the 1920s. For Adriana, who he meets in the '20s, it's la Belle Epoque. As Gil says, "That's what the present is. It's a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying." His whole journey of self-discovery is colorful and humorous but also beautiful, and it is oh-so-Woody-Allen.

The casting was excellent, although I felt a little backwards regarding the leads. Normally I love Rachel McAdams, and she was very good in this movie. The only problem was that usually she's sweet and loveable or savvy and spunky. Here, her character was a shallow, annoying socialite. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Owen Wilson (I much prefer his brother), usually finding him to be quite annoying. In this case, he was the loveable one. Strange to get used to that big trade-off. He was good, but the remainder of the ensemble cast was stellar. In the modern world, Michael Sheen as Inez's irritating, superior friend Paul was spot-on. French first lady Carla Bruni as a museum guide was understated. In the 1920s, I adored Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald (the more movies I see her in, the more I like her). Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott was a good counterpart. Corey Stoll was an incredible Hemingway; to be honest, I had to remind myself that he was an actor and not the author several times. Kathy Bates was perfect as the outspoken Gertrude Stein (think Molly Brown toned down about 20 notches). Adrien Brody, one of the most underrated actors in the world I think, was a wonderfully vibrant Salvador Dalí. "Rhinoceros!" (Much different from Pattinson's portrayal in Little Ashes, but equally believable.) I was pleased to see Gad Elmaleh in a non-French (language/country of origin) film, because he has a great range of expressions (which may come from having a mime for a father) that lend themselves to brilliant comedy and worked very well as the detective here. And of course the lovely Marion Cotillard is always a classy, sexy, talented addition to any cast, especially a period piece.

I don't know quite how to describe my feeling watching this film other than to use the word "transported." It was really wonderful, thought-provoking, amusing. I would recommend it to anyone, but especially to those with a love of Paris or early 20th century art/culture, or a nostalgic longing for any bygone time.

Rating: 4.0

The Help (2011, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the year. I have to say to preface this review that I'm starting to hate it already. Not because it was a bad book, not because it was a bad movie, but because suddenly a bunch of people who never read have decided they're going to start reading and I have to buy 10,000 copies of the one book to keep them all happy, in lieu of buying a nice variety of things that regular readers can enjoy. I would also like to add that I read it before anyone knew it was going to be a movie. So there. Off the soapbox and onto an objective as possible review...

I liked it, and had it been a stand-alone movie and not based on a book, I would have been really impressed with it. However, I wasn't that impressed. Because despite my grouching, the book truly was phenomenal, even ground-breaking. The characters were more alive than almost any book I've ever read. Their lives were complicated, their relationships were complex, and their personalities were too. In the movie they were much, much flatter. Not flat exactly, but not well-developed either. I don't think that's any fault of the actors, however. Every female character—Minny, Aibileen, Skeeter, Hilly, Celia, the mothers, and even little Mae Mobly—was portrayed with the utmost skill and believability. (The men less so, but then male characters are very peripheral to the story anyway.) Though within the solid, skilled ensemble cast, Janney and especially Spacek nearly stole the show. I think the ultimate source of such a dulled down version was the screenwriting. I don't think the actors were given enough to work with. The struggle wasn't written like a struggle (especially because there were fewer maids and fewer stories told). They watered down things like Minny's abusive husband and Aibileen's dead son. The core plot was there, but the heart and soul and feeling of the story seemed absent.

Besides the great acting, there were many other good elements as well. The period scenes and costumes, for example, were awesome. The score was standard Thomas Newman. The story was fundamentally the same. But all this doesn't fix a weak script that lacks the punch of the original. (I especially missed Minny's line that if she were Mammy she'd tell Scarlett to stick those curtains "up her little white pooper," and other classics like that.)

Overall, a good movie. But if you really want to be moved, inspired, and entertained, read the book.

Rating: 3.5

Cleopatra (1963, U.S.)

I've always planned to watch this movie, so I'm not sure what took me so long to get around to it. I think I was inspired to finally watch it because I've been having my love of historical fiction renewed in novels, so I thought I should have one in films too.

So what do I have to say? It was long. Looooooong. I have no problem sitting through Meet Joe Black, Titanic, or Gone with the Wind (even after countless viewings), and they don't seem long at all. Cleopatra, however, seemed like it would never end. I think it would have been much, much better if it was made into two movies as originally planned. (I gather they combined it into one so as to cash in on the Burton-Taylor affair, since Burton doesn't appear in the first part.)

Aside from the length, my main reaction was horror at the countless anachronisms. The sets and the costumes were just absolutely ridiculous. It looked exactly like what it was—a 1960s Hollywood version of the ancient world. Taylor's costumes were especially awful. Yes, some of them were quite beautiful, but they were a far, far cry from anything Cleopatra would have actually worn. (On a more positive note, they did an incredible job aging Cleopatra over the course of the film, mostly with her hair but partially with makeup. Good work.) I'm cringing just thinking about the costumes and sets, especially considering that this won Oscars for set design and costuming. The horror! (I guess the criteria don't include accuracy. They were beautiful except for that, really.) What else? The music was way over the top, very brassy sounding. I guess that's pretty standard for this kind of film from this time period, but boy did it grate. Oh, and don't get me started on how inaccurate a lot of the history was here. Obviously, it goes without saying.

The saving grace of this film, as far as I'm concerned, was in some of the acting and writing. Some of the writing was bland, some of the acting was bad, but there were parts that simply shone. Harrison, Burton, and Taylor all delivered some of the most passionate performances I've seen. Harrison was nearly inspiring with some of his speeches as Caesar. Burton's anger-filled rants were a sight to behold. And Taylor was so full of life, whether she was speaking words of love, rage, or anything in between.

Overall I'm glad I saw this, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Rating: 2.5

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

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say about this one, so I won't say much. I think the whole thing is just tired. I loved the first one when it came out (so much that I saw it 8 times in the theater before buying it on DVD the day it came out). I really liked the second and third ones (when nobody else seemed to), though I thought they should stand alone more like the first one did. Now somehow, I was really disappointed by POTC4, while every other review I've read seems to call it as good as the first one or even the best of the four. What?!

Change is good, and their stories were definitely complete, but that didn't stop me from missing Will and Elizabeth. Instead, Penelope Cruz appears as a former flame of Jack's. Now normally she irritates me to no end, but I thought she was actually pretty good in this movie and even had believable chemistry with Depp (who, I doubt I have to tell you, was just as awesome as ever). But then we have her father Blackbeard, played by Ian McShane. They keep talking about how evil he was, but I just didn't see it. He definitely wasn't as evil as Davy Jones, he wasn't as evil as Cutler Beckett. Heck, he wasn't as evil as Barbossa was in the first movie. This was especially disappointing because normally I find Ian McShane to be a very strong actor. So that's it for new main characters. Secondary characters? Forget about it! There was no Pintel and Ragetti, no Annamaria, no Mr. Cotton (or parrot), no midget worth his salt, no Marines-turned-pirates. Even Mr. Gibbs was rather blah in all this. Instead, we have a priest who was captured by Blackbeard, who is constantly preaching about the importance of faith and who falls in love with a mermaid. The preaching was downright annoying, and the romance was a chemistry-less flop. (No pun intended. Get it? Mermaid!)

The plot was also a huge disappointment. The third movie sets up the story of Jack off to find the Fountain of Youth, because he's terrified of death and wants to live forever. Instead, we find him on a quest for the fountain of youth for somebody else, and he doesn't seem that disappointed when it's not for him. That just doesn't make sense for his character, which further illustrates how badly done the characters were in this movie. Actually, I was really excited in the beginning because it started off with an amazing bang. Jack fights with a pirate who's masquerading as Sparrow, and their fight scene is beautifully choreographed and actually someone reminiscent of the Jack/Will sword fight in the first one. Then Jack is captured and brought before the king of England. Their scene together is great, especially Jack's escape attempt when he's almost more focused on getting a bite of cupcake than getting away. (That is classic Jack, so you can see why I had a good feeling about the movie.) Then he's tearing through the streets in a carriage filmed with flaming coal, which was pretty sweet, and I'm still thinking, "This movie is going to be great." And then he hooks up with Blackbeard, and it's all downhill from there. The remainder of the plot is meandering and boring, especially when added to the flat characters. There are extra plot points (like the whole mermaid thing, and especially the mermaid/preacher romance) that could have been left out entirely or at least done much, much better. Then the ending makes no sense at all. What a travesty.

On top of all that, the score was underwhelming. I had listened to the previews on iTunes before seeing the movie, and it seemed very guitar heavy (like they were going for a more modern South American/Caribbean feel) and didn't quite work. In the context of the movie it was passable, but it didn't stand out and it wasn't nearly as memorable as the first three scores. Like the stories, the music is getting tired too.

There were some pretty awesome special effects. I already mentioned the fiery coal carriage careening through the streets. The other awesome thing was that Blackbeard keeps all the ships that he has defeated in bottles in a cabinet on his ship. The bottles were full of thunder and lighting and crashing waves, and ***spoiler alert*** even Cotton's parrot appeared in the bottle with the trapped Black Pearl. Because of this whole bottle thing, a definite sequel is implied. It could be good, based on the hints, but then the whole search for the Fountain of Youth hinted at in At World's End sounded good too. So we'll see.

Rating: 2.5

Water for Elephants (2011, U.S.)

I have been looking forward to this film for ages. On one hand, I was very nervous about them ruining one of the best books of all time. (It's definitely in my top 3, if not my favorite book, period.) On the other hand, such a powerful story with the fascinating, detailed description of Water for Elephants has a lot of potential for greatness. (And with a knockout tagline like "Life is the most spectacular show on earth," it better live up to that potential!) I was also one of the few people who cheered for the casting of Rob Pattinson. (Twilight aside, he is a brilliant, brilliant actor. See: Little Ashes, Remember Me, The Bad Mother's Handbook, The Haunted Airman, and even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.) I was actually more hesitant about Reese Witherspoon, although I do love her too.

So what's the verdict? It was a beautiful film. It wasn't the book, but it was a fairly strong adaptation. (It was one of the best since Gone with the Wind, I'm tempted to say—and about a thousand times better than the adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife.) Mostly what was lost were the details of riding the rails, life in a circus, and relationships between characters. It wasn't enough to take away from the story, just enough that it didn't have the same sense of total immersion I felt while reading the book. (One detail that really bothered me was the number of liberty horses in Marlena's act. The description in the book really stuck with me, and my memory tells me she had 12. In the film, she only had 4. It's not that her act wasn't good, it's just that it was supposed to be the main attraction and didn't have the same grandeur I expected. Even 6 would have been okay, but 4 was too few! Yes, I am picky.) The only other thing really missing was on-screen time for Old Jacob. His thoughts on aging were real gems, and I wish Hal Holbrook had more of an opportunity to make the old man shine as much as the young one.

On the subject of actors, wow. Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought Pattinson was stellar. He captured the innocence, uncertainty, and compassion that are so definitive of Jacob's character. Reese Witherspoon was also wonderful and quite lovely. I've read that many people think they lacked chemistry, but I thought they had a sort of quiet chemistry, and their love for each other was built through their mutual love of animals. On that front, three cheers for Tai, the elephant who played Rosie. The Jacob/Marlena relationship would have been lost without her. The real unexpected talent came from Christoph Waltz, who I vaguely remember from Inglorious Basterds. (I was too busy trying to work out the plot of that movie to appreciate the acting, I suppose.) He was phenomenal as August. From his abusive rages to broken tears, from suave charmer to ruthless businessman, he didn't overact anything but truly conveyed that August was subtly but undeniably insane. Unfortunately for him, the script focused more on Jacob and Marlena, underwriting his part, which also served to cloud his motivation a bit as the climax approaches. Waltz did a lot with a little, in my opinion. I feel safe in going ahead to predict another Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this performance.

I don't even know where to begin on the costumes and sets. They were breathtaking. From the Cornell classroom to the home of Polish immigrants to the hospital to the forest to the train to the bigtop to the Chicago speakeasy to the office of the modern day circus, everything was perfect. The train, especially, seemed to almost be its own character. The costumes ranged from beautiful to grungy, simple to elaborate. Marlena's performance ensemble was an especially strange one, but kind of fun. And Reese Witherspoon was absolutely stunning in every costume, from simple clothes with a brightly polka-dotted scarf in her hair to form-fitting silk evening gown. August's ringmaster's get-up was probably the most circus-y element of the entire film, and I loved it.

The one thing I was surprised to be disappointed by was the score. James Newton Howard is one of my all-time favorite composers. While he's had some average scores with average movies, he's also given some wonderful films the extra push to make them truly great. (Two examples are Defiance, which had the most hauntingly beautiful score that makes my heart break when I listen to it, and the 2003 Peter Pan, which has such a magical score I can almost believe in fairies.) It's not that this was a bad score; in fact, it was quite good, and much stronger than countless other composers could have provided. I guess I was expecting this score to do for the circus the same thing that his Peter Pan score did for Neverland—bring it alive, transport me to the world of the film even when I'm not watching it. It just didn't quite cross that threshold, though it has some very nice themes (see especially "Did I Miss It?" and "Circus Fantasy"). I hate criticizing him, because I would have praised the efforts of any other composer on this score. I just expect something more from him, I guess.

In short, this was a beautiful, gritty, romantic, heartbreaking, powerful film, and I loved it. I may have even given it 5 stars if it wasn't based on a novel. I can't wait to see it again (especially because I don't always appreciate/enjoy a film as much if I've been anticipating it for so long—that anticipation can make it awfully difficult to focus). I also can't wait to read the book for a third time; the sooner the better.

*Special note: I have to say that for anyone who lives in NoVA or Texas and is lucky enough to be near an Alamo Drafthouse theater, you must see it there. The circus-themed preshow included a flea circus cartoon, a Droopy cartoon, an excerpt from Dumbo, Charlie Chaplin, Groucho Marx, and two songs from the Elvis flick Roustabout, among a few other things. It was awesome!*

Rating: 4.5

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

Plunkett and Macleane (1999, UK)

I liked this one, but I would have liked it a lot more if it was set up better. The first 20 minutes and the entire rest of the film seemed like two different movies. The beginning was incredibly violent and graphic, popping out eyeballs and digging up smelly corpses. All of this leads to an impoverished gentleman and a run-of-the-mill poor guy start crime scheme in 1748 London. The gentleman (Miller) gets into the social events of the aristrocracy, finding out who is carrying a lot of cash and where they hide their money, and the two become gentleman highwaymen. The poor one (Carlyle) wants to earn enough to go to America, and impoverished one just wants to be a gentleman.

The grittiness lent extreme realism, but it also turned my stomach a little bit. The plot took awhile to pick up because the first scenes were so irrelevant, but when it got going, it was engrossing. It mixed action, a hard-luck drama (with class wars), romance, and a bit of black comedy too. I especially loved Jonny Lee Miller, who was adorable and hilarious. Alan Cumming was interesting as an aristocratic, flamboyant bisexual. Liv Tyler wasn't annoying like she usually is.

One thing that really stuck out was the music, which was partially modern pop/rock (like they were going for the A Knight's Tale feel, though not as successfully) and partially instrumental music that sounded like the type of music you would hear in a modern crime comedy where the "bad guys" are really "good guys." (Instead it was an historical crime quasi-comedy where the "bad guys" are really "good guys.")

If you're looking for something different with a strange feel, this one is worth a watch.

Rating: 3.5

The Runaways (2010, U.S.)

Color me surprised. I didn't know anything about The Runaways and I've never really liked late '70s/'80s music, but I was curious to see Kristen Stewart in this one. I already thought she was an underrated and quite brilliant actress, but this one really convinced me. I love how she is so unafraid to look ridiculous, wearing silly clothes, rocking the ugliest hairdo, and singing like a fool. And wow, she was Joan Jett. The even bigger surprise was that Dakota Fanning, who I've absolutely loathed in the past, was almost as good as Cherie Currie. Between the two of them and the rest of the cast, there was a great dynamic that lent an excellent sense of realism to the film.

Costumes and makeup were stellar. I was investigating The Runaways' website and some of the costumes matched their tour pictures to a tee. Sets, script, everything made the period come alive.

This was a fascinating biopic that made me enjoy music that I'd never liked and taught me something that I never knew and entertained me all at once. That is a successful film if I ever heard of one. I'd love to see it again. A real cherry bomb!

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

Shenandoah (1965, U.S.)

James Stewart plays a widowed farmer with many children who lives in the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War, and he doesn't participate in the war because he doesn't think it is "his" war. When his youngest son, Boy, is mistakenly captured by the Union, he and his whole family become very active in the war, searching for Boy no matter who falls in their paths.

Of course the scenery was beautiful, even if it was probably Oregon or Washington rather than Virginia. (You can't trick a resident of the Valley!) The writing was good, and it was really insightful on the subjects of war and peace, race and family, love and marriage, honor and duty. And James Stewart was just phenomenal, funny in a serious way, if that makes any sense. (I hate to compare him to Billy Burke in Twilight, but that's the closest thing I can think of.)

This is a really good western and "war" film. (I use quotes because it wasn't a war film in the sense that it had lots of fighting and action but because it was about war. Think Gone with the Wind-style "war" film.) I really liked this one.

Rating: 4.0