Snow White and the Huntsman (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. This movie was almost a complete disappointment. Usually I defend Kristen Stewart to all haters, because she really is a great actress. She wasn't bad here, but she didn't stand out either. But neither did Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, or any other great actors that peppered the cast. In fact, I thought Charlize Theron bordered on bad, because everything she did seemed so overacted, to the point of melodrama. Honestly, the whole thing was pretty melodramatic

Perhaps it was the writing or maybe the directing, but it just seemed ridiculous. Visually it was quite stunning, but on the other hand it seemed like they relied entirely too much on visual effects to the detriment of the plot. The nugget of plot was so good too.

It was also very distracting that every other minute something presented a visual reminder of another fantasy film, particularly The Lord of the Rings. (Down to the Tree of Gondor that graced KStew's armor... that was a bit much.) James Newton Howard is one of my favorite composers, and some of his pieces here were spot on, but he didn't quite win my favor this go round, because even his score echoed LOTR occasionally. Altogether strange, and you'd really have to see it (and be very familiar with the trilogy) to see all the subtle echoes. It was disconcerting.

I would recommend this to die-hard fans of any of the cast and people who like their fairy tales nice as dark (as they were intended), and even to LOTR fans who take pleasure in yelling, "Copycats!"

Rating: 3.0

The Hunger Games (2012, U.S.)

So, this book is probably one of my favorite books of all time, and definitely my favorite YAF sci fi. I did go to the movie with absolutely no expectations because I didn't want to be disappointed, and that really helped. As could be expected, the bulk of the plot remained while the complexities of character relationships, motivations, and feelings were unfortunately watered down. I talked about this a lot with the people I went with, and several of the examples that we came up with had no easy fixes in film format. Therefore, I'd have to say the filmmakers did the best they could. (I was still sad about Haymitch, Cinna, and Effie's watered down personalities, especially.)

The thing that stood out the most to me was the sets. I mean, wow. The arena was exactly as I had pictured it. The mountains and forests of Katniss's home were just like the ones where I live, which is kind of where I imagine District 12 to be. And her village was just so Appalachia. On one hand it felt like a stereotype of West Virginia, but on the other hand it felt exactly real. Amazing stuff. The capital was also well done, but I felt like we didn't see enough of it. The same goes for costumes. Cinna getting Katniss ready for event after event before the Games sticks in my head, and yet we only see her at one interview and the big presentation of tributes before the Games start. (I have to say though that her interview dress with body glitter was gorgeous and her and Peeta's flame costumes were interesting, but not quite as breathtaking as I had hoped.) Again, what frustrated me the most was that they did such a good job with so many things, but there just needed to be more, more, more.

Acting was very strong. I think Jennifer Lawrence was a perfect Katniss. I liked Gale and Peeta too, although they were just good, not stellar. (This could partly be because the whole thing is about Katniss and her girl power, but I do remember having stronger impressions of the boys, especially sweet Peeta, when I read the book. Still, it's been years, so who knows.) Also notable were the little girl who played Rue (not quite how I pictured her, but I'll never picture her any other way now—those eyes!), Stanley Tucci as Caeser Flickerman (his cheesy personality practically leaped off the screen), Elizabeth Banks as Effie (though her character wasn't written well, because her purpose was vague and her screen time was minimal), the guy who played Cato (holy hot and evil, Batman!), Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (he was definitely lacking in screen time, and his transformation/the complexity of his relationship with the tributes was weak, but he did a lot with what he had), and Lenny Kravitz as Cinna (interesting choice, but I really liked him in the role, though I wish he had more screen time too... and more fierce glitter eye shadow).

So, how many times have I said that James Newton Howard is brilliant? I don't know that this score would necessarily be one that I'd buy to listen to all the time, but it definitely complemented and enhanced the movie. The tribal sounding music with drums during the tributes' training particularly stands out in my mind, though I also remember some haunting songs in emotional scenes or during establishing shots of District 12. Brilliantly done.

Yeah, clearly the trend here is that I wanted a lot more, but I think they mostly remained true to the spirit of the book. As always, I wonder whether I would have been lost in parts (or not gotten as much out of them) if I hadn't read the book, but I don't think I would have. (Unlike a certain HP7 I could mention...) I can't decide between a 4.0 or 4.5, but I don't think I would use the word "love" here, so I guess it has to stay a 4.0. Close call though.

Rating: 4.0

Larry Crowne (2011, U.S.)

This was a very refreshing "romantic comedy," as far as that label goes. It wasn't focused on romance that much, and it was a very quiet sort of funny. It was also remarkably timely for the genre.

Loveable Larry Crowne works at a Wal-Mart-esque store that's downsizing. Despite his repeated Employee of the Month status, he's the only one without any college education, so he's the one that's let go. No longer able to afford his home, he defaults on his mortgage (to the bankers amusing chagrin). No longer able to afford his SUV, he sells it and buys a Vespa. Determined to make something better of himself, he enrolls in community college. Yes, it's his professor who he ultimately forms a romantic attachment to, but that's not what this movie is all about.

Larry takes hold of his life and lives it to the fullest despite his setbacks. He joins a "Vespa gang," a bunch of much younger people with zest and a taste for life. He works hard in school. He takes a job at his friend's diner (despite never wanting to work in food service again) because it pays the bills. Even when he falls for his teacher (who is married), he's a gentleman and he helps her as a friend with no ulterior motives. He is a wonderful, loveable, admirable person, and his character alone made this movie a joy to watch. Tom Hanks was great (a welcome transition after those horrible Dan Brown adaptations).

Despite the surreal quality of his life (Vespa gang, lottery-winning neighbor with a perpetual yard sale, crazy econ professor, way-too-fun speech class, falling for a prof), it had an amazingly real feel anyway. It makes you feel like good things can happen to good people, even after bad things bring them down. It's sweet and hopeful and endearing and even funny. A really wonderful flick. I was shocked at all the bad reviews it got.

I'm calling this the "subtly sweet and sneakily feel good movie of the year." Watch it.

Rating: 4.0

Love and Other Drugs (2010, U.S.)

I was really surprised by how much I liked this movie. Of course I was excited to see it because I love Jake Gyllenhaal, though I've never been especially fond of Anne Hathaway. (What made me decide I didn't like her? It seems like everything I've ever seen her in, I've been impressed. Maybe her voice bothers me? I can't figure it out! I guess from now on, I'll say I like her a lot.) Anyway, this movie was great. A lot of movies from the 1990s feel very dated, but this movie made last year about the 1990s felt not quite nostalgic, not quite historical, but something like that. Instead of feeling "so 1990s," it felt like it was recreating a sort of idealized '90s. It's hard to explain, but in any case, it worked well.

The setup was also very effective. It opens showing Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) selling electronics (very '90s electronics!) to men, women, old ladies with equal success. The brief scene really defines Jamie as a born salesman and charmer. And the ensuing tryst with the manager's girlfriend in the storeroom defines him as a born womanizer... and charmer. It's quite a surprise when we next find him at his wealthy parents home, with a father and sister who are doctors and a brother who is a software millionaire. His background seems so unlikely with his current life.

Anyway, he eventually gets into selling pharmaceuticals for Pfizer, mainly trying to get doctors to prescribe Zoloft instead of Prozac. The insight into the drug industry is absolutely fascinating. I don't really know that much about it, but it felt realistic to me, at least. And there is a lot of industry humor thrown in that was truly amusing, and once he starts selling Viagra, it only gets better. Normally I'm not into crude humor, and one would think that selling a sex drug and jokes about its use and situational comedy (think long-lasting erections) would not amuse me at all, but it was actually done fairly tastefully and made me laugh out loud. Surprising.

In the middle of all this drug-selling, Jamie meets Maggie, a woman of 26 with early-onset Parkinson's Disease. Her character was so complex it was nearly staggering. There's her disease and her worries about it and her refusal to be defined by it. There's her art. There's her undefined job, which involves taking senior citizens to Canada where they can afford their prescriptions. (Yet more commentary on the drug industry.) There's her desire for frequent no-strings sex and refusal to be in a relationship, even when it's obvious to the viewer that she's falling in love. Anne Hathaway was absolutely stellar in her performance, down to her shaking hands and lethargy (caused by her illness) and up to her flawlessly-performed emotional breakdowns. Paired with Jake Gyllenhaal's charming, selling, womanizing Jamie, it just really worked. Great stuff. (I also have to insert a side note on a subject I don't usually take the time to comment on: sex scenes. Some were strangely detached feeling, which I suppose is good since it was a no-strings relationship in the beginning. But one was especially beautiful once they were more together... It's raining outside and it's shot through the window, so all the viewer sees is the watery, unfocused forms of very gentle lovers on a lovely deep red bedspread. It was quite beautiful.)

Basically, it had all the hallmarks of the best of the best romantic comedies, but I almost don't want to call it that. Mostly the comedy came from his job and the romance was much more dramatic (and far from funny), and these two elements were combined flawlessly. Added to the very unique characters and plot, the quasi-nostalgic (or whatever you want to call it) feel, the interesting details of the pharmaceutical industry and Parkinson's disease, and some wonderful performances, this was one of the best "romantic comedies" I've ever seen.

Rating: 4.0

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 Tourist (2010, U.S.)

I mostly avoided all descriptions, reviews, and previews of this movie, except for the very first teaser trailer. Basically, I didn't care what it was about and I didn't want to have my opinion influenced beforehand. I love Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie, and I couldn't wait to see them in action together.

This was a cute movie. Not exactly the adjective one would expect for a spy film, but there you have it. It's also quite slowly paced for the genre, so if you don't go in expecting a nail-biter, you shouldn't be disappointed. Basically anything can happen when you mix romantic comedy with espionage. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, this is not. (Then again, Depp and Jolie don't have the chemistry Jolie and Pitt had—but who could?)

The story? Elise sits next to Frank, an American tourist, on a train going to Venice. Her intent is to trick the police into believing Frank is her elusive lover, who is a mysterious fugitive. Frank (who is a nerdy, socially awkward math teacher) finds himself pursued by both the police and the mobster who Elise's lover owes money to. Elise finds herself falling for Frank (which is helped along by the fact that her lover has continually let her down) and vice versa (though it causes him nothing but trouble). There are several plot twists that should probably feel sudden but instead feel almost like a mild surprise. Somehow, it works well.

The cast is fantastic. Depp and Jolie are great actors, especially in the roles of nerd and seductress, respectively. Paul Bettany plays the lead inspector, and I wish he had a more prominent role. There's just something about him. Toss in Rufus Sewell as the stranger, and it was a solid cast.

I also thought the score was fabulous. Even if the film was a bit slow for the genre, the music said, "This is a spy flick!" I do love James Newton Howard.

I'm looking forward to re-watching this, knowing where all the twists and turns go.

Rating: 4.0

Salt (2010, U.S.)

I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with Roger Ebert, but I think it has come. He gave it four out of four stars, saying that "It's gloriously absurd. This movie has holes in it big enough to drive the whole movie through." Amen. It's like a super cheesy and preposterous 1950s spy film but with the realism that comes from modern day film techniques, and this is a very disconcerting combination. You could almost say it was so ridiculous it was good.

A lot of the plot devices lacked clarity, but I can't go into without giving away the ending. I did figure out one plot twist thanks to an episode of Lost, which was kind of fun for me.

Of course, I love Angelina Jolie more than anyone else I know. She makes an excellent action hero (see Tomb Raider). Apparently she's been wanting to do a spy franchise, and I wish this had a better script so they could make a franchise out of it. I do have to say thank goodness Tom Cruise dropped out, because this movie would have been ten kinds of awful with him instead of her.

Besides Jolie, the three best parts were the action, the setting, and the music. A lot of the action was based on Salt running and running and running from her pursuers, rather than explosions and shooting (though there was a good share of that too). The filming took place primarily in D.C. and was really well done. And the score (by one of my favorite composers) was perfect. If I had listened to it without the movie, I would have said to myself, "This would make good spy music!"

Don't expect much, and you'll be entertained. Especially if you like Angelina Jolie.

Rating: 3.5

Confessions of a Shopaholic (2009, U.S.)

I never would have watched this on my own, because I knew I was going to hate it. They were showing it on the airplane, however, so I decided to watch it to kill time. Kill is definitely the right word. I want my time back.

The premise is ridiculous. The characters are shallow, and the actors aren't even that great. The jokes are stupid. They all live happily ever after even though they most certainly do not deserve to.

Absolutely, positively awful. Don't watch it. And that's all I have to say.

Rating: 1.5

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

Defiance (2008, U.S.)

Defiance was astounding. So astounding that I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for more Oscars. The story was incredibly moving, all the more so because it was based on a true story. It is really a testament to the human spirit. These brothers' ability to create a community and protect their people and their culture in the face of extreme hardship is inspiring, all the more so because they each stayed true to their beliefs. I thought that the story was well-adapted without making it over-dramatic/emotional while still impressing upon the audience the magnitude and meaning of this quietly heroic undertaking.

The acting was brilliant. I was really impressed with Jamie Bell, a 22-year-old kid who played the youngest brother with a perfect mix of innocence and maturity. Liev Shreiber's character was rough and stoic, and his gruff demeanor never faltered. Daniel Craig stole the show, as I knew he would. That man has talent. Pure talent. All three maintained convincing Eastern European accents too, which was an added bonus. (Word on the street is that the other recent WWII film, Valkyrie, has a scattering of British and American accents where there should be German ones.)

On top of the acting and the subtly told story, the music and scenery just put it over the top. Really, listening to James Newton Howard's beautiful, haunting score filled with violin solos by Joshua Bell while watching beautiful shots of Eastern European forests would have made this film worth seeing by itself, no plot necessary. More movies should be filmed on location. James Newton Howard should do more scores. (His Peter Pan score is one of my all-time favorites.) I can't reinforce enough how much these two elements contributed to this film. And if Defiance doesn't win the Oscar for Best Original Score, I will truly be blown away.

Rating: 4.5

Batman Begins (2005, U.S.)

I saw this film once at a party at my apartment junior year of college, but there was a lot going on and I didn't really see most of it. That might be because the first 45 minutes or so are kind of a drag. Really, that was my main complaint with this one. If the first 45 minutes were squashed into 10, the whole thing would be better. (Unlike The Dark Knight, which was even longer but never felt that way.)

Otherwise, I have only good things to say about it. Some of my favorite actors, a collaboration of two of my favorite composers, and my favorite bad guy from the "Batman" TV series I watched as a kid—the Scarecrow. I say he was my favorite... He scared me to death, but then isn't that what bad guys are supposed to do? Not to mention, Cillian Murphy is on the top of my all time creepiest actors list. Don't get me wrong, I love him. He is absolutely fantastic. But even the movies I've seen him in where he played a good guy, like Cold Mountain or The Wind that Shakes the Barley, he still gave me the creeps. Probably because the first thing I ever saw him in was either 28 Days Later or Red Eye. Now that was some perfect casting.

Christian Bale is also a very strong actor. I've been watching more and more of his work recently, and I don't think I've seen anything that I haven't liked. If only he wasn't paired with an awful actress like Katie Holmes... Maggie Gyllenhaal was a great replacement there.

The last thing I'll say is about the visuals of the film. They're great. The way that they created Gotham was amazing, exactly as I've always imagined it—dark and dirty, but with some unexpected beauty here and there. Perfect playground for Batman. In fact, I think that's the one thing that was better in this film that in Dark Knight. The mood of the city, a very "Gotham" feeling. Good stuff.

Rating: 4.0

The Dark Knight (2008, U.S.)

I have never been too into the whole comic book genre, but I have seen several of them and have generally enjoyed them. I have seen the 1989 Batman as well as parts of Batman Begins, and I enjoyed them well enough. However, the most beloved Batman to me was the animated series from 1992, which I can remember watching with my brother. That, and Mask of the Phantasm. If you asked me when I was a kid who the best of all the superheroes was, I would have said Batman, hands down. So I'm not sure why I never got really into the live action films... I think that might change now. (Or at least when I have time to watch more.)

Of course, even if I wasn't already into Batman, I would have seen this movie. Because I adored Heath Ledger. First, he was the one who really got me into movies in the beginning, at the rather late age of 18. When I started my DVD collection back then (which now numbers nearly 200), the first five films consisted of four Heath Ledger movies. I now own 8 of his films, and I have seen 5 more, plus the TV series Roar. So nearly everything he's ever done. He was a brilliant, brilliant actor.

And he was brilliant in this. I can't tell you how chilling and spot on his performance was. Of course it's inevitable that it will be compared to Jack Nicholson's, and I have to say that I think Ledger's was better. To be fair, though, they were quite different portrayals—although Nicholson's was typical Nicholson (formulaic) and Ledger's was typical Ledger (original and brilliant). He was just incredible, and I can't really verbalize it any better, so I won't try.

Of course the rest of the cast was stellar as well. I won't bother listing them all—just look at the first 7 people listed in the credits. I will say that the portrayal of Two-Face was particularly well done.

Plot was complex and often hard to follow, although a lot of that could be because the sound was off in the theater, and the score was much louder than the dialogue. It definitely needs a second viewing to iron out all the details in my head, but I loved the complexity. I also need a second viewing to judge the score when it's not blaring in my ears—something tells me I won't be disappointed, because how can a Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard joint venture go wrong?

I'm glad there's really anything else I want to see this summer, because that just means I can go see The Dark Knight again (and maybe again!) when it's on the $5 Club.

This was another tough one to rate, because I don't know if I "really liked" it or "loved" it. But then there is Heath, and I know I loved him.

Rating: 4.5