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

The Lucky One (2012, U.S.)

Yawn. I haven't really loved any post-2003 Nicholas Sparks books, but The Lucky One made me think that he was heading back in the right direction (though it is awfully reminiscent of Message in a Bottle to be its own story). The movie was kind of eh. If it tells you anything, this is the first Sparks movie that hasn't made me cry. At all. And I am a huge movie crier. Considering the fact that there are some pretty emotional scenes, I have to think that the filmmakers just didn't do the best job bringing it to the screen.

Zac Efron has grown up a lot. I wouldn't say he's the best actor in the world, but he seemed perfect for this role and he was hot. (There, I said it!) I liked Taylor Schilling, but I would have liked her more if she was playing someone like Theresa in Message in a Bottle. She didn't seem too old for this role, but because she seemed way older than Efron, it didn't work so well. It felt kind of Mrs. Robinson. But the kid who played her son was just adorable and absolutely perfect, so that was nice. Then there's Blythe Danner, who can make any movie better!

I liked a lot of the settings, including the treehouse over the river, the rundown place Logan was renting, and the dog kennels. It definitely had a unique feel, and it really helped the flagging plot. It also felt very Southern, in a nice way. I loved the final shot on the road with the sun seeming to set everything on fire. It was truly beautiful.

Obviously this movie has some things to commend it, including casting and setting, but I think the writing and directing must have been pretty weak, because overall the movie felt pretty weak. Still, worth a watch, especially if you're a fan of all things Sparks and/or sappy romance.

Rating: 3.0

Beginners (2010, U.S.)

This was just a lovely, thought-provoking, touching indie film. From the previews, you'd think it's a comedy about a grown man whose 75-year-old father suddenly comes out. That's kind of what it is, but it is so much more than that.

Following his father Hal's death, Oliver's primary relationship seems to be with his father's dog Arthur (an adorable Jack Russell whose thoughts sometimes appear to the audience via subtitles). He projects his own feelings onto Arthur, using the dog as an excuse to stay in seclusion. His work as a graphic artist, his friendships, and his mental health are all obviously suffering. When his friends force him to attend a costume party, he meets Anna, a French actress in town for work, and they seem to have an immediate connection. However, he struggles with the budding relationship. In flashbacks, we can see that this may stem from his mother's unconventional parenting, his parents' passionless marriage, and his continuing struggle to come to terms with father's sexuality and, more specifically, his jealousy of Hal's much younger lover.

I offer this brief plot summary because I don't think the previews do the film justice at all. I'd hate to think of people blowing this film off as another comedy that uses the gay lifestyle as easy material and missing out on a really special work. Watching Hal come alive as he embraces his true nature and finds companionship not just with a lover but with a large network of friends is just beautiful. (I especially love the scene when he has his hospital room packed with friends drinking a toast to him and they get in trouble with the nurse for having alcohol.) He's coming alive while coming to terms with his death, and then his son has to do the same thing. Oliver has to choose whether to cling to his grief or to take a chance on love, which is even harder for him because he has no example to follow.

I'm doing an awful job of explaining this, but clearly it was a complex film, though in a simple, very human way. Of course Christopher Plummer was great, a scene stealer in almost all of his scenes. Ewan McGregor's character was very different from anything I've seen him play before, both innocent and mature at once. And I thought Mélanie Laurent was perfect in her role. She almost seemed a blend of the French actress and struggling actress sterotypes—impoverished, bohemian, classy, sexy, spontaneous, shy yet sociable. The writing for this film was so good that almost any actors would have made it good, but these three made it great. (*edit: Christopher Plummer's Academy Award? Totally deserved and one of the few categories I had an opinion on and was rooting for! Also, oldest every winner... Go him!)

Anyway, I'll stop now. In summary, it's really worth seeing, whether you're interested in the parent/child aspect, the coming out aspect, the figuring out how love works aspect, the dealing with death aspect, or even the dog with thoughts aspect. A true gem.

Rating: 4.5

One Day (2011, U.S.)

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

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

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

Rating: 3.5

Last Night (2010, U.S.)

I have to say that I was very disappointed in this movie. The cast was pretty awesome (though I've never cared much for Eva Mendes), but they gave less than stellar performances. Keira Knightley, for example, is one of the most talented actresses working now, in my opinion. Sam Worthington has a great reputation. However, did I believe they were married for a single second? No. They had absolutely no chemistry. Worthington didn't seem to have much chemistry with the woman he had an affair with either, however. Guillaume Canet (who I was thrilled to see in an American movie, incidentally), seemed to have more chemistry with Knightley, plus he was adorable and charming like he always is. Of all the characters I liked him the best, because he was the most true to his idea of love. The others were all too easily tempted into unfaithfulness, and I saw few, if any, redeeming qualities in them.

My dislike for the characters just made it too hard to like the movie, even if it was stylistically and narratively well-done. I think the absolute best part (besides Guillaume Canet) was the score, which was very heavy on piano, interesting and lovely. It's unusual for me to buy a score if I didn't like a movie (and often the score can make the movie), but I would get this score though I would never watch the movie again. This is the second Clint Mansell score I've heard, and the first was just as impressive (Black Swan). I will definitely keep an ear out for him.

Rating: 1.5

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

Heaven (2002, Germany)

This was an enthralling, beautiful, sad, uplifting film. It is definitely one of a kind. Philippa seeks revenge for her husband's death by planting a bomb, but instead of killing the intended target, the victims are innocent bystanders instead. When she is arrested and interrogated as a terrorist (they don't believe her story about her husband), one of the officers is the young Filippo. He forms this inexplicable attachment to her and tries to help her escape.

Somehow the couple falls in love, and it seems improbable and inevitable all at once. They become twins, from their clothes to their hair to their situation to their already matching names to their quest for something more (perhaps the titular heaven). The effect is rather stunning, as is much of the composition. One shot of them standing under an enormous tree during a beautiful sunset is absolutely breathtaking. Their shadows meld together so that they become one person, a process begun by their previously mentioned physical transition.

Despite its simplicity, the plot seemed very confusing at times. I think this is probably because it was such a symbolic piece. The opening scene was especially jarring, though even it made sense in the end. I would give this a 3.5 because of its shaky plot foundations, but between the symbolism, the cinematography, and the powerful acting (Blanchett and Ribisi were incredible), this film really grabbed me somehow. A very pleasant surprise.

Rating: 4.0

I Love You, Phillip Morris (2009, U.S.)

I don't even know where to begin with this movie. The fact that it was based on a true story just blows my mind. Man with super-Christian wife announces he's gay, moves to Florida to live the lifestyle, supports himself by committing fraud, his boyfriend dies of AIDS, he goes to prison for his crimes, he falls in love with another inmate, he becomes a lawyer to get his lover out of prison... and it only gets more unreal from there. It's bizarre.

I did find myself laughing out loud quite a bit, but I don't know if it was due to the absurdity of the entire plot or whether it was actually funny. I've never been a huge Jim Carrey fan (my favorites of his are the more "serious comedies," The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine), to the point where I feel like he almost detracts from a movie. Still, his completely over-the-top style worked for this over-the-top story. And Ewan McGregor. I just love him, and I've always thought he was a good actor. This role just proved how versatile he is. He was stellar as this sweet, soft-spoken, golden-haired, gay, minor criminal. I too wanted to shout, "I love you, Phillip Morris!"

This whole flick was far from what I expected, but it was entertaining, funny, strangely engaging, and definitely interesting. And did I mention Ewan McGregor?

Rating: 3.5

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

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

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

Source Code (2011, U.S.)

I have very mixed feelings about this one. It definitely had a very interesting concept for a science fiction thriller. And it had the one-of-a-kind, sweet, sexy, boy-next-door, unlikely-hero Jake Gyllenhaal. Some good special effects (exploding trains and the like). A hint of romance. A dash of (misplaced?) patriotism. Lots of promise, but it just didn't come together well.

It's not that it was confusing. At first it was a bit confusing, as I got the hang of the plot. In fact, it was a bit confusing for Coulter (Gyllenhaal), and the viewer figures out what's going on as he does, which was pretty good for the plot. As far as sci-fi action flicks go, this seemed pretty strong for the most part, especially considering it took place over and over again in the same 8 minutes with the same handful of characters on the same train.

I was mostly frustrated because the developing romance didn't make much sense, and the ending made no sense at all. It felt like they were going somewhere else with the story, but the original ending was too depressing so they rewrote it to be conveniently-ever-ever. (This is just a theory, but that's how it felt to me.) Both of these things made the whole thing feel forced and ruined the effect. I barely convinced myself to go up to 3.0 instead of 2.5.

I would recommend this to anyone who's desperate for a good sci-fi thriller (a somewhat under-used genre in today's market, it seems to me). Yes, even though I didn't rate it higher, the kernel of the story was very good; just the execution was lacking. I also recommend it to diehard Jake Gyllenhaal fans (like myself). He really carried this movie. He has a very quiet, underrated talent and plays the tough yet tender hero very well.

Rating: 3.0

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

Walk the Line (2005, U.S.)

Here's yet another biographical film that never really interested me, but suddenly when I was cataloging it at work, I just had to see it. It was an excellent choice.

Reese Witherspoon was phenomenal as June Carter. Joaquin Phoenix was okay, though he was rather on and off. Toward the end he was amazing, and he also was in his drugged haze. His early singing was rather weak and might have been better if it was lip synced. His voice was much stronger at the end, especially in Folsom Prison and in Ontario. However, he had a majorly crazy singing face that looked like he was constipated or in pain or two seconds away from passing out. Maybe Johnny Cash really looked like that while singing, I don't know, but it was a bit off-putting. In terms of the rest of the cast, Tyler Hilton as Elvis was the worst casting choice ever, but I absolutely loved Jerry Lee Lewis. The chemistry between the entire cast was absolutely palpable.

Watching this gave a very good sense of musicians' road life in the middle decades of the 20th century. The costumes, props, and sets were perfect vehicles to transport the viewer back 50, 60 years.

The film seemed to go on forever, but not in a bad way. It was like I was so lost in the story that I had to wake up and readjust to reality when it was over. I even watched the deleted scenes, which I don't often do with this kind of film. I thought that too much was left out of the story, though I recognize the need to edit and thought they picked events well. I'm amazed that I was so interested that I wanted more. In fact, I went straight back to the library and checked out Johnny Cash's greatest hits.

Magnificent.

Rating: 4.5

Ondine (2009, Ireland)

I was rather intrigued by the concept of this film. Also I hadn't seen an Irish film in awhile, and I was curious to see what kind of film would cause Colin Farrell to leave Hollywood and return to Ireland.

Syracuse, who's better known as Circus because of his drunken antics, has a disabled daughter whose mother he's estranged from. He's a fisherman, and one day he catches a beautiful woman in his net. She says her name is Ondine, which means "she came from the sea." His daughter thinks Ondine is a selkie; Circus thinks he's falling in love.

Ondine is a modern Irish fairy tale, but it has all the magic and darkness of old Irish fairy tales and all the bleak realism of modern Irish life. I guess you could call it magical realism. It is damp, poor, sad, magical, beautiful, wonderful Ireland at its best. The contrast between the fantasy story and the true story is perfectly balanced. The score was mostly this (I can't help using the word yet again) magical-sounding guitar music which fit perfectly. And Colin Farrell was brilliant, a strong choice for the role of an almost weak and broken man. The girl who played Ondine was also talented, and the girl who played the daughter nearly stole the show.

Beautiful. Magical. Highly recommended.

Rating: 4.0

Wake (2008, U.S.)

It seems like I've been saying this a lot lately, but this film was truly one of a kind. It's about a girl whose sister died young. Carys can't feel anything, and she wants to be able to cry. So she uses a connection with a friend who works for a mortuary and starts going to the funerals of strangers. At one funeral, she meets Tyler, the fiancé of the young deceased. His eulogy touches her, and she finds herself lying to him about being a friend of the family. They start a friendship, they both help each other grieve, and eventually they become more than friends.

I've rarely seen such a successful genre-blend. There was the obvious drama (revolving around death and family) and romance angles. Then there was a mystery, because there's a question about how the fiancée died (and Tyler might have done it). Then there's some extreme suspense when Carys and Tyler are alone in a cabin in the woods and Carys fears for her life. There's some pretty funny black comedy. And they all blend together so well that you can never quite settle into watching; your mind has to be actively engaged in the film to keep your mental footing.

I thought that the last shot was just too easy, but otherwise, wow. It was quite a roller coaster—funny, sad, suspenseful, romantic. A great indie film that definitely deserves a wide audience. Prepare to be surprised.

Rating: 4.5

Dear John (2010, U.S.)

It's getting harder and harder for me to review movies based on Nicholas Sparks books, because I really find all his recent books (after about 1998) to be underwhelming. This book was one of my least favorite, but I think they did a pretty good job adapting it for the screen. They made the war part of the film more accessible and the feelings of the soldier more apparent.

You couldn't have cast two better people as John and Savannah. Channing Tatum is the actor to play the modern soldier. (See Stop-Loss, G.I. Joe, etc.) And I really like Amanda Seyfriend, which made her un-empathetic character less horrific, at least for me personally.

I'm not sure how true to the book it was. For instance, I don't remember John's father being such a strong character. He was a great addition to the story. I also don't remember the twists at the ending, though they could have been there. Said twists took a sappy romance and turned it into extreme melodrama. I think I'm over that phase of my life, because I was underwhelmed.

Rating: 3.0

The Last Song (2010, U.S.)

Much better than Nights in Rodanthe, didn't hold a candle to The Notebook or Message in a Bottle. Then again, this wasn't my favorite Sparks book either.

A very troubled teenage girl and her brother get shipped off to her dad's for the summer. There she finds her first love and reestablishes her relationship with her father.

The casting was pretty good on this one. Miley Cyrus wasn't that bad, Greg Kinnear was good, the boyfriend was sexy, and the kid who played the younger brother was awesome. I've seen some great child actors recently, it seems.

I think this was very true to the novel, because it too tried to take on too much at once. The combination of the dying father-troubled daughter story and the first love story was just too much. I think the movie did a pretty good, maybe better, job of showing how the girl falling in love helped her open her heart to her father more too.

It was sweet and I was sobbing at the end. Nicholas Sparks, what more can I say?

Rating: 3.5