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

Toy Story 3 (2010, U.S.)

This was the first ever movie I've seen in 3-D. I don't know if I really liked that aspect of it. Mostly it just gave me a headache.

The movie, on the other hand, was great. I didn't think they'd be able to pull another story out of these characters, but they did. Andy's heading off to college and getting rid of his toys; the gang is donated to daycare, and it's a living hell.

Two big highlights were Buzz being set to Spanish-language Buzz, Barbie meeting (a very clothes-obsessed and shallow) Ken, and the aliens from the claw machine following around the Potato Heads ("You have saved our lives, we are eternally grateful!").

I was kind of back and forth about the ending. On one hand it was sweet and on the other hand it was way too sad and disappointing. Overall, it was the mix of funny and touching you'd expect from a Toy Story movie.

Rating: 4.0

Saving Private Ryan (1998, U.S.)

It only took me 11 years to see Saving Private Ryan. Travesty, I know. And this is really going to kill people, but it wasn't nearly as wonderful as I imagined it would be.

The concept was great. The score, beautiful. The acting, convincing. The cinematography, breathtaking. Yet somehow, it just didn't quite get me.

The opening scene was incredible. I thought it really captured the essence of war—the chaos, the fear, the horror. But then it kept going. And going. Perhaps the point was that war is like that. The horrors never end, and all that. But there were so many scenes that could have been just as effective if they were cut in half. Or even quartered. (Is this how other people felt about Australia?)

And I think this was really my primary quarrel with this film. While, as I mentioned before, the usual elements were in place to make this the kind of film I would love forever, instead it felt like it would just go on and on forever. I'm pretty disappointed to feel this way.

Rating: 3.0

Angels & Demons (2009, U.S.)

Even though I thought The Da Vinci Code was terrible (couldn't hold a candle to the book!), I decided to tempt fate and the movie gods and watch Angels & Demons. (It's really hard to say no to Ewan McGregor!)

Here's what I think. Like the first installment (that used to be a sequel but is now a prequel... weird), it took quite a few liberties. Mostly it was over-simplified to better fit a film format. However, there was strangely less suspense than in the book, even though they had a great opportunity to make it really come alive. A huge plot point involves a terrorist killing a cardinal every hour, and yet somehow they have time between locating each body to change clothes, do research in the Vatican archives, drive around in traffic, have some drawn out conversations, and then make it to the next murder scene with two minutes to spare. It was completely unbelievable it this respect.

Acting. Tom Hanks was okay. I felt like he didn't capture Langdon at all in the first film, and this was barely an improvement. His female sidekick, the brilliant scientist, was barely there. The strongest performances came from Stellan Skarsgård (the commander of the Vatican police) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (Dean of the College of Cardinals). They weren't major characters, but they were important and played their parts well. Ewan McGregor absolutely stole the show. Surprise, surprise. He was impassioned and calm-headed and pious and worldly at all the right times and in all the right amounts. Brilliant. The one thing that was lacking in his performance was a perfect accent. Usually his accents are passable, but he just sounded like a more toned-down Scot than the Irishman he was supposed to be. Details, details.

The mis en scène was pretty awesome, considering a large percentage of it was probably reproduction. Having been to Vatican City myself, I was pretty impressed with their recreation of the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter's Square. If I didn't know the Vatican would never allow film crews in there, I would believe it was the real thing. Other locations, such as the Castel and Ponte Sant'Angelo and the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi (absolutely breathtaking in life) could also have been the real thing. Maybe they were. All I know is that I want to rewind time and relive those days I spent strolling around Rome. (Only this time, not in the summer with half of the U.S. and Japan there!)

Away from personal notes. I was impressed with the score from the first notes. I kept thinking that the style of the composition and the quality of performance sounded familiar. Turns out it was composed by Hans Zimmer (one of my all-time favorites) and the violin solos were performed by Jamie Bell (whose performance on the Defiance score is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard). It had the right mix of suspense and beauty at the right times and did wonders for the film. The only thing that stuck out was when Cardinal Strauss tells Langdon that "of course" God sent him to Rome—and the score becomes suddenly ominous for a few bars. Very odd.

Overall, I can see how people who haven't read the book would love this movie. I thought it was okay, and I didn't want to tear my eyes out after watching it like I did with the first one. So there you have it.

Rating: 3.0