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

Letters to Juliet (2010, U.S.)

I thought that this movie looked really cute, and I like Amanda Seyfried quite a bit. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed.

The whole thing felt way too contrived, with stilted dialogue that almost bordered on wooden at times (and had a false ring a majority of the time). Overall, the writing was terrible. Aside from the dialogue problems, a lot of the plot was just too much of a stretch when it could have been much smoother. Parts were too easy, convenient, and basically unrealistic. I think "oversimplified" is the best word I can come up with.

The actors weren't bad. Seyfriend wasn't her best, but still cute. Her fiance was a Mexican actor playing a goofy maybe-Italian, which was a very strange choice. They do get extra points for casting Vanessa Redgrave, who is an absolute film goddess. I did like the male lead, who had very good comedic timing. He had a very strong (and to my untrained ear, accurate) British accent, but every now and then it went a little weird—turns out he's Australian. He also had something in his face (though not his acting) that reminded me of Heath Ledger, which was odd.

Anyway, this was a sweet concept that was terribly executed. Very unfortunate.

Rating: 2.0

The Ghost Writer (2010, France)

I love Ewan McGregor, and Olivia Williams is incredibly talented, so she carries a good deal of the weight of this film. Acting talent is very important in this type of slow-building suspense, where there's no obvious threat but instead a creeping feeling that something's wrong. The atmosphere is equally important, and it was dark and chilling.

I found the plot a bit strange, alternating between inexplicably complex moments and stagnant inaction. It wasn't bad per se, I just kept waiting for something to happen or something to make sense. Sometimes it was the good, suspenseful kind of waiting, but sometimes it was just a bit dull.

The last 60 seconds of the film were the absolute best. I love a good plot twist, and while part of this twist should have been more predictable, the other part came out of nowhere and completely made the film. Amazing what an ending can do to improve one's final impression of a film!

Rating: 3.0

Water's Edge (2003, U.S.)

Calling this a formulaic thriller would be an exaggeration. It wasn't even that good. Not that the idea was bad, but the writing and (most of) the acting was pretty awful. (Can't discount the power of Nathan Fillion, although even he wasn't in top form.)

Basically, an author and his wife are having a hard time in life, so they move out to his dad's old cabin in the middle of nowhere America. (Sounds like both of the horror/thriller type movies I watched recently—but without Kristen Stewart.) When he's out in the woods one day, he stumbles upon the county sheriff beating a woman to death. Well, he can't have that, so he shoots the sheriff. (Can you hear the cheesy music playing in the background?)

Husband and wife proceed to uncover a web of sex, lies, and murder in small town America. Most of the characters' motivation is unclear, as are several of the plot twists. All in all, a pretty awful piece of filmmaking. But hey, if you love Nathan Fillion, go ahead and watch it anyway.

Rating: 2.0

Adaptation. (2002, U.S.)

What a crazy, crazy, crazy film. I don't even know what to think of this one or what the point was, exactly.

The story is about a man (played by Cage) who is writing a screenplay of a book written by a woman (Streep). The book is entirely about orchids (and quite boring, from what I gather). The man lives with his loser brother (also played by Cage), who decides to become a screenwriter as well.

The screenplay isn't going well, so the man decides to look farther into the story—and all kinds of bizarre things start happening / are revealed.

I can't lie. I thought this one was quite slow and often boring. Nicolas Cage was adequate, but not great. Chris Cooper, who played a minor (but integral) role, definitely stole the show.

You'd really have to see this one for yourself. But I will say one thing for it—it was different.

Rating: 2.5