Never Let Me Go (2010, UK)

I just don't even know where to start with this film. To call it "heartbreakingly beautiful" would be the understatement of the century. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It was so wonderful that I even watched the "making of" featurette, which I don't do too often. (Ironically, the last one I watched was another British boarding school setting—Like Minds.)

The concept is similar to that of The Island, but rather than being action-packed and set in the future, it is set in a very slightly alternate past and is more psychological, reflective. Basically, a group of children (possibly clones) are brought up in boarding schools and lectured on good health and the like. At 18, they move to homes around the country before beginning the process of fulfilling their purpose, which is to donate organs to "real" people. (That is the broad concept. More specifically, the story focuses on three friends and their relationships with each other.) I thought that setting it in the past is much more effective, because it is so much more plausible. Only a slight change in medical technology, no fast cars, advanced gaming systems. Just life as we know it with a slight change. The message is subtly different from the earlier film as well. It's more about accepting fate, making the best of the time you're given, and not being afraid to love. The difference is especially apparent in the operation scenes, though you'd have to see them both to know what I mean.

The mise en scène is striking and adds a lot to the story. The colors are all muted, sometimes dreary but mostly soft. The same can be said for the sounds. There isn't too much ambient noise, just things like gentle breeze and waves, quiet birdsong, and the like. It creates a sad, almost bleak and haunting feel, sort of like a waking dream. They also used a lot images that were simple but somehow beautiful, like a lot of broken toys laid out on a table, a bird sitting on a teapot, an abandoned and rusted boat on a lonely beach, a glimpse of the crescent-shaped scar on Tommy's back. One image that especially stuck with me was the children singing their school song toward the beginning. The way it was filmed made them seem so young and innocent, and it was heartbreaking because as a viewer, you know that they're headed nowhere. The importance of art to the story, and the manifestation of Tommy's inner self in his strange, wonderful drawings also adds to the sad and dreamlike feel.

Of course, the film wouldn't have been nearly as effective without the absolutely stellar cast. I've always been a fan of Keira Knightly (Ruth). I was very impressed by Carey Mulligan (Kathy) in An Education. And I could tell from The Social Network that Andrew Garfield (Tommy) was someone to watch. But in this film, and together, they were beyond brilliant. The chemistry between all three of them was palpable. They were three friends being ripped apart by the cruel circumstances of their fate. On top of this, the first half hour or so focused on them at age 12, and the child actors they cast might as well have been the three older actors 15 years ago. They look the same, have the same vocal inflections and mannerisms. Incredible. (In the making of, I learned that they made a special effort to cast kids who looked the same, and that their adult counterparts read through scenes with them and coached them as to how they would act. Very effective.) Toward the end, there's a shot of Kathy (Carey Mulligan's character) in a car, and for a second I actually thought they had flashed back in time and it was her 12-year-old self. That's how close they were. The adult actors also had to age from 18 to 28, and for Donors that can be a long and hard 10 years. The actors were fantastic in acting the emotional and physical changes of those 10 years, and the hair/makeup/costuming/whoever department did a fantastic job as well. Of all the actors, however, I just can't say enough about Andrew Garfield. His character is very complex, a big-hearted boy who has fits of rage, is nervously shy around other people and yet the object of two girls' affections, quiet and wise. He acts all these things to perfection. The most powerful scene in the entire film is one of him screaming in anguish and rage (which strikingly and powerfully echoes a similar scene that his childhood counterpart had) that goes beyond heart-wrenching to gut-wrenching. The overall film gave me the feeling that my heart was breaking into a million pieces, but this scene of Garfield's was especially powerful and moving. I won't lie, it made me sob. And sob. And sob. Truly magnificent and intense, a distillation of the feel of the rest of the film.

The score for this film was perfect. So perfect and so beautiful that the credits hadn't finished rolling but 5 minutes ago before I was on iTunes downloading it. I hate to pull out that old favorite phrase of mine, but the score really was heartbreakingly beautiful. It's hard to explain, but the feeling I get from listening to it is like the stream of time is slowly, inexorably flowing by the characters and there's nothing they can do to stop it but capture a few moments of love and beauty. Imagine that in musical form, and that's Rachel Portman's stunning score. I also mentioned the children singing the school song earlier, but one additional piece of music that really made the movie was a cassette that young Tommy gave to young Kathy with the song "Never Let Me Go" on it. She listens to it as a young woman and as an adult (and presumably quite often in the interim), and both the young actress and the older one have a wealth of emotions flitting over their faces as they listen to it. The song is perfect of the film, and the way it was used was even more perfect. I really just can't say enough about the music. (Or the acting, or the mise en scène, or the writing, etc. etc. etc.)

I loved the whole thing. Kathy's final words are a perfect, haunting conclusion: "All of us complete. Maybe none of us really understand what we've lived through. Or feel we've had enough time." I can't wait to watch this again or to read the book. Definitely planning to do both. *edit: It's tomorrow, and I just watched it again before I had to return it to the library. It was just as good the second time, and I really just want to watch it again now. This film is one that will be stuck with me for ages, I think. I've used these words several times before, but I'll say it again: very haunting, very powerful, very beautiful, very heartbreaking.*

Rating: 5.0

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

Rabbit Hole (2010, U.S.)

This film was very difficult to watch, but really quite superb. I suppose in essence it is a domestic drama, because it is about the state of a marriage following the accidental death of a young child. Howie wants to go to group therapy and watch home videos and maintain his son's presence even in his absence. Becca, who left her job at Sotheby's to be a mother and is stuck at home all day, would rather hide the physical evidence of their son's life, forgoing therapy. Instead, she finds herself following the teenager who hit four-year-old Danny with his car; eventually, they begin meeting. While each spouse is trying to heal in their own way, their marriage is suffering.

To begin with, the script was very well-written. It's obvious to me why the original play won the 2007 Pulitzer. (Side note: the writing definitely feels like a play with the minimal number of characters and simple settings, sort of like 2005's Prime.) Eckhart and Kidman were phenomenal, and they made already strong writing simply leap off the screen. Their broken moments, their fights, their falling away from each other, their tentative attempts at physical intimacy, their reactions to things as little as a broken flower in the garden or as big as the dog their son was chasing into the road that fateful day... simply incredible acting. I've always thought highly of Nicole Kidman, and I'm beginning to build quite a favorable opinion of Aaron Eckhart as well. (From dry comedy in Thank You for Smoking to the fabulous portrayal of Two Face in The Dark Knight, he's making quite the impression on me.)

I quite enjoyed the score as well, which was at times sad and at times hopeful, perfectly expressing the film's emotions and adding to a truly heart-wrenching story. Wonderful stuff.

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 Town (2010, U.S.)

I think Ben Affleck is a pretty strong actor who has made some pretty unfortunate choices in his career (mostly involving Armageddon and romantic comedy—he's a much stronger dramatic actor.) His writing/directing skills aren't too shabby either, but to me this script had one major flaw. A huge part of the plot (or so it seems) is that one of the bank robbers kidnaps a teller during the robbery, and they think that she might be able to identify them. So Affleck's character starts flirting with her to find out what she knows. Eventually, they embark on a serious relationship, and there's a lot of tension involving whether she'll find out who he is. Then suddenly, that plot thread is dropped for no apparent reason. It drove me just a little bit crazy.

The acting was very patchy as well. Like I said, I think Affleck is great. Pete Postlewaite, who plays a florist/crime lord-type character, was awesome. Jeremy Renner has driven me crazy from the first time I saw him. I don't know that he's a bad actor per se, but every character he plays (that I've seen) seems to be a cocky, white trash sort. That makes it a bit hard to appreciate him. (This was also my feeling toward Sean Penn until I saw Milk, so maybe I just haven't seen the right performance yet.) The strangest was Blake Lively as Renner's sister, who just did not work for the part. In fact, it took me quite awhile to figure out who she was supposed to be. While everyone else has fairly standard (or even weak) industrial Massachusetts accents, I kept thinking she was supposed to be Eastern/Central European, and I couldn't figure out how this would fit the story—until I realized she was just supposed to sound like a lower-class New Englander. Yikes.

The bank robbery element was pretty cool, as those things go. Watching the dynamics of the gang and the planning that went into a job (especially the very interesting Fenway Park robbery) was interesting, as was learning about life in Charlestown. I had never heard of the "bank robbery capital of the world" before.

The ending was pretty sweet also, though of course I won't give it away. It's unfortunate that such an interesting storyline was dragged down by a cast of mixed skill and a script of mixed effectiveness. It was so close to being good, but all the pieces just didn't fall into place. It could have been a lot stronger. Still, if you judge it strictly as a crime flick and not as the character drama/social commentary it was clearly meant to be, it was pretty darn good.

Rating: 2.5

The Fighter (2010, U.S.)

I never really had much interest in seeing this, because I'm just not a big sports movie sort of gal. But after all the Oscar buzz, I decided I better check it out anyway. Besides, I have great respect for the talents of Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, and Amy Adams.

Basically, it's exactly what you'd expect it to be. Poor guy from Lowell, Massachusetts tries to follow in his older brother's athletic footsteps, but not his drug-addicted, law-breaking ones. He wants to maintain his relationship with his brother, who he loves and once respected, even though his brother is dragging him down. He wants to get out of the neighborhood and away from his overbearing mother and gaggle of sisters. He wants to earn enough to support his daughter. He wants to be with the woman he loves even though his family doesn't approve. He struggles, he triumphs, the end.

I hate to oversimplify the plot and make it sound like I'm mocking it, because I'm not. The acting was phenomenal, as you would expect from Bale (a well-earned Oscar), Wahlberg, and Adams especially. The real surprise to me was Melissa Leo (another well-earned Oscar) and the 5? 6? sisters. Between all those women, the two men, and Adams (who played Wahlberg's girlfriend), the dynamic was astounding. The family felt like a big, crazy, female-dominated family, and there was especially no love lost between the sisters and the girlfriend. Realistic stuff, and funny in a sad sort of way. Excellent ensemble.

When it comes down to it, though, it's just another sports movie to me. Exceptionally well acted, and probably interesting to those with an interest in the subject, but all the brilliant acting chops in the world wouldn't make this my favorite movie. It's just not my thing, and I appreciated it for what it was. (Probably a must for sports fans in general, boxing fans in particular, Massachusetts residents, and fans of the lead actors.)

Rating: 3.0

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

RED (2010, U.S.)

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Look, I am not a huge Bruce Willis fan, but I thought the concept of this one looked pretty good, and the "supporting" cast (Mirren, Malkovich, Freeman, Urban) was a dream. And when I first started this, watching Frank Moses (Willis) go about his boring, retired day, I thought, "Hey, this might be good." It was all downhill from there. The characters were great, and they could have populated a great movie. Instead, they have this meandering plot that makes very little sense. The characters just aren't used as well as they could have been, and many of them have too little screen time. (One even bites the dust before the end, which was quite a shock.)

Verdict? A forgettable, disappointing waste of time. Especially because it had the potential to be great.

Rating: 2.0

127 Hours (2010, U.S.)

This was a strangely engaging film, based on a true story that I actually remember from the news at the time. Basically, Aron Ralston goes out hiking alone in the Utah canyons, has his arm pinned under a boulder, and is trapped for five days before he amputates his own arm with a pocketknife. Grim stuff.

The film was very well done. The opening credits were an interesting montage of crowded city scenes and nature, showing a stark contrast. Once the story gets going, it starts out with enough scenes to show Aron's character, a laid-back, easy-going, friendly hiker who is more into being in nature than communicating with humans. Once he gets on his bike out in the canyons, his exuberance is almost contagious. It would make even the most sedentary person want to get out there and do something in nature.

Once he's trapped, I'm a little torn on my feelings. Probably because I have a love/hate relationship with James Franco. During some parts he gives a powerful, moving performance, but at other times it's like he's a stoner who thinks he's James Dean. Way too much. Still, most of the performance is talent rather than melodramatic overacting. This part also has some very interesting and well-used special effects that emphasize his condition. One of the best was from the inside of his water bottle as he sucked the last few milliliters out. It's hard to describe, but it was fantastically done. Then they show a montage as he dreams of going to a party with lots of beer, watching a soda commercial, etc. Basically, it has the effect of making the viewer feel his thirst. Very neat.

Other than these interesting effects and montages, the music was the most phenomenal part. I guess I'm not surprised, coming from the composer of the stellar Slumdog Millionaire score. I don't know how else to describe it except to say that it sounded like America when he looked out over the canyons. And the painful, screeching music used when he cut through his tendons while freeing his arm made me grit my teeth in pain, like it was my arm being severed. Wow.

So overall, quite a well-done film. I don't know if I would call it an inspiring survival story, because that's not what it felt like. It was more like an historical recreation—this is how it was. Even if the former was its intent and it didn't accomplish its aim, it was still a very engaging, thoughtful movie.

Rating: 3.5

The Social Network (2010, U.S.)

I was absolutely immersed in this film within the first five minutes. It amazes me how quickly they made a movie about such recent history, with a wealth of mostly accurate detail. Truly fascinating.

The acting was very strong. I think the only other movie that I've seen Jesse Eisenberg in was Adventureland, which I also loved him in. However, I think he was even better in this. From the very first, his witty, sarcastic, fast talking makes him the picture of the arrogant, insecure intellectual. He was definitely the sun around which all the other actors/characters orbited. Though none of them touched Eisenberg in terms of talent, most of the other actors were fairly strong. Even Justin Timberlake, who I was more than a little wary to watch, wasn't bad.

This is a dark film, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps the dark, mostly nighttime settings were symbolic. (Then again, maybe computer nerd types mostly work at night.) Even the brightest scene in the Facebook offices toward the end of the film didn't seem "light." It was a clinical, lonely sort of whiteness. It's also dark in that there are many betrayals and broken friendships. This has to be the unhappiest movie about a billionaire ever made. (Well, perhaps discounting Marie Antoinette and other non-modern billionaires.)

I can't even think of another movie I've ever seen about such modern history/pop culture, so it's hard to compare this to anything, but I will definitely say that it paints an interesting picture of the world we live in and the dark side of the birth of a company we take for granted daily. I would highly recommend this to anyone.

Rating: 4.0