The Conspirator (2010, U.S.)

Hmmmmm, I can't decide about this one. There is no denying that the lead actors were awesome. I've been a fan of Robin Wright since she was Robin Wright Penn and James McAvoy for... well, awhile anyway. (Probably 2007. You know why.) Their acting absolutely transported me, and Wright was particularly inspired. You know how it's all going to end, but you can't help but think the strength of her character and her convictions will be enough to change the outcome. To a lesser extent, McAvoy's character's determination to follow the letter of the law does the same thing. The supporting cast was filled with talented, big name actors as well. I'd say this film was a casting triumph.

Just as impressive as the actors was the entire period feel. The sets and lighting were incredible. I felt like I could nearly smell the smoke from guttering oil lamps and hear the crinkle of crinolines. It's rather hard to explain just how realistic it was. Fabulous work.

Even though the subject of the War can seem rather tired sometimes (especially around here), I really enjoyed the choice of topic. While the assassination of Lincoln is a frequent choice of content to include, he is always pictured as the blessed martyr and the conspirators as evil criminals. (I won't get into the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, bordering on becoming a tyrant as John Wilkes Boothe proclaimed, holding onto the Union at all costs despite the People's wishes. But anyway.) I thought the movie was pretty balanced and not hateful to the South as many fictionalized versions of the assassination are. In fact, the men of the president's cabinet seemed so corrupt, their trial of Surratt so unconstitutional, that they seemed to be the villains. I have to say that it was refreshing. The blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens in the 1860s was very upsetting, and I wonder how many people realize how strongly yesterday's civil rights violations echo today.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the film finished on a sour note. (Well, besides the anticipated unhappy ending.) This was a literal sour note. The music, which up until that time had been subtle, period-appropriate instrumentation, morphed into modern music almost the second the credits began to roll. It was very jarring and threw me right out of the world of the film. Very bad choice.

Rating: 4.0

Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (2004, U.S.)

I don't have too much to say about this documentary, but I did want to mark that I have watched it. We're reading A People's History of the United States and Voices of a People's History of the United States for one of my book clubs, discussing a few chapters each month. This month a few of us met to watch this film about Zinn's life and work. Of course, anyone who is interested in the subject matter will like this documentary, and if you're against Zinn's ideas you probably won't like it. For myself, I'm amazed that there was once a person in the world who cared so much and worked so hard to make this country, and this world really, the place it should be. The challenges that Zinn faced just because of his beliefs and his work should be enough to make any mere mortal give up thousands of times, but he never did. He was a truly exceptional person, and I wish I had been able to see him speak while he was alive. This film was an interesting, though too brief, insight into the man and his work.

Rating: 3.5

Puss in Boots (2011, U.S.)

Soooooooooo cute. I always thought that Puss in Boots was the best character from the Shrek movies, and now that I have two little orange fuzzballs of my own, I have to say I'm even more biased. Of course, the cat jokes were all hilarious to me (and to the friend I saw it with, who is not really a cat person). I laughed out loud several times. Antonio Banderas is such a good voice actor, and the rest of the cast was pretty good too. The plot was definitely weird. It involved Humpty Dumpty, Jack and Jill, the goose that lays the golden eggs, Jack's beanstalk... it was bordering on ridiculous, but somehow it worked. The one negative thing I will say about it is that Humpty Dumpty is just creepy, in his looks, his mannerism, everything. I don't know why, but he made me think of a pedophile. So that was a bit off-putting.

I can't say enough about the main focus of this movie, however. Of course, that's Puss. He's one of those characters like Jack Sparrow who could salvage any movie. (Well okay, that's not a fair comparison, but I thought that was true of good old Jack until POTC4!) Totally worth it for Puss, Banderas, and funny cat jokes.

Rating: 4.0

The Ides of March (2011, U.S.)

I went to see this with my mom because she wanted to see it, and it was better than my other option. Why did I not want to see a movie with the sexy and talented Ryan Gosling, you ask? Well, aside from the fact that I fluctuate between finding George Clooney passable and downright annoying, this subject matter just didn't interest me at all. The matter of politics is depressing enough in the real world without having to see it in a fictional world too. What kind of escapism is that, I ask?

Well, it went just about as expected. Gosling was stellar, of course. Clooney was actually pretty good. (This was not one of those movies when I wanted to yell "Shut up, you irritating man!") The supporting cast—Marisa Tomei, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright—was obviously a strong one. I couldn't say one bad thing about the acting. I also learned a whole lot about the campaigning process, from logistics to worker motives to the sordid details of life on the road. The plot was complex and certainly engaging.

But. When it comes down to it, I left the movie feeling distinctly unhappy. Is there really any resolution? Did the characters grow? Why was this film made and why do we watch it? It wasn't unsettling exactly, or depressing, or entirely off-putting. But leaving a movie with that empty sort of feeling makes me feel all out of sync. It's one thing to be sobbing and depressed, but feeling out of balance with the world is something I just don't like.

Still, I think the movie has many things going for it, and it is the perfect movie for the right kind of viewer. I wouldn't be surprised if it got some Oscar nods.

Rating: 3.0

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

The Help (2011, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the year. I have to say to preface this review that I'm starting to hate it already. Not because it was a bad book, not because it was a bad movie, but because suddenly a bunch of people who never read have decided they're going to start reading and I have to buy 10,000 copies of the one book to keep them all happy, in lieu of buying a nice variety of things that regular readers can enjoy. I would also like to add that I read it before anyone knew it was going to be a movie. So there. Off the soapbox and onto an objective as possible review...

I liked it, and had it been a stand-alone movie and not based on a book, I would have been really impressed with it. However, I wasn't that impressed. Because despite my grouching, the book truly was phenomenal, even ground-breaking. The characters were more alive than almost any book I've ever read. Their lives were complicated, their relationships were complex, and their personalities were too. In the movie they were much, much flatter. Not flat exactly, but not well-developed either. I don't think that's any fault of the actors, however. Every female character—Minny, Aibileen, Skeeter, Hilly, Celia, the mothers, and even little Mae Mobly—was portrayed with the utmost skill and believability. (The men less so, but then male characters are very peripheral to the story anyway.) Though within the solid, skilled ensemble cast, Janney and especially Spacek nearly stole the show. I think the ultimate source of such a dulled down version was the screenwriting. I don't think the actors were given enough to work with. The struggle wasn't written like a struggle (especially because there were fewer maids and fewer stories told). They watered down things like Minny's abusive husband and Aibileen's dead son. The core plot was there, but the heart and soul and feeling of the story seemed absent.

Besides the great acting, there were many other good elements as well. The period scenes and costumes, for example, were awesome. The score was standard Thomas Newman. The story was fundamentally the same. But all this doesn't fix a weak script that lacks the punch of the original. (I especially missed Minny's line that if she were Mammy she'd tell Scarlett to stick those curtains "up her little white pooper," and other classics like that.)

Overall, a good movie. But if you really want to be moved, inspired, and entertained, read 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

Cleopatra (1963, U.S.)

I've always planned to watch this movie, so I'm not sure what took me so long to get around to it. I think I was inspired to finally watch it because I've been having my love of historical fiction renewed in novels, so I thought I should have one in films too.

So what do I have to say? It was long. Looooooong. I have no problem sitting through Meet Joe Black, Titanic, or Gone with the Wind (even after countless viewings), and they don't seem long at all. Cleopatra, however, seemed like it would never end. I think it would have been much, much better if it was made into two movies as originally planned. (I gather they combined it into one so as to cash in on the Burton-Taylor affair, since Burton doesn't appear in the first part.)

Aside from the length, my main reaction was horror at the countless anachronisms. The sets and the costumes were just absolutely ridiculous. It looked exactly like what it was—a 1960s Hollywood version of the ancient world. Taylor's costumes were especially awful. Yes, some of them were quite beautiful, but they were a far, far cry from anything Cleopatra would have actually worn. (On a more positive note, they did an incredible job aging Cleopatra over the course of the film, mostly with her hair but partially with makeup. Good work.) I'm cringing just thinking about the costumes and sets, especially considering that this won Oscars for set design and costuming. The horror! (I guess the criteria don't include accuracy. They were beautiful except for that, really.) What else? The music was way over the top, very brassy sounding. I guess that's pretty standard for this kind of film from this time period, but boy did it grate. Oh, and don't get me started on how inaccurate a lot of the history was here. Obviously, it goes without saying.

The saving grace of this film, as far as I'm concerned, was in some of the acting and writing. Some of the writing was bland, some of the acting was bad, but there were parts that simply shone. Harrison, Burton, and Taylor all delivered some of the most passionate performances I've seen. Harrison was nearly inspiring with some of his speeches as Caesar. Burton's anger-filled rants were a sight to behold. And Taylor was so full of life, whether she was speaking words of love, rage, or anything in between.

Overall I'm glad I saw this, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Rating: 2.5

Cowboys & Aliens (2011, U.S.)

This is not my kind of movie at all. Yes, I like science fiction, and yes, I've recently discovered that I like some westerns, but I would never see this movie in a million years. But. Daniel Craig! Harrison Ford! I would have been missing out if I'd missed it, so thank goodness for that.

I had no idea what it was even about (aside from the obvious cowboys and aliens) before I went to see it, so I will fill in a bare bones plot here. Basically a man (who turns out to be Jake Lonegan, played by Craig) wakes up with no memory of who he is and with a weird mechanical cuff attached to his wrist. It is revealed quickly that he is, for want of a better word, quite a badass. He can fight. He's witty. And let's face it, nobody looks sexier in chaps and a cowboy hat. Nobody. (That alone makes the entire movie worth watching. Seriously. He's that sexy.) When he finds his way to town, alien aircraft start snatching the townsfolk out of the sky, including the son of the rich cattle baron Dolarhyde (played by Ford). The remaining townsfolk (woman played by Wilde, a young boy, a dog, a preacher, the doctor/store owner, Dolarhyde, and Lonegan) head out to find the aliens and get their kin back. In the process, they have some very scary encounters and discover what exactly the aliens are after.

Visually, the movie was pretty awesome. The western scenery was sometimes stark, sometimes beautiful. (On that note, the score felt the same way. It had a western feel and not a sci-fi feel. Even when the music said "the aliens are coming!" it could have just as easily been "the Indians are coming!" or "a stampede is coming!") The costumes seemed very accurate (except perhaps the tightness of Craig's chaps, and I am definitely not complaining about that). The spaceships were cool. The alien's home base was dank and creepy. The one thing I didn't like (which is probably why I don't like alien movies in general) is how disgusting the aliens were. Don't get me wrong, they were really well done, and I know they're the bad guys, but do they really have to be so slimy and nasty? I mean, their chest cavities open and they have extra three-fingered hands in there next to their pulsing heart/lungs/whatever it is. Disgusting. Effective I guess, but yech! Also they like to use their teeth on people, which is vile. That excessive violence and gore and yuckiness just isn't my thing, so that took away from the experience.

Still, the more I thought about this movie after the fact, the more I liked it. Yes, the ending felt a little too easy, but the journey was more important. It had the feel of an old western, but without the racist portrayal of Indian enemies. Instead, the enemies were really nasty, greedy extraterrestrials. And when that concept feels so plausible, you have to admit that the movie was well done. Some aspects, like Lonegan's mind-activated weapon cuff thing, seem a bit ridiculous when you think about them, but somehow it still doesn't require the suspension of disbelief that you'd expect. It's hard to explain.

The acting was, of course, phenomenal. The supporting cast was made up of actors with a lot of talent and familiar faces. Ford was on the ball, and it was nice to see him in a role that accepted his age, didn't treat him as a romantic hero, and let his talent shine in another form. And Daniel Craig. Wow. I already mentioned the sex appeal, of course, but his acting talent is practically unparalleled. He has the most expressive face I have ever seen. Just his eyes convey so much. (I always say he has the best crazed man expression, with darting eyes and heavy breathing.) Even when he's perfectly still, all the way down to his face muscles, you can see countless emotions flickering through his eyes. It's fascinating to watch. In this role, like his role as Bond, he is manly, in charge, and yet emotionally weak (though he tries to hide it). He also plays his humorous lines and physical comedy (mostly involving Dolarhyde's idiot son) with this understated feel and a straight face. Brilliant. (Another positive aspect of the film was the writing, which was sometimes funny in very straight-shooting, serious, dry, manly sort of way, if you get my meaning.) Basically, my reasons for seeing this movie, Ford and Craig, were what made it stand out so much. It would have been okay, and even good, without them, but they made it as great as it is.

I'd recommend this to the right sort of viewer, and even to those who think this might be a bit out of their comfort zone. You just have to see it to appreciate it!

Rating: 3.5

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011, U.S.)

This was a really fun comedy. As I was adding all the tags for this post, I realized that it comes to us from the same directors as I Love You, Phillip Morris. They have a strange gift, those two.

The concept of this movie was quite fresh, the actors were great, the writing was funny. The whole thing just worked. To start with the concept: a woman (Moore) has an affair (due to a midlife crisis) with a coworker (Bacon) and wants to divorce her husband (Carrell). The husband starts spending a lot of time in a bar bemoaning the fact, where a hot young ladies' man (Gosling) overhears him and decides to take the older man under his tutelage. (Ladies' man, meanwhile, has his eye on a special girl in the bar, who is very reserved, doesn't fall for his tricks, and is wrapped up in a loveless relationship already.) While all this is happening, the middle aged couple's 13-year-old son has fallen in love with his 17-year-old babysitter, who in turn has fallen in love with his dad. This seems very complicated and confusing, yet the execution of all these overlapping stories is flawlessly done, perfectly illustrating the many types and facets of love.

This is in large part due to the excellent writing. From the very beginning, there are some laugh out loud, hilarious lines. One of my favorites was something Moore's character said to explain her midlife crisis, along the lines of: "You know when I told you when I had to work late? I really went to go see the new Twilight movie by myself, and it was so bad. Why did I do that?" There's just witticism after witticism, along with some funny physical comedy. (I especially love Gosling repeatedly slapping Carrell to make him snap out of it.) It all culminates with an excellent scene that brings the entire cast together. It's visually and verbally funny, as well as touching, sad, and very real.

The actors really help pull this off. I have mixed feelings about Steve Carrell, but like his performance in Dan in Real Life, I thought he was wonderful here, as a father, lover, friend, man, person. Gosling, as usual, was great. This wasn't his best ever movie, but he was still on his game. And boy was he sexy with his playboy mannerisms, perfectly tailored suits, self-confidence, and naked sauna scene! The supporting cast was also strong, especially the kids. They gave clever, believable, funny performances.

I think the only reason I couldn't give this a higher rating was because I didn't like how much Moore's character got away with. She was such a hypocrite, causing huge messes that everyone else cleaned up and then apologized to her for. Also, I'm always hesitant when a character has to dramatically change (a la Grease) to get the girl/guy. Otherwise, really great romantic comedy/family drama/ensemble piece.

Rating: 3.5