The Artist (2011, France)

It is so clear to me how this lovely, charming, wonderful film won so many Academy Awards this year. I would have loved to have seen it on the big screen, because it was just wow, and a theater would have made it even more so.

Seriously, everything about it was just magical. A silent film about the silent film era is a strange but successful subject. Modern audiences could be thrown off by the lack of speech, but the actors convey so much with their faces and bodies, and the absolutely stellar score (heavy on the jangly piano) does the rest. I smiled, I laughed, I cried, I loved it!

They captured the era with the subject, the sets, the costumes, the score (especially the score—maybe the best Oscar-winning score of all time!), the title cards, the props, the everything. Yet the story of a man who suddenly finds himself obsolete (and in love with the new face of the future, to boot) was timeless. Really, the story was just... charming. I was enraptured. I even loved the use of blatant symbolism (like when he sinks into a sand pit in his final silent film) despite (and maybe because of) its obviousness. George Valentin has this dream where suddenly there is noise everywhere but he can't speak, and it was just brilliantly executed. Brilliantly.

As I mentioned, the actors were incredible and portrayed a wide range of emotion flawlessly. (Dare I include the adorable Uggie, who played The Dog? He was much better here than in Water for Elephants!) Dujardin certainly earned his Oscar. He was every inch the charmer, but he was also believable when he fell on hard times too. (When he finally did speak his only two words of the film, I felt the urge to clasp my hands to my chest and grin like an idiot.) He makes the viewer fall in love with him and mourn for the world he represents, a world that is vanishing for him and has already slipped into the fog of the distant past for us. But Bérénice Bejo was just as good as Dujardin, and sometimes even better. Her Peppy Miller was vivacious, effervescent, and so full of life that I kept expecting her to pop out of the scene at any second. Her megawatt smiles and flamboyant dance moves and ceaseless energy were hard not to fall in love with too. But her character had a big heart too, as her occasional tear-filled eyes illustrated well. Seriously, I've said it twice in this paragraph already, but I just fell in love with them both. I don't see how any film lover could avoid succumbing to their sparkling charms. Captivating doesn't even begin to describe Dujardin, Bejo, or the entire film.

I could ramble forever. This is a love letter to the movies, and it bears reading and rereading by cinephiles everywhere. (The fact that audible language plays such a small role makes it even more accessible to film lovers worldwide.)

I can't wait to watch it again. Did I mention I was in love and entirely charmed?

Rating: 5.0

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

J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)

On the one hand, this was a very interesting and entertaining movie. I knew next to nothing about Hoover before, and I found his relationships with his mother, Helen Gandy, and Clyde Tolson to be quite fascinating. The cast of the movie was out of this world. Of course Dame Judi Dench is one of my all time favorites, and her performance as Mrs. Hoover was very nuanced, I thought. Armie Hammer was pretty good, and Naomi Watts was spot on, as usual. I loved everyone playing small roles of big people, from Robert Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower to Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple. They were all very well cast. Then of course there was Leonardo DiCaprio, probably the most talented actor of his generation, who just became Hoover. He nailed both the intimidating, intelligent public persona and the insecure, unsure inner man. I think poor Leo gets a bad rap just because of Titanic, but a) his acting was great in that movie, and b) I have never seen him give less than a brilliant performance in another movie, either. Just think about What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Gangs of New York, The Departed, even lighter movies like Catch Me If You Can. I don't really think he's attractive, but boy can he act.

Anyway, it obviously wasn't the acting that was underwhelming in this movie. I think it must have been the script. There were so many instances when I felt like a bit more dialogue or a more lingering camera shot could have added a lot more meaning to a moment. It also could have suffered because they were trying to cover so much of his life at once while picking the most important professional and personal moments and not having enough of either. That was pretty frustrating.

Another frustrating thing was the makeup. It was eery how well they did DiCaprio's makeup as he aged. I could have believed they shot the film over 50 years! For Watts, they did a good job of adding wrinkles and things and making her look much older than she is, but her character didn't seem to age nearly enough to match Hoover's aging. The worst job was on Hammer, who went from a young man to a sort of fake looking, spotty, clay-headed geriatric. He didn't even look like a real person in his elderly form. That was very off-putting.

The costumes and sets were also brilliantly done. The cinematography was dark, dark, dark, which served many functions. It made the movie feel historical. It emphasized the secretive nature of their work in the Bureau. And it served as a reminder of the parts of Hoover that were hidden from the public.

So this movie was good, but I just felt like it was missing something. I wanted a lot more from it than I got. However, it is certainly worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

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 King's Speech (2010, U.S.)

The trailer for this film was pretty badly done, if you ask me. I still went to see it because I knew that any film with Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter had to be a winner. On top of that, what could be better than a film about a relatively unknown part of British history?

What can I say? Obviously those three were fantastic, as were most of the supporting actors. The chemistry between Firth and Rush was especially wonderful, particularly in their therapy sessions. The film was enlightening. It was well written. The score meshed perfectly. The cinematography was beautiful. I felt like I'd stepped into the 1930s. Sure, it wasn't the most fast-paced movie. But it was engaging and moving and informative and even somewhat inspiring. I knew it was going to sweep Best Picture and the Best Actors at the Oscars.

This one was a very unsurprising surprise, if you will, and well worth watching.

Rating: 4.0

Little Ashes (2008, UK)

This was a beautiful film. It was about boys who were becoming men, artists who were finding their talent, liberal homosexuals trying to survive in Fascist Spain, lost souls trying to find love... and themselves. It really was beautiful. Fractured and hard to follow, but it a good way.

Javier Beltrán and Robert Pattinson were phenomenal. They're both talented actors, and they had a strange chemistry. Watching Pattinson change from a strange, outcast boy into a intensely passionate young man to an absolutely crazy, flamboyant artist was incredible. (On the other hand, he goes from a Spanish accent to an English accent when eight years pass, although he also does a French one on purpose later, so maybe it's a sign of his craziness.) Beltrán was steady as rock, gentle and sweet and fragile and poetic, for lack of a better word. When I looked for information on Frederico García Lorca, I discovered that the actor and the deceased poet looked shockingly similar.

They used what seemed to be archive footage cut into film, which I always find effective. I felt like I learned a lot from this film, although how accurate it was I couldn't say. I was familiar with Dalí's work, but not his life. And I'd never heard of García Lorca, but I found his poetry to be beautiful and his life to be fascinating and, of course, tragic.

The filming was (yes, you guessed it) beautiful as well. There is one scene in particular where García Lorca and Dalí are young and taking a holiday in Andalusia. It's nighttime and they're swimming in the moonlight together. The way they float around each other seems symbolic of the complicated dance they're doing in their relationship and the lack of clear definition in their lives. Amazing.

I wish I could describe how wonderful the acting and cinematography and writing and absolutely everything were, but there just aren't words. You could call this film "art." Art about art. Magical.

Rating: 4.0

Changeling (2008, U.S.)

Obviously I was going to see this one, because I absolutely adore Angelina Jolie. And she was nothing short of brilliant in this one. Brilliant.

I truly cannot say enough about this film. The cinematography was astounding , from the very first black and white fade to color until the final fade back to black and white. (Very effective in introducing the film, a sort of eerie "once upon a time.") The costumes were perfect (and let me tell you, Jolie should have been a '20s/'30s film star—she rocked that cloche hat). Mis en scene in general was good. Very few anachronisms.

And the score was incredible. I nearly died of shock when I saw it had been written by Clint Eastwood. It was mostly a serious of variations on a very simple theme, using a violin (I think) and a solo trumpet. It fits the time period well with its slight jazziness, but it especially fits the plot because it is so dark and sad. I actually bought the score, and I'm glad.

The film was much darker than I thought it was going to be. Obviously, the disappearance of a child is enough to make a film pretty depressing, but add to that police corruption, a serial killer, and an eery psychiatric hospital, and wow. It was a very strange, subtle kind of suspense, and it was very effective.

This is really the first Clint Eastwood film that I've really, really liked. (Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil isn't bad, but it doesn't hold up compared to Changeling.) Angelina Jolie really made it what it was, but I think it would have been good even without her (though I'm glad we'll never know). This film blew me away, and I would definitely recommend it.

Rating: 4.5

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008, UK)

My friend Stefanie recommended this film to me, saying it was one of the best situational comedies since the Golden Age of cinema. She was definitely right. In fact, since it was set in the late 1930s, it might as well have been filmed in the late 1930s.

There was plenty of situational comedy, as well as some pretty witty one-liners. Romance, a hard-working main character contrasted with some pretty shallow other characters, set against the backdrop of an emerging war... The only thing I didn't like was the message that finding a man is the only thing that will make your life complete or even worth living.

You can't help but love Amy Adams. She adds a spark to whatever project she's involved with, I think. There's just something about her. And I never knew that Frances McDormand was so amusing.

If you're looking for an enjoyable, relaxing evening with a few good laughs, I'd definitely recommend this one.

Rating: 4.0