The Tree of Life (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say. At all. Because what just happened? At first I thought I was going to love it. I mean, visually it was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The score was completely out of this world, like a best of the eerie sounding classics. (Hard to describe the subset of music I'm talking about exactly, but it is a type of music I enjoy a lot. I would love to own this soundtrack.) Then there was original music composed by one of my all time favorite composers, Alexandre Desplat. Brad Pitt wasn't bad, but this wasn't my favorite performance of his. I thought Jessica Chastain was the real star of this film, which was unfortunate because she often seemed so peripheral. Overall, it was visually and aurally stunning, and the seed of the plot was good.

But. But but but. It just tried so hard to be artsy and impressionistic that it seemed silly instead. There were dinosaurs, for crying out loud. The sound mixing was not the best, so the score often overpowered whispered lines. I found myself having to turn on subtitles a lot. The part about adult Jack could have added a lot, but I don't think it was made clear enough. Plus, Sean Penn reminded me why I never liked Sean Penn (until Milk made me want to give him a second chance).

It could have been really great, but it just tried too hard and was too self aware. So instead of brilliance and beauty, I was left with a lot of annoyance and exhaustion.

Rating: 1.5

My Week with Marilyn (2011, U.S.)

I've never been a big Marilyn Monroe fan. Not that I don't like her, just that I've never really seen any of her movies for some reason. I think the only two I've seen are Monkey Business (which she's hardly in at all) and The Misfits, during which I was busy scrutinizing Clark Gable's performance. Still, Michelle Williams got lots of awards nods for this, and everyone knows that I adore Eddie Redmayne, so I gave it a try.

It was quite good, and certainly interesting. The authenticity of Williams' performance was somewhat eery at times, particularly in Monroe's vulnerable or unguarded moments. (A scene of her innocently singing in the bath especially sticks in my mind.) It really says something about her caliber as an actress that the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench seemed to pale in comparison. Her talent continues to surprise me, and I don't know why. Still, this performance stands out, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the role posterity remembers her for.

The plot was really engaging, as a troubled but spectacularly famous woman spends a week falling in love with (and breaking the heart of) a younger, less worldly man—and probably her own too. The insight into celebrity and personhood were fascinating. Redmayne and Williams certainly had chemistry, but it was a delicate, fragile, newborn sort of chemistry... which of course worked perfectly for the film. I feel no need to mention that Redmayne was very good, although for once he didn't steal the show. Williams was just that good.

I enjoyed the score a lot as well. It seemed fairly piano heavy, lightly jazzy, very 1950s. It fit perfectly with the film. This is the first work of Conrad Pope's that I've heard, so I'm curious to hear more. Speaking of 1950s, I will mention that sets, props, and costumes were also historically delicious. Every element of this piece just comes together wonderfully to immerse the viewer in the era. Really, delicious is the perfect word for that lovely 1950s feel.

When you get down to it, not much actually happens here, and even less is resolved, but the whole film is a wonderful character study and that is what made it so great. I would certainly 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

Walk the Line (2005, U.S.)

Here's yet another biographical film that never really interested me, but suddenly when I was cataloging it at work, I just had to see it. It was an excellent choice.

Reese Witherspoon was phenomenal as June Carter. Joaquin Phoenix was okay, though he was rather on and off. Toward the end he was amazing, and he also was in his drugged haze. His early singing was rather weak and might have been better if it was lip synced. His voice was much stronger at the end, especially in Folsom Prison and in Ontario. However, he had a majorly crazy singing face that looked like he was constipated or in pain or two seconds away from passing out. Maybe Johnny Cash really looked like that while singing, I don't know, but it was a bit off-putting. In terms of the rest of the cast, Tyler Hilton as Elvis was the worst casting choice ever, but I absolutely loved Jerry Lee Lewis. The chemistry between the entire cast was absolutely palpable.

Watching this gave a very good sense of musicians' road life in the middle decades of the 20th century. The costumes, props, and sets were perfect vehicles to transport the viewer back 50, 60 years.

The film seemed to go on forever, but not in a bad way. It was like I was so lost in the story that I had to wake up and readjust to reality when it was over. I even watched the deleted scenes, which I don't often do with this kind of film. I thought that too much was left out of the story, though I recognize the need to edit and thought they picked events well. I'm amazed that I was so interested that I wanted more. In fact, I went straight back to the library and checked out Johnny Cash's greatest hits.

Magnificent.

Rating: 4.5

Shutter Island (2010, U.S.)

Much better than the last film I saw that was based on a Dennis Lehane novel. DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshal who goes to a federal penitentiary for the mentally insane on a tiny island in Boston Harbor. With his partner, his mission is to find an escaped and highly dangerous prisoner. However, the doctors and administrators on the island are less than helpful, hurricane-type weather blows in, and Daniels is plagued by hallucinations/dreams of his deceased wife and experiences during World War II.

This is the kind of slowly building suspense that is all about creepy atmosphere and psychological drama, and it was very well executed. DiCaprio is a stellar actor, of course, and he definitely carried the movie. When it comes time for the big plot twist at the end and the memorable last line, he nails it.

Scorsese made a very interesting choice, and instead of having the film scored, he used a collection of instrumental classics. It worked perfectly. Some of the songs were beautiful, but the best one were creepy and frighteningly suspenseful. They did an especially effective job when Teddy and his partner first drive through the gates of the compound. It made me want to shout, "Turn around, don't go in there!"

You'd have to see this one to believe it. I just can't say much without giving away the ending. Which, I think, is a pretty good recommendation for the film.

Rating: 3.5

James Dean (2001, U.S.)

I'm a huge Dean fan. Own all his movies (and a few tv performances), read several biographies, have visited his hometown/museum/birthplace/grave site. I've been putting off seeing this made-for-tv biopic because I just had a feeling they wouldn't do him justice.

I was right.

Surprisingly, I thought the best part of the film was Jame Franco. I say it's surprising partially because I find Franco to be hit or miss with his performances and because I didn't think anyone could really play Dean. Franco wasn't perfect, but it was obvious that he'd gone to considerable effort to study Dean and his mannerisms, and he wasn't bad at all. I thought he came remarkably close to capturing the brilliant, fragile, remarkable, talented, insecure, artistic, unique, and perhaps slightly crazy Dean.

The sets were also great, particularly the sets of the sets of East of Eden. (Incidentally, events during the filming of East of Eden were pretty consistently documented with the least disagreement, and therefore these scenes in the biopic seemed the most realistic.)

For the most part, I was disappointed. For one thing, they tried to cram an incredible life into only 95 minutes, flying here and there and skipping over very important parts of his life. (Though at least they captured his relationship with his father fairly well.) They also skipped over any discussion of his bisexuality. While this could have been a fair choice (since the issue is widely debated), I really didn't like their portrayal of him as so clearly heterosexual either. Perhaps I just didn't like their Pier Angeli.

They should have kept the working title of James Dean: An Invented Life. I think they just tried to hard to present their film as fact, when so much of Dean's life, especially his personal life, was clouded.

Rating: 2.5

Revolutionary Road (2008, U.S.)

I have been dying to see this film, which took way too long to come into wide release (considering the number of times I've seen the preview at other movies). My friend Stefanie and I have tried to see it twice already, but complications arose both times. Needless to say, when we saw it today the anticipation was intense. It was a lot different than I imagined it would be; not disappointing, exactly, just different.

I loved that it was a character-driven film, and that very little about those two characters was explicitly defined. Instead, they relied on their actions (and reactions) to allow the viewer to interpret their characters. Sometimes one was the protagonist and the other the antagonist, and it would change again in an instant. I guess I don't need to say that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both phenomenal. They both have such expressive faces (and especially expressive eyes), that I feel like I can read their thoughts like words written across the face.

The plot was intense. a married couple with two children suddenly realizes that the life they're living isn't the life they wanted, and they take out all of their anger on each other and themselves. They try to start a new life, making plans to move to Paris, where the husband thinks people are "more alive." Things start to look better until their plan starts unraveling, and they both go a little bit crazy. One of the taglines, which I love, is "How do you break free without breaking apart?" Even though this film takes place in the '50s, you can easily see it taking place today. There is some definite social commentary about how we live the lives society tells us we should instead of the lives we want. It's beautiful. Interestingly, the character who seems to really see the world as it is and who has the best grip on reality is the neighbor's insane son.

And as we watch Winslet and DiCaprio brilliantly tear each other apart and put each other back together, Thomas Newman's haunting (and somewhat repetitive—but in a good way) score echos them in the background. The score is simply executed, like the rest of the film.

This film is a good one, and I would recommend it. Just be prepared to feel some gut-wrenching despair and to reevaluate your life.

Rating: 4.0