All Good Things (2010, U.S.)

Mom and I were looking for something to watch on Netflix, and this popped up while we were scoping out Ryan Gosling movies. Neither of us had ever heard of it, but it sounded interesting and we liked the two main actors. I really enjoyed the first half or so. They explore the characters and their relationships quite well, and it had all the makings of a complex psychological movie. (In fact, something about it really reminded me of another movie, but I can't think of what it was to save my life. Maybe Fractured? Or maybe one of many psychological films featuring Eddie Redmayne—Like Minds, Savage Grace, Glorious 39? I just don't know!)

Gosling was his usual impressive self, particularly in scenes where he was supposed to be demonstrating signs of some sort of mental illness, possibly schizophrenia. Dunst was also very good, sweet and open and a perfect balance to Gosling. Their relationship was very believable. The disintegration of their relationship was very believable. It was executed simply and effectively, and I liked the subtle flashback method that they used as well.

There was just something about the ending that didn't ring true. It felt awkward and fake compared to the rest of the film, which felt honest and real. I think I would have really liked, or even loved, this movie, but I just didn't feel great about the end.

Rating: 3.5

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

Lords of Dogtown (2005, U.S.)

This is the second 1970s biographical film I've watched this year, and it surprised me as much as The Runaways did. The subject matter isn't exactly the kind of thing that appeals to me, but I watched it because I've been meaning to for ages, since I plan to see every Heath Ledger film eventually. And I'm actually glad I did.

This film really captured the time, the movement, the people. Everything about it, from the costuming to the setting to the scripting to the acting, was perfect. It was especially great because I learned something I didn't know anything about.

The relationships between the boys were powerfully captured. In fact every relationship (parents, girlfriends, mentors, enemies) was so complex and real. I wish I could describe how strong these characters and their relationships were projected. It was the people, more than the plot, that made this film.

And of course, I can't make it through Heath Ledger movies anymore without crying. I thought I would make it through this one until they show his character, Skip, all alone, no longer his own boss, singing to himself and contemplating a bottle. Ledger could convey the emotion of loneliness better than anyone I've ever seen. (I do wonder what the deal is with his flat American accent though.) I would say his last scene was the best of the movie, but it had a lot of competition.

I wish I could do this one justice, but I can't. Please just take my word for it that this is a wonderful, moving, fascinating film, and remember that this is the word of a person who has approximately zero interest in the 1970s, skateboarding, California, teenage boys, or practically any other thing associated with this one.

Incredible.

Rating: 4.5

The Runaways (2010, U.S.)

Color me surprised. I didn't know anything about The Runaways and I've never really liked late '70s/'80s music, but I was curious to see Kristen Stewart in this one. I already thought she was an underrated and quite brilliant actress, but this one really convinced me. I love how she is so unafraid to look ridiculous, wearing silly clothes, rocking the ugliest hairdo, and singing like a fool. And wow, she was Joan Jett. The even bigger surprise was that Dakota Fanning, who I've absolutely loathed in the past, was almost as good as Cherie Currie. Between the two of them and the rest of the cast, there was a great dynamic that lent an excellent sense of realism to the film.

Costumes and makeup were stellar. I was investigating The Runaways' website and some of the costumes matched their tour pictures to a tee. Sets, script, everything made the period come alive.

This was a fascinating biopic that made me enjoy music that I'd never liked and taught me something that I never knew and entertained me all at once. That is a successful film if I ever heard of one. I'd love to see it again. A real cherry bomb!

Rating: 4.0

Milk (2008, U.S.)

Of course I've seen biographical films of prominent historical figures, mostly Queen Elizabeth. Milk was an entirely different experience, since I'd never heard of Harvey Milk or his amazing crusade in Californian politics, advocating for civil rights for the gay citizens of San Francisco.

I really only want to talk about two elements of this film—the acting and the general plot. I'll start with the acting. I have never, never liked Sean Penn. In my opinion, he plays the same character over and over again. Not a very pleasant character either. I was pretty enraged when he stole the Oscar in 2003 for playing that same character in Mystic River. After Milk though, I have to retract my previous doubt as to his acting ability. Not only did he play a character completely different from any I've seen him play before, but he played it insanely well. He was charismatic, sweet, endearing, friendly. The few scenes that required any physical display of homosexuality were also well played. (As a side note, these scenes were not used too frequently and they were tastefully understated. Very well handled.) I have never been so impressed with Penn. All of the other actors were amazing too. My friend who I saw it with couldn't stop saying how funny Emile Hircsh was. I thought Diego Luna was pretty amusing as well. But of all the supporting roles, I was most impressed with James Franco, who I've never seen as a particularly strong actor before. His part was understated but very important. I think he could have easily gotten in Penn's way, but he stayed in the background and supported instead. It was well done. These four men just did a wonderful job playing characters outside of their normal ranges.

As to the story, it was straightforward but moving. Obviously, it echoes current events regarding gay rights, and it gave the (mostly) men involved faces and voices. They're people, and they're just like any other people. They deserve their civil rights. Of course you'd never hear me or anyone else who'd see this movie denying that fact, and those who deny it would never see this movie (and therefore potentially be swayed), so that doesn't accomplish much as a tool of activism. But it was well-made, nonetheless. The simple story of a man who found himself at the head of a movement, who ultimately lost his life after changing the lives of thousands for the better. I think "simple" is the best word I can use for this one. It just follows this man from his 40th birthday to his assassination 8 years later, told partially through his own narration in a tape made in case of his death by assassination. All of the main characters were real people, no composites. (And, of course, the film ended with pictures of the real people and what they did after Milk's assassination.) Nothing was overdone. It didn't seem preachy at all, though it easily could have. Instead it was just simple and touching. Wonderful.

Oh, and one last thing: score by Danny Elfman was markedly un-Danny Elfman. But it fit the film perfectly.

Rating: 4.0

Breakfast on Pluto (2005, Ireland)

Now these are the kinds of things I watch when my odd (but wonderful!) friends recommend films to me. We have Jeff to thank for this one.

Breakfast on Pluto is the story of Patrick "Kitten" Braden, whose mother abandons him after his birth—he is the illegitimate child of the priest in the small Irish village. He begins cross-dressing from a young age. He hangs out with other unusual kids—a bohemian girl, a boy with Down's Syndrome, and a future IRA revolutionary. He causes a lot of trouble in his Catholic school. In other words, he's just an odd duck. But he always, always stays true to who he is inside, no matter how much external forces threaten him or not take him seriously. (He continually has to tell people that he can take things seriously, but that they are too serious.)

So Kitten tells the story of how he sets out for England to find his long-lost mother, the strange things that happen to him along the way, and what he really finds in the end. It's about his character, and it's about his journey. That, combined with the interesting method of story-telling (he actually gives chapter titles and tells his own "autobiography") and the "big" themes (gender identity, cultural/Irish national identity), make this film unique. There are touching moments, funny moments, uncomfortable moments... It's just great.

And Cillian Murphy? Wonderful.

Rating: 3.5