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

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

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

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

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

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

Europa Europa (1990, Germany)

This film would be almost funny if it wasn't so tragic, which is probably why almost every description one can find about it uses the term "irony." Everything that happens to young Solomon simply strains credulity, and yet they're true. As he stumbles from Germany to Poland, as he ends up in a communist Russian boarding school, as he ends up a war hero in the Nazi army, as a Hitlerjunge. But always he is a scared, lonely boy who is hiding his true identity from a world at war, and it is impossible not to become deeply invested in his story and to hope his deception is powerful enough.

Marco Hofschneider was perfect as the sweet, innocent, scared, lost boy.

The music sounded familiar, though I couldn't place it, and it definitely fit the plot. It sounds like something serious and bad is inevitably, inexorably creeping toward him, one step at a time, just like he's always one step from discovery in every situation he finds himself. It's the sound of Fate steadily closing in.

I would recommend this wonderful, powerful film to anyone and everyone. Truly incredible.

Rating: 4.0

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

The Last Station (2009, UK)

It's really hard to explain what this film is "about." Basically it follows the last days of Leo Tolstoy's life, his relationship with his wife, and his relationship with his closest friends and advisers. He's torn between revolutionary ideals and taking care of his family's needs.

Using Tolstoy's secretary (played by a very talented James McAvoy) and his relationship with a fellow revolutionary as a sort of contrast to the relationship of the aging Tolstoy and his long-time wife is very effective.

With a cast of very talented actors, a unique historical story, and a realistic period feel, this was an enjoyable film.

Rating: 3.5

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

Alexander (2004, U.S.)

Despite featuring one of my all time favorite actresses (Jolie), it took me six years to see this historical drama (one of my favorite genres) because I'd heard such awful things about it.

Let me tell you—they were right. It was like a historical documentary forced into fiction form, therefore combining the dullness that most people (though not I!) associate with history and the inaccuracy of fiction.

Let's see. A very human drama was told with a total lack of human emotion. I was able to infer that Alexander had a very troubled, complex, almost passionate relationship with his mother, yet it falls flat. The best example of a real, passionate relationship is Alexander's almost romantic friendship with Hepastian (one of his warriors) and even it is dull. The dialoge and physical blocking always seemed to stop right when you were about to grasp something important. In the same vein, you never get a clear idea as to character motivations. Why do these men do what they do?

As I hinted before, this is supposed to be an epic film, it should be an epic film, but it's just not. The music, however, if very epic. Which just reinforces the lack of epic-ness. To further reinforce this debacle, there is what I call "the red scene." I cannot even begin to describe. The whole film has been relatively slow and vaguely historically realistic, and suddenly there is a battle in India that turns into a massacre, and everything is awash in red. Not in an "oh it's bloody" sense, but in a "we used the filmmaker's equivalent of MS Paint and splashed red all over our film!" Utterly ridiculous.

For an epic, war-filled film, that was about the most exciting thing that happened—and I even saw the director's cut, "newly inspired, faster paced, more action packed!" What exactly was this inspired by? If this is faster paced, I hate to see how slow the original was. And action? There were essentially two big battle scenes, one of which was the red one.

I've always thought pretty well of Oliver, Stone, but I have to say I lost a bit of respect for him. He thought his film failed because audiences didn't like the very faint homoerotic undercurrents. Stone, admit that it was because your film was awful!

What did I learn about history? Alexander is supposed to be so Great, but from what I can tell from this film, he didn't even make it home from his conquering expedition, didn't actually rule Macedon (at least in person), and he didn't really "conquer" all the East (instead returning rule to local rulers). So is this historically inaccurate or is he remembered for the size of his dreams rather than his accomplishments? I don't know. I do know that the film Alexander will be remembered for the size of its director's vision rather than his actual accomplishment!

Rating: 2.0

The Young Victoria (2009, UK)

I feel like I use the same words a lot, but believe me when I say this film is indescribably beautiful.

To begin with, there were some incredible special effects done with the camera. My favorite was the servants setting up for the king's birthday dinner; as they laid glasses down this long table, the camera's focus shifted from glass to glass seamlessly. There was another scene with an attempted assassination of Victoria, and they zoom in on her mother's arm, where the hairs slowly raise on end at that moment. It was completely unnecessary to the story, but lovely.

The acting in this film was superb. Emily Blunt was perfect as a young and unsure but strong queen. She was so real and vibrant and full of life she practically left of the screen. (I was especially fond of the scene where she proposes to Albert.) Rupert Friend, as Prince Albert, was a perfect contrast. He was silent and steady, Victoria's rock. And between the two of them there was this kind of quiet chemistry. It's hard to explain, but it's almost like you can see their hearts touching and softly warming each other. That sounds incredibly cheesy, but I don't know how else to describe it. Their relationship brought this story alive, and I will never think of Victoria as an old dowager queen ever again.

And on the subject of actors, Jim Broadbent as King William. Wow. He is something else, that Jim Broadbent. I have no idea what King William was like in life, but I will never picture him any other way than the way Broadbent portrayed him. Jolly and kind. Perfect!

Artistically, the film was a visual delight. The costumes were well deserving of their Oscar. especially Victoria's coronation ball gown of gold and scarlet. I thought the settings looked pretty accurate for upper class Victorian England, but something tells me a lot of grime was missing.

I liked the choice at the end to mix shots of Victoria and Albert with end titles about what happened next, because it really emphasized how much they loved and relied upon each other. It suitably concluded the film and left a memorable impression of the ending, always a plus.

One last note on the score, which was heavy on the piano and fit the film perfectly. I'd also be willing to guess that it would stand on its own if you're looking for a soothing piano album.

I really liked this one, and I'd love to see it again. I'll also be on the lookout for more films featuring Emily Blunt.

Rating: 4.0

Coco avant Chanel (2009, France)

A young girl and her sister and left in an orphanage by their father, who never comes back. They grow up, finding work as barmaids and seamstresses. She has an affair with a Baron, giving her entry into society and the opportunity to pursue her gift of designing hats. Then she falls in love with an English businessman, complicating her life further.

A good story, and supposedly based on the real life of Coco Chanel, who I know nothing about. Therefore, I'm unable to judge historical accuracy, which is probably a good thing for me.

Setting and costumes brought the period to life amazingly beautifully. (Definitely deserved the Best Costume nomination for the Oscars.) The writing, music, and everything else was great too. But even if it was awful, Audrey Tautou would have made it a winner. She is a beautiful, fragile, strong, talented actress. She was Coco Chanel.

The film ends right as Coco has gotten a toehold in the fashion world. The title Coco before Chanel is a fitting one. It's a bit unclear at the end how she manages to become so successful and how she deals with her personal tragedies. I loved the file shot of Coco sitting dispassionately, reflected infinitely in full-length mirrors, surrounded by models wearing her fashions. There's nothing like a movie with a memorable final shot. Good stuff.

Rating: 3.5

Veronica Guerin (2003, U.S.)

Cate Blanchett is one of my all-time favorite actresses. No matter what part she's in, she's brilliant. This was no exception. She shone in the true story of Veronica Guerin, an Irish reporter who exposed the Dublin drug trade in the mid-1990s. She carries on through threats, a gunshot to the leg, and a beating, determined to clean up Dublin society. She's ultimately murdered in 1996.

Veronica Guerin obviously had to be a fearless, determined, and admirable woman, which Blanchett conveys well. Unfortunately, I found the writing to be sometimes convoluted and not fast-paced enough for the subject. Perhaps most Irish viewers familiar with the subject would have followed better that doesn't change the pacing.

Overall I found it educational, a great performance for Blanchett, but just too slow.

Rating: 3.0

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

Gia (1998, U.S.)

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Angelina Jolie is brilliant. Here she played Gia Marie Carangi, a top fashion model from the late 1970s and early 1980s. I am not the kind of person who cares at all about fashion; I'm not the kind of person who condones drug use, wild behavior, or promiscuity; but I found myself really caring about Gia, her life, and her career. I don't know if it was Jolie or Gia or what, but her personality was larger than life. She didn't just come off the screen, she exploded off the screen.

The writing must have been very strong, because the pacing was very good for a biographical film. Gia wanted to live life to the fullest, but she didn't really get the love and support she needed, and she turned to drugs instead. The most powerful part of this film was the ending, when Carangi was in the hospital dying. (She died in 1986 at 26 of AIDS.) It was so vivid and heartbreaking, seeing this great celebrity languishing all alone.

This was an incredible film. The tone was dark. It had a gritty, realistic feel. And a 23-year-old Angelina Jolie was already in control of her incredible acting talent and absolutely breathtaking. Costumes were perfect. And from what I've read, it was pretty historically accurate too. All in all, a winner.

Rating: 4.0

Julie & Julia (2009, U.S.)

Nora Ephron is the queen of women's interest classy comedy. Truly. Julia Child is a loud, opinionated, unusual American in France who wants to cook. And 50 years later, Julie Powell is a depressed, unfulfilled woman living in New York who decides to cook through Child's cookbook in a year. The only thing that makes this story better is the fact that it's true. Fascinating.

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams both have a comedic gift. Combined, it was almost too much. Hilarious. Their screen spouses also had great chemistry with them.

I also liked the way the two stories were blended together. They paralleled and complemented each other, but they could also stand alone quite easily.

Good comedy plus unique and engaging history is a neat combination. Combined with good acting, good sets, a good score (by Alexandre Desplat, one of my favorites!), and good scripting, it was really worth watching.

One little thing that bothered me was Julie finding out that Julia didn't like her blog. However, she drops that bomb and then it's never mentioned again. I just don't understand it, and it nearly ruined the ending for me. Still, I thought the last shot closed the movie exactly right.

Rating: 3.5

The Pianist (2002, France/Germany/UK/Poland)

Adrien Brody is a genius. He has such an impressive acting range, I just can't say enough to praise him. The variety of intense emotions he can portray just leaves me speechless.

This film was powerful, you can't deny it. I think the main reason that I didn't like it more was because it was so long, which gave a good feeling of time passing, but they didn't use a lot of the time as well as they could have. So many scenes that seemed like the natural progression of the story just never happened.

However, since the whole movie was pretty much Brody on his own, it was powerful stuff. Music was also beautiful. I would definitely recommend this for music lovers, Holocaust buffs, those who like character-driven films, and those who like slower-paced historical drama.

Rating: 3.5