Beginners (2010, U.S.)

This was just a lovely, thought-provoking, touching indie film. From the previews, you'd think it's a comedy about a grown man whose 75-year-old father suddenly comes out. That's kind of what it is, but it is so much more than that.

Following his father Hal's death, Oliver's primary relationship seems to be with his father's dog Arthur (an adorable Jack Russell whose thoughts sometimes appear to the audience via subtitles). He projects his own feelings onto Arthur, using the dog as an excuse to stay in seclusion. His work as a graphic artist, his friendships, and his mental health are all obviously suffering. When his friends force him to attend a costume party, he meets Anna, a French actress in town for work, and they seem to have an immediate connection. However, he struggles with the budding relationship. In flashbacks, we can see that this may stem from his mother's unconventional parenting, his parents' passionless marriage, and his continuing struggle to come to terms with father's sexuality and, more specifically, his jealousy of Hal's much younger lover.

I offer this brief plot summary because I don't think the previews do the film justice at all. I'd hate to think of people blowing this film off as another comedy that uses the gay lifestyle as easy material and missing out on a really special work. Watching Hal come alive as he embraces his true nature and finds companionship not just with a lover but with a large network of friends is just beautiful. (I especially love the scene when he has his hospital room packed with friends drinking a toast to him and they get in trouble with the nurse for having alcohol.) He's coming alive while coming to terms with his death, and then his son has to do the same thing. Oliver has to choose whether to cling to his grief or to take a chance on love, which is even harder for him because he has no example to follow.

I'm doing an awful job of explaining this, but clearly it was a complex film, though in a simple, very human way. Of course Christopher Plummer was great, a scene stealer in almost all of his scenes. Ewan McGregor's character was very different from anything I've seen him play before, both innocent and mature at once. And I thought Mélanie Laurent was perfect in her role. She almost seemed a blend of the French actress and struggling actress sterotypes—impoverished, bohemian, classy, sexy, spontaneous, shy yet sociable. The writing for this film was so good that almost any actors would have made it good, but these three made it great. (*edit: Christopher Plummer's Academy Award? Totally deserved and one of the few categories I had an opinion on and was rooting for! Also, oldest every winner... Go him!)

Anyway, I'll stop now. In summary, it's really worth seeing, whether you're interested in the parent/child aspect, the coming out aspect, the figuring out how love works aspect, the dealing with death aspect, or even the dog with thoughts aspect. A true gem.

Rating: 4.5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011, U.S.)

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way to begin with: the Swedish one was better.

With that said, this was what you'd expect an adaptation of the book to be, just like the Swedish version was. The plot was simplified some (I really didn't like what they did to the ending, but I won't spoil it), though it retained all the key elements to prevent the story from changing. Still, I felt it was overly simplified in places, almost like they were assuming the American audience would prefer a less intellectual plot in favor of a more action-based one. (For instance, why did Mikael not go to prison? That really bothered me. Why was Millennium suddenly this hugely staffed publication instead of a struggling moral voice?) Not that there was more action in this one than the Swedish one, but it felt more action-y. There wasn't more sex or nudity in this one either, and yet that part felt more pronounced as well. Very strange. I think it must be something about how Scandinavians make sex seem like a natural part of life, while Americans make it seem like a racy, commercial thing added just to sell tickets. But let's not get on our anti-America soapbox today.

A lot of elements were better in this version. One thing I liked was the technological bits, how they showed Mikael and Lisbeth stitching all this information together on the computer. The time-lapse pictures of the parade were especially well-done; it helped me visualize the process in a way I hadn't been able to before. I also liked the flashbacks to the day of the bridge accident. They were really well done, and the way they were filmed, with whatever filters or whatnot they used, really gave it the feeling of a memory that was clear but starting to fade around the edges. Probably the best part was the soundtrack, which was just perfect. I can't remember the soundtrack to the Swedish version at all, but this one was chilling, suspenseful, advancing, retreating, startling in all the right places. Famous metal musician as composer for this film... perfect choice.

So of course that leaves me with casting, a major influence on how good adaptations are, especially of this book. Well, Rooney Mara is no Noomi Rapace. She was okay, and she was a decent actress, but she didn't completely embody the role the way Rapace did, physically or mentally. Rapace was transformed into Salander, while Mara was an actress playing the role of Salander. That's my opinion, anyway. (Part of this is also due to makeup/costuming, which also wasn't as good as the Swedish version.) The rest of the cast was pretty darn good, though. I liked Christopher Plummer for Henrik a lot. Daniel Craig was a pretty sweet Mikael. (In fact, he shares strange similarities to the Swedish version actor, who also has that craggy sort of face and compact body. But Craig is a lot sexier.) When I saw Robin Wright, I realized that she's sort of how I pictured Erika all along, except maybe younger... but again, she was a lot like the Swedish actress (except her age). And I just adore Stellan Skarsgård, so I was psyched when I saw that he was in it. When I realized what role he was playing, I was shocked, but of course he was perfect. The man can act. (Props to them for actually casting a Swedish actor, too.) So all in all, a pretty strong cast, with the exception of the titular girl. My main complaint was the accent issue. Obviously, Skarsgård has a light accent. Plummer also seemed to adopt a light accent. Craig sounded like he was trying to do a strong Swedish accent sometimes, but sometimes it morphed into something resembling his Russian accent and sometimes into something resembling his American accent. (His was sadly the most distracting and annoying. I love him anyway.) Wright had a very strong accent, although how accurate it was, I couldn't say. Then most of the rest of the cast sounded American. So that whole thing was a major consistency problem for the film. Look, we know it's an American movie that takes place in Sweden and they're speaking in English anyway, so if you want to go ahead and have American accents for everybody, that's fine. If you want to try to coach everyone to have Swedish accents, that's fine too. But make up your mind and do it all the same. Sheesh.

Anyway, that is all. My general opinion is that you should read the book, but if you don't like to read you should watch the Swedish version, but if you can't stand subtitles you should watch the American version. But I'm warning you, it's just not as good and you'll be missing a lot.

Rating: 3.5

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

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 Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009, U.S.)

Dr. Parnassus makes a deal with the devil for immortality, promising the devil his first-born child when he/she reaches 16. A thousand years later, when his daughter Valentina is reaching her 16th birthday, he makes another deal with the devil that he can get five souls first.

Dr. Parnassus has a very unique traveling show, where the audience gets invited behind a mirror where all their dearest dreams and worst nightmares, basically the products of their imagination, await. The land behind the mirror is something you'd have to see—or imagine—to believe. Major CGI work, definitely. Words cannot explain.

The traveling players meet a stranger (Tony) who proves to be a great help in the quest for five souls. When Tony and Valentina spark up a romance, their fellow performer Anton is jealous and suspicious... with good reason.

Of course the major topic of interest regarding this film is the performances of Heath Ledger and his three stand-ins. They did choose a good way to divide the roll. The Tony character takes three trips into the mirror, so they used the three stand-in actors for one trip each. It almost makes sense for Tony to take a different form in his imagination, if you try to force it in your brain. Depp, Farrell, and Law all did brilliantly with their five minutes of on-screen time. I feel like the sketchiest was Ledger. There were gems in his performance, but it was obvious that other parts were unfinished. It gave the film a disjointed feel, but because the plot was so out there anyway, it kind of worked.

It was really an interesting concept and execution, but to be honest I was a bit busy memorizing every part of Ledger's performance and trying to keep up with a confusing plot at once. I need a better viewing for a better review.

Rating: 3.5

Cold Creek Manor (2003, U.S.)

I've become a huge Kristen Stewart fan recently, so I decided to try out this movie even though it's not my usual fare. I have to say, I was pretty impressed. This movie was creepy.

A couple and their two children move from Manhattan to upstate New York. They move into a house they bought at auction; the previous occupants had gone bankrupt. The father, a documentary filmmakers, begins working on a film about the previous occupants. But weird things start happening in the house. Snake infestations, a dead horse. It is terrifying, especially because you know who is responsible the entire time, yet the family remains clueless.

They send their children home to protect them, and as the suspense builds and it becomes clearer to them what's going on, my skin just kept crawling. The final confrontation is something else—although very cliché, as it occurs at night during a thunderstorm.

Sharon Stone and Dennis Quaid are very good actors, and the chemistry and marital tension between the two was great. And of course, Kristen Stewart was fabulous. Christopher Plummer was very convincing as an old, senile man. But it was Stephen Dorff, who I've never even heard of, who stole the show. He played very sketchy white trash to a T.

I wish I remembered the music more clearly, because I noticed later that the director also composed the score. Interesting.

Anyway, this is a great movie if you want to be super creeped out!

Rating: 3.5

Up (2009, U.S.)

I really, really liked this film. It was funny, sad, beautiful, touching, engaging, lovely. A man who misses his wife decides to go on a journey to South America that they'd always planned together, and he travels by house, attached to a zillion balloons. The possibilities are truly endless here, aren't they?

The animation was awesome. The voice talent was spot-on. Good jokes. Suitable for small children but probably even more enjoyable for their parents. What more can I say?

There were a few parts that were just a bit too much for me, such as the ridiculous talking dogs. Still, the good stuff outweighed these goofy bits enough to make it a really enjoyable movie.

Oh, and the short played before the film, about clouds making babies for storks to deliver to earth, was priceless.

Rating: 4.0