Love and Other Drugs (2010, U.S.)

I was really surprised by how much I liked this movie. Of course I was excited to see it because I love Jake Gyllenhaal, though I've never been especially fond of Anne Hathaway. (What made me decide I didn't like her? It seems like everything I've ever seen her in, I've been impressed. Maybe her voice bothers me? I can't figure it out! I guess from now on, I'll say I like her a lot.) Anyway, this movie was great. A lot of movies from the 1990s feel very dated, but this movie made last year about the 1990s felt not quite nostalgic, not quite historical, but something like that. Instead of feeling "so 1990s," it felt like it was recreating a sort of idealized '90s. It's hard to explain, but in any case, it worked well.

The setup was also very effective. It opens showing Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) selling electronics (very '90s electronics!) to men, women, old ladies with equal success. The brief scene really defines Jamie as a born salesman and charmer. And the ensuing tryst with the manager's girlfriend in the storeroom defines him as a born womanizer... and charmer. It's quite a surprise when we next find him at his wealthy parents home, with a father and sister who are doctors and a brother who is a software millionaire. His background seems so unlikely with his current life.

Anyway, he eventually gets into selling pharmaceuticals for Pfizer, mainly trying to get doctors to prescribe Zoloft instead of Prozac. The insight into the drug industry is absolutely fascinating. I don't really know that much about it, but it felt realistic to me, at least. And there is a lot of industry humor thrown in that was truly amusing, and once he starts selling Viagra, it only gets better. Normally I'm not into crude humor, and one would think that selling a sex drug and jokes about its use and situational comedy (think long-lasting erections) would not amuse me at all, but it was actually done fairly tastefully and made me laugh out loud. Surprising.

In the middle of all this drug-selling, Jamie meets Maggie, a woman of 26 with early-onset Parkinson's Disease. Her character was so complex it was nearly staggering. There's her disease and her worries about it and her refusal to be defined by it. There's her art. There's her undefined job, which involves taking senior citizens to Canada where they can afford their prescriptions. (Yet more commentary on the drug industry.) There's her desire for frequent no-strings sex and refusal to be in a relationship, even when it's obvious to the viewer that she's falling in love. Anne Hathaway was absolutely stellar in her performance, down to her shaking hands and lethargy (caused by her illness) and up to her flawlessly-performed emotional breakdowns. Paired with Jake Gyllenhaal's charming, selling, womanizing Jamie, it just really worked. Great stuff. (I also have to insert a side note on a subject I don't usually take the time to comment on: sex scenes. Some were strangely detached feeling, which I suppose is good since it was a no-strings relationship in the beginning. But one was especially beautiful once they were more together... It's raining outside and it's shot through the window, so all the viewer sees is the watery, unfocused forms of very gentle lovers on a lovely deep red bedspread. It was quite beautiful.)

Basically, it had all the hallmarks of the best of the best romantic comedies, but I almost don't want to call it that. Mostly the comedy came from his job and the romance was much more dramatic (and far from funny), and these two elements were combined flawlessly. Added to the very unique characters and plot, the quasi-nostalgic (or whatever you want to call it) feel, the interesting details of the pharmaceutical industry and Parkinson's disease, and some wonderful performances, this was one of the best "romantic comedies" I've ever seen.

Rating: 4.0

Source Code (2011, U.S.)

I have very mixed feelings about this one. It definitely had a very interesting concept for a science fiction thriller. And it had the one-of-a-kind, sweet, sexy, boy-next-door, unlikely-hero Jake Gyllenhaal. Some good special effects (exploding trains and the like). A hint of romance. A dash of (misplaced?) patriotism. Lots of promise, but it just didn't come together well.

It's not that it was confusing. At first it was a bit confusing, as I got the hang of the plot. In fact, it was a bit confusing for Coulter (Gyllenhaal), and the viewer figures out what's going on as he does, which was pretty good for the plot. As far as sci-fi action flicks go, this seemed pretty strong for the most part, especially considering it took place over and over again in the same 8 minutes with the same handful of characters on the same train.

I was mostly frustrated because the developing romance didn't make much sense, and the ending made no sense at all. It felt like they were going somewhere else with the story, but the original ending was too depressing so they rewrote it to be conveniently-ever-ever. (This is just a theory, but that's how it felt to me.) Both of these things made the whole thing feel forced and ruined the effect. I barely convinced myself to go up to 3.0 instead of 2.5.

I would recommend this to anyone who's desperate for a good sci-fi thriller (a somewhat under-used genre in today's market, it seems to me). Yes, even though I didn't rate it higher, the kernel of the story was very good; just the execution was lacking. I also recommend it to diehard Jake Gyllenhaal fans (like myself). He really carried this movie. He has a very quiet, underrated talent and plays the tough yet tender hero very well.

Rating: 3.0

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010, U.S.)

I truly hope the subtitle doesn't imply they're planning a sequel, because this one wasn't very good. It was better than some other things I've seen lately, but still, not great.

In my humble opinion, Jake Gyllenhall is one of the most talented actors of his generation. What was he thinking accepting this movie? He wasn't bad as an action hero, but he's much more attractive and convincing as the slender, nerdy boy next door or as a sweet, shy but self-assured cowboy (as in Proof and Brokeback Mountain, two of my favorite performances of his). Who was this buff hero? Also, he had a strange, mild accent of no discernible origin. I guess it was supposed to be Persian, but I don't know. At least you can still say it was consistent though.

There was some good action here, but the plot was a bit hard to follow at times. If this makes any sense at all, part of their failure was the introduction of an object's concept without showing said object (i.e. the titular sands of time). It didn't work.

The music was underwhelming, which was a disappointment to me. A score can make or break a movie, and a good score here would have made it a bit more bearable. (Especially disappointing because I usually love Harry Gregson-Wililams' work.)

I can say that there were a few mildly amusing lines. Alfred Molina was especially funny as an anti-tax, anti-government "small businessman." Almost incongruous in ancient Persia, but somehow it worked for this particular movie. On the other hand, his character and other things meant anachronisms all over the place. If you're looking for anything close to historical accuracy, look elsewhere.

Further faults? Predictable villain. Pretty tepid, weak romance—the movie would have been better off without it at all. Eh. Oh, and then there's the weird déjà vu feeling, a product of the very Aladdin feel at the beginning and the very Gollum at Mount Doom climax. Does that give too much away? Oh well, if you don't see it now, you're not missing much.

Rating: 2.0

Brothers (2009, U.S.)

This is the kind of modern war film that there should be more of. I think that they really failed in marketing this one, however. While they made it seem like a movie about two brothers in love with the same woman, that was nowhere near the truth.

Instead, it was about the psychological damage done to a good soldier who was taken prisoner by the Taliban and forced to do unspeakable things, things that he couldn't tell anyone about—not his wife, not his superiors, and not his brother. Tobey Maguire did an absolutely brilliant job of portraying a man whose control is unraveling. It was an interesting contrast to his brother, an ex-con who spends his time trying to hold his brother's family together, for little thanks and a mountain of accusations. Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman are two of the most talented actors I can think of, and they were wonderful too.

And of course, beautiful score by Thomas Newman. That man has a gift.

Rating: 3.5

Rendition (2007, U.S.)

This film was both better and worse than I anticipated. Of course the cast was wonderful. I rather wish Reese Witherspoon would do more serious movies, because she has so much potential. Meryl Streep gave me the creeps, which must mean she was successful in her role. And I can never hate Jake Gyllenhaal, although it may not have been his strongest performance ever.

I love films that depict the United States in a less than perfect light—because we're not perfect, so it's good to have a dose of realism every now and again. Especially when it has current relevancy.

I think my favorite part of this film was the fact that there were two (or you could possibly count three) parallel stories which seemed to have only the slightest overlap. They were much more tied together than one would think, and the flexible time structure added a lot to this element.

The weakest part was that as emotional as the whole concept was, there was very little emotion that came across obviously in the execution of the plot. The potential was there, but underused.

Overall, I would recommend this one. It will make you think twice about counter-terrorism.

Rating: 3.5