The Dark Knight Rises (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. What just happened? I saw this with my brother, who was seeing it for the second time, and his reaction seemed pretty close to mine, even knowing what was going to happen. It was so confusing. I feel like I'm throwing the word "disjointed" around a lot these days, but that's just what it was. The timeline was very unclear. It seemed like events were happening very close together, but suddenly a change in the weather indicated that it had actually been months or more. (I think we decided that the main timeline, not counting flashbacks, was a little over a year.)

The acting was good, the sets were good, the costumes were good, the Bat-toys were awesome (I love that motorcycle thing)... But the plot was just overly ambitious and the writing lacked flair. The villain Bane was supposed to be the coolest villain of all time, but I found him almost ridiculous. His face mask is never adequately explained, his voice was supposed to sound creepy and just ended up getting on my nerves, and various plot twists (which I won't give away) completely ruined the power he had as a villain and all of the impassioned speeches he gave (probably the best writing in the movie). Perhaps a lot of the let down stems from being the third in a series where the first was really fresh and the second was well-crafted and featured one of the most brilliant performances by one of the most brilliant actors of his generation (Heath Ledger). Or maybe it was just that unwieldy. It's hard to enjoy something when you're trying so hard to keep up. It's one thing with a foreign film or intense drama, but a super hero movie... I like smart movies with capes, but this wasn't smart, at least in its entirety.

I am having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, so I'll give it up. Stick to the first two installments.

Rating: 2.0

Midnight in Paris (2011, U.S.)

 Has it really been almost three and a half years since Woody Allen finally made me start my film blog? And again I say, "Good ending, Woody Allen!"

But to begin with, perhaps I should tell him "Good beginning!" instead. The first several minutes of the film are comprised entirely of scenes from Paris, both tourist destinations like the Eiffel Tower and local hangouts like street cafes. It was beautiful, it really set the scene by introducing Paris as its own character, and it made me think repeatedly, "I've been there!" It was a nice little trip, and all this before the credits began to roll.

To begin with the concept: I loved it! It's a bit like The Polar Express. Gil, who has escaped from his fiancee Inez and her parents, is wandering the city when, at the stroke of midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up as if the meeting was predetermined. Soon he's wandering the much livelier streets of a Paris that has been gone for 90 years, meeting his idols and letting his inner self blossom. How many of us long to retreat to an earlier time, one that we hold in our imaginations as a Golden Age? For Gil, it's Paris in the 1920s. For Adriana, who he meets in the '20s, it's la Belle Epoque. As Gil says, "That's what the present is. It's a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying." His whole journey of self-discovery is colorful and humorous but also beautiful, and it is oh-so-Woody-Allen.

The casting was excellent, although I felt a little backwards regarding the leads. Normally I love Rachel McAdams, and she was very good in this movie. The only problem was that usually she's sweet and loveable or savvy and spunky. Here, her character was a shallow, annoying socialite. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Owen Wilson (I much prefer his brother), usually finding him to be quite annoying. In this case, he was the loveable one. Strange to get used to that big trade-off. He was good, but the remainder of the ensemble cast was stellar. In the modern world, Michael Sheen as Inez's irritating, superior friend Paul was spot-on. French first lady Carla Bruni as a museum guide was understated. In the 1920s, I adored Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald (the more movies I see her in, the more I like her). Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott was a good counterpart. Corey Stoll was an incredible Hemingway; to be honest, I had to remind myself that he was an actor and not the author several times. Kathy Bates was perfect as the outspoken Gertrude Stein (think Molly Brown toned down about 20 notches). Adrien Brody, one of the most underrated actors in the world I think, was a wonderfully vibrant Salvador Dalí. "Rhinoceros!" (Much different from Pattinson's portrayal in Little Ashes, but equally believable.) I was pleased to see Gad Elmaleh in a non-French (language/country of origin) film, because he has a great range of expressions (which may come from having a mime for a father) that lend themselves to brilliant comedy and worked very well as the detective here. And of course the lovely Marion Cotillard is always a classy, sexy, talented addition to any cast, especially a period piece.

I don't know quite how to describe my feeling watching this film other than to use the word "transported." It was really wonderful, thought-provoking, amusing. I would recommend it to anyone, but especially to those with a love of Paris or early 20th century art/culture, or a nostalgic longing for any bygone time.

Rating: 4.0

Public Enemies (2009, U.S.)

Johnny Depp. End of review.

Seriously though, I was really looking forward to this film, and with good reason. Cinematography: check. Acting: double check. Score: check. Script: check. Even the historical accuracy, while not always perfect, is still quite good for Hollywood, and it gets a check too.

I can't say enough good things about this film. It was a very serious subject, and they treated it as such. However, there were also some awesome one liners, well-balanced with the rest of the content. The ones delivered by Johnny Depp with his classic straight face/beginnings of a smirk were the absolute best. "There is absolutely nothing I want to do in Indiana," he says. (Of course this is funnier to me than those who have never resided in the Hoosier state, but there are other great lines as well!) The action scenes are terrific, very suspenseful and well-choreographed, but not overly graphic. There was a touch of romance that didn't overpower the rest of the story. And all of the bank robbers were not idolized. They were portrayed as real people with real lives and feelings and problems. Of course you wanted Dillinger to win because he is such a charismatic guy, and you might want to turn to bank robbery too if you grew up poor in Morgan County. (Side note: this is the county where I have my internship.)

The casting was phenomenal. Aside from Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and Marion Cotillard, there were countless others in more minor roles who were great—Emilie de Ravin, Billy Crudup, Channing Tatum, David Wenham, Giovanni Ribisi... we're talking good actors. Johnny stole the show, of course, but they still managed to hang in there.

The score was also incredible. Usually I'm not tempted to purchase scores from films with so much action (I prefer listening to quiet stuff when I'm listening to instrumental music at home), but this score tempts me. It fit the mood, it helped build tension in gunfights, the romantic theme was touching. Great stuff. I've never heard of Elliot Goldenthal, but apparently he won an Oscar for his Frida score. I'll be keeping an ear out for him.

I can't wait to see this one again.

Rating: 4.5

Love Me If You Dare / Jeux d'enfants (2003, France)

Here's my question: why have I not seen this film until now? It was... incredible. A boy and girl start a game of dares to distract themselves from lives that are too trying for children, and the game becomes their life. They hurt themselves and each for nearly three decades, refusing to see how much they really mean to each other.

People who love Amélie will also love Jeux d'enfants. It had the same overly-bright cinematography at times, as well as the alternation of a deep intensity and a whimsical feel. Really, it was a bit of an emotional roller coaster, because you never know if you're watching a serious movie or a playful one. Even the ending seems to be a combination of two possibilities, and I'm still not entirely sure what happened. The end was definitely a shock, and it left me feeling like my heart wasn't quite beating properly -- not because of suspense, but because of the rapid changing of tone.

I love Marion Cotillard. After Audrey Tautou, she is probably my favorite French actress. Anyone who's seen La vie en rose knows that she is incredibly talented. I thought she performed especially well in this film. (Ironically "La vie en rose" was "their song" in this movie. Strange coincidence.) The male lead, Guillame Canet, I haven't seen before, although he's done lots of movies. I think he was supposed to be the protagonist, since he narrated the entire movie, but I thought Cotillard overshadowed him a bit. Still, I thought his narration was great. (This, too, reminded me of Amélie, with the narrator rambling on in what I call a "catalog narration," with giant lists of things used to describe one instance or one feeling.)

The fact that this thought-provoking, insightful, beautiful film was made by a first-time writer/director just makes it that much more impressive. I loved it. Now I must own it! To take one line from (a quite long) quote in the film, it was: "Better than banana milkshakes!" And that's saying something, if you're me.

Rating: 4.5