The Ides of March (2011, U.S.)

I went to see this with my mom because she wanted to see it, and it was better than my other option. Why did I not want to see a movie with the sexy and talented Ryan Gosling, you ask? Well, aside from the fact that I fluctuate between finding George Clooney passable and downright annoying, this subject matter just didn't interest me at all. The matter of politics is depressing enough in the real world without having to see it in a fictional world too. What kind of escapism is that, I ask?

Well, it went just about as expected. Gosling was stellar, of course. Clooney was actually pretty good. (This was not one of those movies when I wanted to yell "Shut up, you irritating man!") The supporting cast—Marisa Tomei, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright—was obviously a strong one. I couldn't say one bad thing about the acting. I also learned a whole lot about the campaigning process, from logistics to worker motives to the sordid details of life on the road. The plot was complex and certainly engaging.

But. When it comes down to it, I left the movie feeling distinctly unhappy. Is there really any resolution? Did the characters grow? Why was this film made and why do we watch it? It wasn't unsettling exactly, or depressing, or entirely off-putting. But leaving a movie with that empty sort of feeling makes me feel all out of sync. It's one thing to be sobbing and depressed, but feeling out of balance with the world is something I just don't like.

Still, I think the movie has many things going for it, and it is the perfect movie for the right kind of viewer. I wouldn't be surprised if it got some Oscar nods.

Rating: 3.0

The Ghost Writer (2010, France)

I love Ewan McGregor, and Olivia Williams is incredibly talented, so she carries a good deal of the weight of this film. Acting talent is very important in this type of slow-building suspense, where there's no obvious threat but instead a creeping feeling that something's wrong. The atmosphere is equally important, and it was dark and chilling.

I found the plot a bit strange, alternating between inexplicably complex moments and stagnant inaction. It wasn't bad per se, I just kept waiting for something to happen or something to make sense. Sometimes it was the good, suspenseful kind of waiting, but sometimes it was just a bit dull.

The last 60 seconds of the film were the absolute best. I love a good plot twist, and while part of this twist should have been more predictable, the other part came out of nowhere and completely made the film. Amazing what an ending can do to improve one's final impression of a film!

Rating: 3.0

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

W. (2008, U.S.)

Of course I thought I was going to like this one. And I was right. It was great. Oliver Stone is a wonderful director, and while he clearly isn't Bush's biggest fan, I think he did his best to make the film as unbiased as possible.

Blogger is silly and will only let me tag so many things per post, so let me list who portrayed all the major characters—Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush), Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush), James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush), Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney), Michael Gaston (General Tommy Franks), Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld), Ioan Gruffudd (Tony Blair), Toby Jones (Karl Rove), Thandie Newton (Condaleeza Rice), and Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell). If this doesn't sell this film to you, I don't know what would. All of these actors were so absolutely brilliant that I almost forgot that they were actors and not the actual people. And then there was Josh Brolin. Wow. To be able to play such an interesting character over a span of 40 years with such authenticity is sheer, undeniable brilliance. Stefanie (who I saw this film with) had the same reaction as me—by the end, we were convinced that we were watching Dubya and not Brolin. Amazing, amazing, amazing acting. I cannot say enough about the whole cast, and especially about Brolin.

Besides the great acting and the high level of realism, I also love the flashback method of storytelling (as I always do) and the clever, clever score. The flashbacks attempted to parallel his early life with how he behaved as president. He was (apparently) a wild, alcoholic, irresponsible boy who couldn't hold down a job and was an embarrassment to George Sr. He decided to get it together and go into the family business by running for the House of Representatives, but he was "out-Texased" by the democratic candidate. Then somehow he becomes governor of Texas, and then God calls him to run for president. (H.W. didn't want him to run for governor and overshadow his brother Jeb, who he seemed to be much prouder of.) You feel bad for poor W. But at the same time, you recognize that trying to prove oneself to one's father is a terrible motivation for becoming president and that this man was not qualified for the job. (Kind of like another politician whose primary experience is as a state governor...)

Then there was the music. There was an interesting arrangement of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background when Bush and his cabinet are in a meeting to decide whether or not they're going into Baghdad. It gave me goosebumps—and not the good kind. Especially when the cabinet took part in their customary prayer at the end of the meeting. There were also several uses of a chirpy song about Robin Hood, primarily when Bush was wandering around his ranch followed by a troop of his not-so-merry men (and Condoleeza). It fit perfectly, with all its lyrics about feared by the evil and loved by the good, added to its goofy sound.

I liked George H.W. Bush in this film. I never thought much about him before since he was president when I was too young to care, but based on this he wasn't so bad. I liked how they had him tell W. that he had disgraced the Bush family name. However, in case this is less than accurate, he says this in a dream that W. has. That way, the idea was introduced but not implied as fact. I thought that was very subtly clever.

The last thing I will mention is the ongoing baseball field scenes, which culminated with the excellently done final scene. Apparently, center field is where Bush is able to think the most clearly. (His most successful job is as a baseball team owner, in fact.) Whenever he is trying to make a tough choice, they show him zoning out and imagining himself into center field. The last scene shows a fly ball coming towards him, and he keeps looking for it and looking for it, but he never sees it again. And that was a perfectly executed simile, right there. It was also a great way to end it. No hopeful messages, no preaching via end titles, no scrambling to choose a good final scene that really happened... It was wonderful.

I would give this film a 5, but I just wish there was more in it. Obviously, time is an issue and it can't go on forever, but I wanted it to. And since this is my blog, I can take half a point off for leaving me wanting more!

Go see this film. And don't "misunderestimate" it!

Rating: 4.5