Whiteout (2009, U.S.)

This was a surprisingly good movie. I've seen a lot of bad reviews on it, but you have to keep in mind that's it's not supposed to be an Academy Award winner. It's supposed to be a scary, unlikely suspense flick.

Basically, a U.S. Marshall stationed at the American station in Antarctica must investigate a murder, and a special UN agent comes to help her investigate. They also get some assistance from a helicopter pilot and the station's doctor. The investigation turns up a string of bodies, a buried Soviet plane from the '50s, a smuggling operation, and all kinds of other fun stuff. When the rest of the station leaves for the season, this handful of people is left behind. Whiteouts and other dangerous situations abound, and the murder appears out of the blizzard with no warning.

Is it silly? Yes. But is it scary in its way? Yes. It's a fun, mindless flick, exactly what it's supposed to be.

Rating: 3.5

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

Angels & Demons (2009, U.S.)

Even though I thought The Da Vinci Code was terrible (couldn't hold a candle to the book!), I decided to tempt fate and the movie gods and watch Angels & Demons. (It's really hard to say no to Ewan McGregor!)

Here's what I think. Like the first installment (that used to be a sequel but is now a prequel... weird), it took quite a few liberties. Mostly it was over-simplified to better fit a film format. However, there was strangely less suspense than in the book, even though they had a great opportunity to make it really come alive. A huge plot point involves a terrorist killing a cardinal every hour, and yet somehow they have time between locating each body to change clothes, do research in the Vatican archives, drive around in traffic, have some drawn out conversations, and then make it to the next murder scene with two minutes to spare. It was completely unbelievable it this respect.

Acting. Tom Hanks was okay. I felt like he didn't capture Langdon at all in the first film, and this was barely an improvement. His female sidekick, the brilliant scientist, was barely there. The strongest performances came from Stellan Skarsgård (the commander of the Vatican police) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (Dean of the College of Cardinals). They weren't major characters, but they were important and played their parts well. Ewan McGregor absolutely stole the show. Surprise, surprise. He was impassioned and calm-headed and pious and worldly at all the right times and in all the right amounts. Brilliant. The one thing that was lacking in his performance was a perfect accent. Usually his accents are passable, but he just sounded like a more toned-down Scot than the Irishman he was supposed to be. Details, details.

The mis en scène was pretty awesome, considering a large percentage of it was probably reproduction. Having been to Vatican City myself, I was pretty impressed with their recreation of the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter's Square. If I didn't know the Vatican would never allow film crews in there, I would believe it was the real thing. Other locations, such as the Castel and Ponte Sant'Angelo and the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi (absolutely breathtaking in life) could also have been the real thing. Maybe they were. All I know is that I want to rewind time and relive those days I spent strolling around Rome. (Only this time, not in the summer with half of the U.S. and Japan there!)

Away from personal notes. I was impressed with the score from the first notes. I kept thinking that the style of the composition and the quality of performance sounded familiar. Turns out it was composed by Hans Zimmer (one of my all-time favorites) and the violin solos were performed by Jamie Bell (whose performance on the Defiance score is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard). It had the right mix of suspense and beauty at the right times and did wonders for the film. The only thing that stuck out was when Cardinal Strauss tells Langdon that "of course" God sent him to Rome—and the score becomes suddenly ominous for a few bars. Very odd.

Overall, I can see how people who haven't read the book would love this movie. I thought it was okay, and I didn't want to tear my eyes out after watching it like I did with the first one. So there you have it.

Rating: 3.0

Duplicity (2009, U.S.)

This film was all anyone could ask for. It's funny. It's smart. There's romance. There's espionage. There's Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. This totally redeems Owen for the travesty also known as The International.

First of all, the plot is completely over the top. Two companies trying to beat each other out in the market for hair care products or lotion or some such silliness. They are so extreme about corporate secrecy that they have whole security teams protecting the chemical formulas and laying false trails for the competitor. Enter Ray and Claire, who may or may not have known each other before and who may or may not be on friendly terms. Each is the head of security for one of the companies, and they may or may not be working together to fleece both of their employers.

It is truly remarkable the way the filmmakers integrated this complex plot with a touch of romance and a lot of humor. The writing was superb, and I was very impressed. Of course Owen and Roberts were great, although it was very strange to see them together for the first time since Closer without attributing some of their earlier characters' characteristics to the current set. But eventually that wore away, and their chemistry and acting skill was very apparent.

One other thing I have to say about this film is this—what a score. Of course, I'm biased because I love James Newton Howard, but I actually didn't realize it was his until the credits. Two of my favorite scores are his—Peter Pan and Defiance. Peter Pan is whimsical but beautiful, very fairy-ish. Defiance (which is my opinion was robbed, robbed, robbed of the Oscar by an infinitely inferior score) is heartbreakingly beautiful, tragically lovely, whichever set of seemingly contradictory terms you want to use. Anyway, I could gush about him all day. The point is, this score was very different, but just as perfectly appropriate to its film as the other two I mentioned. It was lighthearted and upbeat. (This part reminded me a bit of the Catch Me If You Can score). It had a hint of sneakiness that fit with the espionage, but also a hint of something else more appropriate to the romantic aspect. It was masterfully done.

I don't think I can offer any higher recommendation for a film like this than these two words: Fun. Smart.

Rating: 4.5

Taken (2008, U.S.)

Taken is one of the best suspense movies I've seen in a long, long time. I saw it because Meghan had been wanting to see it, and I rarely turn down a movie invite. In this case, I'm glad I didn't.

On the one hand, the plot of this film was ridiculously unbelievable. But at the same time, it was chillingly believable. A teenager and her friend go to Paris together, only to immediately fall for a cute French guy who is the tip of a human trafficking iceberg. Her ex-military father is determined to hunt them down and save his daughter before it's too late.

The action is great. Even the violence falls perfectly between gory and stylized, which is the only kind of violence I really like in a film. Unlike the last suspense film I saw (The International), how Neeson's character figures out the clues to get from point A to point B makes sense. The acting is phenomenal. The filmmakers also did an exceptional job with making the characters truly realistic, even down to a very convincing father-daughter relationship between Neeson and Grace. Really, this relationship was the backbone of the entire film.

I'm not one to watch action movies over and over again, but I could definitely see giving this one a second viewing. It was incredible.

Rating: 4.0

The International (2009, U.S.)

I have rarely been so disappointed with a film starring one of my favorite actors. Or by such a prestigious director. But The International just... wasn't good. I can't say that it was bad, necessarily, but nor was it worth the two hours spent watching it.

It started out really promising, with a shockingly long closeup of Clive Owen's face, looking pensive. That one shot built up more tension than the rest of the movie combined, probably. Why is he just standing there? What's going on? And then a man he's working with dies in front of him, and you think he's about to be killed the same way. But really it was just his overactive imagination. And the suspense end there.

The rest of the film is just a confusing mess. Naomi Watts plays a New York ADA and Clive Owen plays an Interpol agent trying to expose a corrupt international bank. How an NY ADA is going to help with this is very unclear. I guess it was unclear to the screenwriters as well, because Watts' screen time was incredibly short, considering she was given top billing with Owen.

I just don't even have that much to say about this film. The acting was great, of course. Some of the cinematography was unbelievable, including a drawn-out gun fight that takes place in a museum with fascinating architecture. (It could be said, however, that the whole film depended too much on this scene, which was drawn out entirely too long.) I didn't even pay that much attention to the score, which was done by the same guys who did Run Lola Run. It should have been more memorable.

All in all, a huge disappointment.

Rating: 2.0

No Country for Old Men (2007, U.S.)

I tried to like it, I really did. I'd heard great things, it won several Oscars... but I just didn't like it at all. Too much violence. Nothing but violence, really.

So here are my few notes on it: Minimalist score by Burwell was great, especially in the last scene/closing credits. Good acting, especially by Javier Bardem -- creepy! I didn't know this was based on a Cormac McCarthy book, but it reminded me of him. So when I found out it was based on one of his books, I can only assume they must have done a good job adapting it.

It's easy to forget over the course of a movie that seems predominantly about greed, but the main character never would have run into all the problems he did if he hadn't gone back to the scene where he'd found the money in order to give a dying man some water. No good deed goes unpunished, they say.

So overall, there was some good stuff in this movie. But it was entirely overshadowed by excessive violence. Which I guess was kind of the point, but that doesn't mean I had to like it.

Rating: 1.5

Cassandra's Dream (2007, U.S.)

First thing I said out loud at the end: "Good ending, Woody Allen."

I think it's interesting how obsessed Woody Allen seems to be with the idea of getting away with murder. I wouldn't have thought this movie was unusual on its own, but following 2005's Match Point, it's something. Colin Farrell's character was strangely similar to his Ray in this year's In Bruges -- but he continues to do the emotionally vulnerable thing well. Ewan McGregor was also good, of course. I thought the writing was a bit weak, as the brothers' motivations were not quite convincing -- but I don't think it was the acting.

Of course I absolutely adore anything composed by Philip Glass, and this score was no different. It fit perfectly with the movie and was a fantastic suspense-builder.

The best part was the ending -- surprising yet inevitable at the same time. And it left you with that "Hmmm" feeling. Excellent.

Rating: 3.5