Birdsong (2012, UK)

Oh, Eddie Redmayne. You could be watching paint dry and I would be utterly captivated. You merit at least a full additional star for yourself in every movie. You are beautiful and brilliant with your too-wide mouth and your piercing eyes and your childlike freckles and your one-of-a-kind voice.

Excuse me. Now that I got that out of the way... This was a beautiful piece. I'm really curious to read the Sebastian Faulks novel that it came from. (I watched Charlotte Gray a long time ago, before the blog, and I remember really enjoying it too. It's also from his loosely connected France Trilogy.) The juxtaposition of Stephen's life before and after the war is amazing. They did a great job of contrasting bright and lovely greens in the idyllic 1910 countryside with the dusty, depressing browns of that same country covered with trenches. Stephen learns really important life lessons that he needs both personal tragedy and global tragedy to understand. It's hard to explain this, but it's the core of Birdsong.

I liked basically everything about this. Obviously, I think Eddie Redmayne is a genius. He has such an emotive face and a strong range. I think this was the first I've seen of Clémence Poésy (outside of Fleur in Harry Potter), but she was utterly perfect for the role too, as was Joseph Mawle, who plays a miner in the trenches who helps Stephen on his path to enlightenment. The rest of the cast was good too, but those two stood out.

I already mentioned the perfection of the mis en scène. I also found the music to be very powerful. It was very piano-heavy, and many of the songs were simple, relying on repeating series of 3 or 4 notes. It fit the tone perfectly. (Incidentally, this is, as far as I know, only the third score I've heard by Nicholas Hooper. His HP6 score was a big tone-perfect standout for me too.)

Oh, I'm just not doing it justice. I spent nearly 3 hours with the mini-series, plus extra time for the special features, and I loved every second. It was beautiful, heartbreaking, well-acted, realistic, enlightening, and powerful. Highly recommended.

Rating: 4.5

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

Dear John (2010, U.S.)

It's getting harder and harder for me to review movies based on Nicholas Sparks books, because I really find all his recent books (after about 1998) to be underwhelming. This book was one of my least favorite, but I think they did a pretty good job adapting it for the screen. They made the war part of the film more accessible and the feelings of the soldier more apparent.

You couldn't have cast two better people as John and Savannah. Channing Tatum is the actor to play the modern soldier. (See Stop-Loss, G.I. Joe, etc.) And I really like Amanda Seyfriend, which made her un-empathetic character less horrific, at least for me personally.

I'm not sure how true to the book it was. For instance, I don't remember John's father being such a strong character. He was a great addition to the story. I also don't remember the twists at the ending, though they could have been there. Said twists took a sappy romance and turned it into extreme melodrama. I think I'm over that phase of my life, because I was underwhelmed.

Rating: 3.0

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009, U.S,)

And I cannot believe I'm saying this, but I really liked this movie. Really. I like a good action movie when it's done well, and this was. It actually had a plot (*gasp*), cool technology that seemed feasible, awesome action sequences (military/gun type and martial arts/hand to hand style), decent acting, funny one-liners... and major eye candy. Channing Tatum has never really been my type of guy, but every time I see him in a military movie, I forget all about that! Ha ha.

The concept of an evil genius taking over the world by creating armies of men whose brains he controlled with nanotechnology and by using nanos to create weapons of mass destruction... wow. It sounds ridiculous when I type it, but the fact that the movie was so convincing on such ridiculous ideas is what made it good.

Seriously, I never thought I'd say it, but if you want a good mindless (and yet somehow thoughtful) action movie, look no further than G.I. Joe. From the ending, I'd say they intended to have a sequel. I hope they do!

Rating: 4.0