The Tree of Life (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say. At all. Because what just happened? At first I thought I was going to love it. I mean, visually it was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The score was completely out of this world, like a best of the eerie sounding classics. (Hard to describe the subset of music I'm talking about exactly, but it is a type of music I enjoy a lot. I would love to own this soundtrack.) Then there was original music composed by one of my all time favorite composers, Alexandre Desplat. Brad Pitt wasn't bad, but this wasn't my favorite performance of his. I thought Jessica Chastain was the real star of this film, which was unfortunate because she often seemed so peripheral. Overall, it was visually and aurally stunning, and the seed of the plot was good.

But. But but but. It just tried so hard to be artsy and impressionistic that it seemed silly instead. There were dinosaurs, for crying out loud. The sound mixing was not the best, so the score often overpowered whispered lines. I found myself having to turn on subtitles a lot. The part about adult Jack could have added a lot, but I don't think it was made clear enough. Plus, Sean Penn reminded me why I never liked Sean Penn (until Milk made me want to give him a second chance).

It could have been really great, but it just tried too hard and was too self aware. So instead of brilliance and beauty, I was left with a lot of annoyance and exhaustion.

Rating: 1.5

Melancholia (2011, Denmark)

I am enraptured.

Apparently this is the most "polished" film that Lars von Trier has ever made, which he wasn't pleased about. I haven't really seen enough of his films to form a complete judgement, but I think this film really showcased his artistic genius and creative eye without frustrating the viewer, which makes it just about perfect.

Basically, the film is told in two parts, one focusing on each sister. The first is about Justine and takes place during her wedding reception. (Her new husband is played by Alexander Skarsgård, and I think we all know how much I adore him!) Justine is clearly suffering from depression and is having a hard time staying in the moment. Meanwhile, a new planet has appeared from the other side of the sun. The second part is more about her sister Claire, who clearly suffers from clinical anxiety. The planet, dubbed Melancholia, appears to be on a crash course with the earth (though Claire's husband says it won't happen).

So that's the bare bones of the plot, but it is just so beautifully complex that it's hard to describe. It seems like a lot of reviewers didn't like it because they didn't understand it; they were looking for planets crashing, big Hollywood entertainment value. A large percentage of reviewers seemed to like Part 1: Justine and were frustrated or hateful about Part 2: Claire. I think this is because they didn't understand it. Many people understood that Justine was depressed, but they didn't understand Claire's anxiety, and they didn't like Claire. I, however, have more firsthand experience with mental illness than I would like to have, and it was clear to me that both sisters were ill in different ways and that Claire's illness goes unremarked because she is so busy trying to take care of Justine, whose illness is much more obvious to strangers. Anyway, the planet of Melancholia seemed to be a metaphor for the sisters' illnesses. Justine's is hidden (behind her sometimes sunny personality?) as Melancholia is at first. It goes largely unremarked and misunderstood. Claire's is overwhelming, inescapable, and she feels out of control as the planet comes rushing toward Earth. The approach of Melancholia causes her to panic because she can't control it, and that is a fundamental component of anxiety.

So anyway, yes. To summarize the plot, we have sisters, mental illness, metaphor, planetary collision. The acting was phenomenal. Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg made me believe both that they were sisters with a strained relationship and that they were mentally ill. It's hard to catalog all the minute expressions and glances that made up their performances, but needless to say, they were exquisite and didn't overact at all. The quality of acting really contributed to the success of the film. Toward the beginning, we see Justine and Michael in the limo on their way to the wedding reception, and their looks and giggles and kisses were so infectious and convincing, I felt like I really was intruding on the loving bliss of happy newlyweds. And it only continued from there. The chemistry between all the actors, even the young boy who plays Claire's son, was magical.

In terms of other elements, I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that the film was visually stunning. It opens with a long (very, very, very, very long) montage of the moments directly before the planets collide at the end of the film, and even though it was a disconcertingly long intro, it was so beautiful that it was hard to mind. This was also when the film's primary music was introduced—Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. It set the perfect mood and continued to hold the entire film together to the end.

I could go on forever. I can't wait to see this film again. It's so intelligent, beautiful, heartbreaking, wonderful, thought-provoking, and strangely real. The last film I loved this much was probably Never Let Me Go, and we all know how I felt about that. (Strange that they're both shockingly realistic but technically sci-fi. I could have stumbled on the perfect genre here.) I'd recommend this to everyone, but especially to those with sisters or firsthand experience with mental illness. It's hard to watch in that regard, but it really strikes a chord.

Wow.

Rating: 5.0

Beginners (2010, U.S.)

This was just a lovely, thought-provoking, touching indie film. From the previews, you'd think it's a comedy about a grown man whose 75-year-old father suddenly comes out. That's kind of what it is, but it is so much more than that.

Following his father Hal's death, Oliver's primary relationship seems to be with his father's dog Arthur (an adorable Jack Russell whose thoughts sometimes appear to the audience via subtitles). He projects his own feelings onto Arthur, using the dog as an excuse to stay in seclusion. His work as a graphic artist, his friendships, and his mental health are all obviously suffering. When his friends force him to attend a costume party, he meets Anna, a French actress in town for work, and they seem to have an immediate connection. However, he struggles with the budding relationship. In flashbacks, we can see that this may stem from his mother's unconventional parenting, his parents' passionless marriage, and his continuing struggle to come to terms with father's sexuality and, more specifically, his jealousy of Hal's much younger lover.

I offer this brief plot summary because I don't think the previews do the film justice at all. I'd hate to think of people blowing this film off as another comedy that uses the gay lifestyle as easy material and missing out on a really special work. Watching Hal come alive as he embraces his true nature and finds companionship not just with a lover but with a large network of friends is just beautiful. (I especially love the scene when he has his hospital room packed with friends drinking a toast to him and they get in trouble with the nurse for having alcohol.) He's coming alive while coming to terms with his death, and then his son has to do the same thing. Oliver has to choose whether to cling to his grief or to take a chance on love, which is even harder for him because he has no example to follow.

I'm doing an awful job of explaining this, but clearly it was a complex film, though in a simple, very human way. Of course Christopher Plummer was great, a scene stealer in almost all of his scenes. Ewan McGregor's character was very different from anything I've seen him play before, both innocent and mature at once. And I thought Mélanie Laurent was perfect in her role. She almost seemed a blend of the French actress and struggling actress sterotypes—impoverished, bohemian, classy, sexy, spontaneous, shy yet sociable. The writing for this film was so good that almost any actors would have made it good, but these three made it great. (*edit: Christopher Plummer's Academy Award? Totally deserved and one of the few categories I had an opinion on and was rooting for! Also, oldest every winner... Go him!)

Anyway, I'll stop now. In summary, it's really worth seeing, whether you're interested in the parent/child aspect, the coming out aspect, the figuring out how love works aspect, the dealing with death aspect, or even the dog with thoughts aspect. A true gem.

Rating: 4.5

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

Sexo por compasión (2000, Mexico)

I really don't have much to say about this one.

I thought I wanted some more magical realism films in my life, but I'm seriously beginning to rethink this thought. This film was essentially about a small village that had been sucked dry of life. People were moving away, there was only one child, and everything was black and white. Then Dolores's husband leaves her again, and suddenly she starts sleeping with every man in town, and the town is rejuvenated. The color comes back. Everything is rainbows and sunshine. And the woman (who now calls herself Lolita), is not a whore but a saint.

It makes no sense, and I can't even pretend to have liked it. I'm sure there must have been some redeeming qualities (for instance, the use of black and white for part of the movie and color for the other part), but mostly it was just stupid. And I can't be more eloquent than that, so I'm giving up.

Rating: 2.0

My Blueberry Nights (2007, ?)

I put a ? in place of the country because I'm not quite sure about the country. I thought this was a U.S. or UK indie film, but imdb says "Hong Kong / China / France." So who knows?

I wanted to see this one when it came out in theaters, but it was a limited release so I never did. It was definitely worth the wait!

Although I was hesitant about Norah Jones as the main character, she was actually a decent actress. And while one or two of her songs was used in the soundtrack, there was no "look at me singing karaoke" or "...to my boyfriend" or "...in the shower." So that was a relief. Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, and Natalie Portman all play people she meets on this journey to find herself and define herself without a man in her life. She teaches them and they teach her, but in a very subtle way. (To give you a point of comparison, it was not like Chocolat in its "look at us help our friends grow as people!")

The acting was great, of course. Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, and Natalie Portman (in order of appearance) are all amazing actors, and their performances were spot on and understated enough to not steal the show from Jones. Also, I've been seeing more and more of David Strathaim recently, and I've really enjoyed his stuff.

This was Kar Wai Wong's English-language debut, and it definitely makes me want to go see more of his Chinese films. He does some fascinating things with close-up angles, with what looks like hand-cameras, with general structure. (To give examples: extreme close up of blueberry pie with melting ice cream, using the cafe's security camera as a POV, interrupting with frames thay say "Day x, y miles from New York.") Very neat stuff with a somewhat nouvelle vogue feel, I thought.

So I really liked this a lot. It's hard not to compare this to other films I've watched recently and give it it's own rating independent of them... I couldn't rate it as high as Jeux d'enfants, for example, but I also liked it more than Gods and Monsters. Can I give it a 4.25?

Rating: 4.0

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