Weekend viewing: Critical acclaim

 This weekend, we managed to watch not one, not two, but THREE of the movies currently in contention this award season. Impressive, no? Much thanks to Netflix and MLK day (parents off + daycare open=MATINEE).

 

The movies themselves were equally impressive. In fact, I am going to call it; right here, right now. One of these films is going to win Best Picture at the Oscars. Which one? You’ve already got a hint, but read on …

Moneyball (2011)

I like good movies, and my husband likes baseball, so this film was an obvious choice. I am not a rabid Brad Pitt fan, per se, but I do think that he is consistently under-rated as an actor, and his performance in Moneyball certainly deserves the attention it’s receiving. As Billy Beane, the General Manager of the Oakland As, Pitt conveys a convincing “every man” quality that I think can sometimes be difficult for big movie stars, particularly ones who really look like movie stars. He also gives us the motivation and baggage behind the man who puts everything on the line to change how the business of baseball works. Equally impressive (and more surprising) is Jonah Hill as Beane’s numbers man, Peter Brand. Hill is the extremely smart guy thrown in among a bunch of baseball types, and his awkwardness and attempts to fit in are very realistically portrayed. Overall, Moneyball brings some heart and inside knowledge to the back-end workings of America’s pastime; it’s a little slow in places, which is disappointing given Aaron Sorkin’s crisp work on The Social Network in 2010. Still, it’s a movie that should certainly be part of the conversation, and while I don’t think it’s Brad Pitt’s year, his performance here ought to at least remind audiences that he is more than just a pretty face.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

I’m not really much for Woody Allen, although I’ve definitely enjoyed some of his newer films. I attribute this to two facts: 1. good casting, and 2. the fact that Allen himself is not in the movies. See, while he generally has someone acting as his stand-in (check out this video for the proof), they are somehow less annoying than he is, and even manage, in some cases, to be sort of charming. Owen Wilson’s frustrated writer, Gil, in Midnight in Paris is such a one, although you shouldn’t really watch the film for him. The original story, the views of Paris, and the stunning supporting cast are what make this film a contender. In addition to being Allen’s stand-in, Gil is mainly the medium through which we enjoy the journey back in time to the Paris of Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), and the Fitzgeralds (Tom Hiddleston, yay! and Alison Pill). I feel the need to mention Marion Cotillard and Rachel McAdams (surprisingly unlikable) as well, and out of all these great little performances, Adrien Brody (in one scene, as Salvador Dali) is the highlight. In the end, it’s the story that makes this film an excellent one; for despite a lack of explanation, Gil’s experiences and their ultimate outcome are surprisingly realistic and insightful.Take away the time travel and the literary superstars, and you’ve got a simple, well-told story about two people who are realizing that they’re not as happy as they think they are, and we all know that the simple stories are always the best.

The Artist (2011)

Ordinarily, I don’t like hype. Sometimes, though, something comes along that’s worthy of all the buzz, and this year, that something is The Artist. It’s not an original idea, and in fact there are multiple references to my favorite movie, Singin’ in the Rain, but the finished product is something truly original and unique. Writer/director Michel Hazanavicius deserves every ounce of acclaim that he’s raking in for this picture, and yes, I do believe he will walk away with the biggest prizes of them all next month. Performers Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo should be no less celebrated for their great performances. The movie is not perfect (it drags a bit in the middle), but it’s an impressive piece of work, an excellent blend of nostalgia and modern story-telling. While it adopts the style of “old” movie-making (in case you didn’t already know, it’s a black and white silent film!), it carries the dramatic weight of a current-day story as it follows silent movie star George Valentin (Dujardin)’s fall, his struggles against pride and progress, and his final redemption and acceptance of change. While I can imagine some audiences are deterred by the nature of the film, I’d like to believe that anyone would to find The Artist enjoyable, and I think that it stands alone this year in terms of its vision, originality, execution, and overall, entertainment value. If it’s still playing near you, go see it. I promise you won’t be disappointed.

This-coming weekend, we’ll be going a little older with The Music Man (the 2003 version with Matthew Broderick. Yeah, I’m also skeptical.) and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Liz Taylor! Paul Newman! Need more be said?). What’re your viewing plans? If you’re looking for something to see, well, you’ve just had three pretty glowing recommendations, so what’re you waiting for? Get to it!

Weekend viewing

Thanks to the long holiday weekends (and the end of the holiday performance schedules) we actually managed to squeeze in some movies by the end of 2011. One of them was even released in the same year! Shocking, I know. Here’s what we saw …

Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

Somehow I missed out on a lot of the “Christmas classics”. I hadn’t seen It’s a Wonderful Life until last Christmas, and I still haven’t seen A Christmas Story. I think that we may make watching a Christmas movie a family tradition, though, so maybe we’ll cue that one up for 2012. At any rate, I very much enjoyed Miracle on 34th Street. Featuring credible performances by Maureen O’Hara, Edmund Gwenn, John Payne, and a young Natalie Wood, this charming little story is about a man who claims to be the real Kris Kringle. He becomes involved in the lives of skeptic Doris Walker (O’Hara) and her daughter, Susan (Wood), and quietly works some Christmas miracles, not only for them and their handsome neighbor, Mr. Gailey (Payne), but also the city of New York. As you may know, this movie is pretty much a 96 minute ad for Macy’s, but it definitely works hard to convey the message that Christmas is about more than consumerism. It takes a little while to warm up, but when it gets going it’s laugh out loud funny, and you’ll feel like applauding at the end. Definitely recommended for holiday (or any day) viewing!

Beginners (2011)

You may recall that I featured the trailer for this charming little picture when it released. At the time, I posited that it looked whimsical and intimate. The film is a semi-autobiographical look at director Mike Mills’ (“Oliver,” played by Ewan McGregor) relationship with his father Hal (Christopher Plummer), who comes out to him after the death of his wife, and dies of cancer a few years later. Oliver looks back over his and his parents’ relationship as he attempts to overcome his own fears of commitment while attempting a relationship with fellow commitment-phobe Anna (Melanie Laurent). Though a little hard to follow at times (the chronology jumps around a lot), Beginners is gorgeous to look at and definitely carries some emotional heft. It is indeed a very intimate piece, more a character study in some ways than a conventional story with discernible plot lines, a beginning and an end. The main message that we take away from the film is actually that the end is the beginning, at least for Oliver and Anna. All of the performances here are stellar; Christopher Plummer is nearly a lock to win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor at this point, although we thought that Melanie Laurent was a little bit more of a stand-out. Well, Melanie Laurent and Cosmo the Dog. Beginners is a must-see if you’re into small, quirky dramedies and/or cute dogs.

King Kong (1933)

Number 43 on the AFI list, King Kong is noteworthy for helping to originate the monster movie. Unlike Frankenstein two years earlier, though, Kong is actually pretty good. It’s the story of Machiavellian movie director Carl Denham(Robert Armstrong), who hires a ship’s crew and aspiring actress Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to venture to an unknown island in order to film a movie, the plot of which he keeps secret. Once we arrive on the island, it becomes apparent that Denham’s plan is to capture on film a legendary monster, and to create a story about beauty and the beast. Life reflects art when Kong really does take a shine to Miss Darrow, and the movie takes off when the ship’s crew, led by handsome First Mate John Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) race through an uncharted wilderness to rescue her. They encounter prehistoric beasts and Kong himself, but ultimately Driscoll and Darrow manage to escape. Meanwhile, Denham, still looking for a story, decides to capture the great ape and bring him back to New York as “the eighth wonder of the world.” The ending of the movie is iconic, of course, so we’ll stop there. King Kong is impressive for a number of reasons. First, although audiences today would snicker at the special effects, one has to consider that they were quite impressive for 1933, and overall, the cinematography and camera work is really first rate. Second, although the acting and dialogue is nothing special, the story has a lot going on. Denham’s hubris and disregard for natural order brings destruction; first to the ship’s crew, many of whom lose their lives in Kong’s jungle, then to the city of New York, and ultimately to Kong himself. One wonders if, even at the end of the film, Denham has learned a lesson. And then there’s King Kong, the beast. Throughout the film, he puts himself in danger to protect the object of his affection, but that goes largely unrecognized by the humans he encounters. Obviously, he wreaks a lot of havoc, but that’s really all he knows how to do. In the end, one can’t help but feel sympathetic toward him. Even though Kong is obviously clunky technology and not (as in the 2005 remake) motion-captured Andy Serkis, he’s a poignant character. Overall, an impressive piece of film-making; it’s easy to see why the original spawned a variety of sequels and remakes. I think I’d recommend that you accept no substitutes, though.

Happy 2012 to you! I’m looking forward to award season and trying to squeeze in more movie viewings during the year, and I hope you’ll check back in to judge my progress! As always, thanks for reading.

News, thoughts, and other nonsense.

Hello, there. Yes, I’m still alive. I won’t bore you with a bunch of excuses for being a slacker; I’ll just say life has been busy. But! The world of movies has also been busy, and there are plenty of interesting things to discuss. So let’s, shall we?

1. Momentum is building around a film adaptation of the classic sci-fi novel Ender’s Game. A lot of us nerds might be cranky about a movie being made, but realistically, it was going to happen someday, and I personally think that if it’s done well, it’ll make a pretty good movie. For those of you unfamiliar with it, it’s the story of a extraordinarily gifted boy who is recruited by the government to rid humanity of an alien enemy. That’s oversimplified, of course, but that’s the gist of it. There will be lots of special effects, and I think given the popularity of things like the Hunger Games series right now, it’s a natural choice for Hollywood (or whoever). The most recent news regarding the project is the announcement that Asa Butterfield, currently to be seen as the title character of Hugo, has signed on to play Ender. Given the positive buzz surrounding Hugo and Butterfield’s performance specifically, I think this is a good thing. (Has anyone seen Hugo? I’m dying to.) At any rate, in the new internet tradition of trumpeting every single casting decision from the rafters, I’m sure we’ll be getting up-to-the-minute news on this one. Apparently Harrison Ford is also being discussed? Ooh.

2. It’s the most wonderful time of the year! Yeah, Christmas, but I’m talking about the start-up of awards season. Despite all its flaws and intricacies, I love it dearly. I’ve particularly enjoyed playing with the prediction charts over at the Gold Derby website. It’s interesting to see who would appear to be a lock (Christopher Plummer for Beginners, yay!) and who doesn’t have as much buzz as one might like (Fassbender for Shame). I realize that having these discussions is silly when I haven’t seen any of the movies in question, and I know that a lot of people like to argue for the things they like without any understanding or appreciation of the “politics” involved, but, for me, all of that is part of the fun. I guess it’s sort of like fantasy sports, in some ways. It’s less about team loyalties and how good you think something/someone is and more about how it all shakes down when you look at all the factors.

3. In further Les Miserables news, we are now being subjected to an awful list of potential Eponines, including Lea Michele, Taylor Swift, and Scarlett Johansson. Given that Eponine’s got some great songs (my husband is rolling his eyes right now), I guess the best choice would be Michele, who has actually played the role on stage, but admitting that really depresses me. She just doesn’t fit with the rest of the cast, somehow. I think that Anne Hathaway is a poor choice for Fantine (clearly, CZJ was busy), but she might actually have served better as Eponine. Who’s your pick? I feel like I’m missing someone good …

4. Finally, a bit of movie-going research! You might recall that a few weeks ago, I posted about why everyone should see A Fish Called Wanda. Now, when I posted that link to Facebook, I got quite a lot of response from a particular group of friends, none of whom had ever seen the movie before. As it so happened, we were going to be in a position to get together with those people over Thanksgiving, and so we arranged a screening in order to educate them. They were all very kind to humor me and not only sit through the movie, but also provide me with a bit of feedback. And so, we’ll let the jury (ha ha, get it?) decide whether or not AFCW is a “must-see”.

Our viewing group was made up of a seven individuals, four women (not counting me) and three men. Now, full disclosure, one of the men present had seen the movie before, but he saw it with me (about a year or so ago) because I told him that he really HAD to, and so he still counts for the purposes of this very highly scientific study. So! Of the seven, only one declared that she flat-out didn’t like the movie, citing a lack of sympathetic characters and character development, which I can understand. She did acknowledge that it was funny, however. Of the remaining 6 people, two deemed it enjoyable, but not anything they’d have chosen to watch without coercion. The rest all gave it positive reviews, citing the excellent cast, comedic timing, and the performances of Kevin Kline and John Cleese, particularly. All in all, I think I am going to count this showing a success, and officially declare A Fish Called Wanda a truly “must-see” movie. I shall leave you with some poster-worthy quotes from my guinea pigs fellow movie fans. Enjoy!

A witty, keep you on your toes, don’t drink anything at the wrong moment or you’ll have your own spit take, delight that I would watch again. — Sarah
Better than a sharp stick in the eye! — Jake
John Cleese made the movie worth watching for me … three stars. — Heather
A charming and quirky little caper. — Sarah Jean
A very enjoyable movie overall! — Alex
Great ensemble, excellent comic timing and performance. Feel bad for Ken. — Ben
Certainly it’s funny and the clothes are hilariously awesome … the fish thing ruins the movie for me. — Jen

Review: Reign of Fire (2002)

I’ve been meaning to watch Reign of Fire for a while, because, well, in case you missed it, I’m a Gerard Butler fan. Every time I mentioned it, my husband would roll his eyes and say “Really?” and I would nod shamefacedly. You see, we’d somehow got the impression that a movie about a post-apocalyptic world wherein humans are being forced to the brink of extinction by dragons starring Christian Bale (ok, bringing a little bit of seriousness), Matthew McConaughey (canceling said seriousness out), and Gerard Butler (charming as the sidekick) would be silly, cheesy, and downright bad. I can’t imagine why we’d think that, can you? But, I am here to tell you that appearances can be deceiving, and that Reign of Fire, while not exactly great, is surprisingly none of the above.

Our story takes place in England in 2020. Civilization as we know it has been destroyed by a seemingly indestructible plague of dragons. Yes, those big winged creatures that breathe fire, and all. Apparently, they show up every so often to cleanse the earth before going back into hibernation. Anyway, Quinn (Bale), who has a history with the beasts, heads up an enclave of survivors, most of them children, along with his friend Creedy (Butler). Their safe existence is threatened by the arrival of a group of American soldiers, led by Denton Van Zan (McConaughey, doing some kind of Mad Max thing). Van Zan and his team, which includes helicopter pilot Alex Jensen (Izabella Scorupco), have perfected a method of bringing dragons down, but their numbers and supplies are much diminished, and so they appeal to Quinn and his followers for assistance. Ultimately, Quinn and Van Zan must put aside their differences in order to team up to rid the planet of dragons for good.

It sounds so ridiculous, doesn’t it? Christian Bale is, I suppose, known for a certain amount of gravitas, but McConaughey is more often the exact opposite. The generalization holds true here, but the movie itself, instead of just being a cheesy action flick, is actually rather gritty and dark. Even though McConaughey’s character is completely over-the-top and crazy, he doesn’t play him for laughs. Dragon-killing is a serious business. Bale is doing the stoic, forced-into-leadership thing, whereas Butler’s job is to bring a bit of lightness to the situation. A scene in which Quinn and Creedy enact an exciting duel (no spoilers here!) for the kids before bedtime is pretty much worth the price of admission, but it’s maybe the only truly funny scene in the whole movie. The end, which is naturally fairly predictable, follows an emotional climax involving most of Van Zan’s troops and Quinn’s survivors being wiped out; the darkest hour being before dawn, and all that.

What Reign of Fire does well is treat its subject matter with just the right amount of sobriety and tension. The cinematography is quite good, the acting is above average, and I personally thought that the effects were excellent. They didn’t dwell too much on the dragons, preferring to show them from either a wide perspective or an extremely close one, which made scenes look a lot more realistic and gave the overall feel a little more weight. Where the movie falls short, however, is in terms of the dialogue and overall plot. You don’t have to have seen too many movies to know that the good guys (humans) are going to win the day, but beyond that the dialogue just didn’t leave a whole lot of room for personality or character development. The actors are simply a device that moves the story along. They’re good actors, so they do their job, but you can’t help but wish for a little more connection with them. I know action films aren’t usually where you go if you’re looking for dynamic characterization, but they could have been a little less one-note, in my opinion.

Again, it’s not a great movie, but it’s not a bad one, either. It was enjoyable to watch, and a bit more tense and dramatic than I expected. So if you’ve been saving this one for Stupid Movie Night, you might want to swap it out for something that is properly awful, instead of moderately decent. Add this one to your next Christian Bale or Gerard Butler marathon instead. Ooh, Gerard Butler marathon … that sounds fun. Hmm.

Capsule reviews

Last weekend, quite by accident, we ended up with an 80s movie extravaganza! There’s something about movies from that decade … they’re kind of unmistakable. The look and feel is similar no matter what you’re watching. In addition, I admit that I’m no film historian, but it seems to me that an awful lot of movies were made during the 80s, which means that the quality overall may have suffered a little. I know that most of us have a lot of fond memories of the decade, but I guess nostalgia is not a movie critic. Having said that …

Top Gun (1986)
Now, I know many of you are not going to like this very much, but it has to be said: Top Gun is not a good movie. It’s got some spiffy airplane scenes, and a totally rockin’ eighties soundtrack, sure. It also has next to no plot, mostly really lousy acting, and zero chemistry between its leads (I’m talking Cruise and McGillis, here. We won’t be getting into the overtones today). I know, I know, it’s a modern “classic” and all that. I think that is because it really did create a lot of cliches (my husband was surprised by how many lines he already knew, even though he’d never seen the movie before), and because it really embodies the spirit of the country during that decade. It’s all big and brash and loud and shallow and full of swagger.

I do actually think that Tom Cruise can deliver fine performances on occasion, but even the really good actors (ok, I’m mostly just referring to Val Kilmer) don’t seem to have very much to do here. Ultimately, I think what bothers me most about it is that it seriously has no plot. Again, it follows all of the tropes: talented but undisciplined lead gets his big shot, gets a training montage, gets taken down a peg, ends up a winner! But that’s not really a plot, people. That’s a theme that should be built into an actual story, but in the case of Top Gun, I think they forgot something. Sorry. You can go ahead and hate me now.

Chances Are (1989)
Another thing the eighties seem to have done a lot of is rom-coms. Again, the more of something you have, the more the quality overall is likely to suffer. A lot of the time, you just end up with a movie that’s really weird. See: Chances Are.

Alex Finch (Robert Downey, Jr.) doesn’t know it, but he’s actually carrying around the departed soul of Louie Jeffries (Christopher McDonald), a young up-and-comer who is on top of the world when he gets hit by a car. He gets “reborn” immediately, but lies dormant for the next 23 years while Alex grows up, graduates from Yale, and heads to Washington, D.C. with dreams of being a journalist. Through an extremely coincidental set of circumstances, he finds himself on Louie’s doorstep, taken in by Louie’s best friend Phil (Ryan O’Neal), his widow Corinne (Cybill Shepherd), and his daughter, Miranda (Mary Stuart Masterson), with whom Alex had a brief flirtation back at Yale only a day or two prior. Being “home” reawakens Louie’s spirit, and a comedy of errors ensues. Miranda is interested in Alex, but as soon as Louie takes over, he rebuffs his “daughter’s” advances and tries to convince his still-grieving widow that he’s returned to her. At the same time, Phil has been in love with Corinne this whole time, essentially helping her to raise Miranda, but has never revealed his feelings. Obviously, the mess has to be sorted out so that everyone can live happily ever after, or something.

Oy. Did you get all that? Seriously, this movie, while reasonably funny and charming, is mostly just strange, and sometimes a little bit squicky, given that while Downey and Shepherd have pretty good chemistry, there’s enough of an age difference to make their “romance” plenty awkward. Despite that, all of the actors acquit themselves admirably, and Downey gives us a solid performance, relying on his considerable charm and charisma to make Alex/Louie a sympathetic character. Additionally, the comedic aspects of the movie allow him to showcase his physical abilities, which I think often get overlooked. Other than that, the eighties fashions are awesomely retro, and even though you know how the story’s got to end, it’s interesting to watch them get there. I would definitely recommend this if you’re a fan of Robert Downey, Jr. and are interested in his earlier work, but other than that, there are probably better romantic comedies (even from the 80s) out there.

So, what did you watch this weekend? Any plans coming up? We’re hoping/planning to actually get out and see Moneyball soon, and have the next AFI film to look forward to as well. Wish us luck!

Capsule reviews

I know you’ll be astonished by this news, but we actually managed to watch two whole movies last weekend! One of them I was very excited about (so excited, in fact, that I set foot in a Blockbuster because Netflix doesn’t have it yet), and one I was only sort of interested in, but I enjoyed both quite a bit. What were they, you ask? Well …

Jane Eyre (2011)

FINALLY. My feelings about the newest adaptation of one of my favorite novels ran the gamut from completely disinterested to finally refusing to wait a month for Netflix to send it to me. That last bit of impatience was mostly due to seeing Michael Fassbender in X-Men: First Class and realizing that he is a very, very good actor. I had been very skeptical of the casting of Jane Eyre for some time, but as it turns out, I shouldn’t have been.
The acting is the strong point (very strong indeed) of the film. Mia Wasikowska made a very fine Jane, and Fassbender absolutely owned as Rochester. The magnificent Judi Dench made a truly excellent supporting turn as Mrs. Fairfax, and I wish Jamie Bell had gotten a little bit more screen time as St. John Rivers. The film is also very beautiful to look at, and I think it hit all the right notes of the story. Where it fell down for me was in its pacing, and in having lost some of the gothic feel of the novel. If I remember correctly, the trailers tried to play up the “creepy” angle, but I found none of that to actually be in evidence in the final cut.
Overall, the movie is absolutely worth seeing for the performances, but it’s my opinion that perhaps Jane Eyre is just not a novel to be served well by film adaptations. Too much of the overall feel and heart of the novel was lost, and there’s really not enough “action” to hold a movie together when large chunks of the book are taken up by narration. I guess I’ll have to get around to seeing some of the other adaptations (yes, yes, Dalton, I know) and see if they’ll prove me wrong.

Hancock (2008)

This one was in my husband’s Netflix queue, and I sat down to watch it despite being fairly ambivalent about the whole thing. And actually … I kind of loved it. A lot of the basic tenets of superhero-dom are rather impractical, and as much as I enjoy a good superhero movie, they always sort of bother me. Things like … who cleans up the mess?
Hancock addresses this by being the story of a superhero (Will Smith) who is sort of a public relations disaster. Even though he fights crime, he’s still seen as kind of a freak and an outcast. As such, he’s also a drunk and an a**hole, and the city in which he lives is tired of putting up with his messes. Enter Ray (Jason Bateman), a down-on-his-luck PR guy. After Hancock saves his life, he decides to make cleaning up the hero’s act his project, against the wishes of his wife Mary (Charlize Theron).
I’m sure you can see where this all goes, at least in part. I won’t spoil it for you. I really enjoyed the tone of the movie and the way in which the downsides of being a superhero were addressed. The second half of the movie gets a little bogged down and frankly, hard to follow, but overall I think that the talent here manages to pull it through and sell the whole thing. The cinematography is a little funky, and sometimes the effects look pretty cheap, but again, it’s the stars you’ll want to watch. Definitely recommended for fans of the genre.

Yay, movies! Did you guys watch anything fun this weekend? It’s now the turn of Crash and The World is Not Enough (a rewatch, but we’re finishing up the James Bond project) to sit around on the coffee table for a while. Coming into a busy stretch of time, but I’ll try to make sure my loyal readers have something with which to waste a few minutes, I promise!

Capsule reviews

I have actually managed to watch some movies recently, but I’ve been slow in getting reviews up. So, I went for capsules, and now I’m all caught up! What about you? Have you seen anything good lately?

Kinsey (2004)

Normally, I don’t have a lot of interest in biopics: there’s a lot of talking and not much action. In their defense, though, they do usually showcase superior acting, and Kinsey is definitely no exception. Liam Neeson, Laura Linney (seriously, why doesn’t this woman have an Oscar yet?) and Peter Sarsgaard all inhabit their characters brilliantly. Kinsey is the story of Albert Kinsey, a scientist who turns to sex research upon realizing that Americans are woefully ignorant on the subject, and ultimately turns notions of sexuality on their heads. Neeson is powerful and touching as the titular character, who is brilliant and driven, but also at times extremely socially awkward. Linney, as Kinsey’s wife, is the heart of the film. She is a strong and “progressive” woman who supports her husband’s research, even when it affects their own relationship and lifestyle. As Clyde, one of Kinsey’s assistants, Sarsgard is an eager youngster who shifts effortlessly between sly worldliness and charming naivete. The crux of the film, really, is the way in which Kinsey’s research shapes and changes all three of these characters. It’s a really interesting story, funny at times, touching at others, and surprisingly enjoyable to watch. Great supporting performances by John Lithgow, Oliver Platt, and Tim Curry, along with a cameo by the late Lynn Redgrave make this a truly A-list piece of work.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Speaking of all talk and no action, I’m late in seeing Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation. Again, it was not a movie that appealed to me, but I decided I should see it, since it seemed to be kind of a big deal. I have to say that I was surprised in some areas and disappointed in others. Overall, I thought it was an interesting film, but not the brilliant work that it is often characterized as.
Bill Murray plays Bob Harris, a fading movie star who is in Tokyo to endorse Suntory whiskey. He’s possibly the most world-weary character you will ever see on screen: he’s completely jaded about his career, his marriage, and life in general. His saving grace is that he loves his children, but work keeps him from seeing them often. During his week in Japan, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a newlywed without any idea of who she wants to be. She’s come to Japan to tag along with her husband (Giovanni Ribisi), a photographer, but she’s left on her own to aimlessly spend her time. Bob and Charlotte strike up an unlikely friendship, and spend the week indulging in harmless fun. Naturally, they do some soul-searching, and maybe learn a few things about themselves as well.
I really liked some of the themes of this movie. I found it fascinating that the two main characters could be so very different in terms of age and experience, and still find common ground. Bill Murray does an excellent job here; Scarlett Johansson, not so much. A better actress might’ve given the character a little more depth, but instead of meaningful thought coming through, one mostly got the impression that ScarJo was merely trying to “look thoughtful” much of the time. The direction and cinematography are attractive, but ultimately I think that the film doesn’t have the depth it strives for. Still, if you’re interested in Bill Murray as an actor, Lost in Translation is a must-see.

Father of the Bride (1950)

I was a huge fan of the 1991 remake of the Father of the Bride. Steven Martin was great as the put-upon dad, and Kimberly Williams was an absolutely charming ingénue. However, as you might expect, neither of them can really hold a candle to Spencer Tracy and Elizabeth Taylor in the original.
Stanley Banks (Tracy) is a typical middle-class father whose world is turned upside-down with the news that his adored daughter, Kay (Taylor) plans to marry. What starts out as a “small” wedding turns into a major production, with a price tag to match. Stanley tries to go with the flow, but his attempts to be a part of the process beyond just footing the bill are all comedically flawed in some way. In the end, it’s really the story of a loving father letting his daughter go, and acknowledging that she’s grown.
Spencer Tracy is absolutely perfect as the long-suffering Stanley. He’s got more expression in one lifted eyebrow than most actors can manage in an entire monologue, and he’s just a fabulous straight man. Even though he’s the problem at times, you feel nothing but sympathy for him as he’s steam-rolled through the entire wedding process. Taylor is, of course, luminous as young Kay, but she’s got a bit of a spine, too. It’s necessary in order to prove to Stanley (as well as the audience) that she really is becoming her own woman, and that it’s time for him to let her go.
All in all, there’s nothing really special or outstanding about the original Father of the Bride; it’s just a really cute little movie with first-class stars. It sets out to entertain, and it does so. There are moments of hilarity, moments of poignancy, and it’s enjoyable throughout. A must-see for classic movie fans, especially if you’re into Tracy or Taylor.

Review: The King’s Speech (2010)

After watching it start out small, grow in momentum, and become a gargantuan success that swept through award season, I, at long last, have now seen The King’s Speech. So, you know, never mind all those critics and all those awards … the most important opinion of all is now available. Are you ready? Probably not. Ahem.

The King’s Speech is a historical drama about the events leading up to and immediately following the coronation of King George VI of England. Prince Albert (Colin Firth), Bertie to his family, is the younger brother; he’s second in line to the throne behind his brother Edward (Guy Pearce). As such, he isn’t really interested in his share of the limelight although it is often thrust upon him by his father the king (Michael Gambon). See, the problem is, Bertie stutters. And for a public figure expected to speechify upon occasion, that’s a problem. Bertie’s been through every speech therapist in the country, practically, and has given up. His wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter), however, is more determined, and seeks out an unorthodox practitioner named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel and Bertie struggle through a working relationship amidst King George V’s death, Edward’s rise to the throne and subsequent abdication, and Bertie’s being crowned George VI. The culminating moment of the film is King George VI’s radio broadcast on the day that Britain goes to war with Germany at the beginning of World War II.

First things first: did you get a load of that cast? Fabulous! Add in the absolute perfection that is Derek Jacobi as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill, and Jennifer Ehle as Logue’s wife, and the movie is just a dazzling who’s who of British (or British-ish) acting talent. Obviously, any movie starring the triumvirate of Firth, Bonham-Carter, and Rush is going to be excellent, and The King’s Speech is indeed excellent. It is a very intimate piece: emotional, humorous; overall an excellent depiction of the inner life of royalty, and at its core the story of a friendship. The relationships are indeed the movie’s greatest strength. Bertie and Elizabeth’s marriage is seen as truly loving and supportive, and the relationship between Bertie and Logue, while often a struggle, is one ultimately built upon mutual respect and affinity.

Colin Firth is absolutely amazing in this movie. It’s hard to believe that he doesn’t stutter in real life, and his wry delivery is really enjoyable. Bonham-Carter is a fascinating mixture of warmth, depth, and that stereotypical stiff British upper lip. Geoffrey Rush was, for me, the emotional center of the piece. His Lionel is unfailingly positive, capable, and determined in his methods. His refusal to treat Bertie as royalty is so uncomfortable to watch, but is ultimately the key to the king’s success. The chemistry between the two actors is really spectacular, and obviously the supporting cast makes no missteps either.

In case you haven’t picked up on this vibe yet, the acting is what makes this movie. It’s also very well-directed and filmed, with interesting use of close-ups to convey the pressure and comfort level of Bertie, in particular. Period costumes are always enjoyable, and I have nothing bad to say about a score that makes such use of Beethoven. But the story itself, and the pacing of the film, leave a little to be desired. It’s a little slow sometimes, and there are points where the scene and action shifts, and the viewer has to make a bit of a leap to catch up. In particular, the skip from King George V being hale and hearty and yelling at his son to being mumbling, confused, and close to death was rather jarring for me. I think it’s just a failing of this type of close drama: there’s not a lot of action, so it’s harder to keep things moving at a comfortable pace. It detracts only slightly from the film overall, since it’s all about the performances, but it’s still there.

As such, my husband and I both looked at each other at the end, and said “Hmm. The Social Network should have won Best Picture.” Yes, I know, neither of us is a voting member of the Academy. But there it is. They’re very similar movies in some ways: both based on real events and people, both more talk and less action. But the tightness and cohesiveness of The Social Network is far greater than that of The King’s Speech. The story of Facebook’s founding, which sounded so boring to me prior to seeing the film, is somehow rendered fascinating and riveting through Aaron Sorkin’s writing and David Fincher’s direction.I won’t go on and on about it, (you can read my review here), but that’s the opinion of this random denizen of the internet. The King’s Speech is far superior in terms of acting (which is not to say that TSN wasn’t well-acted), but as a film in its entirety, it’s not as impressive. Does that mean I don’t think you should watch it? Absolutely not! It’s a really, really enjoyable film, certainly one of the best I’ve seen recently. You should totally see it. It’s touching, funny, intense at times, and educational. What more could you want? Colin Firth? There you go!

Weekend viewing: Capsule reviews

Last week we’d intended to watch two silly movies, but suddenly got busy and ended up only watching one. So, the second had to wait for this weekend. They were indeed silly.

Ella Enchanted (2004)
This early Anne Hathaway vehice, based (apparently quite loosely) on a YA novel, is essentially a slightly updated version of the Cinderella story, with some interesting twists.

At her birth, Ella of Frell (Hathaway) is “gifted” with obedience. Essentially, she is compelled to do anything that anyone tells her to do. You see where this could be a problem, right? She manages to keep this trait a secret until she’s a teenager, and her new stepmother and stepsisters arrive. Stepsister Hattie (Lucy Punch, whom I love) quickly figures out what’s what, and abuses her power accordingly. Meanwhile, Ella meets Prince Charmont (Hugh Dancy, meh) who is returning to the kingdom to take over from his uncle, the unctious Edgar (Cary Elwes, hysterical!). Ella and Charmont meet and he is instantly smitten, much to the dismay of Hattie. Ella, however, blames Charmont for all of the bad things going on in the kingdom, like the persecution and subjugation of elves, giants, and ogres. This is, of course, all the fault of Edgar, but Charmont is blind to his uncle’s true motives. Ella sets off on a quest to rid herself of her “gift,” and ends up working to end Edgar’s tyranny alongside Charmont. Think they fall in love? Please.

So it’s a cute movie. Anne Hathaway is at her most earnest and toothsome, Lucy Punch and Cary Elwes are fabulous, and all of the “modern” twists are amusing, if a bit much at times. The musical selections are kind of painful, although the ensemble number at the end is cute. It was fun to sort of note all the other fairy tale movies that are vaguely referenced throughout, most notably Edgar’s sidekick Heston, a CGI snake clearly based on Disney’s Robin Hood’s Sir Hiss. Entertaining. Sure to delight the kiddies.

National Treasure (2004)
You’re probably thinking, “Geez, she’s just now getting around to this one?” But here’s the thing. In my other life I am a rare book librarian. So the plot of a movie that involves an important document like the Declaration of Independence just makes me cringe. The husband wanted to see this one, so I decided to sit in. Husband’s take: “Wow, that was so much worse than I thought it’d be.” My take: “That was about as bad as I thought it would be.”

Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) has been brought up believing in a conspiracy theory that involves the Knights Templar turning into the Freemasons, who, during the nascent years of the United States, hid away a treasure of untold riches. With the help of a rich benefactor, Ian Howe (Sean Bean; gee, you think he’s going to end up the bad guy?) and Riley, a snarky computer geek (Justin Bartha, the film’s saving grace), Ben goes in search of the first clue, which leads them to the discovery that the treasure map is on the back of the Declaration of Independence. In invisible ink, natch. Here the explorers meet their parting of the ways, with Ian determining to steal the document, and Ben being far too patriotic for that. However, when Ben and Riley soon realize nobody’s going to help them, so they decide to steal it first. To keep it safe. Of course, it all goes awry, and suddenly, the lovely Dr. Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger, sufficient) gets involved in the race to be the first to discover the Masons’ secret. Ben’s disbelieving dad (Jon Voight) and an FBI agent (Harvey Keitel) are also drawn into the action, which sends our heroes racing through some of the country’s most historic cities to follow the trail of clues.

Seriously, this is not a good movie. For a group of people who are generally acknowledged to be pretty good actors, the whole thing is so amazingly wooden. And as for the plot, I think I was at least a step ahead the whole time. I mean, I’ve read a couple of Dan Brown novels, you know? There wasn’t even enough real action to entertain. It was all Nic Cage furrowing his brow and wracking his brain to come up with the next answer to the puzzle. With hilarious asides by Bartha. And Sean Bean doing what he does best, which is glower menacingly. We will not be watching the sequel, despite the addition of another Oscar winner (Helen Mirren) and nominee (Ed Harris). Thanks, but no thanks.

So yes. Silly movies. BUT. Tonight, I am so excited, for we are going to see, finally, The King’s Speech! Yay!! Hopefully, it really is “all that”. And you, dear readers? What did you see this weekend? Do tell!

Review: Mansfield Park (1999)

I have a really important rule that I try to stick to when watching movies. If it’s an adaptation of a book, don’t expect it to be anything like. It’s like being a pessimist. If you always expect the worst, sometimes you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Same with an adaptation: if you expect something to be completely different and then it’s mostly the same, you’ll think it’s brilliant. I generally try not to even be irritated if a movie is way off-base … it’s just not really worth it. Usually, things fall somewhere in the middle. They get a lot of things right, but they screw up a lot, and it all evens out. Such a movie is Mansfield Park.

Loosely based on the novel by Jane Austen (with additions from biographical material, apparently), Mansfield Park is the story of Fanny Price (Frances O’Connor), a poor girl who is sent away to live with wealthier relations. She grows up with her extended family at Mansfield Park and reaps the benefit of upbringing and education, but is still always reminded of her lower station. As she grows up, she falls in love with her cousin Edmund Bertram (Jonny Lee Miller), but understands that she can never hope to marry him. The Bertram family is turned upside down by the arrival of Henry and Mary Crawford (Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz), a charming pair of siblings. Henry pays court, to some degree, to all of the young ladies of the family: Maria, engaged to be married; Julia, the younger sister, and Fanny herself. Mary and Edmund strike up a friendship as well. After Maria marries, Henry turns the larger part of his attention to Fanny, eventually proposing marriage to her. She is mistrustful of his advances, and rejects him, which gains her the disapproval of Sir Thomas, her uncle, who exiles her back to her poor family.
Ultimately, Fanny’s assessment of Henry’s character is proven correct when he runs off with Maria. This crisis brings most of the family together again, causes Mary to show her true colors as well, and rids the Bertrams (all except Maria) of the Crawfords for once and for all. And, as you’d expect, Fanny eventually gets her happy ending.

First of all, I’d like to say that there were a lot of good things about this movie. It’s lovely to look at, and all of the acting is very good. Of particular note are Nivola and Davidtz as the charming but “modern” Crawfords. I enjoyed the inclusion of various subtexts from the novel, especially the anti-slavery message delivered through the contention between the oldest son, Tom, and his father over their plantations in Antigua. The addition of biographical material relating to Austen herself was harmless, and actually added a bit of cohesion through Fanny’s acting as narrator.

I do, however, have some issues to discuss. Big surprise, right? Here’s what I don’t understand. If you want to make an adaptation of a Jane Austen novel, you should do so. If, on the other hand, you want to make a “period drama” with lots of fairly anachronistic sexy bits and some extra romance thrown in, well, I’d imagine there are plenty of screenwriters out there with a story to sell. I guess the reason you’d take an Austen novel and add in the sex and romance yourself would be because people are more likely to see something “based on the beloved novel by Jane Austen,” or whatever it is the movie blurbs say than just some random period piece. But for someone who’s read Austen, and a fair amount of Victorian novels besides, it’s just sort of weird, offputting, and confusing.

I mean, there’s no sex in Jane Austen. Oh, it’s there, obviously, particularly when a young man and woman run off together and her reputation is consequently ruined. But it’s always implied, and never spelled out. But here, we’ve got Mary putting the moves on Fanny during a play rehearsal in order to fluster her audience (Edmund) and Maria and Henry actually being caught in bed together. Not to mention Fanny kissing both Henry and Edmund. I will grant you the kissing at the very end, if I must, but mostly, I guess I just like my Austen to be pretty sexless. You don’t see anyone smooching in Ang Lee’s marvelous Sense & Sensibility, now, do you? And would you say that movie wasn’t romantic enough? Not if you want to remain my friend, you wouldn’t. (Just kidding.)

I guess the main thing I would say is that the director/screenwriter Patricia Rozema had a good understanding of her source material, but wanted to play up the more “modern” and “sophisticated” aspects of the Crawford’s sensibilities. In my opinion, she went a bit too far, so that they ended up seeming overly anachronistic, as though they were really time-travelers from the twentieth century who stumbled into 1803, or whatever. Not only in those few examples, but overall in terms of their behavior and dialogue. And unfortunately, it threw off the entire feel of the movie. I think that it could have been a very lovely and true adaptation had those few tweaks not been made. I’m sure that’s just me, though, and I know others who love the movie. So take the review for what it’s worth. I thought it was a good movie with a major failing at its heart, but I think it’s worth watching if you like period dramas. It was just … a little too spicy for me.