Midnight in Paris (2011)

directed by Woody Allen
starring Owen Wilson, Marion Cotillard, Rachel McAdams

I went into this film knowing two things: Owen Wilson and Woody Allen. I was expecting a cute film involving romance and romanticizing Paris. I got a cute film about writer's block, time travel, and why our fascination with the past is really just a cover for the universal fear of death.

Here we go!

This film leaves you with a lot to talk about. I'd say that's it's second-strongest suit. Owen Wilson's character begins the film as a frustrated writer balancing between the success of Hollywood and the allure of "struggle," as his fiancee puts it, walking the streets of Paris and fantasizing about moving into a rooftop attic. "How very bohemian," his would-be father-in-law comments. "All that's missing is the tuberculosis."

Wilson is a perfect fit for Woody Allen's bumbling romantic Gil - and the character is quite obviously Woody's, through and through. He's very likeable, in fact. However, I can't help but agree with the otherwise unpleasant father's assessment: Gil's obsession with 1920's-era Paris revolves around a fantasized reality. Every time period had its beauty and genius; every time period has also had its ugliness and vulgarity. Each generation thinks that it is truly the Last Great one. And many a Gil has looked into the past thinking: if only.

Woody Allen, never lacking in subtlety (more on that later), turns Gil's fantasy into a fever dream of the fame and excitement of the Roaring Twenties. Via magical midnight vehicle, Gil is transported to the world of Ernest Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, Pablo Picasso, and several others - among them a woman played by the always "alluring" Marion Cotillard. Here is the movie's first-strongest suit. It brings in an avalanche of actors to appear as these legends, dressing them in impeccable costumes and placing them in fantastic sets. I had to try very hard not to use the word 'charming' there, as it's the single word that sums up the film for me. They all appear to be having a lovely time, and it's quite fun to watch, say, Adrian Brody try on Salvador Dali for a fit.

Now for the downside: remember the subtlety I mentioned before? Its lack is felt in the entire film, but it is particularly clear in the fly-by characters of the past. Hemingway's delivery is almost laughable; he speaks in the same tone as his prose, proclaiming eloquent platitudes about bravery, death and love. It's  fun to watch, but it also makes suspension of disbelief practically impossible. Cotillard brings some nuance to her role as the fashion student and resident lover Adriana, but she remains the heavily-romanticized, sexually-liberated, quick, pleasant female companion so often prized in nostalgic fiction. Things aren't much better in 2010; Gil's fiancee (Rachel McAdams) is entirely shrill and shallow, while her wealthy Republican parents' favorite mantras "cheap is cheap" and "you get what you pay for" must be repeated about five times each. Everyone says precisely what they mean, succinctly and effectively: their dialogue reflects their one-note characterization.

But while it isn't high art, I left the theatre with a smile. Allen explored fascinating themes here: the longing of the past versus the boredom with the present, the magic of Place versus Time, love's power to suggest immortality - sure, they're all discussed bluntly, but they're discussed all the same, and we leave the theater eager for discussion and digestion just as Gil leaves the screen (and the 1920's) somewhat more enlightened for his journey.

TRON: Legacy (2010)

1 Academy Award Nomination

directed by Joseph Kosinski

starring Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde

It was during the first lightcycle sequence that I looked over to my father, who shared my expression of excitement, and stated: "I need this video game." TRON: Legacy had done its job well.

The film does play like an overlong video game ad at times. It's a wonder, then, how little I minded.

While the main character was forgettable, Olivia Wilde brought liveliness and likeability to the film's designated female. TRON follows a lot of action movie mishaps, not the least of which is the lack of women with lines. There are the bleach-white programs that outfit Sam for battle, with slick appearances and freakishly perfect features, as if they had walked out of a heavily photoshopped perfume advertisement. I wonder why Michael Sheen's eccentric entertainer Zuse couldn't have been female. The traitorous navigator would have been equally entertaining in either gender.

It's quibbles like these that make me wonder why I can enjoy TRON and despise other action movies that offer CGI with little substance. Perhaps it's because, unlike a certain popular franchise raking in millions as we speak, TRON manages to do its job without being offensive. Qorra is not Megan Fox's Mikaela, after all, and Olivia Wilde is an actress, not a model. While TRON's filler may be dull, at least it isn't sexist or racist. Additionally, TRON broke no records and was widely acknowledged for what it is: shiny, simple, 80's nostalgia meets the technology of the twenty-first century. Plus, Jeff Bridges.

6 Week (sort of) Review

It's a few days behind schedule, but here we are: 30 Movies in!


Movies that have Made Me Cry: Never Let Me Go, Saving Private Ryan, Agora
Movies that Made Me Yell at the Screen: Agora
Favorite Movie so far: Saving Private Ryan (still)
Worst Movie so far: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (also as-yet-undefeated)

Movies I Can't Wait to See Again: Pulp Fiction, X-Men: First Class, Saving Private Ryan, Agora
Movies that took Two Nights: Giant, Camelot, The Godfather Part II
20th Century : 21st Century: 14 : 16


Movies I have Seen... 
In Theaters: 6 (Bridesmaids, Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides, Jane Eyre, Tree of Life, X-Men: First Class, Super 8 ) (First 2-week period with no new movies in theaters; guess I was a bit busy with the re-release of  The Lord of the Rings...)
Other Screening: 1
Owned/Borrowed DVDs: 10
Netflix DVDs: 8
Netflix Instant: 3
Other Computer Format (YouTube, iTunes, etc.): 2

Gladiator (2000)

Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Visual Effects, Best Costume Design and Best Sound Mixing. Nominated for 7 others.

directed by Ridley Scott

starring Russel Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen

I've heard people rave over Gladiator's soundtrack for years. Being a soundtrack nut, this was one of the main reasons I was so excited to finally see the film. And then...for the life of me, I could not focus during any of the intense action sequences because I was too busy furtively searching for Captain Jack Sparrow. Thank you, Hans Zimmer. This score wasn't even quite as good as the one he later produced for Pirates of the Caribbean, in my opinion. But they're practically identical anyway.

Just...here:

So there's that.

And that's just one example, the similarities go on and on. I mean...it's good music, but it was a weird sort of letdown. And any suspension of disbelief or immersion in the story instantly vanished with the familiar themes.

But there were some characters and plots involved in this thing, too, so I guess we'll just have to move on.

Gladiator is, simply put, a good film. It is striking and memorable in many ways. It creates characters that you are interested in and want to root for. Does it do this through groundbreaking methods? No. Sure, it revived the Epic genre, but the redemptive story of Russell Crowe's simple-farmer-turned-general on a quest for vengeance is fairly textbook.

That isn't strictly a bad thing. The dialogue has a tell-not-show problem at times, but it's not bad writing. Maximus is a humble everyman chiefly defined by things done to him, but Crowe brings the correct skill to pull off lines that could have stumbled. The cast is a great asset to this film - Joaquin Phoenix also brings a mixture of brilliance and ham to the evil Commodus, and Oliver Reed's death during production only made his final, excellent performance as the once-honored slave trader Proximus even more stirring. Connie Nielsen's character was also a pleasant surprise - her scheming princess seemed a likely candidate for Evil Temptress, but instead, we got a female who is both ambitious and just, despite the early trepidations of her father and her corrupt foil of a brother.

The cinematography provides the best argument in the film's favor. Commodus' entry into Rome is stark and decolorized as bright red petals rain from the sky: a beautiful image, eerily similar to the bright chunks of blood that fly with near-artistic abandon in the fight scenes. Scott does not hesitate to rest the camera on the scenery and revel for a moment, whether it be the geographical beauty of the Roman Empire or the fantastic reconstruction of its cities and armies.

The film's structure allows for a splendid show of the hallmarks of a Rome remembered by Hollywood: a great battle to open the movie, idyllic Spain, a crime-infested and slave-filled Tatooine Africa on the outskirts of the Empire, and of course, the opulence and the chaos of the Roman mob and politics, the spectacle and the shock of the bloody sport of the Colosseum. We admire Rome and we fear it in our modern culture. Watching gladiators fight to the death makes professional wrestling look like the Enlightenment. But how far removed are we, really, from a people entertained by bread and circuses? Commodus may seem dim-witted, but he was truly ahead of his time; he invested in reality programming and received the compliance of the public. For a while, anyway. In a system that rewards conflict, he also made room for a rival.

In closing, a few other notable distractions throughout the film...

1. Okay, Rory's got to be here somewhere.
2. Flashbacks to Latin class. Yay, cognomens.
3. Wait, the prince who slays the ruler is also incestuous towards his sister? I KNEW IT.

Local Hero (1983)

directed by Bill Forsyth

starring Burt Lancaster, Peter Riegert, Fulton Mackay

This British gem reminded me of a Coen Brothers film in many ways. It has the flat humor and quirky characters, a focus on a specific setting and no conventional character arc or plot line. The title of Local Hero seems to suggest the American protagonist would join with the residents of the film's small Scottish town to fight the impending construction of a refinery - but the actual story could hardly be more different.

Many things become clear throughout the course of this film. Peter Riegert's MacIntyre is dissatisfied with his lonely, successful American life and he admires and envies what the Scottish have. The Scottish, meanwhile, are much more concerned about getting the best deal for their land than any sentimental attachment to it. The one man who does seem to mind is a hobo who lives on - and, coincidentally, owns - the beach, and he doesn't seem to be quite in step with everyone else's ideas of reality. MacIntyre's boss apparently has enough issues to employ a psychologist and inspire him to comedic acts of madness. And MacIntyre's gangly, awkward partner clearly lusts after a local marine biologist...and they meet up a few times on the beach, hardly crescendoing into anything like a romantic subplot. It's refreshing, in an anticlimactic sort of way.

Local Hero has many funny moments, but it finds them in absurdity, and leaves both conventional storytelling and comedy by the wayside. It leaves you with much to think about without directly addressing these questions. Actually, it mirrors the way I often feel after a Coen Brothers film: huh. I look forward to thinking about it and watching it again, but in the meantime, I can't admit much in the realm of emotion.

The Crucible (1996)

2 Academy Award Nominations

directed by Nicholas Hynter

starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, Paul Scofield, Joan Allen

You can usually tell a movie is a play adaptation based on the quality and the focus on the characters. The actors are at the heart of The Crucible, driving the compelling nature of the film. Daniel Day-Lewis makes one of his rare appearances as the central John Proctor, while Winona Ryder is brilliantly deranged as accuser Abigail Williams. Even more than the commentary on groupthink, their performances demand attention.

Said commentary does prove fascinating, however. One of the more painful scenes was Marry Warren's (Karren Graves) attempts to explain the absurd actions of her fellow accusers. She has broken free from the pressure and the drama, and realizes the fabricated nature of their strange experiences...yet without an understanding of social psychology, she is unable to answer for behavior such as group-wide cold spells and fainting. I yearned to yell at the screen and wave my entry-level psychology textbooks in their faces, but there is no persuasion for such madness. I only found myself heartbroken for the generations who succumbed to such superstition without the comprehension that we take for granted today, just as Mary did in her ultimate surrender to societal pressure and psychological warfare.

And, thankfully, this historical interpretation does not fall on the superstitious side. It offers naturalistic and psychological explanations for the insanity that befell the devout town; explanations that certainly do not contradict historical fact and, for the most part, seem to offer an extremely probable explanation. They do take liberty with the characters, however, aging up the antagonistic Abigail to make her affair with Proctor believable. (In reality, she was 12; here she is 17.) Here, I think, is the story's greatest blow at credibility. It would have been fascinating to explore the damaging effects of the society and the vulnerable nature of a child's mind; instead, Abigail is our designated villain, an angry ex-lover motivated by revenge and power. The power part is interesting - it's no coincidence that the first accusers were young girls, otherwise disenfranchised in their Puritanical society. Neither is it a coincidence that their victims were also female, and outcasts at that. But rather than explore this thread, the movie chalks up the worst of the accusations to mere romantic jealousy. In a story about the Salem Witch Trials, I expected the story to focus more on the women involved, and perhaps present us with a three-dimensional female figure or two. But I guess we just have to have our white male protagonist.

The story's ties to McCarthyism are also worth exploring. Arthur Miller wrote the play in 1953 as a direct response to Communist "witch hunts" by going back to the source - America's own literal witch hunts, a black mark on the conscience of the country's history. "Witchcraft is an invisible crime," notes Judge Danforth, but this correct assessment only encourges the unfounded villainizations. This took place in a small town before the Union of the States under the Constitution; here, theocracy ruled. This was not the case in the 1950s. In a nation protected by a Bill of Rights, such accusations of thoughtcrime are unthinkable. When Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are protected rights, how can the government profess to restrict freedom of thought? Such a thing cannot even be traced - and yet the U.S. government tried their hardest, eventually convicting Arthur Miller himself on suspicions of communism. (He was spared from prison by an appeal.) How can one be innocent until proven guilty when accused of an unprovable crime? How can an old decrepid man defend himself against claims that he sent his soul out to do his wicked deeds for him, as one of the Salem girls attests? Such practices make a mockery of justice.

John Proctor stands as a model of this at the film's end. No matter the insanity of their accusation, no one can take away your ability to acknowledge the truth - even if only internally. But he refuses to keep his conviction quiet. His actions seem to paint him as a marytr, but yet...his acceptance of his execution seemed less about the defense of sanity that brought him to the scaffold, and more about his resiliently guilty conscience. Despite the overtones of sacrifice, I just can't condone his final decision. His wife had forgiven him his adultery, his Protestant God certainly would not be loath to forgive either, and by that point, the whole town was beginning to recognize the proceedings as the farce that they were. I'm more inclined to agree with Reverend Hale, who reverses his former suspicions of witchraft and urges the condemned to confess and be freed, proclaiming the sanctity of human life above all. Elizabeth Proctor calls his argument against hypocrisy the "devil's argument"; for myself, I find little value in John's adherence to honor. (Eddard Stark, take notice.) But, of course, the story must end this way: doomed heroes, reciting the Lord's Prayer, winning the tearful and regretful hearts of Salem with their final words.

But what if it didn't? What if they valued their lives over this unjust sacrifice to madness?

It's a difficult moral quandrary, as Elizabeth points out, and it strikes at our deepest notions of selfishness and meaning, justice and duty. I can only hope that in our psychology-literate society, such decisions will never have to be made for the sake of such inanity.

The African Queen (1951)

Academy Award for Best Actor. Nominated for 3 others.

directed by John Huston

starring Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Morley

Fun fact: despite winning the Academy Award for his role, Humphrey Bogart was actually unable to perform the Cockney accent designated for his character in the original script. I suppose Michael Caine wasn't available.

In all seriousness, though, the script changes leave plenty of room for an entertaining story, and Bogart's presence allows for fun chemistry between his (now Canadian) boat captain and Katharine Hepburn's leading lady. It's a romantic comedy with a twist, a collision of personalities that occurs just as a collision of nations begins in the lead-up to World War I.

Our heroes' unconventional journey begins when Germany invades the African town that missionary Rose Sayer lives in, killing her brother and leaving her defenseless. She and supplier/mailman Charlie Allnut decide to flee in his small boat, the titular African Queen, employing a far-fecthed plan to torpedo the German ship that guards downriver. Hijinks ensue.

Their banter is entertaining, but nothing groundbreaking; the moment that caught my interest was Rose's reaction after the first set of rapids. Charlie was hoping that this run-in with danger would encourage her to abandon the hazardous scheme, but the experience leaves her face aglow with excitement. She demands that he prepare her to steer through the next one, overcome with a mixture of adventurous ambition and sheer adrenaline.

Despite the very real danger of their situation - Germans are the least of their worries when confronted with leeches, mosquitoes, sickness and entrapment - the film segues into romance rather light-heartedly, complete with last-minute marriage and a happy resolution courtesy of a Deus Ex Machina. (Did the Germans not manage to swim to safety as well, or did they all just have rapid, explosion-induced changes of heart?)

But Bogart and Hepburn seem to be having fun, so we do, too. At least, on camera - as most of the film was actually shot on location in Uganda and the Congo, I can only imagine that the production felt a bit like the African Queen's rickety journey itself.

Inside Job (2010)

Academy Award for Best Documentary

directed by Charles Ferguson

narrated by Matt Damon

I don't know very much about Economics. I'm not even sure how I got an A in my college Macro class. Two years later, the only things I've retained (beyond basic supply/demand) are: (1) the system is dependent on tons of imaginary money, but as long as we all act like it's there, everything should be fine, and (2) Keynes may have been right, but we'll never know, because politicians will never raise taxes and cut spending at the same time, ever. So, yeah. Not an expert.

And that's kind of frightening, considering I was an A student. Economics is frustratingly confusing, but it's also a subject of massive importance. I may have opted out of my Advanced Placement Biology exam, but I still feel like I've got a handle on basic biological concepts. Not so with Economics. It's disturbing how little control that gives me. I can't analyze the situation myself; like many other Americans, I have to put trust in smart-looking talking heads who assure us that they know of what they speak.

Inside Job works very hard to destroy that trust. It does a good job of exploring the recession and explaining it in the most accessible way possible. (I particularly enjoyed the animated diagrams.) Even with the simplification, it's hard to wrap your head around it, though. For a helpful summary, I suggest Roger Ebert's review. However, I can't share the hopeful activism he expresses at the end of his assessment:

"That leads me to the matter of financial reform. We need it. We need to return to an era of transparency. We need to restore a market of investments that are what they seem to be. We need to deprive investment banks of the right to trade on behalf of their own accounts. We need to require them to work on behalf of their customers."

The system is clearly broken. But if we acknowledge that, will it break us? It is clear that reform is needed, but is it possible to keep this system from engorging itself? And even if it was possible, is there any chance that it will happen?

That may sound a bit cynical for someone who admits their ignorance on the subject, but it's my honest response. I won't pretend to have answers, but I'm looking for them - as we all should be. In the meantime, Inside Job is a fascinating look into a world somewhat beyond the reach of our comprehension - and, sadly, perhaps beyond the reach of the ballot box.

Schindler's List (1993)

Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Original Score. Nominated for 5 others.

directed by Steven Spielberg

starring Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Kingsley

There isn't anything uplifting about the Holocaust, yet this movie left me feeling more happy than depressed. "The Holocaust is about 6 million Jews that get killed," said a critical Stanley Kubrick. "Schindler's List is about 600 that don't." In fairness, the actual number of saved lives amounted to nearly 1200, but Kubrick has a point. While the film explores the horrors of the Holocaust, its focus remains fixed on an inspiring anomaly. The anomaly is true, however, and within it lies a gripping story.

Liam Neeson is nearly flawless as the titular Schindler. His heroic path was an interesting one; I was relieved that this Nazi's Heart of Gold required a bit of time to forge. He's not an easy figure to embrace, initially. A war profiteer and a clever opportunist, Schindler's capitalistic neutrality renders his offers of salvation mere conveniences. His belief that war brings out the worst in men proves ironic; these horrors elevate him, while others sink to monstrosity. By the film's end, Schindler is consumed with selfless regret. His breakdown after the Wermacht surrenders is one of the most heart-wrenching scenes in cinema. "I could have got more," he repeats. "I could have got more." Yet the descendants of the Schindler Jews number 6000 today. There are only 4000 Jews remaining in Poland.

The beauty of this story stands in stark contrast to the setting of the film. Grim black and white capture this brutal reality, while the briefest glimpses of color offer no hope - only a reminder that A Million is A Statistic. From the wrenching sequence of Operation Reinhard to the despair of Auschwitz, Spielberg's camera follows the paths of the doomed as well as the lucky few on the List.

Lastly, I want to comment on one final controversy. Some said that Spielberg's portrayal of the Nazis - particularly Ralph Fiennes' Amon Goeth - veered to close to the psychotic. Portraying these men as inhumanly insane, they say, provides false reassurance that 'normal' people could never act so unjustly. In fact, Goeth was even more cruel than the movie shows. Maybe what we would like to label pyscopathic behavior isn't quite as unrealistic as it seems.

Iranium (2011)

directed by Alex Traiman

narrated by Shohreh Aghdashloo

This documentary left me with far more questions than answers. Traiman's portrait of modern Iran follows the development of its nuclear program, ending with a call to action for America. "Failure is not an option," they beckon. America is called a "paper tiger" of a threat. Nuclear annihilation appears imminent. If we do not assert our strength, we are told, no one will stand to stop them.

Except their own internal rebellions, maybe. But these altercations are only touched upon; they don't fit the narrative that compares modern Iran with the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

Don't get me wrong, Iran's ruling Islamist (the fundamental, political incarnation of Islam) culture is absolutely nuts and its actions tragic and deplorable. It's about the best argument for the separation of church and state that I've ever come across. But it's tempting to paint the relationship between Iran and America with the broad strokes of storytelling, and this is not a simple story. Iran is divided. America is historically inconsistent in its actions and its views towards Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Even as these voices warn of a nuclear threat and unavoidable conflict, a researched woman at the screening argued that Iran's program is not nearly so advanced and it is not, currently, seen as a ruling power in the region. It's no wonder America's official response is similarly inconclusive.

I don't like the practice of comparing our society to a dystopian fiction. Before the film even started, I was denouncing the narcissistic practice to my grandmother. But still, as I watched this movie and tried to juggle its argument with the others I have heard, I was reminded of one of the theses of Huxley's Brave New World: it is not the withholding of information that will condemn us, but an overload, coming at as from all sides with differing opinions and mismatched facts.

Agora (2009)

directed by Alejandro Amenabar

starring Rachel Weisz, Max Minghella, Oscar Isaac

I don't know what kind of massive nerd it makes you if you cry at the sacking of the Library at Alexandria, but there you go.

Agora slipped under the radar here in the States. Filmed in Spain, it was both successful and praised, winning seven Goya awards - the Spanish equivalent of the Oscars - including Best Original Screenplay. Agora behaves differently from many epics about the Roman Empire. Philosophy is at the center of this film, and along with scientific thought, it is discussed at length. Much of its plot is speculation, but nothing it depicts conflicts with the historical facts that are known. There is plenty of fighting, but these battle sequences are not heroic or inspiring. There isn't much sex to speak of. Here, our focus remains on a single figure: a mathematician, astronomer, philosopher and teacher - and a woman.

Hypatia is perhaps the best representation of a female character I have ever seen on film. It is impossible for her gender to be invisible in this setting (4th century Egypt). Her father shakes his head at the idea of "marrying her off," insisting that answering to a man would kill her - she is lucky to have a curator for a father, who wishes her free. Hypatia herself, however, does not acknowledge herself as different from the male students around her. She dismisses their advances with nary a blink, keeping her focus on her passions of learning and discovery. I admire and thank the filmmakers for leaving unnecessary romantic subplots out of this story. Hypatia is adamantly a person by definition, not a gender - and not a religion, either.

With Christianity on the rise, the Empire is falling into fragments - Christian, Jew, and Pagan. Hypatia comes from the Pagan side of the pond, but she espouses no love for the gods, only the great works that the Greek minds have left behind. "You believe in nothing," the Christians attack. "I believe in philosophy," she maintains, and in that which she uncovers through inquiry. "You cannot question what you believe. I must." Unsurprisingly, this makes her a bit of a pariah in a world where everyone must take a side and violence has become the norm. The travels of the stars mean little to the men who attack her as a whore and a witch.

Which brings us to where I came in. The capacity of humanity for ignorance and destruction is perhaps no better exemplified than in the sacking of Alexandria's library. Here was the collection of all of the great thoughts of people gone before, the sum of the knowledge of civilization. The dead are gone. They cannot defend their works. To rip their legacy, the legacy of humanity, from their defenseless hands - to destroy it out of fear and spite - this is the darkness in the human soul. We like to think such blindness is behind us. I can only pray that we never stand at the brink as Hypatia did, staring at the impending thousand-year reign of the Dark Ages and desperately clinging to the stars.

Wikipedia Article on Hypatia
Wikipedia on the film's historical accuracy
Richard Carrier, PhD, on the film's historical accuracy

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Academy Award Nomination for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Downey, Jr.)

directed by Ben Stiller

starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black

They say to write what you know. Ben Stiller has proved that this makes for good comedy in a movie about the making of a movie - but this fictional nightmare for Hollywood translates into a scathing, hilarious commentary on all levels of production.

Acting tropes are front and center, and no one nails their stereotype better than Robert Downey Jr. He steals the movie as Kirk Lazarus, blonde-haired-Australian-turned-black-Sergeant via a controversial procedure - but this is standard procedure for his hyper-dedicated method-actor Lazarus, who claims to never break character "'til I done the DVD commentary." It is from this same fountain of brilliance that we get what is perhaps the movie's best moment: the "never go full retard" speech. (It was certainly the most talked about, and one of the more controversial - which is just stupid. The scene hardly used the word, it wasn't in a particularly derogatory way, and they were roasting they way Hollywood treats the issue, not mental retardation itself.) Hollywood politics and dishonest acting are hit hard as Ben Stiller's character laments the failure of his attempted Oscar Bait.

Despite the focus on the main three actors, the other two personalities prove just as entertaining and well-delivered. In addition, the film benefits from a plethora of cameos and supporting appearances. Tom Cruise, Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, and Matthew McConaughey all bring memorable performances as producers, directors, agents, and more.

It's hard to tell which is the more ridiculous film - this one, or the one the fictional actors are trying to make. But Tropic Thunder remains self-aware of the ridiculous, and it is there that the comedy succeeds. There's always something cool about watching movies about movies; hopefully, they had just as much fun satirizing themselves as we do laughing at them.

True Grit (2010)

10 Academy Award Nominations including Best Picture

directed by Joel and Ethan Coen

starring Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon

My immediate reaction to this film was: wait, it's over? True Grit is close to 2 hours long, but the story flies by - and I can't quite decide if this is a compliment or not. The characters were captivating and the actors did an excellent job, and the story of Mattie Ross's determination inspires admiration and fascination, but by the time the movie flashed forward all I could this was...that's it?

After a few days of meditation, I do think it's a compliment. The plot unfolds slowly at times, but the people at the center of True Grit easily command attention. Jeff Bridges is, of course, Jeff Bridges - he brings a wonderful gruff spirit to the central Rooster Cogburn. Matt Damon did an excellent job as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, and in my opinion almost stole the film. Any scene that featured his bickering with Bridges was massively entertaining. The real star here was Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, however, and she indeed deserves to rise as a star after this career-making performance. The weight of the movie rests on the young actress, and she delivers all of the stubborn desperation required of the fourteen-year-old protagonist. I don't know how she landed in the Supporting category of the Oscars, (well, I do, but age and politics are silly reasons), but she earned her nomination. Her bartering scenes with Stonehill are enough for that.

Much has been said about the film's epilogue. I don't think it was entirely necessary, but I don't think it fell flat, either. As an attempt to remain faithful to the story told in the book, it performed its job, and following the climax's heroic rescue, it was a blunt reminder of the dull turn life eventually takes.

But this film is the story of Mattie rebuking that fate, at least for a short while, as she takes on an unconventional journey in the hope of injecting a dose of poetic justice to her world. Along the way, we're left to explore a world stripped bare of such justice, where promises go unkept and deaths unanswered for. It's beautiful filmmaking; I'm still surprised it lost the Academy Award for Cinematography. The Coen brothers brought their affinity for dark comedy and witty dialogue and inserted it into a stunning Western landscape, returning life to a genre well traveled and a time long buried.

4 Week Review

20 Movies in!


Movies that have Made Me Cry: Never Let Me Go, Saving Private Ryan
Favorite Movie so far: Saving Private Ryan
Worst Movie so far: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
20th Century : 21st Century: 10 : 10
Movies I Can't Wait to See Again: Pulp Fiction, X-Men: First Class, Saving Private Ryan
Movies I have Fallen Asleep in because I am Stupid and Watch Them Late at Night: Camelot, Vertigo
Movies that took Two Nights: Giant, Camelot, The Godfather Part II
Movies I have Seen... 
In Theaters: 6 (Bridesmaids, Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides, Jane Eyre, Tree of Life, X-Men: First Class, Super 8 )
Netflix DVDs: 5
Netflix Instant: 1
Owned/Borrowed DVDs: 8

Super 8 (2011)

directed by J. J. Abrams

starring Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler

I'm glad I saw this one on the big screen. The crash that sets the plot in motion contains some of the most cinematic explosions I've seen in theaters. Of course, there's a plot to back up the effects, and it's a good plot too - in part because it is an amalgamation of successful tropes. 

There's not much new here: recently-dead mother, distant father, sympathetic boy, single female cast member/love interest, mysterious alien, government conspiracy, it's all very classic Spielberg (with a bit of that J. J. Abrams mystery thrown in.) Close Encounters meets Cloverfield, it's been called. That's pretty accurate.

But while it doesn't bring much originality to the table, what Super 8 does bring is done well. The young actors do a fantastic job, and their exchanges are entertaining and often funny. Kyle Chandler was born to play vigilante cop dads. The writing isn't brilliant, but it's clever enough. This seems to be the problem: it's a perfectly good movie, but not the must-see instant-classic that the hype may have suggested.

My one complaint is the final scene. Everyone suddenly and inexplicably reunites - and I mean inexplicably, that was some terrible editing, one second they're in the underground cave lair and the next they're standing in the street (could they not show a single, quick shot of them turning to climb?) (or something?) - before an abrupt and somewhat unsatisfying conclusion.

But the first two acts remain strong examples of summer cinema. Sure, it's not the next E.T., but I can live with that. I'm pretty sure Spielberg can, too.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

7 Academy Award Nominations including Best Picture

directed byFrank Darabont
starring Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman

The one story that sticks with me from this film is the old man, struggling to survive after 50 years in prison, leaving his friends and letting his pet bird go, completely lost outside of the walls that had become his home. "They send you here for life," says Morgan Freeman's Red, "and that's exactly what they take."

This film is about a man who refuses to have his life taken away. It's a fantastic tale, something that almost approaches myth - but perhaps that's the voice of narrator God Morgan Freeman in my head. It's a story about redemption, yes: the self-made kind that comes from a bitter determination to survive in mind and spirit as well as in body. Hope, freedom, justice, they're all played with here.

It's a slow film at times - I was glad for excuses to double-task. But it's also satisfying, thoughtful, and fascinating. Such depravity and such hope, coexisting so closely. It's not hard to understand how The Shawshank Redemption became so celebrated.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Academy Award for Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing. Nominated for 6 more including Best Picture.

directed by Steven Spielberg

starring Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Matt Damon

I watched some of the special features after this movie was over - maybe not the best choice, but it wasn't like I'd be focusing on something unrelated anytime soon...the intensity of the movie left me in a sort of awe. But as I watched the actors and crew extolling the virtues of what I had just seen, I realized that this film hadn't made me proud to be an American - it made me feel ashamed as a human being.

This film came out when I was six years old, so the long, gritty opening of D-Day wasn't quite a surprise. That battle had always been spoken of with a tinge of grief and regret. Watching it is something else entirely, though. You know that there's a greater cause somewhere, that this is a step against Hitler - but all I could think as I was watching boatfulls of men die before they hit the water was: Why? How could this happen? These soldiers weren't any older than me. They weren't necessarily more suited for war. It's tempting to think of them as brave heroes, out of the realm of comparison...but the truth is, they were probably just as scared as I would have been. God knows I would have been just as dead as many of them were by the end of the day. It's easy to remove such foreign experiences from contemplation, but if there's one thing this film does well, it forces the audience to live those horrors - and, in doing so, it reminds us that they were absolutely, terrifyingly real.

The carnage of D-Day is the perfect set-up to the main plot. Just as the audience is struggling to connect this slaughter to a greater purpose, the protagonists recieve a mission with an even more questionable objective: the rescue of a single man. I knew the plot of Saving Private Ryan going in, and I was relieved that the characters were just as skeptical about their assignment as I was. While their superiors may see this attempted rescue as a shining picture of the American Spirit, no one else is fooled. There's a beautiful moment where Capt. Miller (Tom Hanks) struggles with the decision to put his men in danger for the sake of one life:

"You see, when...when you end up killing one of your men, you see, you tell yourself it happened so you could save the lives of two or three or ten others. Maybe a hundred others. Do you know how many men I've lost under my command? ...Ninety-four. But that means I've saved the lives of ten times that many, doesn't it? Maybe even twenty? And that's how simple it is. That's how you...that's how you rationalize making the choice between the mission and the man."

The film follows Capt. Miller and his men as they fight their way through France and toward some sort of solace about their fate. It's terrible, but if it's as true as the praise tells, it may be one of the most important movies ever made. There's something precious in the collective human memory; if the ugliness, if the indecision, if the blindness and the bravery of this war aren't treasured, we may find ourselves asking the same awful question: How did it come to this?

X-Men (2000)

 

directed by Brian Singer
starring Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellan

In lieu of driving to the theater to watch X-Men: First Class again, I decided to finally pull the original out of my instant queue. I've only seen bits and pieces of the original movies on television - except for the third one, the only one I've seen in whole. (I know, I know, it's a travesty.) After watching the much-praised first one, I can say: (1) Yes, I see why this started the Comic Book Madness (2) Yes, it is quite a good movie (3) But, First Class is definitely better. Sorry. It isn't just James McAvoy, I promise. (...it's also Michael Fassbender.)

(Just kidding.)

X-Men does have Gandalf Ian McKellan and Captain Picard Patrick Stewart going for it, which allows for multiple showdowns of Shakespearian-level performance. My favorite scenes were their conversations, especially the chess match at the end. Such classy superpeople we have here. Hugh Jackman also delivered as the film's designated protagonist. No one else really stood out, though. Anna Paquin did a good job as Rogue, but then I realized that it was Anna Paquin, and then I couldn't really focus on her anymore. (Sorry, True Blood people, not a fan of SOOKEH.) Jean and Cyclops provided two uninteresting ends of a love triangle, while Halle Berry can't be faulted for Storm's lack of development.While I was entertained and occassionally intrigued by the main cast, I never felt like I really knew any of the characters apart from Wolverine and Rogue. Also, did Rebecca Romjin's Mystique speak at all?

I've heard that X2 is the best film in the trilogy, so I'm looking forward to that. In many ways, X-Men felt like an introduction. Still, made before the days of endless threequels, it could have worked as a memorable stand-alone action film. It establishes an interesting world, one where there is plenty of potential for characters and powers, and conflict exists both internally within the mutant community and with the less-advanced humans. The best parts for me were the political tensions and the implied history of the older mutants - which, perhaps, explains why my preference remains with the prequel. Either way, if only for the promise of additional adventures, I'm glad that X-Men was there to lead the way for superhero movies.

Coming Next: Saving Private Ryan, Agora, Hamlet, A Clockwork Orange

X-Men: First Class (2011)

directed by Matthew Vaughn

starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence

This movie was not perfect. It was a bit campy at times. Some of the supporting acting was weak. The writing was not particularly ingenious. It definitely did not approach Nolan's Batman films.

Okay, now that that's out of the way:

I loved this movie. I would have gladly watched it again the same day. It was fun, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender were fantastic (remind me how I ever described him as less than "blindingly handsome"?) and it did its job as a prequel while finding a life of its own. The film brings a bit to think about along with the popcorn, though its ethical dilemnas are nowhere near the philosophical intensity of anything with Christopher Nolan's name on it. No, this is a film helmed by the same person who brought us Stardust and Kick-Ass, and he brings a similar lightness to the X-Men franchise along with some long-missed quality.

McAvoy and Fassbender both turned in excellent performances here, though it's Fassbender's emotional intensity that steals the film. January Jones was sexy but not much else as Emma Frost - the only cast member who truly stuck out for poor acting. Kevin Bacon clearly enjoyed himself in a performance that many have called Bond-villian-esque. Jennifer Lawrence also delivered as Mystique, but while her development was interesting, it wasn't a fully convincing Heel Face Turn. This is the person who poisons Professor X in the original film - but then again, apart from a few entertaining cameos, this movie is no slave to continuity.

This proves to be a good thing. While seeing the original movies would help you appreciate a few bald jokes here and there, it's not necessary to get caught up in the world and its characters. That said, as someone whose comic book knowledge comes pretty exclusively from comic book movies, I'm not necessarily the best judge of adaptation faithfulness. Accurate or not, it's a fun, entertaining, well-acted, qaulity summer blockbuster. I'm thrilled enough with that.

Coming Soon: X-Men (2000), Hamlet, Agora, Saving Private Ryan

Tree of Life (2011)

directed by Terrence Malick

starring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn

Terrence Malick clearly had high aspirations for this film. It's being praised as "equal parts period piece, family drama, and existential meditation." Well, perhaps not equal parts. While I was most concerned about the existential-meditation segment of that description, it turned out to be the most enjoyable part of the film - but also the shortest.

The film operates almost exclusively in series of five-second clips, creating a moving collage of sorts. It uses this very effectively in the beginning to introduce themes of death and mourning. A character cries to God, asking where he is and if he cares: Malick responds with images of the universe. I was struck by the beauty and intensity of this abbreviated history of the universe: planets and stars, gases and molten rocks, light and dark, stone and water and life rising from the smoke. I loved it. I had been skeptical coming in, but I was converted. Indeed, he had captured a compelling image of life.

I expected the film to continue in the same manner; pictures of multiple people, moments of thoughts, interspersed with objects and nature and the resounding, silent reassurance of the galaxies. But instead, we parked, and watched Jack progress from infant to boy to angsty preteen, following his struggle to come to terms with the life he had been given. This section had a great deal to say too: I enjoyed examining the relationship between father and son, and considering the extent that Jack's sometimes-questionable actions stemmed from both hatred and envy of his father's power. But this wasn't the same story that the film told before, and after teasing us with images of eternity, the trip to a boy's gradual growth in a Texas town felt excruciatingly slow.

As for the ending, let's just say that it will be hit or miss. It missed for me. The attempted return to existential meditation came off as a strange blend of supernatural symbolism and wishful thinking. What happened to the Big Bang and the dinosaurs? That was cool.

What the movie did well, it did excellently. I'd love to watch the beginning of the film a few more times. It really puts a beautiful perspective on human pain and suffering. As for the movie that interrupts and takes over - it's good, but doesn't measure up to the promise of the first act.

Coming Soon: X-Men, Hamlet, Agora, Saving Private Ryan

Jane Eyre (2011)

directed by Cary Fukunaga

starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassebender, Jamie Bell

I'll resist the urge to analyze this and write an essay over it, as is my reaction. Jane Eyre was the final major work that we read in my intro-English-honors class last semester, and our final papers were all devoted to Bronte's masterpiece and its successors. My first reaction, then, was that of a lit critic. Even if I ended up dropping the English major.

The movie actually begins with Jane's flight and her rescue by St John and Co., which is fantastic. This is the first adaptation to do this, and it builds suspense early while alleviating the usual boredom of the third act. The rest of the tale, then, is an extended flashback, building to the moment that led to Jane's self-imposed exile. The film handles Jane's childhood well; there's a nod to Bewick's Birds, and the Red Room actually makes it in, even if it's not quite as spooky or Red as I would have liked it. Lowood and Helen make an adequate appearance, and then it's off to Thornfield without time for a lengthy explanation. The one thing that irks me is the lack of the torn-veil-nightmare scene. It was really needed to build to the reveal at the wedding, which ended up feeling like a bit of a letdown. This scene could have given that plot line some much-needed tension.

Perhaps that was the major fault of the movie: while it captured the monotony and loneliness of Jane's life, it also felt pretty even throughout, never building or releasing. Perhaps it is the loss of Jane's internal monologue that made the movie so quiet; when your protagonist is mostly silent, the movie can grow a bit dull. However, this dullness makes Jane and Rochester's lively interaction all the more captivating - for us as well as her. The more the audience understands Jane's simple life, the more they sympathize with her feelings for her employer. Still, even their romantic ups and downs were less than engrossing. You'd think with fire and ghosts and jealousy this movie might veer towards the exciting at times, but no, it remains as dutifully unfazed as Jane.

That said, Mia Wasikowska may be the perfect Jane Eyre. I thought she had this ethereal, simple beauty as Alice, but here, she is convincingly plain. Her hair is actually blondish for once (yay!) and she captures Jane's combination of passionate will and gentle compliance. For the first time, I never felt like I was watching an actress portray Jane Eyre. The girl on the screen was Jane, and I didn't even stop to consider it for some time.

Rochester, of course, isn't nearly ugly enough, but what can you do? At least he wasn't blindingly handsome. And his anguished "Jane!" is an easy improvement from Orson Welles' monotone chant, so good job there. Plus he has facial hair. No good Rochester should be without facial hair.

Like Pride & Prejudice, Jane Eyre was done by Focus Features. The films have similar feels, but I fear I won't be re-watching the latter as religiously as I do the former. And it's not because of the difference in plots; I don't love Mr. Darcy any more than Rochester. Jane Eyre is, unfortunately, a rather un-theatrical tale. This film is a lovely effort, but Jane's character and story don't quite captivate on the screen as easily as in text.

Coming Soon: Tree of Life, Hamlet, X-Men, Agora

Saving Grace (2000)

directed by Nigel Cole

starring Brenda Blethyn, Craig Ferguson

I would have loved to see the writer's room after they thought of this one. "Hey, what about a movie about a widow who becomes a drug dealer to pay her debts?" Goodness, they must have taken the week off after that, just to celebrate the sheer hilarity. I will admit: this is the best film I have ever seen about a middle-aged British lady growing marijuana.

Brenda Blethyn is fantastic, as usual, as she goes from ignorant widow to confident criminal. (What she has in confidence, however, she absolutely lacks in street smarts; her initial visit to London exemplifies her ineptitude.) The supporting cast rounds out the town - a wonderful place, where everyone knows everybody's business and nobody cares, people are eccentric and good-hearted, and they all have awesome accents. It starts a bit slowly, but once it gets rolling, the film doesn't stop. It all culminates in a classic comic climax, with every character converging on a single spot and no one able to hide the truth.

But while it is a parody, the film also has a message: isn't Pot funny? And what a message it is. As the entire cast enjoys a silly afternoon at the film's climax, I couldn't help but note how the whole scene smelt of tipsiness. Sure, the film pokes fun at the ugly underbelly of illegal dealing, and it doesn't openly preach at any point. But by turning up maximum ridiculosity for the characters and their actions, it also exposes the ridiculousness of the world that they inhabit. It's amazing the craziness a few plants can inspire.

Up Next: Jane Eyre, Tree of Life, X-Men, Hamlet

Dial M for Murder (1954)

directed by Alfred Hitchcock
starring Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Robert Cummings

Dial M for Murder's former life as a play is apparent throughout the film - and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, the dominance of the single set doesn't mesh well with film, but the dialogue allows for excellent performances from the main cast. In particular, Ray Milland sells Wendice's lengthy speeches with just the right blend of cunning and affability.

It's plot is thick, tight and fun, throwing in enough complication to keep you thinking but not too much to leave you confused. I never grew bored. Hitckcock has the source material to thank as much as his own skill, I imagine. I noticed he really favored the overhead shot in this film - it aided the audience in examining the scene of the crime, giving them an overarching perspective within which to visualize.

For her star billing, Grace Kelly had a smaller role than I expected. That was a disappointment. Things get interesting when the murderer is center stage, but the victim naturally gets less of the spotlight.

Also, I found it very interesting that this movie was originally released in 3D. In 1954! Apparently, this was right before the 'fad' died out for some time. My, what an interesting world.

For the record: my favorite Hitchcock films remain North by Northwest, Rebecca, and Rear Window. In that order.

Next Up: Saving Grace, Jane Eyre, Tree of Life, X-Men

The Godfather Part II (1974)

Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score. Nominated for 1 other.
directed by Francis Ford Coppola
starring Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Robert Duvall

Thursday, and I'm finally posting the first review of the week. Well, I did have the brilliant idea to kick things off with The Godfather Part II, so there's that excuse. Another two-nighter!

It's a shame that four hour movies are such a rarity. I can't even remember seeing a film in theaters with an intermission. The Godfather Part II's length allows it to explore its story from both ends, expanding backwards and forwards while studying its characters. Today's 90-120 minute blockbusters just don't allow for that level of meditation. I know that film occupies and different space than the written word; still, it's a shame that films have this shortness imposed upon them, when the visual style is no less suited to detail than a novel.

Part II portrays the Corleones in a slightly less sympathetic light than first film. Both Vito and Michael are shown pursuing independence early in their lives - Vito, from one Don to another, and Michael, from his own Don father. However, this desire for control over their own life soon spirals into control of others. How much of this happens out of necessity or circumstance, and how much is the result of their own hunger for power? 

The movie does not decide definitively. Rise and downfall occur simultaneously here. Even as Michael furthers his business and deflects threats from other bosses and the U.S. government, he has to deal with betrayal from the closest circles: his own brother in affairs of business, and his wife in affairs of a much more sacred nature. His question to his mother reflects that fact: did his father lose his family as a result of his work? It would appear not, but based on that question, maybe Michael is only slightly less successful than his father when it comes to holding his personal world together.

Both of their actions seem to be strongly motivated by family ties, but as always, the lines are blurry. Is Vito brave, even heroic, when he takes out Don Fanucci, or is he an opportunist who sees a chance for a power grab? Is Michael a reluctant patriarch doing what's best for the family, or is he captivated by power and perpetuating a cycle?

Villainy has never been so fascinating.

Coming Soon: Dial M for Murder, Hamlet, X-Men, Agora

2 Week Review

Movies that have Made Me Cry: Never Let Me Go
Favorite Movie so far: Pulp Fiction
Worst Movie so far: Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides
20th Century : 21st Century: 6 : 4
Movies I have Fallen Asleep in because I am Stupid and Watch Them Late at Night: Camelot, Vertigo
Movies I have Seen in Theaters: Bridesmaids, Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides
Netflix DVDs: 2
Netflix Instant: 0
Owned/Borrowed DVDs: 6

tbc.

Charade (1963)

directed by Stanley Donen

starring Audrey Hepburn, Carey Grant

It's not a Hitchcock movie, but it certainly feels like one. Here Carey Grant and Audrey Hepburn use a spy plot as an excuse to wittily banter and have espionage-related fun. It's quite good: the writing is quick, the murders keep things interesting, and the leads are lovely to watch. I can even overlook my Audrey Hepburn grudge to enjoy her performance; her Cloud Cuckoo Lander is quite fun. (It was also quite fun to try to explain that term to my mother as we were watching.) And, of course, I can never get enough of my dear cousin Archie Leach.

I'm not dying to watch it again, but it's certainly a romp that knows what it's doing and does it well. It's a good thing to see all of these classic movies and the combinations of leads that result - Carey Grant, Grace Kelly, James Stewart, Katharine and/or Audrey Hepburn - rinse and repeat. It makes you wonder which names will be saved and revered from our generations.

I'm afraid I can't think of a great deal more to say - and no, it's not because I have half an hour until my self-imposed deadline and I've already written two of these today. (Does it count as procrastination if it's not an assignment?) Charade is a light movie, and my review will be the same. It's good fun - not much to think about, but a great deal to watch and enjoy.

Coming Soon: The Godfather Part II, Dial M for Murder, Hamlet, Saving Private Ryan

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

directed by Rob Marshall

starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush

It wasn't as bad as it could have been, I guess. Still, I couldn't help but feel that some of the life was missing from this one. The writers were the same, but the writing was inferior. The pacing wasn't as tight and the plot wasn't as convincing. The returning characters felt somehow dishonest; it was like the actors were imitating their former performances, not playing the characters. The new characters, meanwhile, simply didn't sell.

Penelope Cruz's character redeemed herself by not being desperately in love with Sparrow, but the love was still there, so that was somewhat annoying. At least his 'stirrings' remained mostly out-of-focus, lest she derail into full Mary Sue. Her she-pirate persona was...well, I was going to say interesting, but it wasn't. Cruz is a good actress, and she did a fine job, but there just wasn't much there. By the time she revealed her double-lie about being Blackbeard's daughter I didn't really care enough to keep track. (Not to mention, Jack's amazement at her 'lying by telling the truth' trick would have been better suited for a prequel, considering his masterfully entertaining execution of the same strategy in the first film.) I kind of liked that she was a former-almost-nun, at any rate. It was kind of amusing.

There were times that I laughed, and there were times that I was entertained, but most of these moments involved members of the original cast playing off relationships developed long ago. I kept expecting Will to appear in an alleyway or Norrington to wash up from some Royal ship. Mostly, I was wishing I was watching the first movie, or even the third.

I liked the pretty missionary boy as much as I needed to, I guess, but I was still overly amused by the ambiguity of his fate. His character was a sorry substitute for Orlando Bloom's. Also, the Jack-Sparrow-rejects-eternal-life plot was recycled from the most recent film (which itself borrowed a similar theme from the first,) and the final words of the movie were particularly grating. ("It's a pirate's life for me!" Really?) Oh, and while I'm venting, the Spanish dragged down the plot without introducing any substantial characters. Then again, maybe it was for the best that they kept the new characters to a minimum. Then again, I doubt they could have been worse than the missionary-mermaid couple.

Anyway - the film wasn't all bad, but the moments that were good just reminded me of earlier films. Angelica and Jack's swordfight? Will and Jack's from CotBP. Jack/Gibbs/Barbossa banter? Any of the first three, take your pick. Epic ship-to-ship/pirate-vs.-pirate combat? Oh, there wasn't really any. Sigh.

I tried to avoid being the They Changed It Now It Sucks person, but it's not that it sucked - it just wasn't nearly as good as the earlier films. It didn't even anger me or disappoint me. I'm pretty sure I'll just forget about it and go watch the original again - even if Disney won't forget the franchise, as long as Johnny Depp is around to insure those opening weekend totals.

Coming Soon: Charade, The Godfather Part II, Dial M for Murder, Hamlet

Vertigo (1958)

directed by Alfred Hitckcock

starring James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes

Hitchcock's Masterpiece!, the DVD box proclaims. I've always heard that this film was the director's best, if not one of the best movies of all time. But while Vertigo was good, I can't say I enjoyed it more than North by Northwest or even Rear Window.

The most interesting aspect of the movie is the disturbing undercurrent - unlike many other Hitchcocks, there isn't a happy ending. The protagonist's motivations and actions grow more and more questionable as the film progresses. The poor character of Midge appears only, apparently, to further the theme that nobody gets their happy ending.

I hadn't been spoiled for this movie, so the twist was a genuine surprise. I loved it; maybe because it caught me off guard, maybe because embraced the female character's perspective. Speaking of which - the abusive undercurrent provided the most disturbing moments in a movie that felt entirely off-kilter. "If I let you change me, will that do it? If I do what you tell me, will you love me?" And his recurring cry, as he demanded that she change everything about herself: "It can't possibly matter to you." That, more than any murder, made me sick.

I almost expected the film to follow the violent conclusion it hinted at in the final moments - but alas, the movie is not quite as brave as the book. Still, it is a memorable tragedy, even if it remains less engrossing or iconic than other Hitchcock films.

Next up: Pirates of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides, Charade, Dial M for Murder, Hamlet

Pulp Fiction (1994)

directed by Quentin Tarantino

starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman

I'm a bit behind, due to a pair of tornado threats. Oh well - as I warned before, life happens. I'll catch up this weekend.

In the spirit of not-getting-more-behind, I started Pulp Fiction just before midnight last night. That was an interesting decision.

Quentin Tarantino had always been built up as a master of violence and gore, and this was supposedly nowhere more apparent than in Pulp Fiction. I had seen Inglorious Basterds in theaters without suffering any damage, so I shouldn't have been as anxious as I was going into this movie. Nevertheless, I could feel myself winding up with the tension in each scene, expecting this to be the one with the exploding head, or something, or whatever everyone was getting so worked up about. Chalk it up to sleep deprivation.

I was pleasantly surprised when I finally realized that this movie was not the ridiculous gore-fest the moral guardians had made it out to be. That, or Hollywood has thoroughly desensitized me. I guess I don't really mind, either way.

Anyway: it's not that this movie isn't violent. It clearly is. Yet its violence is part of a continuing balance between tension and humor, one that is all the more absurd and riveting for the vast quantities of blood shed. The title itself reveals its irreverence; the movie is quite aware of its sensational plot. This film is less about reality or society, and more about fiction itself. So no, the language and the violence aren't Solemn Indicators of Our Time or Something. They're tools turned up to eleven.

The nonlinear timeline is fun, the characters are developed, memorable and brilliantly acted, and the writing is just good. Roger Ebert pointed out that the dialogue has its own agenda, establishing characters and asking questions and enjoying language - not the slave to plot it usually is. "The characters in 'Pulp Fiction' are always talking, and always interesting, funny, scary, or audacious," he writes. "This movie would work as an audio book."(As it almost did for me, nervous and looking away at 1 in the morning.)

Now that I've faced the prospect of exploding heads and have come up empty, I long to watch this movie again. The more I read reviews and analysis - as I usually do after seeing a new movie - the more I think of specific scenes and specific dialogue that I already miss.

Oh, and before we go, did anyone else notice that in this massive ensemble cast, the only significant female roles were wives or girlfriends of main characters? Anyone? No? I should just shut up about this already?

Sigh.

Coming Up: Vertigo, Dial M for Murder, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Hamlet

Camelot (1967)

directed by Joshua Logan
starring Richard Harris, Vanessa Radgrave, Franco Nero

My first thought watching this was: I hope this was recognized for art direction.

Spoilers: it was.

If there's one thing this movie gets right, it's the design, costumes, and general scenery. This is one of the classic, big-budget, massive-multiplayer Hollywood musicals of the 1960s, and it does the genre well. From the first shot of the icy branches of the forest during Guenevre (Redgrave) and Arthur's (Harris) first meeting, to their final parting beneath the same darkened trees, this film is just plain pretty.

Well, there's one exception. You know how movies always parody the backlit, overly orange, vaguely smokey, excessively and unrealistically windy moments where a woman enters a room to find her love waiting?

The good stuff starts at about 0:45.

My poor grandparents. They love this movie, and I loved watching it with them, but I burst out laughing when that happened.

Clearly, cheese is something this film exercises, too. Richard Harris himself complained about the unnecessary amounts of eye make-up he was required to endure. (I was so thrilled to hear this. His eye shadow and eyeliner were legitimately distracting. It wasn't like that with the other actors, either. Did the make-up person have a vendetta against Harris, or something?) Still, Harris carries the film with his acting and provides a strong center for the mythic tale.

The real strength of the movie, however, remains the spectacle. The music is enchanting, though definitely inferior to the original production. Props to Vanessa Redgrave for providing her own vocals, unlike her costar Franco Nero. (Poor Nero can't really act, either. Was he just chosen for his looks? Certainly Hollywood could have dug someone up both capable and attractive.) Redgrave can't hold a candle to Julie Andrews, of course, but who can? At least she performed adequately for the role, unlike another actress who took one of Andrews' Broadway roles and did not do her own singing.

Okay, I'll go take my Julie Andrews fangirlism elsewhere. In closing: fun movie, probably would be a bit more fun on stage, and a good example of the 1960s Hollywood musical.

(Though I'd really recommend The Sound of Music, myself.)

(...okay. I'm done.)

Coming Soon: Pulp Fiction, Vertigo, Hamlet, Dial M for Murder

Notorious (1946)

directed by Alfred Hitchcock
starring Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant

I'd been looking forward to watching this one for a long time. Anything with Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock is on my must-see list, and we'd already seen a few clips from Notorious in my film history class. I was hooked.

(Caution: Spoilers)

Notorious lives up to that enticing premise: Ingrid Bergman as a reluctant female spy, doing what female spies do best in Hitchcock films - sleeping with the enemy. (How many times does Cary Grant need to save an undercover agent from being offed by her suspecting lover?) Oh, and she and Cary Grant are in love, of course. He is in the film, after all. How silly of her husband to think he had a chance.

I was very impressed with Bergman's presence in the film. Though Grant rushes in to do the saving at the end, Bergman's Alicia is quite the protagonist. The story centers around her life and her decisions; there are more scenes featuring her without Grant than Grant without her.

While this film is hardly Hitchcock's best - it faces some pretty steep competition in that category - it bears the marks of his directorial style, both in off-kilter visual shots and the suspense/sex plot formulas. Don't be turned off by the word 'formula' - Hitchcock's recipe is one that results in solid entertainment. The two stars don't hurt matters, either.

My one complaint was how quickly it all wrapped up - but as a lover of North by Northwest, I suppose I shouldn't be protesting an abrupt ending.

Notorious is thrilling and fun, and features Bergman as a interesting, complex female center. I'm glad to add it to a growing list of Hitchcock favorites.

Coming soon: Out of Sight, Vertigo, Pulp Fiction, Hamlet