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