The Lives of Others

What a touching film.

This is was one of those Netflix movies that had been sitting on my t.v. stand for months. I was just never in the mood for a German language film set in the eighties in East Germany. And really - who ever is? I had even started it once, got about 45 minutes in, and fell asleep. High praise, I know.

But trust me, give it a shot. It really is lovely. Admittedly, it has a slow start and our protagonist takes some warming up to. But the plotting is so intricate, the character motivations so complex, it's well worth the watch.

I suspect it was on my Netflix queue in the first place because it won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film a few years back - and it was well deserved.

The story centers on a man in the Stasi, the State Police of East Germany who monitored all the rebellious thinkers back in the day. He's a master interrogator, he can spot a liar from a mile off, and he knows how to catch the guys on the other side. His transformation and the consequences of his choices are a delight to watch unfold.

Honestly, there is a lot of heart in this film despite what you might think in the first hour. If you aren't afraid of subtitles, I highly highly recommend The Lives of Others.

The Killer Inside Me (2010)

The Killer Inside Me got a lot of press for its gruesome beating scenes. And yes, they were gruesome. And I'd imagine in a brilliant film, those scenes would be enough to turn people off. The problem is, this is not a brilliant film. It's not really even a good film. Our protagonist, the serial killer, is under-characterized and pretty much without motive. He kills because he's crazy. And he's crazy because his mom was sort of crazy. And he's not good at covering things up and the authorities are on him from the beginning. And he doesn't really seem to care much whether he's caught and neither do we. It's just a blah of a movie with two incredibly realistic beating scenes.

I like Casey Affleck a lot. I think he's a terrific actor. But this movie is dull and the shocking bits are nothing except shocking. I'm guessing playing a crazy serial killer would appeal to a lot of actors. It's just too bad a better story wasn't written around the character. (I've not read the novel. I hear it has some dark humor it. I wonder...)

24 Hour Party People (2002)

If I'm being honest, I paid very little attention to 24 Hour Party People. I'm a big Joy Division fan but once Ian Curtis was swinging, my interest fizzled fast. Unfortunately, that was about forty-five minutes in. Maybe one day I'll try again. Maybe not.

"This is a film about the music. And the people who made the music."

Sorry Steve Coogan, it didn't quite feel that way...

127 Hours (2010)

I have mixed feelings about 127 Hours. James Franco is incredibly charming and this movie definitely used that charm to the max. But the direction (from Danny Boyle who I ADORE. 28 Days Later is pretty much my favorite movie) was incredibly hyper and quick. Screens split three ways, lots of motion, lots of color and light. Very ADD. I suspect this style was implemented to contrast to the slow, I'm-trapped-in-a-cavern pace but I found it distracting.

Also, I had an issue with the arc that is imposed upon Aron Ralston.  It felt heavy handed. Like a beacon every so often flashing in my face saying "He didn't connect with people!" only to return to the present where he's epiphinizing (SO not a word) about how he should have connected with people. It wasn't necessary. Being trapped like that would change a person - I think the audience can be trusted to realize that - without the arc being so forced.

And the whole thing was incredibly short. The rainy escape dream sequence was unnecessary and an obvious time filler.

This was in no way a perfect film. I think the fact that it's a true story is elevating it beyond its merits. It's no Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, or Slumdog. But James Franco is a charming actor and watching him is always fun.

The Social Network (2010)

Best Screenplay of the year. By a long shot.

I've gushed once about how great The Social Network is. But a friend of mine wasn't interested in seeing "The Facebook Movie" so it became priority one for me to prove her wrong.

We saw it in a near empty theatre and the print was scratched. MAN is that annoying. But she enjoyed the film and I felt vindicated.

Since seeing it the first time, I've become well acquainted with the score and I enjoyed listening to it as accompaniment to the film. My friend and I also realized that the little kid from Jurassic Park is in The Social Network - all grown up and nerdish. My friend was like, "Who IS that?" and I was like, "I feel like maybe he used to be a kid..." and then we got it. Weird how people tend to grow up...

I love so much about that movie. How hacking is made to look exciting, how funny the twins are, how awesome it is when Eduardo finally loses his temper. Andrew Garfield is terrific.

This is one movie I whole-heartedly recommend to everyone. I can't wait to own it.

Black Swan (2010)

Wow.

Black Swan is intense.

It stays incredibly close with the protagonist, Nina, fantastically portrayed by Natalie Portman. She deserves all the buzz she's getting. We're with her - tight - the whole time. What she sees (whether it's real or not) we see. What makes her squirm or makes her jump makes us squirm or jump. If she's confused, we're probably confused. It's quite a feat of filmmaking - visually unique and incredibly creepy.

However, while I completely acknowledge the craftsmanship, I was incredibly on edge in an uncomfortable way from beginning to end. I realize that the viewer is supposed to be uncomfortable this way, constantly braced for what's to come, but truthfully, I find it exhausting and not so enjoyable to be so wound up.

I think I might appreciate it more a second time through when the jumpiness is neutralized. I think without the constant fear of surprise, I might better take in the obviously stellar visuals and superb performances.

It's a movie to be seen, for sure. I'm just not so sure it's a movie to be enjoyed by everyone.

It's A Wonderful Life (1946)

We decided to watch It's A Wonderful Life after Thanksgiving dinner because one of the roommates hadn't seen it before.

What can you say about this movie? It's sweet, it's well made, and it conjures nostalgic feelings of Christmas. I think this movie makes snow look better than almost any other movie. There's a kid named Zuzu, a guy who says HeHaw and talking stars.

It's funny - if you said to someone "Tell me what It's A Wonderful Life is about," I bet they'd say it's about a guy who gets to see what the world would be like if he had never been born. But the never been born bit is only the final act of the film. It may just be the film with the most setup on the planet.

Anywho, it's great. And if you don't at least get a knot in your throat, I judge you.

You Can Count On Me (2000)

You Can Count of Me is one of my favorite movies. It also contains my hands down favorite Mark Ruffalo performance.

It's a story about a brother and sister who have grown into very different people from the same tragic upbringing. The Oscar nominated screenplay is by playwright Kenneth Lonergan. His writing meshes seamlessly with the performances delivered by Mark Ruffalo and Laura Linney. The characters are incredibly well defined and real. There are amazing contrasts drawn between them, but the similarities are there too. Beyond all their clashes and irritations with one another, their love, their sense of family is nearly palpable.

The story is simple and straight forward. The chemistry between Mark Ruffalo and Laura Linny is fantastic. This also happens to be Rory Caulkin's first real role and his scenes with Mark Ruffalo are pitch perfect and touching.

I really can't say enough great things about You Can Count On Me. I highly recommend it.

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

Aaron Sorkin wrote Charlie Wilson's War and, as far as I'm concerned, Aaron Sorkin can do no wrong. Having said that, this was not my favorite Aaron Sorkin work.

Normally, screenwriters treat their audience as though they are dumb. They explain everything in great detail, often times, more than once. They make sure even the dimmest amongst us will not get lost so everyone can pay their money and enjoy the movie. Aaron Sorkin does not, and never has, written this way. From Sports Night to The Social Network, he treats his audience as intelligent individuals. And I greatly admire and appreciate that.

However. Charlie Wilson's War is about what's going on in the middle east during The Cold War. Guess what I know about what happened in the middle east during The Cold War. Zilch.

It's not that the movie was difficult to follow - as a story, all the parts were there. But as someone who is bringing nothing to the table in terms of previous knowledge, I felt uninvested and disconnected. Tom Hanks was just as perfect as he always is and Phillip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant as well. But the far reaching ramifications of what's going on - or even what the world was really like while it was going on in the first place - did not hit home with me.

There is one moment during the end of the film when Tom Hanks loses a fight to get schools built in Afghanistan. It is a glimmer of why Afghanistan becomes the hostile place we see on the nightly news today. Of why, after having defeated the Russians, things do not improve. That moment spoke to a citizen of 2010. I wish more moments had.

This was in no way a bad movie. Nothing Aaron Sorkin writes will ever be bad. I have such high expectations going into a story with Aaron Sorkin attached, if I'm not blown out of the water, I am disappointed. Usually, I am blown out of the water. This one time, I was not.

Dead Man Walking (1995)

I had very mixed feelings about Dead Man Walking. Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn were both phenomenal. Had it been the Susan Sarandon/Sean Penn show, I would have been far more into it. As it is, there are too many scenes, mostly early on, that play like a debate.

All films, by their very nature, are manipulative. But when you can feel that manipulation, something is wrong. It's what I hate about Nicholas Sparks stories. I could feel it in Dead Man Walking. I could feel a screenwriter concocting the most polarizing circumstances upon which to put the death penalty up for debate. It felt like an issue movie and that is bad bad bad. When you have such a specific issue being parsed in a film, you've got to almost subvert it. Hide it under the stories of real people.

When it was just Sean Penn and Susan Sarandan, talking, arcing, being, they felt like real people. It felt like reality. But scenes with the parents of the victims, with prison guards, with lawyers and politicians - all that felt like fat. And the score was terribly over the top and dramatic.

I will say - that screen cap up there? That was a neat effect - being able to see her reactions in the reflection of the glass. Pat on the back, Tim Robbins.

Never Let Me Go (2010)

Never Let Me Go was lovely. I don't want to spoil it - more for those who plan to read the novel. The novel keeps you in the dark longer than the film and that mystery is half the fun of the book.

I enjoyed the novel a great deal, and narratively, the movie stayed fairly close to the source material. Thematically, it strayed quite a bit. The film decided to focus entirely on the love triangle between its three central characters. This was a wise decision. Everyone understands the desire to have time with the person you love. It's in the novel but it IS the film and it changes the characters in subtle ways that allows them to be better understood by the audience. 

Keira Knightly and Andrew Garfield were unbelievably good. Carey Mulligan was also quite good, but hers was an understated performance that did not scream to be noticed the way the others did. The visual style was perfect. The subtlety throughout fantastic. I hate to talk in cryptics, but lots of people have an issue with this film. They don't understand why the characters do not run away. I think it is a valid point considering the movie as a stand alone film. This issue is addressed in the novel, and with an eye toward the answer, you can feel it in the film. But I suspect it's only there for the novel readers. Nonetheless, It's a lovely looking film with fantastic performances. I would recommend reading it first, but I believe it's a film worth seeing either way.

Ondine (2010)

I have mixed feelings about Ondine. I had pretty high expectations going in and I think they led to my being disappointed. The story is about a fisherman, played by Colin Farrell, who catches a woman in his fishing net. His daughter Annie, brilliantly played by adorable Alison Barry, comes to believe this woman is a Selkie (essentially a fancy mermaid). The story plays off this mystery from beginning to end, mostly providing evidence to support the theories of Annie. It has some very mild twists and turns, but ultimately, the filmmakers relied too heavily on their theme and let plot fall by the wayside. 

It's a lovely looking movie - the cinematography is perfect for the sort of magical realism feel it's going for. And all the performances are strong. The DVD didn't have English subtitles which I would have turned on given the choice. 

Overall, the film was worth seeing. With such a fun concept, I do wish they had done a bit more with the plot, but it's got a very sweet message about belief and hope. In fact, I found myself comparing it to Miracle on 34th Street at times. And, personally, I greatly enjoy Colin Farrell when he turns his acting ability on. Let me take this moment to recommend In Bruges - now there's a great Colin Farrell performance. 

The Son's Room (2001)

A happy tale The Son's Room was not. An Italian language film about a family that loses one of its members, this story is about guilt and acceptance. It's extremely simple in its structure and moves at a languid pace. The real knife cuts happen when the father imagines all the things he could have done differently the day his son died to prevent the accident. His wife is right when she says going down that path can only lead to madness. 

The story is mostly told from the father's perspective. And I suppose, to a degree, we wonder if his marriage will stick together. But the movie makes such an attempt at realism, we know from the beginning there will be no conclusions. This is a story that does not end, and this family, while changed forever, will continue on.

It's not the most unique film, nor the most exciting. I'm not sure exactly what about it earned it the Palm d'Or other than tragedy and sadness abound. I don't think I'm being harsh when I say it was just okay. It was exactly what you'd expect when you sit down to watch a story about a family that loses a son. 

The Social Network (2010)

The Social Network was brilliant. Perfect writing, mesmerizing acting, great humor, smart, fast, enjoyable, and above all, entertaining. This was the best film I've seen in the theatre in a long long time. Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg were spot-on. The score was enthralling. See it.

Dead Man (1995)

At the risk of damaging my film school cred, I'm going to be honest about this one. It took a few weeks of Dead Man sitting on my t.v. stand before I finally popped it into the DVD player. Jim Jarmusch is known for his independent, art house ways and as much as I like to play at film snob, these movies aren't exactly fun to watch. They take concentration, thought, attention, and you can't be anywhere near the realm of tired. I just haven't been in the mood.

I'll admit, Johnny Depp helps. But only a little. It was a smart, lyrical film with plenty to think about and plenty of vagueness. It swiftly moved to the shelf of my brain labeled "Glad I saw it. Won't watch it again." Johnny Depp's performance is fantastic. The black and white cinematography looked amazing. Lots of funny (not as in haha but as in odd) cameos were speckled throughout - Billy Bob Thornton, Iggy Pop, Gabriel Byrne (who I think was the only character it was easy to emotionally connect with) and Crispin Glover (who just can't seem to get away from creepy these days).

I'm sure there were themes and motifs that went woosh over my head (because I was a little too close to the realm of tired - I'll admit) but I'm pleased I can now stick it in my outgoing mail pile and send it flying back to Netflix.

Cache (2005)

Award winning director and Christopher Lee lookalike Michael Haneke (pronounced like the Hanukkah) came to my grad school while I was a student there. In preparation for his visit, we watched the original version of his film Funny Games (unfortunately for the world, there is a shot-for-shot English language remake done by Haneke himself). 108 minutes later, my entire MFA class wanted to run screaming through a plate glass window. Funny Games is intentionally mean spirited and manipulative. It's a commentary saying "Hey! You're a dumb member of the public!" It's terrible. So, since then, despite the glowing reputation Haneke has in the rest of the world and despite his film The White Ribbon being nominated for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars this past year, I've avoided his stuff like Swine Flu.

However, Cache had been sitting in my Netflix queue for ages. Due to my forgetfulness, Cache made it to the top of the queue and ended up in my mailbox. Thus, it had to be watched.

Happily, Cache was nothing like Funny Games. It had its foreign art house tendencies - super long shots, some naturalistic disengaged dialogue, vague insinuations about what's really going on, and no true conclusion. But the plot was engaging and I felt like I was seeing a part of the world I don't know. I know next to nothing about French/Algerian relations. This movie got me interested. And Juliette Binoche is one of the best actresses on the planet. I always enjoy seeing her.

The movie has a mystery type plot. A somewhat bored suburban family starts receiving tapes indicating that they're under surveillance. Eventually, drawings (like the one above) are included that pique the families suspicions about who is behind it all. It's hard to know who is in the right, whose side we should be on, and who, if anyone, is to blame for everything that transpires. It's interesting. It's defiantly worth seeing. I only wish Cache was the film they chose to show us before Mr. Haneke's visit. I wouldn't have had to waste my time shooting daggers at the man who had ruined 108 minutes of my life. See Cache. Run far far away from Funny Games.

Whatever You Say (2002)

Whatever You Say is French. The subtitlers can't seem to decide if it should be Whatever You Say or Anything You Say. I'm letting you know it exists out there as both so that you can avoid it.

I rented this because Guillaume Canet is the star (and writer and director - oof) and I enjoy looking at him. He's dreamy. I dig his vibe. But I do not dig his writing. This movie isn't anything. It's not really bad bad like Swingers bad. But it's not emotionally engaging in any way. Protagonist Bastien (Guillaume) is a dick. And he doesn't change. The plot shifts tones three times from dramaish to comedy to dark creepy weridness. There's some animation randomly thrown in for good measure. And an ending that settles nothing and means less.

In that picture, he's like "Wha? You didn't like my film? I'm French." I wouldn't waste your time with this one, kids. If you want to gaze lovingly at Guillaume and feel jealous of Marion Cotillard, go watch Love Me if You Dare. It's charming.

Shutter Island (2010)

I LOVE Shutter Island. If you disagree - you are wrong. It's better than Inception. If you disagree with that - again - you are wrong. This movie is the best movie I've seen in a long long time. I saw it in the theatre when it came out and I was enamored. I've recently purchased the DVD and let me tell you, it's even better the second time around. If you haven't seen it - stop reading. I'm about to go all spoiler on your ass.

The final thirty seconds of Shutter Island elevates it to brilliance. In case you didn't get it - Leonardo DiCaprio's character is sane in the end. He's pretending to be crazy because he'd prefer to be lobotomized than go on living knowing what he did. I'm sorry if I sound patronizing, but I do think it's missable. I know some folk who missed it. It's genius. It's the ending of Inception without douchebaggery. There's a final knife twist in your gut but it doesn't send people to the message boards screaming, "THE TOP WOBBLED!" It's a fantastic ending related to character and I appreciate that.

For my money, it's the best Scorsese film. If you disagree with that, I won't say you're wrong. I think film school can kill movies and it killed Taxi Driver and Mean Streets for me. And people emotionally connect to Goodfellas in a way that I never have. I find The Aviator overrated. And I flat out do not like Gangs of New York, Casino, or The Departed. But that's a topic for another post. Shutter Island benefits from an extremely tight story. Scorsese is allowed to do what he does best - create a mood, create tension, and direct actors. In other films, his plot is often so sprawling I'm rolling my eyes by the end no matter how impressed I was with the direction. Shutter Island does not have that problem.

I'd also like to address a problem a lot of people seem to have with Shutter Island according to the banal IMDb boards. Lots of people say they saw the ending coming. Here's the thing. From the beginning, there are really only two ways it's all going to go. Leo is crazy. Leo is not. Thinking, "Leo is crazy!" at some point during the movie does not mean you saw the ending coming. It means you're watching Shutter Island. The ending is a reveal no matter how you slice it. There is nothing in there that would allow us to determine Leo killed his wife who killed his kids and Mark Ruffalo is really a doctor and everyone is playing along and his name is an anagram and on and on and on. We're meant to question Leo's sanity. Oh you IMDb posters who think you outthought the movie - you're wrong. You were right where they wanted you.

And...because I can't help myself...those of you who think there is a case to be made for Leo actually being sane all along, i.e. Gandhi convinced a sane man he was crazy at the end, You Are Wrong. It is NOT open to interpretation. You Are Wrong and you're pathetic for thinking you're smarter than the film. You Are Wrong.

My rant is over. I'm sorry if it bored you. But I adore Shutter Island and I think it's painfully underrated - especially in the wake of the other Leo's-having-issues-because-his-wife-was-crazy movie. Shutter Island is the only Martin Scorsese movie I'll intentionally watch again and again and if you haven't seen it, fix that. Please. For your own sake.

My Own Private Idaho (1991)

My Own Private Idaho is a really great movie. I've mentioned before that River Phoenix is one of those tragic figures who I, along with legions of others who are too young to remember him being alive, are drawn to. Thirteen year old me was into the tragedy and the oh-so-dreamy face. Twenty-five year old me has a bit more perspective and knows he was just a really good actor who died too soon. Thirteen year old me did not understand or enjoy My Own Private Idaho. Twenty-five year old me thought it was crazy good.

It's one of those rare movies that walks the line of pretentious art-house and linear plot with relatable characters well. It's definitely not Good Will Hunting but it isn't Last Days either. I like the balance. Obviously, a great deal of the credit goes to River Phoenix. Perhaps less obviously, a great deal of the credit also goes to Keanu Reeves. I acknowledge that Keanu is not The thespian of our times, but a few roles he hits right on the money. He was born to be Scott Favor just as he was born to be Neo in The Matrix and Jack in Speed. The dynamic between Keanu and River is pitch perfect, perhaps a byproduct of their real life relationship.

I'd like to see this again. There was so much going on, I feel like I probably only absorbed 50% of it. Some of the weird Shakespearian language especially I'd like to reexamine. Finally, I've gone this whole post without mentioning Gus Van Sant which is practically criminal. He's great. All of his films, whether I like them or not, I'm glad I saw. I always know going in that he's got something to say. He's earned my trust. If his name is on it, I'll give it a whirl. If you haven't seen My Own Private Idaho - go see it. Unless you're 13. In which case, wait about ten years.

Morvern Callar (2002)

Morvern Callar was a character study. I've mentioned before how much I adore Samantha Morton and her performance as the title character in this film was indeed fantastic. But it's not a movie for everyone. The film stays extremely close to our protagonist, following her for just a short amount of time after a traumatic event in her life.

If you read a synopsis, it will say something along the lines of, "After her boyfriend commits suicide, Morvern Callar decides to present his novel to a publisher, claiming it as her own and stealing the money and credit." That's all I had read about this film before seeing it. FYI - that synopsis is crap. That happens, yes, but it is in no way what the movie is about. I would estimate that plot point takes up about fifteen minutes, five scenes max. The film is about her and how she copes (or doesn't cope) with loosing her boyfriend. It's a slow moving, languid film that lets you see what's happening without telling you what it means. A great deal is done to make Morvern seem like a real person and it's very interesting. This isn't a movie I enjoyed, per-se, but I think it is a well made, well acted film. If you enjoy Samantha Morton as much as I do, check this one out.