Philomena (2013)

4/5

Philomena is a tremendously tragic true story that pulls at your heartstrings and uplifts your spirit in profound ways. The movie follows Philomena (Dench) as an aging woman trying to reconnect with her adopted son, who was conceived out of wedlock and sold by the convent she was living in as a young woman. A reporter (Coogan) takes on the human interest story after he loses his job as a political correspondent and faces writer's block researching Russian history. So begins the unlikely duo's adventure to uncover the mystery of Philomena's lost son; and so begins their budding friendship.

The movie reveals pieces of information bit by bit to keep you hooked on the twisting, turning plot. The story alone is fascinating enough to make the movie engaging, but it is the performances that make the movie so compelling and ultimately so heartbreaking. We become intensely attached to the characters and we feel their pain and anger. The subject matter is challenging and difficult to stomach, but the pathos and humor infused into each character makes it all worthwhile. The actors reveal humanity at its best and its worst in portrayals that vibrate with truth and honesty. It is hard to separate yourself from the characters and their emotions once the film ends, but it gives us one of the most satisfying endings I can recall in recent memory. Philomena is a treasure to watch and to behold.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/

Skyfall (2012)

3/5

Skyfall, the 23rd Bond film since its creation 50 years ago, is certainly the most beautiful Bond film I've ever seen. And it's a prototypical Bond movie in many ways--filled with dry wit, exotic locales, and evil villains--but it's set in the new "hero as human" era of superhero movies that started with The Dark Knight. I'm certainly not an expert in the franchise, but my experience has always been of James Bond as a suave, debonair, practically invincible spy. Ever since the refresh with Casino Royale, we've seen him tortured and shot and just about beaten to death. This new bastardization of Bond is of an action hero who relies on brute force instead of gadgets, luck instead of planning. The 007 franchise has turned into a predictable summer blockbuster with a little star power and name recognition thrown in, but it's lost what made it special.

On top of all that, the movie itself is pretty mediocre, even with Sam Mendes at the helm. I will give it credit for having phenomenal cinematography (thanks to the incomparable Roger Deakins) and set pieces. But Mendes did not do enough to make it special again. Q and his gadgets came back, but in the most piddling, imbecilic way possible. The pacing suffered from an extra 30 minutes of explosions tacked on at the end. The plot is absolutely laughable. Granted, the plots have always been laughable, but that was part of their charm. Now they're preposterous in a realistic world instead of a dream world, which makes the inconsistencies and plot holes all the more embarrassing.

This is a plea to the producers: Stop this nonsense. Bond is not an action series; it's a spy series. Stop turning it into every other movie and bring it back to its roots. Update it without destroying it. Bond is more than what we're seeing here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

3/5

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a fairly predictable feel-good movie about a group of exceptionally uninspired characters who, for various personal reasons, all end up at the titular Indian resort for the elderly. One is looking for his long-lost love (Wilkinson), one is recovering from the loss of a loved one (Dench), one couple is examining possible retirement homes (Nighy, Wilton), one Lothario (Pickup) and one gold-digger (Imrie) are looking for partners. Oh, and of course, one is a racist who actually has a heart of gold (Smith), shuttled off to a foreign country for reasons well beyond her control.

All in all, the movie is entertaining and enjoyable. It has its moments of laughter and bittersweet tenderness. And it ends with a particularly stirring image. But for all the tearjerking, it's a rather simple exercise in plotting and characterization. It feels more like a postcard of India filled with caricatures than a believable story. The characters simply don't feel realistic; they change the whole course of their life based on a few days in a foreign country. But unlike this movie, people don't actually change so dramatically after going on a vacation and being exposed to new and different ideas. Even people who realize that something needs to change in order for them to be happy don't do it willy-nilly. (And I still can't for the life of me figure out why the racist lady all of a sudden becomes un-racist.) It's fine as far as entertainment goes, but it doesn't feel like it holds much substance in the end.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1412386/

J. Edgar (2011)

4/5

Clint Eastwood's biopic of J. Edgar Hoover is a compelling portrait of a unique character in American history. The plot follows the controversial rise of J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) to the director of the FBI--his anti-Communist crusades, criminal forensics, and government blackmail--and then analyzes how those same ideas eventually contributed to his public downfall. It tackles his personal relationships and his political ambition in equal parts, forming a tapestry of contradictions and dichotomies inherent in everybody but rarely projected onto the big screen with such clarity and precision. It chronicles his complex love for his mother (Dench), his secretary (Watts), and his number two man (Hammer) with tenderness and honesty instead of the gaudy spectacle and homophobic fantasies that seem to have incessantly plagued his reputation.

DiCaprio's understated performance is remarkable, providing depth and subtlety alongside rage and hidden feelings. He is able to generate empathy for a hard, rigid, oftentimes unlikeable man. His portrayal serves as the foundation for this phenomenal film. While the supporting cast throws in stellar performances, they quickly fall by the wayside in the grand scheme of things. Without DiCaprio in the lead, J. Edgar would still be a good movie, but it would be a forgettable movie as well.

The movie has its fair share of imperfections. Eastwood did not do enough to lift the screenplay out of its decidedly literary beginnings and translate it to the medium of film. There are often "profound" ramblings by Hoover--unrelated to the images on screen--that were arbitrarily lodged in anytime there wasn't dialogue. The timeline would flip between eras too eagerly, making it difficult to get a sure footing on the time and place of certain events. The cinematography was post-processed too much, giving it an inconsistently old-timey look that felt disingenuous. Minor side characters, like Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were cast to mimic the famous political figures instead of to act as them. They focused on the accent instead of the words and the motivations behind the words. Despite these minor niggles, this is a terrific film and should not be missed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/

Nine (2009)

4/5

I am a huge fan of Rob Marshall's Nine. It has been poopooed on by Negative Nancy film critics on each and every print and web publication, but I don't really care for their elitist perspectives, and neither should you. Nine is engaging, entertaining, and enlivening. It is full of energy and style and does not apologize for being in your face. I loved absolutely every minute of it. The movie is an adaptation of a Broadway musical based on a classic Italian film by Federico Fellini called 8 1/2. For any true lover of cinema, you are pretty much required to see 8 1/2, but that doesn't mean you're required to appreciate it or even like it. For my part, I both liked and appreciated it, and yet I find Rob Marshall's Nine to be a more accessible and more enjoyable version. No, it's not "better" than 8 1/2, but I feel more inclined to watch Nine with my friends (especially non-cinephiles) than 8 1/2.

The plot follows director Guido Contini (Day-Lewis) as his producer is pressuring him to make a new movie by creating a gigantic set, a poster, and a press conference even though Contini has no script and no concept. Stressed out, he runs away from Rome and tries hiding in a spa resort, asking his mistress (Cruz) to come while suggesting his wife (Cotillard) stay home. Eventually his producer finds him and brings the crew and set over so that he can continue his work. I'll leave the rest of the plot unstated and let you enjoy the rest of the movie yourself.

The acting was magnificent, as expected based on the Oscar-heavy cast. Marion Cotillard is a marvel, and I have become a complete fan of her acting after seeing this movie. She is soft and tender and fierce and sweet and everything you can imagine all wrapped up in an angelic visage and portrayed to perfection. I don't think I would have loved this movie nearly as much had she not been cast. Technically, the movie is more than competent. From his experience adapting musicals, I expected the costuming and makeup to be excellent--and it was. However, the cinematography, lighting, and editing impressed me because I never considered Marshall to be a particularly cinematic filmmaker. But here he has proved me wrong. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the songs blew me away. They're catchy and powerful and memorable.

However, the picture is not all rosy. I feel like some characters were miscast, specifically Daniel Day-Lewis. He does a fine job to the best of his ability, but he just doesn't fill out the character as I would have expected and would have liked. Javier Bardem (Marshall's original choice) would have been perfect, and would have given Cotillard a run for her money as the best part of the movie. Additionally, Nicole Kidman's role was relatively minor and the love between her character and Day-Lewis's didn't resonate as being believable. Still, even as it is, the movie is phenomenal. Watch it in theaters while you still can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0875034/

Quantum of Solace (2008)

3/5

The new James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, has just as many problems as the last Bond movie, if not more, and not too many improvements. There are no gadgets. There's no Q or Moneypenny. He doesn't make love to the main actress. And he's not really a spy--this was James Bond playing Jason Bourne. (There was even a fight scene that almost replicated the kitchen fight scene in The Bourne Ultimatum.) The movie starts about an hour after Casino Royale left off, but since I didn't remember all the characters and double-crosses from that movie, this one had a far more incomprehensible plot than it needed to. (Think Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.) When will the creators get some sense into them and bring back the old James Bond we know and love? It's been formulaic for 45 years because people love the formula.

I did like a few things. The title sequence in particular was very retro and very cool. It was a truly action-packed movie, with little time to catch your breath. I thought the directing was far superior to what it's been in the past, especially with regards to editing and cinematography. At the very least, these two latest Bond movies are better than Die Another Day, which I had the displeasure of catching on TV last night and wholeheartedly recommend you avoid at all costs. But Quantum of Solace is an entertaining flick, so check it out if you're a Bond fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/

Casino Royale (2006)

4/5

I was expecting this Bond movie to be particularly good, since they usually are when they cast a new actor to play Bond, but I was let down. Don't get me wrong; it's not bad, it's just not as good as it should have been. It seemed to follow the trend of humanizing superhero characters as in the two Spiderman movies and Batman Begins, which took away from the Bond we know and love and have grown up with. Why are there no gadgets in this movie? The music was a heavy-handed attempt at being emotive, which just made it ludicrously melodramatic in some places, and mediocre at best in others. It was much too long--its ending felt longer than the ending(s) for the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Yes, all 13 of them.

The action in the beginning was amazing. Absolutely flawless. The women are unbelievably sexy and the cars are stunning. The pacing up until the finale is surprisingly well done, and Campbell is able to switch moods effortlessly. The acting is phenomenal, something you don't usually see in a Bond flick. It's a real treat to see Bond's transformation from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. It's definitely a good addition to the Bond lineage, I just don't know if I like the direction it's going.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/