Babel

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu seems to have an interest in complicated, inter-woven stories of despair and sticky, unhappy endings. His latest film, Babel, is no exception. It is set over the course of just a few days, but in three different geographical areas, focusing on several different seemingly unconnected families.
I understand that the point of the film is to show how connected everyone in the world is in small and large ways, and I thought it was fairly interesting to watch at points, but I did not find myself blown away, like several people I talked to were. Was it all that original? Was it all that powerful? Frankly I found other films that featured the interconnectedness of virtual strangers, like Love Actually, more interesting and enjoyable. Maybe this is really simplistic, and maybe it is because I am a sucker for English rom-coms, but I guess I would rather see Colin Firth learning how to say "My god, I have a terrible stomachache. It must have been the prawns!" in Portuguese and Hugh Grant shaking his ass to the Pointer Sisters than Gael Garcia Bernal abandoning his aunt in the desert and Brad Pitt playing the insensitive, racist upper-class white American male.
I could see that the acting by all was very well done, and the editing (a tricky thing in films like this) was also well-executed as I was very able to keep on track with what was happening even though the scenes cut among various times and spaces very haphazardly and quickly. However, at the end I found myself thinking "So what?" I found Babel to be a well-made film, but for me it wasn't quite enough to hold my interest to really think about it much past the viewing of it.

Dreamgirls

Dreamgirls follows the rise and fall of a girl group from the 1960s, Supremes-style. Among its cast are several veterans as well as several newbies. They all share the same quality of having amazing pipes, belting out soulful tunes of love, failure, and general silliness. The look of the film is rather glamorous, capturing the colorful and shiny feel of the 1960s and the flashy, disco style of the 1970s. Where the film sort of falls off for me is in the aspect of making it an actual musical. I am a big fan of musicals (most of which were made into films from the original popular plays), especially some of the older ones such as Hello, Dolly!, My Fair Lady, and The Sound of Music, and even some of the newer, more unorthodox ones such as Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of William Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Lost (where Branagh sets the play during World War Two and the characters periodically burst into Cole Porter and Frank Sinatra classics). However, I feel like this film seems awkward in its transitions from speaking to singing. Whatever people have to say about Rob Marshall's Chicago, I still think the placing of songs was very creative and well done; I never questioned "Wait, why are they starting to sing now? This doesn't really work?" This thought ran through my head several times during Dreamgirls. Maybe I had trouble buying the whole musical world as well because I just didn't enjoy the music that much. This surprised me greatly as I love the music of Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, The Temptations, The Supremes, and other similar groups from that era, but I just couldn't get that excited about most of the tunes in this story. All in all, a fairly enjoyable film, but unless you're really into musicals, soul music, or Beyonce, I would save it for DVD, if even that.

Children of Men

Imagine a world where women have lost the ability to conceive and hopelessness has replaced the joy of having children. This is the world that is portrayed in Alfonso Cuaron's latest film Children of Men. Starring Clive Owen, Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Claire-Hope Ashitey, the story takes place in a futuristic version of England, where immigrants or people deemed "non-British" are being systematically forced to flee the country or at least pushed to segregated ghettos. Meanwhile, the somewhat apathetic Clive Owen character Theo is pulled into an operation to provide safe passage for a young woman who is miraculously pregnant, the first in roughly eighteen years.
This idea of a cynical, hopeless society controlled by a totalitarian government of a suddenly super-powerful Britain appears in the recent V for Vendetta as well. This interesting Orwellian outlook on the future reflects the mood of many people in this day and age. However, I think that the presentation (done primarily under British influence) of that sentiment in this form--dramatic, almost science fiction--is far more sophisticated and convincing than is the general American model of communicating essentially the same idea through comedic fluff. While it is quite entertaining to see our current president imitated and mocked (in films such as Paul Weitz's 2006 release American Dreamz), I find it far more interesting to see what some people feel our world could be heading toward, even if some aspects are a bit extreme. The editing and filming added to the chaos of the story. For most of the film, there are fairly short shots that jump around a bit from person to person and point of view to point of view. Finally toward the end as an eerily calm scene arises, there is one of the longest ongoing shots ever produced that truly adds to the effect of the situation. While most of the characters are rather underdeveloped, in a way it is unecessary to develop them too much, with more of the focus on the ideas of the story rather than the roles. Definitely recommended for a grim, intense, and moving look at the future!

The Departed

EPIC. That's the word that best sums up Martin Scorcese's latest huge gangster thriller. A cop acts as a criminal, a criminal acts as a cop, a mob boss is an informant, and they all discover the truth about each other and must race to disprove everyone else . . . in a nutshell. However, so much more goes into this complicated labyrinth of "rats," investigations, loyalty, and deception. Arguably, there are three main stars to the film: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, and Jack Nicholson. However, the supporting cast of Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, and Martin Sheen, among others, provide fine comic relief and stellar performances.
The best qualities of The Departed are fairly vague and unspecific--excellent acting; sharp, humorous dialogue; interesting, well-shot cinematography--but the fact that they are all in the same film and that they complement each other so well is the real triumph. Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio continue to blow me away. While both actors are extremely enjoyable to watch in lighter or sweeter roles (such as Damon as the adorable and hilarious Linus in Ocean's 11, Ocean's 12, and Ocean's 13, or DiCaprio as the incredibly romantic, exciting, and selfless Jack in Titanic) I think their real strength and potential are in the angrier, more complicated roles that they attack with such force and passion. This has been seen in DiCaprio's earlier work in films such as This Boy's Life, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Marvin's Room, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, and most recently, Blood Diamond. Damon's body of work is equally impressive, showcasing his talent in films including School Ties, Courage Under Fire, The Rainmaker, Good Will Hunting, Saving Private Ryan, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Bourne series, Syriana, and most recently The Good Shepherd. I think it is interesting and all the more impressive that these actors can very convincingly portray these types of characters when they themselves do emit rather nice boy vibes and images with their baby-faced looks.
Other enjoyable aspects of the film are certainly the surprises, and also the violence. I mean, of course the violence isn't enjoyable to watch, but what I mean to say is that I don't think there is a gratuitous or ridiculous amount, as there can be in many films of this type. Well done, Marty!

The Prestige

"Every great magic trick consists of three acts...there's a third act called 'The Prestige'; this is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before." The Prestige, Christopher Nolan's latest anti-chronological flick tests the boundaries of magical realism. Nolan's CV includes several enigmatic films such as Memento and the new Batman series, with Batman Begins finished and The Dark Knight in pre-production. He and his brother Jonathon Nolan make an excellent writing team, penning all the aforementioned films with the exception of Batman Begins. The Nolan brothers' specialty is creating complicated, unique, clever plots that always play with time and order in interesting ways. The Prestige focuses on two magicians in turn-of-the-century London whose competitive friendship quickly becomes a ruthless rivalry to come up with the most original trick. Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) each have intense personalities, Angier with his obsession to be better than Borden and the latter with the secret of his amazing trick. Jackman plays up this obsessive nature very well, clearly showing the evolution of a talented young magician into a crazed man who lets his obsession take over his life. Bale also does an fine job portraying the double life of the brooding, mysterious, confident other magician. Michael Caine is excellent as usual, even though he is basically repeating his role of Alfred from Batman Begins.
Editing in this film is key to keeping the audience understanding the events of the story even through flashbacks. The flashbacks themselves were not even presented in chronological order. What was so impressive about the way the story was told was that even while starting the film at the near end and continually looking back on what has already happened, the audience never manages to discover the secrets of the magicians until the filmmakers want the audience to. Even during these complicated flashbacks, I was able to keep straight what was happening and when it happened. The only weak link in this whole equation was Scarlett Johansson. While her character itself was not largely pivotal to the plot, her portrayal was not terribly interesting either. I try not to compare an actor's other roles when judging their performance in one particular film, but I am just having trouble really seeing the difference between Johansson's latest roles or even seeing her talent in any of these roles (ex. The Black Dahlia, Scoop, The Island, etc.). Other than that little hiccough, I would say another outstanding film from the Nolan brothers....I can't wait to see The Dark Knight!

Blood Diamond

Family. Separation. Sacrifice. Betrayal. All common themes in many movies in all different genres. However, few movies can claim this level of realism nor can claim a subject that is based on a true experience that is occurring as we speak. Edward Zwick's Blood Diamond focuses on the diamond trade and civil war in Sierra Leone, with a specific look at three people involved in three very different ways. Djimon Hounsou plays Soloman Vandy, a fisherman taken from his village when it is attacked and he is forced to work in the diamond mines. It becomes his mission to find his family by any means necessary. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Danny Archer, a South African smuggler whose mission is to find the ultimate diamond that will get set him up for life and get him off the continent of Africa. Jennifer Connelly plays Maddy Bowen, an American journalist whose mission it is to find and publish viable facts about the diamond industry that will make the world stand up and make an effort to put a stop to it. The two male leads stand out with very emotionally taxing roles. DiCaprio dons a South African accent and demeanor to match, which, along with his honest but not slimy portrayal of a man out for money shows his ability as an excellent actor. Hounsou as well demonstrates his versatility. While playing the poor, ideally "simple" African peasant, Hounsou still manages to demonstrate real strength, intelligence, passion, and value. This is contrary to many other films where the subject matter is supposedly that of "real" Africa yet the most important and developed characters are white Africans or white Westerners, with black Africans playing either the servants or silly proteges of the main stars.
Filming-wise, it was even more intense than I expected. I knew going into it that a film about the civil wars of Sierra Leone and diamond smuggling would be intense, however there was even less "downtime" than I expected, with non-stop action. Action in the sense of not just violence, but of movement, and major events, with few backward and forward from subplots to the main plot. While this film would ideally be one to heighten awareness of African troubles, as in the strain of Hotel Rwanda, I'm not sure if this will do it. In fact, I'm not sure how many more films or indeed how many more actual conflicts, diseases, coups, and natural disasters it will take for people to actually start caring.

Little Children

Todd Fields' latest drama Little Children is a great addition to the realistic suburbia genre. Fields' own previous film In the Bedroom can be included in this category, along with other films that stretch that idea to a comical level, such as The Burbs. Little Children follows the mundane and disappointing lives of Sarah Pierce and Brad Adamson, both stay-at-home parents in unsatisfying marriages. Sarah is married to a self-absorbed, distant corporate type who prefers to pleasure himself rather than having anything to do with his wife. Brad meanwhile battles with feelings of job inadequacy while his working wife dictates every aspect of his life, right down to whether or not he can own a cell phone. After meeting as a result of a bet (Sarah's fellow prudish playground mothers bet her she cannot get Brad's phone number), an instant connection is felt between Sarah and Brad, and so their affair begins. A subplot of this main affair is the addition to the suburban area of a man convicted of sexual abuse of children named Ronnie. Finally, the two stories have little to do with each other, crossing over through acquaintances of Brad and Sarah, and their own concern because of their children.
There are a couple of somewhat unusual methods used in the making of this film that add greatly to the telling of the story. One is that there is a narrator, and even more, he is not a character in the film. His words allow insight into some of the oddities of what the characters are thinking, while not being too obvious. It is like the best of two worlds: reading a book gives the audience fun little tidbits that cannot always be communicated on film, and this witty, simple, and not overpowering narrative track tells some of these interesting details. The second element is the lighting of the film. Much of it is set outside and while there are a couple of big scenes set in the rain, it is for the most part sunny. However, what struck me was that the whole film still felt extremely dark, lighting-wise. Obviously the subject matter added to this effect, but even in the sun, colors were not super bright, and the characters were never very illuminated or backlit. This lighting decision added to the overall simplicity of the film, communicating moreso how unhappy and bored the characters were, which was also shown with the sort of slow-moving scenes. The plot was not slow-moving per se, just the actual scenes and dialogue themselves.
What I think is an indication of how well this story is presented is the fact that I was actually very invested in all of the main characters. I liked Brad and Sarah, and I felt real pity for Ronnie. This is amazing because as individuals, they are certainly not model humans. Brad is immature in regards to his relationship with his wife and son and is frankly rather cowardly, making no effort to stand up for himself or really change his life. Sarah meanwhile doesn't really even seem to like her daughter and also makes no real effort to change her life or marriage. On top of these character flaws, Brad and Sarah both engage in adultery for quite a period of time with no real concern for how it would affect their childrens' lives. The character of Ronnie sort of speaks for itself: he is a disgusting, perverted, highly disturbing man who fantisizes about children. However, it is his recognition of his flaws and his actions, remorse, and loneliness at the end of the film that evoke feelings of pity. I also found this film to be much more realistic than some other dramatic "slice of life" movies. In many of these other stories, there is such an effort to not have a neat ending and to be truer to life that they overshoot how things really do end. The ending of Little Children was not overly dramatic. Everyone lost something and their lives all took different turns to what they had planned over the course of the film, however they all gained some sense of realization and redemption, or at least acceptance.
An odd and at times very disturbing film, there was still a definite sense of realism, which left me satisfied.

The Last King of Scotland

"If I could be from anywhere except Uganda, I would be a Scot! I love *everything* about Scotland!... Apart from red hair, which your women may find attractive but which in Africa is quite disgusting." Just one of several verbal gems from Kevin MacDonald's latest film, spoken by Forest Whitaker's character, Idi Amin. The story follows a young Scottish doctor named Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) bored with his planned out family doctor life, who decides to find adventure in the first random country on which his finger lands on a spinning globe. The naive, idealistic, and somewhat immature young Scot arrives in Uganda, surprised to find himself in the middle of a military coup that is supposedly supported by all the "peasants" of the country. After a run-in with the country's new leader, Amin, Garrigan impresses the military general by treating a minor wound as well as making a proud declaration of his Scottish heritage. Garrigan is then "invited" to be Amin's personal physician. Shortly after agreeing, Nicholas realizes his "adventure" has turned into a nightmare, with him becoming an accomplice in an extremely harsh dictatorial regime. However, his attempts to escape are futile. Whitaker stands out as the incredibly passionate, manipulative, and unapologetic dictator who caused the deaths of more than 300,000 people during his reign. McAvoy himself does a fine job communicating the ignorance of members of the world outside of Africa, with their lack of understanding and their lack of caring for the events and the daily life experiences of Africans in several countries of the continent.
This is without doubt, one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. This is mostly due to two of the most graphic and *ahem* creative physical mutilation scenes I have ever seen in a film. I personally have, I believe, a rather high tolerance for violence, war films being one of my favorite genres to watch. However, at one point, I could not look at the screen for fully three minutes or more. Be aware of that when/if you view this film. These two scenes were not the only aspect of the film that made it disturbing. The entire film (aside from the beginning shots of swimming in a tranquil Scottish loch) is very stressful. Interestingly, this frantic feeling was created not only by the content of the story but also by other elements of the filming. Specifically the music (of course), but also the editing and cinematography. Scenes became shorter and quicker, and shots were made from more extreme angles with a quickened pace and more intense angles, music, and colors. All that being said, even though I left the film physically shaking and somewhat in a state of shock, I thought it was an extremely powerful, amazing, and excellent film. Highly recommended!

Notes on a Scandal

Notes on a Scandal brings a whole new meaning to the idea of work colleagues. Adapted by Patrick Marber from a book of the same name originally written by Zoe Heller, the story translates well onto screen. The plot is told almost completely from the perspective of history teacher Barbara Covett (Judi Dench), whose dry, witty, biting, and sometimes cruel narration of her journal entries indicate a growing interest in the new art teacher at the London secondary school at which she teaches. Sheba Hart, the naive newbie (Cate Blanchett), mistakenly befriends Barbara, furthering the already growing interest and attachment being formed in Barbara's mind. Catastrophe strikes when Barbara discovers the affair Sheba is having with Steven Connolly, one of her 15-year-old students (Andrew Simpson). This discovery suddenly gives Barbara a hold over Sheba, being the only one to know this information, and the only one with the power to ruin Sheba's career, family, and in essence her life. Barbara seems to find this discovery comforting in a way, their secret binding them deeper and stronger than anyone else in their lives.
Dench plays the desperate loner teacher very impressively, holding a cold air the whole film, creating a truly disturbing character who is not only destructive and manipulative, but is so aware of everything she is doing, making her methods and actions all the more unbelievable. Blanchett convincingly portrays Sheba as someone who is not sick or perverted, but a woman who is drawn in by the younger man (much younger in this case) for reasons somewhat beyond her control. The young Simpson himself does a fine job of showing he is not just a character with a schoolboy crush, but a young man with a few more deceptive layers to him. Bill Nighy deserves a mention, as he plays the cast-aside older husband of Sheba.
Barbara's narrative is used throughout the film. In the middle of the story, Sheba's flashbacks of her encounters with Steven cut through the narrative, creating a nice break from the harsh and chilling perspective of the near sociopathic Barbara.
Recommended for someone who enjoys great performances, an interesting look at the English secondary school system, and for someone who likes to be disturbed!

The Queen

Just as the academic year begins around September as opposed to January, the Hollywood year, or the year for movies that are Oscar contenders, begins around late February or early March. That extremely glorified awards show signifies both the culmination of the Oscar season as well as the start of a new competitive year. The Academy usually follows a fairly obvious formula of films they praise and films they shun. Though I do not place great importance on the opinions of these Academy members, I do still enjoy viewing as many of the nominated films as possible as most of them are quality works. With the nominations just announced, my already long list was lengthened with films I felt a real urge to see, especially before the Oscars.
One such film was The Queen, directed by Stephen Frears and starring Helen Mirren as the monarch, James Cromwell as Prince Philip, and Michael Sheen as Tony Blair. The film begins with Blair's appointment as Prime Minister in 1997, which was quickly followed by the shocking and untimely death of the former Princess, Diana. There was great general disapproval of the reaction of the royal family to the death, as they made no appearances or statements in the days immediately following the Princess' demise. On the persistent advice of the Prime Minister as well as the increasingly dismal newspaper headlines, the Queen eventually agrees to reject the customs with which she was brought up and publicly grieve with the rest of the country.
Frears gives us a unique focus on the Queen of England in the days following Diana's death, rather than a distant, prim and proper view of the monarchy. The approach greatly humanizes the Queen, as does Mirren's impressive embodiment of her. Mirren not only captures the seeming mannerisms and look of the Queen, but communicates her genuine reasons for reacting to the death of the Princess as she did. Michael Sheen also does an excellent job of capturing the early sentiments of the Prime Minister and his officers in the infancy of his administration; he also bears a striking resemblance to the young, jovial leader of Britain, which doesn't hurt.
The film has a sprinkling of real TV footage, both of the Princess and of events following her death, as well as manufactured TV footage for the film, such as of Sheen with the rest of the Blair family arriving at Downing Street (the location where the Prime Minister works). Adding to these interesting shifts in medium is a powerful, somewhat mournful score as the camera sweeps over the thousands of flowers layed outside Buckingham Palace or the hundreds of people crying and despairing in the streets of London. Some of the film's only oddities, however, are the sweeping aerials of Scotland, where the royal family was residing at the time of Diana's car accident. Though extremely enjoyable and breathtaking, I was somewhat at a loss to figure out quite how these frequent Scottish mountain views fit in with the story, other than to provide natural transitions.
Over all, this was very well made and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys great performances, witty English humour, and a new take on an event that affected the world at the time of its happening.