300

"Tonight, we dine in hell!" Wow. WOW. Spartan warriors with amazing fighting skills defending their kingdom wearing nothing but capes and codpieces...Zack Snyder's film 300, based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, is not only an achievement in comic-book adaptation, but also an achievement in new forms of special effects and the way in which a film is presented. Depicted is the building of Xerxe's empire, which leads to the Battle of Thermopolae where just 300 soldiers defend Sparta against millions of opposing forces. Basically what was so appealing when watching this film was how energetic and thrilled it left me feeling. Also, as it was such a MAN's movie, it just left me feeling really pumped and manly. I know this may sound odd as I am female, and I actually don't really believe that there are clear man movies and woman movies, as I LOVE war films, fantasy films (Star Wars anyone?) and most action films, which are all generally considered man movies. However, seeing 300 just felt like the perfect event when you want to feel like a man (little explanation: when I just really need to feel like a girl, I will take a bubble bath, do other forms of grooming like nail painting, hang out with other girly girls, eat chocolate, etc. and watching this movie feels like the ideal thing I would watch if I wanted to feel more like a man!). Much past the basic plot of defending Sparta, the visual presentation of the movie is what should be focused on (and pretty much is most of the film-this thing wasn't nominated for a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar if you catch my drift, though there are some great one-liners). The whole look of the film has an unrealistic, high contrast painted feel; interesting as it was live action (very locally; all the backgrounds were painted in). Another visual aspect of the film that was almost unrealistic was the bodies of the actors--meaning the perfectly sculpted and tone pecs, six packs, biceps, etc. Fun little tidbit: though I'm sure there was a bit of shading and enhancement done graphically with these perfect-looking muscles, the actors playing the Spartan warriors went through an incredibly intense training session with a professional trainer who made them all crazily strenuous and odd workouts, such as flipping tires repeatedly (and I don't mean car tires, I mean truck and tractor trailers), pulling huge weights with a rope over their shoulders, and other such activities. Whatever the orthodox method, it certainly showed on screen. Recommended film if you want to get in touch with the testosterone bits in your body!

An Inconvient Truth

In his global warming documentary, Al Gore asks the just question "Should we prepare for other threats besides terrorists?" After seeing this film (and I would hope actually before), no one can deny that the answer to this question is a definite YES. The facts, studies, and images that Gore has gathered are really startling. This film, shot in the form of Gore giving a talk to a lecture hall, outlines the immense need of the United States and the world to make some serious changes in regard to environmental policy. Global warming is leading to distastrous results for the world in the form of the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers around the world which in turn raises the temperature and level of the oceans, which in turn throws off the eco-system of the oceans and gets rid of more inhabitable places on Earth. The information in the film is extremely well-organized and well-presented and I would definitely say that everyone needs to watch this film and understand the implications of global warming. Gore for Environmentalist, 2007!

John Tucker Must Die

Although this is another teen rom-com, elements are added and taken away from the usually very formulaic movie-type to make this film slightly more unique. John Tucker Must Die is narrated by the star, supposed "nobody" Kate Spencer, who of course is actually quite cute and cool (in real life this person would not be friendless and shunned as she is in the movie). But her narration provides a funny addition to the already funny and fresh dialogue. Another element of the plot that you don't often find in teen flicks is the fact that she does not end up with a guy by the conclusion of the film. The story is that the cute captain of the basketball team (Jesse Metcalfe's John Tucker) is dating three (and more, actually) girls from different cliques(none of whom know that they are not the only one). They all find out about his player status and along with the new girl's (Kate) help, decide to destroy Tucker's repuatation. When this backfires, they move onto a new plan, trying to make him fall in love with Kate so that she can dump him and break his heart. Kate's conscience gets the better of her towards the end, and she and Tucker part as friends. One element of ridiculousness is that Tucker's brother, more of a genuine, sweet hunk than John himself, is supposed to be invisible in the school arena next to his popular brother. Early on, he takes an interest in Kate and she doesn't seem to realize, for some reason. The new and refreshing thing regarding "the other Tucker" as he is called is that at the end, he and Kate don't immediately start making out and living happily ever after. It is clear that they are back on the road to friendship and possibly more. A fun stay-in-on-a-Saturday-night flick!

Superman Returns

"Look-up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the virtual clone of Christopher Reeve, Brandon Routh!" Creepy....It's true, Brandon Routh does bear an uncanny resemblance to Christopher Reeve (the more original Superman than Dean Cain but not as original as George Reeves) in looks, mannerisms, and even ways of speaking. Frankly though, Routh seems to lack the sheer charm Reeve had as Clark Kent. In Bryan Singer's latest installment/remake (or whatever you want to call it), Superman is back, after a nearly five year absence, to find that the world has moved on without him, especially the woman he loves (Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane), who now has a child--who looks and acts eerily like Kent--and fiancee.
Many criticisms of this latest Superman flick have to do with the fact that there wasn't enough action. However, you'll often find that with action/fantasy/comic-book films that are at the beginning of their franchise. The fact is that the filmmakers have to introduce a lot of information about the characters: how they came to be who are they are, what the world is like. The same thing occurred in Batman Begins (and the original Batman), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, X-Men, and other franchise beginnings. I think it's extremely necessary and helpful to have this added information. With most of these "superheroes" and such, the audience wants to know why they choose to help people, what events in their lives shaped them, why they are often orphans, and how they came to have special powers or abilities (that's the coolest part-seeing the origins of their mutations or magic!).
Another response to the criticism of slowness or inaction is this: did you even SEE this movie? The plane sequence (Superman single-handedly stops a plane from crashing, holding it on his back), and especially the entire ending, with the beginning of the growth of a new island/continent made entirely of the only substance that can destroy Superman, kryptonite, are extremely exciting, action-filled parts. A second criticism that is often brought up with specifically comic-book movies is their cheesyness or sappyness. Comic books themselves are quite cheesy, and it definitely works for them, as they have very little space and very few words in which to convey what is going on, while being entertaining and funny. It is harder to translate that to film and still have audiences accept the cheese factor, however I think it is better when the spirit of the comic book is kept as intact as possible, cheese and all. I look forward to the next man of steel film immensely!

The Good Shepherd

Spanning over twenty years, The Good Shepherd focuses on the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency, more specifically one of its main architects, Edward Wilson, played by Matt Damon. As I mentioned in my review of The Departed, Matt Damon is really turning into one of my favorite actors. He produces another really engaging performance as a loner-type, who is somewhat emotionally detached from the world. These qualities finally make him the perfect candidate for his job.
Many felt that this film went on too long, however I didn't have a sense of it dragging in any way. So much had to be set up in the film: Edward's earlier life, his marriage to Clover (Angelina Jolie), the begining of his career, and the start of the C.I.A. That was all followed with the execution of several affairs and Edward's establishment in the organization. All this was important and interesting information regarding the subject matter of the film. Another thing I think DeNiro does well with the film (or that the editor does well, rather) is he cuts back between different flashbacks. As I have said before, it is a tricky thing to make a movie with this sort of non-linear timeline and keep an audience interested and not confused. In Spy Game, something similar occurs where Robert Redford is remembering points earlier in his life, some more recent and some in the more distant past. The Good Shepherd successfully helps the audience keep things straight. Little things help with keeping track of what time period the flashback is in, specifically the props and clothing style of the characters. Edward's glasses are probably the most obvious indicator of time period. Interesting little treats like that pop up throughout this film make a really quiet, intense, information-packed film.

The Last Kiss

This image is rather ironic, given the general tone and storyline of this movie. The Last Kiss follows nearly-thirty-year-old Michael as he has his immaturity meltdown; the one that supposedly most people have when they're leaving a certain era of their lives behind. Well blech. I'm guessing that my disdain for this film can already be guessed....this is one of those movies that I really dislike because I do not like any of the characters. However, even that criteria does not mean that I dislike the film...there are several films in which the characters certainly not likeable, yet I still love the film, such as Notes on a Scandal. In The Last Kiss, Braff's Michael engages in an affair with a brainless college bimbo (Rachel Bilson), even though, as he himself repeatedly says throughout the movie, he is already in love and in a relationship (and actually having a baby) with a wonderful, beautiful, intelligent, "perfect" woman (played by Jacinda Barrett). Barrett's parents themselves (Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner) have troubles as Danner has had an affair due to the neglect felt from Wilkinson in years past. So basically throughout this whole film I wanted to yell "WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE? HAVE YOU NO SELF CONTROL?" Seriously, there is a point where you can stop yourself from having sex with another person; in fact there are several moments when you can stop yourself from doing that. When you're with someone, especially for as long as the couple in the film is, you should only want to be with that person...if you don't feel that way anymore, there's something wrong with the relationship. I don't buy the bullshit excuses of Braff throughout the film that he got depressed because his life was planned out and nothing was new. What the hell is depressing about that? I guess I'm biased because I'm a planner. I love planning, it excites me greatly. For me, knowing what is coming, and planning for it is the exciting part-the anticipation! I love surprises as well for sure, but there is certainly nothing depressing about the future.
The only redeemable character who I liked in the film was Casey Affleck's character. It's probably because Casey and I have a special connection: I actually saw him playing basketball and then sitting in the driver's seat of a car mere inches away from me....wow, amazing. Anywho, a big two thumbs down for The Last Kiss. Other than Casey Affleck, the only cool thing about the movie was its soundtrack (of course if Zack Braff is involved, there will be a good soundtrack)-the movie is introduced by the song "Chocolate" by one of my favorite bands, the Irish group Snow Patrol!

Bobby

The Ambassador Hotel serves as the grand setting for this film, which focuses on the legacy of Robert F. Kennedy or "Bobby," specifically looking at the day before and the day of his assassination. With a star-studded cast and years of research done, this should be an excellent, riveting film....right?
This film was a personal project of Emilio Estevez, who wrote, directed, and co-starred in Bobby. He chose to focus on a very specific time period, in regard to Kennedy's life and beliefs. Bookending the film--and appearing a few times within the story itself--are a series of very well-gathered, well-chosen, and well-edited clips of real footage of Kennedy during his life, his campaign trail, and the events of the time period on which is focused (specifically the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War). Also the recreation of the early 1960s was very precise and fun to see. However, where the film starts to falter is Estevez's choice to focus on the lives of 22 fictional characters who were all staying in the Ambassador Hotel, all who were supposedly connected to Kennedy in some way. His other mistake was to actually act in the film himself, playing one of the weakest characters, and not that well anyway. I can see what he was trying to do: Estevez was trying to communicate the issues that were central to Kennedy's campaign/life and that were central to the early 1960s. He was trying to do this in a more personable way by using specific people to live these troubles; this method is where he fails. Several of these characters literally contributed NOTHING to the plot or to my understanding of Kennedy. Early in the film, in one moment of horror, I realized that I was looking at a bespectacled, hippie-dressed, long-haired Ashton Kutcher. My abhorrence aside for that young hooligan, his character served no purpose. He sold LSD to two young men who were supposed to be out encouraging votes for Kennedy and there continued to be several very long scenes showing the effects of LSD. Was I supposed to understand that drugs, specifically marijuana and LSD were considerable problems or were very popular at that time? Fine, point well-taken. Was it a big issue for Kennedy? I don't really know, and still don't know after this film.
Another pointless character was that of Heather Graham (another actor for whom I harbor intense dislike), who plays a switchboard operator in the hotel, who is also having an affair with one of the higher-ups of the hotel, William H. Macy. And that's it. That's all she does. Next: Helen Hunt plays a fairly snippy, insecure, airhead wife who yaps on about her damn shoes being uncomfortable until her husband (Martin Sheen-nepotism, anyone?) finally asks her to be real, a result which I'm still looking for. I could literally go on with more pointless characters and aspects, but let me just mention a few characters that I actually was able to tolerate. Played by Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan (whom I usually find rather irksome, but was just fine in this film) played a young couple who were getting married so that once Wood was drafted, he would be sent to Germany as opposed to Vietnam. They however, had little screen time. Freddy Rodriguez and Laurence Fishburne play fine characters (both workers in the kitchen) who engage in a number of interesting conversations of race issues in the 1960s. I finally realized what was SORT OF the point of all these people at the very end when a number of them are injured by Kennedy's assassin. Oops, guess I should have warned "Spoiler alert!" there....whatevs. I really think that Estevez could have done some sort of a biography or some such project using completely archive footage and first-hand interviews (such interviews were in the DVD's Special Features section) to achieve his goal much better. Oh and by the way, an example of the randomness in this film, Harry Belafonte has a larger-than-necessary cameo as an old man realizing he is old. Tally me banana.

The History Boys

"How do you define history, Mr. Rudge?" "It's just one fucking thing after another." In the film version of Alan Bennett's very popular play, The History Boys, eight young men of York try for highly coveted spots at Cambridge and Oxford.
Something that I actually found interesting about the trailer was that it presented the film as a hilarious, British romp about young students trying to get into college who are incredibly inspired by their (seemingly) history and literature professor. There is no mention of homosexuality, no mention of inappropriate relations between teachers and students, nor of the students' actual young, serious history professor. These are important (damn near the main) elements of the plot.
While I enjoyed this story to some extent, specifically the abundance of extremely British humour (heh heh-notice the appropriate spelling), I think that the people who made the play into a film had no business doing so. There was not enough of a difference, not enough of a translation to the format of a movie. I felt like I was watching a play that someone had done a good job of video-taping. I question whether any part of the actual script was changed in any way from the play. It is hard to articulate this criticism, but it literally did not feel like enough of a film; there were certain things that, had they appeared in a play would have been acceptable, but appearing in a film, were just not believable and did not fit. One such aspect was the random singing that occurred. I also think that there was not enough of an introduction to the main characters (those boys of history)--something one can get away with more in a play, yet in a film audiences need a bit more background to understand fully what the situation is. I did, however, greatly enjoy the soundtrack-who doesn't love 1980s good rock?! Certainly worth seeing, but rather on a stage than on the big screen.

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.