Beginners (2011)

Dir: Mike Mills

Writer: Mike Mills

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Christopher Plummer, Mélanie Laurent

I enjoy the quietness of this film. The premise of the movie is simple: a father (Plummer) tells his son (McGregor) that he is gay after his wife dies. He's been gay his entire life. The son not only deals with learning this, but the fact that his father is sick as well. There's a bit of a love story in there, too. In this day and age where films with this kind of plot are usually filmed with the intention of reaping all the manipulative sentimentality they can, Beginners feels genuine and quiet and unassuming. It guides you through a personal story with an intimate lense.

Director Mike Mills accomplishes much with his simplicity. Aparently based on his own life and family, the movie makes my heart stir without making me squirm. Here's just a guy trying to figure it out; 'it' being life, and the guy being just like everyone else. It's sad and poignant but moving in a non-corny way (that says a lot if you know that there is a dog that McGregor talks to through the movie). It was my favorite film of 2011.

Christopher Plummer will surely go on to win an Academy Award for this; nobody else in the category holds a flame to his deep performance. I just wish it was recognized more for the great movie it is--it's just too quietly not tooting it's own horn, but for that I treasure this movie.

The Best: Christopher Plummer as Hal. I can't say more about his wonderful, admirable, and yes--quiet--performance.

Fact: Director Mills is married to writer/director/actor Miranda July in real life. Last summer she also released a film called The Future, which had a cat named Paw Paw that spoke as narrator. They both released movies with verbal pets! Beginners featured the dog Arthur's dialogue in subtitles.

Rating: ********** (10 out of 10)

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Dir: Marc Webb
Writers: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel

When I first saw (500) Days of Summer, I was fully prepared to write it off as a quirky rom-com without much to it. However, it surprised me in its clever storytelling and assessment of modern romance. More interestingly, the movie acts as a sort of Rorschach test.

The anonymous narrator says from the beginning: "The is a story about love, but this is not a love story."

The relationship of Tom and Summer spans 500 days, and because it is told through the eyes of Tom (with varying amounts of sad moments and funny, imaginary asides), the audience inevitably will root for him. Upon rewatching this, I realized how it really resonates with my generation more than it might with others. It's more than just the Smiths references - it's the fact that Tom builds a relationship on a girl liking "the same stupid crap" he does (Chloe Moretz playing his all-knowing little sister spouts truths throughout the movie).

Many relationships these days begin because of shared interests, but I get the feeling that finding a mutual, obscure band to bond over was not such a prevalent romantic inspiration until these more modern years. And in another part of the movie Tom blames greeting cards, pop music, and movies for leading him astray about romance - and that may be the most universal moment in the whole movie.

Because though Summer embarks on a sort-of relationship with Tom, from the beginning she tells him she does not believe in love, she does not want "anything serious," and when he asks her what they are doing later into their time together, she doesn't give in and tell him what he wants to hear. They continue on, and she breaks it off with him in a scene where she calls herself the Sid to his Nancy - the scene happens early on, and it's hilarious.

The writer Neustadter apparently based this in part on his own relationship, and cringingly calls her out in the opening credits. But the breakup scene happens early on because the movie carries it's audience back and forth between day (1) and (500). We see the promising beginnings to the bleak post-breakup days.

The movie is a Rorschach test because people opine so differently on who they relate to or side with. Some people come away with thinking Summer is a complete and total bitch and Tom is their dream guy. The movie does a good job of making these characters three-dimensional, because I don't think you can make any black-and-white decisions about these two personalities. And Summer, I believe, is so misconstrued as "the bitch" to some people, I can't grasp it - do people hate her character because they are Toms that have been done in by a pretty girl before? Do they not see all of her verbalized views of the non-relationship? Did they also watch The Graduate the way that Tom did in the movie?

Summer is not the villain here - there are no villains - but it's quite telling if someone watches this movie and makes her out to be the bad guy. That's someone that can't see what's right in front of them at all. They are missing the social cues. And Tom, for much of the time, does too. He's the romantic, she's the realist - and that's all there is to it. I think people get a little too caught up in the gender roles we normally see in film, and this movie turns it around.

Fortunately, that's what makes the movie layered and interesting. Not everybody who falls in love are meant to be together forever. Also, it's the prettiest I've ever seen Los Angeles, the editing is perfect, and the script entreats you to consider your own romantic dealings. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel play the main characters wonderfully, and Webb (previously a music video director) makes a strong and beautifully shot feature-length directorial debut. (And bonus points for a GREAT soundtrack!)

The Best: Zooey's all blue-eyed beauty and adorableness, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt knocked it out the park with his emotional wavering between happy-dancing and all-out depression. (He also "knocks it out of the park" during some choreography in a hysterical song-and-dance number!)

Fact: I had noticed all the blue in the movie (particularly the outfits of all those dancers!), but apparently it was a director decision to do so in order to bring out the color of Ms. Deschanel's very blue eyes (which is very hard to miss!).

Rating: ********* (9 out of 10)

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Dir: Woody Allen
Writer: Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates

I remember seeing this movie in the theater last June with my best friend Kelly and my dad. I knew hardly anything about the plot, just that the trailer showed off a great cast and there's nothing I don't love about a movie set in Paris - one of those cities I have felt romantic about all my life, despite never having traveled there. It's all the cinema's fault, really, what with Before Sunset, Moulin Rouge, Amelie, and the Godard and Truffaut and Deneuve.

There's also something about the 'oldness' of Paris. Living in the United States, there's not exactly castles and centuries-old monuments at every turn. Paris, like many parts of Europe I've seen in films, looks like it's out of another era. Which is the perfect setting for this movie.

Owen Wilson plays the screenwriter Gil Pender, who loves Paris and is trying to complete his novel. His novel, and he as a person, seem to revolve around the idea (and ideals) of nostalgia. His fiancé - played to wonderfully bitchy effect by Rachel McAdams - is not amused by Paris, nostalgia, or his attempts at being a novelist (she prefers his lucrative "hack of a screenwriter" career).

I've not been a fan of Woody Allen films for a while - their protoganists, even when not played by him, are usually just as neurotically annoying (save for Vicky Cristina Barcelona), but Wilson plays those neuroses down with his own brand of charm and wonder. I was, indeed, charmed by the whole film. Part of that was the locale, but the other part was the inspiration reverberating across the screen - the characters, the scenes, the glee in partaking of the time-travel adventure with Gil. Yes, time-travel.

To see Gil wander into the good company of the 1920s Paris literary and art scene, was at once shocking to me as someone who had no inkling of the plotline from the trailer (best trailer I've seen in a while in retrospect!) and also as someone who loves literature and art and historical inside jokes. I laughed, a lot.

The movie was wonderfully fun, and I enjoyed the overarching theme about missing the present while being stuck in the past. All of the acting was superb (from Michael Sheen's pedantic character to Alison Pill's Zelda Fitzgerald, it was a great ensemble) and the writing and directing were near perfect. One of my favorite movies of 2011, and perhaps ever.

The good news is that my husband, Jesse, has surprised me with a trip to Paris next month, which was part of the reason I re-watched this. I cannot wait to walk along the Seine like Gil, wait on those steps at the Sacre Coeur, and maybe, just once, feel like I'm in a different time.

The Best: While Wilson was a great protagonist, the real scene-stealer was Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway. He brought to life the giant persona and wordsmith - he spoke as he wrote, it would seem, and I loved it.

Fact: I don't always agree with film critic Roger Ebert (though I love him!), but I just wanted to share a quote from his review of this movie, which I completely agree with - "There is nothing to dislike about it. Either you connect with it or not. I'm wearying of movies that are for 'everybody' – which means, nobody in particular. Midnight in Paris is for me, in particular, and that's just fine with moi."

Rating: ********** (10 out of 10)

Rear Window (1954)

Dir: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: John Michael Hayes (script), Cornell Woolrich (short story)
Starring: James Stewart, Grace Kelly

My father introduced me to Hitchcock films when I was in middle school, starting with Pyscho. I keenly remember the small video store in Kansas we would frequent, with its bulky, brown plastic VHS covers. I loved horror films, and Hitchcock was definitely a master, so I thank my dad for the introduction.

The other night I was hanging out with two girlfriends pondering what to watch when one of them mentioned a classic, maybe a horror movie. "Do you have any Hitchcock?" she asked.

Do I have any Hitchcock!

I didn't want to go with the obvious Pyscho, nor what I consider his masterpiece Vertigo, so I asked if they'd seen Rear Window. Neither had, and I got to enjoy the movie again with two people who had rarely, if ever, seen Grace Kelly on screen.

Rear Window's brilliance can be surmised simply by how often its premise is replicated in modern thrillers. But none can match the Hitchcock pieces together this mystery, with cunning shots and clues only for the viewer's eyes.

James Stewart plays a photojournalist recently injured and holed up in his New York apartment for six weeks with a broken leg. The window in his apartment overlooks a whole community that loves leaving their shades open - explained easily by the summer heat. He begins to suspect one of his neighbors of murdering his invalid wife and keeps his binoculars trained on the apartment looking for clues. The other characters in the complex add sympathy (Miss Torso, Miss Lonelyhearts), and also become conversation points for his girlfriend that stops by frequently.

His girlfriend (Grace Kelly - probably mostly just playing herself), is a Park Avenue society girl who is unbelievably beautiful and wears designer gowns just to sit in his apartment. Craggy Stewart remarks on how she's not fit for the life he intends to lead of photographing wartorn villages across the globe. But she believes his story about his neighbor, and soon starts doing all his dirty work outside of the apartment.

The movie works slowly, but that's what I love about Hitchcock and classic films - movies these days act like people don't have any sort of attention span. And I understand that a lot of people don't, but there's no need to do away with slow-building tension! There's time to think, which is necessary in this type of storytelling - you have all the clues laid out for you, how will you make your conclusions? Do you agree with Stewart? Do you agree with his detective friend who doubts him? My friends and I debated throughout watching, which added more fun to viewing it with people who hadn't seen it.

The truth and the culmination are a thrilling payoff, and certainly deserved it's Best Screenplay Academy Award nomination. Stewart and Kelly are great, and the directing superb. One of the best Hitchcock films.

The Best: Kelly's entrance scene. I've never seen an actress' beauty illuminated more brilliantly than when Kelly's face comes into focus on screen, first from a side angle then full-on from the front - meant to feel like a dream Stewart's having, and actually wakes up to. Kelly's make-up, beauty, and costumes in the film are all breathtaking!

Fact: There's a sheen on everybody's faces in the movie, since it's supposed to take place during the middle of the summer in New York. It all seemed very realistic, but upon further investigation apparently it was also all real heat: one-thousand arc lights were used on the set to simulate daylight, and once during the movie the amount of heat they produced set off the set's sprinkler system!

Rating: ********* (9 out of 10)

Welcome to my film collection.

My father went through his entire DVD collection and reviewed each movie - he's the reason I'm just getting started on my own collection review. As my dad noted, these are the DVDs I've chosen to buy (for the most part), so they'll usually come with favorable reviews. However, there are some unopened DVDs I bought on whims, some gift DVDs, as well as some movies I haven't even seen - I have a husband who's been adding to my collection! We currently own about 185 films (this is not counting any television series' on DVD). And above is a screenshot of the beginning of my virtual DVD shelf...

I was going to try to do the movies in order, but sometimes I just pick one to watch. So, for the time being, it's just random movies in my collection, but I hope to get into the alphabetical list soon.

Check out my dad's blog, and thanks for reading!

Here's the basic format of all my reviews:

Title, Year
Dir:
Writer:
Starring:

[REVIEW]

The Best: (This is like my dad's MVP section - I decided to call it "The Best" not only to make my blog just a little different than my dad's, but also because sometimes I just want to highlight a favorite scene or piece of dialogue!)

Fact: (This is where I'll give a little known or weird piece of trivia about the movie - either gathered from my brain's storage or from DVD extras!)

Rating: ********** (# out of 10)