A Single Man (2009)

The expectation: I did not really know a lot about this film before I saw it. It was at the independent theater I frequent and it happened to be starting when I passed by. Colin Firth is a gem so I just went with it!

The result: This is the most beautifully tragic film I have seen in a long time- the kind that make me want to go home and cry for these fictitious characters. Alas! This film is all Colin Firth and the director Tom Ford. This is Ford's first film and it is absolutely brilliant. Apparently, Ford is a fashion designer who ran Gucci to astounding success and then decided to make a film? Anyway, this film is a real challenge. Firth plays George, a gay man who recently lost his partner of 16 years to a tragic accident. Set in the 60s in California, George grieves throughout the entire film and Ford's hauntingly slow pace and use of color makes you feel every single second of George's pain. Moments slow down and fade when they are difficult, while the film literally shines during small moments of content, of happiness, of life. On top of the crippling weight of grief itself, George is also positioned in a place of deep silence; he cannot share his grief with the public- there is no communal outlet for support, no social space for healing. Ford's style makes the viewer feel this deep, raw grief in a way in which I have not done so before. Although I have never experienced this specific pain, I now feel that I have a very tiny, tiny grasp of it. Well done!

What to look for:
The pace of personal grief, the slow moments and the use of memory.
The brilliance of color- it corresponds to emotional states.
California in the 60s. Oh, those gorgeous cars.
George's house is an architectural and historical marvel.
For some reason, I still cannot stand Julianne Moore.

Flickr photo by MissTurner

Daybreakers (2009)

The expectation: I am a sucker for vampire tales but I was not sure if I could handle the horror of this one. I braved it if only to see what happens when vampires meet capitalism. And I miss William Defoe as if he were my estranged brother (uncle?).

The result: A little background: Vampires took over Humanity through sheer force. Not violent, end of the world, revenge, evil force; but more through practicality. Vampireness was considered to be a virus that spread through blood contact and eventually enough people had it that the vampires forced humans to choose between turning or being farmed (Matrix style) for blood. Most people turned. Ten years later the film starts. Humans are now a shortage and vampires are running out of blood. Otherwise, civilization is similiar. There are subways and cars and houses. Vampires have jobs in corporations and the military. There are obvious class hierarchies, family issues, and personal guilt. This is a portrait of Vampire society mimicking human society- with a capitalist structure. The premise is very smart and I enjoyed this reflection of vampire society; a premise that is rare in the grander scheme of vampire mythology. The joke is on them though, because their society cannot sustain itself without humans who are both precious commodities and discarded as lowly sub-human? (can I use that term here and still make sense?). You get it. It is a familiar tale, no? There are some gory parts that go a little too towards the end but the film retains its creative plot. It is so smart it even gets comedic towards the end. Overall, not the best vampire movie- I am more keen on the hauntingly horror/baroque Anne Rice version instead of this guilt stricken kind-, but it borders on an originality that is often missed. If only it did not end with a blatant sequel setup- so tacky!

What to look out for:
William Defoe is always great. I love his ruggedness.
The cinematography is brilliant (not literally). Check out the sheen of the film.
A comment on sustainability? Will we ever learn to plan for the future?

Flickr photo by Abhishek Jacob

The Young Victoria (2009)

The Expectation: The tale of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, early-mid 1800's. Which means the focus of this film is on romance, although some politics probably surface. So really, I expected not a whole lot of depth- hoping it would turn out more like the smart ferocity of Elizabeth (1998) and less like the fluff of The Other Boleyn Girl (2008). And of course, the costumes and the sets, the customs of royalty, and all of that frivolity mixed in. Which I love.

The Result: Initially there was not really any depth to Emily Blunt's Victoria. She is pushed and pulled, and the story floats along waiting...waiting for the first scene to appear in the narrative (the coronation). But it does, and between the before and after, Blunt allows Victoria to grow up, and the audience can get a sense of Queen Victoria's weight of responsibility, frustration at her inexperience, and strive to succeed at her new post. It is a tale that is heavily dependent on the romance between her and Prince Albert, and although his character seems quite shallow to Blunt's performance, I realized that this film is not just about them and their romance- it is about our title character. It is her striving to find her way through this subtly brutal world, disguised behind grand balls, vast dinner parties, and garden walks. And part of her journey is finding strength with Albert, just part. There is some political strife thrown in- mainly from others in a quest to gain favor (and power) from the new Queen. And the film does not rely too heavily on costumes, sets, etc.- frivolity like Sophia Coppola's heavily draped Marie Antoinette (2006) - although, it is there and important, in context. The film does side with Victoria though- as it should- but it might be a bit too much- to the point that we almost don't believe her and we want to know the real dark secrets she is hiding from us from this time period.

Overall, Jim Broadbent (as King William) is awkward, Miranda Richardson (as Victoria's mom) looks horrible, Rupert Friend (as Prince Albert) is way too nice to be real, and Emily Blunt is magical in showing us the vulnerability of Queen Victoria's early reign- a vulnerability that eventually finds strength and give her a unique perspective on power. The rest of the film is just for fun. Don't take it too seriously.

What to watch out for:
The landscapes- great shots of Buckingham palace and the gardens
The supporting roles are a bit lousy except for Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide who gives the royal court a bit of humanity and compassion.
Those wonderful costumes and hair styles.... I am a fan of period pieces.
Many interesting rack focus shots- playing with the focus in order to draw attention to the wealth of the surroundings- without lingering.
And Emily Blunt. I think she deserves the Golden Globe nomination. Her performance is smart, revealing, and carries the movie from drab to flirty. It could have easily gone the other way.

Flickr photo by boo!berry

A Serious Man (2009)

The expectation: This is a Coen Brothers film. A scholar just published a book dissecting their films called "The Coen-verse". And these films are like that- they have their own style, their own pace, and yet still manage to be unique within the Coen formula. They are strange, often without traditional narrative coherence, but still funny and lighthearted. They capture your attention without knowing why, and they take a few days, a discussion with others (and maybe a few screenings) to fully and adequately digest. I expected the same out of this film as can be found in the brilliance of No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading. In the Coen-verse, the only order that can be found is the one we make for ourselves- filled with the ridiculous and the sublime, rife with misunderstanding, and capitalized on by bad choices fr ought with good intentions. It is in the "bad deeds of good men" that we are led as humans. And that has its own consequences.

The result: Larry Gopnik is a physicist who lives in Minnesota with his wife and two children. He is up for tenure, his wife has left him, he has been offered a bribe by a student, and his son is preparing for his bar mitzvah. With the suburbs as a fittingly bland background, the film is shot to capture the mundane and it succeeds in its quiet nature, allowing no room for successful answers to the larger issues at stake in life- the issues that Larry faces. This film, more than any of the others, uses as its base the overwhelming significance of religion in creating meaning for the individual- here, Judaism specifically. Gopnik faces obstacles, not with courage and fortitude, not with despair and apathy, but with a measured casualness that points to his reliance on his religious beliefs, his historical and religious upbringing, and his understanding of and adherence to society's rules. Through this, he accepts- no matter the pain or wrongdoing. His frustration is great comic fodder- especially wrapped in the bland hauntingly quietness of the film. He grapples with his failure, after full compliance in the religious and social systems of our day- and does, finally get an answer that is both unfair and cruel. And ultimately, the larger life decisions he makes are not as important as the smaller ones he misunderstands. And yet, there is still no rational, tangible formula to learn from. We are all adrift with a set of rules we must contend with only after they have chosen vengeance and made themselves apparent- no matter how serious of a man we might be. Absolutely brilliant- I have to go watch it again.

What to look out for:
The presentation of the suburbs- colors, pace, sets, music.
The quiet of the film- and its affects on your neighbors. Look around during the film and watch everyone in their own uncomfortableness.
The props in the Rabbi's office- they foreshadow, they comment, and they inform.
Jefferson Airplane?

Flickr photo by futureatlas.com

An Education (2009)

The expectation: I really wanted this one to be great; it is my kind of film- independent, dramatic, tragic, and nicely shot and styled. I knew the story- a teenage girl in the 60's in suburban London gets swept away by a man twice her age through an attraction to culture. Nick Hornby wrote the screenplay so the story had a chance, and I had heard great, great things about Carey Mulligan in the lead, Jenny. With Peter Sarsgaard as the lead man, David, I was hopeful that the film could pull off this 'unconventional' story well- and not just create a creepy couple that has no hope at all. These things do happen sometimes...

The result: The movie is beautiful and it is easy to get caught up in the freedom that the characters afford. It is one of the charms of the film- that we can understand Jenny's attraction to the life that David shows her and most of this is Carey's work as an actress who allows the film to grow and flourish without dragging into into insecurity and tactlessness. She is absolutely brilliant and- as a fan of Sargaard- I do hate to say this- but she is the only brilliant one really and the movie not only is carried by her but ultimately fails her performance. But we cannot always blame the actors- it is the story itself that falls short for me. I hoped-as most people did at first hearing about this story and seeing the trailer- that it would not become the story that is so very cliche. Just because it was set in the 1960's, it does not justify the ending that is in store for this couple. I wanted to scream in the theater. No surprises here- and this film deserves better than to just drown in cliche. I know that it was based on a memoir but shame on you Nick Hornby- why make this film at all if you cannot create something original- something that will not just disappoint your viewers by creating a film they know the end to before even buying a ticket.

What to watch out for:
Carey Mulligan all the way.
Oh.. and those cars- I do love period flicks.

Flickr photo by austinevan

Whip It (2009)

The expectation: Drew Barrymore's feature debut means that this film can go either way really. I think that she makes rather smart choices in the roles she plays and she is a good actress who can move between different genres. Her sense of comedy is usually very smart and with Ellen Page as her title star, this film should be funny. But, of course, the world does not always work that way and being a director requires a different set of tools than being an actress or even a producer. So, of course, this film could go either way really and I am very intrigued as to how it all plays out.

The result: Drew Barrymore is not a terrible director- but not a great one either. The film is a good start for her. The story is not bad, with just a little bit of sympathy, comedy, and moral fortitude to make up a good Hollywood story that will appeal to the masses. Mix in a bit of retro and a list of top women actresses and there is something quite fun about this film's punkness. But alas, it is not brilliant and it does move through too many cliches to actually have sustainability in cult circles- a motive too apparent in content, music, and style. It is very fun and their are a some moments where editing and flow are abruptly and apparently aware of its own seams- a major problem for the movie watching crowd. Fun for now, but what it really makes me want to do is get drunk and attend a few roller girls games. With this film's soundtrack in the background- that would really be a fun night to remember!

What to look out for:
Juliette Lewis- skinny but so very hot.
That soundtrack....

Flickr photo by tristanbrand