REVIEW: The Last Station

Plot summary from Landmark Theatres:

After almost fifty years of marriage, Countess Sofya (Helen Mirren, Academy Award nominee for Best Actress), the devoted wife, passionate lover, muse and secretary of Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer, Academy Award nominee for Best Supporting Actor), suddenly finds her entire world turned upside down. In the name of his newly created religion, the great Russian novelist has renounced his noble title, his property and even his family in favor of poverty, vegetarianism and even celibacy. When Sofya then discovers that Tolstoy's trusted disciple, Chertkov (Paul Giamatti)—whom she despises—may have secretly convinced her husband to sign a new will, leaving the rights to his iconic novels to the Russian people rather than his very own family, she is consumed by righteous outrage. Into this minefield wanders Tolstoy's worshipful new assistant, the young, gullible Valentin (James McAvoy). In no time, he becomes a pawn, first of the scheming Chertkov and then of the wounded, vengeful Sofya as each plots to undermine the other's gains. Complicating Valentin's life even further is the overwhelming passion he feels for the beautiful, spirited Marsha (Kerry Condon), a free thinking adherent of Tolstoy's new religion whose unconventional attitudes about sex and love both compel and confuse him. A tale of two romances, one beginning, one near its end, The Last Station is a complex, funny, rich and emotional story about the difficulty of living with love and the impossibility of living without it.

An interesting, beautifully done film exploring the dilemna that can often exist between one's high arching morals and what their heart tells them they want, and the conflict that arises in trying to determine which is the "correct" action.

Amazing acting all around, in particular James McAvoy. Towards the begining there is a fantastic seen where McAvoy is meeting his idol Tolstoy (Plummer) for the first time that was extremely well done. I felt as if I were meeting my own idol. Helen Mirren also does a nice job as the Countess in a slightly different role for her. Her character is overly dramatic and self-centered, yet charming and sympathetic. The passion, love, and anger her and Christopher Plummer convey is amazing and complex. While they obviously adore one another, the have matured in such different paths it has become impossible for them to live with one another in peace. The tension of being so in love yet at such odds is present all the time. Both the moments of rage and the moments of loving understanding are so well done and very beautiful.

The Last Station is a movie about the high ideals of right and wrong and most importantly love. Love of life, love of ones people, love of an ideal, and love of a romantic nature/soul mate. While Wade felt the movie seemed to jump around a lot without being able to really "get to the point", I felt that it leant itself perfectly to the idea of deciphering an ideal or moral code. Its challenging to work it out, what works with life and what should be discarded. There are always distractions and side-steps, never a clear path, and the movie shows that perfectly. In the end, you need to find the balance between living your ideals and living your life.

Wade: 3/5 stars

Kinsey:4/5 stars

REVIEW: Precious

Plot summary from fandango.com:

Monster's Ball producer Lee Daniels follows up his 2005 directorial debut, Shadowboxer, with this adaptation of author Sapphire's best-selling novel about an overweight, illiterate African-American teen from Harlem who discovers an alternate path in life after she begins attending a new school. Clareece "Precious" Jones is only a teenager, yet she's about to give birth to her second child. Unable to read or write, Clareece shows little prospect for the future until discovering that she has been accepted into an alternative school. There, with a little help from a sympathetic teacher (Paula Patton) and a kindly nurse (Lenny Kravitiz), the young girl receives something that most teens never get -- a chance to start over. Mo'nique co-stars in an inspirational drama featuring the debut performance of screen newcomer Gabourey "Gabbie" Sidibe.

Viewing Precious was a traumatic experience. It's hard to watch someone go through so much torment, tragedy heaped upon tragedy. Things happen in this film that I will think about for days on end. I'm glad I saw it, but I never want to see it again.

Precious tracks the life of illiterate, pregnant, African-American teen Clarice "Precious" Jones and the movie really hinges on the presentation of this character. Luckily, director Lee Daniels discovered actress Gabourey Sidibe, who takes Precious through one of the most well-acted character arcs we've seen this year. Actually it may be one of the best portrayals of character development in any film ever. While no outward or quantifiable change happens during the movie, at the end she's still overweight, unattractive, and reading at a lower than high school level, Gabourey slowly conveys an internal increase in self-worth and assertiveness that was completely lacking in the the quiet, fearful, timid Precious we are introduced to at the beginning of the film.

Precious features one of the worst mothers ever captured on film. Mary Jones, as portrayed by Monique, is matronly hell. It's almost difficult to imagine someone can be this cruel. Monique is a lock to win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this, which is fine, although it would be hard not to bring an Oscar-worthy performance to this role. Not a lot of subtlety in her acting.

Precious has been criticized for evoking many African-Americans stereotypes. Slums, welfare, physical abuse, lack of respect, even dietary with many scenes featuring boiled pigs feet, collard greens, and fried chicken. Considering that the director Lee Daniels is African-American himself, it seems unwise to say that negative connotations were put forward.

While this film was extremely difficult to watch, it personally made me want to be a more understanding person. There is one scene in particular that evokes an entirely different response without its context. Precious, who is obese, makes all the food for her and her mother. Lacking any food to prepare or money to purchase a breakfast, Precious is left with the option of stealing breakfast. So she steals a bucket of fried chicken. Not the best breakfast, but its clear that raising a healthy child is not a high priority for her mother. The shot I'm talking about is with Precious, an overweight black teen, walking down the street in the morning, eating fried chicken, with grease all over her face. Now, if I had passed her on the street, I would've been disgusted, nothing but negative thoughts in my mind. But in context, it's only a struggling girl in survival mode. This movie brutally reminds me that everyone is going through something, and some individuals out there with true horrors they are trying to overcome - it just may help to try to be kind and non-judgmental.

We would recommend seeing Precious, but make sure you prepare yourself first.

Wade: 4/5

Kinsey: 4/5

DVD REVIEW: Bright Star

Plot summary for Bright Star from comingsoon.net:

London, 1818 – a secret love affair begins between 23-year-old English poet John Keats and the girl next door, Fanny Brawne, an outspoken student of fashion. This unlikely pair started at odds; he thinking her a stylish minx, she unimpressed by literature in general. But when Keats's younger brother falls ill John and Fanny are drawn together. Keats, touched by Fanny's efforts to help care for his brother, agrees to teach her poetry. By the time Fanny's alarmed mother (Kerry Fox) and Keats's best friend Charles Armitage Brown (Paul Schneider) realize their attachment, the relationship had an unstoppable momentum. Intensely and helplessly absorbed in each other, the young lovers were swept into powerful new sensations: "I have the feeling as if I were dissolving," Keats wrote to her. Together they rode a wave of romantic obsession that deepened as their troubles mounted. Only Keats's own fatal illness proved insurmountable.

With Bright Star, director Jane Campion goes back to the period genre, continuing where she left off with The Piano and The Portrait of a Lady. I have to be honest, this type of film isn't usually my favorite. I did enjoy Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice, but typically period films aren't my cup of tea. So it came as a bit of a surprise that I really enjoyed Bright Star, even more so than Kinsey.

Bright Star is grounded by two captivating performances from the romantic leads, Abbie Cornish as Fanny Brawne and Ben Whishaw as poet John Keats. A romance needs its two lovers to be convincing, and this film delivers a lovely arc of a relationship, moving from mutual disinterest to coursing passion. Fanny's strength of character and independent notions make her the perfect match for the edge-of-society Keats. And a relationship like theirs can only end in tragedy.

One would think that making a movie about a poet wouldn't be the easiest thing to do, as the composition of poetry can be a pretty boring process. Luckily, Campion avoids training her camera on a blank piece of paper or watching Keats frantically scribble verse. Instead, Keat's profession serves the film. His poetry comes out fresh and proud, signifying his dedication to his work through adversity. Or it comes out in halting stammers, when he becomes smitten with Fanny at a dinner party. Campion makes the art of poetry lifelike, when it could so easily become an eye-rolling practice of Poetry 101.

Bright Star also features a wonderful supporting performance from Paul Schneider, from NBC's Parks and Recreation, as Charles Brown, Keat's close friend. Brown brings that needed dose of reality to a period film, showing that people in the Victorian age did act rudely, goof off, and literally jump around like apes.

And finally, I have to show appreciation to any film that features oodles of visual splendor. Gorgeous imagery permeates the entirety of Bright Star. Every frame is perfectly orchestrated. Really just wonderful to look at.

Wade: 4.5/5 stars

Kinsey: 3/5 stars

REVIEW: The Lovely Bones

Plot summary for The Lovely Bones from comingsoon.net:

Based on the critically acclaimed best-selling novel by Alice Sebold, and directed by Oscar® winner Peter Jackson from a screenplay by Jackson & Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens, "The Lovely Bones" centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family – and her killer – from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal. Oscar® nominee Mark Wahlberg and Oscar® winners Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon star along with Stanley Tucci, Michael Imperioli and Oscar® nominee Saoirse Ronan.

After the Oscar nominations came out, and I realized that we only had seven more to see in order to fill out the top seven categories, I assumed the movie I would enjoy the least was The Blind Side. Well, I was wrong. I absolutely hated The Lovely Bones. Horrible, just horrible.

Of course, I'm sure disappointment factored into some of my dislike. I really enjoyed the novel, and I've given Peter Jackson respect as a director in the past. With such great source material, a proven director, and a decent cast (Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg), its not ridiculous to expect something great, or even just good. But this movie is such a disaster it's hard to know where to start. Maybe it'll be easier in list form.

1. The script: Completely flat, uninspired and disgustingly sentimental. I was miming gagging motions to Wade while Saoirse Ronan dramatically yelled "Dad" from heaven for about the 100th time, in a breathy, whispery voice no less. Everything was overly dramatic and always accompanied by an over-the-top musical score.

2. The CGI: Peter Jackson should really take a break from Weta Digital, his go-to special effects crew. While the computer-generated stuff was nice to look at, it became the focus in this movie. The heartbreaking and poignant aspects of the story were cut short due to all the special effects, which stripped them of their power. I felt bad for Mark Wahlberg. It looks like he's doing a poor job, but every time he has a scene it's completely interrupted with another fantasy sequence. Nothing develops naturally because the CGI is always getting in the way.

3. The editing: The Lovely Bones was 2 hours and 15 minutes long, but feels more like 3 hours. Peter Jackson needs to learn how to cut out the fluff. Specifically, again, the CGI scenes seemed to last forever, yet some moments that really needed to be explored, given the purpose/story, were cut short.

4. Other: Susan Sarandon is completely unnecessary as the grandmother, only providing comic relief in this weird "can't figure out the housework" montage, which feels completely out of place in the movie. Also, a major theme of the book is sexual violence, the consequences not only on the victim, but also family and others, yet Jackson tones this down immensely in order to get a PG-13 rating. While certain events are implied, this evasion of the subject of rape almost seems like an insult to Alice Siebold's work.

Wow, went off on this film a bit... Yet I have no regrets about this review, only that I saw The Lovely Bones to begin with.

Wade: 1/5 stars
Kinsey: 0/5 stars

REVIEW: The Blind Side

Plot summary for The Blind Side from fandango.com:

Taken in by a well-to-do family and offered a second chance at life, a homeless teen grows to become the star athlete projected to be the first pick at the NFL draft in this sports-themed comedy drama inspired by author Michael Lewis' best-seller The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game. Michael Oher was living on the streets when he was welcomed into the home of a conservative suburban family, but over time he matured into a talented athlete. As the NFL draft approaches, fans and sports radio personalities alike speculate that Oher will be the hottest pick of the year. Sandra Bullock stars in a film written and directed by John Lee Hancock (The Rookie, The Alamo).

We would never have seen this movie, given our disdain for it since we first saw the preview, if it hadn't been nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture, as well as Best Actress. Given these accolades, we have to judge it as a film worthy of Oscar contention. In that regard this movie is terrible, with nothing, nothing (not even the soundtrack) worthy of any praise higher than that of the basic popcorn flick. Substandard script (ultimate cheeseball), poor acting (Tim McGraw - blerg), and cliche storyline.

This movie is based on the true story of NFL offensive lineman Michael Oher. It's an inspiring story, one of hardwork and compassion, yet the only moment that had any sense of emotion was the last few moments of the film where they switched to actual footage of the real Michael Oher being drafted. This heart was never portrayed during the actual film, due to the overdone and schmaltzy script and poor acting. Despite the emotional subject matter, the film completely failed to convey any of it. I felt more emotion during the live footage with no words than in the previous 2 hours of the movie.

I read something interesting about The Blind Side in the New York Times regarding its marketing. Important decisions about the movie were made simply to sell it to a certain group of people. Not to improve the quality of the movie, but simply so it would make more money. For instance, Tim McGraw was cast in a supporting role not because of his acting ability but because of his appeal to country music fans. Real college football coaches were cast to bring in male college football fans. The marketing company for The Blind Side even offered online sermon outlines based on the movie, with clips that could be used in churches with video screens. It makes me question the intentions of the film, and respect it even less.

On a final note, I think I should comment on the football, since this is a sports movie at its core. I played high school football and I watch a lot of football, and The Blind Side is the same as a lot of other football movies, which is to say that the football scenes are not too great. It highlights the sports cliches the same as all the other cliches in the movie. Too much trash-talking and too many devastating tackles.

If Sandra Bullock wins an Oscar, I will be very disappointed.

Wade: 0/5 stars
McKinsey :1.5/5 stars

REVIEW: Julia

Plot summary for Julia from fandango.com:

Tilda Swinton gives the performance of a lifetime as Julia, a middle-aged alcoholic who totters around nightclubs on six-inch heels, and gets by on nickel-and-dime jobs sandwiched between shots of vodka and one-night stands. Julia is manipulative , unreliable and a compulsive liar, and when an opportunity presents itself to make a substantial amount of money, she jumps at the chance and commits a desperate act. As the repercussions spiral beyond her control, she is forced to make a choice between sacrifice and redemption.

The bad thing about movies in January or February is that there isn't much interesting new films hitting theatres. The good thing is that all the interesting films you missed in the fall are coming out on DVD. By way of recommendation from the great podcast Filmspotting, we were able to catch one of those under-the-wire fall releases the other day, Julia starring Tilda Swinton.

It's amazing how many different faces Tilda Swinton has; we've seen her in a few films now, and she's always playing a completely different character. As the title character, Julia, Tilda Swinton is a very difficult character to engage. An alcoholic, a floozy, and a liar, she seems to have no sense of human decency. Its an interesting arc of character development; while Julia has no degree of respectability, she slowly and in certain ways starts to develop maternal compassion and loses some of the self-centeredness and false victimizing evident in the beginning. Yet the character and story is definitely a step away from the standard story, as Julia never "gets sober" or starts making intelligent decisions. Many compliments to Tilda Swinton for the performance; ugly, unflattering, and intense.

The movie is very suspenseful, one of those films you hold your breath throughout with no idea on how each scene is going to play out. Its also one where you don't even know what you want to happen. Julia is such a despicable mess, but with no other protagonist, you feel torn between her getting what she deserves and hoping that somehow things will workout for her. The plot takes turn after turn, often with no set-up, and constantly had me trying to keep up.

This film wasn't nominated for an Oscar although you could easily argue for a best actress nod. We're seeing The Blind Side this weekend, actually, and if Sandra Bullock does a better job than Swinton, I'll eat my hat. In the end, definitely worth checking out and we'd recommend you add it to your queue.

Kinsey: 3.5/5 stars
Wade: 4/5 stars

REVIEW: In the Loop

Plot summary for In the Loop from comingsoon.net:

"In the Loop" is a smart comedy with razor-sharp, truly laugh-out-loud dialogue that pokes fun at the absurdity and ineptitude of our highest leaders. With everyone looking out for number one, and the fate of the free world at stake (but apparently incidental), the hilarious ensemble cast of characters bumbles its way through Machiavellian political dealings, across continents, and toward comic resolutions that are unforeseeable.

Well, I really hope government interactions as portrayed in In the Loop don't really work like this. It's was hilarous, yet as the story progressed, serious and depressing moments slowly started building up, and by the end, the importance of these politician's actions became very depressing. An interesting element of the story is that it focused on the government middlemen, people who have "Assistant" in front of their name. Every character had his or her own agenda, and backstabbing and tush-kissing were rampant in this realm of the political sphere.

In the Loop is a zippy political comedy, with so much back-and-forth dialogue the script is probably as thick as War and Peace. This film deserves its adapted screenplay Oscar nomination, if only for its creative use of swearing and swear word combinations. Before In the Loop, I never knew you could use the F-word as a descriptive adjective both before and after the same noun in the same sentence. The banter is pretty non-stop and complete concentration is needed to keep up. We actually resorted to sub-titles about 10 minutes in; with the non-stop verbals and the thick English accent we were starting to lose the main ideas.

Most of this creativity stems from the character of Malcolm Tucker, an angry Scot whose job is fixing other government employee's goof-ups, which is why I imagine he's so angry. In this film, his job is to correct the vocal trainwrecks of unimportant minister Simon Foster, who's "war is unforseeable" quip, quickly followed by "climb the mountain of conflict" apparently doesn't toe the party line.

There is no sympathetic character in the film, everyone is watching out for number one. Interestingly, there is also no true villian. While a couple of individuals are more reprehensible, there isn't a single character who stands up for what's right. For example, the assistant secretary of state character state, Karen Clark, resigns due to "her principles"regarding the war, but this idea was conceived as the best move for her political career.

While its never said as much, the film is obviously commenting on the politics leading up to the Iraq war. The film was balanced in that everyone, regardless of whether they wanted war or not, still cared more about their own careers than the actual consequences of war or not going to war, yet there was still an obvious bias in the movie towards not going to war. The one or two more serious moments where characters discussed the consequences of war were all done from the anti-war side, with no explanations given to why other characters wanted war in the middle east. The audience is just left to assume that it must be for reasons of wealth and political advancement. While having an agenda in a film is perfectly fine, and one of antiwar is quite appropriate right now as the Iraq war is winding down, its a bit unoriginal at this point. Yay, another movie against the Iraq war and the politicians who started - how exciting! (please note sarcasm).

That aside, still a very enjoyable, hilarious, yet serious movie that we recommend seeing.

Wade: 4/5 stars
Kinsey: 4/5 stars

Commenting on the 2009 Oscar nominations...

Best Picture:

Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

So the big thing this year is the 10 movies up for best picture. I think its a good thing just given that UP made best picture, hopefully this means that just because a movie is animated is won't be shunted to the Best Animated Film category alone. Of course this does allow in movies such as The Blind Side. Wade said that if this wins he will be boycotting the Oscars from now on. I'm just upset because we always see the films up for Best Picture, and I really didn't want to see this.

I don't have any big issues with the nominated films that I've seen. It's a nice mix of small film and crowdpleasers. Definitely pulling for The Hurt Locker, although as long as its not Avatar or The Blind Side, I'll be OK.

Best Director:

James Cameron - Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
Precious - Lee Daniels
Up in the Air - Jason Reitman

My vote would be for Kathryn Bigelow or Jason Reitman. I disagree with the nom for James Cameron, but it was expected.

Got to be Kathryn Bigelow here. I really hope its not James Cameron just so I don't have to listen to that blowhard give a speech.

Best Actor:

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up in the Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

I haven't seen Invictus yet, but I really want Colin Firth to win this. I love him and he was amazing in A Single Man. The buzz is that Jeff Bridges is a lock, but I didn't think his performance was especially amazing.

I don't think Jeff Bridges and, from what I've heard, Morgan Freeman should be here. There are probably more deserving performances out there. Go Jeremy Renner.

Best Actress:

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Not to be a snob, but Sandra Bullock? Seriously?!! Carey Mulligan was great in An Education, but we need to quite a few in this category. Congrats to Meryl Streep though on her 16th nomination. While I didn't especially love Julie & Julia, her performance was fantastic; I loved every minute she was on screen.

Here's hoping for a 2002 style split vote between Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock, with Carey Mulligan in the Adrien Brody role as surprise winner.

Best Supporting Actor:

Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

We have a lot of work to do before March 7th...

This is probably Christoph Waltz's to lose. My main issue is who didn't get nominated, i.e. Anthony Mackie in The Hurt Locker or Stanley Tucci in Julie & Julia, not The Lovely Bones or Alfred Molina in An Education or, heck, even Alec Baldwin in It's Complicated. And yes, I am judging some of these films before I've seen them.

Best Supporting Actress:

Penelope Cruz - Nine
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
Mo'Nique - Precious

I really disagree with both the nomination of Maggie Gyllenhaal (nothing special in her role/performance) and Anna Kendrick. Throughout Up in the Air, I though Anna Kendrick was the weakest player and her performance pulled me out of the film repeatedly.

Not much to say about this one, other than Vera Farmiga was probably my favorite here. It would've been really awesome to see either Melanie Laurent or Diane Kruger from Inglourious Basterds here, but what are you goin' to do?

Yay for Oscars!! Let hope those who deserve it win...