Love Me If You Dare directed by: Yann Samuell starring: Guillaume Canet, Marion Cotillard Rated: R for language and some Sexuality
I was looking forward to this extremely creative, French, light-hearted romantic comedy. It was creative, French, and some-what of a romantic comedy, but it was not light-hearted. Julien and Sophie's hedonistic pleasures (often discussed and shown) sends them on a wild game of crushing others' feelings and hurting every-known person they've ever met and "loved", all in an attempt to always take up each other's dares. The "body count" of innocent victims emotionally traumatized by their game (which includes a loving wife, husband, children and a some-what loving father) has no affect on their behavior. And we're supposed to ignore the consequences of their actions and cheer for them to get back together in the end? Please, grow up you ignorant fools. This movie was intelligently called "Love me", because that is the only person anyone loves in this movie; themselves. Don't take this dare.
500 Days of Summer directed by: Marc Webb starring: Joseph Gordon Levitt, Zooey Deschanel Rated: PG-13 for sexual material and language
The most creative and enjoyable movie of the year, 500 Days of Summer takes you through the ups and downs of a relationship that is scarily familiar and realistic, to the point that you feel as if you're re-watching your own past experiences. With some of the best design and artwork in film, 500 Days is a complete and utter triumph that only slips up in having a post-modern view of love, and occasionally getting a little too crude at moments. However, it also pushes you to not see everything through the romanticism that is portrayed in our western culture, but to still capture the beauty and need for relationships; debunking the myths of relationships without slipping into pessimism. Despite it's few flaws, 500 Days of Summer is almost worth watching every day of the week.
The Last King of Scotland directed by: Kevin Macdonald starring: Forest Louis Whittacker, James McAvoy Rated: R for some strong violence and gruesome images, sexual content and language.
The dynamic and self-sacrificing conclusion couldn't save the first two acts of hopelessness and frustration. Whittaker, who won an Oscar for the performance, is terrifying, but so is the jovial stupidity of McAvoy's character, making us feel very little at the end except disgusted at man's inhumanity towards one-another. (That, and a certain disgust at the movie's extremely graphic content.) Movies like Blood Diamond or Hotel Rwanda portrayed hope in the face of inhumanity far better.
Longford directed by: Tom Hooper starring: Jim Broadbent, Samantha Morton, Andy Serkis Rated: This movie is unrated
A well written and performed story of good and evil, and the power of redemption and forgiveness. Lord Longford's friendship with jailed serial killer Myra Hindley made me question how far I would be willing to befriend and present hope to those who are lost. Few films have the caliber to change one's life. Longford has that potential.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button directed by: David Fincher
starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchette, Tilda Swinton, and Taraji Henson
Rated: PG-13 for brief war violence, sexual content, language and smoking.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a brilliant movie that, in my opinion, is also one of the most unique films I have ever seen. “A more tragically existential, 1920s-60s version of Forest Gump with elements from Tim Burton film” is a good description, but even it falls short; the film is that different.Even the film’s plot is as difficult to sum up, since the movie simply follows the life of a man who ages backwards.However, his life is as full and unusual as his circumstances.
Something that is not difficult to describe is the splendid imagery of Button, a combination of director David Fincher’s artistic imagery and Claudio Miranda’s breathtaking cinematography, which gives each frame a beautiful appearance. Add the performances of Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchette, and Tilda Swinton, and your story suddenly becomes an epic tale.
However, just as Button was plagued by unusual circumstances, so was his movie. With its extremely slow pace and un-driven plotline, Button feels as if it is a ten hour film instead of it’s two hours and forty seven minute runtime. We don’t lose interest in the story, but, because of the gigantic scale of the film, it feels slightly overbearing and repetitious. I mean, was it really necessary to have twelve scenes dedicated to Pitt and Blanchette making out?Perhaps, since we live in a culture that equates physical love with real love. However, this view of “love” only ends up confusing the film, which then has to show an adulterous relationship (which is a selfish act) to communicate that the characters still love each other, even though their previous actions of not living together was a clearer, selfless, depiction of love, since it was for the good of others rather than themselves; they trade a selfless act for a selfish act, and still try to describe it as true love.
This fairy-tale’s message about life and death comes across as confusing as it’s morality.Unlike the film The Bucket List, which displays personal pleasure from reaching one’s existential goals, Benjamin Button depicts a more realistic picture of existentialism, which doesn’t always end with the “happily ever after” one expects when it discovers completion.Each character in the film is unable to completely follow their passions: the mother who can’t have children, the artist who is forced to be a sailor, the actor who must work as a servant, the dancer who can no longer dance, and, of course, the lover who must live without. Button, however, claims that happiness is not found in that passion, but in the journey of life, itself. The emphasis on joy isn’t in finding success, but in simply living your life. And, although it is meant to derive a sense of hope and happiness from life, it instead leaves the audience wondering if there is more to life than this.
Overall, Benjamin Button is a breathtaking and literary film, one that should get Fincher a Best Director Oscar nomination, one that captures our attention with the story about life and death, and counters the joys of life by pointing out how nothing lasts, and what a shame that is.Unbeknown to Button, some things last beyond our time.
(featured in The Bryan College Triangle on September 20, 2007)
Whether it is the thick mustached and outlandish accent of Val Kilmer from the film Tombstone, the anti-heroic Clint Eastwood from the Fistful of Dollars trilogy, or even the iconic John Wayne, who characterized the glory days of westerns, we seem to associate the western genre, not with the characters or stories of which they tell, but with the actors who make the boots fit. However, in the recent film 3:10 To Yuma, we are not only given a combination of two terrific actors in Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, but we literally see them transform on the screen into two well-fleshed out characters that stand out more than their star-studded names. The depth this brings not only may change the common critical view of the western genre that so many people have, but also makes an enjoyable, popcorn-munching blockbuster hit.
3:10 To Yuma, directed by James Mangold, the director of Walk the Line, is a remake of a classic, 1957 western, which starred Glen Ford and Van Heflin.In the remake, Christian Bale stars as Dan Evans, a poor rancher, who is just trying to pay his bills and feed his family.However, when times turn bad, Dan turns to alternate methods of work, which includes escorting legendary outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) on a three day journey to the town Contention, where Wade will be placed on the 3:10 train to Yuma in order to be tried and executed.However, like all westerns, the journey is hardly harmless.When they’re not being chased by Apache Indians, angry citizens, and Wade’s gang, now led by Charlie Prince, Wade’s crazed and bloodthirsty second in command (played by Ben Forster), there is always Ben Wade himself, strategically tempting his escorts, who continue to diminish in number, to abandon their goal.
The draw of the film is the combination of Bale and Crowe, and rightly so; each actor is fantastic, as are the supporting cast, which includes Ben Forster, Peter Fonda and Logan Lerman.However, it is the realism of the characters that makes the film unique.Bale, coming off perhaps his best performance ever earlier this year in the film Rescue Dawn, is not a heroic, gun-slinging hero, who is a match for any outlaw.He’s a one legged rancher who spends more time wounded and beaten in the film then actually being heroic.At the same time, the ever magnificent Crowe is back in top form after his disastrous role in A Good Year. As the legendary Ben Wade, Crowe is able to be witty, intelligent, and completely cold-hearted and evil, but yet give a slight touch of humanity, not only making his character believable, but also likable.Although we don’t agree with Wade, we respect him beyond his ability to draw his six-shooter.As the story continues to unfold, and the duo survives one adventure after another, we begin to understand the two characters, and why they do what they do.Perhaps this is the deeper message of Yuma; that heroes aren’t always gun-slinging classic cowboys in shiny boots and pressed pants, who live by sense of decency and honor.Perhaps not all outlaws wear black hats and bandannas, and kill men and rob stagecoaches for fun.Without blurring morality, Yuma touches on something that we often forget; even as Christians; that everyone is human, even the Ben Wade’s of this world.
Sure, Yuma meets the criteria of a western film; a thirty to one ratio of male characters to female characters, the hostile Apache Indians, and even the obligatory stage coach robbery and slightly over-the-top shoot out in the town.However, through the performances of Bale and Crowe, we are given more than the classic western; we are given a deep look at humanity and morality, and in a very exciting and entertaining way.Draw the cash from your wallets; 3:10 To Yuma is worth every penny.