Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Last of the Year


Here is a list of the movies that I enjoyed watching the most in 2010, which is not really a list of the best movies released in 2010. Since I watch movies at home, my viewings are too delayed to make a 2010 list until the next year is half over. The ratings I give on this blog are on my own number system explained previously in this blog. Those watched via Netflix instant view, include “Streamed” after the numeric rating.

Letters to Juliet – 2010. (3.3) The love of Romeo & Juliet brings us to Verona and a romantic and fun story of a search for a lost past love that may not be too late, and young lovers whose star crossing may turn out to be fortuitous. Good cast, nice story well told and beautiful Tuscan scenery provide quite pleasant enjoyment.

Temple Grandin – 2010. (3.3) Claire Danes does a good job impersonating an autistic woman who was first diagnosed in the 1960s when doctors told her parents she should be institutionalized, but who instead was encouraged by her family to pursue her education and ended up getting a master’s degree and becoming a college professor. Temple used her autism in her animal studies to help her understand what animals experience and how that experience can be applied by man in dealing with animals. Special effects in the movie were quite good at showing how the autistic mind interprets experience. Time constraints limit what bio pics can show, but leaving Temple’s father and her siblings out completely left me feeling I missed something of value. If this had been streamed, special features showing the real Temple would have been omitted, and the opportunity to see how well Claire captured her would have been missed.

You Don’t Know Jack – 2009. (3.3) The physician assisted suicide issue has been around for decades, but Dr. Jack Kevorkian is the man who brought it to the forefront in America. Though his involvement with the issue was in the news for years, the title of this HBO movie was very accurate for me – I knew practically nothing about the man himself. This film provides much of the missing information on this fascinating man. Al Pacino does a great job of playing the title role, with an excellent supporting cast and able direction by Barry Levinson. Be sure to watch the brief special feature to see the real Dr. Jack, who reminds us we are all going to die and go to the nothingness, from which we came, then comforts us with the rhetorical question, “Was that so terrible?”

Mademoiselle Chambon -2007. (3.0) Streamed. This movie says a lot without so many words, but rather with context and drawing the personal experience of the viewer into the characters themselves. A female substitute teacher, new in town, and a construction worker father of a student, are each socially awkward and not particularly attractive, but still somehow make a connection, as awkward as the couple themselves. This is one of those films that leaves you feeling you understood, while at the same time making you wonder if you really did – kind of like our own life fels sometimes.

The Pillars of the Earth – 2010. (2.9) Streamed. Based on a Ken Follett book, this miniseries tells about the political intrigue and fighting for power in 12th century England, centering on the building of a new cathedral. Tons of plot and characters, good production values and competent direction and acting, with practically no attempt to use the language of the time, which, though English, we would not recognize.

Adventureland – 2008. (2.8) Recent college grad James planned a European summer with his buddies before heading to journalism grad school at Columbia, but hard times in 1987 hit his family and he had to stay home in Pittsburgh and work as a game carnie at Adventureland. He made some new friends, had some new experiences and learned some things they don’t teach in college. Tastefully done, a sort of college kid comes of age movie. Netflix calls it a comedy, but it is more of a light drama.

Prodigal Sons – 2008. (2.8) Streamed. This very personal documentary starts covering the story of the filmmaker, the popular high school quarterback, returning to Montana for the school reunion after having become a woman, then it expands to cover relationship problems with the older, adopted brother who suffers mental problems resulting from accidental brain trauma. As the brother struggles with his medical and mental problems, he also has issues about his adoption and curiosity about his biological family, which adds an inyeresting twist. This material may have been better handled as two separate films.

The Cake Eaters – 2007. (2.8) Streamed. This directorial debut of Mary Stuart Masterson shows good skill, and the cast did a generally good job, but the story did not effectively grab attention or maintain a focus. Trying to cover too many people in a short movie did not allow time to get to know any of them well enough by the end of the movie. Much of the back story was presented via dialogue, whereas showing the back story directly or by flash backs would have been more effective. Budget constraints probably limited the length of the film and dictated the use of dialogue for back story.

How About You – 2007. (2.8) Streamed. I watched this to see if young Hayley Atwell, whom I find quite appealing, is a good actress, and was pleased to find she is, holding her own with an ensemble cast of cranky nursing home residents, in this enjoyably simple story, which is more a light drama than a comedy.

No Reservations
– 2007. (2.8) About the time this movie came out, I watched the German film, Mostly Martha, of which this is a remake. I gave Martha 4 stars and remember it as being both touching and encouraging about overcoming grief and emotional pain. The remake didn’t come very close to my recall of the original, having less emotional impact and seeming more contrived. Maybe some of that is due to inflated memory of the original (though I did give it 4 stars at the time), and maybe some is due to less impact the second time, since I already knew the story.

Steal a Pencil for M
e – 2007. (2.8) Streamed. Archival footage and contemporary interviews tell the story of a Dutch Jewish couple who conducted a courtship by letters during their time in concentration camps in WWII, and recently celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary.

Invincible – 2006. (2.8) A true story of a 30 year old Philadelphia Eagles fan who in 1976 responded to an open tryout stunt by the long suffering team, and ended up becoming a three year special team player, this drama, though fairly well done, was not that dramatic, not just because we know what is going to happen, but also because there was little other tension in the script. Maybe a documentary would have been better.

Bill Maher: But I’m Not Wrong – 2010. (2.7) Nothing much new here except maybe more foul mouthed, Maher’s progressive libertarian point of view is well known and a little stuck in the past, with just a trickle of commentary on President Obama.

Italian Fascism in Color – 2007. (2.7) Using archival footage, some colorized, and some unimpressive reenactments, this documentary pedantically tells the about the politics and failed strategies of Mussolini. I did learn a few things, but probably could have done it quicker using Wikipedia.

Sabah: A Love Story – 2005. (2.7) Streamed. After building up an interesting case of a Syrian Muslim family in Toronto, headed by a strictly chauvinistic older brother, and concentrating on the dutiful daughter stuck taking care of her widowed mother, while starting a clandestine relationship with a non-Muslim Canadian, this film disappoints by ending with the proverbial whimper instead of a bang.

2 comments:

  1. Jan and I watched The Illusionist at home. We both enjoyed it. I always like watching Paul Giamatti act. Does that mean he is not a good actor because I enjoy watching him instead of watching his character? Jessica Biel and Rufus Sewell did portray their characters well, in my opinion. It is a very forgettable movie, like watching the TV series Murder She Wrote. Jan and I never missed one of those either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I watched The Illusionist in 2007 and gave it 3 stars at Netflix. That was before I did decimal ratings, and it is one of about 850 movies I have watched in the last few years that are not included in my ratings lists. I don’t remember it either, so it must not have been anything special.

    You bring up an interesting point about acting, whether we are watching the character or the actor. Some actors have a strong screen persona, so they are always recognizable to us, in spite of the makeup and costume. Others are like Lon Chaney, the “man of a thousand faces”, morphing into the role. The strong personas become high paid stars, while those who morph become character actors. Some character actors specialize in certain personas and are quite recognizable, but we don’t know their names. Lots of stars try to show their acting skills by playing roles “against type”, but even if they have the talent to pull it off, their fans don’t usually like it. It has been seven years since Charlize Theron won the Oscar for playing the female serial killer in Monster, and her career has gone nowhere since.

    Some actors are able to play lead roles as well as character roles. Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino come to mind, and in the younger generation, Johnnie Depp and Sean Penn. Paul Giamatti belongs in this category.

    What acting we find enjoyable is a subjective matter for sure, but so to a great extent is what we label as good acting. If I imagine a likable actor playing a variety of roles, here is how my subjectivity would factor in to accessing his performance:
    Playing his regular persona – I would expect to like it;
    Playing against type, as unlikeable – OK if a satire or if he is actually playing a more likable person than he usually plays, but more problematic if he is playing more villainous;
    Impersonating a famous person – should be OK;
    Playing a complex character of mixed appeal – I’m open to see how he does.

    Now if I take the same list and imagine an actor I don’t like playing the roles, here is what I get:
    Playing his regular persona – I would expect to not like it;
    Playing against type, as likable – I’m open to see how he does;
    Impersonating a famous person – should be OK;
    Playing a complex character of mixed appeal – I’m open to see how he does.

    ReplyDelete