Quothe the raven...

"The Raven"
Director: James McTeigue ("V for Vendetta")
Starring: John Cusack, Luke Evans ("Immortals", "Clash of the Titans"), Alice Eve ("Entourage" TV, "She's Out of My League"), Brendan Gleesen

*** (3.5 stars)

I have been waiting for this movie to come out for what seems like forever. I find myself saying that often about the movies I review and for that I'm sorry. However, when you pair John Cusack (hello, gorgeous) with Edgar Allan Poe (uh... not so gorgeous), every depressed teen's entry into depressive poetry, you know it's going to be a film like no other.

Some suspension of belief is required to truly enjoy this movie, the lack of physical similarities between the lead actor and his real life counter part not withstanding. One must also suspend any knowledge they have of Poe himself. Yes, it is true there is no record of Poe for the three days proceeding his untimely death; but I hardly think he did it in the joie de vivre spirit shown in the film. It's also hard to think of him as a man capable of getting out of the bottle and drugs long enough to have a love life or any real life for that matter. That being said, there are many facts and facets of the movie that come directly from real life and from what is known.

Baltimore, Maryland- 1849. Poe is back in his adopted hometown and desperately poor. His only salvation is the off-limits daughter (Eve) of a well to do businessman (Gleesen). She is is inspiration and the only thing he thinks about more than booze, dope, money, and fame. Soon, grisly murders begin to happen that only the new detective (Evans) can explain- they are based on the work of Poe. He then enlists the help of Poe to try and solve these murders. Who will guess the killer first, the audience or the detectives?

What surprised me most was how bloody this film was. Thinking back on it I can't imagine why I was surprised, but I was. I guess it's just been a while since I've seen a person cut in half or disfigured outside a "torture-porn" or more traditional horror flick. The FX by Szilvia Paros ("Pillars of the Earth" TV, "Hellboy") are well done and support cinematographer Danny Ruhlmann's ("In a Savage Land", "Little Fish") epic shots.

Cusack toes the line between curmudgeon and scholar well, though it takes a while to warm to some of his acting choices. Eve really shines in a scene that finds her playing out "The Tell-Tale Heart" (not a spoiler, it's the clip she's been showing on appearances). I hope Evans makes more pictures that require acting and clothing (not that I mind him being half naked in the least). His weathered face reminds one of Daniel Craig and he has the potential for the same silent glances heavily weighted in meaning as well.

The only downfall to "The Raven", and responsible for the 3.5 rating instead of 4, is the somewhat disjointed storytelling. It is as if the film didn't know how to start itself or how to end. The middle, the investigation of the crimes, is well executed. Each murder points a finger towards the next and Evans and Cusack make a great team in trying to decipher them. Without giving too much away, the revelation of the killer was a bit of a downer as well. The obligatory confession that even villians not in a James Bond film must give felt like an after-thought.

Fans of the actors, subject, or genre will appreciate this film; though I'm not sure it needs to be seen in the theatre. Rental will allow what I hope to be good special features beyond the usual making of. A featurette linking characters in the film with their real life counterparts would play well. As would one exploring the many theories surrounding Poe's death.

A Pair of Star-Crossed Lovers

Every once in a while, I get on a genre kick. Sometimes it's horror, sometimes comedy or foreign. This week I was all about biopics.

First up:
"Bright Star" (2009)
Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Ben Whisaw (Keats), Abbie Cornish (Fanny), Paul Schneider (Mr. Brown)

** (2 stars)

Based on the poet John Keats secret love affair with Fanny Brawne near the end of his life. Fanny comes from a somewhat established family and is of the age when she must think about marrying, and more importantly, marrying a man with money. Her best prospect is family friend and failed poet Mr. Brown, who teases her life a child on the playground. Enter young Keats- poor, mysterious, talented. Fanny is immediately drawn to him and their secret rendez-vous commence. Tragedy strikes when Keats contracts TB and is sent off to Rome to convelese. Months later, he is dead at 25- a failed poet.

If this sounds like spoilers, I apologize. However, history tells us these things so I don't feel I'm ruining anything. That you know the romance is ultimately tragic was part of the marketing campaign.

The film has a great premise. Part biography, part history, part love affair; how could it go wrong? But, wrong it does. The film feels overly long dispite coming in just under two hours long. The acting is good, Cornish and Schneider especially. Cornish displays the naivity and ideality young woman possess, and that many a heroine of romantic lore have been written around. Schneider, perhaps best known for independent films "All the Real Girls" and "Lars and the Real Girl", has a fantastic Scottish accent and teases Miss Brawne as if it's an Olympic sport. Whisaw is fine as Keats, but it does not compare to his "star making" turn in "Perfume" or more recently on BBC's "The Hour".

Furthermore, the film is boring. Too much film is spent on voice over's of letters written and poems being tried out when it could have shown the action to a much better result. Campion is the champion (pun intended) of quite, moody, romantic fare. Her approach is no different here, though I feel she was far more interested in her subjects personally than she was at making us fall in love with them.

The movie did make me want to know more, mostly because I was left knowing so little, so I jumped to Wikipedia for an overview. Five minutes browsing the internet left me with a much better taste in my mouth. Why didn't they play up the secrecy of their affair? No one knew until Fanny's death when she bequithed the love letters to her children. Her life was far more intersting during and after her time with Keats, I wish the film had focused more on her.

Next, I finally say Cronenberg's "departure" film.

"A Dangerous Method" (2011)
Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel
Awards: Golden Globe nomination, Best Supporting Actor- Viggo Mortensen, London and Los Angeles Critics Association Best Actor- Michael Fassbender, Venice Film Festival Golden Lion- David Cronenberg

****(4.5 stars)

Just after the turn of the century and prior to World War I, a destraught Russian woman, Sabina (Knightley), is delivered to Jung's Zurich clinic. She is histerical and fights help with every fiber of her being. Jung begin's what was then refered to as "the talking cure" on her, based on his readings of Freud's papers. As Sabina gets better, so does the relationship between student and teacher, both of Jung and Freud and Jung and Sabina) developes. Together, Freud and Jung work to develope and create what becomes psychoanalysis. As Sabina gets better, she begins a long-term affair with the married Jung that releases him from his own mental confines. She goes back to school and becomes a therapist herself. However, this love triangle soon becomes toxic to many involved ending in the infamous rift between these two masters of the mind.

The biggest surprise in this film may be Knightley. She physically embodes a woman suffering from past trauma's and guilt. The opening scenes in which her whole body fights her revelations is brilliant. Fassbender may be the most exciting actor of his generation. Jung could easily become an unsypathetic character, yet he creates a man flawed and accepting of his own flaws. Mortensen and Cronenberg should have a contract, along the same lines as Time Burton and Johnny Depp, and make as many films together as possible. Both bring the best out of the other and the unscene relationship that must be evident off camera bleeds into the performance.

The film makes clear the stylistic differences between Freud's and Jung's approach to the psyche that is easy for the layman to grasp. Again, it is the female character that is almost more interesting. Sabina graduates and becomes a respected psychoanalyst. During the war, she moves back to Russia with her husband and family. During World War II she refuses to leave her home and is killed, along with her children, by the Nazi's. That she is no longer forgotten is wonderful.

I would certainly recommend this movie to anyone interested in the birth of our understanding the mind, to those with a major crush on the actor's or director (guilty!), or to anyone interested in a movie that makes them think. I certainly understand you may need to be in the right mind set for such a film, but try to get there!

Cronenberg is a director that continues to grow even though he doesn't need to. Having made his name as the Canadian father of horror, he know puts that same eye to detail, destruction, and psychology to more realistic forms. His next project, "Cosmopolis", takes him back to the future armed with the character development he has perfected in recent years. Not even the presence of Robert Pattinson is enough to turn me off this film.

Millennium Trilogy Resolved

**** (4 stars)

I've been a bit preoccupied with life at the moment, so not a lot of time to sit at home and watch the Netflix collecting dust on top of my VCR/DVD combo. Last night I finally finished "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third film in the Millennium trilogy based on the best selling books of the same name. I reviewed the first movie on my older blog, but seem to have skipped the second one all together. Weird. If you haven't seen the movies or read the books you've probably been living in a distopian society that has outlawed all forms of entertainment. If that's the case, than congrats on escaping from the cult and let's get crackin' getting you up to speed.

**There Will Be Spoilers! (But, I'll try to keep them to a minimum)**

In the first film, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", we are introduced to Mikael Blomkvist- rogue journalist and editor of a seemingly boring political magazine. Blomkvist has just served a short prison sentence for slander when he is recruited by a wealthy old man to help solve the disappearance of his granddaughter. Blomkvist's search is too long and tedious to do alone, so he enlists the help of a computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander to help.  Lisbeth is a bit of a genius but the government has kept her under control by declaring her incompetent and locking her up in a mental institution when she was a young girl. What's the angle? Of course everything ends happily but of course that's not true or there would be no need for two other movies.

Cut to the second film, "The Girl Who Played With Fire". Blomkvist moves on with life and begins investigating a possible sex-traffic ring. He would be lost without Salander's hacking skills and once again enlists her to help. Unfortunately for her, there is more than meets the eye in this case and she is soon the scape goat for several murders that occur during the investigation. Now on the run, she must rely on Blomkvist for help this time around. These events unfold along with, and sometimes in conjunction with, the story of Salander's painful childhood and years of abuse. It is revealed that her father, whom she tried to kill as a child, is actually behind everything that has happened to her in life and is now the one trying to shut her up forever. Unfortunately for him, she gets there first and tries to kill him again. Blomkvist to the rescue and roll credits.

Now, in the final movie, Salander is clinging to life and about to face trial for the attempted murder of her father. We all know by now what a bad guy he is, but he has deep roots and trusted allies with which to help him. This film is a lot slower than the previous two and that's saying a lot considering the shortest of the trilogy is 129  minutes. The problem isn't necessarily the filmmakers as it is the author. Steig Larsson traumatically died shortly after the first book was published. We know through his long term girlfriend that a forth book was in the works. Would it have continued the story of Blomkvist and Salander? Was is something completely different? We may never know as it is tied up in the malicious court case between her and Larsson's family. [side note: If you're with a Swede, get married. The country does not recognize girl friends or common law wives, and the family can contest the will and estate in such cases. Bummer.]

The book was able to do a better job at explaining the government's connection to Salander's father and herself since it is unrestrained from the confines of time. To shot the book as written would require the film to be almost 8 hours long. The writers did a fine job editing out additional back stories and characters, yet they seem to have forgotten the main ones. How is Blomkvist so smart in the previous films but so dumb in this one? Why would Sweden protect such a nasty individual as Salander's father? The book fixes both of these problems and for that reason, I suggest you read it first. Otherwise, you will be left in the dark about many things that will fill in the holes the movies creates.

It is a bit of a sad conclusion to such a fantastic series, but not so far gone as to warrant massive complaints or calls to avoid it. You should see it. If you've already watched the other two movies, it will be impossible to ignore it. Furthermore, the English language remake is being filmed now and I can already guess there will be more car chases, bare breasts, and swearing than the original. Such a shame.

Kelly Canter and Jesus Christ

*** (3.5 stars)

For a movie I had no real intention of seeing, "Country Strong" really surprised me. I was anticipating something horrible I could laugh at while drinking a bottle of wine with a friend. Instead, what I got was a thoughtful though flawed film.

Gwenyth Paltrow stars as Kelly Canter, a Shania Twain/grown-up Carrie Underwood type with more demons than talent. Once again in rehab, she meets handsome orderly Beau, also an aspiring singer. When Kelly's husband-manager (never a good hyphenate) comes to get her a month early to start touring, she convinces him to take Beau with them on the road. Is obvious what will happen next, but it doesn't really matter. Unlike "CrazyHeart", our protagonist here is far more likable. She's someone you may know or have met- a woman married too young, suffering too much from and for her work, and lost inside her personal demons. The ending shocked me. I think I slapped my friend!

The stand out here is Garrett Hedlund ("Tron: Legacy") and actual country superstar Tim McGraw. McGraw has carved out a nice second career with acting. He's expressive and sincere in his acting, all the more impressive as his character is without a doubt the nemesis of the film. Hedlund left a budding impression in "Tron", and he's so much better here. He walks away with every scene he is in, and I would buy any record he put out.

A lot of people claim to hate country music. That's fair, we don't all have to like everything. But I guarantee those people like a country artist- Johnny Cash, early Elvis, Patsy Cline, Waylon Jennings. There's a song or two on their iPod for sure. Growing up in Texas you would think I would have a greater appreciation for country than say, someone from New York. That isn't the case. I was raised by Yankees and as such, country music was never really played in the house. However, I couldn't escape the above artists and others growing up. It's the new wave of country that annoys me. I don't like it's pop sound, as if it's trying to convince us it's something it isn't. Be country! I love bluegrass and the new alt-folk scene that's cropped up across the country. I like the music in this film because it's the perfect blend of both worlds- a little bit country, a little bit rock and roll. (I think I totally lose some point for quoting a Donny & Marie song though). Beau's songs are the most honest and classic. Young ingenue Chiles Stanton (Leighton Meester) is the current Carrie Underwood type. She's got a surprisingly good voice, but she doesn't really blossom until she meets Beau. My biggest complaint with her was that I didn't believe the growth of the character in so short a time span. Worse, I can't tell if it's the writing or her acting that caused this reaction.

The biggest problem with this movie is the story. I appreciate when a film drops us into the middle of the story, but you still have to flesh out the characters. If all roads lead to Dallas, as they do in this movie, then that scene must pop, must resonate, must be recognized as the pinnacle of the film. That a sold out show at the American Airlines Center can feel flat is a real feat. Hedlund rescues the movie time and again with his Honest Beau routine. I'm excited for his career and hope he continues to make interesting choices.

Writer/Director Shana Fest has made a solid sophomore movie (her first, the family tragedy/drama "The Greatest" is available on DVD) and if she can sharpen her storytelling skills, her career may continue. Unfortunately, that's a tall order in the film industry. You've got to make money when given the chance or at the very least create something a core audience and critics will like.

I'm glad I saw this movie, it was a lot better than expected. However, it made me long for better crafted (country) music movies like "The Thing Called Love" or "Nashville". If you have or had any interest, rent it. If you never cared, you may be surprised but you're more likely going to like something else.

HANNA-sassian

**** (4.5 stars)

I went to a screening last night and fell in love, almost immediately, with “Hanna”. Every scene is important to building the story of a young girl trained to fight, and fed on revenge for the death of her mother.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) and her father (Eric Bana) have lived in the arctic woods since she was a child. In that time, he has expanded her education past the World Books they read nightly, to include hunting, fighting, and survival. All of this is in preparation for the day she decides she is ready to face her nemesis, Marissa Weixler (Cate Blanchett); a CIA operative that killed her mother.

There have been movies before, and I'm sure after, that follow the struggles of a person raised away from society. The introduction of new words, new friends, music, animals, places; but here it never feel like a gimmick. Through the brilliant acting of Saoirse Ronan and great writing, we feel almost as if we're experiencing these things for the first time as well. While on the run, Hanna meets up with a family of British tourists who take her in. These are the first friends and people she has had real, true contact with in her life. It’s heartwarming and heart wrenching at the same time.

There's a bit of a divot in Cate Blanchett's performance, but I'm not sure it's her fault. How do I criticize what I also loved about the movie? That is, it's refusal to fill in the holes and missing pieces of the back story. We know what we need to know to move the story along, no more, no less. Still, I wish I knew more about what motivated her. Why, after all these years is she still stung by the one that got away? Why is she so evil? And, she really is. Blanchett plays her like a Southern mother that spits venom.

Director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride & Prejudice”) breaks out of his sober shell to create action sequences that rival the Bourne movies. The stylized fight sequences are brutal, though the mix of camera techniques could be distracting to those of us that pay attention to such things. DP Alwin Kuchler (“Morwan Caller”, “Sunshine”) has perfected this style of tight shots that seem to drift down to the audience. We never feel preached too, though we know exactly who is testifying. However, the editing keeps the action tight and on line. It’s violence that acts itself out, but is never gratuitous.

That the Chemical Brothers scored the movie seemed a bit weird to me at first, like a watered down “Tron: Legacy”, but I have to say they did an exceptional job. The music alerts us to the action ahead, but doesn’t over take it (hello Bourne) or foreshadow too greatly.

All in all, I highly recommend this movie to everyone. Go see it!

WWQTW?

***Disclaimer and open letter to Blogger.com: I wrote this review yesterday, complete with photos and quotes and the whole nine yards. Then, Blogger, in its infinite wisdom, didn't save any of it. Thanks. You'll just have to take my word for it that the original post was hilarious and insightful. I'm not sure what can be said about this one.***

2005 was another year in which the majority of the public and, it seems, journalists; thought the Academy got it wrong. That year, "Crash" beat out critical favorite "Brokeback Mountain"; as well as "Munich", "Capote", and our film last night: "Good Night, and Good Luck". I'm not saying "Good Night" should have won, that place in my heart belongs to "Brokeback Mountain", but it is another example of when good films don't win. The sting hurts all the more that a movie that is basically an open casting for L.A. and two-steps from Lifetime won instead. Oh well.

"Good Night" was also nominated for Best Director- George Clooney, Best Actor- David Strathairn, Best Orginal Screenplay- Clooney and Grant Heslov, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematographer. The cast, from the leads down to the day players, is heavy calibre talent: Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, Matt Ross, and more.

What I liked best about this movie was the use of archival footage from the McCarthy trials and from interviews with the senator. For those unfamiliar, Sen. Joseph McCarthy lead what many considered a witch hunt through the ranks of America looking for communists and communist sympathizers. What made this probe even more intersting was its wide ranging scope. Not only citizens in government employ were targeted, but actors, writers, directors, and civilians. The U.S. was a scary place to live at the time. Clooney's decision to use real footage helps remind those of us too young to remember that what we are seeing is real.

The choice to shot in black and white also helps keep with the period in which the film takes place. Oscar winning DP Robert Elswit ("There Will Be Blood") camera work reminded me of a Cohen brothers movie ("The Man Who Wasn't There")- long static shots on unmoving faces, hand held through the news room, and often focusing on a background player while the actor speaking is out of focus. It sounds odd, but it really helped keep the audience fixated on what was important; namely the words and not the actions.

If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. At about 90 minutes, it's a clear and concise view of the only TV channel that stood up to McCarthy (CBS) and the men who helped bring him down.

**** (4.5 stars)

The Fighter

**** (4 stars)

Following up his successful collaboration with Mark Wahlberg in "Three Kings" and the critic's favorite "I Heart Huckabees", director David O. Russell is back with "The Fighter". The true story of a down on his luck boxer and his even further down the rabbit hole brother, it has already garnered critical acclaim and several high profile nominations (Golden Globe, SAG).

Mark Wahlberg is Mickey, a welterweight "stepping stone" who gets beat up more than he actually boxes. In his corner is his brother Dickey (sublime Christian Bale) who used to be a notable fighter in his day before succumbing to drugs, and his mother (Melissa Leo) who's also his manager. When Mickey meets Charlene (Amy Adams), he gains the confidence to step out on his own and look out for himself first with family obligations second. Soon he finds he has a shot at the title, but is it worth anything without his brother?

The city of Lowell, Massachusetts plays as much a character in the film as any of the actor's. It's is the picture by which we all imagine the Boston suburbs to be- hard, down on their luck Irish with drinking problems and anger issues. Instead, this film portrays it's residents as equal parts "trash" and hero. They take pride in the few things they've got and don't let anyone mess with them.

Wahlberg delivers much as you would expect him to. He's the perfect toughie with the heart of a lamb. The scenes of him boxing (shot in cinema vérité style by Hoyte Van Hoytema, "Let the Right One In") are brilliant; more in the style of "Raging Bull" than "Rocky", and certainly pay homage to the great boxing films that came before. When we first meet our heros, they are being interviewed by HBO for what they are told is a documentary chronicling Dickey's return to boxing. Each scene shifts from the standard 35 mm format to digital which recreates the televised fights and interviews.

I was surprised by how much this was really Dickey's story and Bale the powerful center of the film. It's his scenes you most look forward to. What is he going to ruin now? How will he regain Mickey's trust? Who is he going to hurt next? Bale famously dropped weight for this movie but it isn't in your face as it was in "The Machinist". Instead, his frail yet powerful body are a map to his triumphs and struggles. It amazes me the amount of stress he puts it through, yet it never fails him. The guy really needs a few films where he can just enjoy a normal weight as I'm sure the frequent fluctuations are not good for his long term health. Dickey can't seem to catch a break, so he lives through his brother. He pushes him and molds him to be what he never was instead of allow him to be his own person. It is an amazing story of brotherhood more so than it is a tale of boxing.

Melissa Leo is genius as their mother. Overprotecting and oblivious to what's going on around her and how she is manipulating her sons. She deserves all the nominations she can get and is my front runner to win the Golden Globe. On the reverse, Mickey's dad (Jack McGee, "Rescue Me", "NYPD Blue") is the caring father, the true Irish standard. He only has eyes for his son and won't let anyone, not even his wife, run him down. Adams looks haggard, which I suppose is on purpose, but I just kept thinking, "She's not going to age well". That really has nothing to do with her performance except it was a bit distracting. She surprised me actually. I think of her as the "cute girl", the chick from "Enchanted" and "Julie & Julia". Even in "Doubt" when she was able to attack a more serious role, she always looked dow-eyed  and sweet. She gets to be dirty here and it's as if for the first time she believes what she is doing and who she is portraying. I can only applaud Russell for his excellent direction as she gives a performance I'm not sure she could have with anyone else.

[side note: I now believe Adams could be Janis Joplin. Well, maybe believe is a bit strong, but I'm certainly less opposed.]

I really liked this movie. Maybe part of it had to do with seeing it in a packed theatre with an audience that applauded during the fights. It is always a better viewing experience when the audience gets wrapped up in the film, when they laugh, cry, cheer. Somehow I always enjoy myself more than if I were at home with a bottle of wine by myself. I recommend "The Fighter". It is not what you think it is. It's about family, and struggles, and triumphs. Oh, and it's also a little about boxing.

WWQTW?: Orlando

Friday night was the last meeting of WWQTW? for 2010. I am so thankful to lead this club and love all the great discussions we've had over the last few months. I am working on some really cool movies and surprises for next year, but until then you're on your own! Check out my list of movies everyone should have seen (and the basis for what we watch in the club) here, or just click on the "wwqtw" label at the bottom to fill your days during the holiday season.

Back to Friday! We had a great turn out and even better eats! I'm going to have to start taking pictures of the spread: stuffed phyllo assorted bites, stuffed brie, crab dip, pizza rolls, Olive Garden salad (love!), and French silk pie to finish. My Sausage Tempeh Puff Pastries were a big hit as well and I will post the recipe on my food blog this week. I wanted to continue along the same themes as last meeting where we spoke about gender and identity from the perspective of "Queer Cinema", but this time I wanted to focus on female/feminist film.

"Orlando" (1992) was written and directed by Sally Potter and based on the book by Virginia Woolf. The novel itself was a love letter to Woolf's mistress Vita Sackville-West, herself an accomplished poet. The film begins in 1500 with the young Orlando (Tilda Swinton) becoming the confidant (and lover?) of Queen Elizabeth I. It is Elizabeth that urges Orlando to "...not whither, do not fade". Here the theme of immortality is introduced in the film. After the deaths of the Queen and Orlando's parents, he falls a sleep for some time and awakens in 1610 ("Love") and begins an affair with Sascha, a Russian noble woman. Later, in 1650, he begins a poem ("The Oak Tree") about his love and hatred of Sascha and women in general. In 1700 ("Politics"), Orlando is made the liaison to Constantinople and remains there until war forces him to rethink his priorities. When we next meet Orlando ("Society"), he is now a she. "The same person, no difference at all, just a different sex". The Lady Orlando now makes her way in the world of upper-crust society as a woman. The limits to her freedom and privilege as a woman are all the more harsh as she still thinks of herself as a man, or if not male than as equal to men. In 1850 ("Sex") she has a brief affair with Shelmerdine (Billy Zane) that ends when she is forced from her estate for being an unmarried woman. Now in the section named "Birth", we see Orlando as a successful mother who is only now able to live the life she always dreamt and be the person she always wanted to be.

The main themes of Orlando are love, immortality, and gender roles. When Orlando is a young man, he is a hopeless romantic more interested in love that station. It is not until he is in love that he recognizes the "treachery of women" and the pain that comes with pleasure. "I can find only three words to describe the female sex. None of which is worth expressing". He is happy then to live a quiet life, alone at home, meditating in the far East, or sitting in a salon (though now as a woman his opinion is worth less). Love comes knocking again in the guess of an American adventurer whom she proposes to upon first meeting. He, however, recognizes her spark and refuses. They have a wonderful conversation about what it means to be a "real man" or a "real woman". When he leaves, she has the exact conversation with him as she did with Sascha, only now Orlando speaks the woman's part and Shelmerdine speaks Orlando's. It is useful to note that the two loves of Orlando's life are both tied to the weather- Sascha must leave when the ice cracks and her ship can sail, while Shelmerdine must leave when the wind changes direction. It is a not so subtle metaphor, yet one that works.

Immortality is another theme of the film. Orlando lives over 300 years and sees and experiences the world in a unique way. He falls in love, breaks his heart, goes abroad, changes gender, falls in love, breaks his heart, loses his home, and generally looks for the meaning in all of it. It is finally in modern times that she is "no longer trapped by destiny" and can live as a free spirit.

Gender is obviously a theme here. Orlando lives multiple lives as both a man and a woman, but it is the female gender that he eventually sticks to and seems to have been working towards his whole life. It is as a woman that he can express himself more freely and avoid the things he finds distasteful. A woman can speak of love, avoid war and conflict, be the mistress of her own home, and an independent person. It is fascinating to see the history of the world played out over one persons lifetime. The way each subtle changes hits Orlando plays across his face. He winks, knowingly toward the camera.

Potter is known for her avant-garde film making style. Her films often seem to follow no discernible plot, characters break the forth wall, and the fantasy of the mind becomes reality. She is also regarded as a feminist filmmaker, though I don't hear her male counterparts labeled as misogynist filmmakers like a badge of honor. Her first film starred Julie Christie as a movie star who tries to understand her roots. It has no real plot and the script is a bit weak. She spent 9 years working on the "Orlando" script, trying to show her detractors that she was capable of a good script. She succeeds here and makes one of my favorite, little appreciated movies here. She followed it up with "The Tango Lesson" in which she also stars. It's better than "The Gold Diggers" but her refusal to write in the Hollywood standard of 3-arch narration may turn many viewers off. Truth be told, the only other movie of hers I liked was "The Man Who Cried" starring Johnny Deep and Christina Ricci. It tells the story of a Russian Jew (Ricci) who is separated from her family as a child. As an adult, she becomes a professional singer, falls in love with a gypsy (Deep), and searches for her father as the Nazi's invade France. Her most recent film, "Rage", is the story of a murder at a fashion party told through the interviews a blogger conducts on the scene. There is no set, only a plain brightly coloured backdrop and the actors speak directly into the camera. While it is an interesting concept, it quickly becomes tiresome and boring.

Tilda Swinton is one of my favorite actresses in history, hands down. She (finally) won an Oscar in 2008 for "Michael Clayton", and has been nominated for several awards for her work in "Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons", "Burn After Reading", "Young Adam", and "The Deep End". I also love her as the angel Gabriel in "Constantine". She is a fearless actress and great talent. The whole club was in agreement that we could not think of any other actor to play the role of Orlando. Her voice subtly shifts up a register when she becomes a woman, and the knowing looks she gives the camera take on a whole new meaning. She would have to be sympathetic for the film to be successful and she is.

The film was nominated for two Academy Awards in Costume design and Art Direction. It is amazing to think this film was made for roughly the equivalent of $8 million. Costume designer Sandy Powell would go on to win 3 Oscars for her work in "Shakespeare in Love", "The Aviator", and "The Young Victoria". It truly is a beautiful film to watch, though the DVD transfer is sometimes a bit sketchy. Maybe it was just my copy. The transitions between decades/chapters was often done on screen and followed by a title card instead of the other way around. This seemed to confuse some of the club (While running through a hedge labyrinth and going from 1750 to 1850: "Where did she find a change of clothes?" -"There was a hedge of requirement?").

Further viewing: The Gold Diggers, The Man Who Cried, Mrs. Dalloway, Thelma & Louise (the male perspective to feminist film), Hedwig & The Angry Inch, Transamerica, The Fountain, Looking for Mr Goodbar, Frida, Lovely & Amazing, The Piano, The Virgin Suicides, The Namesake, Gas Food Lodging, Personal Velocity, Brief Crossing,

127 Hours

**** (4 1/2 stars)

Last night I had the opportunity to see an advanced screening of "127 Hours" with my buddy Lauren. The show was completely sold out but we got good seats none the less! It was a lot of fun.

Academy Award winning director Danny Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire", as well as "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", and "Millions") tackles the real life story of Aron Rolston (played by James Franco), the climber who made headlines in 2003 when he cut his own arm off to save himself after becoming trapped in a crevice. The script was based on Rolston's book "Between a Rock and a Hard Place", and was co-written by Boyle and Academy Award winning screenwriter Simon Beaufoy ("Slumdog Millionaire", as well as "The Full Monty", "Blow Dry", and "MIss Pettegrew Lives for a Day"). Many of the same Slumdog people are back as well: A.R. Rahman provides the original music which seems a bit Slumdog-lite. Anthony Dod Mantle (AA for "Slumdog Millionaire", as well as "28 Days Later") and Enrique Chediak ("Repo Men", "28 Weeks Later") do an amazing job on the cinematography. I'm sure we can expect to see them again come awards season, but more on that later. Production Designer Suttirat Anne Larlarb (also from "Slumdog") had her work cut out for her. The majority of production was shot on location in the same valley's and mountain's the real Rolston climbed in Utah.

If not for Boyle and Franco, I'm not sure I would have ever considered seeing this movie. Maybe on Netflix, but not in the theatre. I'm certainly curious about what happened in that canyon in April '03. I remember hearing the story and seeing Rolston on Letterman. I know what happened in a round about sense, but I clearly never cared enough to get his book or look into it fully. Climbing, canyoning, etc. holds no interest to me.

When I head Franco had been cast, I knew I was screwed and would have to see this movie. He has proven himself quite the gifted actor, abandoning the heartthrob/bad boy image ("Freaks & Geeks", "Annapolis", "Spiderman") in favor of rich character studies and independent cinema. See: "Milk", "Howl", "Tristan + Isolde". Even his turn on "General Hospital" seems logical and a big F-you to mainstream Hollywood. The daily shoots and last minute scripts would surely help an actor, and it seems as if it has. Franco's performance of Rolston is cocky, sincere, heartbreaking, and devastating. His hunger induced fantasies play in split screen, the colours pop from the near darkness he was in before. We find ourselves longing for a Mountain Dew or the need to escape the bathroom. Unfortunately, we are glued to our seats and cannot move for fear we will miss one moment of his performance.

[side note: Fuck you James for making me watch episodes of GH. I have no idea what is going on. I do think it's hilarious that your character was named Franco, but that could have easily been an attempt from the writers to help you remember your name on the show. Grrr!]

Speaking of the use of split screen, it was a bit annoying at times but made sense as the film progressed. We are assaulted with images of urbanism, consumerism, and traffic. Bright colours of red, yellow, and green (a wink at the upcoming red desert?) flash across the screen. At times, we are unsure where to look or what we are seeing. This continues off and on until the pivotal scene where Aron is trapped. Now, these editing tricks play out in his mind. One of the best scenes in the film comes when Rolston has been trapped for over 3 days in the canyon. He imagines himself on an interview show and he plays the part of both host, guest, and caller to the small camera he brought with him on the trip. We cut back and forth from the low res handheld to a movie camera slightly askew stage right and another stage left. It is a brilliant scene for both actor, director, and editor.

Also cropping up in the film (no pun intended) are Kate Mara ("Shooter") and Amber Tamblyn ("Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants") as two fellow hikers who met Rolston right before his accident, his parents played by Treat Williams (!!!) and Kate Burton, and his ex-girlfriend (Clémence Poésy, "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire", "In Bruges") whom he often reminisces about.

Boyle has long been a director impossible to peg or categorize. His filmography reads like my perfect wish list: horror, suspense, comedy, non-fiction, foreign, sci-fi. He seems to follow his heart and doesn't allow anyone to tell him what type of movies he should be making. It is impossible to tell a Danny Boyle film just by looking at it, and I mean that as the ultimate compliment. I remember seeing his first film "Shallow Grave" when it came out. It introduced me to Ewan McGregor and Christopher Eccleston, and was the kind of dark British humor much beloved in our house. He followed that up with "Trainspotting" and "A Life Less Ordinary" (slightly less successful). "The Beach" paired him with future collaborator Alex Garland from whose novel the film was based. They would go on to work together on "28 Days Later" and "Sunshine" (one of my top little appreciated films and a must for horror/sci-fi nerds like myself). Just to throw them off, he left zombies behind to make a small and uplifting Irish movie called "Millions". Finally, the Oscar's came calling with "Slumdog Millionaire". Personally, I didn't think it would win or even that it was the best picture of the year (I would have given that to "The Reader" or "Milk", but the Academy has long loved these kinds of films. See:"Crash" beating "Brokeback Mountain", "Good Night and Good Luck", and "Munich".)

[side note:While I understand the desire to work with the same people, especially those who won awards along side you; it is important not to lose focus on who is best for the job. A fair warning to Mr Boyle: Lay off the Indian music and references for a bit, please.]

But back to the movie at hand. I recommend "127 Hours" for everyone. There are scenes that may be a bit gory for children (it is rated R for language and brief gore), so use your best judgement. It is a well crafted film that takes us on a journey no one would choose for themselves, but which leaves us with a sense of hope and impressive awe at the man who lived it.

An Open Love Letter to Australia, or What I Thought About "Avatar" 3D

ARCHIVE from 12/24/09

Dear Australia,

I would like to thank you for what ever genetic operation you have going on down there. I understand that many attractive actors I consider Australian were in fact born elsewhere, usually England (hola Sam Worthington), I assume the air or the water in Perth or Brisbane or Melbourne is the cause of their good fortune. So, keep up the good work and keep sending them stateside.

Last night, a bunch of buddies and I went to see "Avatar" in 3D (not IMAX, I just can't spend $15 on a movie just yet. Sorry). I wasn't expecting much. Depending on who you read/trust, it was either cheesy/juvenile dialog/boring waste of 3 hours (reviewers) or the greatest thing since sliced bread (entertainers). I've gotta lean more towards "awesome", let me explain.

Was the dialog sometimes a bit over the top, cheesy even? Sure. Was the movie, and the creators of the movie, totally aware that was what they were doing? Absolutely. Show me a war movie that doesn't cash in on one cliche and I'll give you a nickle. On the same note, what SciFi movie isn't rife with absurd one-liners and winking glances? Not a one.

"Avatar" is a message film you don't mind, even if you don't agree with it's message (which would make you a war-mongering, anti-environment, racist). So... If you have been living in a cave, or simply hate movies (and therefore are probably not reading this entry), "Avatar" is about a joint military-science mission to Pandora, a plant rich with a fuel source we desperately need on Earth as we've used all of ours up. The problem is, Pandora is home to the Na'vi, a tribal culture who is not keen on the "skywalkers" making a muck of their planet. The whole thing is underlined with thoughts on god, life, religion, race. Humans can't breath the air on Pandora, so they've designed these Avatar's that look, move, are, just like the indigenous people. Through a bio-link, humans upload themselves into these creature shells and try to interact with the Na'vi.

Pretty standard story, you can imagine what happens, but you get sucked into the beauty of the world, the decent to great acting, and the overall joyful spirit of the movie.

Cameron has spent years trying to develop the technology needed to bring this story to life. He finally succeeded in what is the most brilliant 3D images I've ever seen. this new tech brings the whole picture to multi-dimensional life with out the bells and whistles usually reserved for 3D. rarely does anything leap out at you or go running right for you. It happens, but very organically, not for wow factor. It takes about 15-20 minutes for your eyes to totally adjust to the glasses (which is fine as the movie is 3 hours- side note: even I couldn't find where to make cuts. 3 hrs probably IS the edited time). The tech isn't perfect yet, objects moving faster than a walk tend to blur unnaturally and other objects that move too close to the camera get lost and actually take you out of the 3D experience, but that's not much of a criticism.

The way the trailer looked online/TV/2D lead to the bummed feeling I had going in. However, and there's a lovely quote from Worthington about this somewhere, the movie was meant to be seen in 3D, in IMAX, it doesn't translate well to your computer. I thought, like my friend Phillip, that the animated portions would look like an extended video game trailer. They don't. Period. However, this 3D only thing will become a big problem when DVD sales roll around, though we are supposed to have 3D HD televisions come spring (but I'm sure I won't be able to afford one). They'll have to sell the movie with multiple glasses and make spares available for purchase as well.

A big congrats to Stephen Lang for his Golden Globe nomination. I guess this proves you can be in an FX latent movie and get recognized. He did a great job, and it's only a shame some of the other actors weren't as well. It must be hard if your performance is entirely motion capture (Zoe Saldana) or at least majority (everyone else). Oh well... baby steps.

With that, I'm off. I hope you all enjoy your free day/holiday tomorrow. May I suggest you see Avatar 3D during the boredom that is Christmas afternoon? I will be at Sherlock Holmes. Here's hoping it isn't as rubbish as the reviews are making it out to be.

The Social Network

**** 4.5 stars

I spent my day off yesterday at the movies with my favorite movie buddy, word of the day Jennie. It was down to "Easy A" ("No comedy," was Jennie's only stipulation), so we went with "The Social Network" instead. In case you've been living under a rock:

"The Social Network" is based on the novel "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich and directed by David Fincher. It follows the rise and subsequent lawsuits surrounding the founding of Facebook. Jesse Eisenberg (perennial nebish nerd) stars as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. He is later sued by fellow Harvard students (Armie Hammer pulling CGI double duty as Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and Max Minghella) as well as his former best friend and CFO Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield).

Screen writer Aaron Sorkin ("The West Wing", "A Few Good Men") doesn't try to answer the question that plagues the movie- Who's idea was Facebook?- but instead focuses on what can be known and that is the instances leading up to and following the websites success. Instead of saying the film is inter cut with scenes from the multiple depositions Zuckerberg attended, I would say the depositions are inter cut with scenes from their life. From the dorm rooms at Harvard to the crewing down the Charles River to Silicon Valley to the crescendo that is Facebook gaining 1 million followers, we are there like a fly on the wall witnessing it all. Sorkin will not reveal all of his sources (though it has been well publicized that Natalie Portman, Harvard alum, met with me), only to say that they had details down to what kind of beer they were drinking at what time. That sounds pretty accurate. Still, he never demonizes any one party. Everyone seems to blame in some way for their part in the whole mess.

Eisenberg does a great job as the "asshole" Zuckerberg. I couldn't help but wonder, if this portrayal is in anyway accurate, why no one has raised the argument that he might not be an asshole but rather suffers from Asperger's. He is unable to control what comes out of his mouth, is unaware of how what is said effects others, and further more; doesn't seem to care. He doesn't care about money, but works hard to control and edge out those who helped him rise to billionaire status. His only real relationship was with Saverin whom he reportedly pushed out of the company. Infamous Sean Parker (creator of Napster and part owner of Facebook, here played by Justin Timberlake) comes across as money hungry and stupid. He has the genius to recognize good ideas and get them to the right people, but he can't organize his own life. Meanwhile, Saverin never quiet understands the demon that Facebook is becoming and gets left in the dust. Who is to blame? Does it even matter?

My personal demi-god Trent Reznor makes his big screen debut with a score that highlights and supports every scene without drawing attention to itself. You will immediately recognize his signature, but he is smart enough to know when and how it will work in the context of the film.

The Oscar buzz is certainly worthy. Fincher delivers a well crafted film that is just enough outside what we would expect from him to make it refreshing without making his name above the line meaningless. Sorkin weaves fact, fiction, and humor into every scene. With his background in television it is no wonder he has an ear for dialog and it has never been more on display than in this work. Eisenberg may be left behind. The character is too similar to ones he's played before, though I don't fault him that: Know what you do well and do that. The only difference is in his likability. Either you do or you don't. Garfield has had a banner year so far, though I'm still concerned about him as the new Spiderman. I wish that movie would fall apart and he would be forced back into (somewhat) anonymity and carefully chosen "serious" work. Timberlake gets to show off his acting chops and I cannot wait to see what else he has in store for us. I would also recommend Reznor's score and Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography (he also shot "Fight Club" and several well known music videos).

Never Let Me Go

***** 5 stars

Based on the Man Booker Prize nominated book and bestseller of the same name, Mark Romanek's adaptation of Kashu Ishiguro's novel may be one of the best movies to come out this year.

Many reviewers have quibbled over the revelation of the "twist" that comes much sooner in the movie than the book, but I think that's nonsense. What works in a novel would often appear slow and dull in a movie. If anything, I think it helps engage those viewers who come into the film with a naivete not unlike the characters in the film. That being said, I'm not about to ruin the surprise for anyone!

"Never Let Me Go" is the story of Kathy (Carey Mulligan); or really the story of how she grew up at a boarding school, Hailsham, and the close friends who share her journey in both body and soul. Ruth (Keira Knightly) has been her best friend since they were children, however she is an unusually spoiled girl who takes advantage of Kathy's kindness. In the middle of all this is Tommy (Andrew Garfield) who goes with Ruth while secretly longing for Kathy. The story is entirely from Kathy's perspective though we at no point doubt the sincerity of her narration. Separated for years, she reunites with Tommy, but is it too late?

The beauty of the book, and indeed the movie as well, is that while the subject matter may be science-fiction the actions are incredibly realistic. Book shelves and movie houses view sci-fi as something involving aliens or supernatural powers (clearly fantasy). It seems most of what you find is now Fantasy, with Science Ficiton going the way of the buffalo (or a Philip K Dick novela). Wikipedia defines science fiction as "dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established ... laws of nature". It is in this truest sense of the word that "Never Let Me Go" resides. I can't imagine seeing it in video stores sharing the same space as "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Star Trek". Instead, it focuses on the reality and questionable humanity of science and human beings.

Mark Romanek's primary art is music video and it is with that knowledge that he captures the subtle emotions that his actor's give him. Where other director's may be more comfortable with quick cuts or master shots, Romanek lingers. He creates truly unsettling images of nothing more than a face, albeit a face in pain. The soundtrack is sparse and subtly supports the loneliness our characters feel.

Mulligan and Garfield give subtle and pained performances that are certainly deserving of nominations come award season. In a particularly brilliant scene, the trio embark on a road trip to see an old ship stranded on the beach. Tommy has never lost the curiosity of his youth and runs to the ship while Kathy and Ruth watch. He crawls over the bow all gangly arms and legs; pausing only to catch his breath, grinning from ear to ear. In the context of the film, the scene becomes even more haunting as the inevitability of their situation bares down on both them and the viewer.

Although I had read the book and therefore knew what the outcome of the story would be, I found myself close to bawling towards the end of the film. I can't remember the last night a movie effected me on such a primal level. In particular, I think I began to lose it when Kathy and Tommy, now together, search for a way to maintain their relationship in the face of certain desolation. It's impossible not to be moved. I loved this movie, but I'm afraid to watch it again. The next time I won't be in a packed movie theatre with the shame and embarrassment of actually crying out loud to keep me in check. It's a pain that feels so good yet is scary as hell. On the path to "completion", what is our purpose?

I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. It is a landmark in cinema as the book was to the publishing world. Dealing with universal themes of growing up, falling in and out of love, living up to responsibilities, and the acceptance of fate; it is sure to cause a cavalcade of emotion in any view. Bring a tissue. Actually, make that three or four.

Dream Is But A Dream: Inception

***** (5 stars)

On immediately exiting the theatre, I sent the following text:

"Inception is one of the greatest films of all time"

Now, this may be an oversight, but in reality I think it is just another piece of evidence that Christopher Nolan is the new Hitchcock. A man well poised to become the face and name of this generation of film making. Even his lesser works (I'm looking at you "Insomnia") offer something more than the usual Hollywood blockbuster. That he was able to resurrect the Batman franchise with a nod most notably to Tim Burton's original vision as well as the direction the comic has taken under the Frank Miller titles, is nothing short of genius. Basically, if I ever met Mr. Nolan on the street, I would slap him in the face and yell, "Fuck you Christopher Nolan! You've mind fucked me for the last time!" However, unlike when I do the same thing to M. Night Shymalan, I won't actually mean it. Nolan can do anything he wants to my mind and I will happily pay for it.

It's hard to talk about "Inception" without giving anything away. I started hearing about this movie over a year ago, got super excite, watched the first teaser trailer, then instituted a media blackout in the hopes I would not spoil the movie. It worked, but I understand that may not be everyone's cup of tea. With that in mind, if you would like to go into this movie fresh faced and scrubbed clean of any incriminating information, please skip the next paragraph. If you are one of the many who was frustrated by the lack of information given on the plot, keep reading.

"Inception" refers to the act of planting a piece of information or an idea deep into a person's subconscious. The government has developed a formula that allows people to dream share and step into one another's subconscious. This technology has been misappropriated by thieves hoping to gain access to your inner most secrets and thoughts. Leonardo DiCaprio leads a team of misfits into the mind of Cillian Murphy, hoping not to steal company secrets, but instead to perform inception and plant the seed of knowledge that will eventually blossom into an idea the mark will assume he had all along. DiCaprio is blackmailed into the employ of Ken Watanabe (I love him. Where has he been?) along with his right-hand man, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (One of the most talented actors of this generation). He is my secret, well not so much anymore, movie crush). Rounding out the gang is: a forger who can mimic and impersonate the dreamers projections (Tom Hardy), a chemist who creates the cocktail they use to enter the mind (Dileep Rao), and an architect who designs the dreams (Ellen Page). The dream becomes the dream becomes the dream and we are left wondering, along with the characters, what is real and what is fantasy?

The film has a lot of things going for it. It is beautifully shot, the FX blend seamlessly (check out the scene in Paris with DiCaprio and Page), the scoring pulls you further into the film instead of trying to overtake your concentration, and it is wonderfully written. I laughed, I cringed, my hands were held up below my chin on more than one occasion. I must have whispered, "That is so cool" at least three times. Many have made Page's narration of events into a negative, but we must realize this always happens in a heist film. Sometimes it's at the end like a "who-done-it?" (see: Scooby Doo) or "how'd-he-do-it?" (see: any Bond Movie), but it happens in the middle, and sometimes it happens throughout (see: any Guy Richie film). Page is the audience; her inexperience lends itself beautifully to our own. I don't think he ever over explained things. There were certainly times when he chose to show you rather than tell you, and I think that is the beauty of the filmmaker- to vary his own style within the film.

There are a lot of dream truths in the film as well, as I call them. Have you ever tried to over take your dream and re-shape it? You wake up right? Have you ever had that sense you were falling only to wake up right before you hit bottom? Of course you have. The reality element to the dream is purposeful when you are trying to get the mark to not know he is dreaming. Otherwise, the dream collapses.

The acting in the film is really good, with DiCaprio, Gordon-Levitt, Watanabe, and Marion Cotillard (playing DiCaprio's wife Mal and saboteur) leading the pack. DiCaprio plays a similar character in "Shutter Island", not so much in the architecture as the tone. I cannot for the life of me understand why every guy I know hates him. I have my ideas (jealousy, inadequacy, latent homosexuality) but nothing concrete. For me, the actor before us shows the history of this life ("Growing Pains", "What's Eating Gilbert Grape") while forever reminding us that he is a grown man, an adult, and actor ("Aviator", "The Departed"). His portrait of the tortured artist is understated, raw only when it needs to be, and in control (the major departure from what he did in "Shutter Island"). I cannot say enough things about Gordon-Levitt except to say I hope he continues to make the same interesting, bold, and challenging choices that he has in the past 5 years. I heart him. Watanabe gives good face, as I like to say. Perhaps it is because he got his start in Japanese television, but the man can just stare and you think he's looking through the screen and at you. He is understated, calm, and perfect. I first saw Cotillard in 2003s "Love Me If You Dare/Jeux d'Enfants", a kind of cat and mouse game between two long time friends, though she has been very active in her native France. She then rose to international attention with her amazing turn as Edith Piaf in "Ma Vie en Rose" (seriously, Netflix it). Her Mal is one of the most well drawn characters in the film- at times manic, repressed, funny, scorned, bitter, loved. No one can cry as beautifully or as on queue as Cotillard.

[side note: What's up Pete Postlethwaite!!]

Leaving the theatre, I was quiet and pensive. "I liked it." "I liked it a lot" "It may be the best movie ever" "Say something!" (This last part to word of the day Jennie). I found myself wanting to talk about it but being unable; the ideas where too big or too close to my own personal truth. It's a movie that is staying with me and I cannot wait to see it again, maybe in a couple weeks, and really watch it again as if for the first time.