Category: Movies

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

If the first thing you think when someone brings up “The Artist” is that the average modern moviegoer wouldn’t want to sit through what they think will be an outdated, black and white silent film, think again. Michel Hazanavicius’s new movie is light, funny and a genuine delight to see.

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) stars as one of the most famous silent movie stars in Hollywood. Conceited and egocentric, but with his heart in the right place, Valentin is on top of the world. He meets the young dancer, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), on the set of one of his starring roles, and is impressed with her charm, taking her under his wing. Valentin tells Peppy she needs something to set her apart from the competition and draws on a beauty mark, which will become her signature look. Little does Valentin know that Peppy’s on the way up, and he’s on the way down.

With the advent of talkies, many young stars, like Peppy, get their big break, while Valentin, who publicly denounces the new technology as a fad, fades into the distance, losing his fame and fortune with only his dog, his performing partner, to keep him company. But Peppy has not forgotten who gave her the first help she ever got in Hollywood and is determined to pull him out of his slump.

In true silent movie style, the cast of “The Artist” are from all over the world, with a variety of native tongues. (Dujardin is French, Bejo is Argentinean, for example). The supporting cast is excellent, particularly John Goodman as the formidable film studio head.

Remember, this is a silent film about the first movies with sound and Hazanavicius is very sly about this subject material, which pays off dividends. The modern silent film does have a great soundtrack, rather than the outdated piano being played in the theatre. Deprived of sound, the actors do have to ham it up a little, but within the context of the film, it works, particularly for the extremely expressive Dujardin.

And, really, if anyone needs any more verification that “The Artist” is worth the ticket price, they can consider the fact that it has 10 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor for Dujardin and Best Supporting Actress for Bejo. After already taking home three Golden Globes last month, critics are predicting even more success for “The Artist” this Sunday. But regardless of what film aficionados say, “The Artist” is truly one of the most charming movies of this or any year, and you’ll thank yourself for seeing it.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

Director Lars von Trier’s latest film “Melancholia” is being billed as “a movie about the end of the world” and honestly, it would be impossible to sum it up more aptly.

The film begins with a painfully lovely series of tableaux in which we see the fate of Earth as the planet Melancholia approaches. Von Trier has enlightened his audience before his characters, because the first half of the movie happens in complete ignorance of the doom inching ever closer.

Justine (Kirsten Dunst, “Spider Man,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”) is a new bride on her way to her wedding reception, giddy with delight, at least at first. Looking a vision in a lavish wedding dress, with bashful groom Michael (Alexander Skarsgård, “True Blood,” “Generation Kill”) trailing along behind, they reach Justine’s sister Claire’s (Charlotte Gainsbourg, “Jane Eyre,” “Antichrist”) old world seaside estate, hours late into the reception. From here on out, the audience quickly becomes privy to Justine’s crippling depression. Although weddings in general are a display of human folly, Justine takes it to a new level as she tanks her career, has random, public sex and takes a bath when she’s supposed to be cutting her cake. Claire, uptight and humorless, is mortified and frustrated by Justine’s behavior, as is her husband John, (Kiefer Sutherland, “24”) who is financing this extravagant disaster. By the end of the night, the groom has left and the bride is left alone with her sister’s family. She tells her sister “But I tried, Claire,” to which Claire responds, bleakly, “You did. I know you did.”

Time passes before the next segment of the movie takes place. This half centers on the duty-bound Claire and the arrival of the newly discovered planet Melancholia. While John, an enthusiastic astronomer, seemingly cannot wait for what scientists have predicted will be a very near miss as Melancholia travels past Earth, Claire is absolutely panicking, convinced that the end of the world is imminent. Justine has come to visit, and it is immediately evident how far her own melancholia seems to have progressed since we last encountered her. While Claire clings desperately to the hope of survival and a continuation of life on Earth, Justine prophetically speaks her own harshly fatalistic understanding of the situation. She says, “Life is only on Earth. And not for long.”

“Melancholia” is an inhumanly beautiful film and is, at times, genuinely excruciating to watch. Von Trier (“Antichrist,” “Dogville”) turns his attention once again to the suffering of women and in Dunst has found a truly spectacular leading lady. Dunst, who has already secured the award for best actress at Cannes this year, carries the film with her fantastic portrayal of a woman in the grips of an unshakeable depression. She is a veritable angel of death as the known world dissolves around her and she is exultant to be destroyed as well. “Melancholia” is cinematographically magnificent, with an excellent ensemble cast and a brilliant star, but be forewarned, the story itself is grim and the film is anything but a happy one.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

Gilles Paquet-Brenner’s movie adaptation of “Sarah’s Key” is, unfortunately, average at best. Based on Tatiana de Rosnay’s international bestseller (the original French title translates to “She Was Called Sarah”), the film interpretation struggles, as does the book, to balance between its dual narratives. In its attempt to compromise between the two, it ends up falling flat.

The beginning of the film primarily focuses on Sarah Starzynski, (Mélusine Mayance), a 10-year-old Jew living in the Paris of Vichy France, 1942. Sarah’s family is taken in the night, not by the Germans but by French police officers, to be part of the infamous Vélodrome d’Hiver Roundup, in which thousands of Parisian Jews were kept in inhumane conditions at the Vél d’Hiv, an indoor stadium within the city. Sarah, in a moment of impulsivity, locks her little brother Michel in the closet, promising to return soon, taking the key with her. She expects to be home in time to let him out before nightfall. But as she and her family are kept captive day after day, Sarah begins to realize the full weight of her well-intentioned actions, and becomes desperate to escape Beaune-la-Rolande, the transit camp where she and her family are waiting to be shipped off to Auschwitz, hell-bent on keeping her promise to protect her brother.

Meanwhile, in modern day Paris, American journalist Julia Jarmond, (Kristin Scott Thomas, “The English Patient”), is writing an article to commemorate the events of the Vél d’Hiv roundup. In a turn of events which is a little too convenient for the audience member of average intelligence, it is revealed that the apartment belonging to Julia’s family was acquired shortly after the mass deportation in 1942, and the former owners were none other than the Starzynskis themselves. Julia becomes obsessed with learning the truth behind what happened to the apartment’s former tenants, and when she learns that Sarah, managed to survive the Holocaust, she turns her investigative journalism to the task of putting the pieces of this family drama together.

The real problem here is not the actors’ fault, because both Scott Thomas and the very poised Mayance give strong performances. The script is badly written, and the overall effect of the juxtaposition of modern day with historic scenes is jolting and ultimately unsatisfying. The scenes of Sarah’s story are very convincingly articulated, particularly the depiction of the separation of children from their mothers at Beaune-la-Rolande, but in comparison, Jarmond’s determined search into the past is weak and stilted. Julia’s marital troubles and recent pregnancy are tiny problems compared to the horror story of Sarah’s experience. Her survivor’s guilt is poignant, and the movie’s greatest failing is not telling more of Sarah’s life. Instead, they inexplicably focus on the soapbox from which Julia preaches the wrongs committed by the French people during the German Occupation, and we are forced to listen when, if allowed, we could see that Sarah’s story speaks much louder, and with significantly more grace, than Jarmond’s self-righteous diatribes.

By Michelle Joline

Arts & Life Editor

We all love him in “10 Things I Hate About You,” when he became the 1990s ideal of adorable, and “(500) Days of Summer,” when he was officially marked as a heartthrob, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt can do more than just look great. In “50/50,” based on a true story, Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, a 27-year-old faced with cancer. With the help of his best friend (Seth Rogen), he works to beat the disease. Rogen’s presence is also key to the pace of the film; without his one-liners and banter, the movie would not be as entertaining.

Gordon-Levitt’s friendship with Rogen is not the only intriguing part of the film: there is a bit of romance between Gordon-Levitt and his therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick). She is just as much a fresh-faced therapist as she is an awkward 20-something year old, who does not know quite what to do with a cancer patient. Their interactions are uncomfortable but have you rooting for them throughout the film.

After Gordon-Levitt has his heart broken by his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), he works to get his life back in order with Rogen by his side, leading to some really bad decisions. At times the film moves slowly, but this balances perfectly with the moments of high emotion placed throughout the film.

We all saw Gordon-Levitt take on a slightly more “grown-up” role in “Inception,” but “50/50” proves that he is really more than a heartthrob and can successfully play a serious role, with audiences clinging to his every word. If you are looking for a movie to watch with a cup of coffee and box of tissues on hand, this is the movie for you.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

Cal Weaver (Steve Carrell, “The Office,” “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”) has a steady job, good kids, a nice house, and a happy marriage. Or so he thinks. But when his wife of over 20 years and high school sweetheart, Emily (Julianne Moore, “The Kids Are All Right,” “Children of Men”), announces over dinner that she cheated on him and wants a divorce, life as he knows it unravels. Suddenly single and thrown back into the dating scene for the first time in decades, Cal unsuccessfully skulks around at a local bar, harassing passersby with the story of his failed marriage. Fortunately, he is taken under the wing of Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling, “Drive”, “Lars and the Real Girl”), who quickly transforms him into a suave ladies’ man in an attempt to get back at his wife.

The subplots are similarly comic. Hannah (Emma Stone, “The Help,” Easy A”), a twenty-something studying for the bar exam meets Jacob at the bar he and Cal frequent, but, in an unprecedented move, rejects his advances. Later on, as she realizes her relationship with her loyal boyfriend is going nowhere, she returns to the bar to see what it would be like with “hot bar guy.” Meanwhile, Robbie, Cal’s 13-year-old son, pines for his babysitter, Jessica, who couldn’t be less interested as she has a thing for Cal himself. At this point, Cal has had enough bar flings and wants to win back his wife. Meanwhile, Jacob struggles with the idea of committing to Hannah.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love.” lives up to its title. With a slightly unconventional plotline, witty dialogue, and a stellar supporting cast (Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon, and an awkward Josh Groban), directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have created a seriously off-the-beaten-path film. “Going into the movie I didn’t have very high expectations, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised by how good it was,” Kendall Woods ’14 said. Indeed, it stands out in the vignette genre as a movie that is not merely a bunch of high-profile names attached to some holiday theme, but a cohesive and infectiously engaging story.

“Ryan Gosling and Steve Carrell are a surprisingly entertaining pair that brought humor to a movie that otherwise would have been just another love story,” Ava Giuliano ’14 said.

This lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek look at love has all the elements we look for in a good love story, plus one excellent twist at the end. “It’s a movie you would be crazy and stupid not to see!” Giuliano said.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

Though “Bridesmaids” packs a serious punch in the humor department, the overall effect of the film, which aspires to the status of the popular “bromance” exemplified by “The Hangover” and “I Love You, Man,” falls somewhat short of expectations.

Saturday Night Live’s Kristin Wiig co-wrote the film and stars as Annie, a 30-something whose life is caught in a tailspin for most of the movie. After losing her bakery and, consequently, her savings, Annie has taken up a job at a low-end jewelry shop where she completely fails to sell couples on the dream of “eternal love” with her jaded attitude and is constantly reminded by her boss that the only reason he hasn’t fired her yet is that her mother is his AA sponsor.

So, naturally, when Annie’s best and oldest friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) becomes engaged, she feels somewhat left in the dust. As the maid of honor, she struggles to measure up to fellow bridesmaid Helen (Rose Bryne, “Get Him to the Greek”), who is not only poised and a member of Lillian’s new country club, but is also clearly vying to take over as maid of honor. The two first butt heads during the toasts at the engagement party, and things only go downhill from there.

Melissa McCarthy (“Gilmore Girls”), Ellie Kemper (“The Office”) and Wendi McLendon-Covey round out the bridal party. For her first official act as maid of honor, Annie takes the party out to a Brazilian restaurant before their dress fitting only to have the entire party come down with a violent case of food poisoning except, of course, the ever-perfect Helen, who doesn’t like to eat before a fitting.

Meanwhile, Annie’s life continues to fall apart. Kicked out of her apartment and finally fired from her dead-end job, she is forced to move back in with her mother. Her relationship status is even more embarrassing; she’s a third-string booty call for Ted (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”), whose spoof on his own role as lady-killer Don Draper is, in itself, pretty hilarious. She’s developed a flirty rapport with friendly Irish police officer Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), but she manages to mess even that up. As Annie reaches her limit, she is forced to finally assess the damage that is her life, and, hopefully, find a way to make it all work out in time for the wedding.

“Bridesmaids” is a definite crowd-pleaser, although it tends to draw certain scenes out uncomfortably longer than necessary. “Despite crass humor and cringe-worthy moments, ‘Bridesmaids’ was an overall enjoyable film; funny and entertaining,” Kate Wilsterman ’14 said.

Though the film does not manage to top the male counterparts it tries to emulate, it is a valiant attempt to drag the proverbial “chick flick” out of its current stagnation.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

“Water for Elephants” is director Francis Lawrence’s (“I Am Legend”) latest film, based on the 2006 novel by Sara Gruen of the same name. Despite the hype surrounding such a high-profile adaptation of the extremely successful book, the movie manages to fall far short of expectations.

The movie starts, as does the book, with the classic storytelling motif of an elderly person reminiscing. In this case, it is Jacob Jankowski, the film’s leading man. Upset that his son forgot to take him to the circus in town, he leaves his nursing home to see for himself. Having missed the show, he begins to share his own circus memories with the audience, which becomes completely attentive when he reveals he witnessed one of the greatest circus disasters of all time.

The real story begins in 1931, when Jacob (Robert Pattinson), then a veterinary student studying at Cornell, learns of his parents’ sudden deaths. Blindsided and grieving, he is informed by a callous bank employee that his parents had mortgaged everything to finance his Depression-age Ivy League education. Literally broke and homeless, he begins to walk, eventually hopping a train. Little does he know he’s accidentally run away with the circus.

Jacob decides to stick around, working as a hand on the show, and is dumbstruck by what he sees. The show, the Benzini Brothers, appears a sort of miracle in light of the sudden upheaval in his life, and, transfixed, he decides to stay. August (Christopher Waltz), the show’s ringmaster and the film’s antagonist, is eager to have Jacob when he learns Jacob studied veterinary sciences at Cornell despite the fact that he never graduated because the show’s great rival, Ringling Brothers, cannot boast such a distinction.

But Jacob soon falls in love with more than the show when he meets Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), August’s wife and the star attraction of the show. The two share a compassion for the animals August callously abuses and are further brought together by the arrival of the true heroine of the story, the enigmatic and charming Rosie, the show’s new elephant. Together, they create a new routine which garners some much needed cash flow, and briefly eases tensions, before reality and August’s mercurial temper brings everything crashing down around their ears.

The movie, although aesthetically appealing and adapted well from the book falls somewhat flat.

“The set and the cinematography were beautiful, but the romantic chemistry between Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon was virtually nonexistent,” Ava Giuliano ’14 said.

Indeed, most of the complaints made against the film have been in reference to the lackluster romance between Pattinson and Witherspoon. Their portrayal of love lacks any definite conviction, and between their less than inspiring interchanges, the middle of the film definitely drags before picking up for the exciting disaster scene.

“I thought it stayed true to the book and was very satisfying in that aspect. Reese Witherspoon’s acting was the only thing that in my opinion left something to be desired, along with the strange introduction of the sex scene,” Kate Wilsterman ’14 said. “The emotion and empathy the film evoked, however, stayed true to the novel itself.”

Still, stripped of the vampire trappings of “Twilight,” Pattinson’s portrayal of Jacob proves that he’s a much better actor than he’s often given credit for. He is overshadowedby the dynamic performance of recent Best Supporting Actor winner Waltz as the paranoid schizophrenic August. Overall, the film’s historically accurate portrayal of the circus envisioned in Gruen’s novel makes “Water for Elephants” worth seeing for those who enjoyed the book.

By Michelle Joline

Writer

Looking for a break from the build-up to finals? A nice retreat from the scariness that is a college student’s reality can be found at the movies this week. The remake of the classic film “Arthur” builds a fantasy world that the audience just can’t resist. The remake stars Russell Brand as the story’s leading protagonist and Helen Mirren as the story’s true leading lady, Hobson.

The plot takes us on an enjoyable ride through the unrealistic life of Arthur, heir to a multi-million-dollar fortune. His life comes to a crossroads when his workaholic mother, who was absent for most of his life, provides an ultimatum to either marry Susan (Jennifer Garner) to get his life back on track or lose all of the money that he has become accustomed to living with. The plot unravels the humorous side to his mental turmoil while he chooses between money and love, telling the ever-compelling traditional love story.

Luckily, Brand plays a very convincing drunk in this contemporary remake and the majority of the laughs in the film stem from his alcoholic antics. We get to see what extreme wealth combined with alcoholism will get a socialite in New York, leaving nothing to be desired by the viewer (okay, maybe a lot, the Batmobile left everyone a bit envious). Even though Brand plays the alcoholic Arthur, he still manages to not only be forgivable in his innocence but also capture the heart of Naomi (Greta Gerwig). The on-screen relationship between the two seems very honest and leaves the audience rooting for them to beat the odds of love by the end of the film.

These qualities hold true from the original classic, which starred Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli. The only difference that stands between the performances from Minnelli and Gerwig is the change in their character’s name from Linda to Naomi. Gerwig managed to embody the effervescent and quirky quality that Minnelli brought to the original role, making us want to see more of her in future big screen hits.

The remake is a success because it does not tell the story with the same plotline as the original but spins it to make a contemporary film for a modern audience. Since the original was so well done and has such a strong following, a remake with the same screenplay could never stand up against it. With the help of new one-liners and Mirren as one of the most unexpected comedians, a new hit is made. Expect to be surprised if you venture out into the rainy spring weather to see “Arthur,” because the quirky film is a feel-good break that lets us live in a world devoid of responsibilities with Brand as our guide.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

First published in 1847 under the pen name Currer Bell, Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre” has since become one of the best-loved and most widely read books in English literature. Eighteen film and nine television adaptations later comes the latest film version, Cary Fukunaga’s vision of the classic Gothic romance.

Much of the book’s beginning is conveyed in less detail than prior adaptations. Fukunaga breaks tradition by starting the film as Jane (Mia Wasikowska,“The Kids Are Alright”) wanders the moors on the verge of death. Much of the story is told by flashbacks during Jane’s stay in Moor House with St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell, “Billy Elliot”) and his sisters Mary and Diana. As Jane conceals her identity with the alibi of Jane Elliot, she is haunted by images of the life she has left behind, and she tells her prior story in unexpected fits and starts.

An orphan, Jane was raised by her spiteful Aunt Reed, who shares her children’s distaste for the fiery and passionate Jane, defying her husband’s dying wish by sending Jane off to Lowood School. There, slandered as a liar, Jane suffers further, emerging 10 years later as a young governess to take her place at Thornfield Hall.

At Thornfield, Jane is the governess of the endearing Adele Varens, ward to the absent master of the estate, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender, “Inglorious Basterds”). Genuinely happy for the first time in her life, Jane befriends the elderly housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) and is, for a time, at peace.

Mr. Rochester’s arrival changes everything, as Jane finds a true kindred spirit and falls in love, despite the disparity in situation and age between them. Though she despairs over the problem posed by her far more suitable rival, Blanche Ingram, she believes herself truly happy when Rochester declares himself, and they prepare for their unusual union. However, as Jane fans everywhere know, things certainly do not go according to plan.

This adaptation of “Jane Eyre” varies from its predecessors in several vital ways. It takes a more visceral perspective on the novel and is probably more accurate because of it. Cutting through the typical folderol of a period romance, starkness abounds, which better suits Brontë’s characters. Wasikowska wears ugly dresses and, thankfully, is made as unglamorous as possible, in keeping with the Jane of Brontë’s vision. As usual for actors in the role of Rochester, Fassbender is a little too handsome to pass muster, but his performance is a strong one.

“I was blinded by the performance of Michael Fassbender as the morose but charismatic Mr. Rochester,” Ava Giuliano ’14 said.

Fukunaga’s “Jane Eyre” is also notable for its well-placed use of the book’s more frightening aspects as he plays upon the tangible sense of eerie uncertainty at Thornfield which permeates the work. But most importantly, Wasikowska shines in the title role. Like Fassbender’s Rochester, her Jane is less dramatic than some, drawing upon Jane’s firm strength of character and religious conviction to create an albeit subdued, but overall more believable interpretation of the story’s heroine. “Jane Eyre” truly captures the spirit of the beloved novel and is quite possibly one of the best adaptations yet.

By Michelle Joline

Contributing Writer

“The Adjustment Bureau” suffers from a “been there/seen that” plotline and many lackluster acting performances, making it fail to meet the promise of director George Nolfi’s successful prior films, “The Bourne Ultimatum” (2007) and “Ocean’s Twelve” (2004).

“The Adjustment Bureau” stars Matt Damon as David Norris, an underdog politician, and Emily Blunt as Elise Sellas, a New York ballerina. The plot follows Damon and Blunt through a romantic tale based in a world where occurrences are decided by fate and an organization known as The Adjustment Bureau works to ensure that each person’s fate comes to pass. This unoriginal premise seems much like the American classic “1984.” Both the classic novel and this film center around the idea that we are constantly being watched with our thoughts monitored and our destinies predetermined by a “Big Brother” figure.

Although the premise is much like that of “1984,” the storyline is unfortunately not as compelling. After David discovers the reality of The Adjustment Bureau, he realizes that only it stands in the way of his being with his true love, Elise. The story takes us through David’s battle to protect the secret of The Adjustment Bureau without losing the thing that makes him most happy–Elise. Despite its interesting previews, the film only captivates for about four minutes. By the end of the 105-minute movie, nothing breaks off course from the expected, making the movie a poor combination of “Inception,” with its not-so-successful suspense, and “You’ve Got Mail,” imitating the formula romance.

Damon’s purposeful sprints across the screen did not pull me in like his prior “Bourne” roles, missing the mark for making this an ever-popular intense action flick. Damon just managed to pull off his role as David Norris, a native to the streets of Brooklyn who captured the public eye as the youngest member of the Senate, most likely because we have seen him portray very similar characters in the past. The fault should not be pointed at Damon for the film not meeting expectations, because we know he can successfully capture this sort of character; perhaps the blame should be pointed to the less-than-original plotline written by Nolfi.

The saving grace to the film is Blunt’s performance. Blunt captivates everyone in the audience when she is on screen with her honest portrayal, forcing Damon to raise the bar from scene to scene. It is unfortunate that Blunt and Damon were not given a better story to play with and explore character developments together since they do actually play a convincing couple. Maybe if we are lucky we will get the chance to see the two attempt another pairing role in the future.

With a story that has already been drilled into everyone’s heads over the past decades, “The Adjustment Bureau” disappoints despite its many promising previews and its celebrated cast. Your money is not well spent on this film; hopefully Damon and Blunt will bring more to be desired in their next big screen roles.