Water for Elephants

Water for Elephants (2011)
Directed by Francis Lawrence. Starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz, and Hal Holbrook.

Having read the book before watching Water for Elephants, it seemed to me that it would be pretty hard to mess it up -- the story is just that good. This proved to be true. So, while this isn't an incredible film, it's a good one, all because of its core plot, characters, and sparkling circus magic.

It's hard to boil this story down to a single genre or category. It's a historical piece that delves into the world of a traveling circus during the Great Depression. It's a coming-of-age story, and a dealing-with-age story, as its main character Jacob, in his 90s, reflects on the formative years of his life in his 20s. It's a spectacle film, while it's also driven by its narrative. Yet above all, it's a love story -- about forbidden love, love overcoming obstacles, and love triumphing in the end.

Following the death of his parents and loss of life as he knew it, young Jacob starts walking along the railroad tracks, lost, and looking for what to do next. The next chapter of his life very nearly runs him over, literally, in the form of a Benzini Brothers' Circus train. There, he delves into a new world, drawn to the circus' magic and, in particular, to the beautiful Marlena. The catch, (there's always a catch) is Marlena's husband August... owner of the circus (or, in the book, second-in-command), who is at times vindictive, kind, cruel, helpful, and downright frightening.

Of all the performances, Christoph Waltz's is the most impressive. This is due, of course, to his sheer skill -- witnessed most notably in an Oscar-winning role in Inglorious Basterds. Waltz crackles with electricity in every moment and brings every mood-swing to terrifying fruition. He is perfectly cast -- it's as if the role was written for someone with that twinkle in his eye, and that hardness in the set of his jaw.

Robert Pattinson, who I have mixed feelings about due to his body of work, turns in a solid performance. He is is emotional, yet also subdued, as he is not the center of the show, but rather the eyes watching it -- the audience's main subject of identification. And, indeed, he does a lot of watching and gaping and staring in this film. Reese Witherspoon is similarly good -- perhaps not great, but she certainly turns in the right attitude for her character. There's something slightly flat about the chemistry between the two actors. This was saved in my mind only by the chemistry of the characters, a holdover from my powerful experience reading Sara Gruen's novel.

Above all, I enjoyed a certain quality of the filmmaking that's difficult to put my finger on. There's a magic to the lighting, to the loving way the circus is brought to life. This is an enjoyable movie, but it's not a fluffy rom com. It's more serious than that. It has its dark moments, yet also its frivolity. At times romantic, suspenseful, and intriguing, it carries you away -- even if it's not the kind of film to make such a big impression that it will stay with you for years to come. (The same could NOT be said of the book, though, as it is an even more powerful experience and I likely WILL remember it for quite some time). In all, this is a good film to curl up with on a sleepy afternoon, particularly if you read and liked the book.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Directed by Michael Apted. Starring Ben Barnes, Skandar Keynes, and Georgie Henley.

When a franchise changes hands for the first time, it can lead to trouble. Sure, you've got your James Bonds and Harry Potters which have survived multiple creative shifts, but for every one of these, there's another several that didn't succeed. (This is particularly true of comic book movies... X-Men and Spiderman come to mind -- but more on that soon). After being the creative force and the studio behind both The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, both Andrew Adams and Disney sat this one out. Still, it was full force ahead under Walden Media. (On a less obvious note, the composer of the first two films, Harry Gregson-Williams also did not return... to my particular and great disappointment).

Still, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader brings the book to life, is adventurous and entertaining, and is reasonably true to the spirit of the franchise thus far. It's been a while since I've read the book, so it was nice to rediscover the story with the film. Much like Prince Caspian, it takes certain liberties to make it a more interesting movie -- for once, in my opinion, there's actually not enough material in the book for the film, and this has been true with the last few, if not all, Narnia movies. That's what makes them such great film adaptations. They can bring the books to life and, in a sense, improve on them.

Dawn Treader is a very different story from the other two. It's not structured around a single enemy and doesn't climax with a battle. Instead, it's an adventure-on-the-high-seas tale, a treasure hunt that takes our characters to strange and scary lands beyond the edge of the map. The film modifies this with a mysterious "green mist" that, in a sense, is the "bad guy" of the story. So, for anyone feeling fatigued by the structure of Prince Caspian resembling the storyline of Lion/Witch/Wardrobe, this film is relatively fresh.

Additionally, the faces change. If you haven't read the Narnia books, you may not be familiar with this, but nearly every book introduces a new character or two, who then carries on the series in the next. The Pevensies begin in Lion/Witch/Wardrobe and return in Prince Caspian... but by Dawn Treader, Peter and Susan are too old for Narnia. So, this time, it's just Edmund and Lucy, except that they accidentally bring along their annoying cousin Eustace. (Eustace later goes on to return to Narnia in the next book, with his friend Polly, who then returns without him in the book after that). Caspian is back (though interestingly, Ben Barnes dropped the Mediterranean accent and reverted to his native British lilt this time around... awkward at first, but better all around in the end).

I'm writing this after my second viewing of the film -- the first in theaters, the second with some of the kids I babysit. Both times, I noticed that the audience was younger than I would have thought. Overall, I think these films lack the darkness and intensity that, say, can be found in a rival fantasy franchise, The Lord of the Rings, something that I would wager is the leading factor in drawing in an older demographic. Still, the film is an entertaining, Disney-esque film (though it now lacks Disney) that is fitting "on the shelf" next to the first two. It is a pity that this series has dropped off (in terms of box office and popular interest), as it's looking unlikely that future books will be adapted onscreen (at least with this generation of actors -- in the future, who knows?) 

In the end, and I think I'm qualified to say this, fans of the series won't be disappointed in seeing this next book in the series brought to life. Though it lacks the scale and grandeur of the first two, it is still imaginative and spectacular in its representation of Narnia.

The King's Speech

The King's Speech (2010)
Directed by Tom Hooper. Starring Collin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter.

83rd Oscars - 8 Nominations and 4 Won: Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Hooper), Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler), Best Actor Leading Role (Collin Firth)

Several months ago, The King's Speech won Best Picture, along with a number of other awards, at the 83rd Oscar Ceremony. Some people were disappointed in this winning -- let me say right off that I was not one of them. Sure, there's the argument that Inception was a more interesting film, the kind the Academy needs to branch out and start awarding (I agree with that). And, sure, The Social Network was more a film "for my generation" (I also think that's right)... But The King's Speech is a solid, well-made, well-acted, well-done film, well worth praising. I'm writing this after viewing it a second time, since it's now on DVD, so I can safely say I see its merits.

I mean, what's not to like? It's a feel-good, underdog tale, a slice of history and a biopic, starring two talented and - until recently - wildly underrated actors, and an actress who is such a surprising chameleon that she can play the Queen's Mother at the same time she's filming Harry Potter! Several months out, I think lot of the negative comments regarding this winning Big Picture distill into one argument: it is too Oscary. In other words, the Academy rewards too many pictures of this nature - stories of someone overcoming hardship, battling something (in this case, a speech defect), and rising above your problems to triumph in the public sphere. (Seriously, glance at a list of Best Picture winners. So many of them fit this formula).

So, yes, this film is a bit predictable - at least, predictable as a winner. The biggest complaint about the 83rd Oscar Ceremony was that the whole night was a bore; the biggest surprise was Kirk Douglas's presentation of the Best Supporting Actress category. (For the record, I still enjoyed the show, but I always get carried away by the glitz and glamour!) If you share this viewpoint, I encourage you to try looking at it another way: in The King's Speech, these filmmakers managed to make gold (literally) out of a tried and true filmic setup.... They managed to take something that's been done and done again, and still do it well! Any-who... In my opinion, The King's Speech makes a good addition to the Best Picture category. *steps off soapbox*

On a personal note, I really loved this film - both times watching it! Reading/watching ANYTHING about British history is one of my favorite pastimes, and it was interesting to learn about a king I knew little about, other than his relationship to Elizabeth II. I've already said that I adore Geoffrey Rush in my Pirates review... And so I enjoyed watching him take on, shall we say, a more substantial performance. Rush is delightfully eccentric and - for all that Collin Firth manages that st-st-stammer quite well - darn near carries the film. (It's a pity Rush didn't carry away a trophy as well). Speaking of Firth, he manages a transformation INTO Bertie, the second son who never wanted to be King. He is a man who must find his own inner strength in order to show said strength to his nation in a time of great hardship. He really brings this man to life. The film is emotional, yet uplifting. It carries you away yet somehow manages to speak to your own life. Bravo!

D.D.L.J.

D.D.L.J aka Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge aka "The Lover Takes the Bride" (1995)
Directed by Aditya Chopra. Starring Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol. 

Much like The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, which I reviewed recently, DDLJ is an example of a non-Hollywood popular-cinema movie. Bollywood, aka Hindi-language cinema, is a huge and beloved industry (its audience is estimated to be 3 billion people globally -- almost half the world's population). Its films are boisterous, musical, colorful, predictable, and extremely fun to watch. DDLJ is one of the longest running Bollywood films -- though it was made in the 90s, it can still be found on some screens in India today. Though it clocks in at over 3 hours, it's a wild ride that's totally gorgeous (particularly on Blu-Ray), filled with catchy ear-worm songs, and starring one of the world's biggest movie stars (Shah Rukh Khan). In other words, it's well worth seeing.

This film is, of course, a boy meets girl story... but it's also about cultures and generations clashing. The two main characters are second-generation immigrants living in London who meet when traveling across Europe -- the boy, after college; the girl, before an arranged marriage is to take place. In a wonderful Pride and Prejudice -esque plot, hate becomes love, though the two are separated by the end of the trip and the girl's impending marriage. The second half of the film (most Bollywood movies have intermissions) transfers to India, where wedding preparations become the backdrop for the boy's last ditch efforts to get the girl -- or "take the bride."

In a lot of ways, this is a film driven by music -- more so at times than images. As you'll know if you've ever seen ANY clip of ANY Bollywood movie, the songs are lipsynched. More specifically, the songs are performed by vocal artists (who are sometimes more famous than the movie stars). This playback singing is as important as the movie story. Often, songs are released before films, and it is even said that Bollywood films are the "picturization" of the music. Still, the visuals are playful spectacles. Some scenes seem more like music videos than anything else -- see the many locations and jumps in this clip, from about a third of the way into the film, in which the "good girl" character gets drunk and has a wild night. Perhaps what's most striking in these films is the color... just look at that poster, an actual scene in the film (also, this is another great clip).

As one of the biggest Bollywood hits of all time, this is a wonderful film if you want to expand your horizons and get a representative taste of another culture's filmmaking. It's fun -- you'll be dancing in your seat in no time -- as well as romantic, funny, and crowd-pleasing.

Source Code

Source Code (2011)
Directed by Duncan Jones. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, and Vera Farmiga.

This is a film that succeeds where many others have failed. Though it, in some regard, reminds me of at least a half dozen other movies (Vantage Point, Deja Vu, even the recent Adjustment Bureau, as well as the TV series 24), it manages to be inventive and exciting. I was not surprised to read that Duncan Jones also directed the fantastic film Moon from a few years ago... it shows the same fresh look at and deft handling of science fiction that is becoming rare as the genre merges more and more with mainstream Blockbuster filmmaking.

A key part of my review from this film is something I can't fully explain without giving the plot away too much... and that's something I would hate to do. There came a point roughly three quarters of the way through the film, as we were nearing the climax and the conclusion, where I saw two paths the remainder of the film could take. One would have left me feeling like I did about the Adjustment Bureau. It would have left me thinking the filmmakers weren't willing to commit to their own idea, willing to risk it all for a really interesting and "out there" imaginative sci-fi concept. The other, which is thankfully what ended up being the case, left me chattering with my viewing companions about "what it meant." I walked away pleased by a satisfying twist and a puzzling finale, still thinking about the possibilities it raised long after the credits rolled

Source Code wasn't a film I was intending to see -- at least not in theaters. While it seemed intriguing, it didn't hook me enough ahead of time, particularly with its release coming during school. But, I heard so much about it from others that, how could I resist? While I rarely listen to bad reviews, I definitely take recommendations -- particularly from friends -- seriously. It was nice to see a film I wasn't highly attached to, that I didn't have high hopes for, but that I was ready to be surprised by. So, down to business. Source Code is about a soldier who wakes up in someone else's body on a train that's going to explode in 8 minutes. Only, when it explodes, he doesn't die -- he wakes up, and is told to try again, try to figure out who caused the explosion. So he wakes up on the train again, and again. Of course, there's a girl, a bad guy, and a lot of twists, but it's the who of the main character and how of the main plot that are most intriguing.

As I look back on this film, the one thing I realize more and more is that I need to see it again. It's one that makes more sense once you've hit the ending, and of course you groan and say "oh, that's what they were doing earlier," and then chuckle at the ingenuity of it all. I love films like this -- those that reward an attentive audience member and multiple viewings. I love the ideas that Source Code deals with -- ones, as I've said, that have come up in many other science fiction films, but either not worked or deserved reconsidering. The past... the future: How are they connected? Can the past be changed? Is the future pre-determined? Fascinating. I love the opportunities Source Code took to be creative with the filmmaking... Like the more-or-less flop Vantage Point from a few years back, Source Code shows one scene multiple times, with variations. This is a device that is hard to do well, but is a fun one to try.

Source Code strikes a nice balance between being BIG (action-adventure, complicated idea but one that's understandable, special effects, movie star) and not too big (tightly-structured, not dominated by CGI, not too dumbed down). This is clearly not a summer Blockbuster like Inception. Though it has a similar feel, it's definitely a March release type. In all, this is a film I would recommend to catch on DVD if you, like I did, initially decided to pass on it.

In the Loop

In the Loop (2009)
Directed by Armando Iannucci. Starring Tom Hollander, Peter Capaldi, and James Gandolfini.

This is a wild and witty political comedy. Based loosely on the relationship and interactions between British and American diplomats leading up to the Iraq War, this movie shines because of its sharp, biting screenplay. Laugh out loud lines fly at you, one after another. The acting is hilarious. Yet, it's smart humor -- a relief in a day and age when The Hangover and Judd Apatow seem to lord over the genre. Above all, what stood out to me about this film was its dark absurdity. Yes, everything these diplomats say or do is ridiculous... but their statements and actions decided the fate of two major countries and changed countless lives. It shows how incidental something major can be -- how one action leads to another leads to another and suddenly, we're at war with Iraq. Not a very comforting thought.

In the Loop manages to deal with politics without becoming overly political or preachy. It points to the errors and misunderstandings that may have played a role in this period of history, but lets you draw your own conclusions about who's to blame. It's particularly interesting for me, as someone who was slightly too young to be fully aware of what was going on in politics in this period, to see a film like this, which is a commentary on those events. Much like the film Fair Game, about Valerie Plame (which I will be reviewing shortly), I have only a dim recollection and vague understanding of the time, so the film both amplifies and substitutes what I remember.

Above all, it's not hard to see why this film received an Oscar nomination for its screenplay.... it is truly superb writing. In addition to one-liners that keep you laughing, the plot deals with the idea that politics are driven by language. For example, one minor MP saying that war is "unforeseeable" sets the whole thing off. This and other statements by other characters lead to information leaking, bad information being spread... and voila, a muddled up situation that some power-hungry men can take advantage of and start a war. As a film released in 2009 when the US, at least, was ready to move on to the more optimistic and hopeful Obama Era, this film perhaps received less attention than it would have a few years before. Still, I think it's absolutely worth seeing, for many reasons... it's historically interesting, side-splittingly hilarious, quite entertaining, yet still a film that can make you think.

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978)
Directed by Chia-Liang Liu. Starring Gordon Liu.
This was a fun film for me... an adventure into a new genre. The 36th Chamber of Shaolin appealed to me because, though it is not Hollywood and thus not what I'm used to, it still falls within the realm of "popular" cinema (as opposed to art/experimental/avant-garde film), and those are the kinds of movies I always enjoy. This is a classic example of a kung fu film from Hong Kong, a major national film industry and a beloved genre.

The movie is a period piece, telling of a land under a horrible oppressive leader. One man, fleeing the deaths of his family and friends, takes shelter in the famous Shaolin Temple, where he spends years mastering the 35 Chambers (aka levels) of kung fu training. Only when he has become a great master of kung fu does he propose starting a 36th Chamber -- one in which they will train the laymen so they too can fight oppression. This is a useful narrative hook that carries the film along, making you invested in the hero's development and providing ample opportunities to show off the main actor's impressive kung fu skills.

This film was the first for both its director/choreographer and star, and Gordon Liu at least went on to be massive star. Interestingly, he can also be seen in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 1, a massive homage to HK cinema -- review coming soon! Liu, though certainly not an expressive actor, is a good fit for this role.

An interesting note on the history... these films had to appeal to multiple audiences: those that spoke Cantonese, Mandarin, and, yes, English. Thus, in the interest of being historically faithful, our teacher had us watch it in dubbed English, which was hilariously bad. Every character had an accent that sounded oddly like John Wayne. Bad, but well worth the experience!

This is a film that is well off the beaten track, but well worth watching for anyone who likes action/adventure films. Particularly if you're a fan of Tarantino, Jackie Chan, or any such modern film figures, it's great to see a film from Hong Kong with someone like Gordon Liu to go back to cinema's roots!

Temple Grandin

Temple Grandin (2010)
Directed by Mick Jackson. Starring Claire Danes, Julia Ormond, and David Strathairn.

This was not so much a remarkable film as it was a remarkable role.

Claire Danes excels in this performance as Temple Grandin, a contemporary woman with autism, which couldn't have been an easy role to play. Temple dealt with autism in a time when very little was known about it and it was definitely not culturally accepted. For example, the one doctor we see in the film basically blames it on her mother not doing a good job raising her (gotta love the 50s). Temple went on, with the help of a caring teacher, to make it through school and college, and on to master's and doctoral degrees. She then went on to work with animals, which she could understand better than people. Appalled by the conditions on ranches, she went on to redesign many of the systems used in cattle ranches throughout the slaughter process, to allow the cows to stay more calm. Finally, she went on to be an advocate and celebrity in terms of bringing awareness to those living with autism.

Yeah, wow. What a life.

And the film, though an HBO movie and not a theatrical release, is well done. It manages to hint at what autism is like, showing the world through Temple's eyes. For example, when her aunt asks her to open the gate, within a few days, she has managed to design a pulley system that allows one to pull the gate open for the car, allowing just long enough for the car to get through before it swings back closed. We see her figuring this out, imagining angles and forces. The way she sees the world is incredible -- in pictures, rather than words or ideas, like most of us think. Though this is well understood now, it was hardly even considered when Temple was growing up, which makes this film just that much more incredible.

I know Claire Danes best from the Baz Lurhman version of Romeo + Juliet so it was interesting to see her tackle such a complex role. Though I didn't see this before awards season, I remember it taking home lots of trophies at both the Emmy's and Golden Globes... and the real Temple Grandin was at both shows. The images of Temple up on stage with Claire Danes floated around in my head as I watched this, and it added sweetness to the film.

This wasn't the kind of thing I would usually choose to watch on my own, but it was an interesting example of making a film that really explores an individual's POV. I was utterly carried away by Temple's life and completely engrossed in the story. A well done work all around!

Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre (2011)
Directed by Cary Fukunaga. Starring Mia Wasikowski, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, and Judi Dench.

Adapting a book into a film -- and making the film both good in its own right and good in comparison to the source material -- is never easy. However, there's a special place in the realm of "based on the book by" for those written by authors like Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë... they just work. Perhaps its their cinematic settings in, often, Northern England, or their emotional plots, witty characters, and complex relationships. Plus, there's enough distance from the books that you rarely hear upset about something being changed or left out the way you hear people nitpick the latest Harry Potter film.

This latest version of Jane Eyre is no exception to the grand tradition of adapting 17th and 18th century books into films and TV series. I read the book Jane Eyre almost two years ago, when I had exhausted Jane Austen's works and was searching for something in the same vein (although it's not actually that similar). It's more difficult to grasp, somehow, than Austen. Jane Eyre is a very different heroine from Elizabeth Bennet, Woodhouse, or any other Austen ladies. She's a tortured soul, trapped in a life with no light at the end of the tunnel, and facing a darker story than the gals from Sense and Sensibility or even the suspicious chica in Northanger Abbey could ever handle. Still, there was something about the book that I felt I never could grasp. I couldn't imagine the story playing out in my mind's eye... the emotions weren't coming across right... character motivations were getting tangled up somehow.

Cue the movie. I was, rightly so it turns out, really looking forwards to seeing this story played out. Though the language in the writing is classic, I wanted to get past that and understand the heart of the story... the soul of Jane Eyre. This film version did an excellent job of making sense of the story for me. In Jane Eyre, happy endings seem impossible. Jane grows up unloved and unwanted by her aunt and cousins. She moves onto a school where her one friend dies. She moves onto a position as a governess only to have more trouble mar her path. In short, not a happy story. But, Jane is not an unlikable character. She's stoic, sure-footed, and decent hearted, despite all the forces in the world trying to make her otherwise.

Newcomer Michael Fassbender (also coming to theaters soon in the new X-Men: First Class) does an excellent job as Mr. Rochester. Judi Dench, as always, is fabulous. Mia Wasikowski (also seen in a diverse group of films that includes Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right) continues to prove herself as an excellent young actress. In fact, she alone makes this movie sing -- the other actors just back her up.

This was a movie I was expecting to like, and I wasn't disappointed. It's a great film to curl up with, particularly for fans of the genre or book. It's nice to see continued interest in these types of films (take the Keira Knightley led Pride and Prejudice from a few years ago) and I hope it continues.

Do the Right Thing

Do the Right Thing (1989)
Directed by and Starring Spike Lee

This is an EXPLOSIVE film with every moment bursting with energy. Overall, Spike Lee's film Do the Right Thing is loud, controversial, and as such, highly fascinating. Some people call this one of the most written about films in film history. This is another occasion where I will refer you to the great Roger Ebert's review of this film... not because I think his judgement of it is important, but rather because his description of seeing this movie for the first time captures the feeling quite well. Whether or not you have seen this film before, I encourage you to watch this clip in which one racial minority rapidly insults another. It captures the tension and simmering anger that rapidly boils out of control in this film.

This film takes "auteurism" to another level. Spike Lee is all over the film... as the star, the director, the writer, and producer. Thus, it's no wonder that he personally drew a lot of attention after its release, with many people asking him what he thought the "right thing" was, and whether he was advocating violence. Lee was three years out of NYU when he made this movie, and it moved him into the main stream attention rapidly. Everyone in the late 80s and early 90s seemed to have an opinion about what he was trying to say. Some remarked it was as if people were seeing different versions of the same movie, based on their comments.

I think this film is so powerful because it ripped elements of racism right out of the headlines. It references/draws a plot point from a couple of racially motivated attacks in New York in the 1980s (Michael Stewart and Eleanor Bumpers, by NYPD). It draws on old traditions of african americans in films, with actors like Ruby Dee and Ossie Davis. It has every nationality you can imagine, all jammed together into a tiny neighborhood on the hottest day of the year. It begins with the command from the now-iconic Samuel L. Jackson to "Waaaaakkkeee up!" -- but is it ever clear what the audience is meant to wake up to. This film raises more questions than it answers, and so what it does successfully is get you thinking. Lee remarked repeatedly on its release that he wasn't trying to advocate a certain viewpoint; more  that he was hoping to open up a dialogue.

Do the Right Thing is grappling with not just issues of race, but how to respond to racism. Non-violence or self-defence?, the movie asks. It does so using dialectical form, an idea from a Russian filmmaker named Eisenstein that a good argument is a thesis, and an antithesis, coming together to make a synthesis. Lee does the first part well, presenting two quotes by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X at the end of the film, each arguing different points of view about violence. He also continually presents this photo of MLK and Malcolm X throughout the film. However, what's the synthesis? That's up for the viewer to decide.

In short, this is not a film that is about entertaining you. It wants you to wake up and think about something that, yes, was controversial in 1989 -- and in many ways, I think, is still somewhat controversial today. Whether or not racial issues are part of our everyday lives any more, this film is an interesting look at what binds us together -- and tears us apart -- as Americans. This film is a masterpiece, from its vivid color and interesting angles, to its plot device, to its simple ability to string you along with hardly any action until the very end. It is historically significant and beautifully made, and I highly recommend it.

Fun fact... the year this fascinating film was released, Driving Miss Daisy won the Oscar for Best Picture. Could there be two MORE different films on the issue of race? 

Wilde

Wilde (1997)
Directed by Brian Gilbert. Starring Stephen Fry, Jude Law, Michael Sheen, Vanessa Redgrave.

Consider this a follow-up to my review of Chaplin, as it was my experience with that film that inspired me to bring Wilde to the top of my Netflix queue. I have a longstanding love of Oscar Wilde due to his play The Importance of Being Earnest. (The 2002 film adaptation is hilarious, wild, and romantic, and a personal favorite). However, I knew very little about Wilde's life, other than the skeletal outline of facts: outrageous personality, homosexual, jailed. This, combined with my recent interest in the late 80s/early 90s sketch comedy show "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" made me very curious about this film for its performance by Stephen Fry.

Wilde's life is rather sad. Though he was quite a literary sensation in his own time (and is still beloved to this day), he was unable to hide his homosexuality, and was persecuted for it. It's somewhat a story of "wrong place, wrong time" -- both in the sense that the differences between that day and age and today are plain (heightened by the knowledge that Stephen Fry is himself gay), and in that Wilde seems to fall in love with the wrong man. His lover, "Bosie" -- played by Jude Law -- happens to have a bad relationship with his father, and Wilde gets dragged into, and down by, it.

I thought Stephen Fry was well-suited to this part. He completely looks like Wilde, and brings Wilde's spirit to life effortlessly. To be honest, his portrayal of Wilde was less eccentric than I imagined he would be, but that may be because I had an incorrect impression of Wilde based on just having read/watched Earnest. Fry does spend a great deal of the movie looking rather bemused or baffled -- having a somewhat permanent "deer in the headlights" expression, but he also brings the many layers of Wilde's emotions to the screen. Additionally, he has plenty of aptly placed quips that bring a certain expected quirk to his character. Overall, he carries out Wilde's story in way I'm not sure ANYONE else could have.

Like Chaplin, this is a well-done film that is entertaining and interesting. It is one that rings particularly true in today's political climate, though it is more than 10 years since Wilde was released, 20 years since the book this film was based on was written, and over 100 years since Wilde's life. I recommend this film heartily, for its compassionate portrayal of an important historical figure and its quality performance by the scrumptious Stephen Fry.