Keep Track of All the Movies I Watch in 2007

12. Notes on a Scandal (2006)

Though I hadn’t heard much about this movie beforehand, I pretty much knew where it was going to go within the first ten minutes. And I have to say, that made very little difference. It certainly didn’t keep me from being surprised at every turn, for example. This was partly due to the quality of the screenplay, obviously, but also very much due to the quality of the acting. This movie really had to be carried by its two leads, and they did an incredible job. (Bill Nighy also turns in a really intriguing supporting performance, I must note.) Really a wonderful movie; much creepier than most of the films that come to mind as easy comparisons.

****1/2

11. Akeelah and the Bee (2006)

If I never again are Laurence Fishburne play this character, it’ll be plenty soon. Beyond that (including that, actually), this movie was utterly forgettable. I wish I had forgotten it already, as a matter of fact. It’s a rather pallid attempt to fictionalize the surprise hit Spellbound, a movie which needed no fiction to add to its drama and interest. Not only did this movie add nothing to that one (other than a rather unappetizing combination of cheese and saccharine), it took quite a bit away.

* I’ll give it one star because at least my 4-year-old liked parts of it. Which makes me question his taste, I must say.

10. Miss Potter (2006)

We took the kids to this one, and everyone really enjoyed it. Susan and I couldn’t remember for sure what it was about; just that we had thought it looked all right for the kids. It turned out to be a really good time to see it, because a week or two beforehand we’d started reading Beatrix Potter’s books as part of homeschooling with the kids. So seeing a movie about the author and watching the characters literally come to life was pretty interesting for them. It’s been over a month since we saw this, and they both still mention it.

As an adult, I found it quite a bit more interesting than most family fare. It got pretty poor reviews, I think, but really you just have to be open to it. If you don’t find it charming, I’m sure you’ll find it dreadful. For my part, I was charmed and I really enjoyed every last minute of it. Literally, right to the end. And this in spite of the fact that it’s a framed movie, which device I typically despise. Zellweger, Watson, and McGregor (which, btw, was an interesting little real-life pun in this film) were all fun to spend time with, the story was well paced, and the ultimate resolution of the plot was well done. A happy ending without being an insult to our intelligence and emotions.

4/5. We’ll definitely be seeing this again when it comes out on DVD.

9. Thank You for Smoking (2005)

I wish this had been a lot funnier, but the moments that were funny were really funny. And the drama beneath, while not exactly stunning, kept it afloat nicely. Not enough real bite for a satire, I guess, but I have to admit that what satire there was was dulled a bit by hearing reviews of the movie beforehand.

3.5/5

8. The Lookout (2007)

This was one that stuck with me. A very well done movie, solidly acted and well directed, and for days afterward I couldn’t shake it. The three leads, especially, were really well played. I’m becoming a real fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, based solely on this and Brick. He does a very fine job here, turning what could actually have been a pretty simple character into a very complicated one by turning the performance way down. He’s subtle almost to a fault with this character, and it really works. Jeff Daniels as well, puts in a nice performance. When I like him, I really like him, and that’s the case here. But maybe the performance that struck me most was Matthew Goode. He’s charismatic as hell, and intensely creepy. And I really got a shock when I was trying to place him as an actor & realized that he played Tom Hewett (the brother) in Match Point. For starters, I remember his performance being about the only one I could stomach in that film. But more than that, just the absolute distance between that role and this is pretty impressive.

It’s a great movie beyond the acting, as well. The philosophical questions are well laid out, important, and open-ended. The intrigue is compelling. The dialogue is real. Even the soundtrack was good (didn’t hurt that they played My Morning Jacket’s “One Big Holiday” over the opening credits—I love that song, and it’s tailor-made for a credit sequence). The whole thing was really just very very good, and I can’t wait to see it again. 4.5/5

7. Bridge to Terabithia

My son loves this movie. Susan took him to see it so that I could go to Pan’s Labyrinth. Since then he talks about it all the time, and a couple weeks later I went to it with him myself. Basically it’s just a movie about these couple of kids who deal with school-age problems by retreating into a fantasy world of trolls, flying warriors, and such. I can see why Jack liked it. For my part, while it wasn’t earth-shattering or anything, I found some things to like. The boy’s relationship with his dad is pretty interesting, and there’s some ambiguity and nuance there (the two things that are sorely lacking in kids’ movies as a genre). I’ll give it 3.5/5, because I don’t mind kids’ movies that are just kids’ movies so long as they don’t insult your intelligence. This one didn’t. But I wouldn’t recommend it other than as a kid flick.

6. Shut Up and Sing

There’s no way I would have seen this had it not gotten a pretty good review on Filmspotting. I used to think the Dixie Chicks were all right, a little underrated even, but was never that interested in them. When the controversy hit, of course, I supported them. But again, I didn’t pay all that much attention. And once it was gone, I pretty much forgot about them again.

So honestly, I was surprised even to find out that this documentary had been made. Much less that it sounded like it might be worth seeing. Susan was interested, so we checked it out. Sure enough, it’s pretty good. It’s one of those celebrity documentaries which are really trying to change your viewpoint on a particular person or group (think The Eyes of Tammy Faye, e.g.). And in that regard, it did succeed. But not in the way you might think. As I said, I always supported them politically. But after seeing this film, I’m actually more impressed with them as people and—more shocking still—as musicians. The absolute dedication they showed to each other through the entire thing is really pretty impressive. Granted, some of that is probably skewed by the filmmaking. But still, they went through hell together and I don’t recall hearing a single word of complaint from any of them. It also does a good job of showing them as people, beyond their music and their (accidental) politics. I really came away from it seeing them primarily as friends and, oddly enough, as mothers.

Anyway, it was a good film, and I’d recommend it on several levels. It was just enjoyable to watch, if that’s all you care about, but there’s more to be had if you want it. 4/5. My expectations were fairly low, but I was more than satisfied.

5. Winchester ‘73

Continuing on with the Westerns marathon. Of course at this pace it bears very little semblance to a marathon. More like a pub crawl or something.

In any case, this is a 1950 film starring Jimmy Stewart. Which is always good. Shelley Winters is all right as the love interest, but her character stretches the bounds of believability well beyond the breaking point. Actually, almost everything in the movie does—I’m hard pressed to think of a single relationship, for instance, that seems real. Even the incidental ones just don’t hold up. And most of the events, as well, such as the one I alluded to in the title of this post (the theft of the eponymous gun).

Still, it was fun to watch. Stewart is interesting, and I like seeing him in Westerns. Also, as the guys from Filmspotting point out, this is an interesting Western in the ways it diverges from the genre. Stewart’s protagonist is pretty naïve, not very stoic, and he has that stoop that keeps him from being a very imposing figure. Also, one of the most important events in the film isn’t actually in the film—it happens a few years earlier. And finally, just a note on a little thing that’s really indicative in a lot of ways: One of the characters in the film is Wyatt Earp, and he’s really a pretty boring guy. If Wyatt Earp’s going to show up in a Western, he can’t just be a bystander. He’s gotta draw our attention, one way or another. Again, it’s a divergence from the genre, and while it’s interesting to see, it doesn’t quite work. That’s my take on the movie as a whole, I guess. I’ll give it a 3/5. If you really like Westerns, though, and you want to see one that’s not like all the others, you might give this one a shot.

4. Pan’s Labyrinth

Really incredible movie. I wish I could remember some of the details, but all in all I was just really impressed with the vision and execution of the film. I’m normally very turned off by films that strike me as “art-director porn,” which this could easily have been. But it wasn’t. The imagery and effects were all in service of a very well told story, and I loved it. Really powerful, engaging—very, very good. 4/5.

3. The Illusionist

I saw The Prestige and liked it, so I thought I should see its competitor. How often do you have two films about 19th-century magicians in the same year?

One of those movies was good, as you can see in my review. The other movie, this one, sucked. This movie was an absolute clinic in how to make a movie suck. I knew it was going to be bad when they started with the narration. It’s one of those where one character is narrating to another character, which is exponentially worse than just straightforward narration (the latter being bad enough on its own). Next came the accents. I’m not entirely sure what the accent is supposed to be in this film. I mean it takes place in Vienna, but everyone seems to have more of a pan-European accent, blending elements of Gaelic, Germanic, and Slavic, with (I’m not kidding) just a slight tinge of Surfer-dude thrown in. It’s physically painful. Norton is the worst offender on this point, as one might expect.

I’ve also come to the conclusion, based primarily on this one film, that Edward Norton is a highly overrated actor. If you like him, I urge you not to see this. It will have the same effect on you that The Man in the Iron Mask had on me back when I thought John Malkovich could do no wrong. You might say, of course, that everyone has a bad day, and you can’t blame an actor for one bad performance. But some performances are so bad that they show you deep flaws in the character of the performer. Or at least they seem to. This is one of those performances.

I don’t really feel compelled to go on with my critique of this movie, but let me just say that nothing redeemed it. The only thing that came close were two good performances. If I’ve thoroughly given up on Norton, I can say that I’ve never been more impressed with Paul Giamatti. He was given as little as anyone to work with, and he worked like hell. His character is alive, dynamic, and interesting, and I have a feeling that not one iota of that is due to the screenwriting or the directing. It’s all him. (He’s one of the few actors I’ve seen who is completely unphased by the fact that the movie itself is bad. Witness this and Sideways.) It’s also worth pointing out that he’s cast against type here, another thing that seems not to phase him one bit. He’s quickly becoming my favorite actor. The other standout performance, though not nearly as strong, was Jessica Biel. She had it easy, though, since she really just had to look good relative to Edward Norton. My dog could have pulled that off.

By the way, they absolutely sealed the deal when they used an iris effect near the end of the movie. I had to laugh out loud. I don’t know what they were thinking, and for half a second I wondered if I had gotten it all wrong and the movie was supposed to be a comedy or a parody or something. Of course it wasn’t, though. It was just really, really bad.

1.5/5, with a full half-point being granted purely for Giamatti.