Movie Review: "Moulin Rouge" (2001)

Image Source

Movie: "Moulin Rouge!"
Year Nominated: 2002
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

A performer at the Moulin Rouge is torn between the poor writer she loves and the wealthy Duke that can make all her dreams come true. 

"Moulin Rouge!" is directed by by Baz Luhrmann, who also wrote the film along with Craig Pearce. It stars Ewan McGregor as Christian, an English writer who moves to Paris to write about the Bohemian ideals of freedom, beauty, truth and above all things, love. Once there, after an odd incident involving a narcoleptic Argentinian, he meets Toulouse-Lautrec, played by John Leguizamo, and a group of Bohemians who are working on a new play called "Spectacular Spectacular." Christian shows he is just the piece they've been missing, and now with him on board, they hope to sell their show to Harold Zidler, played by Jim Broadbent, the owner of the Moulin Rouge, a night club with wild dancing, lavish costumes, and of course, courtesans. Joining them is Nicole Kidman, who plays Satine, the leading lady at the "Moulin Rouge" whom Christian hopes to convince to endorse their show. She, however, is meant to convince a wealthy Duke, played by Richard Roxburgh, to fund the conversion of the Moulin Rouge into a proper playhouse. Satine mistakes Christian for the Duke, setting off the wild series of events that follows. 

"Moulin Rouge!" is a spastic acid trip of both color and sound. The sets are beautiful and vibrant, and the costumes even more so, covered in ruffles, feathers, and diamonds. They are wonderfully designed, intricate, and awe-inspiring. In fact, the film took home an Oscar in both of those categories, both of which are well deserved. Baz Luhrmann definitely has a unique directorial style all his own. It is almost looks like a painting that has come to life. Some viewers will hate his style of filmmaking for being too busy and too jumbled, and others will love it for its ambition and different nature. The film is loaded with modern pop and rock songs that have been adapted to fit the narrative of the film, including but not limited to "Children of the Revolution" by T.Rex, "Your Song" by Elton John, "Like a Virgin" by Madonna, and "The Show Must Go On" by Queen. This creates a fun and distinct atmosphere to this somewhat oddball romance with very serious dramatic undertones.

Nicole Kidman does a brilliant job as Satine, a very complex character who is forced to choose between love and every material possession she has worked for and has ever wanted. Kidman received a best actress nomination at the Oscars for her role here, one of eight Academy Award nominations for the movie as a whole, which also included best picture. Though she was the only actor specifically recognized by the Academy, many of the other performances are great as well. Ewan McGregor, John Leguizamo, Jim Broadbent, and Richard Roxburgh all put on stellar performances, some goofy, some serious, and some downright awesome. Each actor gets their chance to belt out a song or two, and McGregor really impressed us with his singing ability every time he opened his mouth to sing. He really is fantastic in this movie. Broadbent gets a few funnier singing moments in terms of how they are added into the plot of the film, and what Roxburgh does could be better described as talking in breathy, cadenced manner with a slight singing inflection.

"Moulin Rouge!" is a fun, energetic, and engaging film with tons of catchy songs to keep you entertained. It may be a good movie to watch while intoxicated or on drugs, but then again, you could just watch it normally and get the same effect. Don't do drugs, kids. We really love this movie, even though it doesn't seem like the typical kind of Oscar film because of its 'out there' artistic choices, but we're glad it existed in a time where it stood a chance.

**CLICK HERE to buy this movie on DVD!**
**CLICK HERE to buy this movie on Blu-ray!**

**CLICK HERE to buy and/or rent this movie on Amazon!**
**CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Echo Dot!**
***CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Fire Stick!**

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 9/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 76%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

**To review this movie for yourself on one of the best websites on the internet, visit filmfed.com!*

~~~~~~~~~~
Last Oscar season, we were watching: "Beauty and the Beast"

Two Oscar seasons ago, we were watching: "Roman Holiday"

Movie Review: "Lion" (2016)

Movie: "Lion"

Director: Garth Davis
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 58 minutes

Image Source

Five year old Saroo (Sunny Pawar) gets separated from his older brother and eventually gets stuck on a train for two days, exiting in Calcutta, India. Lost and far away from home, he is eventually adopted by an Australian couple. Now, twenty years later, Saroo (Dev Patel) looks to find the home and family he left behind. 

"Lion" is the first feature length narrative film directed by Garth Davis. Its screenplay is written by Luke Davies based on the true story "A Long Way Home," a book written by the actual Saroo Brierley. It stars Sunny Pawar and Dev Patel, who each play Saroo at a different point in his life, Pawar at age five and Patel later in life in his mid-to-late twenties. This film tells Saroo's incredible story once he is lost in India after he is separated from his brother and stuck on a train for a couple days. He wandered alone for months on the streets of Calcutta before being picked up by police and was eventually adopted by an Australian couple, John and Sue Brierley, played by David Wenham and Nicole Kidman. Twenty years later while attending school for hotel management, Saroo meets Lucy, played by Rooney Mara, whom he opens up to about his past. Lucy is a partial catalyst for his quest to find his way home.

This is an inspiring and heartfelt true story that is absolutely moving and incredibly insane how it all unfolds. There are some really great performances in "Lion" from both of the people who play Saroo. Sunny Pawar is adorable and has a face that looks like he was designed by Disney animation studios. Wide-eyed and curious, Saroo wants to spend time with his older brother Guduu, played by Abhishek Bharate, who works late at night bailing hay to help make more money for his mother and his family. It is this want to travel with Guduu that separated Saroo from him in the first place. We could never imagine what it would be like to be a five year old child living on the streets of Calcutta, but "Lion" does a fantastic job showing the hardships and dangers of being a homeless child. We see many uncomfortable and disturbing situations that are tough to watch, but important to showcase in order for the audience to fully grasp the horrors of what some children there go through on a daily basis. Dev Patel, who burst onto the scene in the Oscar winning "Slumdog Millionaire," has proven time and time again that he is a real talent when it comes to acting. He proves it once again here by delivering a strong, emotional performance as a man torn between the life and family he now knows, loves, and is blessed to have, and the one he lost so many years ago on accident. Patel allows that inner turmoil to come out so well on screen with a powerhouse, poignant performance. Director Garth Davis also does a great job as well, striking an emotional chord with the audience that will certainly bring on the waterworks. Davis tells this unbelievable story in an honest fashion that never feels overly showy or enormous.

This is a film we have been wanting to see for a long time, ever since we missed it at the San Diego International Film Festival last October. Now that it has finally found its way into a theater in our area, we are glad we got to see "Lion" and really, really enjoyed it. It's a touching story that mixes both bittersweet and sorrowful human drama with moments filled with elation. It has great acting from Sunny Pawar, Dev Patel, and Nicole Kidman, and the content of this insane true story makes it a drama not to miss this Oscar season.

**CLICK HERE to buy the book "Lion" on paperback via Amazon!**
**CLICK HERE to buy the book "Lion" for your Kindle!**
**CLICK HERE to pre-order this movie on Amazon!**

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 87%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

Movie Review: "Batman Forever" (1995)

Image Source

Movie: "Batman Forever"
Director: Joel Schumacher
Year: 1995
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 1 minute

Batman (Val Kilmer) faces off against two new villains: The Riddler (Jim Carrey), who has built a machine that can extract information from people's brains and put directly into his own, and Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), formerly known as Harvey Dent, Gotham's district attorney. Bruce Wayne also takes in a new house guest named Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell) whose family was murdered by Two-Face.

Is there one good movie with Chris O'Donnell in it? Seriously. Name one movie he has made better with his presence. We defy you.

Joel Schumacher takes over the directing duties from Tim Burton for "Batman Forever," the third installment in the Batman series. Right off the bat and from the very first frame of the film, we can see a drastic tonal shift from what Tim Burton had done in the past. "Batman Returns" received some criticism when it came out for being too dark in a time when critics didn't fully understand that comic book movies weren't always for children. Schumacher, as well as Warner Brothers, took this criticism to heart, shifting from a serious, more gothic Batman to a more silly and campy style. There are still a few darker elements to this particular installment, but overall, everything has lightened up a lot in this movie. In addition to the goofier looking villains, Gotham itself has been given a makeover in the form of neon colored lights and paint that rival the Las Vegas strip. We are treated to a visual spectacle of a lot of hot pinks and bright greens instead of the darker black and gray shades of the past films, which we like under the right circumstances...and Batman ain't the right circumstance for this. It's much too loud for this universe.

Val Kilmer replaces Michael Keaton as Batman, but instead of a better performance, he gives a serviceable one. Kilmer sold the role on his looks alone, lending to a better performance in the part of Bruce Wayne as opposed to when he donned the cap and cowl. Also new to this cast and characters is Jim Carrey, who plays the Riddler/Dr. Edward Nygma (don't even get us started). Carrey offers his usual over-the-top performance that somewhat works for a character of this nature. Crazy-haired and wide-eyed, Carrey's Riddler is the best part of the movie, but really, he's simply playing the role he almost always plays. Do you want to talk about a miscast? Tommy Lee Jones plays Two-Face, aka Harvey Dent, and is the worst part of the film. Not only is Jones completely the wrong casting choice for the character with his stern face and his often staccatic tone of voice, but the character is presented in an idiotic manner with terrible, unmovable magenta makeup. Seriously, the makeup work on Jones' Two-Face is laughable. He plays the role in an over-the-top fashion as well, but it comes off as more of a mockery than Carrey's portrayal does. We love Tommy Lee Jones, but this was the absolute wrong casting choice. Finally, we've come to Chris O'Donnell. Poor, poor Chris O'Donnell. He is also an awful addition to the series as Robin/Dick Grayson. O'Donnell plays a moody teenager who constantly complains and whines in a grating manner. His performance is terrible and his character isn't much better. Instead of being a worthy sidekick to the dark knight, Robin is just a joke. Nicole Kidman serves as this film's throwaway love interest, Dr. Chase Meridian, a horny doctor who tries to help psychoanalyze Batman.

"Batman Returns" is a giant mess of a film. Some might call it a guilty pleasure, but we certainly don't. All the hard work Tim Burton invested in this series is basically laid to waste by Joel Schumacher. What we think happened in cinematic history is its sequel, "Batman and Robin," was so, so, so, so unbelievably bad that people started giving this film a pass in comparison. They shouldn't. It has its entertaining moments and Jim Carrey barely saves it from being a complete and utter trainwreck, but it is really, really, really not really good, and it hasn't aged well at all. It's watchable, sure, but only if you're watching the entire series to review for a new, upcoming Batman or Superman movie. This is the film, much like "Superman III," that marked the sharp downturn for the series and serves as a warning for what was to come. No one could have imagined it might possibly get worse than this.

My Rating: 4/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 41%
Do we recommend this movie: No.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "1941"

Oscar Movie Review: "The Hours" (2002)

Image Source

Movie: "The Hours"
Year Nominated: 2003
Director: Stephen Daldry
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 54 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

Three women from three different eras deal with depression; each of them are connected to the novel "Mrs. Dalloway" in some sort of way and it affects their lives.  

"The Hours" is a critically acclaimed film that offers a brief look into the lives of three different women and how their lives were affected by and connected to the novel "Mrs. Dalloway." This movie was nominated for multiple Academy Awards including best picture and multiple acting categories. The film spends its run time jumping back and forth between the women in three different eras. The first woman introduced is author Virginia Woolf in the year 1923. Woolf is played by Nicole Kidman in her Oscar winning performance and was the author of novel in question. Virginia deals with mental illness and a constant feeling of isolation even though she is married. In fact, the film opens with her narrating her suicide in 1941, letting the audience know they are surely in for a cheerful and uplifting experience. The next woman in this film is a housewife named Laura Brown, played by Julianne Moore, who earned a supporting actress nomination for her performance here. Laura Brown is reading "Mrs. Dolloway" in 1951, and despite having an attentive, loving husband, a son, a daughter on the way, and a picture perfect life, she seems to battle depression on a daily basis and might even possibly be self-medicating. This may be due to the implication that she is a closeted homosexual trying to force herself to live a life society deems acceptable in the 1950's. Much like Virginia Woolf, Laura Brown regularly contemplates suicide, a constant theme of the movie that comes up in each significant year. Finally, there is book editor named Clarissa Vaughan, played by the ever talented, brilliant Meryl Streep, who in a weird twist was the only person in this film with significant screen time not to be nominated. Her story takes place in modern days, 2001, and she lives a life similar to that of Mrs. Dalloway in the novel. She throws party after party to try to fill the emptiness of her life and to "drown out the silence." She takes care of her terminally ill friend and writer Richard, played wonderfully by Ed Harris, who, like others, was nominated for his performance. Richard is receiving an award for his writing, and Clarissa is throwing a party in his honor, a party he doesn't want to attend. Like we said, happy and uplifting.

Depression, homosexuality, time, and suicide are some of the themes that run throughout this film, all of which are themes the Academy seems to loves when it comes to deciding nominations each year. However, these aren't always topics that have mass appeal, which is one of the reasons why people have gravitated away from Oscars and other awards shows as of late. Regardless, everyone involved in "The Hours" gives emotionally strong, powerful performances, even the supporting cast, including the likes of Claire Danes, Allison Janney, and John C. Reilly. Nicole Kidman, who some say didn't deserve her award because of the simple fact that she was "made ugly" and nothing else, is quite great, and upon re-watching this movie, we have been given a new found appreciation for her work here. With age, we have also come to appreciate what this film does from a chronological standpoint, and it was really quite a genius idea to tell three separate but intertwining stories all related to one novel. There are some really beautiful visuals and cinematography in this movie as well, and director Stephen Daldry does an excellent job bringing the story to life, though at times it's all a little heavy handed, even for us. The drama is so exorbitant, so constant, that it might be to the detriment of "The Hours" just a little bit. Even still, it's a pretty good movie, but definitely not one we want to watch again for a very long time, if ever.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 81%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Babe"

Movie Review #348: "Secret in Their Eyes" (2015)

Movie: "Secret in Their Eyes"
Director: Billy Ray
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 51 minutes

Image Source

When the daughter of an FBI agent named Jess (Julia Roberts) is raped and murder, her partner Ray (Chiwetel Ejiofor) takes it upon himself to investigate the crime. When it turns out the prime suspect is a terrorist informant, the district attorney lets him go free. A short time later, the suspect disappears. Disgusted with the DA's decision, Ray leaves the FBI and spends the next 13 years trying to find the culprit to get justice for Jess's daughter.

For the love of god, stop remaking movies already!!

"Secret in Their Eyes" is a remake of an Oscar winning foreign film entitled "Secreto de sus ojos" from Argentina. This America remake stars Julia Roberts, an Oscar winner, Nicole Kidman, an Oscar winner, Chiwetel Ejiofor, an Oscar nominee, and Dean Norris, who was on one of the finest television shows ever made, "Breaking Bad." Most movies only wish to have a cast this good...

...so what went wrong?

For starters, this film is nearly 2 hours long, but it feels much more like 3. It is as poorly paced as we have ever seen. This film feels each minute like a 100-pound weight, and in an effort to be a slow-burning thriller, it lacks efficacy and simply comes off as sluggish. Beyond its slow pace, the movie is also incredibly boring. The timeline is of the story is split between 2002, when the murder and rape of Jess' daughter Caroline happened, and 2015, long after Ray, played by Ejiofor, had quit the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Since they were partners, Ray was invested in Jess' daughter's case, finding out what happened to her, and who killed her. Unfortunately, the district attorney in 2002, Martin Morales, played briefly by Alfred Molina, cannot see why Ray wants to help out and insists he go back to working with his counter-terrorism unit, but may have ulterior motives in suggesting so. Right off the bat, we're watching a movie dealing with terrorism, murder, rape, stakeouts, wanted suspects, and shady authority figures. What should have been a deeply engaging thriller only made us yawn and check the time half a dozen times. There are long stretches of time without anything but talking, and even though Chiwetel Ejiofor could read the phone book and make it sound sexy, he'd still be reading the phone book. Here, the source material is nothing stellar at all. The dialogue ranges from heavy police phraseology to forgettable chatter, none of which is the least bit intriguing.

Speaking of Ejiofor, he's really the only good thing about "Secret in Their Eyes." His expressions, dear god. Even in a bad movie, he's good. He shows a lot of great emotion on his face, even during times when there are bad things going on on screen. Nicole Kidman is serviceable as Claire, juxtaposed as both the assistant district attorney in 2002, and the actual district attorney in 2015, but the shoehorned romance between Ray and Claire is not only unbelievable and out of place, but makes no sense considering Claire is engaged to be married. Their romance, or lack thereof, is one of the biggest distractions in the film. Julia Roberts, who doesn't act nearly as much as she used to, does a decent job as Jess and goes through the motions and emotions as both a grieving mother and a vengeful parent. Together, these three fine actors and actresses slog through a less than mediocre dramatic thriller full of both WTF moments and an idiotic ending that's supposed to be a twist but doesn't have the proper powerful writing to make it impactful. Are we seriously supposed to believe a district attorney would let the murderer and rapist of one of his local agent's family members go scott-free all in the name of preventing another 9/11? That seems like quite a leap, don't you think? And if this is true, we really need to move the hell out of California because that's absolutely nuts.

Even with the all-star cast mentioned above, the actors couldn't pull off a winning product or make heads or tails of the shoddy editing, the ineffective writing, and the lack of thrills in "Secret in Their Eyes."

My Rating: 4/10
BigJ's Rating: 3.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 41%
Do we recommend this movie: No.

Movie Review: "Paddington" (2015)

Movie: "Paddington"
Director: Paul King
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 35 minutes

Image Source

While exploring darkest Peru, English explorer Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie) discovers a new species of bear. He spends time studying them, names them Lucy (Imelda Staunton) and Pastuzo (Michael Gambon), and even teaches the bears a bit of English. He also introduces them to orange marmalade. He tells them all about his hometown of London and tells them they are always welcome there. Now, many years later, those bears have a nephew currently named gerrrroooorrr, but soon to be called Paddington (Ben Whishaw). Paddington lives with them, speaks English and loves marmalade, too. After their home is destroyed in an Earthquake, which also causes the death of Pastuzo, Lucy sends Paddington to England to find a new home. Once arriving in London, the little bear stands at Paddington station with a note around his neck simply reading, "Please look after this bear, Thank You." Most ignore him, except for Mary Brown (Sally Hawkins), who offers to help him, much to the chagrin of her husband Henry (Hugh Bonneville). She names him Paddington for obvious reasons. They agree to take him in and give him a temporary home until they can find him a permanent one. What they nor Paddington know is a taxidermist named Millicent (Nicole Kidman) has been searching for a specimen like Paddington to stuff and put in the museum where she works. She will do everything she can to make him an exhibit, named Ursa Marmalada.  

Here's another (back-to-back) example of the trailer dichotomy we were talking about in our review of "The Wedding Ringer." In the case of "Paddington," in an effort to draw in kids, all of the silliest parts of the movie were showcased in its trailer. Well, folks, movies are not the sum of their trailers because "Paddington" is seriously one of the cutest kids movies we have ever seen! BigJ and I had huge grins on our faces the entire movie to the point where our cheeks hurt after all was said and done.

The movie gets its super sad part out of the way early on. I guess the depressing film opener is not only for Disney. From there, we get to watch Paddington try to find his place in London, which is not what he thought it would be. People are rude, they have no manners, and they don't want to be associated with the likes of a bear...that is, until the Brown family takes an interest. We as audience members know all too well that housing bears can make for some sticky and tricky situations. It's clear that the family is in strife, and Paddington might be the one to solidify them as a unit once again. Each of the Browns have their own quirks. These quirks are put on display in a series of wonderful little vignettes from the point of view that can only be described as a smaller dollhouse version of their home. The door opens to find each room of the Brown's house occupied by one of its family members. When panned back, the scene of this house is both colorful and zany. Mr. Brown, played masterfully by the fantastic Hugh Bonneville, is a risk analyst and does not let his kids do anything that seems the slightest bit dangerous. Mary Brown, played by the delightful and eccentric Sally Hawkins, is the only one who sees that Paddington is truly more than just a lost bear. We watch her convince the rest of the family that he's not so bad, while simultaneously trying to be there for her kids, even though she is often intruding. Judy Brown, played by Madeleine Harris, is a perpetually embarrassed teenager who thinks her parents are the least cool people in the world. Jonathan, youngest member of the Brown clan, played by Samuel Joslin, likes to build things and take risks, which is his dad's worst nightmare. Then, there is Mrs. Bird, played by Julie Walters, who likes everything in tip top shape and in its place. She was such a welcome addition to the film. These vignettes come together in a masterful interlude, while simultaneously keeping the story going. We absolutely love the way the director of the movie, Paul King, made these scenes come to life. When panned in, we find out that each of the Brown's has a reason for why they are the way they are. That's the thing about "Paddington," there were tons of "if you blink, you might miss it" details that we adored. Somehow, King not only made them fit into the story, but did so seamlessly and gently. There was no frenetic pacing, no rushing, no awkward moments where one might feel like that had to look at their watch to see when the movie would be over. This movie was actually sort of perfect to me.

Not only is the story adorable, but it looks like each and every person involved with this movie took a painstaking amount of time and pride and diligence to get the film just right to maintain the spirit and the essence of the beloved Paddington. It is not only extremely well acted by all of its participants, but it is a fun film to boot. Even Nicole Kidman, resident "nose turned up" actress looked like she was having a ball as the film's villain Millicent, who wanted to catch Paddington to stuff for her father's museum exhibit. Dark, but not overwhelmingly so in comparison to other kids movies, Kidman is sort of a freak, but she makes a wickedly satisfying bad-gal. It honestly looks like this movie was a riot to make! The computer animated graphics mixed in with live action was also brilliant. In fact, it's one of the best CGI and live action hybrid films we have seen. Usually, there are a lot of visible problems and critiques to be made, but all of the CGI in this film was rather flawless.

Kids will love this flick, but the adults who grew up with the series will love it on their own, too. We can remember reading Paddington as kids, so to see him come alive on the big screen is nothing short of fantastic. The vibrancy of its colors, the special and intricate details of the setting and plot, as well as the humor and smiles it brings makes this movie definitely worth seeing in theaters. Please give this film a chance. It is so much better than half of the drivel that is put out there and masqueraded as a "family friendly" kids movie. This cuddly little bear is one you will want to squeeze forever and ever, and this movie is one that we envision watching for years to come.

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 98%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

Movie Review: "Before I Go to Sleep" (2014)

Image Source

Movie: "Before I Go to Sleep"
Director: Rowan Joffe
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 32 minutes

Christine (Nicole Kidman) has a form of amnesia resulting from an accident that caused her to have a traumatic brain injury. She cannot remember anything beyond her early 20's and wakes up every morning forgetting everything she did the day before. Each morning her husband Ben (Colin Firth) tells her about her life and has placed pictures of their life together on the bathroom wall as a reminder. Christine, unbeknownst to Ben, has secretly started therapy with Dr. Nasch (Mark Strong). As she goes further into therapy, she starts to unravel a mystery about her accident and uncover the secrets of her past. 

Upon leaving the theater after watching this movie, BigJ and I couldn't figure out it we disliked it or hated it. There are a slew of things wrong with it and very few good points about it. First of all, let's get the good out there first since there's not much of it. All of the actors in this movie do just fine with what they are given. It's always lovely to see Colin Firth in any capacity, good or bad. Also, Nicole Kidman is convincing enough with her source material, as is Mark Strong, who we'd like to see more from in the future. The majority of the story, however, is a dollar store knockoff and combination of "50 First Dates" meets "Memento," and not in a good way. Though Christine is an amnesiac, she has the convenience of remembering certain details that are just enough to keep the audience in the dark while giving the movie much needed clues to drive the plot forward. The main premise of the idea of the film is a decent one, but it is not executed well in this case. Filmmakers try (and sometimes succeed) to intentionally mislead audiences by making them think one way when really they should be on the opposite end of the thought spectrum. We understand what they were trying to accomplish; they were trying to make the audience experience her amnesia by giving us foggy details about the end point of the movie, but really, these instances of being mislead are frustrating, silly and feel rather cheap. On the flip side, this movie basically undoes everything Christopher Nolan did brilliantly with "Memento," which runs the movie backwards to make the audience truly immerse themselves in the amnesia condition. There is a bit of violent action in the film but it didn't come until much later on in its runtime, and what little violence there is seems unnecessary and over the top for the situation. Speaking of which, this movie is rather short, but feels much longer than it is and seems to drag on and on in the middle of it. The "twist" at the end of the film can be seen from a mile away, so the mystery is predictable and all for naught in the long run. Plus, the ending isn't even that good. The movie as a whole had potential with such an impressive cast, but was ultimately a boring letdown. This will be another movie in the "forgot we even watched it" pile in no time.

My Rating: 4/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 36%
Do we recommend this movie: No.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Promised Land"

Movie Review: "The Others" (2001)

Image Source

Movie: "The Others"
Director: Alejandro Amenábar
Year: 2001
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 44 minutes

Three servants come to the home of Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman) seeking employment. Grace lives with her two children Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley), and she hasn't seen her husband since he left to fight in the war several years prior. Grace takes the servants on a tour of the house and lays down the ground rules for them. She explains that her children have an allergy to sunlight and that simple exposure can cause them to break out in blisters and even kill them, so the house must remain dark at all times. Shortly after the servants begin working there, strange things start to happen: unexplained noises, voices, doors and curtains opening on their own, etc. Anne starts seeing a little boy and and old woman roaming the house. It appears the house may be haunted, but Grace is devoutly religious and refuses to accept such things. As things get worse, she starts to realize that she may have no choice but to believe they are haunted, and that maybe her servants aren't quite who they say they are. 

Who knew there was such a thing as a decent PG-13 horror film!?

"The Others" is an interesting dramatic ghost story. There isn't any gore or graphic blood in this film, which is not a bad thing. There aren't even a lot of jump scares or boo moments. There is a subtlety to its storytelling, as well as its build-up. Instead of being just like the rest of the horror movies out there, this film relies on setting its mood through music, lighting, and nervous energy. It works by slowing building tension throughout the film, piling more and more stress, fear, and uncertainty onto Grace and her children, gradually leading up to its ultimate climax.

Nicole Kidman puts on an excellent performance, showing a good combination of a stern, overbearing and over-stressed mother, mixed with unconditional love and the desire to protect her children as only a mother could. Fionnula Flanagan also does a fine job as head servant and nanny Mrs. Mills. She has a strength and understanding about her and it always feels like she's the smartest person in the room. But, there are also hints throughout the movie that she is always hiding something and that she may be slightly deceptive. The movie relies a lot on the strength of these two performances, though Grace's son and daughter, played by Alakina Mann and James Bentley, have great chemistry as bickering siblings, but also as siblings who cannot stand to be apart from one another.

It definitely does help to watch this movie in the dark, few of any and all distractions. This helps match feel of the film and makes its delivery that much more effective. Overall, we really like this horror movie, even if relies more on the story and acting, as well is the compelling cast of characters and tension building, rather than blood and gore, or lack thereof.

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 83%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Sinister"

Movie Review: "The Railway Man" (2014)

Movie: "The Railway Man"
Director: Jonathan Teplitzky
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 56 minutes

Image Source

Eric (Colin Firth) is a railway enthusiast who spends his days riding trains. It is on one of these trains where he meets his wife-to-be Patti (Nicole Kidman). They fall in love and get married, but Eric is still troubled and haunted by his past. Patti approaches an old friend of Eric’s named Finlay (Stellan Skarsgard), who reluctantly informs Patti of the pain Eric had to endure during World War II. As a younger man, Eric (Jeremy Irvine) and his entire outfit of army engineers were taken prisoner by the Japanese. After drawing a map of the railroad they were building, it was in this prison camp where Eric was violently tortured by his captors and was almost beaten to death. In order to help Eric reconcile his past, Finlay finds the location of one of the surviving captors: a Japanese interpreter named Takeshi Nagase (Hiroyuki Sanada), who was present and helped interrogate Eric during his torturing. Eric leaves to confront Takeshi at the prison camp where he was tortured, which has been turned into a war museum and where Takeshi is now working. 

This movie is based on a true story and has much raw emotion and a powerful message at the end. While Eric is being tortured on the inside though the war is long over, we see him wrestle with his inner demons and fight to figure out the "right" path as far as revenge goes. He's obviously suffering from PTSD and wants to seek closure from the wrongs that were done to him during the war. Along the way, we are treated to another performance by Colin Firth, a man seems to do no wrong. Also, his younger counterpart, played by Jeremy Irvine, does a fantastic job with not just his dialogue, but with the harder torture scenes as well. Between the two actors, we see a complete transformation of one person: Irvine plays the emotional younger Lomax, and Firth plays the stoic, hardened older man, and both compliment the role spectacularly. The same can be said for Tanroh Ishida and Hiroyuki Sanada, who both play Takeshi Nagase in this film. Ishida plays the younger, angrier translator/officer who is loyal to his country and is proud of what they are doing, whereas Sanada is the older, wiser, more apologetic and somber Nagase, who regrets the actions of his past. These performances alone make for a great viewing experience, though the subject matter is difficult to watch and quite violent. Supporting roles from Nicole Kidman and Stellan Skarsgard are also good as the two try to piece together what's going on inside Eric's mind and thoughts.

Beyond all of this, the message at the end is one that we need to think about more often as a society. War is not an excuse for all-out inhumanity, and this movie shows that. We were both very intrigued by this movie while watching it, and you feel the characters go through their angst, their fear, their pain, their need for closure.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 66%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?