In the Loop

WORTH-IT: (Armando Iannucci) As the US President and UK Prime Minister toy with thoughts of war, a few others do everything they can to avoid it. A truly tongue in cheek comedy, this British gem is a fast-paced, witty insight into politics underneath the politics. Much more emphasized than the benefit of war or not, is who sleeps with who, who is more important, who believes what, who is on who's team, etc. etc. It's bordering so close to idiocy that you can't help but be fascinated. It's like watching a train wreck. Personalities and wit converge into something spectacular and hilarious. Peter Capaldi plays the boiling blood pressure Malcom Tucker, adviser to the vulnerable and flighty Prime Minister, perfectly casted in Tom Hollander. James Gandolfini joins the cast as the pacifist general and My Girl's Anna Chlumski makes a return to the screen as Liza, an eager and anti-war understudy in the White House. There are many more that hold hands and swap profanity to make this story an entertaining and laughable one. If you're into British comedy, this will strike the right chord with you. Prepare yourself for overused colorful language and high tempers, but look forward to outrageous dialogue and funny circumstances. This film was an unexpected treat!

The Last Station

MUST-SEE: (Michael Hoffman) What a surprise this film is! If you're a loyal reader, you know period pieces are my passion. But I assure you, that bias plays no part in my love of this story. My only regret is I failed to read the book first. The Last Station is the tale of Leo Tolstoy and his family and following at the end of his life. Amidst the Tolstoyian Movement, it was an era of love relating all people, religions and beliefs. It was about ridding your spirit (and life) of excess, going back to the basics and living happily without material distraction or influence. It preaches numerous things, but the success of this piece is that it humbles itself. To the very end, its unclear what parts of his doctrine Tolstoy himself actually takes literally.... in the end suggesting that the way the greater population understood them was in fact, incorrect. As a man of simplicity, but filled with love, he acted, thought and persevered with only that as motivation. And, it was contagious. Modest and warm, he earned a friend with each meeting. Christopher Plummer translates this warmth easily. And don't expect to watch this movie without a smile. The chemistry between him and Helen Mirren is electric, believable. Second to that, James McAvoy and Kerry Condon are an instant romance - innocent and undeniable, their relationship the future of what Leo meant his Tolstoyian love to teach. Love story lovers, period piece fanatics and literary minds--don't miss this one!

Invictus

WORTH-IT: (Clint Eastwood) There were several movies out early this year that were not at the top of my list. I know that may be hard to believe for some of you who know me well, and know that I am usually "dying to see" every movie that comes out (and usually think they're all fabulous!). But, maybe I am maturing, or my film-buds are, or I don't know what, but this year came a slew of films unable to draw a sense of anticipation from me. Invictus was very high on that list. First, because I am not a huge Matt Damon fan... great movies - he just doesn't do it for me. Secondly, I know nothing of rugby. The only reason I was slightly curious was my love for movies illustrating history. Invictus is the story of Neslon Mandela's first year in office. And, rather than recount the story of his rise to power, it tells the story of his rise to popularity and colors in the lines of why so many respect him. The story does this through a country's passion for its national pastime--rugby.

Now, its no phenomenal film. I didn't leave with any lasting impacts, and I wouldn't have been disappointed if no one had been nominated for an award. But, what I can say, is that I was immediately surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It was fast-paced, easy to follow and as genuine as a story that's already based on truth can get. Damon and Morgan Freeman were instantly believable. The complex story was simple and easy to grasp. The mix of high energy sport with politics and relationships made it easily entertaining and absolutely fun to watch. By the end, I regretted my original intent to avoid seeing the film and was lobbying for increased attendance.

I've heard the argument that the intensity of rugby was lacking, or that the movie overall was too vanilla, and I can't offer any hard evidence against those statements. I don't know rugby from dominoes, other than it is brutal and fast, so I don't feel like I missed anything. I was also ignorant to a lot of the South African political movement under Mandela, making this film simply an easy to learn history lesson. Watch it with that simplistic expectation and I believe it can do the same for you as it did for me--entertain and educate.

Blindness

ALMOST: (Fernando Meirelles) When you sit down for a film starring the Spanish phenom, Gael Garcia Bernal and American notables Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo, one would think it almost gurantees an intense, clever story, on fire on screen and deeply relatable for the audience. Unfortunately, the key word in the previous sentence remains as "almost." In Merielles adaptation of Jose Saramango's novel, we're introduced to a U.S.A. faced with a health crisis of unexplained blindness. Authorities, unsure of the cause or severity, quarantine the sick in a mental hospital, adding to the numbers as more are discovered. But, as the infected population grows, it's evident the sickness is working too fast for the givernment's planned logistics or their patience, and they are enventually left the sick to fend for themselves. Another movie illustrating soceity left to itself, a parody of sorts, showing how lost "we the people" would be trying to survive with a sublime democracy. That democracy is Julianne and Ruffalo playing a married couple holding the people sane against Bernal, the evil "Monarchy" taking advantage of the weary. It had potential--until it was dragged out for hours. The rising action of this plot lasted far too long and ends, really, unexplained. Making matters longer, even after the presumed climax finally comes, the film continues along a long and winding path towards resolution, thus making Part II equally as stagnant. The complex to me is why were such respected names in such a nobody blockbuster? No one was given the power to expand their role, and could have been equally as stagnant with your usual horror movie debut team. Don't worry about missing out on this one. If the story sounds compelling--read it.