I was at the movie store today and decided I wanted to watch something kind of scary.  Not gory and laughable, but something that would be suspenseful and thrilling. I thought I might have found the right movie when I picked up In a Dark Place.  I mean it stars Leelee Sobieski (A Glass House) and I have enjoyed her earlier work, so I thought it’d be a good one to watch.  I was wrong.  This movie tried too hard to be ambiguous.  Instead of building the suspense until the final moment, I was left wondering what I had just watched and trying to make sense of it all.

The movie starts as Anna (Sobieski) is let go from her job as an art teacher at a school.  The principal of the school finds her a new job as a nanny for two orphaned children who live with their rich, never-there uncle. Anna is in full charge of the children before she even meets them with only the housekeeper/secretary Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald, Brassed Off) for help and company.  Soon enough Anna is hearing voices, and seeing the ghosts of two former employees of the house.  She swears that the children Miles and Flora (Christian Olson and Gabrielle Adam both in their debut performances) can see them too, although they never confirm or deny this.  Throughout the movie Anna has nightmares of her past sexual abuse, which may be bothering her more than she even knows.  She begins to think maybe the former employees sexually abused the children, and begins to feel that she must protect them at all cost.  But are the children really in danger of ghosts, or Anna herself? This is the question that must be answered.  

In a Dark Place was based on the Henry James’ novella “The Turn of the Screw.”  Having never read it, I can’t do much comparison, but I did read up on it and found out that the book is almost as ambiguous as the movie and has been debated about for years.  I don’t think this movie will have the same sort of debate, as it is pretty forgettable.  The acting did nothing for me.  Sobieski is nice to look at, and really flaunts that fact in this movie but she is at a loss to bring much else to the movie.  Her acting was forced, and when pressed to show emotion she over did it. Fitzgerald was somewhat better in her delivery and making her character believable, but not very likable.  And the kids? Well, I can’t say much for them either – but I suppose for child actors they did fine, especially for their first roles. 

Nothing really impressed me about this movie.  I’m just glad I only paid $1.00 to rent it and not more. Now, I’m not saying I’m against movies that leave the ending up to the audience, but I feel this movie left almost everything for us to decide because the writer (Peter Waddington) didn’t want to make the decision.  Instead he tried to make a movie that would please everyone, and failed miserably.  If you catch this movie late at night on a movie channel, maybe I’d suggest watching it just to see if what your opinion is on what happens.  Otherwise I suggest just reading the novella instead – which I intend to do sometime in the near future.  I’m sure it’ll be much more satisfying.  In a Dark Place gets a D+ from me, although it’s not the worst movie I’ve ever seen I still wouldn’t recommend anyone wasting his or her money (and possibly time) to see it. 

Sisters fighting? Check.  Impending wedding? Check. Lots of drama? Check, check, and check! Margot at the Wedding has all three and more, but do they really add up to a movie worth watching? Well…I can tell you what I thought and let you decide from there.

Margot (Nicole Kidman, The Golden Compass) has not talked to her sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh, Road to Perdition) in years, but decides to go to her wedding anyway.  After all, her sister is her best friend.  She brings along her teenage son Claude (Zane Paris in his debut role) for company.  What follows is a crazy week where the past is revisited, the present is rethought, and everyone’s true personalities show through.  

Directed and written by Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) Margot at the Wedding is another movie about a dysfunctional family.  I expected a lot out of this movie, as I loved Bambach’s first feature film and thought this would be on the same lines.  I was disappointed.  I thought that The Squid and The Whale was a perfect mix of dark comedy, family drama, and a coming of age story.  I think Baumbach tried to do the same thing with Margot at the Wedding, and failed.   Most of the comedy fell short, although there are some funny moments, like Margot getting stuck in a tree, although most of it gets muddled in between everything else that is going on.  I also had a problem with the editing of this movie.  There are many jump cuts that just seem unnecessary.  The audience sees one character, and then all the sudden jump cut to that same character only in a slightly different position.  Apparently this was done deliberately, but I have no idea what the reason was for it. The script was at best mediocre at best, but that didn’t stop Baumbach from getting first rate actors.

The one good thing I can say about this movie was that the acting was fantastic!  I normally don’t care for Kidman.  The last movie I can say I actually enjoyed her in was To Die For (which she was superb in, and I would highly recommend watching).  In this movie Kidman plays Margot fearlessly, not caring what people think of her brutal truthfulness and I really liked that.  Leigh, as always, is excellent as Pauline.  Normally Leigh seems to play someone more like the Margot character, but here she is a little more reserved with an occasional outburst.  Paris is a joy to watch as he almost steals scenes away from the veteran actresses with his fresh face, and confused adolescence.  Jack Black (Be Kind Rewind) also shows up as Pauline’s husband to be.  He does have some comedic moments, but Black shows he can play the dramatic just as well.  (Although when he cries it does look kind of weird…) 

After I saw this movie I was at a loss on what to say.  Usually I know right away if I liked a movie or not, but I really had to ponder this one.  Yeah, I really enjoyed watching the actors tackle their roles with zest, but half the time I didn’t care what was going on or about the characters themselves.  But after much thought, I’ve decided this movie was just average and nothing extraordinary so it gets a C from me and I’ll still watch the next movie Baumbach makes. 

Being a Beatles fan since the age of six, I was quite excited when I heard about Across the Universe. Moulin Rouge is the only musical I actually enjoy watching, and the trailers portrayed this film as something very similar. So naturally, I figured I would love it. Sadly, this wasn’t the case.

The storyline revolves around a young artist from Liverpool named Jude and his best friend’s sister Lucy as they struggle through the influences of love, drugs, and war during 1970s America, all the while expressing the majority of their feelings through classic Beatles songs.

Now obviously we have to take into consideration the fact that this is a musical and therefore can be excused for a being a little cheesy or unrealistic. I mean, who didn’t see the character names of “Jude”, “Lucy”, and “Prudence” coming from a mile away? Sure, I can ignore these predictable pieces as long as they’re brought together in a unique way, but I can’t say that Across the Universe accomplished that.

This is not to say that I think the film was a disaster. In fact, I was intrigued by some areas of the movie, such as the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince). Scenes like “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite” had colors and transitions that were very trippy and amusing to just sit back and absorb. I’m sure the Fab Four of the 1970s would’ve been proud. Also, the acting throughout the movie was very believable. The whole cast gave a solid performance with no weak links. I was glad that no one attempted the flamboyant, exaggerated style of acting that is most notorious in musicals. The lack of it helped the film stay grounded and get taken more seriously.

On the other hand, the area of writing…well…wasn’t so appraisable.

Clearly the Beatles did not create their songs with an intent to combine them into a film, and the plot of Across the Universe only cemented that fact to me. It felt like writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais (The Bank Job, Flushed Away) frequently rushed the events and character growth in order for the mood of a scene to feel similar to a certain song at a certain time. There were many references to song titles, names, and occurrences all related to the Beatles, but the storyline had to stretch and veer off a bit in order to accommodate those references. In the end, it felt like a polluted game of connect-the-dots.

I will give the filmmakers credit for taking a stab at the idea though because, in theory, a Beatles musical sounds great. Ultimately, the main problem they had to face was the same problem that movies like Superman and Star Wars faced – the fan base is huge and generations old. There are millions (possibly billions) of fans – young, old, and everything in between – who all have their own opinion about Beatles music. Additionally, there are hundreds of songs to sort through that all have multiple meanings and messages. It’s utterly impossible to satisfy every fan in the world with a single film.

I guess the reason I personally came out so disappointed was because I had been looking for something a little less isolated from The Beatles themselves. The remaining Beatles members, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney, as well as Yoko Ono, John Lennon’s widow, were in contact with the director, but the contact was very minimal. I’m positive that if they’d been given even more license to choose the look and feel of Across the Universe, its impact on viewers would’ve been much more impressive.

I’m not trying to discourage people from at least giving it a try, however. I know the film has entertained a good portion of Beatles fans and even introduced some newcomers to the music. Just don’t rent it expecting it to be anything more than one attempt at an interpretation of music that was intended to mean a lot more.

Into the Wild is based on the true story of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), who after graduating from college decides to give away his life savings in favor of traveling to Alaska to live off the land. The film follows his travels and adventures of two years until he reaches his ultimate dream of living in the wilderness.

The movie is based on Jon Krakauer’s non-fiction book of the same name. He pieced together McCandless’ travels from his journal and extensive research. The script is co-written with director Sean Penn and there is a sense that the story meant a lot to both men. I should mention that the soundtrack is by Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) who does well to capture the free spirit that McCandless undoubtedly displayed. There’s a real open road feel to the movie, ably added to by the soundtrack and movie scoring.

Emile Hirsch plays the free thinking McCandless brilliantly. When his character becomes Alexander Supertramp, the pseudonym he picks for his travels, Hirsch makes the same leap for freedom. It’s a very good piece of acting. The supporting cast is extraordinarily strong, being topped off with the superb Hal Holbrook (nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar) who plays a lonely old man whose life is touched by McCandless.

The way the film is shot by Penn underlines the way McCandless reacts to society. Scenes in the wilderness or on the road are wide and endless. Anytime McCandless is back in society there is a more boxed and trapped feel. The scenery of Alaska is stunning and embodies the beauty from life Hirsch’s character is seeking.

I have to admit I didn’t realize this film was based on a real life story until the very end. It all became incredibly poignant after seeing a picture of McCandless in Alaska. The sense of realism that Hirsch and Penn created had left me with mixed reactions to Hirsch’s character at different stages of his life - it ranged through annoyance, disbelief, inspiration, and anxiety. Once I knew he was based on a real man I couldn’t help wondering how his parents must have reacted to watching this movie. That’s how good a portrayal of McCandless I thought the movie produced.

I like to think Sean Penn has managed to capture the spirit of the man – certainly I can believe the character that was portrayed. I was left feeling that we had a glimpse into the life of a man searching for a freedom and beauty that we perhaps forget when we become embroiled in the everyday routine of our lives. Definitely worth watching.