erialc0

After being told time and time again by my female friends to "watch The Notebook, you'll cry soooo much!" I finally did it, alone, in the privacy of my own home, so that if it was too terrible I could deny ever having seen it later.

It was almost exactly what I expected it to be. Boy from lower class meets girl from upper class, separated by parents, reunited by chance years later, girl has to decide between the man she loved at 17 and her fiancée, who represents the world she "belongs" in. Sound familiar? It should, it's a plot that's been worn thin through overuse, and a charming performance by Rachel McAdams is not enough to give it new life. Nicholas Sparks, known mostly for for his even greater offender on the sentimental scene, A Walk to Remember, seems more interested in constructing a tale that entertains due to its predictability and tried-and-true appeal, not its originality or the freshness of dialogue, setting, or character. Despite showing a few impressive chops, Ryan Gosling fails to break out of the stock underdog role, and achieves his distinctive moments only during the moments where he's pitted against McAdams in their frequent fights, not during the love scenes themselves.

The real charm of this movie, for me, was the structure that the story is set against. An old man reads the story of the two young lovers to an old woman suffering for the last stages of Alzheimer's, a routine that we are given to understand happens every day. This elderly act of love is a thousand times sweeter and more convincing than any part of the story he retells--though Sparks can't resist tossing in further cheap sentiment by constant references to an expected "miracle" that will cure his companion's disease.

Technically, the movie is impressive. The sets and directing are generally above par, but cannot save the movie from being a typical chick-flick tear jerker. It has redeeming qualities, certainly, but after watching it I felt the hype it's received as "a perfect and enduring love story" was not fully deserved. In a few years, it will still have its fans, but it will be regaled to two copies in Blockbuster's that get rented perhaps once a month, replaced by similar movies that are again declared "beautiful and heartwarming". The acclaim it's earned popularly is, in my opinion, only earned because the lovers of this film loved the story before they even entered the theatre, and were thrilled to get exactly what they expected.

Heights is, at its most basic, an exploration of desires. The characters around whom the movie revolves think they know, at the beginning, where they're headed, what will happen to them, what they want to happen to them. But as the movie progresses, their certainties are challenged and sometimes swept away entirely, and their carefully constructed lives begin to unravel.

Glenn Close is Diana, a brilliant 40-something Shakespearean actress and somewhat irresponsible mother. Her open marriage once seemed like a terrific idea--have your fun on the side, have a loving husband at home--but as her "loving husband" becomes more and more deeply involved with another woman, she begins to realize just how unfulfilling that philosophy is.

Diana's daughter is played by Elizabeth Banks, in a very Scarlett Johanssen-esquire role. Isabel is a struggling photographer who makes ends meet by taking wedding pictures, while still trying to pursue a more serious career. Her second thoughts begin to appear when her upcoming wedding to Jonathan becomes an obstacle to a once-in-a-lifetime chance to use her talent. Jonathan himself has a past he's desperate to hide, potentially ruinous secrets he's working to keep from his wife-to-be.

The situations are strung together by the existence of a never-seen photographer named Benjamin Stone, who is scheduled for an exhibition in a few weeks. A man named Peter, who we are given to understand is Benjamin's current flame, is tracking down his previous models (and incidentally, lovers) to compile his memoirs. His work loosely ties in the rest of the characters, providing some structure to the interlocking plot lines.

This movie has the power and appeal that you generally find in beautiful films about unhappy people. No matter how happy or hopeful you find the ending, it's still a bit of a downer, because of the raw exposure of the characters. There are uncomfortable moments when we're privy to deep-seated emotions and unsettling situations, but there are also remarkably tender moments. The acting is generally understated and simple, with a few intense moments--your basic fare from a character study movie. But the adaptation from stage to screen, though apparent, is nearly seamless, and the text translates well to film.

Highly recommended to fans of Closer and similar movies.

I admit, I have never seen the original War of the Worlds. I am slowly compiling a list of all the classic sci-fi movies I have never seen, and it's currently embarrassingly long. That confession made, I can at least say that I'm reviewing this movie with a fresh perspective.

The first and most obvious thing to be said is that visually, the movie is stunning. The beginning of the invasion, when the Tripods climb out of the craters in the asphalt, surrounded by buildings that are imploding, crumbling, and being split down the middle, is an incredible image and one of the best uses of CGI I've seen in a long time. The machinery, the destruction, the aliens themselves are rendered beautifully and terrifyingly.

Stephen Spielberg does something else incredible, beyond the sheer impressiveness of the visuals--he keeps the tension pulsing throughout the entire movie. There is an honest question of who will make it out alive, of how we will prevail, when we will prevail, even if we will prevail at all (though honestly, if this question had been answered unsatisfyingly, no one would have liked this movie at all). Tom Cruise, as a dead-beat dad, is suddenly forced to figure out a way to bring his two children to safety. His daughter Rachel (played by the unbearably cute Dakota Fanning) in particular adds to the sense of urgency, both through her young age and her frequent panic attacks due to a bad case of claustrophobia.

I do have two criticisms, though. The first is Tim Robbins' bizarre sequence. Despite the fact that he is unquestionably an amazingly talented actor, I had trouble feeling that his role as an obsessive would-be leader of the (literally) "underground resistance" added much to the movie at all. The second would be the sticking point that many other viewers have complained about--the fairly ending. The audience is asked to swallow a weak explanation and a tie-up-loose-ends approach that rarely seems credible in film and literature. Still, my attitude is that by the time you reach the end, who cares? It's been a satisfying ride.

Whole-heartedly recommended to lovers of thrillers, action, and sci-fi alike.