'Milk' (Gus Van Sant, 2008)

There are no words, truly, that can express my love for this film. Astonishing. Sean Penn. Oh, Sean Penn. Sean Penn is the Best Actor of 2008, bar none. I couldn't give less of a shit about whatever Mickey Rourke is doing, wrestling for Darren Aronofsky or whatever. Penn's performance was heartbreaking, sensual, caring, lovable, passionate: everything that I felt Harvey encompassed throughout his life. Every single time he came in front of the camera and gave one of the "My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you" speeches he was just...stunning. Stunning.


The supporting players as well were fantastic. James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Josh Brolin I found especially affecting in their portrayals. I'd love Franco to be nominated because he was just so damn cute (he'll be on my ballot for sure). Hirsch was splendid, coming off of his equally impressive turn in 'Into the Wild' last year. He's got a very promising career ahead of him, certainly. Brolin was magnificent, yet I was moderately surprised to find that he wasn't used as much as I had assumed. Yet, in all of his scenes he was just so terrifying. He coupled that sense of palpable danger with an intense vulnerability that was almost mesmerizing in its complexity. Alison Pill also is very entertaining in her bit part. I loved seeing this girl, who not so very long ago was starring with Lindsay Lohan in one of my favorite oh-so-guilty pleasures 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen', transform into such a fantastic actress. Diego Luna I felt was a bit on the obnoxious side, but later on in the film he has an incredibly stirring scene that made me bawl my eyes out. Granted, it was really Penn in that scene that was making me so emotional, but that's not the point.

So yeah. I really can't say much more. Van Sant's direction is phenomenal--his intertwining of archival footage is superbly done. The script by Dustin Lance Black is equally amazing, with every single detail of Harvey's life shown on screen being of merit. Not once did I think "Ugh, here we are again, going down your stereotypical biopic road." Everything had a purpose and it all worked grandly.

Harvey Milk's spirit lives on fiercely in this masterwork and, thanks to him, I have never been so proud to be a gay man in my entire life.


Thanks, Harvey.

A

Seeing my most anticipated movie of the year today!

I am so unbelievably excited right now it's insane. It's 12:19 AM, the day after Thanksgiving, November 28, 2008. Since the moment I heard that somebody (in this case) Gus Van Sant was finally going through with and releasing a film about my hero, Harvey Milk, I knew that I needed to see it. And fast. Now after all of those months of waiting it's here. In around 14 hours.

Expect a glowing report sometime tomorrow!

'Australia' (Baz Luhrmann, 2008)

Eight times. I found myself crying approximately eight times throughout Baz Luhrmann's latest visual experience, 'Australia'. I mean good God! I rarely cry in movies, at least publicly that is. Suffice to say, I became so emotional at various points in this film that I could have filled up your nearest swimming pool with tears.

But that's besides the point. The film: call me mesmerized. Absolutely gorgeous, not that that was a surprise to you. What else does one expect from a Luhrmann picture anyhow? Nothing short of a spectacular, spectacular in my case and he and his disgustingly talented crew deliver ten fold. Coming off of her lethal performance in 'Margot at the Wedding,' Nicole Kidman shines once again in a role that more often than not feels like that of Satine from 'Moulin Rouge!'. Or maybe it was just the similar accent? Who knows. Her transformation from "thoroughbred" English aristocrat to cattle driving billabong dweller extraordinaire is both charmingly humorous and endearing. She and co-star Hugh Jackman (as rough and tumble gorgeous as ever) command the screen with presences that grab their audience's attention by the reins and keep on riding with them until the last minute of the film's almost three hour running time. Their chemistry is so perfect it almost shocks me--the two look even better together than when Kidman was paired with Ewan McGregor for 'Rouge!'. Jackman specifically impressed me with his ability to blend the "down under" masculinity with intensely humane emotion.


Brandon Walters as well gives a wonderful supporting performance as Nullah the aborigine child that lives on Faraway Downs, the land in which Kidman's character Lady Sarah Ashley owns. He is the type of child actor who can take even the cheesiest dialogue and turn it into emotional fireworks. David Wenham does a suitable job as the token bad guy of the picture, Fletcher, but I feel his character's ultimate lack of back story development places a flaw on any kudos I would have been willing to give him.


The script, to my delight, alternates between moments of uproarious laughter to somber tragedy. It's an unabashed throw back to the Golden Age of 1930's cinema, striving to be "the next 'Gone with the Wind'", and honestly I would say that it's not too far from that--at least in grandeur, that is. Luhrmann's work doesn't reach Victor Fleming-level heights exactly, but it certainly shatters the roof for entertainment in this 21st century. The only problem I really had with the film is that, you know, it's two pieces. It ends and then begins all over again, and because of that it can be moderately exhausting. But it's no enormous bother for it, above many things, is just a beautiful love note to all things classic film and I adore it for that. 'Australia' is an indulgent, sumptuous, visual spectacle filled to the brim with breathtaking cinematography, costumes and art direction, and includes performances to savor from its stars and supporting players. The only thing that could have made it any better would have been if it had had an exclamation point tacked on the end of its title.

B+

'Rachel Getting Married' (Jonathan Demme, 2008)

Can we just, for a moment, talk about how amazing this was? I had to wait a day to post some thoughts about this. Really digest it all. I mean, from viewing the trailer a while back I had assumed that Jonathan Demme's 'Rachel Getting Married' would be passable--something akin to last year's 'Margot at the Wedding,' a film that I both enjoyed and despised parts of equally. It, I thought, would be incredibly similar to Noah Baumbach's picture in that its best feature would be a stunning performance by its lead actress. Then it was Nicole Kidman, and now it would be Anne Hathaway's turn. And what a turn it is.


Anne Hathaway. What can I say? I've loved her ever since her star turn as Princess Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi in 2001's 'The Princess Diaries'. I embraced her in 'The Devil Wears Prada', 'Brokeback Mountain', and 'Ella Enchanted' while looking past the repugnant 'Havoc'. And now here we are, her currently holding up shop as my winner for Best Actress this year with 'Rachel'. It's a strikingly realistic and heartbreaking portrayal of a recovering addict, the black sheep of her family only due to her role in a fatal accident that led to her venemous nature. I couldn't count on two hands the amount of possible Oscar clips that could be used this upcoming ceremony. Her scene at the meeting recounting the incident? Revelatory. Her scene confronting her mother, Abby (Debra Winger, underused but doing her job)? Incindiary. She is absolutely marvelous as Kym and it will be interesting to see which ladies, if any, can top her.

My other favorite in the miraculously good ensemble was Rosemarie DeWitt, the sister to Hathaway's Kym and the title character of Rachel. She dishes back an ample supply of both tenderness and vocal ferocity that keeps your eyes locked on her at all points in the movie. A very capable match to Hathaway, and a marvelous supporting player. Going back to a point I made earlier, I feel that this excelled much further than 'Margot at the Wedding' because of its, I suppose overall emotional ties to its audience. I cared about the characters, I felt for them (clearly, seeing as I spent a good deal of the two some hours drenched in tears). That fact I couldn't say for, well, anyone in 'Margot', including those you were supposed to take sides with.

My main qualm with the work, though it's a small one, is the cinematography. I understand that hand-held cameras aid more often than not in adding to the realism of a film. It works here, certainly. I also understand that it more often than not makes me nauseous. Which it did. But after a while, I got used to it and in hindsight really did appreciate the intended "grittiness" of it all.


If you have the chance to see this in theaters, see it. If you don't, then when it's released on DVD snatch that disc clear off the shelves like there's no tomorrow. 'Rachel Getting Married' is a touching homerun that is not to be missed. It certainly will be holding a place on my year end list.

A-

'Twilight' opening day upwards of $35 million

So according to Box Office Mojo, 'Twilight' made a combined total of $35, 700, 000 based off of yesterday's and Thursday's (midnight) showings alone. The fourteenth highest grossing opening day of all-time.

My response:

'Twilight ' (Catherine Hardwicke, 2008)

It would be unfair of me to pretend that I'm not biased on the subject of the hit book, and now film series 'Twilight'. I am. Incredibly so. I devoured author Stephenie Meyer's tale of teenage vampire-on-normal girl love, and sans any shape or form of shame. A few of my friends were saying that they "couldn't wait until the critics trashed it". That made me laugh, just a little bit, seeing as how the film (very much like one of my other favorites so far this year, 'HSM3') is virtually critic proof. I say that in the sense that it could be called the worst film of 2008 and still legions of fans would flock to it. All that mattered is that it remain faithful to the novel.


First of all, let me just give my compliments to the casting director. I honestly don't think that they could have picked a better Edward Cullen than who they found in Robert Pattinson. I remember watching 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' way back in I believe 2005 and thinking that this kid, Cedric Diggory, was the cutest thing. I also assumed that he would never have a career in acting when he didn't really you know do anything of note after 'HP4'. He's absolutely perfect for the role. Edward's supposed to be beautiful and frightening, roles which Pattinson can alternate between at the drop of a hat. Kristen Stewart, also, embodies the character of Bella unbelievably well. She's supposed to be clumsy and uniquely pretty. A waifish newcomer to the town of Forks, Arizona. I kind of invisioned her with a manly-ish voice. Ding, ding, ding!

Now before you all kill me, saying that I have no taste and all--hear me out. I'm not saying that this is the second coming of 'Citizen Kane' or anything, I just plain enjoyed it. Hardwicke and co. took the book that I had such a wonderful time reading and essentially put it to the screen.


However, that's not to say that the film was without its faults. They come largely from the realm of unintentional laughter. There were some parts that were just so unbelievably hammy that my friends and I couldn't help from doubling over in hilarity. Remember how I said that the makers of the film "essentially put it [the book] to the screen"? Well I say that with reservations. They left out quite a few details that may or may not be considered minute (I find them major plot holes), however I can see why: they had to please the audience members who haven't read the books, and I don't fault them too harshly for that. Those moderately unsavory parts didn't take too much away from the movie, though. It was just as moody, romantic, sexy and thrilling as I had imagined it being. What are a few extra laughs added in there but even more fun to patch up the missing pieces?

B+