I liked this movie because of the complexity of the characters of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Usually Henry is portrayed as a blustering bully who demanded (and got) anything he wanted like a spoiled child. Richard Burton is this man, but the film explores the moral complexities of a man who was once named “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope and then broke away from the church so he could divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The film tries to answer the question – why would Anne Boleyn been worth all of the trouble? Simply, lust. Henry wanted what he could not have. Here is where the film diverges a bit from historical accuracy, but it still keeps the interest. Anne is not the beautiful idiot or the flirting seductress. Instead she is an intelligent woman who at first tries to resist the king because she has seen what becomes of his mistresses. However, she becomes power hungry and it leads to her downfall – a downfall the film suggests that she accepted because she knew Elizbeth would then become queen. Although Anne’s psychic abilities are a bit disconcerting, in the end the film’s two stars portrayed very convincingly two people who would have created someone such as Elizabeth I. Instead of being wholly considered her father’s daughter, Anne’s gifts of intelligence, diplomacy, and political manipulation are evident.

An otherwise good movie derailed by a very poorly cast Uma Thurman.

One of the most beautiful films I have ever seen, combined with an interesting story that unfolds with unexpected twists. The only thing that kept me from giving it 5 stars was the unbelievability of some of the fight scenes. I can swallow most of them and enjoy them for the art that they are, but a few (the arrow scene and the leaf scene mostly) were more ludicrous than magical. But overall the film was an unexpected pleasure.

I went for the movie when I was looking for a bit of fluff, so I wasn’t disappointed, but neither was I very entertained. “27 Dresses” is a yet another situation comedy the studios crank out for their female audiences, because they know they can get away with it because there is so little else out there aimed at female audiences. You have the engineered “comedy” of a woman who has been a bridesmaid in 27 weddings. She meets the fella – a reporter who covers weddings but wants to get into something more serious – and through him learns that she is a complete doormat. However, she’s still harboring a huge crush on her boss (at a nice, swanky office that all of these type of comedies put their women in because I guess they’ve discovered in focus groups that we drool over a nicely designed cubicle space as much as a movie star), and the kicker is that her bratty younger sister is going to marry her boss and, of course, asks her to be the bridesmaid. So much of this movie felt overly-contrived that I couldn’t buy into it enough to laugh. Katherine Heigl once again proves that she can carry a movie, but hopefully this isn’t a sign of the direction she plans on taking in her career.

I had hopes that this would be an entertaining bit of fun – the movie is about a dancing penguin. The animation is gorgeous – really stunning. However, the movie is really bad. The characters are not only one-dimensional, they are stereotypes and not in a way that even makes sense. I can only imagine that someone did a poll that determined that children like “accents” and they tried to toss in as many as possible. I was appalled about some “dance moves,” etc., that were really not appropriate for the goal audiences, but the entire film felt, especially towards the end, as if it had lost focus on who they were making the movie for – the quick flashes of humans arguing at the end would be way over the head of most children and the message could have been gotten across much more cleverly. I felt that maybe the movie was conceived of and written by a committee – “Um, what’s cool right now?” “Penguins are really cool.” “Yeah, and the environment.” “Okay, let’s make a movie about that, but add some music, but instead of writing our own, let’s just use previous hits – who cares that it doesn’t make any sense at all?” I couldn’t wait for it to be over.

I thought I had only watched part of this film when I was a child because I could only remember the school scene when they sing “Getting to Know You.” Now I wonder if I actually watched the whole thing and only remembered that part. It is definitely the best of the songs, most of which are slow ballad solos. The best part of the film is the gorgeous Thai version of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” itself a small film. The movie is lavish – the art direction, costuming, and production are top notch. I just couldn’t get over the Western arrogance of the film. No wonder Thailand banned it. I could get over the fact that that the closest the main Siamese actors get to being Asian is Yul Brynner being Russian-born. But I couldn’t get over how the repeatedly made the King of Siam so foolish, like the stereotypical country cousin. They repeatedly state how learned he is, but then make all of his intelligence and wittiness stem from something Anna spoon-fed him. Brynner is still electrifying as the King, and the film has some very funny moments, but the imperialist theme even overwhelmed the women’s lib theme of the story.

“The Claim” is very loosely based on Thomas Hardy’s “The Mayor of Casterbridge.” The location has been moved from England to the Sierra Nevada mountains in California as the Transcontinental Railroad is being built. I truly respect the screenwriter for such an imaginative adaptation. Daniel Dillon runs the town Kingdom Come as he owns most of the businesses and land. A sick mother and her daughter come into town claiming to be relations of Dillon. We find out through a flashback that Dillon used to be married to the woman, whom he traded for the claim that led to the wealth that built the town. Also new to town are the engineers for the railroad who are here to decide which way the railroad will come through. The town’s fortunes, and those of Dillon himself, are deeply tied to the engineers, especially the head engineer, a young man named Dalglish.

Having read (and loved) the book, the first part of the film was fascinating to me to see the inventive liberties that screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce took – the main ideas of the book are here but different. Dillon wants to make right for how he sold his family when he was drunk and poor, but can he risk telling his daughter who she really is without ruining her love for him? Dalglish is the catalus that leads to yet another crisis in Dillon’s life – will the railroad be built through the town causing it to thrive, or will it be built in another area?

The cinematography is beautiful. The acting (by an international class that well portrays the melting pot of the American west) is well done. I tried hard not to constantly compare it to the book, which has so many twists and turns of fate it is almost impossible to fit into a 2 hour film. But, I felt in the end let down by Dalglish’s character. “The Mayor of Casterbridge” rotates around the constantly changing relationship between Henchard (Dillon) and Farfrae (Dalglish) – from a father/son relationship to one of mortal enemies. That element is missing from the film, even though the film involves a shoot-out between the Dillon’s Kingdom Come townies and Dalglish’s railroad men. I also never really bought into his relationship with Dillon’s daughter, Hope. The chemistry between Wes Bentley and Milla Jovovich, who plays Dillon’s mistress, was much more palpable. Also, Dillon’s fall was too rapid for me, involving just one headstrong and impractical decision instead of a series of them. I felt the film lingered too much on the dying mother, time which could have been better used, how many scenes do we really need of a woman coughing up blood and her daughter taking over nursing from Dillon?

Overall, a solid film, a different kind of adaptation and a different kind of Western.

You can take my opinion with a grain of salt because I failed to pick up on the theme of homosexuality Ebert says is running rampant through the movie (I can see it now that it is pointed out to me), but I didn’t think this one was better than its predecessor. I don’t think it was worse either, about the same. I watched them back-to-back, and was amused by the changes between the two – the actress playing Elizabeth, the ambiguous time period, etc. “Bride of Frankenstein” upped the comedy and the campiness, while making the monster more likeable. But it lacked the poignancy of the first movie – there is no scene in it quite as heartbreaking as the monster drowning the little girl. Afterwards I read Ebert’s review of the film for his “The Great Movies” column and still don’t really understand why this film is hailed as one of the greats.

This casting director must be some kind of miracle worker because the amount of talent in this film is staggering. I give credit to the casting director because it seems impossible for this many really good/great actors to have been drawn into the story – a sentimental past and present look into one woman’s life, particularly one weekend at a friend’s wedding where she meets her “one true love” and “first mistake.” Obviously this film was aimed at women, and I guess Hollywood thinks that as long as it is aimed at women they don’t have to try to hard to impress us – just give us some sad moments and a love story. I was really bored during the “present” scenes. Toni Collette, who I usually adore, even failed to get me interested with her woman-at-a-crossroads character. The “past” scenes were much more interesting, but the movie’s hugest flaw was giving Hugh Dancy, who steals the strongest performance of the movie out from under all of these great actresses, the role of the alcoholic brother. He was interesting, he was fresh, but does Claire Danes love him? No, the main love interest, a guy that she is still thinking about 50 years later, is Patrick Wilson, a handsome doctor that “everyone is in love with.” Why? Couldn’t tell you, the story never gave me any reason besides the fact that he was a handsome doctor.

So why 3 stars? The cinematography was beautiful, which makes sense when you find out that the director, Lajos Koltai, is an Oscar-nominated cinematographer. However, it doesn’t really excuse the many times in the film I was more interested in the scenery than what was going on in the story. None of the performances were bad (although Wilson verged on wooden), and Claire Danes did what she could. Overall, I expected much better from something Michael Cunningham co-wrote. Maybe the actors did also.

Who knew Tommy Lee Jones could act? You know what I mean. We’ve all seen him do his thing, the tough guy with the dry humor, usually a cop. We all like the reliability of it, but really, there were no surprises there. Until you come to “In the Valley of Elah.” He’s still playing the cop-like character (a military man investigating the disappearance of his son). He still has the dry wit. The part seems tailor-made for him, and it may have been. But instead of the usual TLJ performance, here you have one of subtlety – a man who is heartbroken and angry, but relies on his military character to get through the day. It is amazing to watch the control of the performance. Probably the best one of his career, and well worth the Oscar nomination.

The film itself is pretty good. Haggis is a good writer and director, but could use a good dose of subtlety every once in a while. I loved the message of the film, but felt he short-changed the ending of the mystery in lieu of his political stab, when a more accomplished director could have handled both. Gotta love that Josh Brolin appeared in yet another movie with that ‘70s moustache, he really rocked it this year.