Girl, Interrupted (1999)

4 STARS


Directed by James Mangold
Produced by Cathy Konrad, Douglas Wick
Written by James Mangold, Lisa Loomer, Anna Hamilton Phelan (based on the memoir by Susanna Kaysen)

Starring Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, Whoopi Goldberg

Runtime 2 hours, 7 min.
Worldwide Gross $48,350,205
Genres Drama, Biography

From the start of James Mangold's thrilling Girl, Interrupted, you can tell that what you're about to see will have a lasting impact in your mind. To me, this film is like a stain that will never go away. I mean this in the best possible way. It's a stain I don't want to get rid of. The reason Girl, Interrupted has made such a lasting impression to me is for many reasons. The main reason in the film's remarkable story. Plagued with depression and a suicide attempt, Susanna Kaysen (Ryder) is stuck battling her inner demons in the time of sex, drugs and rock and roll. She's persuaded to check herself into Claymoore Hospital, an institution for the mentally disturbed. At the clinic she meets psychopath Lisa Rowe (Angelina Jolie in an Academy Award-winning performance), who she reluctantly befriends and confides in.

It's in the performance by Angelina Jolie that serves as a lasting reason to see this film more than once. If you ever have any doubts about Jolie's talent, watch this. Her portrayal is so flawless, it to me stands as one of the most frightening performances of all time. What's truly incredible is the screenplay, which intertwines beautifully with the film's solid cast. With the combined efforts Jolie and the writers, Lisa Rowe is effectively shown as a perfect psychopath. When she's friendly, you love her. When she's mean, you hate her. And when she's mad, you're scared beyond relief. If your eyes don't widen at least once when watching this film, I think it's safe to say that you're not human.

Also played well are the performances by Whoopi Goldberg, as head nurse Valerie Owens and the performance by Elisabeth Ross, as Polly Clark, the woman with a child's soul. Winona Ryder and Brittany Murphy also have moments of brilliance. While most of her scenes are well done, Ryder at times is over-dramatic. Murphy, who plays the depressed and disturbed Daisy, often performs brilliantly. There's only rare instances when her performance seems overplayed. Also a good thing is the score by Mychael Danna, whose eccentric beats and tones play well with the eccentricities of the film's script.

Something I don't quite agree with is the writers' decision to create plot elements, of which are crucial in the film's storyline, which never happened in the book. The real life Susanna Kaysen accused Girl, Interrupted's director of using "melodramatic drivel". Though I certainly agree that Kaysen's writings could have been more respected in the script, on the other hand, the "drivel" that is added leads to some of the film's best moments. Without some of the things that are added, the film's best monologue would've never been a part of the film. For those who have seen the film, I'm referring to Lisa's brilliantly written rant when she's talking to Daisy. Without this scene, the film would be very different.

Though I've mentioned some of the actors' unnecessary drama, I believe it needs to be talked about more. Even though most times it isn't an issue, it can definitely detract from the story. Most of these problems seem to come from Winona Ryder, who otherwise gives a solid performance. And though it's certainly not as strong as it could be, Ryder's performance is incredibly underrated, due to the amazing performance by Angelina Jolie. I find this a bit ironic since this film was supposed to be an awards magnet for Ryder.


Though a lot of reviewers might disagree with me, Girl, Interrupted is a brilliant film that is definitely worth your time. It's emotional and thrilling to watch. Its shock factor itself is a reason to see it. Even if you don't agree with me about the film's story, the performances are thrilling. If you can't see at least this, I feel just a bit bad for you. I understand that a lot of people don't like Girl, Interrupted. But please, give it a chance and you hopefully wont regret it.

Girl, Interrupted is rated R for strong language and content relating to drugs, sexuality and suicide.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

3 STARS

Directed by Ron Howard
Produced by Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard
Written by Peter Morgan (based on his play, which was based on historical events)

Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon

Runtime 2 hours, 2 min.
Worldwide Gross $27,426,335
Genres Drama, Historical

Over two years following the infamous Watergate scandal, American president Richard Nixon has finally resigned his office. Following this event, it takes constant struggle and over $2 million for British journalist David Frost to interview Nixon for a special televised event, which is Nixon's first journalistic interview since his resignation. Its these struggles to get Nixon on the airwaves that takes up the two hours of film known as Frost/Nixon.

In most instances, I don't know what I should be feeling when watching it. Is this film about the interviews? Or the presidency? Though some might say that this doesn't matter at all, I feel that it does. It feels like the script is constantly battling with itself about the film's plot. Just when you start to think that the film is about the Watergate scandal and the interviews between Frost and Nixon, pictures are shown of the violent impact of the Vietnam War. Vietnam hasn't been a major plot element until this moment. Why does Vietnam matter? In a film about Nixon's presidency, it would. But this film isn't about that...or is it? I have no idea. This is one of the film's big problems.

To tell the honest truth, I do like this film. Outside of Langella's strong acting, Frost/Nixon is intelligent and knowledgeable. I feel like I learned some things watching it. However, I'm reluctant to accept this film as pure fact. Many historians note constant inaccuracies. The largest criticism I've read is that the film presents an opinion that the Frost/Nixon interviews were a bigger event than they really were. Others have said that many of the crucial dialogue is completely fake and that some events never even happened. Even if this is expected in a dramatic film, it would have been nice if history was respected more in Peter Morgan's screenplay.

Though I've previously noted my problems with the film's script, it succeeds in some ways as well. The relationship between Frost and Nixon is developed nicely and is very intriguing to watch. It's what hooked me into the story. Some of the film's dialogue is great as well. Another thing worth noting is the film's opening. It does very well in attracting attention.

To me, Frost/Nixon's biggest problem is that there is nothing in the film that hasn't been seen before. Where other 2008 films like Slumdog Millionaire and WALL-E flourish in creativity, there is nothing here that is incredibly memorable. Though Frank Langella's performance is well done, his approach to the character is nowhere near fresh. It's been done before and probably better. This can be said about all aspects of the production. Where's the replay value? What would make you want to see this film again?

Though nothing in Frost/Nixon is incredibly terrible, don't expect too much from it. It's not shocking, appalling, incredible, heartbreaking or anything else that could possibly make it a great film. It just is. I'm not saying that a film has to be any of these things to be great, but in a political drama, some intrigue would be nice. Go ahead and give Frost/Nixon a watch. You just probably wont want to watch it again.

Frost/Nixon is rated R for some language.

Doubt (2008)

5 STARS


Directed by John Patrick Shanley
Produced by Mark Roybal, Scott Rudin
Written by John Patrick Shanley (based on his play, Doubt: A Parable)

Starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams

Runtime 1 hour, 44 min.
Worldwide Gross $50,847,196
Genres Drama, Mystery

It's hard to express just how amazing this film is. Based off John Patrick Shanley's epic Tony Award-winning play, Doubt tells the story of a Catholic school in The Bronx. It's 1964 and Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Streep) is having some doubts about the school's reverend, Father Brendan Flynn (Hoffman). She tells her fellow sisters to keep an eye out for suspicious activity. When Sister James (Adams) tells Aloysius about a private meeting Flynn had with one of the school's children, chaos ensues.

Throughout the film, some things should be considered. Are the child abusers really the enemy? Or are the people who go after them the ones we should be worrying about? No one's saying that child abusers should be given sympathy. But is searching for them like a witch hunt really an effective way to do things? If Aloysius had never told her Sisters to look for suspicious activity, would anything at all have stood out to Sister James? These are questions that came to my mind when watching Doubt.

Something great about Doubt is its cast. Academy Award nominations went to Streep, Hoffman, Adams and Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller. But the performance that stands out the most to me is Streep's. Her performance is the best I've ever seen her in. She plays her role with an incredible power that puts every other modern-day actor to shame. After all, what other actors can say that they have fifteen Oscar nominations? But this role takes the cake.

The film's script is great as well. There's many memorable lines and some scenes that will never leave my mind. What's really great about the screenplay is that each character has their own noticeable traits to identify them with. Unlike some films, Doubt's characters are fully developed. Father Flynn has his eyecatching flamboyance, Sister James has her incredible kindness and devotion and Aloysius keeps strong with her die hard strictness. It's with theses quirks that the actors mend so well with.

Are there any bad qualities in this film? To tell the truth, I can't find any. Everything just seems so amazing to me. Some critics say that some of the film's scenes seem fake and overstaged. I completely disagree. To me, you can't get any more real than the drama displayed in Doubt. Its writing is pure as it can possibly get. Conversely, other critics said that Doubt wasn't dramatic enough. That it didn't shock them like a mystery film should. But in my opinion, Doubt isn't a film that's supposed to shock you. It's supposed to make you think. And Doubt certainly does this.

Doubt is definitely another amazing film in a great year for cinema. How it managed not to score a Best Picture nomination astounds me. Doubt is truly exceptional and succeeds in ways that other films don't even come close to. Even if you don't like it as much as I do, Doubt is still a film that you should see at least once.

Doubt is rated PG-13 for thematic material.

Little Children (2006)

4 STARS


Directed by Todd Field
Produced by Albert Berger, Todd Field, Ron Yerxa
Written by Todd Field, Tom Perrotta (based on the novel by Tom Perrotta)

Starring Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley

Runtime 2 hours, 10 min.
Worldwide Gross $14,821,658
Genres Drama, Romance

In 2004, Tom Perrotta, writer of the acclaimed 1998 novel Election, releases Little Children, which is subsequently listed on numerous Top Ten lists. Only two years later, Little Children is released for the silver screen. How is a film made in such a short amount of time? Little Children is a very good film. The fact that it was realized, adapted, cast, shot, edited and released in under two years only adds to the film's brilliance.

It's hard to describe the plot of Little Children. It's mainly about two people, Sarah Pierce (Winslet) and Brad Adamson (Wilson) who embark in an extramarital affair. Then there's ex-cop Larry Hedges (Noah Emmerich), who is pissed off about a convicted sex offender living in his neighborhood. The sex offender, Ronald McGorvey (Haley) is having trouble battling his immoral urges while his mother (Phyllis Somerville) is wanting to help him get on with his life. Meanwhile, Sarah's relationship with her husband is falling apart and gossip about her is circulating the neighborhood. On Brad's end, he's having trouble with his wife (Jennifer Connelly), who's pressuring him to pass the bar exam and get a job as a lawyer. Needless to say, a lot is going on.

The strongest element of Little Children is its cast. While Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson are both decent in their portrayals, its the film's supporting cast that is really notable. Amazing performances come from both Jackie Earle Haley and Phyllis Somerville. Another great performance comes from Tony Award-winner Jane Adams, who plays Sheila, Ronald's date in the dinner scene. Though her performance is less than five minutes in length, it's flawless. Truthfully, its hard to find someone in this film who does a bad job acting. This is the most compelling reason to see the film. It's hard to think of a film that matches Little Children in its quality of acting.

Something else notable is the film's screenplay. With all of its subplots, the script is still coherent enough to be easy enough to understand. It's not a confusing film, which is a great achievement considering the story's complexities. Something that might throw people off is the film's alarmingly slow pace. Though there's many eye grabbing moments, the film is altogether slow. But like my review of The Queen, I don't see this as a bad thing. I don't mind, but others might.

I also really like the score, composed by Thomas Newman. But something that really makes Little Children original is its narration, which is fun and creatively done. However, the best quality of this film is its ending. It's perfect. It almost effortlessly resolves all of the story's conflicts and answers all questions quickly and effectively. But most of all, it's shocking. That's right, shocking. I actually gasped. Be prepared. It's perhaps one of the greatest endings to a film I've ever seen.

The one thing holding the film back for me is its length. When looking back, some scenes seem a bit unneeded. This makes it seems like the film is just rambling on, when this really isn't the case. The film could have been much more fluent if some things were taken out. But that's just my opinion.

Little Children is very well done. Something that astounds me is how underrated it is. It bombed at the box office, taking in $12 million less than it's production budget. It was also shunned at the Academy Awards, earning only three nominations and no Best Picture nod. But it's alright. Little Children is revealing, frightening, controversial, brilliantly acted and in a way, even beautiful. And that's good enough for me.

Little Children is rated R for strong sexuality and nudity, language and some disturbing content.

The Reader (2008)

4.5 STARS

Directed by Stephen Daldry
Produced by Donna Gigliotti, Anthony Minghella, Redmond Morris, Sydney Pollack
Written by David Hare (based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink)

Starring Kate Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes

Runtime 2 hours, 4 min.
Worldwide Gross $108,227,848 (as of 08/24/09, still in theatres)
Genres Drama, Romance


Set in post-WWII Germany, The Reader is story of tragedy, guilt and forbidden romance. The film stars the irreplaceable Kate Winslet as Hanna Schmitz, a kind, hard-working woman with a dark past. Also starring, in his American cinema debut, is David Kross as Michael Berg, Schmitz's young and naïve lover. After the film's introductory scene (with Ralph Fiennes as an older Michael), the film is flashed 47 years in the past, where Michael is wandering the streets with a case of scarlet fever. When spotted by Hanna, he is tended to and walked home. It is in this scene when the two characters develop a complicated love for each other - a love that is driven throughout the film to its end.

Though I will not reveal exactly how, The Reader is a holocaust related film. However, unlike other holocaust epics, such as Spielberg's Schindler's List and Benigni's La vita è bella, not a single scene is ever set in the 1940s. Not even a flashback of such a scene ever occurs. But this makes The Reader even more interesting to watch. Though firsthand evidence of the holocaust is never seen, this doesn't take ever away from the film's raw, emotional power. This is no doubt the work of an amazing director and screenwriter. Another anomaly about The Reader is that the film is not shown from a victim's point-of-view, but a perpetrator's. Amazingly enough, when you watch this film, you don't feel disgust towards this perpetrator, but sympathy.

The acting in this film stands out as well. Though the acting of Kross and Fiennes is good, it is the work of Kate Winslet that really stands out. From her stature to her accent, Winslet is 100% German in this film and she never seems out of place. She reads her lines incredibly well, with a fluency that grabs attention in every syllable. She steals every scene with a quality of acting that will get the attention of viewers for years to come.

Also notable is the cinematography from both Roger Deakins and Chris Menges. Though the two did not work on the film collaboratively, the images still seem to flow beautifully. This film's cinematography is a perfect example of how to use the craft intelligently and artistically. Additionally worth noting is the art direction by Christian M. Goldbeck and Eva Stiebler. Though simplistic, the sets' dark palette match well with the dark tones of the film's screenplay.

Though beautifully written, something troubled me about the screenplay by David Hare. Throughout the film I sometimes asked myself, "What is he trying to say? What is the message?" By the complexities of the film's script, it could be a number of things. It might be that Hare wants us to form our own opinion and draw our own ideas about the film's meaning, something I have no problem with. Nevertheless, The Reader is definitely saying something. I'm just not sure what. Thorough reflection is needed for a film like this.

This film stands as just one of the many reasons why 2008 was such a magnificent year for cinema. Whether you might not want to, The Reader makes you think and helps you craft your own opinions. It's an incredible and powerful film that you will not forget once you've seen. If you haven't yet, do so. Just be prepared with a box of tissues and a clear, open mind.

The Reader is rated R for some scenes of sexuality and nudity.

The Queen (2006)

4 STARS

Directed by Stephen Frears
Produced by Andy Harries, Christine Langan, Tracey Seaward
Written by Peter Morgan (based on real life events)

Starring Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell

Runtime 1 hour, 37 mins.
Worldwide Gross $123,384,128
Genres Drama, Historical, Biography

As the ruler of one of the world's most prosperous countries for 57 years, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain has earned the respect of her nation and the revere of other world leaders. However, as an important figurehead of modern ideals, her private life is often kept under lock and key. This is what The Queen bases itself on.

Following the death of Princess Diana of Wales, Elizabeth (Mirren) shrouds herself and her family from the press and refuses to make a statement, with the belief that the death of Diana is a "private affair". For five days, against the warnings of newly elected Prime Minster Tony Blair (Sheen), Elizabeth decides to keep her family in the comfort of their private estate in Scotland. In doing this, the press begins to write nasty things about her and she begins to lose the respect of her people.

Throughout the film, screenwriter Peter Morgan subtly examines many things. How much privacy is too much? Why did Elizabeth stay in Balmoral? Did the throne's rocky relationship with Diana affect Elizabeth's decisions? Is it always crucial to keep traditions if they harm the feelings of others? Is it always right to succumb to the wishes of the people? Though many questions are pondered during the film's hour and a half running time, the script never seems too confusing. This is because Morgan makes the right decision to explore only one idea at a time.

However, where the script succeeds it in a way also fails. Though the film's slow pace adds to its quality, it also gives the story a lagging feeling. If you want an exciting film, this isn't it. But I recognize this as a simple fact, not a negative quality. The truth is, if you want a fair, accurate portrayal of the Queen of England, you couldn't get any more spot on.

This is no doubt in part because of the stupendous acting by Helen Mirren. She plays the role with an ease so fluid, you could think she were the queen herself. Remarkably, she performs just the perfect amount of drama without being over the top, something some actors these days have problems with. Her portrayal makes you interested in the film and attached to her character. She also gives off just the perfect amount emotions to make you not only question the character's motives, but to sympathize with her as well.

One thing I don't quite like is the performance by Michael Sheen. His main problem is that his mannerisms seem over the top. It's almost as though he's trying too hard. However, I can very much understand how hard it would be to portray a living person. But while Mirren strives to achieve excellency, Sheen's performance as Tony Blair could've been so much better. His performance wasn't altogether terrible, but it no doubt has much room for growth. This role is one that if played right could do great things for you. Sadly, this just wasn't the case for Sheen.

Another thing I don't quite like is that we don't seem to get a lot of background information on the film's many characters. As I'm not a resident of Great Britain, many of the characters introduced I was unfamiliar with. Morgan sometimes throws in some background about the queen, revealing in conversations that she was young during the abdication of the throne and that she was a mechanic in World War II. When this information was given, I felt like I could appreciate the character more. So why didn't Morgan do this more often? This is after all a historical drama.

If you love history, if you love drama or if you love effective, intimate Hollywood biographies, The Queen is your film. There's great things to be seen here. Helen Mirren's acting is a must see, Peter Morgan's screenplay is, with reservations, well-written and Stephen Frears' directing is smooth and effective. Though it might be altogether forgotten five years down the line, The Queen is a sparkling diamond in the rough.

The Queen is rated PG-13 for brief strong language.