Ali** (2001) 8.25, 7, 8.5, 23.75

So, this evening I perused HBONOW alphabetically and quickly found my eyes resting on a film, 2001’s Ali, that seems to be timely given its historical protagonist’s demise recently. So I popped it on and just finished its lengthy two hour and thirty-seven minute runtime. I was a little underwhelmed, as I remember from my first viewing.

As for acting, the real standout here, I feel Will Smith did a pretty great job. The hardest thing for a high-profile movie star like him to do, especially when playing such iconic figures, is to make us momentarily forget that we’re not looking at the original. I had moments when Smith assumed the legendary charisma of Ali and his manic energy so well that I genuinely lost the sense of watching a film and felt like I was watching a man just putting on a great show.

Another person who deserves a note is Jon Voight as Howard Cosell. Both in his dry onscreen persona and in his more tender and personal moments with Ali, Voight managed to maintain that balance of humanity and affability that I have seen in footage of Cosell. Credit should also be given to the makeup department in hiding the recognizable face of Voight, allowing him to inhabit the role more completely. In that spirit, it also seems worth mentioning part of Smith’s accomplishment in taking on this role and inhabiting the spirit of Ali, without really looking that much like him.

A quick shout out to Jamie Foxx as Bundini, Mario van Peebles as Malcolm, and the actors playing Ali’s three main opponents: Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, and George Foreman,  seems incumbent on me. Foxx plays the hype man and friend of Ali with a frantic quality that matches the portrayed personality and troubles. Mario van Peebles has the thankless duty of following Denzel in one of his most powerful and pivotal roles. He shows in a limited situation the humanity and tenderness of Malcolm, especially in relation to Ali.

The three roles of the opponents are played well in each case, showcasing the brute strength of these men. James Toney as Joe Frazier has a great moment, switching naturally, in an unnatural moment, between the hardness of his battling personality to the softness of a man having compassion on another and offering Ali money to get him to their fight.

Now, in spite of a number of good performances, even one remarkable one, this film fails to wow me. I lay this to what I assume is a writing issue. The film is well longer than it should have been for one that portrays a shortened version of Ali’s career.

It often portrays situations somewhat impressionistically, which can be done well, as in Stoppard’s Anna Karenina, but this film often seems to lazily try to build the emotional background to a scene through repeated cuts to musical performers. This motif seemed tired before they’d even finished it the first time and they repeated it several times. Numerous scenes of dialogue, especially between Ali and his lovers, seem directionless, the opposite of stilted, over-written dialogue, the characters meander, vaguely addressing the issues between them and then the scene moves on.

The most annoying instance is in the strange post-facto revelation of Ali’s infidelity. There seems almost no indication during Ali’s relationship with his second wife that he has a wandering eye, but when she leaves Africa to attend to their sick daughter, which is preceded by one of the strangest, most poorly written arguments I remember from a movie, he’s suddenly got an eye for everything that moves, or so the first person camera would have us believe.

After his wife returns, they have an argument revealing that he’s been unfaithful before and I was a little shocked, because no mention of it came at any point earlier in the film. We are now over two hours in and during the first hour, Ali yells at his father, insisting he’ll never run around on his wife. This reversal of his ideals of fidelity would have had more effect if it had been gradually revealed, but now it looks lazy and doesn’t have the intended effect.

A couple of other items should be given positive mention after that little tirade. The physical aspect of the numerous, lengthily portrayed fights are extremely well done. I think this film portrays boxing nearly as well as has been done in a film, which is accomplished by telling a clear narrative of the fight and all the lead-up. Yet, A couple of mistakes seem to be made.

As a sports film, I can see the allure of portraying Ali’s prowess and success as coming from on-the-spot genius, but in a little research into things, I can now see that the “rope-a-dope” style was developed from the later rounds of his fight with Frazier and didn’t occur to him at the second round of the “Rumble in the Jungle.” The desire to show Ali as a genius, misunderstood by all around him, which the film goes out of its way to do, makes them show him out of step with his partners in the corner, which is probably false.

A similar thing happens in Ali’s induction ceremony. It seems to portray Ali as temperamentally deciding to refuse induction, possibly because the representative of the government calls him Clay, instead of acting on his genuine conscientious belief, which makes him seem petty, instead of brave, which seems pretty unfair, considering how serious he seems to have taken the whole thing. It also shows him giving his famous quote, “No Viet Cong never called me nigger,” over the telephone in a fit, to the surprise of his friends, making his whole campaign feel very emotion-driven.

Overall, I felt this film failed in a lot of ways to do much more than give good moments to Smith and spur an interest in understanding Ali better. It didn’t accomplish its task in terms of cohesion, thoroughness, or consistency. Moments shine through, rather brightly, but the film as a whole in unspectacular. Its true goal may well have been as a vehicle to propel Will Smith to bigger things. In that way, it was very successful.

Wimbledon** (2004) 8.75, 9, 8.5, 26.25

So this is one of those middling romantic comedies from my youth that I found for $.50 at a store that was moving locations. It's a simple sports film at its core, centering around an aging tennis pro named Peter Colt playing in what might be his last professional tournament at Wimbledon. He comes in with singularly low expectations, but he gains a new perspective when he meets Lizzie Bradbury, as young tennis phenom who takes an interest in him and makes him embarrassed to lose.
I gave it an 8.75 for wit because though it's charming and has moments of snappy dialogue and beautiful romance, it generally doesn't seek to do anything out of the ordinary acting-wise or in terms of the plot and dialogue.
For wisdom, I gave it a 9, in part because it betrays a little bit of the thought of Andreas Capellanus, a fantastic medieval thinker, whose Art of Courtly Love I heartily recommend. Beyond the -.25 for misunderstanding sexuality, hardly worth mentioning, there's also some nice stuff about family and aging romance I enjoyed, though the ending was a little much, which I'll discuss beyond the spoiler screen for those interested.
For wonder, I gave a pretty standard 8.5, because besides some interesting stuff in the music department, not enough to warrant any extra consideration, there's nothing in terms if cinematography, directing, or effects to warrant anything more.
I can hardly recommend this as prime romanticism, for those not inclined to it, but it fills a need. Paul Bettany is a great underdog everyman. Kirsten Dunst is bewitching, though maybe that's just me.
Enjoy, friends!
===============SPOILER ALERT=============
That was probably hardly necessary, because this came out in 2004, but War and Peace was published in 1869 and it takes I'm taking a lot of care and still having parts spoiled. The only bit worth mentioning is the end. Sports movies have a complex issue, particularly singles sports. If your character begins to be successful, which is practically required to make the movie interesting, how far do they have to succeed to avoid anticlimax? If they're the underdog, as here in Wimbledon, the further they get, the more improbable and the greater stretch on the suspension of disbelief. Having forgotten the end, I wanted him to fail before winning it all, so it would feel more real, but a film like this is built on the improbable. That said, when he, ranked 119th in the world, deep into his thirties, wins one of the most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world, it just snapped for me. The suspension couldn't hold. My disbelief flooded in and so 9 for wisdom. There you go.
Thanks if you made it this far. Enjoyez!

Perfect Sense* (2011) 9.25, 9.5, 9.25, 28

This one's been on my Netflix queue for a while. I've always thought the idea was interesting, I have a deep affection for Ewan McGregor, and have been interested in Eva Green since Casino Royale. But I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of artistry and imagination this film contained.
I'll begin with a very flattering comparison to La Jetée, a somewhat obscure French film that awed with its simplicity and use of arresting visual techniques. It's only a half an hour, but uses its time economically and accomplishes more than most two hour films. In Perfect Sense, a similar simplicity leaves us with an hour and a half, which sees a beautiful romance unfurl with a haunting worldwide pandemic as a backdrop. This pandemic involves the loss, one by one, of the senses, in each instance preceded by a violent bout of emotion. In this way, it acts mostly like a fable for the blindness of our selfishness, but in such a way as to offer a kind of hope to be found in love.
This beautiful idea and ideal is extracted by means of a fascinating exploration of the importance of the senses and emotions and aspects of our lives connected to them.
Ewan is great at exploring characters that sit outside the regular Joe mold. In this, we have a aesthetically minded chef that's a bit of a cad, but meets a dejected, recently rejected epidemiologist, who happens to be studying our pandemic, just as she is coming down with the first symptoms.
The acting, from them and the rest of the little cast is always good, occasionally profound. But its the fascinating plot that earns it the extra to get to 9.25 for wit. After taking off the standard .25 for profound misunderstanding of sex, a thing films rarely avoid these days unless they simply ignore sexuality, I felt the acting and writing made up the .5 to get us back.
For wisdom, I gave it 9.5 because of the subtle beauty of the pandemic allegory and the idea that love is the thing that allows us to live, even when we're not whole, as well as the wisdom of the portrayals of love, heartbreak, and despair.
I gave it 9.25 for wonder chiefly on account of the interesting techniques used to play with the loss of the senses.
I really enjoyed this little gem. I hope you enjoy it as well.

22 Jump Street* (2014) 9.25, 8.25, 9, 26.5

          My good friend and I sat down and watched this film last week and I thought it definitely deserved a closer look. For the sensitive, this film contains a considerable amount of cursing and some pervasive innuendo. Definitely not for children.
          Moving beyond that, this one's a sequel, which is an extremely tricky thing to do, especially for a comedy. This one takes the route less traveled. Just as 21 Jump Street made fun of itself slyly for being a reboot of an old TV show, this film consistently pokes fun at itself for all of the cliches and issues that come along with being a sequel. This is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. A good portion of the film is filled with jokes that compare the police operation with a movie. Jokes about an inflated budget quickly blown on nonsense and the lack of creative insight and courage to try something new are a huge element of the film, far bigger than its predecessor.
          But it is an immensely funny film, not least because these jokes, which hurt the film at times by being too pervasive, are at times the funniest moments. Other great moments revolve around the brilliant portrayal of the idiot jock by Channing Tatum and his new frat-boy compatriot, Wyatt Russell. Add to this the continuing beauty of the dynamic between Channing and Jonah, as well as the apt comic stylings of Ice Cube, and you've got a film that flies very close to the original. The aforementioned overdoing of the sequel joke and the sloppy-even-though-satirized repetition keep it from getting a 9.5 for wit. Also Amber Stevens doesn't match up to Brie Larson.
          One last thing. Rob Riggle's part in this film was really disappointing certainly because it was needlessly vulgar, but more because it made no sense. I keep realizing I have more, but I'll give it a break because it really is hilarious nearly from beginning to end.
          For wisdom, it is again bad news. Like the last one, this definitely deserves the customary -.25 for sex. People in this world disagree greatly with me about sex and this film is no different. Casual hookups, bragging about 'conquests,' etc. Beyond that, the fraternity scene in all its drunken, hazing glory is unsettling to me. The lightness with which hardcore drugs are being dealt at times is frustrating as well. One of its few surprisingly bright moments is Patton Oswalt's professor character helping to undermine the effectiveness of America's "War on Drugs" policy.
          Like too much of the positive ideas this movie might pursue, it's cast to the wayside, never to be revisited. And at times, positive ground covered in the earlier installment is lost. Channing's acceptance of his geekiness and passion for things, Jonah's thing with Brie Larson's character, which is conveniently never mentioned again. Not a lot great to say as far as wisdom goes, but it doesn't fall so far as to deface anything sacred and it still works as a buddy-cop movie, so I'll leave it at 8.25.
          The wonder is 9, like the last one, because it adds a bit and loses a bit, but gets most of the basics right.
          I hope I didn't get too ranty. I appreciate your reading and I hope to be back with something new soon. Enjoy!

Fury* (2014) 9.75, 9, 9.5, 28.25

          So, I had an unplanned day off and managed to find myself close by the theater with time to kill. Fate handed me Fury. This film is one I fully expect to get Oscar considerations, etc. and I will be disappointed if it doesn't. One quick point before I dive into the question of wit. This film was 2'14" and managed to feel like an hour and a half, tops. It had a flow that I'd place up against most movies of its kind.
          To wit. One thing that occurs to me now is the extraordinary discretion of this film. Often, in order to avoid being graphic, a film has to water down or at least temper the harshness of its message. On the opposite end, a film like 12 Years a Slave, which I'm certainly not criticizing, in order to achieve a full and honest portrayal of the times and circumstances gives us a jagged realism that occasionally requires very graphic imagery. This film has some really haunting moments of violence, sexual and otherwise, but it includes zero instances of nudity. It isn't without violence. A lot of people die, but the violence never felt gratuitous to me. This was a late add, but I gave it an extra .25 for wit, though it might as well have been split between the three categories because it required deftness in each.
          Beyond this, in wit, I find it hard to differentiate between the writing and acting, but the core group and even some of the outliers in this film are outstanding, as characters. Again, it could be down to the actors, to the director, or the writers. The core of this film is split between Brad Pitt and Logan Lerman. These two are really good. Brad's Wardaddy, who's often also referred to as Don, is quiet, but he's a leader. He's also at times the most frustratingly complacent character. He wants a better world, but so callously accepts the bad, at times even spurring it on.
          Logan's Norman aka Machine is our little everyman, certain that he doesn't belong at the front. But we're never given any real backstory on this or any character. This might be the most important part of what makes this movie a great war movie. We never see a flashback or any setup. We only see men behaving as they do in the theater of war, pure and raw. One of the great elements of this kind of dirty, grimy war story is that it acts as a heightener. We see men whose virtues and vices have been called into play. A coward will be shown as he really is and so will a bully. A brave man and a scoundrel. And sometimes these come from the same person.
          I know this sounds weird. I know I never believed I would say this. But Shia LaBeouf is finally believable as an adult in a movie. Beyond that. This is the first time I've ever seen him command a scene and put together a consistent and enriching performance. He may be the best part of the movie. His character, as far as I know only ever referred to as Bible, is an embodiment of everything I love and hate about evangelical, particularly revival-driven, Protestant fundamentalism. He is sincere, forthright, and earnestly righteous. He is also overbearing, judgmental, and at times callous. He is beautiful and human from first to last.
          One more highlight is Jon Bernthal, who I'd hitherto only known from The Walking Dead, playing Coon-Ass. He is the most frightening 'good-guy' in this film, but even he has his moments, little glimpses that remind me that even the bully and the rake are human, for all their faults they have the fire of God inside. He is powerful and frightening in a way that plays like a lesser Joker, but maybe even more so because of those glimpses of light. And in many ways he's a hero, if only because anyone half-decent looks like one when they're fighting the Nazis.
          Michael Pena would have deserved some serious praise but he never really gets a scene to himself. Jim Parrack, Laurence Spellman, and Brad William Henke have their moments along with Jason Isaacs, who more or less has a cameo, but a memorable one. Alicia von Rittberg also deserves a word. Her subtle playing with Logan and her background reactions to Jon are very important to selling the whole thing.
          All of this feels like it places me near a perfect score, but I did have one serious grievance that brought it down to 9.75. But in order to do it any justice I have to get into some stuff.



=============================SPOILER ALERT==============================
          The ending is a little bit cliched. The everyman as the only survivor is a holdover from that obscure time in storytelling when we felt we had to justify how the story got to us. It is unnecessary and cheapens the very real feeling of the movie. I don't mind the sole survivor, but there's nothing gained from and there is a great deal of probability against the youngest and least experienced soldier around surviving a situation that kills everyone else in the whole tank division. And the flashlight under the tank. Silly.
========================================================================


          On to wisdom. This one isn't as drawn out or groundbreaking. There is the customary -.25 for some silly comments about sex and being young. It's nonsense, but it's so common some take it for sense.
          On the plus side, we have the idea that there were bad Americans and good Germans. Groundbreaking at one time, but pretty commonplace now. We even have the idea that one person, in an extreme situation can be both the good guy and the bad guy in different moments. That's a little deeper. Add to that some flattery about the 'good bits' in Scripture and I round it back up .25. That leaves us just where we were at with a 9.
          For wonder, as with most well-made films, I don't have a whole lot negative to say. The positives come from three camps. The director's credit, which is mostly having accomplished the seemingly impossible in coaxing real acting from Shia LaBeouf is worth a little bit.
          Beyond that, the two more technical achievements are a solid score that builds the film without taking it over and one strange choice I assume was made in post about gun/cannon fire. A brief perusal of the internet revealed to me that this is a real thing used at the time. One of the bullets in a round was called a tracer and it helped the shooter to see where they were shooting. These were also on the cannon shot, to aid the gunners in tank battles, which is one of the highlights of the film, action-wise. I may be rounding down a bit, but this brings my total here to 9.5.
          This is just my fifth 28.25, which puts it in around the likes of Elf, What Maisie Knew, The Life Aquatic, and How to Marry a Millionaire. I believe it also now puts it above two of the three other war movies I've rated so far. This may be high, my first watch ratings always seem to be, but the others might be low, which I often believe to be true of some of my older ratings. We may never know.
          If you do decide to watch this film, I hope you enjoy it, not least on my recommendation. Be careful there are intimations, though nothing explicit of unwholesome sexual relations, including sly references to rape. And a lot of dead people and some disturbing war deaths, but those might be obvious. Enjoyez!

Interstellar* (2014) 9.25, 9.75, 9.75, 28.75

I HAVE RETURNED.

It’s been a while folks. I’ll call it sabbatical. I have returned because my good friend suggested that Interstellar deserved a review if anything did. I agreed. So here we go:
I'd like to begin by sharing a bit from a friend. When it first finished, he said to me that he hadn't thought, after Inception, that Christopher Nolan could get more "outrageous." I think that is absolutely the right word for it. He did something That seamlessly revolutionized the way movies will be done from here on out. And next year, every movie will be trying to copy it, but they will all look pale beside it. I think that's a good place to start.

I’ll begin from the back, because that was key. Wonder is a 9.75. I’ll begin by giving the positives, which are numerous. The music from Hans Zimmer is magnificent as always. I’ll come back to questions of music when I get to negatives, but my limited musical knowledge can say this: Hans Zimmer seems to be able to use music to lead us inexorably to his emotional waypoints and to time it second-perfect with the visuals.

Beyond music, the visuals are perfect. In space, they are glorious, on other planets, they are harrowing, in fifth-dimensional space, they are unique and mythic, but the most masterful stuff may be the way they create the future earth and set the characters in relation to these backdrops.

The negatives are all in the area I would call sound-mixing, possibly for lack of a better term. There are two possibilities here. One is that Nolan has again created a work of genius that mixes the audio from two scenes at a deafening volume and finds a way to make the dialogue still mostly intelligible. That has never been done in this way before, to my knowledge, but my hunch is that the latter is true. In the attempt to create something new and exciting, I think, Nolan has stepped over an invisible line from genius to quackery. It is a subtle thing at times and not every scene like this (there seems to have been a number) fails, but it is often enough a distraction that disables a full view of the film that I wish he hadn’t done it. For that he loses his perfect wonder score in my eyes.

Now to wisdom. Like with wonder, the score is very high because Nolan knows what he’s doing. He knows just how to spin good ideas into narrative. His first major idea, which I did not expect and I hope doesn’t spoil anyone’s enjoyment of the movie, is that of the pursuit of excellence. In his characters voices it sounds more like, “Don’t allow yourself to be bound to what is seen as necessary, but aim for the stars in terms of doing what excites you.” This lesson is, I think, a very important one for a world dominated by the rush to promote sciences and things that are seen as practical over the arts and philosophy, which are often seen as inconsequential in comparison. Nolan’s character’s are scientists, but their interests are seen as extraneous in a world that needs food, but they see the necessity of looking beyond the immediate to the important issues that define humanity. This completely worth +.25 or more to me.

The second idea is possibly even more important and makes up most of the remaining .5 addition. I’m about to head into territory that could be a spoiler.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’ll go ahead and go all out since the spoiler concerned have been shooed away. I think the consistent eschewing of the evil-robot motif for the evil-human version is genius. Characters like Mann, played by Matt Damon, and Michael Caine’s character, who both spin deep falsehoods that condemn others to fates they would never have chosen, are near-perfect exemplars of the power and idiocy of human hypocrisy. They both see themselves as superior for having taken it upon themselves to act for the survival of the human race, but they fail to see the blinding selfishness in their own decisions as well as their short-sightedness.

While I’m at it, I could trace the further development of that first idea in Caine’s lie to Murph and the way she fights through the assumption that it’s hopeless. Throughout the movie, the fight between idealism and practicality finds the idealist the success and the practical man the fool. I think this reversal of how our society often thinks of things is insightful and at times produces great moments of comedy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The rest of the +.75 on top of the 9 is made up by Anne Hathaway’s somewhat corny scene where she tries to convince us that love is quantifiable. It’s corny, but paradoxically somewhat accurate.

On to wit, at last. This was strangely the hardest category for this film. In the past, Nolan has at times struggled here. He gets great actors to work with him and they never really underperform with him, but there are just little structural problems. Here the issues are with pacing and dialogue. As far as pacing goes, he does some brilliant work, with the space shuttle launch, etc., but the development of these long relationship plots falters at times. It skips things sometimes, mostly because this could easily been a mini-series and has a lot to get through in the time allotted. But McConaughey and his daughter, as well as said daughter (hereafter Murph) and her brother’s relationship. So many little relationships develop, but none of them seem very deep in the end. I won’t head into spoiler territory again, but the final scene with McConaughey and Murph is really disappointing and trivializing of interpersonal relationships, reminding me damningly of the break-up scene in Her.

For this reason, some of the dialogue feels really forced or unnecessarily terse. And some jumps are made (e.g. “You’re my ghost”) that are somewhat hard to feel good about.

At this point I feel like we land at an even 9. The extra .25 is about acting, but with this kind of all-star cast, it should be more. Everyone is good. Michael Caine, Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, various other surprise guests, but no one is outstanding. That is really a darn shame. The best performances are McConaughey and the guest who goes to play Dr. Mann.

I think that finds us where we end. A 28.75 is no mean feat, especially for a movie with really visible flaws. It puts it directly in the top 25, which I really will rewatch and rerate and review for you, someday. Be well and watch good movies.

P.S. If you’ve not already watched Shooter (2007) and you’re wondering if you should, I don’t recommend it. It might have been a four star, but Interstellar has not left me in the mood to finish inferior films.

Beginners** (2010) 9.75, 8.75, 9.5, 28

          Hello, and welcome back. I've been away a while. I have seen a lot of things, most of which should get some reference in an upcoming interlude. But let's be to it.

          I've very intentionally reworked my rating process yet again and have decided to begin each rating with a 9, which is the medium rating for anything I've already given 5 stars to. Then I will subtract for anything which seems to me a clear flaw, then add for outstanding elements. Previously, especially recently, I've been overrating by assuming a 10 and simply peeling away for perceived flaws. It's important to remember that art can be flawless and yet unremarkable.
          So, I gave it a 9.75 for wit. I think this movie truly has a beautiful, and what may be more to me, quirky way of shining light on a variety of human experience. I'll break it down.

          As far as acting there is nothing bad to say and a number of possibly great performances here. Ewan McGregor does what I believe to be his best work, though I admit I've not seen a good portion of his work. Ewan simply inhabited this character and find something truly beautiful. From his genuine disappointment at being find out to be sad at a party, which I can certainly relate to, to his loud weeping and sobbing at his father's death, he moves and amazes.

          The second standout is Mélanie Laurent. This is only the third film I've seen her in (previously Paris and Inglourious Basterds), but I already feel confident she will be among the best of her generation. Her success in manufacturing intimacy, the genuine sense that we are piercing the veil and seeing her soul, makes her performance really special. Some credit has to be given here to the onscreen chemistry of Mélanie and Ewan. They read each other so well and react with the simple deftness that makes one believe they could really be in love. These two together warrant a +.25 for wit.
          The last major player is Christopher Plummer. He's had a storied career that would be notable without small films like this, but his work here is virtuoso. He manages minute close-ups and big wideshots, rarely failing to dominate his time onscreen. His subtlety in expressing overwhelming joy and burdensome sadness, sometimes in the same moment is breathtaking. Overall his performance warrants a second +.25, leaving us at 9.5.

          Lastly, I should give some praise to Goran Visnjic, who successfully makes the much younger gay lover of Christopher's character likable and occasionally pitiable without compromising his obnoxious need for validation and his insensitivity to the world around him.
          As for the writing, which is no doubt the source of some of the acting here, the film is incredibly funny and also profound in its use of non-realist storytelling to tell a wholly realistic emotional story about death, love, and family. The most notable elements here are the insertion of monologic sections from Oliver's (Ewan) perspective to clarify the ideas and set the tone for major shifts in the film. They could be preachy and out of place, but I think they are well-conceived and set in the voice of the character and grounded in details of the story and thus achieve the status of  worthwhile additions.
          The last note on wit should be the inclusion of Arthur's character, the dog, who would have been a fun bit if he were simply a vessel for Ewan to speak into, but the choice of having him respond in subtitles, whether intended as a sort of magical realism or a manifestation of Oliver's own habit of talking to himself, is inspired and sets the movie apart in a way that really makes it shine differently.
          Beyond these specific instances, the films incidents are fun, original, and yet classic-feeling moments that drive the movie with an plot intensity lacking in most "romantic comedies." Overall for writing I added another +.25 for our total of 9.75.
          Now I'll move, however reluctantly to wisdom. I'll begin simply with the ideascape surrounding Christopher's character (Hal) coming out at the age of 75. Overall I took .5 away from the film for its general depiction of sex, bringing it down to 8.5. Hal engages in an "open" and "free" manner of sexuality after his wife dies and, though the film suggests the problems caused by this "uncomplicated" way of treating sex, I think the overall tone of the film is supposed to suggest that there is nothing wrong with this way of doing things. This might also be a slight failure in wit, because though I get the impression from the director in the commentary and some of the characters voices that there is no problem with Hal's late in life promiscuous jaunt, the most basic story logic shows a lot of people being hurt by it. We see Goran's character (Andy) hurt by the way he is kept out of the inner circle by the shallowness of their relationship, but mostly we see Hal harmed again and again by his need to indulge the carefree attitude of his fellow gays, both partners and friends, and trying to keep these relationships carefree and light when you're dying of cancer requires a great deal of dishonesty, which bad in itself for relationships, also creates a real sense of isolation for those in the know.
          I will also point out as briefly as I can that I have serious reservations and doubts that homosexual activity is a real positive for the mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health of any human being. I don't think it is the way we were intended to function. That is all I will say to avoid the discursion which could go far too long for a movie review.
          The other negative I'd like to point out is a certain romanticization of lawlessness for which I assessed a -.25, bringing it down to 8.25. A lot of romances tend to include moments in which vandalism, petty theft, and various other activities with real consequences afford a lot of enjoyment. This isn't untrue, but merely lacks circumspection to remember that all of our petty lawlessness ends with work and loss for others, that being the reason it's probably against the law in the first place.

          Now, I also found great positives to counter this to an extent. The first is the idea expressed in this formula: Love+Sadness=Love & Sadness. This movie affirms for me the essential principle that love is beyond an emotion and thus beyond the sloshing around of our other emotions. Love, as a thing we choose to do, can coexist, without confusion or loss with things like sadness and fear and desire. Affection, desire, or what is colloquially called "being in love" rarely survive prolonged periods of sadness or competing desires. Oliver says at one point "I don't think this is what I'm supposed to feel like," trying to make sense of pain and depression coexisting with love. Poignantly, when he asks her if she's happy, she says, "Maybe I'm not perfect at it. I don't really know what I'm doing. But I wanna be here." The recognition that it requires work to love and be happy against the entitlement of our sappy and childish world is refreshing. Happily ever after must be earned. His moment of realization coincides with another great line, this time in the mouth of Arthur, "We knew it wouldn't work even before we met her." Seeing through and overcoming that moment is really what makes this movie shine. This insight into love and romance is worth .25.
          The second thread of the film is handled with similar precision and the lesson of the child parent relationship can be distilled in one quote. Oliver imagines that a photo of a hand holding out daisies is that of his mother. He says, in her stead, "Here. Here is simple and happy. That's what I meant to give you." It speaks to the ache of parents (as I imagine it, and as, being an uncle, I somewhat know it) in hoping that whatever we give to our children, it distills down to something that makes them happy and eschews the complications of misplaced guilt or unproductive neuroses. This, as well, is worth a solid +.25, bringing the total back to 8.75.

          For wonder, I'll return to some of the things that came up under writing and wit, but hopefully from a different angle. The previously mentioned monologues contain many elements both of line drawing and use of stock photos to make interesting and salient points. These sections ended up being some of the most memorable of the film and really showcase the artistic talent of Mike Mills, the writer/director, as well as his ability to meld that into the film in a way that maintains the illusion of wholeness.
          The dog's integration into the film is another source of wonder in this film for me. The dog feels like an actor in the film and never appears out of character. This seems like a momentous achievement, because I can't remember it being achieved with this level of believability before. These elements warranted a +.25.
          The last .25 that I gave this film for wonder is split between the work of musicians and cinematographers. The music chosen and composed for this movie is astounding. The jazz tunes from Jelly Roll Morton paired with the slightly more classical original compositions accentuate and build on the simple performances of the cast to give the movie great flow and attitude.
          Add to this the camera work, particularly the courage to use wideshots and low light in situations where it was appropriate. Some of the best moments are in a wideshot in a darkened conference room with Mélanie and Ewan discussing their future as tiny silhouettes. There are numerous scenes which take advantage of the use of distance, such as when Oliver is informed of his father's death and then weeps over his body, and others which effectively use low light, like the end of the conference room scene in which the two characters horseplay in silhouette. I very nearly added a second .25 for this, but I feel this 28 is more earned than some 29's I've given, so I'll let it stand.
           I cannot recommend this film enough. I sincerely hope you enjoy it a fraction as much as I did. Join me soon for a full interlude to discuss my recent sub-reviewable film watching and some discussion of TV as well.