Strangers On A Train (1951)

Lonely socialite Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) meets rising amateur tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) on a train out of Washington DC. Through casual conversation Bruno reveals his theory on how two strangers could get away with murder as well as how he's noticed both him and Guy have someone in their lives they could do without.

Strangers On A Train is #32 on the American Film Institute's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list. And while it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, it's really the plot that makes the film a classic. It's so classic the concept has been used on every television crime show. In fact, it's pretty easy to be familiar with this movie without ever having seen it.

The film itself though is not all together timeless. Many elements that worked just fine in the 50s come across as corny today, making it harder to come by character buy-in. One such corny element is the blatant attempts to make two female characters, Miriam and Barbara, look dowdier than the romantic lead through the use of incredibly thick glasses. While the glasses also serve another purpose, they practically yell out how you're supposed to feel and think about these two women. In other words, subtlety is lost on this film. Another incident involves an out-of-control carousel, which raises too many credibility questions and almost ruins a tense moment with its ridiculousness.

But even with the film's datedness, there are still enduring Hitchcock facets. One is his patented slow chase. Much like in 1946's Notorious, there's a chase that includes a fair amount of waiting, sitting, and stopping but amazingly retains its urgency throughout. The tension Hitchcock creates there, and really through the last half of the film, is so well done - especially since the characters weren't so sympathetic to begin with.

Possibly the most timeless element of all though is Bruno's creepiness. Although this isn't so much to Hitchcock's credit as it is to Robert Walker's performance and the story itself.

Rating: 3/5

Recommended for: People who enjoy watching slow, shoddy police work

Julie & Julia (2009)

Julie & Julia is full of food, frustration, and more food. It slides back and forth between two stories. One is that of Julia Child (Meryl Streep) entertaining herself with cooking and eventually taking over the assembly of Mastering the Art of French Cooking in the 1950s. The other is Julie Powell (Amy Adams) blogging and cooking her way through every recipe in Mastering the Art of French Cooking in 2002.

The cookbook is the thin string tying the two plots together. One would think that maybe there should have been two movies instead of one, but the Julie Powell story doesn't seem to have enough meat to stand on its own. Plus, despite Amy Adams' best intentions and efforts, the character of Julie remains difficult to find sympathetic overall. The movie is actually based on a combination of Julie's book/blog and a book on Julia.

Meanwhile the Julia Child story felt like it could have been expanded into a rather interesting biopic. Streep's accent is just how I remember Child's from her cooking shows. And her story isn't one that's been told over and over. Not to mention it has more developed characters and a more solid conflict than the Julie story does.

Overall it's an entertaining enough film to give watching it a shot. At the very least you can admire all the techniques they employ to make Streep look as tall as the real 6" 2' Julia. We also have to give them props for at least mentioning eating recipes out of that cookbook on a daily basis can be hazardous to your digestive system.

Rating: 3/5
Recommended for: Julia Child enthusiasts, people who wonder what could happen to them if they became devoted to making all the Mastering the Art of French Cooking recipes, and/or those who miss Meg Ryan talking to her computer in You've Got Mail

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

I'm hesitant to put (500) Days of Summer in the category of romantic comedy because it's just not the same fare you typically get out of the genre. Yes, there's comedy. Yes, there's romance. It has its share of silly moments. But it's something loftier and smarter than How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days or You've Got Mail.

The film nonlinearly explores greeting-card-writer Tom Hansen's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) love for co-worker Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) over the course of 500 days. The script is by first time screenwriters Michael Weber and Scott Neustadter. Titles pop up to let us know which day we're on and but it's really a tribute to editor Alan Edward Bell, director Marc Webb, and the two leads that the audience never gets left behind. Bell has already won the San Diego Film Critics Society Award for Best Editing and it won't be surprising if he gets an Oscar nomination as well.

Webb and Gordon-Levitt seem to make quite the formidable team as well in Webb's first feature-length film. While Webb has mainly been responsible for a few music videos for 3 Doors Down and Green Day, you may remember Gordon-Levitt as the long-haired kid on the tv show Third Rock from the Sun. He's come a long way, had a fairly consistent amount of work since then, and has no doubt made a successful transition from child to adult actor.

Here Gordon-Levitt is our well-developed driver, taking us on a tour of joy, confusion, and heart-break. Summer knows who she is, or at least claims to, and tells Tom right from the start she's not looking for a boyfriend. He embarks on a relationship with her anyway and the story is still captivating even knowing from the beginning the relationship doesn't have a good chance. This movie isn't conventional so we're allowed to still have some hope.

They even make a dance number and scenes in a karaoke bar charming, fresh, and fitting. Zooey Deschanel seems to be wearing all her own clothing and hair accessories, but it is an indie movie after all so I'm willing to write it off as a money saver.

Rating: 5/5
Recommended for: Anyone who has ever loved anyone to whom they weren't related

Extended Review:
A note about the soundtrack: Give this film's soundtrack a listen. It includes some classics that have made recent appearences elsewhere (Hall & Oates' You Make My Dreams Come True & The Smiths' Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want,) some other songs that have been just waiting for a soundtrack inclusion (Regina Spektor's Us and Feist's Mushaboom) and an interesting inclusion (but obviously a shot at romance with French lyrics) of Quelqu'un m'a dit by French first lady, Carla Bruni.

Food, Inc. (2008/2009)

Food, Inc. is sometimes difficult to watch yet at the same time intensely interesting. The film takes a critical look at large-scale, industrial-style food production in the US.

It makes the assertions that current practices are environmentally unsustainable, unhealthy, and often inhumane. It introduces you to people whose lives have been affected by food prices as well as tainted food. And on the lighter side it reviews agricultural and food production practices it finds commendable. Producers of the film tried to give the film a bit more balance by giving companies criticized a chance to tell their side. But every one of them declined.

While many scenes will stick with you after viewing, one of the saddest was watching a young girl and her family grocery shop. They have a limited food budget because they have to pay a lot for the father's diabetes medications. The mother knows fast food is less healthy for her two daughters, but feels stuck because it's a cheaper way to fill their stomachs. Inside the supermarket the youngest daughter is reduced to tears when she asks to buy fruit and her older sister explains that they can't get enough pieces with the current price.

When is the last time you saw a child throw a tantrum in a grocery store over fruit? Not candy. Fruit.

I understand that there are a lot of people in the world to feed, but I also understand that technological advancements in food production played a part in allowing the population to expand. Food, Inc. has some suggestions on what an individual can do to support healthy food production, but it doesn't have a solid solution as to how to feed so many people when the current ways are seen by so many as efficient.

Most people don't know where their food came from or what happens on the way to their plates. So even if Food, Inc. doesn't have all the answers, it'll at least open your eyes to that process. Director Robert Kenner accomplishes that in a way that's visually striking and hard to forget.

Rating: 4.5/5
Recommended for: After you've just eaten a salad

Extended Review: If you see it on DVD, be sure to watch all the deleted scenes. There's some interesting stuff they cut for time reasons or what have you.

Coco Avant Chanel (2009)

Coco Avant Chanel is a French-language film about the life of world-famous fashion designer Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel before she was so famous. The story begins with her father dropping her and her sister off at an orphanage. From there it moves to her time working as a seamstress & entertainer to her living with millionaire Etienne Balsan and her hobby of wearing repossessed menswear and hat-making - the last bit being what helped push her into fashion.

Coco is played with great vigor by Audrey Tautou. As she scowls and trudges through Balsan's estate, you can see the beginnings of a designer who'll settle for nothing less than her own carefully constructed style. And when she finally smiles, it lights up her whole being and you see a woman who is truly passionate. While Tautou was lovable as Amelie, here she's admirable both as Chanel and as an actress who has clearly thought about the complexities of her character.

As good as she is, Tautou doesn't do it all on her own. She's given an interesting story to work with thanks to Coco herself as well as writers Anne and Camille Fontaine, who based their script (loosely I hear) on the book L'irregulaire by Edmonde Charles-Roux. Anne Fontaine directs as well, leading the rest of the cast into complimentary position around Tautou's Chanel and making everything float naturally into sequence. Meanwhile Catherine Leterrier's costumes provide the stage for Chanel's pieces to shine through the more complicated period costumes with simple beauty.

Instead of a common biography - how a woman turned into a fashion empire,we get the story of a woman who was who she was, worked hard and eventually the masses appreciated her work. And that leaves more hope for the rest of us.

Rating: 4/5
Recommended for: Those who realize the title is Coco Before Chanel

Changeling (2008)

Based on the true story of a single mother who is reunited with her formerly missing son, only to discover that he isn't actually her son, this story has all the drama you need in its arsenal. And if that wasn't enough, it stars Angelina Jolie as the mother, Christine Collins, John Malkovich as Rev. Gustav Briegleb, the man who tries to help Christine in her quest to be heard, and it's directed by Oscar-winning-director Clint Eastwood.

It was all actually a bit too much.

With the exception of Jeffrey Donovan's accent sliding, every performance in it was excellent. You can tell Jolie is a mother in real life, as she passionately searches for answers. Malkovich appears near-mad in his dedication. An almost unrecognizable Amy Ryan is absolutely gritty as a representative resident of a mental institution. Even the children in the film all do an almost horrifyingly great job.

But there is so much drama and heartache that at times it seems too fantastic to be true. So many special circumstances come into play and there's no reprieve from the constant struggle. It's almost tiring to watch. Then add on the fact that there's so many events included that the movie is just too long. It has a very natural-feeling ending about half an hour before it finally does end - and to think the original cut was fifty minutes longer.

When you're doing a true story, the bar for attention to detail is higher, but here so many details get lost. Anachronisms and continuity errors abound. Someone made the decision to include references to Amos 'n' Andy, The Mysterious Airman, and a broadcast of the Oscars, but no one checked to see if they accurately worked within this movie's strict timeline. There were also issues with future technology and inappropriate terminology and slang. At one point a prominently used hatch on a door simply disappears. And of course there are plenty of your average papers moving around on desks in between shots.

Perhaps it's Eastwood's swift, economical directing style coming in to play, but it just feels like the attention was so focused on the drama that everything else fell to the side. It's too bad because there's a fantastic, interesting, highly emotional movie in there somewhere.

Rating: 3/5
Recommended for: People who'd like to see a softer Angelina Jolie