Midnight in Paris (2011)

Woody Allen's record hasn't exactly been spotless lately. For example, though I basically enjoyed his effort last year, I was certainly in the minority, and his other recent films "Whatever Works" and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona", though with their admirers, are certainly not up to par with Allen's earlier filmography. That's why "Midnight in Paris" had so much promise - with many at Cannes calling it a return to form for Allen. And though the film does deliver in many ways (especially in the charm that it's been repeatedly said to exude), it also fall short from being as good as classic Allen.

Owen Wilson plays Gil Pender, a screenwriter who is on a vacation in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and who is also working on a novel which he hopes will solidify him as a legitimate writer - not just the shallow corporatized one he feels he has become in Hollywood. Feeling disillusioned by his modern life and with his fiancee's rich parents (Mimi Kennedy and Kurt Fuller) and pedantic friend Paul (Michael Sheen), Pender yearns for what he considers the golden age of Paris - the roaring 20's. Gil soon gets his wish when a mysterious car comes to pick him up at the stroke of midnight, and transports him directly back to the time period for which he yearns, throwing him into the midst of great authors and artists like F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston) and Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll) along with an enigmatic beauty, Adriana (Marion Cotillard), with whom he soon falls in love.

As a continuation of Allen's cinematic love affairs with European cities (Barcelona in "Barcelona", London in "Tall Dark Stranger"), "Paris" is completely successful. Sure, it treats Paris like an unrealistic utopia, but that's acceptable considering that most Americans see it in that way. Plus, Allen never forgets the fact that the film is in essence a love letter to Paris, filling the screenplay with monologues about its beauty and even making the movie's first three minutes a montage of Parisian streets. For someone who's never been to Paris (like myself) this adoration of the city is perfectly welcome.

Also completely welcome is the lack of a narrator. This allows the film to work on its own behalf for the most part - a refreshing change from the plodding narration in other recent Allen films.

Though Wilson is given a few solo talking-to-himself monologues that could be effectively interpreted as narration, he sells them, and despite the fact that it doesn't quite allow the film to speak for itself as much as it could, compared to a bored sounding male reciting how excited a particular character was about architecture, it's tolerable and, occasionally, even a bit endearing.

What's absolutely not endearing about the film, however, is its complete lack of complex characters. Though it does make sense for the famous authors and artists of the past to be somewhat "fake", there's no excuse for real life characters like Inez and Paul, both of whom (among others) are devoid of any shades of interesting characterization. Problems like this make many of the plot points of the film more like plot nubs (because they're pointless -- ha ha, get it?).

However, that is not to say that the acting is poor, as the cast works very well despite the script's shortcomings. Wilson is probably giving his best performance to date (it helps his character is actually kind of interesting) and works perfectly as a stand-in for Woody. Mimi Kennedy, Adrian Brody and Alison Pill all shine in brief roles, and Marion Cotillard gives her potentially stock character the most interesting shades of humanity (not that this should come as any surprise - it seems like Marion is always doing more than the script's bare minimum). And even Rachel McAdams and Michael Sheen do well considering what they're given to work with.

But despite the movie's fundamental problems, it still manages to be irresistibly

charming and utterly adorable. I couldn't stop smiling throughout - it's funny, it has clever dialogue, and the ending is almost perfect.

It's not necessarily the Woody Allen comeback some are claiming it is, but we're definitely getting closer. If Woody can mix the charm and fantasy of this film with the complex characters of his earlier work - perhaps we'll then have a new masterpiece. For now though, we can at least enjoy what he's giving us.

See it: If you have a yearning desire to go to Paris, if you like seeing a cast at its best, if you are a Woody Allen die hard, or if you've always thought that Owen Wilson could be taken seriously as an actor but he just never got the right role.

Skip it: If you like complex characters, or if you've seen "I Spy" and know that Owen Wilson can never be forgiven for that movie.

8/10

Chocolat (2000)

For some reason, I was under the impression that I was either going to hate or be extremely disinterested in this film (I really need to stop having so many preconceieved opinions!). But, I was neither bored nor angry at this lovely movie! It's got a very solid, well-paced and well-written screenplay, the score is lovely (I'm ranking this year later this week) and overall it's just a delicious little morsel of a film. Plus, those sequences with all that CHOCOLATE...I cannot resist it. Juliette Binoche's performance is really wonderful - it's vibrant and vigorous, yet she's not afraid to show the uglier sides of her character and it's just magical. Judi Dench had the perfect blend of sass and emotion. Overall, it's a fluffy and delicious movie that I thoroughly enjoyed.

8/10

Bright Star (2009)

I finally watched it!!! "Bright Star" was such a hit on the blogosphere I felt like I was the only one who hadn't seen it. But thankfully, enough people recommended that I watch it and I had a major incentive to go ahead and finally do it.

So in case you didn't already know, "Bright Star" is the rather quiet story of a love affair that developed between the doomed poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and a fashionable young woman, Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish).

Really, one of the most surprising things about this movie was how quiet and subtle it was. I'm so used to period dramas where the guys are all prideful and proper all the time and all the girls are constantly screaming or crying about stuff. But no, this one was different - Keats is a frail hero, and Abbie is a strong girl. Their love is never gratuitous, the emotions never over the top, and instead, it's all presented so realistically and beautifully.

Obviously the biggest credit goes to Jane Campion's direction, and the absolutely wonderful performance by Abbie Cornish. She definitely deserved at least a nomination last year at the Oscars. And the little girl who played Toots...she was perfect. The cinematography is also gorgeous, and the costumes...oh my goodness! The costumes!!! They were phenomenal. At least Oscar had the eyeballs to nominate those.

Oh and the score was very, very pretty.

However, I will say that the story was not super compelling. It was highly wordy (though, the words were lovely) but not a lot happened between each sentence. Though...I was never really bored. I didn't mind the wordiness; those whispered conversations. Then again, I do feel the movie ended too abruptly.

I did not fall head over heels in love with the movie, but it was still an absolutely breathtaking film visually, and a refreshingly subtle diversion from the usual period film that I have grown accustomed to seeing. Great recommendation everyone! And now I don't feel like the only blogger who hasn't seen it.

8/10

Now just a bit more eye candy...

What did you think of Bright Star? I know you've all seen it! ;)