Bella Amore!

The Movie: Moonstruck, directed by Norman Jewison
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "Cher won an Oscar for this!"

Moonstruck is predictable. That's the biggest problem it has. The story's spelled out from beginning to end, the characters aren't unexpected. But there's a level of genuine...something that really elevates the film above its merely blah trappings. Cher really did earn her award-her character is quite unlike the mega-diva-from-beyond-time that everyone's so familiar with. She has a rhythm, a patter about her speech and her movement that's very fresh.

The rest of the cast has a similar sort of power. They're charming without being saccharine, and there's that same very real quality about them. It's hard to believe they aren't really a big, loving, brawling, shouting family. They were a perfect setting for a decent romantic comedy. Seriously, Nia Vardalos has nothing on these guys. They were legitimately funny. I laughed more often during Moonstruck than I did during My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

My Italian sucks, as you can see above. I'm primarily from the Isles of the United Kingdom, and then filtered through a few generations in Canada. But I can really appreciate the family unit that was created in this film, as foreign as the root of it may be. Pretty good work here.

-73/365 down, 292/365 to go

You are from Texas, not England.

The Movie: Bridget Jones's Diary, directed by Sharon Maguire
Recommendation: H
Reason: Hugh Grant is funny.

Renee Zellweger's really starting to bug me lately (I love Empire Records, I love Chicago...I love Empire Records, I love Chicago...). I keep seeing movies with her in them that bite. Bridget Jones's Diary wasn't awful, but it wasn't spectacular, and I'm really starting to get pissed at the Academy for equating 'physical alteration' with 'great acting'. I mean, goddammit! Renee Zellweger was nominated for an academy award for this movie, playing the same half-crazy, supposedly cute, slightly rebellious character she plays in everything (even Chicago, but her performance was more nuanced there, and she wasn't speaking in an English accent) after putting on 25 pounds. Christian Bale dropped 80 pounds for The Machinist, and he didn't get nominated for squat, despite an excellent performance in an alright suspense film. At least she didn't win. We got Halle Berry instead, who I'm still not quite sure about.

Taking a peek into the trivia I could find about this movie, it looks like it was a bit of a circlejerk, since the director's a friend of the author of the book and the two leading men are mentioned in the book (as themselves, not as the characters they played). I wasn't that much enamored of the story. I think the pinnacles of the British romantic comedy ala Working Title Pictures are still (and probably always will be) Love Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral. They've got a few good films on the way that I'm looking forward to, so huzzah for the upcoming Hot Fuzz!

To continue this scattered rambling, I spent half of the movie peering intently at the screen, trying to figure out who the hell that squeaky-voiced chick was, and why she sounded so familiar. Shock and awe! It's Moaning Myrtle, from Harry Potter! So imagine my chagrin at learning that Moaning Myrtle's fortysomething. That just adds a whole new level of goddamn creepy to the bath scene in Goblet of Fire, seeing as she was forty and Daniel Radcliffe was fifteen. Ewwwwwwww.

-63/365 down, 302/365 to go

So...Julianne Moore doesn't even have a kid?

The Movie: Benny and Joon, directed by Jeremiah S. Chechik
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: It's Valentines Day!

As you may guess, the title's a reference to Julianne Moore's more recent roles, in which she has a child, usually a boy, who is dead or has been taken from her, and the loss is driving her insane. Refreshing to go back to the time in which she wasn't so wrapped up in such dramas. Of course, I barely remember her being in the movie, due to the presence of a certain Johnny Depp.

I have a great deal of respect for Depp as an actor. He has a signature style, admittedly. He plays quirky characters, characters with a weird sort of depth to them. He steals the show, lights up the screen just by being on hand. He's not even a title character-it's pretty obvious that he was never intended to be more than a supporting actor, but seriously, he blows Aidan Quinn right off the screen. Sam and Joon just wouldn't be as good a title, unfortunately. He's spectacular, essentially, as usual. It's just not worth it to comment on the rest of the cast-they're basically props for Depp to work off of.

Musically, this movie was quite excellent. I'm a huge fan of seminal moments in movies being denoted by the perfect music, and Benny and Joon's musical selector (whoever they are-I don't know who on the crew list would do this job!) was some kind of genius. 500 Miles, by the Proclaimers, now sits right up there with Battle Without Honor or Humanity, Misirlou, I Need a Hero, You Don't Own Me, Sugar High, Lovefool and...well, you're getting the idea. The closing shot of the movie was perfected by music. Huzzah. Excellent Valentine's Day movie.

-42/365 down, 323/365 to go

Charmingly New York

The Movie: When Harry Met Sally, directed by Rob Reiner
Recommendation: H
Reason: "the best romantic comedy ever made, with pretty woman as a close second"

When Harry Met Sally is probably not the movie to embark upon right before Lost resumes it's third season. You want to see high maintenance? Try little miss runaway Kate. But it's this movie that brought the concept of 'high' versus 'low' maintenance to prominence, as well as blowing the lid (pretty literally) off of the whole 'faking it' thing. Rob Reiner does have a bit of a thing for directing romantic comedies, and this may be one of his best. Nothing will ever, ever top The Princess Bride, but this charming piece comes pretty close.

So, can two best friends sleep together and still be likeable in the morning? Originally I thought this movie starred Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, which pretty much explains everything about why I hadn't seen it until today. Foolish me, had it mixed up with You've Got Mail or Sleepless in Seattle. Billy Crystal, the actual male lead, is a lot funnier than Tommy boy ever has been. The relationship (sleeping with aside) he and Meg Ryan play out is crisp and interesting, particularily in the dialogue section. I suppose that's owed to the writer, but it's the actors who really carry it off. I've always enjoyed Meg Ryan, and having a quick glimpse at her filmography, I'm forced to conclude this is one of her breakout roles. She was sweet and fresh in this film, her dialogue a neat patter that was entertaining to listen to.

It looks like Nora Ephron is the one responsible for that flowing New York wordgame that was the script, and it was a decent one. There have been better, there have been worse but at least she managed to remember that she was writing a story that was both romantic and a comedy, something a lot of writers seem to forget. This was a smart movie, engaging, and as I said before, charming. I might not seek it out again, but I'm not going to turn it down. Still doesn't beat the best rom-com I've seen this year, Love Actually, but hey...there's only so far I can go with Hollywood.

-35/365 down, 330/365 to go

Breakthrough Performances That Make You Feel Old for $500, Alex

The Movie: Four Weddings and a Funeral, directed by Mike Newell
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and you don't want to watch anything depressing right now."

So, as I've said, I really don't like straight-up romantic comedies. They're sappy drivel, blah blah blah. Gonna have to go on record right now and revise that statement. Yes, they're sappy and I still don't like a lot of them, but not every non-twist romantic comedy straight up sucks. Four Weddings and a Funeral, the precursor to such gems as Love Actually and Notting Hill, did not suck. What does this mean for my movie watching career? Well, I think I'm about to be much more open to this sort of suggestion in the future, as long as Hollywood had nothing to do with the production (movies made before 1995 probably being the exception).

I'm going to blame the writer entirely for this movie being so entertaining. Though it was a little uneven in parts, it's a definite classic. The emotion of the funeral scene was perfectly amped both by John Hannah's performance and by the script he was given (and I know Richard Curtis didn't write the beautiful poem Hannah recited, but he picked it). The dry delivery of the majority of the film's characters was excellent alongside his writing. Though I felt some of the plot points were a little weak compared to his later work (Love Actually, ahem, WATCH THE MOVIE, PEOPLE!), his writing really shone in his character development. The group of friends was believable, right and natural. Partially the responsibility of the actors, of course, but the writer does need to be given his due for such excellent dialouge.

And now to address the title of this little review. Four Weddings and a Funeral must be forgiven for bestowing Hugh Grant on us across the pond. I generally really dislike him, but in this movie he was still fresh. Watching him in his first 'major' role (silly as that is, as half his career was behind him at that point) was quite nice. I'm still not his biggest fan, but at least I can see where they're coming from. Kristen Scott Thomas, on the other hand, was absolutely remarkable as usual. I'm not certain a single bad performance can be given by that woman. The rest of the cast was great, but she was the one who really shone. What's with me and Supporting Actresses lately, huh?

-30/365 down, 335/365 to go

Style is King

The Movie: Down With Love, directed by Peyton Reed
Recommendation: Broomie
Reason: "Now you have to watch it!"

I really dislike romantic comedies, as a rule. I wish that most of them were direct-to-video releases, because generally speaking they're boringly shot, uninterestingly directed and acted in by people who are really only on-set to score a paycheck. Most of them are easy, in other words. They could be on TV, and you wouldn't notice the difference. Down With Love is different. It oozes 60's style. The screen is awash in color, and everything is so very, very mod. It's delicious to the eyes. The camerawork may not be legendary, but at least the sets are creative enough that they need a large screen to be appreciated.

They cast Renee Zellweger as the lead. Oh dear...except she's not bad. She's not great, not fantastic really, just there and performing adequately. I guess I enjoy her more in pieces where she sings, though she's not a really great singer. Something about that must up her performance level, like showing a dog a treat. Speaking of, actually, Ewan MacGregor was excellent. He's a great actor, and played off his part very well. At times he was hammy, but it was called for. David Hyde Pierce still has excellent comic timing.

The plot was...alright. Enjoyable, nicely zany for a movie that was trying very hard to be 60's rah rah rah. The ending left a little to be desired, quick as it came. Not a lot more to say about it. This was a nice movie, good for a fun bit of a laugh. Not very epic, but I'm not sorry I watched it.

-26/365 down, 339/365 to go.