Since you've been gone...

Thanks Toothpaste for Dinner!

I must offer some profuse apologies. Or maybe not. I ran into Brunch Bird last weekend at, of all places, of course, the movies. (I was there to watch The Roommate. How was it you ask? Hysterically amazing!) She asked if I had a blog when I told her that I liked hers and I said "I do, but it sort of went defunct after watching Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." (Oh, and how was that you ask? Only the best movie I saw in 2010!) She said, "Well, it's never too late to start up again. I'd know." And she is right.

And I have seen some really worthy movies. I don't think I am an extraordinary writer, or maybe even that good, but my friends seem to enjoy it. So, back to movies. Well, all of the Swedish Steig Larsson movies were high points in my movie watching year last year. But I never wrote about them. I don't know if I ever will, but hopefully. So what has been going on with me, you ask? Well, lets do a photo run down, shall we?

According to my last post I stopped writing after I went to GA in March. Well, I went back in May. It was the epic Georgia trip. It will go down in the annals of the Georgia Trips. Well, until Lori and I go on our ten year anniversary road trip though Georgia.

Epic Georgia Adventure. May 2010.

Let's see. Then the World Cup happened, right? Well, I rooted for Germany, until they lost to Spain. That German support involved many hours at Lucky Bar and included me being interviewed at 7:30am on the CBS local news! Good thing my State Department colleagues knew I was drinking beer at 8am on a work day. Here is me and a bunch of other Germany fans after they beat Australia (? Australia, right?)

German Victory. And lots of Beer. World Cup 2010.

The World Cup era was also a celebration of new housing arrangements. I moved in May and therefore was able to acquire this little piece of toilet paper shredding heaven at the end of June. She is excellent. For the most part. Except she shreds all my toilet paper. Named after a 20th century Mexican Revolutionary, her name is

Emiliano Zapata. July 2010.

She's almost ten months old now (March 6) and is currently sitting in a reusable bag with a pair of my heels. Good work Zizzle.

August was epic because not only did I audition for the Capitals Red Rocker squad (and did not make the cut) but I also went to DISNEYLAND for the first time!!! Good god, if you haven't been there book your plane ticket now. It is the most wonderful place on earth. Even better than Niagara Falls. And I bet you never thought you'd hear that come out of my mouth!

The wonderful world of Disney. August 2010.

We also spent time with our good friend Steven while there. He took us around Los Angeles. Mel and I were re-united with high school friends. We ate at Spago. Saw the Hollywood sign (though I think we actually looked to the right to see the Hollywood sign). Saw the jail where OJ was kept. Saw a Soviet submarine. Ate Jack in the Box and had an all around fantastic vacation!!

Look to the left and I see the Hollywood sign.
Everyone here is so famous.
Including Craig Kilbourne.
I told him he looked like my grad school advisor. HAH!
August 2010

But the fun didn't stop in August. Oh no, no. September brought about three momentous events.
1. First UGA game day. We lost. Sad.

Imagine us in Game Day dresses. September 2010.

2. American Idiot on Broadway with Billie Joe Armstrong. Of course, now he is in the show for a two month run, but at the time he was only doing 8 shows. And I saw one of them!St. Jimmy died today/ He blew his brains out into the bay. September 2010.

3. Another Virginia inspired beauty. This time for my left arm.

You're looking at $300 of dogwood. September 2010.

October was confusing. Zombies invaded Washington and I was there to document it. I almost got ejected from the National Mall by the Park Service because they didn't believe I was not a professional photographer. Why? It wasn't because they saw this post and were amazed at all my photos (I took all of them except the one of Billie Joe). No. It was because he took one look at my camera and thought it was too "professional." Dude, hate to break it to you, but I'm not the only person in the city with a DSLR. Durr.

The Walking Dead invade Washington. October 2010.

In November I did play professional photographer though. I took my friends' engagement photos. I loved it. Does anyone have anything they want me to photograph? My rates are reasonable! You can email photography.jdh@gmail.com if you're interested. I am available in DC but will travel. I'm not kidding. You'll be impressed when you see my work below.

The real work. November 2010.

December was pretty standard. Heartbreak. Presents. New Years Eve in Georgia. The Caps won the Winter Classic (in your face Pittsburgh!) and the year started off more miserable than I could possibly imagine. Work upheaval. Henious sinus infection. The complete opposite of Love, Valour, Compassion. So I really needed one weekend in January to go well. Luckily the weekend I spent in New York for Mel and Barry's birthday was excellent. If it hadn't been I don't think I'd be here to type this right now. I'd still be crying in a gutter.

A new era of Hope. January 2011.

This brings us, more or less, to the present day. I tried to buy a scratching post for the cat but the pet store was sold out. It was very tragic. (UPDATE: I have secured said scratching post. VICTORY!)

But, this is neither a blog about my stupid cat nor a blog about my excellent photography skillz (though, seriously, email me if you want me to shoot something for you!), it is a blog about movies. So here, very very briefly, are my reviews of the movies I have seen since we last spoke (minus movies that weren't new to me--Dawn of the Dead, Interview with the Vampire, Titanic, Before Sunset, etc, etc, etc, etc.) And in no particular order...

The movies:

• All the Swedish Steig Larsson movies. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--the best one of the three. I am so glad I saw the movie before I read the book. The movie was so shocking because I had no idea what was going to happen. It was the best movie I saw in 2010! The Girl Who Played with Fire-- Good. I think the book and the movie were actually pretty different. Again, I saw the movie first then read the book. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest--The book is waiting to be read on my shelf. P.S. sweet Mohawk!
• 127 hours--very different then I thought it would be. I was actually surprisingly emotional. Go see it. Seriously. It is very good. Even though Danny Boyle annoys me. Though, I did enjoy 28 Days Later. A lot.
  
• Black Swan--overrated I think. I didn't care about any of the characters and was in fact hoping bad things would happen to them. Plus, I want to punch Natalie Portman in the face. Seriously. I did like that Frenchy though. I hope it doesn't win all sort of Oscars.
  
• Casino Jack--Erik and I wanted to go see a movie and there was nothing out. So he suggested this. It was fine. I was entertained. It was interesting to "learn" about Jack Abramoff. Plus, I like Kevin Spacey and I like drinking my pomegranate Italian sodas at E Street.
• A Film Unfinished--I saw this after I got my tattoo. Another good thing about E Street is that you can order beer there. Which I did. To stop the arm throbbing. A Film Unfinished is the footage that was recorded to make a Nazi propaganda film. The film was somewhat interesting even though nothing Nazi related seems to shock me anymore. I guess that is what you get for being a history major. Nothing in it stuck with me to this day. Just watch The Pianist instead.
• Easy A--Watched this with Lori on the last GA trip. It was entertaining. I like that Emma Stone. Her parents were ridiculously amusing and Dan from Gossip Girl was in it. What's not to like??
• Jackass 3D--I will confess, the only reason I watched this was because the boy I was crushing on worked on this movie. He was the stereoscopic supervisor. Basically, his job was to make it 3D. (You can figure out who he is on imdb) Otherwise, it wasn't nearly as amusing as I remember Jackass to be. I guess maybe I am getting too old for this? There was one though where a guy got his tooth pulled out. It made me feel like I was going to puke. So, maybe, mission accomplished?
• The Roommate--This one was a pretty recent view and I will admit it, I saw it because I love horror movies and Leighton Meester. What of it? Christ Almighty this movie was bad. If we hadn't seen it at Chinatown and had the "interactive" movie experience (ever noticed the audience at Ctown can't shut the eff up? They talk to the screen. They think it is interactive) this would have been a total waste. But by the end the reaction from the audience with the action on the screen was so hilarious that we were all dying of laughter. I imagine this was not the desired effect when they made the film.
• Up--I know. I know. How is it possible I haven't seen this yet? IDK. I watched it on Christmas, perfect movie for that day, right?! I loved it. I thought the animation was so excellent and the characters were so sweet. I was chastised though because I didn't cry at the beginning. I guess I have a stone where my heart should be?
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1--I actually saw this movie twice! Once the day after Thanksgiving and once on Christmas. Don't you just love Harry Potter at holiday time? God, I do!! This is obviously the best HP yet. Why? Obviously because they split it in two so it can be closer to the story in the book. Love love love love love it. Can't wait till the end.
• Blue Valentine--Ah yes, another E street wonder. What does it say about me, or maybe about that theatre, that anything I see there is more enjoyable than a movie anywhere else? And how do I remember that I had my pomegranate soda, resces pieces and a crab pretzel? They must pump some sort of hyper circulated air in, or something. Anyway. I liked this. It wasn't uplifting, but sometimes neither is life. Michelle Williams was way better than stupid Natalie Portman. SHE should win the Oscar. I also sort of realized I am in love with Ryan Gosling. I guess I should get in line.
  
• Catfish--OH DAMN. Seriously. This was the other best movie of 2010. I want everyone to watch it. I wont say anything about it though, because I want you to experience it with fresh eyes. After Erik and I watched this we had to immediately go to another movie to cleanse the palate of this one. It was SO GOOD!!!
• Devil--is the movie we saw after Catfish. What is with M.Night? Seriously. That guy can't make a good movie to save his life. Though. I did sort of like it. But it is really hard to tell if he is being serious or just thinks that he can make good previews and trick people into seeing his movies.
  
• Inception--Yes, yes. A worthy Oscar contender. But lets be seriously. I love Leonardo DiCaprio. I would watch him read the phone book. I love him. Love, love, love. This was good. I liked it. I should watch it again. Oh Man... speaking of Inception and Up. Watch this. It is freaking HILARiOUS!!!!! Please watch it. Please. It is so good.
  
• Let the Right One In--A Swedish vampire movie. I hear that the book is much better. Let's all just read the book, eh?
• Dead Snow--Hahahahahaha. Yes. You know this movie. It has some of my favorite elements. Norway. Zombies. Nazis. Well, Nazis aren't my favorite, but they are historical. Yes, a somewhat historical zombie movie set in Norway. It was just as bad, or as good, as you expected. I watched this on Halloween. Totally viable.
  
• Please Give--I watched this because I read something about it in Slate. The article was talking about this scene where the daughter wasn't a pair of jeans and how it was really sad and realistic. I don't know about that but I thought the movie was good. Entertaining. And the actors were quite good. And Amanda Peet was in it. Solved.
• Saw 3D--Ok. Ok. This was just like Jackass 3D. Mel and I went to see this because her friend was in it. It was awful. Just awful. But we did see her high school friend get cut in half. Classic.
• Waiting for Superman--I read something about this movie that said some of the scenes where the kids are waiting during the lotteries were actually fake. It was disappointing. I mean, I suppose what is more disappointing is that not everyone can go to school in one of the best counties in America, like I did. It is sad that people can't get quality education. I dunno that charter schools are the answer. I just wish people had more money so they could move to a good school district.
• Survival of the Dead--This movie makes me sad. This is not George Romero quality. It was just atrocious. Just so, so, so so awful.
• Rachel Getting Married--Here is the thing about this movie. It was actually pretty good. But towards the end Anne Hathaway has her hair highlighted and it was so hideous it was actually distracting. Like, I could not focus on the movie. Just ask Erik. He was there. Also, why was that family so weird? Maybe we will never know.
• Midnight in the Garden of Good And Evil--Lori and I both read this book in preparation for our Georgia Road Trip 2011. It was an excellent book. Just excellent. It teaches you so much about Georgia history and prepares you to travel to Savannah. The narration was amazing. But Christ this movie was bad. Not even Kevin Spacey and Jude Law could fix it. Message to Hollywood: Just because a book is awesome doesn't mean it will translate well to film. Please consider why the book is good (narration and the character development) and make sure you can do that in the movie. Because they couldn't do it, it made the movie not good. We both fell asleep then had to return to watch it another day. Sad.
• The Fighter--I just saw this last night. Yay for solo dates! This one was much better than Black Swan. Christian Bale should win an Oscar. Brother is scary good! I liked this one. I like that there is a character arc, and that I care what happens to them. And I am not sure, but were the sisters supposed to be funny, because hoo-boy. What was going on with them? Despite the fact it was a Thursday night and everyone in the theater was over 25 it was still interactive. Oh Chinatown.
  

The television...

• True Blood Seasons 1 and 2--Fuck I love this show. It is pretty unusual that I am interested in a show from the first episode, but I was with this one. Thanks to RaeJean to recommending it. I can't wait till I can watch Season 3.
• Peep Show Seasons 1-7--God this show is hilarious. Peep Show is a BBC production about two friends, Mark and Jeremy (though my favorite character is Super Hanz...which I thought was Super Hands for a long time). It is sort of like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia but set in England. I discovered the show one morning when I woke up from a night out at like 5 and I needed to wash my face and brush my teeth. I turned on the telly, which was on BBC because I was watching Law and Order: UK when I fell asleep and I was absolutely hooked! It is on BBC America Saturday mornings from 4-6am... for those times when you're just getting home from the bar or are too drunk to fall asleep. Or you can watch all the episodes on Hulu. You wont regret it. It is hysterical.
• The IT Crowd Seasons 1-3--The only reason I watched this show was because it was available on Netflix view it now. The first season was really funny. The other two, not as much. It reminds me of the show within a show on Extras. What was it called? When the Whistle Blows? It has the same sort of odd BBC production values... almost like it is a fake show.
• The Walking Dead--Remember when I said the Walking Dead invaded DC? Well, these were the dead from this show. God. What didn't I like about this show? It took place in Georgia. Had Zombies. Was made by AMC. And it was one of the first scary shows I have ever watched. Other than MTV's Fear (god I miss that show) I have never actually been scared during a show. The first three or so eps of this show just made me so nervous. I loved it. The DVD comes out around my birthday. Hint. Hint.
  
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 1--To say Lori was mad when I liked True Blood would be the understatement of 2010. She was like, "those aren't real vampires. Watch Buffy. Otherwise I will hate you." So over NYE weekend we watched Season 1. I will tell you, the vampires in TB are so much sexier (ugh) than the ones in BtVS. Lori would say "They're not supposed to be sexy! They're supposed to be evil!! I hate you." So Season 1 was sort of ridiculous. The production quality was very low and the episodes were hysterical. But we made a drinking game out of it and now Season 2 is much much better. Ah, the things we do for love!

Wow. That took many days to complete. That is the full disclosure. Hopefully now that I have gotten those out of the way I can go back to updating regularly. Coming soon... (or what I have been watching, or have ready to watch...)

Glee: Season 1 (two discs left)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season 2 (three episodes left)
The Tudors: Season 4 (how did I not know this was out?! I will watch it once Glee is over)
The Social Network (waiting at home to be watched Sunday)
Mighty Ducks and D2 (purchased with an amazon card I won at work!)

and thats all for now! Welcome back.

See you at the movies. Or something. (E street. Not Chinatown)

Jungfrukällan (The Virgin Spring)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

On the way to deliver candles to a church, the virginal daughter (Birgitta Pettersson) of feudal landowner Töre (Max von Sydow) is savagely raped and murdered. But fate takes a vengeful hand when the killers unknowingly seek food and shelter at the girl's home. Will the grief-stricken Töre learn the truth about his visitors? Set in medieval Sweden, this disturbing tale directed by Ingmar Bergman earned an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.

However. I didn't read the netflix description before I received this disc in the mail. So I didn't have the plot ruined for me by the description.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Eh, some amount. Obviously, as stated above, I got this bad boy from the 'flix.

And what did I think?
Well, I love Ingmar Bergman. Love, love, love, love, love. If you have never seen an Ingmar Bergman film you simply must. I recommend The Seventh Seal. He is so wonderful! And the fact that Max von Sydow is in practically as his movies really does it for me too. (Holy smokes that guy is sure something! And he is acting all over the place still! The Tudors! Even Shutter Island!)

The disc that I received was the Criterion Collection version with an Introduction by Ang Lee. Foolishly, I watched the introduction and gd Ang Lee told me what happened in the movie!! Now, as I said, I hadn't read the netflix description before I watched the disc, so I forgot what the plot was. (Did you know, the plot of The Virgin Spring was the plot of The Last House on the Left? Oh Wes Anderson, Ingmar Bergman you are not)

Now, I didn't really care for this one. I was slow like The Seventh Seal but not nearly as pretty. It still had that theme of Christianity that Bergman seems to enjoy but, ya know, it just didn't do it for me. The woman who played Ingeri was gorgeous, but the woman who played Karin--or, I guess the character of Karin--was so annoying that I didn't really care that she died.

Oh well. Additionally, this took me like 5 months to watch, so I would recommend another Bergman movie before this one.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I like Bergman. He is great. The Virgin Spring, not as much.

5.

Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (The Baader Meinhof Complex)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Uli Edel directs this Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nominee charting the birth of West Germany's Red Army Faction, a radical left-wing terrorist group formed in the late 1960s amid a climate of revolution and a fallen generation. Staging a series of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations, the RAF waged a war against fascism with a direct assault against the powers of American imperialism and the fledgling German democracy.

Oh, I see.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I watched at Cinema Arts (nearly two months ago...jesus) at night so it probably was something like $8.

What a deal!

And what did I think?
Well, I thought it was quite quite long. 150 minutes. In fact, that was my major problem with it. I think the film makers likely tried to adapt the book too closely (which i bet you never thought you'd hear me say) which meant it covered too many years. I wouldn't be surprised if it covered nearly 20 years, though the information I can find on wikipedia indicates it covers only 10. Well, then I think it was too in depth. The stories told in the film would have been better told in a mini series format. And trust me, I know mini-series.

Now, what I did like about the movie were the actors. Including both Bruno Ganz and Alexandra Maria Lara--who were both in Downfall. The acting was just spot on with the actors consistently demonstrating their characters and the changes they went through.

I went to see this film because there was a Law and Order Criminal Intent episode about a similarly motivated group in New York City. The motivations of both the RAF and the group in the CI episode were so irritating. I have so little patience for these "revolutionary" groups who resort to violence before trying anything in a civilized way. So, of course, watching a movie about a group like this was sort of trying on my patience.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good enough. I was surprised to see that it was Germany's entry for the Oscars last year, not so much surprised that it didn't win.

It'd have liked it a lot more as a mini-series, I wouldn't recommend it so much as a movie--unless you wanna sit for three hours.

yikes!

I give it a 6.

[REC]

So what is this one about?
Well, I didn't really know what it was about when I rented it. I had seen ads for Quarantine and was interested in seeing it. Something about people being quarantined in a building in some city for some reason they didn't know. And I think it was about number 3 in my netflix queue.

Then brother Jack came and told me that the Cabinet of Dr. Calagari was rated number one in the horror movie section in the best of rotten tomatoes. He had said that he would have to rent CoDC and I told him he should. We then looked at the list to see what other movies I had seen. Jack asked if I had seen [REC]--which of course I hadn't. He then went and watched it and said it was awesome. So, I put it at the top of my queue. But I still didn't really know what it was about.

After seeing the movie, and then reading what netflix says, I am glad I didn't know before I watched it. It made the movie was more scary that way. And thus, I will not give you the official description. But, if you are curious, it is easy to find. But you should watch it without knowing what it is about. That is my recommendation.

And how much did I pay to watch?
$1.88 from the netflix. And if I could find this at Target (which will like never happen because it is foreign--Spanish) I would buy it in .09 seconds.

And what did I think?
Hot damn! This one totally deserves to be on the best of in the horror movie section. (I am also 100% glad that The Descent is in the best of list too. In fact, these two films remind me of each other and were scary in the same way). It is one of the few movies I have seen in the past 5 years or so that were so scary that I involuntarily covered my eyes with my hands or actually wanted to turn the movie off! Now, I know some people don't like to be scared, but by god I love it! But sometimes when I am watching these movies alone in my room at night, I want to turn a real scary one off so I don't have nightmares, because I know I very well could.

The movie started out slowly, as if to lull you into a very false sense of security, then it starts to pick up speed and you begin to feel uneasy, then it sucker punches you in the gut and maintains that intensity until the end where you feel so uneasy that you may think of just turning the whole thing off until morning. And the sucker punch scene I alluded to? It was so gd scary and unexpected that I literally had to catch my breath once it had happened. And at the end, I really did consider turning it off. I didn't want to watch it because i was really that scared that i wouldn't be able to sleep.

All of this just cements the fact that it is one of the best horror movies I have seen.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Rent it. Well, rent it only if you like horror movies. If you like horror movies, rent it. Immediately.

10.

Der Untergang (Downfall)

So what is this one about?
I will leave this one to Wikipedia,

In the last days of World War II in Europe, the Soviet Red Army is fighting its way into Berlin. Deep within his bunker underneath the Reichskanzlei, Adolf Hitler celebrates his last birthday and lives out his final 10 days isolated from the world, desperately ordering counterattacks that will never happen, from armies that exist only on maps, commanded by men who are most likely dead. Hitler (Bruno Ganz) is presented as he was in the last months of the war: a sick, exhausted man but dreaming still of a Greater Germany amid the ruins of war-ravaged Berlin and callously ranting against the "weakness" and "deserved destruction" of the German people for their lack of resistance. As the Red Army draws nearer and imminent defeat looms over the Third Reich, Hitler is seen alone with his clique which consists of Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Matthes), Albert Speer (Heino Ferch) and (briefly) SS leader Heinrich Himmler (Ulrich Noethen), along with his personal staff.

Most of the events are depicted from the perspective of Hitler's young personal secretary Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara). Events outside Hitler's bunker are mostly depicted from the perspective of SS doctor Ernst-Günther Schenck (Christian Berkel). On the day before his death Hitler marries his longtime mistress Eva Braun (Juliane Köhler) and they commit suicide together on April 30, 1945, ten days after Hitler's 56th birthday.

(Holy shit that is a lot of links!!!!!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
When I watched this I didn't pay anything, because I watched my own copy of the film on dvd. I did at one time see the movie in the theatre, which made me want to buy the dvd (which I did with an amazon.com gift certificate) so I did spend money on it at one time. But not this time.

And what did I think?
I think this film is amazing. Everything about it is just beyond extraordinary. But, the main thing that is so tragic and poignant about this film is that none of it needed to happen. The deaths of all the officers, the downfall of the whole of the German people. Its tough man. Its tough. And Downfall doesn't step back from slapping you in the face with the cruel and vicious and disturbing realities of that time.

You have to give a war movie that is really realistic a lot of credit. I once watched Come and See (a Belarusian war film that I will refer to in my write up of Defiance) and my professor told me that it is widely viewed as one of the most realisitic and therefore bleak war movies ever made. Downfall was sort of like that.

And, you know, now that I am reading the wikipedia entry on this movie I feel like maybe I shouldn't say a lot specifically about this film (a la Gran Torino, which I did see for a second time, and it was just as amazing the second time. Seriously, have you still not seen Gran Torino???) so that when you watch it (WHICH YOU SHOULD!) you wont have much of it ruined for you. I think that is what I should do.

I will say that the Russian history nerdo in me was very interested to see that many of the Germans who were in the bunker ended up in the Gulag once they were captured. And I will also tell you that the soft hearted, history aware, wimp in me tears up a lot during this one. It is just so, so, so, so, so, so good. It is really amazing.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
This is a movie that I consider pretty much perfect. If someone was like, "Hey Julia, you seem to complain about how movies aren't amazing. So, if you had to pick, what would be a 10 to you. Not a film you like a lot like Love Actually, but a really amazing, flawless, piece of film making?" I would say Downfall.

So, a 10 it is. And, immediately after I saw it for the first time I knew it was one of the best films I had ever seen.

Scener ur ett atkenskap (Scenes From a Marriage)

So what is this one about?
Widely considered one of Ingmar Bergman's best, this intense drama follows the marriage of Marianne (Liv Ullmann) and Johan (Erland Josephson) as it deteriorates. When Marianne learns of Johan's infatuation with another woman, the relationship unravels, yet through it all, a deep, underlying love keeps the couple connected. This is the theatrical version of the film; also included is a theatrical-TV comparison and other extras.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Some amount on my Netflix account (aka: I am too lazy to figure it out)

And what did I think?
When I watched the extra features explanation I realized I may have gotten the wrong version of this movie. There are two, one is the theatrical version (the one I watched) and the other one is the miniseries. I think I might have enjoyed the miniseries version better. But, the third episode, or vingette (since I got the theatrical version, not the television version), titled 'Paula' was beyond shocking. I couldn't believe it! I think I actually gasped!

I guess one of the interesting things about this movie was that it showed how complex relationships, and marriages, are. These characters, the husband and wife, were so tied to each other in so many ways, it was impossible for them to completely detach from each other. Even if they wanted to!

Overall it was a very interesting film. I can see why American audiences of the time liked this movie so much, I don't have much experience with Swedish film but I thought this was a good introductory film (though I have seen some Bergman, including The Seventh Seal, which is amazing!!!!!)

Also, the actors weren't what I expected of Swedes. They were less Aryan than I expected them to be. Though, when I went to Norway (the fatherland) I had the same problem...

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good--long, but good. I give it an 8. Watch more Bergman. He is amazing.

Il y a longtemps que je t'aime (I've loved you for so long)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

After more than a decade apart, estranged sisters Juliette (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Lea (Elsa Zylberstein) try to rebuild their fractured relationship. But the task is hardly easy, considering Juliette's past. She's been in jail for 15 years -- for killing her own son. As she settles into small-town life with Lea's family, the locals can't help but talk. Philippe Claudel's feature film debut garnered him a Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Language Film.

oh ho, it is Oscar season folks, and lets understand that a lot of the movies I will be seeing soon are the big Oscar films of the year. (You know how the filmmakers are, releasing all their big guns at the same time)

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, my mom paid, because she was dying to see it. So I paid zippo.

And what did I think?
Well, at first I thought I would fall asleep during the show, because I am notorious for falling asleep during films that are subtitled. But, I didn't. I watched the whole thing with rapt attention. Now, you have to believe me because I know it took a sickeningly long time to finally get this review up. But, it was good. Worth all that hype you're going to hear.

I watched the film for almost the entire time trying to dissect what the message of the film was. (In fact, with a lot of films I have been watching lately I have been trying to figure out their messages. I wonder what that means?) It was towards the very end that I figured it out. (Now, I am of course having a hard time remembering, since I waited nearly a month to write this...I'll have to write about other stuff while I try and think about it)

The acting was fantastic. French women are so beautiful. They aren't like American movie stars, but they are so effortlessly beautiful. Especially the actress who played the sister. But, lets face it, Kristen Scott Thomas will get some sort of award nomination for this. First, it is really great that she is a bilingual actress...BILINGUAL! She is great in French. Her portrayal of the just released prisoner was so layered and painful. She was just fabulous. She was self possessed and guarded, and you truly believed that she was the character she was playing. She was so wounded.

I think maybe the point of the film is that it says to not judge people because you can never possibly know what their reasons are for anything. I don't know that this was what I came to when I was watching the movie, but I am old, so I forget. There was this scene where KST told a new employer why she was in jail, and he didn't even listen. He immediately dismissed her, and then at the end we learn why she was actually in jail. And maybe it wasn't less reprehensible, but maybe it was. I guess the point it, what is supposed to help people? Acceptance, and forgiveness. And allowing people to just be who they are.

Or maybe that is just Christmas talking.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I will give I've Loved You For So Long a 7. It was good, but not especially good. But I bet it will do well this awards season.

The Last Laugh (Der Letzte Mann)(1924)

So what is this one about?
Well, my beloved tells us,

One of German director F.W. Murnau's most brilliant silent films, The Last Laugh uses a constantly moving and subjective camera to capture the emotional anguish of a man whose life is suddenly devoid of meaning. An elderly hotel doorman is demoted to washroom attendant and must give up his prized uniform. Crestfallen, he spends the day wandering the city, getting drunk and trying desperately to hang on to a shred of hope.

Ah yes, depression, hopelessness, and crushing sadness. Sounds just like my type of film.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Hmm, lets see here....well, its been over thirty days since I got the movie, I got it on September 9 (YIKES) and returned it on October 29. Does that show you how long it is taking me to watch a movie?? I can't even price that out. shooooooooooooooooooot

And what did I think?
One of the things that was so incredible about this film was the lead actor, Emil Jannings (or, walrus mustache, if you prefer), and his ability to change his physical being in order to communicate the utter despair, hopelessness, and humiliation he felt at being demoted, and losing his beloved and respected job.

One thing I really hated about this film was the 'epilogue'. As mentioned, the movie was entirely silent and only twice were intertitles used to explain the movement of the story. The epilogue intertitle says

"Here the story should really end, for, in real life, the forlorn old man would have little to look forward to but death. The author took pity on him and has provided a quite improbable epilogue."

And, let me tell you, improbable is no joke. It turned a movie that was crushing and hopeless into a stupid, trite, "Hollywood" happy ending. (It is of course "hollywood" vs. hollywood, because it is a German film, and they didn't do hollywood. At least as far as I understand) The movie could have ended with the poor old walrus mustasche all crumpled in the bathroom where he is the attendant, with the night watchman's flashlight on him. I mean, he looks like some animal who is trapped in a cage. It was a really striking image. I don't know what it would have said about life, or film, or anything. I mean, if that movie doesn't say that life is totally worthless, that you can lose the only thing that makes your life worth living and then no one will care and everyone will just kick you while you're down, I don't know what will.

Instead, the filmmaker (really?!) decided to add an epilogue where the walrus mustache was an attendant to a rich man and then the rich man dies and leaves all his money to the attendant. Then as the newly rich walrus mustache uses the bathroom he is kind to the attendant and is mean to the rich person who treats the new attendant like trash. While I appreciate that message at the end about being kind to people who are "under" you, it just seemed out of sync with the rest of the film.

No matter, I thought it was pretty good. It would have been much better without the end, but then if it had ended where it should have ended I don't know what i would have thought.

The rest of the film was good enough. It was confusing to not have any intertitles telling me what was going on. It was something I was entirely not used to as afar as silent films go.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was interesting to see a film like this. Additionally, FW Murnau is like one of the most famous directors evar. However, the end of the movie really didn't do anything for me. On Netflix I gave this film a 3 out of 5. I think I will give it a 7 here. I mean, it was interesting (which is mostly the reason I get all these silent films, to experience what films used to be like as part of my ongoing film education) but it wasn't extraordinary.

Les Miserables (1934)

So what is this one about?
Well, as you may or may not know, Les Miserables is not only one of my favorite books but also my absolute favorite musical. It is an amazing and touching story about the goodness of people no matter what their background. It is about forgiveness and absolution. One of my favorite lines of the musical is "to love another person is to see the face of god" and then also, (and this is a line that chokes me up when I have to say it outloud) "He let me eat my fill, I had the lion's share" (because "He" is in reference to a preist who let Jean Valjean--a former convict--stay at his house, despite the fact that he was a convict, and treated him like anyother, "he gave me his trust, he called me brother, he told me that I had a soul...") Anyway. You can read about the actual novel Les Miserables here, and then the musical here. But the movie, well, the movie has many incarnations...including a shittay version made in the 1990s with Liam Neeson as Valjean and Uma Thurman as Fantine (LAAAAAAME)

Anyway, my beloved told me that this movie was one of the most accurate adaptations of the over 1200 page novel. They said,

After serving a prison sentence for stealing a loaf of bread, Jean Valjean (Harry Baur) attempts to start a new life. But relentless lawman Javert (Charles Vanel), driven by Valjean's minor parole infraction, hunts him down in an unending pursuit. Helmed by revered French director Raymond Bernard, this five-hour epic is considered by many to be the finest film adaptation of Victor Hugo's literary classic.

So, I said to myself, sure, I have five hours. I'll get it!!

And how much did I pay to watch?
I've said it one time if I've said it 100. I haven't had as much time to watch movies. Between the two discs of this movie I'd say it took nearly two weeks to watch the whole movie. But, it cost about $5.66 for the two discs. Yikeso!

And what did I think?
Oh, what did I think? Well, I totally agree that it was pretty accurate as far as the book goes. Translating a 1200 page tome to a five hour movie is difficult, and I will admit that there were big chunks cut out of the story. Thankfully, the parts that were cut out had a lot to do with the Cosette/Marius love story plot line. Now, because I am such a terrible hag who hates love and people being happy, it didn't make me unhappy to cut out the superflouos love story plotline. The important plots in this book/movie/musical revolve around Valjean and his redemption and the student revolution.

The adherence to the Valjean storyline was flawless. It was super duper. Just fantastic! (The movie was divided into three parts, the first of which was entirely devoted to Valjean, and the second of which was at least half dedicated to him. The revolution plotline was sort of unclear. If I hadn't already been familliar with the plot I would have been confused as to what was going on. Finally, as for the romantical plotline, they left out a huge chunk. I would be forced to beleive that these two lovebirds met and were just in love automatically--which is what the muscial leads me to believe as well--which is not what Hugo tells us. However, I don't really care. Mostly, because the actress who played Cosette was 100% annoying and ridiculous. Now, as far as the actor who played the other characters, Valjean was amazing. At first I thought the actor was too bulky and ridiculous (because most of the Valjeans I have seen in the musical are more dimuntive and huge...like short but stocky and muscular) but I really found him to be endearing. The other actors were only so so.

One of the extraordinary things about the film was the film itself. I have no idea how, who, and when the film was restored, but unlike other movies from the 1930s that I watch on dvd, this one was of such high, clear quality that it easily could have been a movie that was made in the 1970s. The copy was so clear, and fresh.

The quality of the filmmaking was quite good as well. There was this scene that was supposed to be doing an aerial shot of Paris, but it was clearly a model that was filmed. Now, the model and the switching of the scale model to the actual street shot of Paris was flawless. It stands out in my mind as one of the most incredible parts of the film, considering the year it was made.

One of the only problems I had with the acting was some of the characters/actors propensity to yell rather than speak in a normal voice. I chalk that up to the year the film was made and that perhaps "talkies" were still a fairly new type of film.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good. I will give it that. Other than the musical, which takes artistic liberties with the longass stor, it is the best adaptation I have seen. I mean, practically perfect.

The fact that I knew the story made watching this long movie more understandable. My background of the music made me hum the music along with where it would belong in the film. That actually made it more enjoyable.

Now, despite the fact that I have very little negative to say about it, it doesn't stick with me as something extraordinarily amazing. So, I give it an 8.

A Tale of Two Sisters

So what is this one about?
My beloved Netflix tells us,

Terrified sisters try to exorcise their home of two dark forces -- their evil stepmother and a vengeful entity -- in this ghostly tale. Hospitalized after their mother's death, young Su-mi (Im Su-jeong) and Su-yeon (Mun Geun-yeong) return home to find a nasty new stepmother (Yeom Jeong-ah). The girls suffer terrifying events, but their father doesn't care, even though evil lurks around every corner. Can the girls free their home from its demons?

That made me want to see it.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Got it on Netflix. As you can tell by my paltry movie updating I haven't been watching much this month. I am averaging $1.21 per movie, because I have been watching a lot of tv. (Actually, I've also gotten one Russian movie that was unwatchable because it was dubbed in English, and some dvds for my mom....)

And what did I think?
Well, that tricky description made me think this movie would be cool. However, it was not. It was actually one of the most unimpressive movies I have seen.

It was hard to keep track of what was going on because the actress who played the mother and the actress who played the step-mother looked soo similar!! Their hair style what was helped me tell them apart. But then at the end the hair changed and I didn't know what was going on! AHHH.

And, I mean, what was the point? A lot of Asian movies like to build up a lot of atmosphere and foreboding, and then they scare the ever loving jesus out of you because they are so twisted and scary...I mean, what the hell are these movie makers thinking?! How do they come up with this twisted shit?! Well, this one built up a lot of tension--there was a point where I had to look away because I was scurred (which like, NEVER HAPPENS)--but then nothing really scary happened. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Dullsville!!!

Apparently, according to wikipedia, this is the highest grossing Korean horror film ever. And it is a pyschological horror film. Um, yeah riiiiiiiiiiight.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Honestly, this movie was a total waste. It wasn't scary, it was hard to decipher, and it was just lame lame lame. Don't bother watching it.

This movie gets a 2.

El Espinazo del Diablo (The Devil's Backbone)

So what is this one about?
My beloved provides us with this description,

Twelve-year-old Carlos (Fernando Tielve) is the latest arrival at Santa Lucia School, an imposing stone building that shelters orphans of the Republican militia and politicians during the last days of the Spanish Civil War. Carlos gradually uncovers the dark ties that bind the inhabitants of the school: hidden riches, sexual intrigue and the restless ghost of a murdered student, who may be the only one to provide resolution.

The film, of course, is written and directed by Guillermo del Toro... the man who can't get enough of the Spanish Civil War and orphanages... and who looks nothing like what you would expect.

And how much did I pay to watch?
well, I got it from netflix, so some small ammount ;)

And what did I think?
First, I loved the blood coming from the dead boy's (Santi) head. It was amazing and spacey and captivating.



Second, I loved the bad guy. I guess one of delToro's themes is the Spanish Civil War sucked and everyone was an asshole. But the bad guy was just so mean for no reason. I always like antagonists like that.

Third, I think I probably don't watch nearly enough spanish cinema, because, from the few I have seen, it is creepy and haunting. I guess the movies I watch most are French films, or Japanese.

Fourth, and a real "what did I think point", I like that this movie didn't resolve everything at the end. In The Orphanage there were no loose ends and it ended up being really annoying. It seemed like the director (who wasn't delToro) decided at the very last minute to make it all wrap up, and it just seemed unnecessary. However, in this movie the end wrapped things up just enough that the audience felt satisfied without feeling like they were being beaten with the obvious stick.

Fifth, I think delToro is a gifted director. His movies all have this slightly scary, foreboding, fairy tale quality to them. His films have lessons for the audience to learn and he presents them in such a simple and fantastical way that they are somewhat easier to extract. He deals a lot with the concepts of good and evil, and maybe how in wartime it is harder to tell them apart. They are very intriguing to watch.

Oh, and sixth, the title was stupid.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
This was very enjoyable. It was well made, and well thought out. I am really so impressed with del Toro.

This one gets an 8.

Indochine (Indochina)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

A wealthy plantation owner (Catherine Deneuve) and her adopted daughter (Linh Dan Pham) are living in French Indochina when civil war erupts. When both women fall for the same French naval officer, their relationship becomes tumultuous. Directed by Régis Wargnier, this lavish, elegant film won both the Oscar and Golden Globe awards for Best Foreign Language Film as well as numerous French Academy of Cinema awards.

And anyone who knows me will know that the idea of a Wargnier film about two women falling in love with the same man is right up my alley. My love for films like Est-Ouest (East-West) and Tmavomodry Svet (Dark Blue World) and their love triangles/tragedy would, of course, pique my interest in this film.

I guess the joke was on me.

And how much did I pay to watch?
With all the Netflix movies I have gotten this month, this individual one cost me $1.21

And what did I think?
This film was SUCH a disappointment. As I already mentioned, my love for East-West probably made me expect too much out of the director. But this film had so many problems.

First, it was trying hard to be epic. The plot of two women falling in love with the same man always smacks of epic love stories/dramas. Then set the film during a changing time in history (Vietnam in the 1950s) to add some historical epic-ness. Then add some striking sets and costumes that are possible because the main characters are all rich, and TA DAH! Epic film. Except not.

The characters were pretty flat, and their motivations were almost entirely unknown to the audience. The lack of development in the characters made me not care about any of them. I wanted someone to befall a tragic death (which would have added to the epic aspirations of the film) because at least then they might have been more interesting and it would have added some sort of emotional layer to the characters. As it was the characters just seemed like bizarre caricatures of some sort of person who should be captivating but wasn't.

The movie just was a colossal waste of time. And the fact that it won both Oscars and Golden Globes was mental. MENTAL!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
On Netflix I rated this a 2. Two stars stands for "didn't like it". In blogspot terms I suppose I will give it a 2 as well.

La Pianiste (The Piano Teacher)

So what is this one about?
Well, it was the Netflix description that made me interested in renting this one. (You know, I think with the way I am constantly extolling the virtues of Netflix they should like, I dunno, pay me for my spokesperson skillz.) Another thing that is great about the flix is that they have recommendations like "Since you liked _____, you'll probably like_______" and this movie was suggested for me.

Anyway, the description says, Isabelle Huppert stars as Erika, an emotionally repressed piano teacher still tied to her obsessive mother (Annie Girardot) and fast approaching spinsterhood. When an attractive student (Benoit Magimel) in her class becomes smitten with her, Erika sees him as a potential player in her dark sexual fantasies. Huppert is fascinating to watch in this disturbing character study based on Nobel Literature Prize winner Elfriede Jelinek's novel.

I guess they were fairly accurate in their suggestion.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Since June 10th I have gotten 16 dvds out from Netflix. At $16.99 per month I am averaging $1.06 per disc so far this month. However. It isn't over yet!!

And what did I think?
Well, well, well. Huppert was in fact fascinating to watch in this film.

I think the film really worked as a character study in madness. Huppert said in the commentary that she thought the film was about romance/love and seduction, and I think thats accurate, but I think I'd add madness to the categories too. Erika was a straighlaced, incredibly uptight woman who was in a bizarre relationship with her mother. As a 40 year old she not only still lived with her mother, but was constantly having to justify where she was, where she was going, and what she was doing. To add to the weirdness...and I mean really add to it, she shared a bed with her mother. I assume that upon her father's death her mother told her to sleep in his space in the bed.

Like anyone who is so beholdent to their mother when they are adults, Erika had a secret side. She frequented sex shops, watched couples making out at drive in movies, and had dark fantasies involving domination, humiliation, and pain. These vignettes were stark comparisons to when she was acting as a controlling and overly demanding piano teacher. In one scene [SPOILER ALERT] when she goes into one of those movie watching booths at a porn shop, she watches a porno movie and takes a used tissue out of the trash inside the booth (with, well, you know what is on the tissue) and holds it over her nose and mouth while watching the movie. Her dark fantasies go from this point.

Once her student shows interest in her she resists. Huppert explained that the character wanted romance and not seduction, and that is why she always struggled to be in control. Once she saw that she could control her boyfriend she let him in on all her fantasies (rape, battery, humiliation...etc) and he was horrified. When he rejected her she flipped out. From there the movie switches to a focus on the madness that one can go through when the person they love rejects them. Boy, she does a lot of things to win him back, with horrible results.

The last scene of the film brings the whole movie to a new level. It was so amazing I actually verbalized "holy shit". It was amazing!!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
This film was totally not for everyone. From the description you should be able to tell if you could watch this one, but if you think you can I would absolutely recommend it. There were scenes in the movie that were very uncomfortable to watch, but they were crucial to the climax of the film.

As I said, the last scene just made the film. It was extraordinary. I rate it a 7.5-8. It was really very good.

Kraska v nesnazich (Beauty in trouble)

So what is this one about?
Netflix says, A natural disaster forces Marcela (Anna Geislerová) and her husband, Jarda (Roman Luknár), to make difficult choices in this powerful drama from Czech director Jan Hrebejk. To make ends meet, a desperate Jarda resorts to stripping stolen cars, but Marcela can't accept his new life. She moves in with her parents, becomes involved with a wealthy older man, and must choose between a life of quiet security and her turbulent, but passionate, marriage.

I guess technically this is a proper description of this film, but after seeing it this isn't really true. I guess this movie is about the choices people make.

Interestingly enough, Jack once told me about this website where they do TV Guide type one sentence descriptions for the movie that while factually accurate sort of miss the point. This movie was sort of like that.

And how much did I pay to watch?
$10 at Landmark E Street cinema. AKA...where all the bourgie city folk go on Saturdays.

And what did I think?
First things first...I saw this movie because I read a review of it in the Washington Post. They described the movie just like Netflix did. {Normally I don't bother reading reviews, EVER, but I saw the part at the bottom where it says, "Czech language with English subtitles", and I became curious} But after seeing the movie the description just seems wrong. While technically that is what the movie was about it just feels like it wasn't really accurate.

One of the weird things about this film was the music. I mean, the music choices were full on bizarre. Some of the music was like Czech pop/folk music, and it was woven into the movie through a character who interacted with the main characters who played accordion and sang. For example, in the opening scenes she was singing (like doing a sound check) at a bar that the main character's mother worked at. Then later she was doing a concert for the men in jail when her husband was in jail. And the songs she sang were subtitled in English and sort of like, told a story, recalled what had happened and made value judgements. Like when the husband was in jail and the wife was off in Italy with her kids and the new man the singer was like "She is gone, flown away, you let the bird slip from your hands". Odd things like that. THEN it got even weirder because there were 4 songs in English by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova--the musicians from the movie Once. It. was. SO. weird!!

I guess what the Post was blathering on about in their review was that the characters weren't "good" or "bad" but were good or bad at different points...telling us stupid Americans that Europeans don't have the same black and white conceptions of "good guys" and "bad guys". I mean, yeah, I guess this was true, but I don't think the vagueness added anything to the movie.

In the end I ended up not liking the main character or the choices she made.

Oh yeah, and her boobs were in everyone's face the entire movie.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I guess this movie wasn't really a bad one, technically. I just didn't really care for it. Maybe I need to see it again or something, but even now I feel like I am not communicating well that for some reason the movie just didn't sit right with me. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good, I just didn't really like it.

But it wasn't really a bad movie, so I'll give it a 4.

Kontroll

So what is this one about?
Van Jegyed, indeed!!!!!

Wikipedia has a nice long explanation of this one. One of my Netflix friends has said that this movie was a waste of time...but he is wrong. And Wikipedia will tell you why.

Netflix also tells us, This Hungarian box office smash hit and winner of the Prix de la Jeunes award at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival takes place entirely underground in the Budapest subway system. A variety of personalities converge on the turnstiles, including a dashing young man, an exotic woman and a murderer, all of whom are desperately racing against time and their surroundings to find one another … before they are found themselves.

You hear that? Prix de la Jeunes! You know, the prize of the youngs! It is very prestigious.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Netflix.

And what did I think?
I thought it was quite an accomplishment for Hungarian cinema. I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that Hungarian cinema--like Romanian cinema--isn't too wildly popular outside of Hungary. Though, there were oodles, just OODLES, of Hungarian films at the movie theatre near our house in BP.

I also thought it was incredible, nay, extraordinary that before the film even started that there was a public service type message from the BKV (the Budapest Metro) telling us that they thought it was important for ambience that the film was actually filmed in the subway system, and that the ticket takers (the Kontroll) in the movie in no way represented the actual Kontroll who work for BKV. It was a brilliant joining together of Warsaw Pact subway systems and modern movie making!! And really the Kontroll were nothing like the actual Kontroll who work for the BKV. (man, Budapest rules...you should go visit!)

I found the netflix description somewhat misleading though. The killer mentioned in the summary was barely in the movie, and there was little to no resolution of it. Wikipedia suggests (because I know you guys didn't read the article...except maybe Alisha...hey buddddddy) "One interpretation of the final death race between Bulcsú [thats the main character] and the murderer is that the murderer is in fact Bulcsú himself, and that the last "rail run" is a symbolic race where the evil Bulcsú perishes while the good Bulcsú survives. Other interpretations suggest the killer is actually one of the other metro workers, or merely the creation of Bulcsú's imagination."

Though there was little resolution at the end, well, sort of, the pacing was great, and the movie was actually quite funny. Funnier, I think, if you've been to BP...but, my dad thought it was funny too.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I think just like with Romanian film, I am more leniant with Hungarian film. I really liked it though, and it really transported me back to BP. As if I didn't already miss it enough.... It was a laugh to hear and see Hungarian language (which is like alien babblespeak) and see the metro stations again (including the one we got off at for school! Deeyak Beyatch!). I thought it was quite good, it prolly could have been better, but I thought it was quite an accomplishment.

I'll give it a 7.5.

And just for posterity, here is a photo of my station, Moskva Ter (not Terrace, not Square, just Ter) as seen from our glorious apartment.

4 Days, 3 Months and 2 Days (4 luni, 3 saptamini si 2 zile)

So what is this one about?
Netflix says In the last days of communism in Romania, Gabita (Laura Vasiliu), a young college student, wants to end her unplanned pregnancy. With the help of her best friend, fellow student Otilia (Anamaria Marinca), she seeks an abortion, illegal under the oppressive Ceaucescu regime. Director Cristian Mungiu's searing portrait of life under dictatorship received a slew of film festival awards as well as a nomination for Best Foreign Language Film from the Golden Globes which is entirely accurate.

And how much did I pay to watch?
This one was a netflix rental. (Only at the end of the month could I say how much this one dvd actually cost....the more dvds you watch the less it costs per disc. The cheapest I've ever gotten it down to was 89 cents a disc.)

And what did I think?
I saw this movie Children Underground when I first got Netflix in 2005. Children Underground is also a Romanian film, about the results of Ceaucescu's "Lets have lots of kids!!" policy. The result was parents in the mid and late 1980s having lots of kids, who they didn't actually want, for the tax or social benefits--bigger house, bigger check, etc. These children essentially became orphans because their parents didn't actually care about them. This group of children that the documentary, um, documents live in the Bucharest subway system. It was absolutely the most eye-opening film I'd ever seen about the true tragedy of some of those Soviet/Warsaw Pact policies. (unrelated, but very interesting, in the Soviet Union the policy was abortions for all...the idea was that more children would distract the parents from being good Soviet citizens. I remember reading an article in undergrad that said the average woman of child-bearing age would have had 7 abortions over the course of her lifetime.)

Right, so Children Underground was amazing. Beyond amazing. Impactful and sad and illuminating. Just crushingly sad. Really, go watch it. But, I rented 4 days thinking that it would be the same sort of film. I was very disappointed that it wasn't.

The film itself was quite an accomplishment. It wasn't the story that made it that way, though. The cinematography was stunning. There were parts that looked like, and were reminiscent of one of those tracking shots where the camera follows the actor (actually they used that in Thirteen for all but the opening and ending shots). The use of scenery built up a tension that weaves though the film AND made it REALLY feel like communist Romania.

The actress Anamaria Marinca was quite talented and she was absolutely the star of the film.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Perhaps I give a little bit more wiggle room to Eastern European films than American or British ones. But lets be serious, they do deserve a bit more credit! Their film industry was a million times more repressed than American or British ones and yet, they put out some amazing films. Granted, they put out 2 amazing films and the Brits put out 25 ones, but, um...thats ok, right?

So, for a rating, I think I'd end up somewhere around a 7 or 8. Lets say 7.5. It was no Children Underground (which would have received a 10) but many people wouldn't even see Children but they WOULD see 4 Days! Opening up audiences to Romanian cinema is important, and people who don't know it very well, I think, would think that 4 days was quite incredible. So...there ya go.