Babe* (1995)

Here is one of those rare children’s / family films that just nails it. It’s cute but not sappy, simple but not stupid, and heartwarming without inducing your gag reflex. I don’t know that it deserved to be nominated for Best Picture, but Babe is a charming little puff piece that hasn’t lost much, if any, of its magic over the last two decades.

The runt of the litter and unwanted by his pork farm owners, he is offered up as the prize for a weight-guessing game at a local carnival. After guessing correctly, Farmer Hoggett (James Cromwell) brings him home to his small countryside farm. Some of the barnyard and household animals embrace him while others want nothing to do with him. Adopted by a family of sheep dogs, Babe’s spunk and desire to take up the “family” business catches the eye of Farmer Hoggett, leading him to defy convention and risk humiliation by registering Babe in a sheep-herding contest.

Live-action movies with talking animals strike me as risky business. You can do anything you want with animation, and there is a lot of leeway when the film is just about talking animals. Films like Babe, which set talking animals against a very real-world setting including humans have to be done just right. The animals have to act like animals and they can’t be too smart or the humans too dumb. Credit is due both the filmmakers and undoubtedly the author of the book the film is based on for fashioning a slate of animal and human characters that walk this tightrope act with ease.

Plain and simple, films like this live and die by the animal performances. To bring this film to life, the director, cinematographer, and animal trainers all have to be on the same page. The animals hit their marks (though I can imagine multiple takes required for each scene) and the cinematography captures the animal movements from angles and in lighting that complete the illusion.

Praise is also due to the people behind giving voices to the animal characters. All of the voice characterizations are terrific because the voice textures blend with the animal actions in such a way that you have no problem believing that these animals actually possess the personalities being expressed. The visual effects department also does a flawless job of making each animal look as if it is actually delivering the lines without defying animal anatomy. Between subtle mouth movements via animatronics in production and computer effects in post-production, the filmmakers make talking animals look plausible, eliminating most of the objections our brains would normally raise.

I think the only thing in this film that dates it is when Farmer Hoggett and his wife receive a fax machine as a gift to help keep in touch with their city-dwelling children and grandkids. Otherwise the film exists within a world insulated from changes in fashion and culture. You can watch Babe today and still presume it to be set at a modern quaint off-the-beaten-path English farm whose owners eschew fancy technology. Its setting is as close to timeless as you can hope for in a family friendly film and it comes with a whole lot of charm. This will be one to share with the kids and grandkids someday.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Artist** (2011)

If it sounds weird to hear me describe a film as adorable, please know that it feels just as weird for me to make such a proclamation. Yet that is the best word I can come up with to describe this love letter to Hollywood’s silent film era. It has charm, heart, and it stays very true to the qualities and craftsmanship of the films that inspired it.

It’s 1927 in Hollywood and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the star of the silent silver screen and helps discover a talented newcomer named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). Two years later, Valentin’s studio tells him they are through with silent films. Valentin’s reluctance to convert to talkies (and the stock market crash of 1929) leaves him in professional and financial ruin. While Peppy’s career takes off, George struggles to cope with his new-found has-been status.

Save for a few shots and a handful of well-known supporting characters, The Artist looks like it could have come from the silent film era. That fact alone is a testament to the attention to detail behind this film. Silent films demand attention to detail because there is no sound supplementing or distracting from the visuals. The pacing, the cinematography, and the expressiveness of the cast make this movie a success. It lags at times, but there is so much imagery and sophistication built into the composition of some shots that I found myself giddy with excitement for noticing them.

The duo of Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo are a treat to behold. They’re expressiveness is so true to silent films. With no sound to convey emotion in the voice, actors had to over-emote with their posture, gestures, and facial expressions. In their attempt to replicate what we would now call over-doing it, there was a fine line between nailing the nonverbal communication of silent films and parodying it. The Artist never slips into parody.

Writer-director Michael Hazanavicius chose to fashion his silent movie after the melodramas of the 1920s. This was the right choice because an all-out silent drama would feel too self-important and a full-on comedy wouldn’t seem as special. With a story arc that is far from unique, The Artist is admittedly a success because it is style over substance.

But why make a silent film just for the sake of making a silent film? The filmmakers appreciate the artistry that has been lost for more than 80 years of talkies. Something about silent films speak to them and, as it turns out, they still speak to us too. This is the kind of cheery, nostalgic fare that makes me fall in love with cinema all over again.

RATING: 4 out of 5

W. (2008)

Common wisdom suggests that hindsight is 20-20. But how soon is too soon to attempt hindsight? Director Oliver Stone takes on that question with W., a biopic about George W. Bush. Never before had a Hollywood film been made about a sitting U.S. President’s time in office.* Given all the flak Bush faced during his two terms in office, what with a controversial election and an unpopular war in Iraq, many wondered whether or not Stone was attempting to craft a serious biography or merely stoking the anti-Bush flames during a crucial election year. The answer surprised just about everyone.

W. never lingers too long in one era. The film begins in 1966, where Bush is being initiated into a fraternity at Yale University. We see glimpses of his young adult life, filled with arguments and issues with his accomplished father. Flash-forward to 1977, where Bush decides to enter the family game of politics. He loses his first bid for Congress but makes a name for himself by bringing in the most votes ever for a Republican in his Texas district. We jump ahead next to the 1980s. While jogging, Bush collapses and has a religious experience. He becomes a born-again Christian, helps his father during the 1988 presidential election and becomes part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

After laying all this foundation, the films jumps into more familiar territory. Bush runs for Governor of Texas, though against his parents’ wishes. This later propels him to running for President and two of his most defining moments: 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Stone devotes extra time to the meetings and counseling between Bush and his staff before making the call to invade Iraq. The film ends after Bush’s infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, leaving out any details of Bush’s second term in office.

Whatever you may think of it, W. is an interesting look at a controversial public figure. Uncompromising is the best word I can find to describe it but not in the way that you may be thinking. Oliver Stone is known for his very liberal political leanings, so many wondered if he was even capable of creating an accurate depiction of Bush’s life. While Stone does include a few of Bush’s less-flattering moments in W., he never piles it on. Those negative moments (binge drinking in college) are balanced with positive moments (meeting his future wife) and everything is shown from a neutral perspective. It seems like Stone was able to keep his personal opinions of the man out of the picture while nailing down pivotal life events that make Bush tick.

Josh Brolin may not look exactly like George W. Bush but he hits the accent, mannerisms and facial expressions quite well. His performance does walk a fine line between acting and imitating though, as Bush is played up to be more dim-witted and naïve than he is in real life. I can actually let this slide because Bush always carried himself in public as a regular guy and attempted to project a casual demeanor. That’s the Bush America knew from their TV screens from news coverage, sound bites and collections of his more amusing moments.

There’s more to Brolin’s Bush than what American’s know, however. Supposedly based on information gathered from sources close to the Bush family and administration (but notably not anyone with an actual firsthand account of the events depicted), we get to see the troubled side of Bush’s life. A rebellious young man, the eldest (but not the favorite) child in a large family, struggling to earn his father’s respect while being his own man; the long road to achievement and success; and the struggle to make the decision to invade Iraq. Seeing these events play out humanizes the man and you just might find some of your preconceived notions of him changed.

Elizabeth Banks does a fine job as Laura Welch Bush but several of the supporting players either don’t fit right or don’t get the job done. James Cromwell barely looks like George H. W. Bush and it seems like he never even tries to recreate elder Bush’s voice or mannerisms. On the flip side, Richard Dreyfuss has the look of Vice President Dick Cheney but completely overdoes it. It is clear that he relishes portraying a man that he hates (Dreyfuss is notoriously liberal) but his sneering, shifty performance is comical at best.

Then there are Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice and Toby Jones as Karl Rove. Newton appears to take the MadTV approach to her character (no, it’s not even good enough to suggest a poor Saturday Night Live act)- horribly stereotyped and totally off-character. Jones’ Karl Rove is a creepy Gollum-esque man who is constantly coming out of the shadows to whisper advice into Bush’s ear. You would think that these head-scratching hack jobs would derail the film completely but they only appear a few times (but enough to be memorably bad).

Again, I come back to the only way to describe this film- interesting. Some on the right will claim it goes too far to make Bush look bad. Some on the left will think it fails to go far enough. The rest of us will tilt our heads to the side and quietly wonder what exactly we just watched and whether we had any right to expect anything out of this film. It's only due to its uncompromising nature that I can put my finger on a rating and I'm not even sure if it's the right one, to be perfectly honest.

W. doesn’t make any advancements for film or acting but it makes a niche for itself in the biopic genre. It will be interesting to see if films about sitting Presidents become a trend or if Oliver Stone’s oddly-timed biopic will become little more than a footnote (or even an afterthought) of cinema history. I guess, as with what history’s assessment of George W. Bush’s presidency, only time will tell.

RATING: 3 out of 5

*Documentaries don't count and the only other film released about a sitting President was PT 109, which was about John F. Kennedy's time during World War II and not his time in office.

The Queen* (2006)

If it hadn’t been for The Departed, this would be your Best Picture winner. I say that now, still not having seen either Letters From Iwo Jima or Babel, but I get the sense that this film has all the makings of an Oscar winner. It’s sharp, balancing the dry witty humor I adore the British for with the heavy subject matter of Princess Diana’s death.

The Queen is a recreation and depiction of the days immediately before and following Diana’s death from the perspective of the Royal Family. The events and dialog presented are based off of the accounts given to the filmmakers by anonymous sources. There is also extensive use of real footage from news reports covering the accident, the outpouring of grief from the people of England, and even the funeral service itself.

All this in a trim 103 minute running time.

The amount of detail and careful documentation of everything is quite unique. If the filmmakers had chosen to take too many creative liberties, one can just imagine what Queen Elizabeth’s lawyers would have had to say! I think the fact that the real Queen approved of the film says it all. While I’m sure there are some parts of the film that aren’t true to life, The Queen manages to be one of the few docudrama/biopics that really excels at achieving its goal. Instead of playing it safe, the film takes chances and presents plenty of uncomfortable scenarios, and is rewarded for doing just that.

You really get a sense for how much the Queen and her husband disliked Diana and the cult of personality following she had. Sure, the woman did many good things for the world, but her visibility flies against time-honored traditions among the Royals. This is the other excellent aspect the film manages to include- showing the Queen’s struggle with what she knows from tradition and how it collides against the rapidly changing times she is living and ruling in.

Though parts of the film may be complete fiction, I felt like I gained a better understanding of Queen Elizabeth from watching it. I understand her distaste with Diana better, though I don’t completely agree with it. But that’s the point. The Queen is equal parts compassionate and condescending toward Elizabeth. In other words, it’s very real, which always helps when you’re making a docudrama or a biopic.

The acting is all very well done. Helen Mirren does a fine job in her portrayal of Elizabeth, and Michael Sheen is spot-on as newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair. James Cromwell creates a memorable character out of Prince Phillip, the Queen’s husband- the inclusion of Phillip, who goes more or less unnoticed by the press, was a refreshing jolt of cynicism and sarcasm complimenting the film’s overall dry tone. My only complaint is that the filmmakers didn’t get someone ugly enough for Prince Charles. Actor Alex Jennings seriously looks nothing like him- he’s too handsome.

The Queen is a classy film, which some may find boring, but if you are really interested in Princess Diana and/or the Royal Family I’d definitely recommend it. Concise and complete, I recommend The Queen and would have voted for it over The Departed, were I a member of the Academy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

With Captain Picard’s Enterprise-D being destroyed at the end of Star Trek: Generations, it was little surprise to see him piloting the new (and much bigger) Enterprise-E. (Seriously, the Federation must be loaded if it can afford a replacement Enterprise every couple of years) Picard and company are out and about when the Borg attacks Earth. For you non-Trek savvy folk out there, the Borg is a colony of cyborgs that capture living subjects and turn them into cyborgs with no individuality whatsoever and also adding the individual’s knowledge into their collective brain.

Instead of helping Earth, Star Fleet orders the Enterprise to stay in the neutral zone and make sure the Romulans don’t get frisky with all the hub-bub going on. Really, Star Fleet doesn’t trust Picard to fight the Borg. He was once assimilated by them but escaped and holds quite a grudge. In other words, it’s kind of a rehash of Kirk vs. the Klingons from the original series.

Picard defies orders and helps save the day. But, the Borg shoots a probe into the past in order to prevent humans from ever discovering warp speed travel. The Enterprise follows in hot pursuit and ends up orbiting a mid-21st Century Earth. The crew goes down to investigate any damage the Borg did and realize that the Borg has nearly altered human history. The crew then makes it their mission to make sure a loony scientist does in fact discover warp travel and makes first contact with extraterrestrial life. Meanwhile, those still on the Enterprise must face off against a faction of the Borg that beamed itself on board and are now assimilating the crew and taking over the ship.

While a standalone Picard vs. the Borg plot would have made for a boring movie (again, think Kirk vs. Klingons) the sub-plot of help ensure Earth’s first contact with extraterrestrials makes Star Trek: First Contact one of the most original films in the Star Trek series.

Sure, we’ve already done the whole ‘time travel with the fate of the Earth in our hands’ thing before, but the way they do it gets brownie points from me. And the fact that the two plots tie in well with each other makes it rather good. Instead of a flimsy deus ex machina kind of tie in, the fates of one group directly affect the fates of the other.

The visuals are actually pretty good, up until the end, where a level of the Enterprise fills up with a very poorly constructed cloud of CGI gas, resulting in some lousy blue screen work. The biggest fault of this film involves the cast. The crew of The Next Generation just aren’t as engaging as the original series bunch. I even grew up watching a few episodes of The Next Generation, but there just wasn’t as much chemistry. This was also fairly apparent in Star Trek: Generations, but I feel more strongly about commenting on it here.

Captain Picard is a joy to watch- he’s well read and very intelligent. Data is pretty much an annoying android version of Spock, except that instead of pondering the illogical behavior of humans as Spock did, Data actually strives to become more human. Sometimes it works but it usually comes off as being a little trite. Worf is kind of like Gimli from Lord of the Rings. He’s there to add that dash of extreme culture clash (being Klingon), but he never really manages to grow on you during the course of the film. The rest of the crew are just kind of there on the periphery and barely do anything memorable. It’s almost as if you’d need to watch the entire Next Generation series to understand where everybody is coming from.

Despite whatever shortcomings exist among the cast, the story makes up for it pretty well. There are some very cool literary allusions and some fine acting on Patrick Stewart’s part. The Borg actually do make for a good opponent as their bland features and emotionless state effectively creeps you out each time they’re on screen. A better cast dynamic and some better visual effects in certain places would put First Contact on even footing with the best films in the series (Star Trek II and III).

RATING: 3 out of 5

Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)

Sort of a West Coast version of To Kill a Mocking Bird, Snow Falling on Cedars focuses on the Washington State trial of a man of Japanese descent during the early 1950s, when Americans (particularly on the West Coast) were fearful and mistrusting of anything Japanese since World War II. The stage is set pretty clearly and the odds are stacked against him.

Ethan Hawke is the town newspaper editor who struggles with his own bias while covering the case. As a boy he was in love with a girl who became the accused man’s wife but he lost an arm fighting the Japanese in the war. Now he finds himself convinced that the accused is innocent and must work against the town’s racism in order for justice to be upheld.

A bit slow from time to time, this film doesn’t quite have the back-story and side plots that made To Kill a Mocking Bird work, but the rigorous pursuit of justice is worth noting. It also doesn’t help much that the film's cast is made up almost entirely of actors known for their supporting roles. Otherwise, it’s a pretty good underachiever.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5