Thoughts on Inglourious Basterds

Approaching a film like Inglourious Basterds is a complex thing. You don't just consider the film itself, but what went into making it and the history surrounding it. In the case of this film, that would be a more-than-a-decade-in-the-making script and Tarantino describing it as "epic". And with a two and a half hours length, it certainly feels that way. The film delivers on its promise of everything a Tarantino film should be and more. Allow me to elaborate.



Inglourious Basterds opens with SS-Standartenführer (Colonel) Hans Landa (Cristoph Waltz) and his arrival at a dairy farm. Landa (a.k.a The Jew Hunter) is there to perform a search for the last remaining Jew survivors in the area. While questioning the farmer who owns the property about the survivors, Landa remains utterly charming in a way no film Nazi has ever been, in my experience. He's eloquent, fluent in three languages (so far) and dangerously charismatic. He is also evil, ironic and absurd; in a thoroughly enjoyable way. Waltz deserves praise for bringing to life what Tarantino considered his greatest character ever. His Hans Landa is the kind of rotten character that you kinda want to watch get away with it in the end. Landa also provides unexpected comedy several times in the film; keeping his character solidly on our good side. I can thus honestly say there wasn't one scene he was in where I wasn't completely enamored with him. I wouldn't be surprised if Waltz got an Oscar nomination to go with his Cannes best actor award.


Escaping from Landa's clutches is a teenage girl named Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent). Laurent delivers an outstanding performance here that shall get her (much like her compatriot Marion Cotillard) in the international spotlight. Laurent's face is very expressive throughout the film and it is clear from the luscious (quasi-fetishistic) shots Tarantino takes of her (specially near the climax, where she dons a red dress right out of cinematic mythology) that she is his star, his archetypal tragic siren. Even if Shosanna's revenge story is played alongside a bigger, more action-packed portion of the film, her tale still involves you in ways the rest of the plot, perhaps, can't.


It's through Shosanna's machinations that Tarantino's plot to rewrite history becomes possible. It is through her clever calculations that most of the climax is possible. Some of these machinations include flirting with Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a Nazi war hero who is now getting his own Goebbels film, "The Pride of the Nation".


I had seen Bruhl before in Good Bye, Lenin!
and it must be said even as a Nazi war hero, he still retains his boyish charm. It is also through Bruhl's skill, however, that we get a glimpse at the darker motivations of his character.


Aiding the Basterds in their quest is Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), a German movie star working as a double agent. Kruger is pitch perfect as von Hammersmark; being at once charming, glamorous, and wonderfully diva-esque. Her character is a ton of fun, adding some welcome snark to the proceedings. Kruger pleasantly surprised me with this role, showing talent I hadn't realized she possessed. Don't get me wrong, I've never disliked her or anything; but she hadn't ever really stood out for me.


Also aiding the Basterds is Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), a suave British agent that pokes fun at the British stiff upper-lip humor stereotype like it's nobody's business. Fassbender is truly surprising here. Having previously only seen him in either small roles or his gruesome role in Hunger, I didn't quite expect the comic style he offers here. It is, nonetheless, a decent (if a tad small) part.


As for the Basterds themselves, their roles are relatively small (if idiosyncratic and special in their own way), but the focus remains on Brad Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine (a.k.a. Aldo the Apache). Pitt is here tasked with playing a character that has to be at once funny and menacing. It is in his heroic southern patriot that the Basterds leadership and morale rest. I had my qualms about Pitt's role when I first heard about it, but he quickly puts those concerns to rest once he's on the screen.


Which leads me to the director himself. Quentin Tarantino has always been a divisive director. His films often lead to fierce discussion between die-hard fans and skeptics. What I've always said is that even if you find his style abrasive and lacking taste, he is technically a good director. He certainly knows how to handle a camera's angles and how to communicate a clear vision. He also has a knack for pushing actors to deliver iconic, larger-than-life performances that don't go overboard. He is, ultimately, a director that loves movies. Those two things might seems bound to each other, but if one looks around there is clearly a shortage of cinema-loving directors. He is, for lack of a better term, our very own enfant terrible. A lot of directors wish such a label be applied for them. The difference between Tarantino and the avant-garde hoi polloi is that he actually has the talent and vision to back it up.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie a lot and wholeheartedly recommend watching it and even re-watching it. Much like the relationship with a friend, a Tarantino film always benefits from repeated visits.

Le verdict: ****

P.S. And because I'm a shameless actressexual with a thing for vintage looks, here's one of the alternate film posters and another image of Laurent, in-character. Everybody now: gorgeous.

Thoughts on Gomorra (Gomorrah)

There are a number of films (The Godfather, Scarface, et al.) that seem to glamorize the criminal underworld. Gomorra is not one of those films. It is unflinchingly faithful to the sordid reality that ensnares the lives of so many people trapped in the web of the Camorra (an Italian crime syndicate originating in the region of Campania). The film, as noted, is based on a reality. Cinematic-wise, however, a film can deviate from reality. Realistic films still hold on to some veneer of style in order to interest us. The opposite is true for documentaries, were the cinematography tries to be as faithful to reality as possible. This film treads a fine line between the two. It's precisely this that repelled me when I was watching it. Allow me to explain why I go against most people in saying this is not a great film.


The movie focuses on five different stories, all of them tainted by the crime surrounding them. Don Ciro (Gianfelice Imparato), an accountant who distributes money to the families of imprisoned gang members, wants to escape his job and move to a safer location. Toto (Nicoló Manta), a grocery boy, wants in on the action. Pasquale (Salvatore Cantalupe) is an haute couture tailor looking to make an extra buck by training Chinese garment workers how to counterfeit the real deal. Marco (Marco Macor) and Ciro (Ciro Petrone) are two teenage wannabe gangsters that dream of the life shown in movies like The Godfather and (their favorite) Scarface. On the other side of the coin, Roberto (Carmine Paternoster) and his boss Franco (Toni Servillo) are illegally disposing of waste in unused quarries. The common denominator to all these stories is more than their involvement with the crime around them. It's that they're, all of them, victims in some way or another. Neither them nor the local ganglords we see are really enjoying the glitz and glamour crime promised. They're all victims, in one way or another, of an uncaring system.


The film is quite skillful in depicting the bleak reality of the crime-soaked lives it explores. It uses unadorned camerawork and photography, nearly documentary-level in style. Though, objectively, I can see the point to this, it just isn't my taste. Even in realistic films the world is heightened, even if it's just in the visual style of the film. You look out your window and the world doesn't look exactly like in the movies. The closest we come to that is a documentary. This film walks the line between the two approaches, but I would've much preferred it choose a side and stick with it. I realize the film's fiction is a lure to get the audience to pay attention to the reality it wants to shine a light on. In the end, though, I just feel duped. It was the ending notes that did it in for me. If the film was content with depicting reality as it is and nothing more, why would it try to push us in such a moralistic, after-school special way?


I like fantasy (think The Godfather) and history (think Excellent Cadavers) in different ways, which is not to say I prefer either one over the other. History (hopefully) offers us a way to overcome our mistakes, while fantasy offers us a welcome escape from these mistakes. I would've much rather the film choose a side in these polar opposites in the film spectrum, rather than sit in the middle. I understand the power of film as a tool to comment on the state of society, but I don't want that to be used as an excuse for a film being mediocre in other areas.

Le verdict: **

What a Glee-ful start!

This my friends, will no doubt sound like a fluff piece to you when you're done reading it. But, I swear to you, it's not! I just really, really loved it. And by "it" I mean the second episode of the marvelous Glee. The pilot showed a lot of potential, but potential doesn't always turn into greatness. Well, my dear readers, here it does, and in spades of it.


"Showmance" is the much-hyped series second episode, arriving a full 4 months after the pilot premiered in May. With something as hyped-to-the-heavens as Glee, one has reasonable fear that it'll disappoint when it actually shows up. This, of course, is a mistake. Not only did the episode deliver on the pilot's promise, it went above and beyond. The script had some brilliant, snark-tastic bits of dialogue. Of special note in this department is Jane Lynch's cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester. I swear, there's not a dull moment when she's on the screen. The rest of the cast, however, is not neglected by the script, which delivers equal parts satire and heart.


Of course, one of the main features of the show is the musical numbers, and they did not disappoint. Whether rapping to Kanye West's Gold Digger (who knew Matthew Morrison could rap? Apparently, Lea Michele: "We don't call him Mattie Fresh for nothing...") or belting out to Rihanna's Take a Bow (in a scene that is further proof that Lea Michele really is as good an actress as she is a singer), the show really delivers on its musical premise.

Overall, I really liked the series and hope the rest of the public will agree with me, lest this turn into my new Pushing Daisies. And you, my readers, what did you think of Glee? Let me know in the comments.

Le verdict (so far): ****

P.S. All images in these post can be originally found in gleeimages.com's gallery.

Thoughts on Orphan

Scary movies have a love-hate relationship with me. I always see the trailers and grow interested and then fight my reticence to see them. Almost always, immediately after exiting the theater I feel regret. Regret because I know I'm gonna be skittish all night long after watching a scary movie, yet again. Orphan, however, was enough of a draw (the trailer was suitably intriguing) for me to momentarily put aside my fears. I do not regret it.


Orphan is the story of the Coleman family and their newest member, Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman). We learn at the very beginning of the story that Coleman mother Kate (Vera Farmiga) had a miscarriage and that prompted her to attempt adoption. She already has two other kids: a partially deaf daughter named Max (Aryana Engineer) and a spoiled-yet-ignored son named Daniel (Jimmy Bennett). Her desire to make up for the miscarriage and get another kid is just too much, so she and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) register and start looking around orphanages. They eventually find a very charming and proper girl named Esther.


As is customary in these kind of movies (the child-from-hell genre, specifically), everything seems fine at first. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Esther has a dark side to her charming persona. Not only has she lied about her past, she actively undermines Kate and manipulates the people around her. One of the more odd things surrounding Esther is her fixation with the ribbons around her neck and wrists. She never removes them and any attempt to do so results in her screaming and flailing around. All of this arouses Kate's suspicions, but her misgivings about her new child are not well received by the people around her.


Even if the heroine-who-nobody-believes is a tired element in the horror genre, here it plays seamlessly; all thanks to Esther's machinations. What isn't half as easy to swallow is Farmiga's performance. She overacts in each and every scene she's in. You would think it's a bit hard to look fake when you're screaming after your endangered children (not much to do really, just scream and run after them), but Farmiga is so ham-endowed she even botches this.


More decent (though not by a long shot) is Sarsgaard's John, who (along with Kate, come to think of it) plays the stereotypical yuppie XXI century father. The scenes where he does lash out at Kate in frustration, however, ring true. Sarsgaard manages to remain bitter and oblivious yet oddly relatable.


The film's standouts lie not, however, with the adults. Rather, it's in Engineer and Fuhrman's performance's that the film really shines. Not only does their twisted sister dynamic manage to stay interesting; they also manage very decently when on their own.


Engineer's Max is a role that (much like Jadagrace Berry's in Terminator Salvation)requires her to be very expressive with her face without going overboard. Her fear and pain also genuinely make you feel sorry for her situation.


The cause of this fear and pain, of course, is the increasingly deranged Esther, who shines in Fuhrman's hands. She is charming, as noted above. This, of course, does not stop her from also being a chilling sociopath. It's the little things really: an evil glare here and there, a sadistic smile watching a fire, a realistic Russian accent, et al. The movie uses a lot of psychological thriller conventions, so the villain role really has to stand out for us to get interested. If it weren't for Fuhrman, the film wouldn't be half as interesting (or spooky) as it is.


Like I said above, the film works entirely within the conventions of the genre. These go from the lone-standing female heroine nobody believes to the shocking reveal of the villain's nature/identity. As a friend of mine noted, the makers of this film must have worked pretty hard to avoid stepping on clichés in this department. The ShockReveal isn't as shocking as others, but I'll still give it points on originality. Some better casting decisions and a tighter script around some scenes could've really elevated this to classic, Rosemary territory.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on The Breakfast Club

As many of you may know, 80s teen flick auteur John Hughes passed away recently. In honor of this, I decided to show The Breakfast Club to my Film Club. I started the year with something light and teen oriented (Charlie Bartlett, more on that later) so as to get them going in the right direction with something that wasn't as heavy as, say, The Seventh Seal. The film is far from perfect and I don't agree with it being the ultimate high school movie, but it's cultural impact is still undeniable. Allow me to elaborate.


The film follows a Saturday in the lives of five high school students in detention. They're all from different cliques and don't really get along. Because of their locked-in circumstances, they're forced to interact and get to know each other. Throughout the day they manage to get behind the assigned personas of their cliques. If this sounds cliched, it's because this film practically started this trend in teen and coming-of-age movies. Even if the character labels are a tad obsolete and simplistic, the movie's intention is what's remarkable. The reason they simplify the characters into archetypes even as they attempt to remove their masks is that this way it's much easier to explore a wide range of topics.


On the acting front, I must say I didn't truly dislike anyone's performance, but I did feel some of them could've been done better. Chief among these is Molly Ringwald's Claire, who I just couldn't ever like. Ally Sheedy's Allison, however, nicely treads the line between Ringwald and Judd Nelson's overacting. Even if the message they send through her character in the end is atrocious, I enjoyed watching her go from quiet and insane one second to pathological lying and crazy dancing the next.


The movie succumbs to some of the 80s most dreadful film making mistakes (music video-esque montages, random exaggerations, etc.), but it manages to relay it's message somewhat convincingly. There are films I say could've been better, but weren't, and as such deserve no special consideration. This film on the other hand, is not one of those films. The film is not interesting for what it could've been, but for what it attempts to say. The message, not the product takes precedence here. Of course, the film makes mistakes regarding some of its messages (the aforementioned Allison storyline), but overall the script is not half-bad. Maybe I'm just removed from the generation that grew up with this film, but I still understand what it meant back then. Should this impact my verdict on the film?

Le verdict: **1/2

Thoughts on The Hangover

The comedic front in cinema has been on a rut as of late. "Where is the big comedy of the year?", we clamored. Well, mesdames et messieurs, The Hangover should assuage us all (at least for now). Here is a movie that squeezes every ounce of fun it can from one of the most random, chaotic script we've seen this year (even if its chaos detracts from it as a whole). Even if the movie's brand of crass humor wasn't always my taste, I have to recognize there's no situation or line that wasn't funny within it's own style. That's ambiguous, isn't it? Let's get on with the explanation, then.


The movie's premise is quite simple: four guys wake up in a trashed hotel suite after a night of debauchery with no memory of the events that happened in the aforementioned night. They must now find the fifth member of their motley crew, who just happens to be getting married in two days. As they go about piecing information about the night's events, they run into such random characters as a pair of sadistic police officers, a hooker with a heart of gold and an enraged Chinese gangster. See what I meant about the chaos?


The guys get divided into regular, male comedy archetypes. The whipped wimp, the socially awkward idiot, and the suave ladies man all make their appearance here. The roles are decently portrayed by Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis (I had to double spellcheck that name), and Bradley Cooper, respectively. It's nothing we haven't seen before, but within the context of the film it manages to still be fun. Even if at times Helms' whining and Galifianakis idiocy get a tad grating, it doesn't detract too much from the film.


The film's star, of course, is not its leads, but rather the random messes they stumble into on their search for their friend Doug (Justin Bartha, who just can't seem to get his big break.). The situations are, more often that not, politically incorrect and go from merely embarrassing to outright dangerous. If there's one issue the script has regarding these encounters is the fact that they don't really have cohesion. To put it another way, even if the situations are funny, they're not really connected. They're like roommates that don't hang out much; they share the same space but don't have much of a relationship.

Overall, the film provides a healthy amount of laughs and will keep you entertained from start to finish. It is not, however, anything we haven't seen before. Nor is it, as some people seem to think, the next Big Thing. It's a summer comedy, and a good one at that, but nothing else.

Le verdict: ***

Thoughts on Valkyrie

Let's get something out of the way. I've never really liked Tom Cruise. I don't necessarily dislike him, but I don't get excited when I hear he's on the cast for an upcoming movie. Valkyrie does not provide a 180° on my opinion of him, but it does change it up a bit.


Valkyrie tells the story of the 20 July plot, a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler that was orchestrated by the German Resistance. The film's protagonist is Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise), a war veteran who lost an eye and a hand during a British attack. Stauffenberg, disillusioned with the Third Reich, joins a clandestine group planning on staging a coup.


Overall, the supporting cast in the coup plot does a decent job but no one really stands out. Particularly alluring, however, was David Bamber's Hitler, who was subdued yet deranged. He doesn't have much screen time, but he works wonders (particularly with his eyes) during that time.


Carice van Houten (marvelous in Black Book) is wasted here as von Satuffenberg's wife, Nina. It's really a shame when a great actress is given a role she can't do anything with. This is not the same as saying small roles should go to bad actors. Dame Judi Dench did marvelous in Shakespeare in Love, despite her limited screen time. Carice's performance doesn't lower its quality standards from her other work, but we just don't see enough of her.

The film is interesting, but it's main flaw is that it is never truly engaging. For a film inhabiting as tired a historical period as WWII, this is particularly problematic. The way I see it, if you're gonna get into WWII, you must either bring something new into the game or be really good at what everyone else has done. The fact that the proceedings play as a thriller in a scenario whose ending we already know further sink this into exercise-in-futility territory. As I've asked before, if a thriller isn't particularly thrilling, is it failing? Maybe as a thriller, but the other thing this film has going on for it is its attempt to inform us; to let us know that not every German (indeed, that not even every Nazi) in WWII was a monster. Some attempted to fight back, to redeem themselves. It's a shame their courage is exploited here with such low quality standards.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on Terminator Salvation

Let me be the first to say my dislike of this film is my own fault. I shouldn't have raised my expectations. Did I expect anything but loud explosions from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Of course not. But with other succesful franchise reboots/reinventions still fresh in my mind, I allowed myself a bit of optimism for Terminator Salvation. This turned into excitement when I learned that both Christian Bale and Anton Yelchin were to star in it. Bale's performance in The Dark Knight was still fresh in my mind and I've found Anton Yelchin thoroughly alluring ever since I saw Charlie Bartlett. Alas, all of this would work against me when the film finally came out (a full two months after it had premiered elsewhere, I might add).


For those of you uninitiated to Terminator, the film concerns itself with humanity's struggle against Skynet, an artificial intelligence bent on our annihilation. Skynet became self-aware shortly after being activated and lauched a worldwide nuclear attack. The survivors must now square off against Skynet's machine army. This is the first movie in the franchise that is primarily set in the future, during the war. And what a bleak setting that is. Mankind is outnumbered and facing a ruthlessly efficient foe in a deserted world. Sure, there's the occasional ruined landscape or two, but they're filled with potential hiding places for the machines and as such are more dangerous than helpful; their mere existence being a reminder of Skynet's lowest blow against humanity (the cinematography in these scenes is actually quite good; all cold, gray and sandy, effectively conveying the dead landscape's feel).


On the human resistance we have John Connor (Christian Bale), who was prophetized to be mankind's leader against the machines but is having a hard time rising to that post on account of those who aren't ready to believe him. To say Bale's performance here is a disappointment would be an understatement. He's one-note and uninspiring. This wouldn't be so bad (it is a big budget, summer action film after all) if it wasn't for the fact that we've seen him do infinitely better. Not only have we seen him do better, actually, but the character too. And when your performance doesn't measure up to Edward Furlong's, you know you're in trouble (not to say he didn't do well in T2, just saying he squandered that later. An entry in the The Crow franchise? Hello?). The possibility was there, but he just didn't grab it. Maybe the direction's at fault here too, but I'll get into that later.


Playing (quite literally, sometimes) opposite Bale is Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a newly resurrected murderer who's trying to make sense of his new surroundings and atone for his past sins by helping out other survivors. Worthington is a breath of fresh air after Bale's listless performance, being both believably heroic and emotionally perturbed. Of particular note is his chemistry with Moon Bloodgood (more on her ahead). All thing considered, he could've let the character flounder, much like Bale, but doesn't. Since the script isn't that more gentle with him (giving him some truly awful lines near the beginning), I'll have to attribute that to Worthington's skill. But let's not get carried away. Opposite Bale, Worthington is nice, but he isn't anything we haven't seen in other (better) shapes elsewhere.




Moon Bloodgood's Blair Williams is one of the highlights of the film. Unlike her female co-star Bryce Dallas-Howard (who portrays Kate Brewster, John's romantic interest), who doesn't have much to do during the film, Bloodgood is pure female action star (inheriting Linda Hamilton's mantle of strong female lead performance). Not only can she sell her combat sequences, she also skillfully shows a more tender side of her around Marcus, resulting in some surprisingly endearing scenes. Plus, the girl can seriously rock the post-apocalyptic wardrobe.




Jadagrace Berry's (debut role) Star is a mute, orphaned survivor who works alongside Anton Yelchin's teenaged Kyle Reese to stay alive. Her role is small and doesn't require much of her, but I still liked her. She goes from a blank face to a very communicative expression aproppiately and doesn't utter a sound throughout the entire film, only occasionaly descending into gimmick territory. For a first timer 9 year old, she did a very decent job.


Last but certainly not least is the film's standout performance. Anton Yelchin's Kyle Reese (the boy who would, through time travel, eventually become John's father) is a testament to his acting skills. I'm a big fan of Yelchin and with each passing role I grow more confident that he has the chops to carve a longlasting, great career ahead of him. He convincingly conveys the furious sense of frustration and despair a teenage boy would feel if his entire world fell apart. He's fierce, and energetic, but doesn't ever descend into overacting. He also, apparently has the skills to pull a thrilling action scene (something Star Trek, his other summer job, didn't require of him). Yelchin continues to show a lot of promise and he's one of those people that gives me hope the future of young hollywood rests in good hands.

All in all, the film wasn't suppossed to be a standout dramatic outing, so we forgive some of it's acting and plot weaknesses. But if, as an action film, it doesn't reach the bar set by its predecessors (Terminator 2: Judgement Day is to this day, one of my favorite action movies), what does it have left? Maybe Joseph McGinty (I refuse to adress him as McG) should have done a better job in the execution department. Maybe someone else should have been given the job. Whatever the cause, this film ended up being an average action film. The disappointment here isn't in what it is, but what it held the promise to be.

Le verdict: *1/2
Le Verdict (Anton Yelchin's performance): **1/2

Thoughts on My Sister's Keeper

Before you bombard me in the comments with complaints of me being heartless and how could I not feel moved by this film, let me clarify something. I am not heartless. I cried at the end of Atonement, I cry during Stepmom (even if it is a tearjerker much like this one, I'll be damned if Susan Sarandon doesn't sell a melodramatic scene like nobody's business). My point is: I am as emotionally available to a movie as the next guy, but I don't like it when a movie tries to force it out of me. Which is the main problem My Sister's Keeper, the eponymous film adaptation of Jodi Picoult's novel faces. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start with the fundamentals, shall we?


The film is about a family, a family who, after learning their two year old girl suffers from a rare form of leukemia, decides to have a second daughter, genetically engineered to be able to donate as many body parts as her sister might need. Thanks to this, Kate (Sofia Vassilieva)has lived far beyond her initial life expectancy of 5. Her sister Anna (Abigail Breslin), however, has been in and out of hospitals her whole life, all in an effort to prolong Kate's life. When she was born her cord blood was used to treat Kate. This soon progressed to donating blood, bone marrow, stem cells, etc.; all for the benefit of Kate. She loves her sister, so she's willing to go with her mother (Cameron Diaz) Sara's plans to do anything it takes to keep Kate alive. But when Kate's kidneys fail and Anna is about to be forced to donate one of her own, she decides to end it once and for all. She seeks the help of Campbell Alexander, a notoriously successful attorney, in order to become medically emancipated.


This creates a rift between the different members of the family (those who agree with Anna and those who don't) and Sara (who before discovering Kate's disease was a successful lawyer) decides to go against Alexander in court. Here is near where the film hits its first true problem. The film shows us flashbacks of the family from their various points of view (complete with voiceovers). For a tearjerker, this is not anything new and as such (even if it is a tired storytelling method) I had no beef with it. What really bugged me was the way these flashbacks were introduced. Right as we focused on a particular character, the screen fades to black for a few seconds and then we're in the past. It was lazy, clunky, and repetitive.


But let's forget about the direction and plot for a second and consider the performances. While Cameron Diaz's tough mother act was believable and a nice change of pace from her usual comedic roles, it was still nothing new. This is not to say her acting was flawed, but she didn't really add anything to the character either. Alec Baldwin's Campbell Alexander is a nice mix of cheekiness and heart that I didn't expect from him. He's not an exemplary human being but he cares about Anna and Baldwin's performance makes all the difference between corny kindness and engaging sympathy. The true standout here, however, is Joan Cusack as Judge De Salvo. Her courtroom scenes are not anything we haven't seen elsewhere, but her interview with Anna is a very nice scene. She's recently lost her own daughter in a car accident and talking about death with Anna only brings her pain back to the surface. While most actresses might have gone overboard and turned this into a ham session, Cusack makes us feel her pain in as simple and understated a manner as she can muster.


On the main performances arena we have Abigail Breslin's Anna and Sofia Vassilieva's Kate. Not only do they shine in their individual scenes, their sister dynamic is also believable. Breslin is, of course, the better performer of the two. She's convincing when trying to rebel and when concerned for her sister's well-being. This is one of her first truly dramatic roles in the spotlight, and the promise she shows is truly astounding. Sofia Vassilieva's performance is nice, but, oddly enough, I liked her better during the flashbacks. Even though her performance during the present scenes is decent, her I've-accepted-death-and-am-now-calm act is something that plagues this genre. Is it moving? Yes, but it falls to the worst traits of the tearjerker drama. On the flashbacks, however, Vassilieva strikes a nice balance between likable and bratty. Her teenage rebelliousness is a normal response someone in her situation would engage in. She's tired of her disease and of not living like a normal teen and isn't afraid to show it.


This leads me to a particularly poignant aspect of the film. While in the hospital, Kate meets a fellow leukemia patient named Taylor (Thomas Dekker, he of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles fame). They begin a relationship (both in and out of the hospital) and he even invites her to the hospital's "prom". The scenes detailing their relationship are sweet and touching without descending into sentimentalism. This is all due to the young actors' talent and the script's deft handling of their teenage romance.


Overall, the film is nothing above the standard tearjerker. Some of the problems it has could've been easily fixed by a more skilled director. Also, it's message and sadness are delivered in too heavy-handed a way for us not to feel like it's being shoved down our throats. And what happens when someone shoves something down our throats? We gag and choke, that's what. The film does contain some poignant moments and its honest attempt at portraying the minefield that is bioethics nowadays was not lost on me. Overall, if you're stuck on a bus or plane and this is playing, you won't cringe at it. But you won't exactly be thrilled either.

Le verdict: *1/2