Last week I watched My Left Foot for the first time, and I wish that I hadn’t. That is to say, I wish that I hadn’t seen it for the first time last week, and wish instead that I had seen it during one of the more depressing times in my life, because this movie is as uplifting as any movie about a person with crippling cerebral palsy could ever hope to be, and the best thing is that it’s all true.

My Left Foot is a biopic that revolves around Christy Brown, a boy born with cerebral palsy so severe that the only control he has over his body is his titular left foot. The movie begins with Christy showing up to some kind of ceremony, and through flashbacks we learn of his birth and upbringing in his large Irish family. His dad rejects him at first, writing him off as an invalid, but his mother cares for him regardless, and soon enough he proves to his family and community that he is intelligent in spite of his condition.

While a child, Christy Brown is played by Hugh O’Conor, who does a fantastic job in a clearly difficult role. His depiction of the affliction is believable through and through, and since he is unable to speak at that point in his life, he is forced to act and emote through pained facial expressions, which somehow end up being more expressive than half of the actors you may see today.

While an adult, Christy is played by Daniel Day-Lewis, in one of his most famous and compelling roles, and one that won him an Oscar with good reason. Had it been 1989 and I had never seen Day-Lewis previously to this, I may have very well expected him to actually have the disease. Day-Lewis is amazing as he always is, and it’s definitely his performance that the film centers around. You will never tire of watching him, even as he struggles to get full sentences out. You feel for him and his unrequited love, and cheer with him in his accomplishments, whether it be scoring a goal in a game of street soccer or painting his first picture.

Christy’s parents are also performed with excellence by Brenda Fricker and Ray McAnally. Fricker also won an Oscar, so you know that the acting in this movie is second to none. The direction is equally great, never trying too hard to infringe upon the story, but adequately portraying it and moving it along with a variety of handheld shots and shots that are so low-angle they might as well be young Christy’s point of view.

Though there may not be many cinematic aspects on which to comment, My Left Foot is exceptional for its acting and its brilliant story. Christy Brown is a man with a truly captivating history to tell, and as you watch Day-Lewis paint a picture or type some words up with the toes on his left foot, you can’t help but be awed by the fact that someone really did that without acting, that a brave man lived his life to the fullest even if it was only through the actions of his single left foot.

Final rating: 9/10

—James A. Janisse

Last week I watched Badlands (1973), Terrence Malick’s feature debut. It was the first Malick film I’ve seen, but definitely won’t be the last. What a good movie.

It’s true that it might seem a little dated by now. The film was made for a pretty low budget in the early 70s, so gunshot wounds aren’t more than a spot of red paint on the actors’ clothes. Also, Sissy Spacek’s narration, complete with her southern drawl, sometimes seems a little hokey and as if it’s coming from an old novel. They’re just things you have to get over and look at the film for what it is.

And what the film is is wonderful. The performances are hand down compellingly fantastic. Spacek and a very young Martin Sheen are the only consistent actors that are featured throughout the film, and it’s no problem at all that the film falls on their shoulders to carry. They’re excellent. The characters are so interesting. There’s no flattening of their motivations or feelings, they are conflicted humans who keep finding themselves in deeper and darker situations, and trying to deal with it. They’re not blindly in love; Spacek sees that Sheen’s a bit sociopathic, and acknowledges it. She wishes she was home more than she enjoys being by his side. But there’s no option for her but to go along with his crazy ideas and violent actions.

The best thing about the film is the cinematography. I know that this is Malick’s whole deal, so I’m not really discovering anything new, but no review of this movie would be complete without mentioning the gorgeous shots. Malick takes nature and puts it in the forefront of his movie. Sequences take their time as we explore the surroundings of the characters, from bugs to plants and everything in between. There’s a scene of a house burning down that is filmed in such a way that it becomes almost a dream. In fact the whole film has a sort of dreamlike quality, despite the violence that infects it.

The movie takes no rush to get where it wants to go, but it’s fine. It still has a sense of motion, and is constantly building. Malick gets away with long shots of vistas and nature because every scene builds in the conflict of the characters, and raises the stakes. By the middle of the movie, you know there’s no way these two can turn back. By the end, you wonder how they made it so far.

Some of the music didn’t seem to age as well as the visuals, but it’s okay. Though at times it seems almost melodramatic to have such powerful music accompanying some scenes, it works on a certain level. Most of all, there’s no denying that there is a clear voice and influence behind this movie. It’s not a cookie-cutter studio film to make money, it is Malick’s baby, raised and nurtured by only him, and reflective of his image. It’s a fantastic feature debut, and I’m looking forward to seeing his other three films.

Final rating: 8/10

—James A. Janisse

Last week I watched (500) Days of Summer. I’ve heard a lot about this, and everyone around me seemed to adore the movie. I remember wanting to see it when it came out, but I never got around to it. Now I finally did. And I was a bit underwhelmed.

Maybe it’s because I had seen almost all of the first third of the movie in previews and review shows. Maybe it’s because although I think Zooey Deschanel is cute, I don’t think she’s the most attractive and endearing girl in the universe like some people do. I don’t know.

I enjoyed some of the aspects of the movie. The framing device is of course very cool and interesting. I love when movies aren’t chronological, and this is no exception. It provides a perfect means of comparing different points in a relationship. Other specific points that I heartily enjoyed were the music and dance sequence in the park, and the expectations vs. reality side-by-side part. These were all really interesting and captivated me for their entire duration.

But somewhere near the beginning of this movie, I was removed from a loving standpoint. This is an “Indie” style movie, not only in means of its production but also its genre. It’s true that “Indie” has taken a certain connotation now that stands separate from the related grouping of “independent” movies. They’re movies like Juno, where there’s indie music heavily featured, quirky characters who speak quirkily, and lots of drawn title cards and frames.

I’m not a fan of typical indie dialogue. It’s almost like it’s trying too hard to be unique and witty, and I feel like it ends up being very unnatural. That’s one of the major turn-off points of this movie for me. Even though my current relationship had some very strong parallels to the beginning of the filmic one, I just couldn’t believe that people behaved and talked this way. Maybe I don’t have cool, indie enough friends. Truth is, maybe I don’t want to.

I also wasn’t a fan of Deschanel’s Summer character. She just seemed cold and aloof, and I couldn’t see why Joseph Gordon-Levitt was so infatuated with her. Gordon-Levitt, by the way, does do a great job. He’s a strong leading actor that shows he can carry a movie, and he brings a nice breath of fresh air to a romantic comedy with an emotional yet grounded and reliable character.

In the end, I probably would have enjoyed this movie a lot more had I not seen so much of it before actually seeing the movie. Because of my pre-exposure to it, I ended up feeling like the dialogue was weak, and characters like Summer and the younger sister were just annoying. It still has a good story, a strong framing device, and enough cinematic tricks to keep you interested the entire duration, however. I just wish I could have loved it as much as everyone else did.

Final rating: 6/10

—James A. Janisse

Last week I watched West Side Story for my class on musicals here at U of M. I still have the mixed meter rhythm of America stuck in my head.

So I’ve never seen this movie, but of course I knew a lot about it. Somehow, I knew that it had won 10 Academy Awards, more than any other musical, yet I missed the fact that it was a rewrite of Romeo and Juliet. Oh well, I found it out soon enough, and away with this two and a half hour movie I went.

I’ll say right upfront that the length was a slight problem for me. It’s not that I don’t like long movies - some of the longer movies I’ve seen have also been some of the ones I’ve enjoyed the most. But the problem with West Side Story is that its length feels enhanced by the inclusion of a few slow and honestly boring songs that just sap the pace for me. Maybe it’s a personal distaste for slow songs, but I could have done without the three or four Tony/Maria songs (except for Tonight).

Besides that, there’s not too many bad things to say about the movie. Granted, the movie depicts gangs who do group plies while they patrol their street, but you just have to get over the fact that these are not your average Greasers. It’s like Danny Zuko and the T-Birds met up with the seven brothers with seven brides, and they all gave and took a little. No, I wouldn’t be afraid of Riff or Baby John either, but it’s a musical adapted from Broadway, so you just have to deal with it.

And once you do you can enjoy the hell out of yourself. You’ll definitely recognize at least three songs from the movie that you’d heard before but didn’t know their origins. The music in this film, done by Leonard Bernstein, is fantastic and catchy. Even the music that is just background or scored, without words, is some great jazzy riffs that really carry the film.

The story, adapted from one of the greatest storytellers of all time, is of course solid. The plethora of characters each carve out their own niche and make themselves memorable in their own way. Despite being made in the less-than-progressive year of 1961, I feel as though the film at least tries to offer a balanced view of the racial tension that makes its plot.

The direction and cinematography is what really did it for me, though. I don’t know who did more work, Robert Wise or Jerome Robbins, but the end result is a beautiful collection of shots that combine stasis and playful angles. It made the movie at least three times more enjoyable than a dull, standard shot/reverse shot fare would have provided.

I really enjoyed this movie, though it might not be for people who have a hard time watching old hokey movies or for people who don’t enjoy musicals. The length could also serve as a problem, but since the entirety of the movie is filled with fantastic music and great performances, it feels justified when you finish the film. West Side Story deserves its status as one of the greatest musicals of all time, and I feel enriched for having finally seen it.

Final rating: 8/10

—James A. Janisse