Mer_Girl_Fits_Heaven

Far from the best or worst picture of the year, W.E. is certainly the most intriguing. It tells the story of Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough) and the New York housewife who is obsessed with her in 1998 (played by Abbie Cornish). This is not a straightforward historical film, nor is it trying to be. Instead, the film is a mediation on celebrity, history and the way people search in those realms for meaning in their own lives. For example, Wally in 1998 is trapped in a loveless marriage where she is virtually ignored by everyone, so she imagines Wallis as utterly fabulous, and adored by the man who abdicated for her. "What are you thinking about?" she is asked at one point. She responds, "What it must feel like to be loved that much". Madonna hits that nail right on its head, and this premise is the reason she can't tell the story from a straight historical perspective--celebrities really only exist in our heads. Madonna likely knows this better than anyone. For this reason, Wally waves away her idols alleged Nazi sympathies and the possibility that she and Edward's marriage was not all that it seemed, because in New York in 1998, she needs to believe that love can be eternal. In this context, the much maligned scenes in which Wallis appears to Wally to give advice make perfect sense. All celebrities and historical figures really are figments of our imaginations anyway.

In the end, the theme is that people should not obsess over celebrities, but should "get a life" of their own. This brings us to the films one serious downfall. The audience is forced to spend more than half the movie with Wally, who is beyond boring and unsympathetic. This can be blamed on the script and the performance by Abbie Cornish, who never seems to do any more than pose and read lines. The character was never believable or engaging, and the script must resort to over the top melodrama to move her story along. In short, the 1998 storyline is a mess, and you'd think that a film whose premise is that celebrity-obsessed people need to get a life would have known better than to focus on an obsessed fan with no life.

That said, everything with Wallis is spot on, better even than anything found in "The King's Speech" (2010). Andrea Riseborough, who plays Wallis accomplishes in a single scene what Abbie Cornish couldn't in all of the movie. She makes us admire and care for the woman she's playing. She has a charisma (much like the director herself) that guarantees the indulgence of the audience. She is going to be naughty, and we're going to love her for it.

And thus you have the most interesting movie of the year: half masterpiece, half slog. If the 1931 storyline had been stretched out to 90 minutes, and the 1998 one reduced to 10 or 15, this would have been one of the best films of the year. As it is, it a tremendous curiosity.

I must mention, however, the best scene in the movie, featuring an elderly Wallis and a dying Edward. I shan't give it away except to say that it captures perfectly both the sweetness of enduring love and the sadness, and inevitability of age and death. Where I was laughing derisively at the previous scene, this one had me in tears before it was through. Like I said, a very interesting experience.

I have refrained from mentioning its superstar director, because most critics can't seem to see past their feelings about her as a person. Still, I can't help but note that Madonna is vastly better suited to depict the lifestyles of the rich and fabulous, than the dreary doldrums of us common-folk.

The makers of Iron Man 2 should be commended for preserving most of the things that made part I so successful, without overdoing anything. Robert Downey Junior is wonderful as ever (though his playboy antics walk a very fine line between amusing and over-the-top). And Gwyneth Paltrow is lovely and charismatic as Pepper Pots, a rare superhero love interest who is attractive, intelligent and dignified in an understated way, which is something you don't often see in action pictures where women's independence is acceptable as an over-the-top novelty.

Unfortunately, the goodwill generated by Paltrow's performance as an effortlessly worthy woman is squandered a bit on Scarlett Johanson, who is physically beautiful, but subscribes to the female-in-an-action-movie norm. She is too skinny to be a viable action hero, and dressed so slinkily that her sole function is clearly that of a sex object.

The biggest problem with this movie is Samel L. Jackson, who has played the same role so many times he kills your suspension of disbelief. The man on screen is clearly Samuel L. Jackson wearing an eyepatch. His presence serves only as a distraction. Don Cheadle is a fine actor, but no better than Terrence Howard, and its a shame the filmmakers couldn't have brought him back.

Otherwise, the film has some problems with logical plotting and characters' motivations aren't always clear (i.e. the brawl between Iron Men at Tony's birthday party). However, it is funny, entertaining, exciting, and subtly thoughtful, with implications about world peace and arms dealing which feels like a breath of fresh air amidst all the current action pictures' assumption that their audiences have a 2nd grade comprehension level.

The bottom line is, if you liked part I, you'll enjoy part II.

The acting is pretty solid and the characters are appealing, when they're not being butchered by terrible writing. It is obvious that the writer thought to himself "Hmmm, they've got to get from point A to point B, how can I do that in the least amount of time possible?" The result is that, as your getting to like the characters and feel for their situations, the script goes a$$-backwards for a few minutes, only to right itself. I'll only describe one example--the opening scene, so it really doesn't count as a spoiler. A girl and her mother are waiting on a subway platform. Two men steal the mother's purse then get on the train. For some reason, the door to the subway closes and then opens again, and the thief shoots the mother--FOR NO GOOD REASON. The only explanation for this behaviour is that the man is a psychopath. But since this movie isn't about him, why waste the audience's energy trying to decipher his motivation? The whole scene is pointless.

All the major plot points in this movie develop that way. Yet in between nonsensical behaviour, the characters are quite likable, and we're enjoying watching Tyler and Aly fall in love, and then --

--WHAM! "Hold on! I'm confused. Has he been like this all the time or is it an isolated incident? Why did he do that?"--

--In my attempts to maintain spoiler free I didn't describe the scenario, but lets just say it came out of the blue and exists solely so that Aly can move in with Tyler, and is then forgotten. The movie goes back to functioning rationally, only to be screwed over again and again by ridiculous plot twists to get the ball rolling.

I won't spoil the ending, but I will say it's depressing. Not just sad...depressing. Ultimately, I was glad I saw this movie because when its good it is quite good. Most of the characters are interesting enough that I would have liked the writer to flesh them out, rather than fall back on epic clichés in moments of crisis. I'll tell you again, though. This movie is depressing. Titanic is sad. Shakespeare in love is sad. This movie is depressing. Consider yourself warned.