Florence Foster Jenkins

There are those famous for good things and those famous for bad things. And then there are those whose claim to fame is being so terrible at what they do, it almost becomes good. It's a narrow field to begin with but such people exist.

Stephen Frears' Florence Foster Jenkins focuses on one such person. Its subject is the titular socialite (Meryl Streep) who has a deep passion for singing. The only problem is that she can't carry a tune if her life depended on it. That doesn't stop her from pursuing her dreams.

As Frears has previously done with the likes of My Beautiful Laundrette and Dangerous Liaisons, Florence Foster Jenkins shows there's more to the characters than they initially let on. It's made clear early on that Florence has her eccentricities (apparently a common trait amongst the wealthy, both real and fictional) but she's just like the rest of us: searching for that true calling in life.

But Florence Foster Jenkins isn't just Streep's show. Also in the film are Hugh Grant (at his best since perhaps About A Boy) and Simon Helberg (who steals the show during Florence's first singing lesson). Though the film is about her, it focuses more on those two men in her life.

Regardless of that detail, Florence Foster Jenkins is still enjoyable in a heartbreaking sense. Much like Ed Wood, what's initially perceived as a comedy is more of a depiction of someone who yearns for their moment in the spotlight despite not enough know-how to get and stay there. In other words, Frears' film is more tragic than comic.

My Rating: ****1/2

Philomena

Stephen Frears' films are often ones I'm bound to like. He always garners lasting performances from his actors, a scenario I've noticed from every film I've seen by him. (I hope that's common amongst all of his films. Well, most of them.)

That trend continues quite strongly with his new film Philomena. As well as showcasing the work of its two leads, the film also takes a relatively heavy subject and adds a few well-placed touches of humor. (Though considering who one of the writers is, it makes sense.)

As many would know by now, Judi Dench is one of the best actresses working today. Here in Philomena, she adds yet another great performance to her long career. She balances the film's dramatic material and the script's comedic touches with ease. (Not many actors are capable of that.) Although Notes on a Scandal is my personal favorite, her work here can easily change that.

But the performance I was most surprised by was the one from Steve Coogan. Only familiar with him from 24 Hour Party People, I was really impressed by his compassionate work. Holding his own against Dench is one thing; giving one of the best supporting performances of the year is certainly another.

Philomena is simply one of those films that in the wrong hands would fail miserably. But thanks to Frears, Dench and Coogan, the film is easily one of the best films released this year. Be sure to see it.

My Rating: *****

Dirty Pretty Things

Early on in Stephen Frears' Dirty Pretty Things, it's established that Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor) isn't content with the life he's living. He studied to be a doctor but is currently working as a cab driver and a hotel receptionist. He's also an illegal immigrant from Nigeria living in London, so he has to keep his eyes open constantly.

Senay (Audrey Tatou) isn't exactly better off. She works at the same hotel as Okwe but she longs to live in New York City. And like Okwe, Senay is also an immigrant to London. (She's from Turkey.) But her hopes of going to the United States are appearing to become dashed because of the horrors she faces in London.

The performances Frears get out of Ejiofor and Tatou are quite mesmerizing. Take everything you know and love about Tatou in Amelie and throw them out the window. She's not a shy, lovelorn Frenchwoman here. She is instead a woman scared of the world she's a part of. It simply must be seen.

And even though Tatou got top billing (and her face on the poster), it's Ejiofor who's the star of Dirty Pretty Things. Like with many of his other roles, Ejiofor draws you in from the very moment he appears. (Not that many actors have that kind of charisma.) Again, it simply must be seen.

Although it's not the strongest of Frears' films, Dirty Pretty Things is still quite good. Thanks to the work from Ejiofor and Tatou (as well as a scene-stealing Sophie Okenedo), the film shows that the life you're living can become a dangerous one before you know it.

My Rating: ****

Prick Up Your Ears

Stormy affairs are ones Hollywood usually tends to avoid. After all, Hollywood's more interested in the ones that end happily ever after, not those that end on a bitter note.

Stephen Frears' Prick Up Your Ears is one such film. Chronicling the relationship between playwright Joe Orton (Gary Oldman) and Kenneth Halliwell (Alfred Molina), the film shows that opposites in fact do not attract. Sometimes it can result in violence.

Now I'm not too familiar with Orton or his work (I only know of how he met his fate), but Oldman shows what kind of person Orton was. He was a bit of a flamboyant person, more so when he met Halliwell. And Oldman makes this role his own.

Likewise, Molina is absolutely transfixing as Halliwell. Here is a man perpetually consumed by jealously. He's jealous of Orton's career taking off while his own falters, the men stealing his lover from him and most importantly, his inability to keep his life in order while Orton's carefree with his own. It's a great piece of acting.

Prick Up Your Ears is a mostly solid film. (Mostly because it does taper off every now and again.) Like what he did with his previous film My Beautiful Laundrette, Frears shows that there's no stigma to a same-sex relationship. And thanks to the work from Oldman, Molina and Vanessa Redgrave, it's worthy of a look.

My Rating: ****

My Beautiful Laundrette

Many films from the 1980s are either completely ridiculous action movies, horror movies that rely more on T & A than scares, and "dramas" whose main selling point was sex (and a lot of it). Thankfully, there were a number of films from the decade that were at least tasteful.

One such film was Stephen Frears' My Beautiful Laundrette. Set in London during Thatcher's reign, the film revolves around two men: hopeful Pakistani businessman Omar (Gordon Warnecke) and British punk Johnny (Daniel Day-Lewis). Both men are on different ends of the social spectrum, but that doesn't stop them from having an intimate relationship.

The way Frears shows Omar and Johnny's relationship is really beautiful. It's not an affair built on lust but rather desire. They never say "I love you" to each other but their body language says it for them. It's the subtlety of their relationship that I adore.

Along with the relationship, the film also handles a multitude of topics such as racism, the differences in social classes and sexual politics. Any other film would have been bogged down in these subjects but Frears knows how to limit himself. Another aspect of this film that I adore.

Anyway, My Beautiful Laundrette is a very lovely film. I'm all for romance films where the lovers speak volumes with body language than with verbal language and as stated above, this film depicts such an occurrence beautifully.

My Rating: *****

BOOK VS MOVIE: The Grifters

Crime is never a good thing in real life, but it provides excellent material for fiction. (This is coming from someone who likes a good film noir every now and again.) It's just very bewitching to see good people go bad.

The protagonists of The Grifters are just bad people getting worse. The leading man is a con artist, his mother works for the mob, and his mistress uses her wits and body to get what she wants. The very people that reside in a good noir.

Jim Thompson's novel displays dialogue that's simple yet speaks volumes. You can just pick up the pulpiness within every word Thompson wrote. It's different from Hammett or Chandler because what's written is much more grittier.

Stephen Frears' film captures that seediness of Thompson's novel. Frears even gets some great performances from Anjelica Huston, John Cusack and Annette Bening. They knew how to show the nasty side of their characters.

Of course, both are different in regards with certain aspects. The film omits a few scenes from the novel. The novel is a bit darker than the film. But all in all, Frears stays true to what Thompson wrote but with a modern twist.

What's worth checking out?: The movie.

Dangerous Liaisons

Whoever said the late 1700's were a time of civility clearly never saw Stephen Frears' adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons. Trust me, civility is the last thing on the characters' minds.

Glenn Close has always been a great actress. (And yet no Oscar to prove it!) This and Fatal Attraction show how heartless her roles can be. She's as cold as a block of ice, and she's damn effective. The last few scenes of her show the extent of her being.

John Malkovich, like Close, knows what he's doing here. He too is cold, but not as cold as Close. It's a hell of a performance from him, perhaps the best of his career.

Michelle Pfeiffer is different from Close and Malkovich. Unlike their very present frigidness, she provides the only warmth in the whole film. She isn't false in any of her emotions like Malkovich clearly is. Another great performance out of Dangerous Liaisons.

Dangerous Liaisons is a great film, but I found the storyline a tad disjointed. Along with Close, Malkovich and Pfeiffer, there's also some great work from a young Uma Thurman. (Also, what the hell is Keanu Reeves doing in this?) This is for those craving a darker view on the 1700's.

My Rating: ****1/2

BOOK VS MOVIE: High Fidelity

When an adaptation of a book comes to theaters, it's really rare to have it true to the book. Some miss the mark (The Shining), while some manage to hit it dead-on (Rosemary's Baby). If you're wondering where High Fidelity falls in, it's the latter.

After his girlfriend Laura breaks up with him, Rob examines five past relationships to see what went wrong. He also talks about his love of music, since he owns a record store.

I appreciate the fact that Stephen Frears has his movie stay mostly true to Nick Hornby's book (mostly true because the movie's set in Chicago; the book's set in England). Along with that, both are well worthwhile.

What's worth checking out?: I'd go with both.