*spoilers throughout*

Anya and I went to see "North Country" yesterday. Overall, the movie was pretty good, though I have a few gripes with the movie.

This is one of those movies where many of the individual parts are better than the overall equation itself. In particular, the acting was top notch. I thought each of the actors were believable in the characters they created. Charlize Theron gave another knock out performance, and I would not be surprised to see her nominated for another Oscar. Whether or not she wins is largely dependant on what other great acting performances come down the pipe between now and then.

Woody Harrelson, Sissy Spacek, and Frances McDormand all gave real and believable performances. I wouldn't be surprised to see any of them *nominated* for some kind of supporting actor awards.

The movie was sprinkled with both old and new Bob Dylan songs, so that was pretty cool. Dylan is from around that same Northern Minnesota area, so I would imagine that the songs he wrote came from some area of his own personal biography.

My main gripe with this movie is that it seems to be a bit formulaic and a tad too didactic. Politically and socially aware movies have to walk a thin line between getting the message, morals, and themes across without turning it into a two hour "message" movie. Movies like "Network," "The Insider," and "Traffic" are examples of movies that perfectly walked the line of getting their messages across without beating the viewer over the head.

There were times when I felt the message of the movie was just "too present" in what was being said by the actors. For example, there was an interaction between the mining company CEO and the female lawyer who argued their case. I thought it was a bit too heavy handed how the CEO just outright told the lawyer that the only reason why she was picked was because she was a woman. I think that scene would have worked better had that notion been more heavily implied, instead of outright spoken.

Another example would be the seemingly contrived ending of everyone in the courtroom standing up in solidarity with Charlize Theron. It's understandable that her case was monumental and that it literally changed the landscape of how companies treat issues like sexual harassment. But I thought that the ending was just a tad too heavy handed.

Another complaint I had with the movie is that I *thought* it was going to be a movie about a woman taking on a big mining company. I didn't know that the movie was actually going to devote a lot of its time dealing with Charlize Theron's sexual past. I understand the movie used her sexual past as a tool to bring people forward about the harassment case, but it kind of ventured off the path that the movie had been on.

You think that this movie's going to be an Erin Brockovich'ian tale of a woman taking on her multi-billion dollar mining company. Instead, it turns into a woman taking on her sexual past, when her sexual past should have had absolutely NO bearing on that case. It felt contrived. But then again, if that really happened in the trial, then they did the right thing by keeping it in the movie. But if not, then it's a total Hollywood contrivance.

If I want to watch a movie about how society views a persons past in terms of a rape trial, I'll go and watch "The Accused."

But overall, it's a pretty good movie. If it sounds like I'm coming down hard on this movie, I am and I'm not. If I had to give this movie a grade, it'd get a high B. It's really well acted, edited, and shot. But the complaints listed above really brought the movie down for me.

matt out