The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

2/5

When I first heard about David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button a year ago, I must admit I was very excited. But the more I saw trailers for it, the less and less thrilled I became. And when I finally saw the movie, my feelings had turned completely dead to what I originally thought was an innovative concept. I don't know why it happened, but I'm sad that it did, because I was unable to truly enjoy this movie. After thinking about what it meant to age backwards, to see everyone you "grew up" with die, to love someone and lose them, I let those thoughts all percolate in my mind. And by the time I saw the movie, there was nothing new for me to take away from it.

If you strip out the gimmick, you'll see that the story itself is fairly plain and uninteresting. It's as if they wanted to make a new Forrest Gump but ran out of interesting stories and just went with second-rate ones. And it's long. You can try convincing yourself that it's a sweeping epic, but you'd just be lying to yourself. It was like watching Ben Stein read War and Peace. The acting was all right, although I never really felt it to be a powerful or emotionally gripping piece. The romance was unconvincing and quite frightening actually. The pacing was lethargic, and many worthless scenes were kept when they should have been cut. The best thing that can be said about this movie is its visual style. Fincher knows good cinematography. And with that, seamlessly integrating CGI into it. Even in that regard, however, it resembled a Jeunet picture (Amelie, A Very Long Engagement) more than a Fincher picture (Seven, Zodiac) because the tones were much warmer than I'm used to seeing from Fincher. Fincher directing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button felt like Lynch directing The Elephant Man.

Overall, I have to say I'm very disappointed with this film. I don't know how "bad" it is, but I do know I got nothing out of it. I can see others enjoying it, but I don't know how deep their appreciation for it really goes. To me, it felt like the filmmakers took a great concept and wrote 3 hours of filler around it. And much like Memento, we're left with a movie that a lot of people like for its initial idea, but is ultimately a subpar, immature, unfinished picture. At its heart, there's really nothing this film has to offer me except negative three hours and negative eight bucks.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421715/

Valkyrie (2008)

4/5

Bryan Singer's Valkyrie is a superbly-made thriller based on the true story of Operation Valkyrie, an attempt by German officers to assassinate Hitler and stage a coup against the SS/Gestapo. As we all know, the operation failed, but I had no idea how close it was to succeeding. If only this one small thing had been different, if only that one person had done something else, and the entire course of human history could have been so dramatically altered. Watching this movie, I felt that tension, that what-if, that hope that the past could be rewritten. Singer has not only crafted an exhilarating thriller, but has also managed to make us forget what actually happened, if only for a moment.

I have no idea how historically accurate this movie is, and can only assume it is more inaccurate than accurate. That doesn't bother me. Some people may have come into the movie expecting a historical drama, and it may bother those people, but the movie is no such thing. It is a first-rate thriller, and knowing that will help you appreciate the elements that add to the suspense and forgive any poetic license or lack of characterization. The movie did what it set out to do expertly. Of all Singer's direction, what stands out most is the pacing and mood. We are drawn in so intimately to the plot, to every minuscule victory and defeat, that we fail to realize our knuckles getting whiter from clenching our fists so tightly in anticipation of the events to come. Every other facet of the film is either above average or at the very least adequate. Despite being much-maligned in a number of scathingly negative reviews, I found Cruise's performance to be "perfectly satisfactory," to quote Ebert's review. I was a bit perplexed by the inclusion of certain unnecessary scenes, but they were few and far between and easily forgivable. All in all, this delivered on every expectation I had going in. Any World War II buffs looking to learn more about Operation Valkyrie might want to stick to the History Channel and pass on this movie. But if you're a fan of suspense and were intrigued by the trailer, I highly recommend you check this out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/

Burn After Reading (2008)

4/5

Burn After Reading starts with Malkovich being fired from his job as a CIA analyst. His righteous irateness is immediately hilarious, but also becomes a part of his character as the film progresses. His job loss sends his wife Swinton to a divorce lawyer, and she copies his private files to a disc for her financial security. The disc is lost in a health club, where trainers Pitt and McDormand find it and try to use it to blackmail Malkovich. Swinton is also cheating on Malkovich with Clooney, who meets McDormand through online dating and cheats on both his wife and Swinton with her too. Oh, and Simmons is in there as the CIA head and voice of reason who verbalizes just how confusing and meaningless the entire movie was. If that simplification of the plot was too complicated to follow, then you might not enjoy this movie. But if you can wade through that morass, or if you just don't care about plot, then this could be the comedy for you. Why?

Because the Coens are amazing. Amazing writers, producers, editors, directors. They are amazing at everything they do. Burn After Reading is another comedic hit that further confirms my faith in their constant and consistent ability to impress. No matter the genre, be it a western cat-and-mouse chase or a doofus spy thriller, they manage to transform it into a dark comedy. And because of this, the film becomes its own unique creation, the world is completely new to us, and we have no idea what we'll witness on the journey the Coens take us through. The acting is spot-on, the writing memorable, and the mood flawlessly evoked. The shots are beautiful, the compositions precise, the movements natural. Everything the Coens put in this movie--from bizarre phrases to peculiar mannerisms--is put in with such conviction and certainty that you watch the movie with the feeling that this is so right. I can't even get into specifics, because I would just gush worthless hyperbole. If you love the Coens, this will not disappoint. If you don't "get" them, then this is not the movie to change your mind. But I'm so glad to be in the former group.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/

Doubt (2008)

3/5

Doubt, a movie by John Patrick Shanley based on his play of the same name, is about a nun (Meryl Streep) in a Catholic school who suspects the priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) of molesting a young child. As far as the acting goes, this movie is the one to see. Shanley is able to bring out amazing performances from his entire cast--I had no idea Amy Adams could pull out the tour de force she did. The others are perhaps superior acting jobs, and theirs are definitely more extensive and sustained, but Adams's portrayal of a recently-hired and innocent nun was the revelation for me. She exuded such emotion--such tenderness and honesty--that I was completely beside myself with empathy.

In addition to the acting, I was impressed by Deakins's cinematography, which you could tell Shanley was trying to use to separate the movie from the play. When adapting a play to the silver screen, you're losing the vivacity and involvement of a live performance, so the film needs to bring something else to the table, which has historically been in the form of cinematography. But while the cinematography was excellent, it wasn't enough to make it a memorable adaptation. The rest of the movie was not as great as I had anticipated. The script was underwhelming. Being a Tony- and Pulitzer-winning play, I was expecting phenomenal. And phenomenal is not what I got. I loved the dialogue, but the story could have used a lot of work. Everything is hinted at, bushes are beaten around, and nothing is revealed. Even if you pay strict attention the entire time, it's easy to miss out on huge plot points if you're not thinking the same thing they are. Still, the movie was pretty much what I expected, but just a bit weaker in quality than I hoped for. Definitely watch it if the trailer appealed to you.

Oh, and apparently Streep's glasses were anachronistic, but I did not find that to be distracting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0918927/

When Harry Met Sally (1989)

4.9/5

Rob Reiner's When Harry Met Sally is one of those nearly flawless romantic comedies that will never be forgotten. It is so ingrained in our culture that it invades our subconscious views on dating and relationships and we cannot imagine a world where those now-obvious opinions were never before voiced. The writing is brilliant. The words Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan speak are provocative and poignant, and worst of all true. Their acting is so fluid and genuine, it is difficult to imagine anyone else playing those characters. The diner scene is simply unrivaled in the genre of romantic comedy; nothing comes close. Even Rob Reiner's directing impressed me. Much like Annie Hall, although not nearly at that same level, this film contains a number of creative cinematic touches that give it a uniqueness and individuality that help make it memorable (the double phone call, the couples' stories). As an aside, I didn't find much to enjoy in the music, cinematography, or editing, but who really cares?

For me, I was a bit conflicted. It reminded me way too much of Seinfeld and it was nearly impossible to separate the two. If you are a big Seinfeld fan, you will find yourself comparing the two nonstop, and it is a bit maddening. The same problem arises if you're an Annie Hall fan. Meg Ryan dresses in a bizarre, hideous, almost repulsive manner throughout the entire movie, perhaps in an effort to highlight her singularity, but all it does is mar the memory of Diane Keaton's style in Annie Hall. I didn't realize how much I hated it until I wrote this review, but it really is that awful. Anyway, great movie, with a few caveats. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you watch it now. And if you have seen it before, why not watch it again?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/

Role Models (2008)

4/5

Role Models stars Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott as Danny and Wheeler, two advertisers for Minotaur energy drink. Danny hates every new trend and saying and he picks fights with everyone who uses them. He's in a rut, and when he tries to shake things up with an impromptu and rather lame proposal to his girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks), she dumps him. In a fit of anger, he does some highly illegal things in the Minotaur truck with Wheeler, and they both get sentenced to do community service with the Sturdy Wings mentoring program as punishment. The rest of the movie is the expected, predictable journey of maturation and development that Danny and Wheeler undergo, with the requisite melodramatic loss of trust and triumphant winning back of love.

Still, the movie manages to impress. The humor starts off a little subdued, but quickly builds with incessant, nearly ubiquitous sexual innuendo and laugh-out-loud situations. The writing is phenomenal, throwing in little jokes and asides that give the movie flair and individuality and ensuring you quote it long after its ending. There are no major complaints I have from a technical standpoint. The one thing I didn't like was the two bits of nudity in the movie; they were completely unnecessary, thrown in for seemingly no other reason than because they already had an R rating for language and figured they might as well get more bang for their buck, literally. At the very least, the use of nudity wasn't distasteful or overindulgent, so for that I'm thankful. Anyway, I have only very minor complaints with this altogether enjoyable and entertaining movie experience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430922/

Hancock (2008)

3/5

Peter Berg's Hancock is a mildly humorous action comedy that was unable to live up to my rather simple expectations. When I saw all the names associated with its creation, I guess I just assumed it would be better than it was. But despite Peter Berg's direction, the action was vapid and uninspired. Despite Will Smith and Jason Bateman's involvement, the comedy was unremarkable; there was just enough humor to keep it afloat and no more. The trailer had every predictable plot point and every good joke. Surprisingly, however, the movie threw us a complete curve ball about 2/3 of the way in, with an absolutely preposterous turn of events that I was not the biggest fan of. This concoction was a plot twist I could not foresee from watching the trailer. I was also taken aback when I saw some good drama, and some cleverness in answering a few questions I had pertaining to said ludicrous plot twist. And, for the first time, Charlize Theron actually played a character who was supposed to be hot! Which was wonderful. All in all, though, a quickly forgettable movie with just enough good moments to barely hold your interest throughout.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/

Sullivan's Travels (1941)

3/5

Sullivan's Travels starts off with a truly inspired comic moment that the rest of the movie just doesn't seem to live up to. The plot follows the movie director Sullivan (McCrea) who gets sick of making comedies and musicals in a time of depression and wants to create a picture that means something to people. He decides to live as a tramp to understand what trouble is, to experience the lows of the human condition. Along the way he meets a washed-up actress (Lake) who discovers his intentions and asks to join him. As far as comedy goes, this movie just isn't that funny. At least, not consistently so. There are some moments that made me laugh out loud, but they were few and far between.

While it drops off for the middle half hour, things start to get much more interesting and intricate at about the hour mark. Through an unexpected and surprising chain of events, the comedy seems to veer off into the dismal and depressing. I appreciate the attempt at valuation and redemption, but I wanted a comedy, and a comedy I did not get. Technically, the film was a little better than average, with some quality compositions and a number of long takes. I particularly love the way the story comes back full circle, although the movie doesn't really heed its own advice. I definitely recommend it for some, just know that it's neither an especially great comedy or an especially great drama.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034240/

Gattaca (1997)

4/5

Gattaca takes place in the not-too-distant future where genetically engineered children are the norm and babies made out of love are scorned and treated like dirt. They are forced to become the janitors to the better off, for no other reason than because their genes show a higher predisposition to heart disease or other illness. Their DNA matters more than their willpower. In this dystopian future we find Ethan Hawke as an "In-Valid" who dreams of going into space. He takes on the identity of a recently-paralyzed Jude Law and is soon on his way to the stars. When the mission director is unexpectedly murdered, he must keep his secret from getting out.

This wonderful treat is a provocatively-envisioned and beautifuly-shot film. The acting is spot-on, although the characters themselves can be a bit dull and uninteresting. The set and costume design are impeccable, both believable and beautiful. The editing and music are nothing to write home about, except for the audacious Schubert played as only a twelve-fingered pianist could. This movie gives you something to think about and talk about long after the film ends, and isn't that reason enough to watch it?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

Quantum of Solace (2008)

3/5

The new James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, has just as many problems as the last Bond movie, if not more, and not too many improvements. There are no gadgets. There's no Q or Moneypenny. He doesn't make love to the main actress. And he's not really a spy--this was James Bond playing Jason Bourne. (There was even a fight scene that almost replicated the kitchen fight scene in The Bourne Ultimatum.) The movie starts about an hour after Casino Royale left off, but since I didn't remember all the characters and double-crosses from that movie, this one had a far more incomprehensible plot than it needed to. (Think Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.) When will the creators get some sense into them and bring back the old James Bond we know and love? It's been formulaic for 45 years because people love the formula.

I did like a few things. The title sequence in particular was very retro and very cool. It was a truly action-packed movie, with little time to catch your breath. I thought the directing was far superior to what it's been in the past, especially with regards to editing and cinematography. At the very least, these two latest Bond movies are better than Die Another Day, which I had the displeasure of catching on TV last night and wholeheartedly recommend you avoid at all costs. But Quantum of Solace is an entertaining flick, so check it out if you're a Bond fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/

Wedding Crashers (2005)

4/5

The Wedding Crashers is a hilarious, vulgar, tender romantic comedy. With so many disparate moods, it's a miracle it feels so fluid and put together. The story follows two best buds (Wilson and Vaughn) who crash weddings together; that is, they go to weddings and prey on horny singles seeking true love. It sounds a lot creepier typed out than it plays on the screen. They've been doing it for 12 years and Wilson wants to get out, but he falls in love on his last big crash. And oh no! She's getting married to a creep who sucks! Who could have predicted that? Anyway, it all ends happily ever after as expected, and it's a joy ride along the way.

There are some problems. To start with, there are way too many random and unnecessary moments, scenes, jokes, etc. There is a lot of gratuitous nudity and crude sexual humor. It's certainly more of a guy movie than a girl movie because of it. And it used more wipes than Star Wars combined with Pan's Labyrinth. The ending was a bit drawn out, and they kept adding more and more side characters as the movie went on. Most of the time, all this crap was added in for the jokes, but after a while it just got kind of repetitive. Regardless, it's a thoroughly enjoyable movie and a fun break from the real world.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396269/

The Happening (2008)

3/5

M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening starts with a stunning intro credit sequence. An elegant and evocative precursor to the movie, the tranquil movement of clouds as they pass by subtly turns menacing. An airborne toxin is blocking people's "survival" neurotransmitters and causing them to commit suicide. This is a terrifying concept, but perhaps more terrifying is not what this toxin does to those affected, but what it does to those unaffected and afraid, those still human enough to make their own decisions and suffer the consequences. The visuals are eerie and memorable, the music effective, and the pacing perfect. I'm actually very impressed with Shyamalan's progress as a technical director. Unfortunately, that's where the positives end.

There are a wide number of odd situations, side stories, and actions. Not odd in a thought-provoking way, but odd in an inexplicable and unrelated way that makes you wonder why it's in the movie at all. It often made the acting seem hollow and unnatural and made other aspects of the movie confusing as well. While Shyamalan's message against urbanization and deforestation was fine at first, it was pounded into the audience's head in an awfully heavy-handed way by the time the movie ended. Mark Wahlberg was perhaps not the best choice as the main character, mostly due to the way he talked and because I associated him with the recent SNL skit and was waiting for him to ask me to say hello to my mother for him. All in all, I really enjoyed watching the movie. It lived up to my expectations and I recommend it to anyone who was excited about it when they saw the trailers for it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/

The Lady Eve (1941)

4/5

The Lady Eve starts off with a cartoon snake planting shiny apples on a tree. And from this Biblical story of temptation and the battle of the sexes comes a classic romantic comedy of the same with countless references back to its origins. A father-daughter con team finds their mark in a clumsy, straitlaced rich boy named Pike (Fonda). The daughter (Stanwyck) finds herself falling in love with the man, but their devious intentions find their way to the forefront and get in the way of their happiness. In between the moments of bittersweet melodrama, there are some very clever moments that not only make you smile, but also laugh out loud. The writing excels in both the plotting and the dialogue to create, in combination with spot-on acting, a pristine, unforgettable movie.

The camerawork and editing are rather ordinary for the most part, although there are a few moments where they still manage to surprise and astound you with each. Despite some amazing writing, there are also a number of gags and gimmicks that seem too stupid or simple for the rest of the movie. There are also some awkward fade-out transitions that seem sudden and/or out of place. These are all rather minor niggles with an otherwise intelligent and immensely enjoyable film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033804/

Final Destination 3 (2006)

1/5

Almost an exact replica of the first one, except with a roller coaster instead of an airplane, Final Destination 3 manages to break no new ground and sap out the humor that was infused into the series with the second one. Absolutely nothing kept my attention or interest. The boring, uninspired deaths were few and far between. The acting was absolutely atrocious, as was the characterization, writing, cinematography, editing, and anything else you can think of that might describe a movie. I'm not even gonna wait until the movie ends to post this review, because I am 100% certain that not even Scorsese, Tarantino, and the Coen brothers working together could come up with something that had the potential to undo the damage this film has already done in the first hour. My suggestion? If TNT ever shows all three in a row as it did tonight, avoid my mistake and just watch the first two.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414982/

Final Destination 2 (2003)

2/5

Final Destination 2 was about as good/awful as the first one, but I wouldn't expect anything less from the director of Snakes on a Plane. As the first movie started with a premonition where everybody dies, so did this one. That was easily one of the best parts of the movie, as you got to see a ton of people die in the most preposterous fashions imaginable. The stakes are upped this time, with about twice as many unrelated victims succumbing to Death's whims. And Death is especially creative and persevering for this movie. It's nonstop action coupled with nonstop laughs. The director is well aware of how absurd the premise is, and manages to poke fun at the film (the ending is particularly hilarious). Another thing I liked about the movie was the explanation for why it was happening again (others' lives were affected inadvertently and they too must pay). All in all, a relatively light horror-comedy that isn't the worst thing I've seen Hollywood produce.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309593/

Final Destination (2000)

2/5

Final Destination is about a boy (Sawa) who can see the future. He gets off a flight to France because of a premonition, along with about five other people, and as soon as the plane takes off, it explodes. When his best friend (who had also gotten off the plane) dies in a freak accident soon after, he realizes that Death is "tying up loose ends." The boy and the few others he saved try to fend off all the possible ways that Death might reclaim them, but Death has a few unexpected surprises for them. If that doesn't sound exciting to you, I don't know what will!

This movie is a thrill rush--a poorly-acted, poorly-written, poorly-filmed thrill rush. Still, I have to admit, I don't really regret watching it. I loved seeing the build-up to the freak accidents. But even better than that was how the filmmakers tricked you into thinking someone would die in one way only to have them die in a completely unexpected alternate manner. The ludicrous nature of the deaths was also often hilarious. If you're anything like me, I'm sure you'd enjoy this movie, so don't turn it off if it comes on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195714/

Stuck on You (2003)

3/5

The Farrelly brothers' Stuck on You is a surprisingly tender comedy about two conjoined twins who own the Quikee Burger fast food joint. Walt (Kinnear) wants to be an actor, while Bob (Damon) enjoys running their restaurant. They each find their true loves in Eva Mendes and Wen Yann Shih respectively, although not immediately and not without obstacles on the way. Through random events, they end up meeting both Cher and Meryl Streep, who unintentionally and unexpectedly skyrocket Walt's career. His fame causes a rift between the two brothers, but the movie ends with a happy ever after.

There were far more hilarious, clever, and subtle moments and far fewer gimmicky, simple jokes than I would've thought. The plot was remarkably unpredictable, although that was partially because most of the movie seemed to happen by chance. The characters were surprisingly nuanced and sympathetic, although they often acted in a very slapstick and over-the-top manner. All in all, I had a great time watching this movie and would definitely recommend you not change the channel if and when it comes on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338466/

Raging Bull (1980)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull is a true masterpiece, one that asks hard questions and gives no easy answers. Shot in gritty black and white, it tells the true story of boxer Jake La Motta's rise to stardom and eventual disappearance from the limelight. Watching it a second time, I found the film surprisingly noir. Here we have a man fated for self-destruction, unable to control his excessive temper and inhuman jealousy. We have a tragic antihero, a flawed man whose rage grants him success in the ring and ensures his downfall outside of it. We witness a filthy, vulgar underground; we are awash in blood and sweat and raw anger. It is an experience we will never forget.

What everyone remembers when they first see this movie is De Niro's undeniably skilled portrayal of La Motta. And for good reason--it is a powerful, gripping performance. Some have zeroed in on Pesci's equally talented acting job, and one equally worthy of praise. But what I cannot get out of my mind after this viewing is Thelma Schoonmaker's brilliant editing and Scorsese's unerring cinematic eye. Together, they are simply on a level all their own. The overarching structure reveals just as much as the content therein. The camera movements, the decision to film in long takes or quick cuts, are crucial to our experience of it. We remember snapshots in time, we remember the shift of conversations, of moments in time, and of changes in emotions because the techniques employed are subtle and subconscious. The sheer technical bravado on display is jaw-dropping. It is through the editing and cinematography that we truly live this movie, that it takes on realism that few other movies have been able to replicate. As I said before, it is an experience we will never forget.

To watch this movie is to submit yourself to a terrifying worldview, to violence in the ring and abuse in the home, to unwarranted jealousy in the face of true fidelity, to paranoia that can forever damage family ties, and to the fears of inadequacy. To a man who desparately wants to change and cannot. This movie is effective at bypassing your mental defenses, which makes it all the more difficult to sit through. It plays with time, color, and words, seemingly innocently but ultimately to devastating effect. The few short moments filmed in color we see happiness; these fleeting memories occur in the midst of pain and destruction. Is it to punish us or to encourage us? And at the end, is there redemption? You must watch this movie and determine the answers for yourself. For me, I cannot recommend it enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/

Rendition (2007)

4/5

Rendition is a skillfully-crafted and provocative thriller that puts human faces on the unjust way in which our system of laws can be used and exploited. A chemical engineer (Metwally) on his way back from South Africa is taken away by cops in an airport in DC and sent to a secret prison facility where he is to be tortured by non-US officials for information on a recent suicide bombing as a CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal) watches. His wife (Witherspoon) tries her hardest to find out what's happened to her husband, even going so far as to call up an old boyfriend (Sarsgaard) who works for a senator (Arkin). It turns out that the senator has connections with the woman (Streep) who authorized his rendition. When all laid out in just a few sentences, the plot does sound a bit coincidental and unrealistic. However, when you watch the movie, you see a film that is sympathetically acted, intricately poignant, and effortlessly believable.

The movie had a strong technical base off of which to build its narrative. The shots were beautiful, the editing well-paced, and the music heart-pounding. As a result of all three factors, the build up to the climax was palpably tense. And while the acting was spot-on, the writing and dialogue could have used a little work. Half the time they went out of their way to make what was going on explicit, while the other half of the time they assumed the audience knew what had happened or the characters correctly predicted everything that was going on, despite it all being classified top secret. These small errors aside, this gripping thriller based on the government's anti-terrorism policies is well worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/

Modern Times (1936)

5/5

Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times is both an uproarious comedy and a searing indictment of technological advances. The humor, while not as strong or as flawless as in City Lights, is still light years ahead of 90% of what you see in any contemporary comedy. The message and thematics, on the other hand, are where the film really excels. They are not only better than 90% of what you see in any contemporary drama, but also better than what you see in any of his other work. It is altogether fluid, consistent, and powerful without being glossed over, annoying, or blunt. This may be the most entertaining and enjoyable movie I have seen that managed to be equally thought-provoking and intelligent.

The movie follows our lovable tramp and a vagrant girl as they get tossed around by the randomness and injustice of the world. Both fight against conformity and the overwhelming pressures of a herd mentality. Of course the movie uses the factory as a representation of our loss of individuality and humanity (expressed perhaps most vividly in the now famous scene where the tramp is physically propelled through the cogs of a machine) but it is easily updated to our own modern times. How many people do you see surfing the internet on their laptops in coffeeshops? How many people do you see walking the streets with bowed heads typing out emails on their BlackBerrys? We are often forced into such a technological behemoth to live and function, but the movie urges us to escape: to sacrifice our chance at success in order to live a more fulfilling life.

Technically, Chaplin is still a master. The music is reminiscent of greater works (Rhapsody in Blue, for example), but tweaked just enough to properly set the stage. His camera movements are natural and evocative, his compositions superb. The pacing and editing are immaculate; so much is said in so little. The acting is pitch-perfect. Chaplin effortlessly walks the line between expressive and over-the-top. He brings a love and tenderness to his character that makes us empathize with him to the point where we want to jump into the picture itself and hug him. And then he makes us explode with laughter. Here we see a genius and a true auteur at his creative peak, and we are in awe at what he is able to accomplish.

The movie is not without a few minor flaws. As I said previously, it is not his funniest work. Much of the plot seems to wander between scenes with little coherence or relation to each other, although that is perhaps its point. And while I like the message for the discussion it can bring up, I don't completely agree with its implications. Maybe I am in denial and just don't want to agree. Still, this is a must-see classic that I cannot imagine will be soon forgot. Unless, of course, it doesn't get re-transfered onto the latest generation higher-definition video discs.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027977/

The Lucky Ones (2008)

4/5

Neil Burger's The Lucky Ones is a surprisingly poetic, true-to-life dramedy about three soldiers coming back from Iraq. Tim Robbins plays Cheever, a married man coming home to his wife and college-bound son. Michael Peña plays TK, a young soldier who thinks he knows more about the world than he does. Rachel McAdams plays Colee, a naive girl with too much trust in and openness towards others. They may seem like cliches on paper, but with excellent acting and writing, they become unbelievably human on the screen. And as the movie progresses, they seem to develop, mature, and change. But they don't, as much as we might want them to. Similar to the characters in The Band's Visit, here exist honest representations of real people. They are unable to change, just as we are. What changes throughout the film is our impression of them; we are allowed to witness more and more intimate details about their lives, personalities, and feelings and construct who they really are out of that. Their journey from New York to St. Louis to Las Vegas was no doubt memorable, depressing, and inspiring, but a few days on a road trip with random strangers would not make any of us quit our jobs or move to Canada. And neither will watching a memorable, depressing, and inspiring movie. The world just isn't that easy.

Despite my adulation of the film's realism, it is not without its share of problems. I didn't notice anything regarding the film's technical properties, which is more an indication of its mediocrity rather than greatness, I suppose. My main problem was with the plot, and in particular the preposterous situation in which Cheever must acquire $20k immediately to pay for his son's college tuition. Has nobody heard of student loans? As a lot of the movie does hinge on this desperate need for money, I can see how people might get hung up on this incredibly silly notion (I certainly was when I saw 21), but for some reason I was able to look past it here. I can easily recommend this film to anyone looking for a touching yet hilarious foray into humankind.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0981072/

Baby Mama (2008)

3/5

Baby Mama is a fairly lightweight comedy that is at turns formulaic and predictable and also surprising and unexpected. It follows a successful 37-year-old barren businesswoman (Fey) and her attempts to have a child through an agency that provides her with what turns out to be an "ignorant, white-trash" surrogate (Poehler). It's fast-paced and easy to enjoy--far from a masterpiece but also far from a dud--with relatively few dead jokes and a number of laugh-out-loud moments to balance them out. I saw it because I love Tina Fey and 30 Rock, and while it's not quite at that level of perfection, it's a pleasant enough way to spend 90 minutes on a Sunday afternoon.

On the technical front, everything was average. Literally everything: writing, directing, music, acting, cinematography, editing, and anything else I'm forgetting. My favorite part of the movie was the colorful assortment of side characters, particularly Steve Martin and Sigourney Weaver as Fey's hippie dippie boss and fertile 60-year-old surrogate agent respectively. Oh, and there's also the birthing teacher with a Barbara Walters lisp. Brilliant. Feel free to go out and watch this movie if you like Tina Fey, SNL, or 30 Rock, but pass on it if you find none of those appealing.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0871426/

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

2/5

Halloween 4 is not a terrible movie by any means. It's simply forgettable. Unlike the first one, there are no characters to feel for, no plot to unnerve you, and no technical cinematic prowess to astound you. It was just simple slasher fare. And with it came a few startling moments, a few gory special effects, and lots of low-lit environments. What sets it apart from other slashers is the awesome Halloween theme and multiple references to the original, including its ending. This doesn't make it a good film, but it certainly made it more fun for me to watch. I really can't recommend this unless you're one of those people who are obsessed with the series. Or you're like me and have nothing to do late at night and are too lazy to change the channel.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095271/

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

4/5

Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona tells its entire story in the title, which I'm sure Allen intended. It is about Vicky (Hall) and Cristina (Johansson) during a summer vacation in Barcelona, where they meet Juan Antonio (Bardem) who invites them to drink wine and make love to him. As a young narrator informs us, the two girls have differing views on love. Vicky is engaged to Doug (Messina) but is afraid she wants more than her boring but otherwise perfect marriage. Cristina is always looking for more and different ways to be pleased until she finds what she's looking for. Juan Antonio is frank and honest with his emotions and sexuality. While these all sound like unique characters, they're not; they're caricatures exaggerated to make fun of each social class (educated homemaker wishing for something more, ever-unsatisfied free spirit, and romantic bohemian artist). Even the side characters are laughable.

This is not to denigrate the acting, which was excellently understated, but rather to emphasize the humor. I was laughing throughout the entire piece, not because of the things that happened, but because of the characters' impressions of themselves--how they talked and what they said--that revealed Allen poking fun at each of these social circles. Technically, the movie was solid, with little risk and littler reward. (There was an odd cross dissolve during a shot/countershot conversation, but nothing else particularly awful comes to mind.) I actually didn't mind the narration that much (and thankfully they didn't try to explain it at the end like in Million Dollar Baby). The movie is a fairly light romp through what is clearly a male fantasy with nothing profoundly insightful, but it's well worth the ride.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497465/

Pineapple Express (2008)

3/5

I have never been a big fan of the stoner genre--I loathed Smiley Face--but I was actually pretty excited about Pineapple Express, mostly because it reunited James Franco with Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen from Freaks & Geeks. Judd Apatow was the saving grace behind this otherwise simple stoner comedy. As you can expect from an Apatow-produced pic, the most hilarious moments were when the characters argued with each other, as they are in real life as well. The plot was actually pretty good, considering the genre. It follows potdealer Saul (Franco) and process server Dale (Rogen) after the latter witnesses a murder that results in the unlikely duo as the murderers' next target. The movie was technically proficient, and I expected nothing less from David Gordon Green. It wasn't as poetic as his other films, but nobody was expecting it to be. All in all, it was exactly what I expected it to be, nothing more and nothing less. Feel free to watch it if you want, but you should know what you're getting into.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910936/

Find Me Guilty (2006)

3/5

Sidney Lumet's Find Me Guilty is a fairly mediocre comedy/courtroom procedural. It's a novel mix of the two genres, but nothing particularly interesting or fascinating. I don't know what you'd get out of the film that's new in any way, but there were some funny moments, some tender ones, and some very exciting ones as well. Based on a true story, the plot follows Jackie DiNorscio as an underling in a huge mafia crime syndicate, on trial defending himself, as well as the rest of the family. There aren't that many twists and turns, so the basic premise is all that you get. If that doesn't sound appealing to you, the movie as a whole probably won't either. The real revelation in this movie is Vin Diesel. He takes on his character fully and makes him real, as well as likable. His stellar acting here makes me forget the quality of work he's been in before. The cinematography and editing are excellent, as in every Lumet film, but the other technical aspects are fairly forgettable. Enjoy if you wish, although you won't miss much if you decide not to check it out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419749/

You Kill Me (2007)

2/5

You Kill Me is supposed to be a dark comedy, but it's more of an indie dramedy full of lingering camera shots, deadpan dialogue, and quirky characters. Ben Kingsley plays an alcoholic hitman who is sent to San Francisco by his mafia uncle (Philip Baker Hall) to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. Luke Wilson becomes his gay AA sponsor, Bill Pullman becomes his temporary West Coast realtor, and Tea Leoni becomes his 20-years younger love interest. I suppose the premise is smirk-worthy, but not laugh-out-loud hilarious. None of this movie really made laughter emanate from my belly uncontrollably, although at times I thought to myself, "That's pretty clever."

The best aspect of this movie was how perfectly it depicted the pain of Alcoholics Anonymous. It felt like church for atheists; everyone telling you you're wrong, and being overly friendly and superficial about it. Additionally, the performances were quite good. I'm not quite sure how strong their characters were, because they felt quite dull and uninteresting except for the aforementioned character traits. All in all, it wasn't particularly funny or memorable. Don't bother checking this film out unless you really really really really like the actors. Or you really hate AA.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796375/

The Dark Knight (2008)

4/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is far, far superior to his earlier Batman Begins. With this film, Batman has stepped out of the action comic niche and into the serious drama genre. And yet, I find that it doesn't have much to say in that regard. Despite being bleak and hopeless, it reveals no message. Unlike No Country for Old Men or A Clockwork Orange, the discomfort and unpleasantness you endure while watching are not rectified in the end by a meaningful message. It tells us that the (fictional) citizens of Gotham still have hope, despite living in a city with corrupt cops and innocents-killing villains. I wouldn't have hope, I'd have a moving van reserved. So, granted, it doesn't have a message. But what's the big deal? A lot of movies don't. The big deal is that this movie is so effective at what it sets out to do. It is so well-crafted that you feel the unease and nervousness prickling your skin and upsetting your stomach. And there is no redemption at the end. There is nothing. So why did I watch it?

Technically, the movie is more than adequate. The editing and pacing were superb; not a single frame of what ended up in the final cut was off. The film started off tense with a heist on par with Michael Mann's Heat, and never sagged one bit. When you watch this film, you are enveloped by it. The problem was in its 2.5 hour runtime, which arose not in post-production but in pre-production, while the story was still being formulated. A number of scenes should have been eliminated altogether because they showed nothing new, but merely reiterated what we already knew. Another set of scenes ended abruptly (after the Joker crashes Bruce Wayne's fundraiser, for example) with no resolution or transition, and needed to be reworked. Some technological advances were simply dumb and annoying to the audience (the Bat-Sonar), while others were novel and exciting (the Batcycle/Batpod). The cinematography, while definitely a step up from Batman Begins, was still nothing particularly amazing. (Although after seeing so many awful indie films with bad lighting, I'm impressed to see a movie set almost constantly in darkness where I can tell exactly what's going on at all times.) The music was phenomenal on its own and pitch-perfect in conjunction with the mood and atmosphere of the film. I couldn't get the theme out of my head for at least an hour afterwards.

And onto the acting. Forget everyone else, because all you will care about is Heath Ledger's Joker. He steals the show. Not just in every frame he's in, but in every frame of the movie. You simply cannot stop thinking about him. Even Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is forgettable in comparison. Now, is it worthy of a posthumous Oscar? It's way too early to tell. But if he gets nominated, I think he should/will win, out of respect for the dead. The rest of the acting was adequate and not the least bit noteworthy. I didn't think that Maggie Gyllenhaal was a good choice to replace Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. She was pretty unattractive in this film (which is shocking, because she can be really attractive in other films like Stranger Than Fiction) and a pretty weak character overall, although she served more of a purpose in this film than in the last one.

Overall, I highly recommend the film. It's difficult for me to say that I enjoyed watching it, due to its unbearably painful and unyielding darkness, but I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised at how much better it was from the first one. It would have been awful to pay money and spend 3 hours in a theater watching a poorly-made version of itself. So, if you liked Batman Begins, you will without a doubt love this one. (It's probably you fanboys who got it to the top spot on IMDb.) If you hated Batman Begins, give this one a chance. But I don't think you're missing much if you skip out on seeing this film, except perhaps the ability to discuss it with all the rest of the people in the world.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/

Exodus (2007)

2/5

Ho-Cheung Pang's Exodus is a bad movie, plain and simple. The whole of events could be retold in a 10-30 minute short. And we would lose nothing but frustration. What was initially an interesting concept quickly turned into boredom, as if the writers were searching for something to happen and found nothing but the banal. A cop interrogates a man caught videotaping women in a bathroom, who claims that there is a syndicate of women plotting the murder of all men. The confession goes missing, but when he re-interrogates the man, his (obviously?) ludicrous story changes after a female cop talked to him. Could it be true?

There seemed to be no point to the movie. It said nothing about male-female interactions, despite the rather rampant possibilities, and nothing new about the human and collective conscious. The dialogue was blunt and meaningless, as far as I could tell. The Engrish subtitles didn't help. There were some good parts, such as the (overlong) intro and the (overlong and unnecessary) finale, especially in terms of cinematography and music. But they felt out of place, bookends by a talented director added in to even out a crappy middle by a terrible director. I could have enjoyed 90 minutes of my life if I had not seen this movie, so be sure to thank me when you end up turning down this crap because of my review.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091616/

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

5/5

When I first saw Eyes Wide Shut, as a capstone to a semester's work analytically examining Stanley Kubrick's entire oeuvre, I thought it was the embodiment of everything he had strived for as a filmmaker. A fantastic, flawless finale to an already exemplary career. This time, however, after forgetting a lot of our classroom discussions of his works, I failed to see the same brilliance I originally found so evident. Not to say it wasn't there, just that it wasn't obvious. Instead, I found a powerful, engaging, ambiguous, intellectual foray into the nature of men and women, the masks and labels we wear, the fears and uncertainties we experience, and our deepest dreams and desires. The depth of thematics, matched with the depth of technical expertise, convince me more now than ever that this movie is deserving of a 5 star rating.

The plot follows Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) as a seemingly happily-married couple in the luxurious areas of New York City. After they attend an opulent cocktail party with tantalizing hints of infidelity, Alice reveals a moment of sexual weakness a year prior. Jealous, Bill experiences a number of dream-like events that push him to the limits of sexual infidelity, but never past it. Everyone he interacts with reacts to him as a sexual object, to such an unrealistic level as to appear wholly impossible and fabricated. Is it all in his head? Not only does the film examine the human psyche, but in so doing it analyzes the difference between lust and love and the need for sex in marriage. It additionally tackles the concepts of social standing and money as valuations, identities, and reasons for remorse and guilt. Indeed, there is little this film does not cover.

The one complaint I had with the movie was its slow pacing. Most of the time I found it fluid and natural, but there was one scene in particular that I found unbearably slow. The editing itself was not to blame--the dissolves were used as perfectly as they were in The Godfather and every scene itself was necessary--but rather the delivery of the painfully banal dialogue. The characters talked very deliberately, which is not a bad thing, but it can be a bit much to take in for 2 hours and 45 minutes. The script as a whole is a mixed bag; nothing interesting ever occurred in the dialogue, but the overarching story itself and the introspection it forces us to consider are worth every minute. The acting was phenomenal, managing a lot on the screen from very little on the page. Cruise and Kidman fleshed their characters into complex human beings with subtleties and mistakes we recognize exist outside of the film. The music was an integral part of this movie, as necessary and unforgettable as it was in 2001. The cinematography was just as beautiful as all his previous films, especially his use of repetition and symmetry to match with his thematic exploration.

This film remains poorly criticized as a result of bad marketing, but it is not a film to be missed. Even if you disagree with its message or with its methods, it brings to light issues that should be discussed openly instead of kept in the dark. Maybe not at cocktail parties, but perhaps between partners. And lucky for us, if there's a topic that makes you uncomfortable, there are a million others you can talk about.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120663/

The Reaping (2007)

3/5

The Reaping was a surprisingly effective supernatural horror movie. The plot follows Hilary Swank as an atheistic zealot out to scientifically disprove all miracles. When a small, religious Louisiana town starts being struck down by what they fear are the ten Biblical plagues, David Morrissey asks her to go down and investigate. The plagues keep coming, and she finds herself at a loss to explain every single one. The townspeople don't, however; they blame it on a 12 year old girl who may be the devil incarnate.

The best part about this movie by far is its ending. The epiphany at the end, following by the obligatory final twist, was perfect. It made you rethink the entire movie in new terms, which is exactly what a twist should do. Unfortunately, the way it accomplished this feat was the worst part about the movie. Flashbacks. Terrible, convoluted, nagging flashbacks. In fact, when combined with the ubiquitous dreams and hallucinations, it was pretty difficult to understand what was real and what wasn't. Until the end anyway, and even then some stuff was still quite random and inexplicable. The second best part is the visual experience. Not simply its composition and cinematography, but its stunning, striking, shocking images and concepts that you will forever associate with the film. The second worst part is the acting and the dialogue. Though I actually liked Swank's character and performance, the rest of the cast remained unquestionably two-dimensional and forgettable. (I did like Morrissey's accent, though.) The third best part is the mood. It was frightening, to say the least, as the film effectively utilized both quick scares and unsettling ideas/images. The third worst part was an irrelevant and unnecessary intro detailing just what exactly Swank's job was (although it did have a cool House vibe). After all that, it ends up about even, although I definitely recommend it if you were ever interested in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444682/

The Mummy (1999)

2/5

I will, for once, start out my review by saying that it is an unfair assessment. I was not paying attention for most of the movie due to a number of distractions, mostly involving volume, exhaustion, and my contact lenses. (For example, I did not realize that the female protagonist was Rachel Weisz until I looked it up on IMDb later to write this very review you are now reading!) However, I remain confident in my reviewing abilities and am fairly certain my star rating is accurate, give or take 0.5 stars (which I don't use anyway).

To get more to the point: The Mummy takes place in the mid 1920's, except for an intro involving an overbearing voice-over narration, a nearly-nude Egyptian woman with a complicated and oft-repeated name, a pharaoh, a high priest, their love triangle, and an ancient curse involving reincarnation, which takes place ~3,500 years earlier. Back to the 1920's, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and her onscreen brother go and wake the mummy up from the dead and then eventually send him back to the dead by film's end. The plot really is quite preposterous and predictable (Sameer figured it out 45 minutes in and then left). It reminded me of a mix between Aladdin, Star Wars, The Da Vinci Code, and The Ten Commandments.

I did actually notice a few shots that I thought were fantastic. Typically they were not, however. The editing and music did not do much; in fact, the mood was so dead for most of the movie that the rhythmic humming of a nearby dishwasher made the movie far more tense than it intended to be. I found the acting surprising, for two reasons. 1) Brendan Fraser was not as bad as I thought he'd be and 2) Rachel Weisz was not as good as I thought she'd be. The character I liked the most was Weisz's brother, who was always hilarious. The action itself was alright, although it never really held my attention. Neither did the first hour. Still, it will probably keep you glued to the screen if you find it playing on TV, whether you like it or not. So I guess that counts for something.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/

Zeitgeist (2007)

1/5

The biggest crime about Zeitgeist is that it claims to be a documentary when it is nothing but propaganda dreck. I felt like I was watching Triumph of the Will, except bad. It asks us to believe in it with the same blind faith it hopes to dispel. The movie is basically a series of preposterous conspiracy theories with little relationship to each other and little factual basis behind them. It names Jesus as an Egyptian astrotheological allegory, the 9/11 attacks as government-backed, and the Federal Reserve as the principal instigator of the world wars, as well as Vietnam and Iraq (despite previously suggesting it was the US Government). It is about as believable as Wanted or Audition, except it thinks it's real. Imagine if either of those movies were billed as docs, and you have Zeitgeist.

As if its own contradictions and spelling errors weren't enough evidence that this "documentary" was made with little preparation and littler background research, the cheesy Windows Media Player visualizations paired with incessant, inane, boring voice-over monologue should serve as further proof that even the filmmakers care not the least for its subject matter. This easily could have been made in Windows Movie Maker in half an hour with default transitions and effects. While interesting at first, it gradually manipulates you into believing more and more of its absurd theories. It may well be the worst-made movie of all time to appear on IMDb in any way, shape, or form. This is almost as bad as Audition. Seriously.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1166827/

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

4/5

Kung Fu Panda is a delightful animated comedy about a panda (Jack Black) in ancient China who dreams about kung fu but is stuck making noodles for his father. When happenstance names him the Dragon Warrior, he must train with his idols, the Furious Five, under the tutelage of Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) in order to save the town from the recently escaped Tai Lung (Ian McShane). He must fight against his comrades' prejudices and his own insecurity to fulfill his destiny as the Dragon Warrior. Yes, the plot is pretty simple, but it had a very good "believe in yourself, be an individual" message that suburban parents love having their kids hear.

The acting and music were adequate. The real joy of watching this movie was in the wonderfully comic moments and the exquisitely choreographed fights. The animators understood that they were unrestrained by a physical camera and took advantage of that fact to do impossible angles, slow motion, and long takes that enhanced the humor and fun. The compositions and movement within each frame flowed seamlessly with the tight editing. While WALL-E tried to make itself seem filmed, Kung Fu Panda made sure you knew it was animated. For that reason alone, I think I prefer Kung Fu Panda to WALL-E. It may not be as memorable or timeless, but it's certainly a step in the right direction as far as CGI is concerned. If you want solid entertainment, consistent laughs, and a chance to see animation exploring its limits, make sure you check this movie out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441773/

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

2/5

The Da Vinci Code is a faithful adaptation of a trashy airplane novel. Sure, it works, but at what level? The plot follows Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as they try to uncover the mystery surrounding Tautou's grandfather's death in the Louvre. They soon realize that it is part of a far greater mystery involving the Holy Grail, the Priory of Scion, and Opus Dei. For those that care or know little about religion, this movie will surely bore you, as 90% of the time they are solving puzzles relating to ancient Christian cover-ups and lies. For those that hate the French, this movie will surely aggravate you, as 50% of it is in French. But for the rest, you might find it acceptable. After all, Hanks and Tautou are always excellent, and do their best with the somewhat lacking source material. While Howard's directing was expectedly subpar, it did provide some level of entertainment, albeit frustrating at some points.

After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/

The Break-Up (2006)

3/5

The Break-Up follows the humorous end of Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston's relationship. One good thing I can say about the movie is that I really had no idea how it was gonna end; it could have gone either way. That's a really rare trait in a romantic comedy these days. (And the wonderfully bittersweet end far exceeded my expectations.) Some of the antics felt really gimmicky. While they were advertised the most, the dialogue was really the focus. My two favorite parts were the arguments and the side characters (Justin Long as an exuberantly gay receptionist, Jon Favreau as Vaughn's friend, and Jason Bateman as their realtor). Oh, I also love movies set in Chicago now.

The acting actually impressed me, although it obviously wasn't Oscar-worthy. The editing was a bit experimental, especially for a studio film, and it didn't always work. The cinematography was pretty mediocre most of the time, although there was a surprisingly slick shot with Vince Vaughn's gawking face blocking Jennifer Aniston's naked body. The music fit, although it wasn't particularly noteworthy. All in all, a decent romantic comedy with some cheesy moments, but a story with heart. If you like romantic comedies, check this one out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452594/

In Bruges (2008)

4/5

Martin McDonagh's wonderfully-crafted In Bruges centers around hitmen Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in Bruges following the former's botched first job. Ralph Fiennes plays their foul-mouthed boss, who has to go to Bruges himself when their second job there is botched. He also delivers a phenomenal line after he finds out they failed. The movie is, for the most part, a comedy. There is a bit of action too, and some tension, along with emotion and drama, but to say it is anything other than a comedy is difficult. But it's the great kind of character-driven comedy that delivers a complete appreciation of its inhabitants, their strengths and weaknesses, their steadfast morals and inescapable failures--all while laughing.

Visually, it was a real treat to watch. The cinematography, editing, and music were all exceptional. The plot progressed naturally and switched between moods effortlessly. The writing was exemplary, the acting even better. You truly get a sense of who these people are and miss them at the end. I did, however, find the accents extremely difficult to understand, and we had to turn on subtitles half an hour in. While it destroyed the punchline for a couple jokes, it also revealed quite a few more. While I liked the dialogue, I found the script on the whole a bit simplistic. The ending was a bit predictable and a bit of a let-down for me. It's not that everything was tied up in the end, it's that they added coincidence to tie it up so cleanly. All in all, I had a great time watching it. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780536/

The Interpreter (2005)

3/5

Sydney Pollack's The Interpreter is a skillfully-made political thriller. The plot follows Nicole Kidman as a translator of African tongues. One night after hours she hears about an assassination threat. The next day she reports it and Sean Penn from the Secret Service is assigned to protect her. The only problem is he doesn't believe her, because she may be closely involved in the situation. I really liked the plot and how it unfolded; the mystery consistently intrigued me while the suspense kept me on my toes. The tense atmosphere is without a doubt the best part about the movie. I could feel my pulse racing through almost the entire second half of the movie. Unfortunately, the pieces relating to the politics were pretty generic, made more worthless by being completely fictitious.

I actually liked the acting, although I found the characters a bit cookie cutter. The writing and dialogue were poor, whereas the cinematography was adequate and the editing was excellent. The music melded perfectly with the editing to create the appropriate energy and excitement. As far as thrillers go, this is top notch. It's just the rest of the stuff that's under par. If you were interested in seeing this when it came out, I don't think you'll be disappointed. But I won't be recommending it to anyone who hasn't heard of it before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373926/

Bad Boys (1995)

3/5

Michael Bay's Bad Boys tries to be many things and doesn't always succeed. The plot centers around cops Will Smith and Martin Lawrence as they attempt to regain a large amount of stolen heroin while simultaneously protecting Tea Leoni, a witness to a related murder. One part of the story involves a cheesy gimmick wherein Lawrence must pretend he's Smith, but it only serves to confuse the plot and add unfunny attempts at jokes. The dialogue was very poorly written. They attempted realistic back-and-forth arguing as you'd see in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Knocked Up. But it wasn't funny. Which just made it annoying. Only about half the action scenes are truly exciting; for the rest, we're just watching stuff happen. As the camera rotates around us. The technical aspects are pretty uninspired and unimpressive. The worst part is that it takes a long time to really get into the meat of the story, the funny jokes, and the thrilling action. You have to put up with half of the movie before you're really rewarded in any way. So, watch it at your own risk. Just don't expect too much out of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112442/

Rush Hour 3 (2007)

3/5

Brett Ratner's Rush Hour 3 continues in its tried and true tradition of black-Chinese action-comedy. You pretty much know what you're getting into when you start watching this movie. There are no surprises. This time, the team goes to Paris to get to the bottom of a mystery involving the Chinese triad and help prevent the assassination of the Chinese ambassador. Most of the jokes were awful and groan-inducing (they even did a who's on first bit with Chinese men named Yu and Mi). On the other hand, most of the action scenes were truly awesome and extremely well-choreographed. They were exciting, fun, and funny. All of the rest was pretty standard stuff (cinematography, editing, script, acting, etc. were all unimpressive).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293564/

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

2/5

Star Trek: The Motion Picture, produced by Gene Roddenberry and directed by Robert Wise, was made 10 years after the television series was canceled. The plot? When a dangerous and curious life form plots a course straight for Earth, Admiral Kirk retakes command of the Enterprise to investigate and prevent the Earth's demise. While it may hold very special sentimental value for many viewers, I grew up on The Next Generation and have no nostalgic feelings for it. I value it as a movie, and not too highly at that. While there was doubtless acres of history I missed out on, the movie subtly hinted at it without boring those who already knew it. And it was probably just as exciting as the show used to be, but much longer.

The pacing is abysmally slow. Much of the movie seems to give us time to be awed by what we are seeing on the screen, but the dated special effects do not amaze us. In fact, they bore us. (Although I guess it's better than the George Lucas alternative of re-editing the movie with CGI to satisfy our modern sensibilities.) The score is reminiscent of Italian horror films like Deep Red--in a word, atrocious--although it was great to hear the familiar theme music once more. The acting and dialogue were also laughable, as was the costuming. The best part about the movie was the alien life form, more specifically how it raised questions regarding the nature of life. It explored some very intriguing philosophical thematics as it approached its finale. Still, it's not enough to see this movie. If you love the original Star Trek, you will probably love this movie. As for myself, I cannot help but laugh at it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/