Seven Pounds (2008)

2/5

Seven Pounds follows a remorseful Ben Thomas (Will Smith) who is aching to sacrifice himself to donate certain life-altering gifts to good, kind-hearted people like Rosario Dawson. But why is he doing this and what kind of gifts is he giving away? All that will be explained in the final five minutes of the film, but I'm sure you'll realize what's going on in the first five minutes. While the movie advertises itself as a mystery, it was obvious from the beginning what his backstory and motivations were. And every pseudo-revelation from that point on just insults your intelligence that much more. While the movie prides itself on its emotional impact (remember all that running in the rain and yelling on phones from the trailer?), the situations, conversations, and interactions were all so contrived and forced that any emotions the actors infused into their characters felt flat and fake. It wasn't real; it was overwrought melodrama.

The best part about the movie was the music, something everyone agreed on. The rest, to put it plainly, sucked. It was all so weird and uncomfortable, as if everything was a manipulation instead of something genuine or honest. I found myself unable to trust the movie and any message it was trying to get across. It's a shame, because I really wanted to like Seven Pounds. I wanted it to be at least as good as The Pursuit of Happyness, if not better. But it was far worse. And the title takes a Shakespearean reference and bastardizes it beyond recognition by the writer's obvious fetish for the number seven. How awful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814314/

I Love You, Man (2009)

3/5

I Love You, Man is an above average comedy. It wasn't bad, but I expected much better given its stellar cast. Jason Segel was better in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (and How I Met Your Mother) and Paul Rudd was better in Role Models (and Knocked Up). The plot was just as forgettable as the characterization and acting. Despite having the gender of the main character's conquest reversed (as has been done countless times on various sitcoms), I Love You, Man's plot was exactly the same as every other romantic comedy. It started with the countless failed blind dates, then progressed to hitting it off with the perfect guy, and finally ended with the expected betrayal of trust and eventual redemption. I've seen it a thousand times before and it wasn't all that much better this time; the whole package was merely at an acceptable level of laughs. Watch it if you want a quick laugh, but don't expect another hit comedy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155056/

Ghost Town (2008)

4/5

Ghost Town was more hilarious and more touching than I thought it would be. Now, normally, the second sentence of my review consists of a short, simplified version of the plot, but even that would be giving it too much credit. Just imagine The Sixth Sense with Greg Kinnear as Bruce Willis, Ricky Gervais as Haley Joel Osment, and Téa Leoni as Liv Tyler. And now imagine it written with nonstop jokes delivered flawlessly by Ricky Gervais. Despite the hackneyed storyline, it was still able to surprise quite frequently with emotional moments and side-splitting laughs. There were also a number of quirks and details that I loved seeing, such as the misanthropic health professional and the BlackBerry addict. All in all, an exquisitely fine-tuned comedy with the requisite amount of moving romance to appeal to just about everyone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0995039/

Step Up 2: The Streets (2008)

2/5

Step Up 2: The Streets is a dance movie. And while I enjoyed watching the dancing, it took up only 30 minutes. So the other 60 minutes contain nothing but a vapid, silly story written by someone raised on soap operas, telenovellas, and pure, unfiltered melodrama. And in order to show quality dancing, they skimped on the acting credentials. I guess it's not bad acting per se, because it's true to the teen language--teenagers really do talk with retarded, exaggerated, simplistic ideals. But I don't want to hear their dreck. Screw realism; give me fluid poetry and maturity over modern slang and adolescence. And the technical aspects like cinematography and editing are on the level of made-for-TV Disney Channel High School Musical fare. (Although, to echo the words spoken by a random audience member, "This ain't High School Musical!") If you want a dance movie you can enjoy and laugh at until your stomach cramps, this is undoubtedly the movie to make your night.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023481/

W. (2008)

2/5

Oliver Stone's W. claims to be an honest representation of the former President in the hopes of dismantling years of misconceptions, both positive and negative, but is instead a ludicrous farce filled with exaggerations and caricatures. The movie goes back and forth between history and the present, starting with his time in office and intercutting with past events that led him there (including random, unrelated ones). I can imagine this was done for no other reason than to make up for lacking transitions and storyline inconsistencies. There is no progression or escalation, merely event after event after event, which makes the 2 hour runtime laboriously slow. (I thought it was nearing the end before 90 minutes in.) And each vignette is only hinted at, nothing is fleshed out, so we are left with a frustratingly inadequate and incomplete picture of a man nobody really cares about anymore. Not only that, but the rest of the screen is filled with people who are more focused on their horrific accents than their characters, which turn out to be flatter than their real counterparts (and those I've only seen in stilted TV announcements).

The one redeeming factor is the humor that is infused in this film, although I'm not sure it was all intentional. Because everything is so extreme, it is also preposterous to the point of comedy. The movie cannot be taken seriously anymore. Dick Cheney is a raving, power-hungry, egomaniacal lunatic--weren't we trying to dispel myths and prejudices? Condoleezza Rice is, for some bizarre reason, an uglier, female version of Neil Goldman from Family Guy. Below I have included a clip with Neil Goldman; as you watch it, just imagine Thandie Newton in disfiguring makeup prosthetics talking to Bush, and you have the movie W. Don't watch this movie; it's a waste of time.



IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

Changeling (2008)

4/5

Clint Eastwood's Changeling tells the emotional true story of LA mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) whose missing son Walter is claimed to be returned by police captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan). Except the boy is not her son, and the police deny their mistake. She finds an ally in Reverend Briegleb (John Malkovich), who encourages her to fight the corrupt LAPD. After she publicly announces the police's error, they lock her up in a mental asylum, force-feed her medication, and threaten electric shock therapy. I will leave the rest of the story's twists and turns open for you to discover yourselves.

While the drama was a bit overwrought and overbearing in the beginning, it works. We feel her pain and sympathize with her quest for truth, hanging on every new piece of evidence in the hopes of discovering what happened. Jolie does an exemplary job here; we are not watching an actress, but a distressed mother at her wit's end, with every imaginable injustice cast upon her and no end in sight. The abuses of power, by both the police and the psychiatrists, are horrifying, ugly, and almost unbearable.

Eastwood directs the film with intensity and brilliance. He has imbued Changeling with astute set design, painterly lighting, and evocative cinematography. The editing and pacing are spot-on as well, thanks in no small part to the story and its writing. Most movies sag in the middle half, but Changeling shifts into an exciting suspense thriller halfway through to help us get through its 2 hour 22 minute running time while still remaining true to its dramatic roots.

The ending, which is as inconclusive as all historical mysteries, is still extremely satisfying. Changeling exposes fears that I'm sure any parent can relate to, and it does so without simplifying or sugar-coating them. But it is not just for parents. It is for anyone who has ever loved a family member or friend to the point where they cannot stop loving them. And so I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone who fits that description.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824747/

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

4/5

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is essentially the dirty version of what every upstart indie filmmaker goes through. It stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as two roommates who turn to making a certain type of adult movie to pay their bills. Despite being directed by Kevin Smith, the casting makes it feel like a Judd Apatow movie. Their acting, in concert with Smith's writing, give the film a realism you wouldn't think possible based on the plot. And their little arguments and amusing antics make it hilarious. But just like every Kevin Smith movie, there is one ridiculously gross moment that you don't expect and will never forget, even though it's on screen for less than a second.

But perhaps I appreciate this movie a bit more than most people might, because I know this kind of guerrilla filmmaking. I've lived it. I made my boom pole out of a golf club instead of a hockey stick and I shot at a grocery store instead of a coffee shop, but I've lived it. And I know what it's like when the people you work with become your best and closest friends. So I share a nostalgia with the movie that helps me love it. Still, I'm sure anyone who likes either Kevin Smith or Seth Rogen will love this movie too. Just be prepared for nudity and sex, because there's a lot of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007028/

Watchmen (2009)

4/5

Watchmen was not as bad as I expected. I expected another 300, but I got something much better. After seeing both, I realized that Zack Snyder does little to alter, either improve or tarnish, the source material he is given. As far as graphic novels are concerned, Frank Miller's 300 sucks and Alan Moore's Watchmen rocks. Everything I liked about this movie originated from Alan Moore--the believable story, the complex characters, the mature mood and atmosphere. Everything I didn't like originated from Zack Snyder--the incessant slow-motion, the bad special effects, the poor music choices. There is one thing I will credit Zack Snyder with adapting successfully, and that is the intro credit sequence to backdrop the story's timeline.

Still, there were a number of changes Snyder should have made to make the adaptation more successful. First, it should have been around 2 hours (instead of 2 hours 45 minutes) and more focused. Snyder allowed extraneous material to bog down the pacing and confuse the audience. Second, there was way too much nudity, especially of a certain blue penis. (Also, why does Dr. Manhattan have eyebrows but no pubic hair?) Third, the actors spoke with comic book stylings, which stood as a stark contrast to the mature mood evoked by the movie's story. Fourth, it didn't really explain the universe. Why are these superheroes stronger/faster/smarter than everyone else? How can someone just raise their daughter into a career of crime-fighting? Why does Rorschach's mask constantly change ink patterns? How is Ozymandias faster than a speeding bullet? Most of these complaints are minor, but I often think of them when I think of this movie. Still, Watchmen is an altogether enjoyable experience and one I would highly recommend to people who are curious as to what might really happen in an alternate universe of superheroes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/

The Reader (2008)

2/5

The Reader is, if nothing else, an intriguing movie; it follows the relationship between Michael Berg (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes) and Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet), starting from their first torrid love affair when he was 15 and she 33 and ending some 30-40 years later. The film is a romance, I suppose, with elements of the legal drama thrown in to make it more exciting. But it is a romance fraught with confusion and misunderstanding, by both those participating as well as us audience members watching. Many of the characters' actions and motiviations appear hidden, vague, or unknown by even the writer. To me, it was all too illogical to be believable. (Not illogical in the way that love can make people act irrationally, but illogical in the way that the character's mere existence is a baffling conundrum.)

To its credit, the movie has some compelling performances. All three main actors were stellar. And I found myself attracted to the idea of one man's entire life being defined and destroyed by a single adolescent summer. It is the writing and the directing that I have trouble accepting. The screenwriter merely combined hackneyed ideas like concentration camps and suicide that he thought might produce melodrama instead of filling the script with realistic characters or creative concepts. The director chose to include gratuitous nudity in the hopes of appearing artistic instead of using it tastefully and tactfully for emotional impact or some other legitimate purpose. The Reader is one of those movies that I feel caters to an audience that likes to feel smart for "understanding" it, but is in reality a movie that cannot stand on its own merits. Perhaps those people do get something out of it, but I think they're putting in most of what they're getting out. I for one got very little out of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976051/