December 26, 2010

Micmacs (2009)

4/5

Micmacs is a return to form for the exquisite Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The movie is as inventive, clever, and fun as all his other movies, with the expected bedazzling visual style and quirky, lovable heroes. The movie centers around Bazil (Boon). After being shot in the head by a stray bullet, he loses his job at a video rental store and takes to the streets for money. He is given shelter and friendship by a group of oddly-talented misfits (Pinon, Marielle, Ferrier, Moreau, Crémadès, Sy, Baup) who live underneath a garbage dump. One day he finds himself walking down a street separating the two biggest arms manufacturers in France. He gets it in his head--like the bullet that still resides there--to teach them a lesson for all the pain he's suffered at their hands, but he is going to need the help of all of his newfound friends.


The movie is simultaneously magical and believable. Jeunet creates a bizarre, exceptional world brimming with personalities instead of characters, spectacles instead of events, and mazes instead of plots. But it is a world that is self-contained, a world that survives under its own unique rules and regulations and not necessarily those of our world. His movies do not require you to suspend your disbelief so much as they require you to engage and engorge your belief, to open up your mind to match his own. Jeunet is full of imagination and, luckily for us, he is able to faithfully reproduce that same world for our benefit. His movies leave you with a grin on your face and a lightness in your soul.

But I have spent many words explaining why I like Jeunet and very little on why I like this movie. Micmacs is as technically proficient as any other Jeunet movie, and perhaps even a bit more ingenious, but it did not have the same oomph as Amélie or A Very Long Engagement. Nor did it have as clear or as relevant a message, at least for me (I found even less here than in Delicatessen). But none of that is a bad thing and none of that diminishes this movie in the slightest. Micmacs is overwhelmingly enjoyable and entertaining, otherworldly in the best possible way, and it is a movie that I would not hesitate to watch over and over again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149361/

December 24, 2010

Make Way For Tomorrow (1937)

2/5

Make Way For Tomorrow is a movie about an elderly couple (Moore, Bondi) who gather their kids together to announce that the bank is taking their house for failure to make payments on it. None of their children can seem to find enough room in their houses, their schedules, or their lives to take them in except for one son (Mitchell). He only has enough space for his mother, so he manages to convince his sister (Risdon) to put up their father until a more permanent situation can be sorted out. And so they are forced to go their separate ways after 50 years of marriage. They miss each other dearly as they try to adjust to their new living arrangements.


The movie itself was competent, but it was overwhelmingly heavy-handed and blunt in its message. It felt like they were hitting me over the head with every lonely composition and sad line of dialogue. Despite the sappy melodrama, a number of parts actually felt realistic. The parents themselves were somewhat annoying, which made the children's frustration easier to relate to. The entire movie was slow-paced, to match the speed of speech of the parents as they complained about random things. The last half of the movie felt a little more spirited--although it didn't make the movie go by any faster--as the couple reunited and relived the happiness they shared in their youth. The most powerful moment for me was a bit earlier on, however, when they are talking on the phone and you realize how much they sacrifice for the little happiness they get by being with each other. All in all, I am not a huge fan of this movie, but then again I am not yet a curmudgeonly grandfather who has shared the majority of my life with a meddling grandmother, although I fully intend to be when I grow up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029192/

December 23, 2010

True Grit (2010)

4/5

The Coen brothers' True Grit is an honest-to-goodness Western through and through. It follows 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) seeking revenge for the murder of her father by a drifter named Tom Chaney (Brolin). She hires US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Bridges) to track him down; he tries his best to dissuade her, but she is steadfast in her determination. Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon) joins in on the hunt, as he has been following Chaney since he killed a senator in Texas and aims to bring him back there for a hefty reward. The trio bicker back and forth in delicious Coen dialogue and have some gunfights with the baddies in precise Coen fashion before the final letdown in typical Coen style.


The movie is as technically proficient as ever. There is not a single misstep or error. The cinematography is beautiful and evocative. It feels rich and warm and barren and cold in metered, measured doses. The editing enhances the cinematography by letting it breathe when appropriate and taking your breath away when the story calls for it. But where this movie shines is in the writing and the acting. I recently realized that I am a big fan of the Coens' writing. The words they put down on paper are eloquent and earthy and the way they direct their actors to speak them deadpan works to subtly downplay their elegance. Their dialogue is even better than Tarantino's--and far more poignant and nuanced. Furthermore, the Coens do this on a consistent basis, in every single film they make, which just makes us take it for granted. As for the acting, Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation to behold, dominating every scene she's in (which is essentially the whole movie). She steals the limelight from Bridges and Damon, although their performances are impressive for their grit and charm in their own rights. And wow, does she earn it. Much like Aronofsky's Black Swan, True Grit is a technically proficient film that will be remembered not for the directing or the writing, but for the passionate, unforgettable performance of a young actress with seemingly limitless potential.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403865/

December 21, 2010

The Road (2009)

2/5

The Road is a poorly-made adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. It follows a man (Mortensen) and his son (Smit-McPhee) fighting to survive in a post-apocalyptic world terrorized by nomadic groups of rapists and cannibals. The book is extraordinary, even though its message can be somewhat difficult to decipher. The movie, despite some arresting images, is unimpressive in almost every way and contains some very odd decisions by director John Hillcoat. He uses music in an attempt to bring emotion to a stoic piece, but instead just adds melodrama. He films a birth scene with as much uncomfortable awkwardness as the sex scene in Munich. He uses inane and unnecessary voice-over narration to reiterate what we are already watching on screen. The editing is jarring and stilted. The acting is either overwrought overacting or amateur hour. I'm not saying this is a bad movie, I just see no reason to waste your time watching it.


IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

December 12, 2010

The Family Man (2000)

4/5

The Family Man feels like a modern reworking of Capra's It's A Wonderful Life with a sprinkle of Dickens's A Christmas Carol. The story follows money-hungry CEO Jack Campbell (Cage) working on a multi-billion dollar merger on Christmas Eve. He has even set up an emergency meeting on Christmas Day that he expects all his employees to come in for. He unexpectedly gets a call from Kate (Leoni), an old girlfriend he was thinking about marrying before he left her at the airport for a competitive internship in London, but decides to refrain from calling her back. On his way back to his bachelor pad in an NYC high-rise, a mysterious man (Cheadle) offers him a glimpse of the life he could have led, as a family man in Jersey married to Kate with two kids.


There is nothing particularly spectacular about the technical aspects in this film. The cinematography and editing are competent enough to fade into the background and be forgotten. The acting, on the other hand, was something special. Simple performances for relatively simple characters, but full of genuine emotion. You can easily see the hurt and happiness on their faces. You sympathize with them (even if you're not a fan of Nicolas Cage). When you're watching this movie, you are completely enveloped in it. And there is nothing more you want than for them to be happy. It's far from a perfect movie. There are plenty of plot inconsistencies, unclear motivations, and ambiguous backstories, but they matter about as much as the lighting. The Family Man is about the Christmas season and the holiday spirit, and it is pleasantly delightful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218967/

December 02, 2010

Black Swan (2010)

5/5

Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan is honestly one of the most terrifying movies I have ever seen. It envelops you in the psyche of an unstable, damaged woman. It traps you there without escape. Yet you cannot turn your eyes away. You can only watch in horror as she gradually disintegrates. You are left staring at scenes that will disturb and disgust you. You witness her fears come alive as hallucinations; you witness her ecstasies turn cruel and nightmarish. When her paranoia completely engulfs her, I was literally trembling with fear.


The movie is arresting in all its technical aspects. Its stark lighting and black and white palette is visually stunning. It frequently tracks characters' movements, more often rough, nauseating, and immersive instead of the more typical smooth, dreamlike voyeurism to which we are accustomed. The editing is pitch-perfect: it gives us fluid transitions alongside beautiful compositions, it integrates plot progression with taut suspense. The thematics are compelling and powerful, revealing Aronofsky's focus on central concepts that likely mirror his own life. The story shares the same basic framework as all of his other films. An outcast discovers a hobby or talent. It becomes an addiction that soon consumes their life. It finally metamorphoses into an obsession for which they will sacrifice everything they used to cherish.

Aronofsky's Black Swan, for all its technical prowess and thematic underpinnings, is a movie that ultimately rests on the actors' shoulders. Winona Ryder, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, and Vincent Cassel shine in their roles, but none of them take your breath away quite like Natalie Portman. She delivers a phenomenal performance. She plays the timid, virginal ballerina to perfection. Her ultimate reversal into the sexually uninhibited black swan seems equally effortless. She simply becomes her character--none of it is acting. She is the reason to stop whatever you're doing right now and see this movie. But no matter when you see it, now or ten years from now, I have no doubt that it will still be hailed as a masterpiece.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/

Transsiberian (2008)

3/5

Transsiberian attempts to be a finely-honed thriller but instead frequently crosses the line between tense and boring and often mixes up scary "what if" paranoias with absolutely ludicrous impossibilities. The movie follows an American couple, Roy (Harrelson) and Jessie (Mortimer), leaving China on an 8-day train ride to Moscow. On the train they meet another couple, Abby (Mara) and Carlos (Noriega), and quickly place way too much trust in them. When Roy is nowhere to be found when the train takes off, Jessie gets worried. She gets off at the next stop and waits there with Abby and Carlos, but they don't hear from Roy all night. Also, randomly, Ben Kingsley plays a narcotics officer that eventually gets involved.


The plot itself is a mixed bag. As I said earlier, the creators must have found it very difficult to strike the balance they desired. Oftentimes the movie drags, oftentimes it is preposterous. The other half of the time they spin a wonderfully taut psychological thriller. On paper it must have seemed well-crafted, giving the audience subtle clues and background stories to foreshadow ominous events before an exciting and climactic finale. But the whole thing seems very written and pre-planned. Unfortunately, the more you get into the movie, the less you believe it and the less you care about the characters. None of the technical features really stood out to me while watching it either. Still, this was a relatively enjoyable popcorn flick with a few too many contrivances and plot holes for me to really love it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800241/

November 28, 2010

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

3/5

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a quirky little movie. It blends live action film noir with animated cartoon comedy to create a unique and wholly original atmosphere. The movie is about Eddie Valiant (Hoskins), a down-on-his-luck private investigator who has to work for cartoons in Toon Town when he's not busy guzzling down alcohol. Cartoons exist side by side with real people, but they're placed in a segregated society and are forced into the service or performance industries. Roger Rabbit (Fleischer) works in the movies as an actor. Just like all the violent cartoons of our childhood, we realize that he can't be killed by having a refrigerator dropped on his head or falling off a cliff. His wife Jessica Rabbit works in a night club as a singer. "[She's] not bad. [She's] just drawn that way." Valiant photographs her in a compromising position with prop giant Marvin Acme and shows it to Roger, who goes berserk. When Acme is found dead the next day, Roger is the usual suspect. Judge Doom (Lloyd) has devised a way to kill cartoons, by dipping them in his own special mix of paint thinners (turpentine, benzene, and acetone), and he is eager to test it out on Roger Rabbit.


Quite frankly, the special effects weren't quite at the level to make it work for me. It should have been made 25 years later at a time when special effects were advanced enough to have them believably live on screen with real actors (I'm imaging something fluid along the lines of District 9). I loved the concept though--it was bold and innovative--but the mood was just too farcical. The movie should have been a true film noir with very minor elements of black comedy, directed by someone unafraid to make an unapologetically dark film like Darren Aronofsky or the Coen brothers. And, I just realized, there are a bunch of plot holes and the whole thing doesn't really make sense in a truly cohesive and believable way. It's a great idea marred by the limitations of its time; if it gets remade into a far more serious film, I will be first in line to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096438/

November 23, 2010

Burlesque (2010)

4/5

Burlesque is a pretty spectacular musical. (I guess technically it's not a musical because the characters never really break into song and dance; it's just part of their performance.) The movie stars Christina Aguilera as Ali, a small-town girl who wants to hit it big in LA. She discovers a burlesque lounge owned and operated by Tess (Cher) and is instantly mesmerized by it. She tries everything to get on stage and dance with them, but settles for waitressing there just so she can watch. She befriends the bartender (Gigandet) and, after her apartment gets broken into, becomes his roommate. She finally gets her chance to show everyone what she has when they hold auditions. They find it impossible to take their eyes off her. And you will too.


The songs are a mix of old-school show tunes and more modern, upbeat songs. Both are excellent, although I definitely preferred the newer songs. Cher's "Welcome to Burlesque" had me stunned from the very beginning of the movie. Christina Aguilera's "Show Me How You Burlesque" closes the film off with the same flair. Both will leave you in awe. The dancing is fantastic all around, but none of the numbers impressed me as much as those two songs did on their own. None of the other songs did either, even though several of them stood out ("Express," "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me"). If you're looking for a movie with great singing and dancing, then this is the movie to watch.

The rest of the technical aspects were a mixed bag. The cinematography and editing were better than I expected them to be, but there were some noticeable areas where it could have been improved. The acting was pretty good for the most part--especially the side characters--but there is this one scene between Aguilera and Gigandet that was laughably bad. I was actually laughing during it, to the point where my girlfriend got mad at me for it. That scene alone made me consider dropping it down to 3 stars. Overall, definitely recommended for any musical fan. And for any fan of Cher or Christina, this is a must-see.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1126591/

Unstoppable (2010)

3/5

Tony Scott's Unstoppable is a simple movie with a simple premise. An unmanned train is careening across Pennsylvania at 70 miles per hour with 8 cars of hazardous cargo. A veteran locomotive engineer (Washington) and a young train operator (Pine) attempt to stop it by latching their own train onto the renegade train's back and gunning it in the opposite direction. And that's about all you need to know plot-wise. The movie is a fairly generic popcorn flick, but it does what it intends to do well. It keeps you excited for its entire length, with excellent pacing and editing. The acting turned out to be much better than I expected (only because I never expect very much from these types of movies), but the script as a whole was quite lacking. The cinematography and directing were also bland, which comes as a welcome departure from what I'm used to from Tony Scott. To sum up, if you're looking for a way to kick back and watch an hour and a half of thrills without having to think, then this is the movie to do it.


IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477080/

November 14, 2010

Babies (2010)

3/5

Babies is more a constructed observation than a traditional documentary. It follows a year in the life of four babies in Namibia, Mongolia, Japan, and the US. It watches them as they develop, without any narration. The only statements the movie makes is in its editing and music. But it lets us come to our own conclusions through juxtaposition and atmosphere, it lets us do our own comparisons of their similarities and differences. It shows their interactions with parents, with siblings, and with animals. It lets us see them giggle and cry. It exposes their curiosity and, most compelling, their cuteness.


At 75 minutes, the movie is short. Even so, it can feel slow at times because it wanders without direction. It has moments of intermittent tension (will the rooster peck out the baby's eyes?) and laughter (seeing the face of a baby pooping, which a nearby cat quickly smells and immediately retreats from). You have to be in the mood for it or it can easily make you upset. Quite frankly, I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to get out of it except a simple overview of various living conditions in the developed and developing worlds. All in all it's a pretty breezy way to spend an hour looking at babies, and may be good study during pediatrics to help memorize developmental milestones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020938/

November 12, 2010

The Town (2010)

4/5

The Town is a movie about a lot of things. What it tries hardest to be about is a certain community in Charlestown, MA. It is a community of bank robbers, into which protagonists Doug (Affleck) and James (Renner) were born, and how its way of life is similar to other cultures and other communities. It is also about people escaping from their past and about uncertain, sacrificial love (both man-wife and parent-child). The movie starts with a bank robbery in which Claire (Hall) is taken hostage and blindfolded. She is eventually sent free without a mark on her. She is approached by the FBI (Hamm), but offers them very little except suspicion of criminal involvement. Doug starts following her to make sure she doesn't confess anything incriminating to the FBI, but soon develops a profound and all-encompassing love for her. He wants to quit his career to be with her, hoping that she will never find out the truth between how they met and how they know each other. But of course this wouldn't have been turned into a movie if life were that simple.


The directing is more than competent, with sharp cinematography and efficient editing, although a few times it felt trite or simplistic. Similarly, the script was well-written with a few concepts made overly obvious to the point of numbing bluntness. The acting was all around fantastic, although nothing really blew me away. All in all this is a technically competent movie with tense action scenes and a complex set of relationships. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to fans of excitement and/or crime.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0840361/

October 30, 2010

Morning Glory (2010)

4/5

Morning Glory is a surprisingly affecting tale of a young, fiercely independent woman who believes in herself and her abilities. The plot follows Becky Fuller (McAdams), a TV producer who gets hired to rejuvenate the failing morning show Daybreak. Because of her age, nobody takes her seriously. But when she fires one of the co-anchors and hires news legend Mike Pomeroy (Ford) to take his place, people start cheering her on. Her handsome coworker Adam Bennett (Wilson) even asks her out on a date. But her challenges are far from over, as the ratings plummet further down and her boss (Goldblum) informs her that the parent broadcasting company may cancel the show altogether.


We all know this story. We all know the stresses of daily life and the balancing act between our professional and personal goals. We all know the trite romance that will develop between the handsome man and awkward woman. This movie deals with the former with aplomb and thankfully downplays the latter. But Morning Glory is also surprising in a lot of ways. It delves into a different kind of relationship rarely portrayed in cinema: the family dynamic that emerges after working with people day in and day out. It treats the coworker interaction as a special, cherished kind of relationship that is equally as important as the relationships we develop in our free time. It examines the workplace as a joyous environment, challenging but rewarding, filled with obstacles and solutions, instead of a miserable existence we so commonly hear about.

This movie succeeds not because of cinematography or editing, but because of convincing portrayals by the actors. You can see every bit of excitement and nervousness and determination in McAdams's eyes. Underneath Ford's gruff, monotone voice is a depth and texture that is not immediately apparent. It is so much more fascinating than him playing a jaded old curmudgeon. Morning Glory is a movie about love in a very nontraditional way. It's about loving ourselves, establishing priorities and dreams and never letting them go. This is an inspiring and uplifting movie. And here I was thinking it was just going to be another romantic comedy. I'm glad I was wrong.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1126618/

October 24, 2010

Remember Me (2010)

2/5

Remember Me is a gutsy movie that doesn't quite work for me. The impact and meaning is based on a surprise at the end that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and therefore is a complete crap shoot as to whether or not you will like it. In fact, the entire movie trudges along because it knows what happens at the end, but you will find it slow and overbearing because you don't. The movie follows Emilie de Raven after a brutal scene in the beginning where she watches her mother get shot in a mugging. It also follows Robert Pattinson as a pale, emo non-vampire who gets into fights with random strangers and cops. The whole thing is very bizarre. They begin a relationship on fairly shaky ground and we watch it progress alongside their relationships with their families, with no sense of where anything is going until it eventually gets there at the end.


The technical aspects are surprisingly competent (I found them surprising anyway). There are some great shots in this movie and some provocative editing. However, that's where the competence ends and the incompetence begins. The script is excruciatingly emo, or maybe it's just the acting that makes me want to tear my eyeballs out and use them to plug my ears. The directing includes unnecessarily violent scenes, presumably intended to shock us with matter-of-fact style. Unfortunately it just comes off as gratuitous exploitation (as does the ending). There is no redeeming factor that would allow me to recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403981/

October 15, 2010

The Social Network (2010)

5/5

David Fincher's The Social Network is a vibrant, invigorating film filled with excitement and possibility. The movie chronicles the beginning of the new digital era of human interactions. It is not so much about the creator of Facebook as it is about the unrelenting, self-propelled technology that everybody is trying their best to keep up with. It is a classic story of how we as a society deal with each other, how we share stories, how we reveal our emotions. It tackles betrayal, regret, and love. The plot itself is based on two lawsuits launched against Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg). The first is by fellow Harvard undergrads Divya Narendra (Minghella) and the Winklevoss twins (Hammer) for stealing their idea, originally called Harvard Connection. The second is by best friend, co-founder, and CFO Eduardo Saverin (Garfield) for being written out of his share of stock options.


It is difficult to describe how compelling this movie is. The script is an absolute treasure. It unites fast-paced, witty, intellectual dialogue with important, ancient thematics. It is fresh and edgy and filled with electricity. The cinematography is beautiful and appropriately moody. The editing may be one of the most underrated aspects of this movie, but it is essential to its success. The story could have easily taken 3 hours, especially given Fincher's propensity for making movies longer than they need to be, but I'm thankful that they were able to edit it down to just 2 hours. It is expertly paced with only the essential ideas. And last but not least is the acting. It is spot-on. The characters are full and richly textured. You feel their pain and heartache and sorrow. You are enraptured by their vivacity and exhilaration. They are not just fascinating character studies. They are living and breathing people with the same unique talents and flaws that you love and hate about your friends and enemies.

And of course there is the subject matter. I wonder what it means that everybody who saw this movie went home and posted their thoughts about it on Facebook. People complained that this movie came out too soon: Facebook's role is still being sorted out. We are right in the middle of it and don't know how it will all play out in the end. But I think now is the best time to make and release this movie precisely because we are still in the thick of it. People said the same thing about 9/11 movies, but they remain some of the best and most memorable movies because they are tied to my memory of life events and contain universal themes. This movie is exactly the same. And while it may not have all the facts right and may be biased one way or another, it is a phenomenal story that is flawlessly told. It must be seen, and sooner rather than later.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/

October 10, 2010

A Prophet (2009)

4.9/5

Jacques Audiard's A Prophet tells the story of 19-year-old Malik (Rahim). He is sentenced to prison for 6 years for assaulting a cop. He is very rapidly educated on the prison hierarchy and code. On the first day he is kicked and beaten for his sneakers. On the second day he is extended a proposition by Luciani (Arestrup): kill newcomer Reyeb (Yacoubi) or be killed. Liking neither option, he attacks another prisoner in the hopes that he is sent to solitary confinement. But he discovers that Luciani is the prison overlord and he has influence even over the security guards. Malik must accept. He is instructed on how to conceal a razor blade in his mouth. At the right moment, he will grip it between his teeth and slit Reyeb's carotid artery. He practices many times in front of a mirror, every mistake causing blood to flow from his lips. When the time finally comes, he messes up. And it leaves him trembling.


This is only the beginning of the film. It still has 6 years and 2 hours to go. We come to care for Malik. We sympathize with him. And because we like him, we root for him. We want him to rob efficiently, threaten brutally, and kill successfully. We want him to climb the ladder as high as possible to get the revenge he deserves. We quickly forget that he is a criminal. We ourselves get indoctrinated into the values of the prison world, on the importance of power and respect above all else. And when the film ends, we can only watch in silence and awe at the person he becomes.

The movie is impeccably directed, from the visceral cinematography to the tense editing. Every technical aspect in this movie is astounding to see. The film offers plenty of social commentary in its thematics to ponder and discuss, but the acting is where this movie shines. Rahim and Arestrup are absolutely mesmerizing. We believe them every second of the film. From terrified to terrifying and vice versa, these actors play characters who hide their emotions as much as possible and they do it with the necessary subtlety and nuance. Their transformation is so gradual that it turns invisible, believable, and all the more shocking. It is a phenomenal achievement. And one that should not be missed.

October 09, 2010

Coco Before Chanel (2009)

3/5

Coco Before Chanel, according to IMDb, tells the "story of Coco Chanel's rise from obscure beginnings to the heights of the fashion world." She is played by Audrey Tautou, and she brings a disarmingly innocent smile to a fiercely independent yet loyal woman. She befriends the rich but ugly Balsan (Poelvoorde) before befriending the rich and handsome Boy (Nivola). All the pieces are there--the acting is pitch-perfect, the cinematography and editing were precise, and the ending is beautiful--but it didn't feel as gripping or riveting as I was hoping it would be. Maybe it was because I saw it at 11pm after an exciting Bulls game and some expensive cheap beer (I did in fact nod off for the last 15 minutes, although I watched those final 15 minutes again the next morning), but there was something very bland and boring about this story that I can't quite put my finger on. The whole affair just seemed subdued and formal instead of spicy and fresh. I wanted a little more vivacity and vibrancy for this kind of a story. As it stands, I wasn't too terribly impressed. It works on many levels, just not the ones I needed it to work on.


IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1035736/

October 03, 2010

Life As We Know It (2010)

4/5

Life As We Know It is a tender, heartfelt romantic comedy that hits all the right notes. When Peter (MacArthur) and Alison (Hendricks) Novack die in a car accident, their two best friends are given guardianship of their 1-year-old daughter, Sophie. Holly (Heigl) is a driven, organized entrepreneur and chef; she is taking out construction loans to expand her pastry shop into a full-out restaurant. Messer (Duhamel) is a suave womanizer living the life every guy dreams of: he watches basketball games for a living and gets free dinner and drinks from women who want to sleep with him. Out of their love for their friends and the child, they accept. But fitting into their roles as Sophie's parents is much more difficult than they anticipated.


The acting in this movie is superb. Duhamel was the best part about When In Rome, and he's the best part about Life As We Know It too. He has charm and wit, but lacks the sleaze you'd associate with someone who supposedly sleeps around with every woman he can find. One of the negatives about this movie is that I just didn't find him convincing as Messer. He somehow changed the character into someone likable and sympathetic. I doubt that the person on screen was the same person scripted. Luckily, Heigl is his match, revealing an understated but explosive personality. She is not what you'd expect, given her professional, work-obsessed appearance and relative lack of a personal life. Yes, she wants a family, but she wants it on her terms, not thrust on her like this.

I spent a paragraph describing the characters because characters are what make a movie like this successful, endearing, and memorable. They are imbued with humor and played with honest emotion. Their intricacies and complexities are precisely brought to life on screen. The rest of the technical details like dull cinematography and subpar editing just fall by the wayside when you see this movie. No, I didn't laugh as much in this movie as I did in Going the Distance, but this one did pull at the heartstrings a little bit more. This may not be the movie for everyone, but you'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by some of the scenes in this movie.

Note: There is a crucial scene near the climax/finale dealing with a phone call. The phone that rings is an original Sprint Palm Pre with all original webOS UI, and I don't think I have ever been so excited to see anything or anyone in a movie in my life. I literally jumped out of my seat and started hitting my girlfriend's arm to get her attention as I giggled like a little schoolgirl. I have no idea why. I also noticed that my favorite Parker Jotter pen and Oxo mug made cameos, which was pretty cool as well.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055292/

September 30, 2010

The American (2010)

4/5

Anton Corbijn's The American is a slowly-paced but superbly-crafted cerebral thriller. The plot follows an assassin (Clooney) who wants to quit for love (Placido), but his employer (Leysen) has one last job for him. The plot is the film's weakest aspect, as it is flimsy, cliché, and predictable. But everything else about this movie is exquisite. The cinematography is stunning and is paired with impeccable editing. It lingers just the right amount to let you appreciate the beauty without it feeling forced on you. The music is refreshingly different and appropriately atmospheric. The slick production is well-directed, adding tension to the simplest scenes and unnerving you when you least expect it. The use of colors and subtle shifts in composition add meaning to an already intriguing and complex thematic framework. Clooney continues to surprise me with his choice of roles after his equally fascinating turn in Up in the Air. All in all, I cannot recommend this film enough. Just know that it is not a James Bond action movie. It can be slow-paced, forcing the audience to be patient, so you must be in the right mood. But if you are, you will enjoy what this film has to offer.


IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440728/

September 28, 2010

Henry Poole Is Here (2008)

3/5

Henry Poole Is Here looked so promising from the trailers. The plot follows Henry Poole (Wilson) after he moves into an old bungalow in LA. There's something odd about him. He wants to pay the full asking price, without any negotiations. He does not want it to be re-stuccoed, as he repeatedly states that he will not be staying there long anyway. He keeps his eye on another house across the street, his first choice for where he wanted to live. He buys large amounts of liquor on a daily basis, just for himself, at the same grocery store with the same cashier (Hines). When his neighbor Esperanza (Barraza) sees an image of Christ on his wall, he writes it off as a stain. She brings her pastor (Lopez) and the rest of her congregation to his house to see the miracle, but he gets so frustrated with all the attention that he tries to remove it with a high-pressure water spray. That only makes it more visible. His other neighbor Dawn (Mitchell) witnesses the events and her daughter Millie (Lily) starts recording him from across the fence.


Onto more technical aspects. The cinematography and editing were well-done, although very "indie" in its artsy compositions and lingering scenes. The acting was appropriate, but nobody really stood out. All the pieces are in place for a quirky independent dramedy, but the movie plays much more slowly and predictably than I assumed it would. I wanted something that would speak to all faiths and beliefs, something that would let anybody take what they wanted from the movie. But it's hard to argue when a blind person sees, a mute person talks, and a dying person lives. It just felt a bit heavy-handed with respect to faith and miracles. I guess my big issue with this movie is that it was not as good as I was expecting it to be. I gave it too much credit. Feel free to watch it if the trailer or the plot interested you, but don't get your hopes up too high.

Note: I had about 60-70% of a bottle of wine over the course of this 90 minute movie, which I started watching at 11:30pm, so I was a little tired and inebriated. Still, I stand by my rating within 0.5 stars.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029120/

When In Rome (2010)

3/5

When In Rome is a silly little movie with a lot of heart and charm. The plot is outrageously dumb: Beth (Bell) steals five coins from a fountain in Italy and a spell is placed on the five people who threw their coins in looking for love. One is an artist (Arnett), one is a sausage businessman (DeVito), one is a magician (Heder), and one is a male model (Shepard). "But wait!" you say, "That's only four!" You are correct. Incidentally, Nick (Duhamel) is also in love with her, and Beth must figure out if it's because of true love or if it's because the fifth coin was his and he is merely under the spell.


Yes, I know, it is preposterous and corny, but it gets an A for effort. You see these men attempt to win her over with the most desperate and sad displays of affection. They try and try and try to please her but to no avail. And once you get past the buffoonery and circus-like lunacy, you find a smile somehow crept its way up onto your face. I don't know how it does this, because the writing is terrible, but the actors put so much of themselves into their ridiculous roles that you just have to love it. Some parts of the story started out blunt and obvious (e.g., Beth's love of her job over personal relationships), but further into the movie it became surprisingly subtle and nuanced. But by far the most surprising thing about this movie for me was how charismatic Duhamel turned out to be. It's easy to see why he's starring in all these romantic comedies nowadays. You don't have to watch this movie (but feel free if it sounds like your kind of movie), but you should definitely keep an eye out for Duhamel.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/

September 24, 2010

Conviction (2010)

3/5

Conviction follows the true story of Betty Anne Waters (Swank) and her brother Kenny (Rockwell). After Kenny is sentenced to life without parole for a brutal murder, Betty Anne goes back to school to get her GED, BA, and JD so that she can exonerate him. Although the audience may still have their doubts, Betty Anne is unswaying in her belief of her brother's innocence. As she devotes more and more of her life to this case, we become more and more apprehensive that it may have all just been a waste. The story itself is remarkable and inspiring; we would not be able to suspend our disbelief had this movie been fictitious. But it serves to show us the dedication family members have for each other, no matter how unlikely the odds are. This is true not only in the main plot architecture, but also in the side stories: a number of characters' motivations for doing seemingly despicable acts stem from the fact that they don't want to lose their children.


The acting was exquisite. I truly enjoyed the superb performances by Rockwell, Leo, and Lewis, but I found Swank's character to be extremely similar to that in her previous Oscar winner Million Dollar Baby. Jomarie and I got the chance to listen to a Q&A with the real Betty Anne Waters, and it was a real treat to hear her talk about the experiences and elaborate on a number of items the movie only glossed over. The woman is strong and resilient; it shows in everything she does. Quite frankly, I don't think Hilary Swank did her justice. Other than that, the technical aspects are not particularly noteworthy. The script serves the purpose of telling the story and doesn't attempt anything further. The directing is acceptable, the cinematography is mediocre, and the editing is rather bland. There are rarely any textual descriptors of time and place, despite the fact that the story bounces around in those two dimensions quite frequently. But it works here. It is able to maintain the mood of the piece across all those varying scenes. And the mood is really the movie's strongest aspect. It is able to twist your heartstrings, alternating between repeated injustices and hope for redemption before its ultimate conclusion. This is an incredible story wrapped up in a simple film, but it is definitely worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1244754/

September 18, 2010

Killers (2010)

2/5

Killers is such a stupid movie. When I first saw the trailer, I thought that it might be cool. As time went on and reviews came out, I got less and less excited for it. If I had just waited for my interest to dwindle to nothing, I might have spared myself from watching this stupid movie. It follows the awkward relationship that develops between awkward CIA agent Spencer (Kutcher) and awkward computer nerd Jen (Heigl) after awkwardly bumping into each other in France. Spencer is there to kill someone while Jen is there vacationing with her alcoholic mother (O'Hara) and overbearing father (Selleck). They get married and, several years later, Spencer discovers that a bounty has been placed on his head. All of his neighbors start attacking him with machine guns and kitchen knives like something out of Hot Fuzz, only bad. There are also a few side stories that are worthless and a final "twist" that would have been obvious if it made any sense.

Now that you know how stupid the plot is, I can tell you how stupid the rest of the movie is. The characters just don't work. At all. None of them. The two leads have absolutely no chemistry together; it's like they're talking cardboard cutouts. There was no passion, even in their arguments. There's very little romance and there's very little comedy (although the movie as a whole does provide some moments to laugh at, like the alcoholic mother, before you come to the depressing realization that alcoholism has become a punchline). The pacing is atrocious and the special effects are terrible. The gunfights and car chases failed to keep my attention (although the hand-to-hand combat was actually not bad). It's not the worst movie in the world, but I would seriously ask anybody who was intrigued by the trailer to just step away and let this one go. (The only reason it is not 1 star is that it didn't offend me in any way.)

September 17, 2010

Devil (2010)

4/5

Devil is a terrifying movie. The plot follows five strangers who get stuck in an elevator. Through a series of violent events, we discover that one of them is the devil. And the devil's goal is to pit man against man, to brew distrust and hatred, to watch our fears and suspicions cause us to destroy our fellow man. The devil collected everyone on that elevator because of their black pasts that they don't want to admit to. A detective (Messina) who is watching on the security camera must keep everyone calm as he organizes the rescue attempt. When people inside and outside of the elevator start dying, the devil certainly gets his wish.

Because M. Night Shyamalan came up with the story and produced the film, his fingerprints are all over it. Personally, I'm a fan of his work. He envisions a closed world where every character is connected and everything happens for a reason. Like any other director, he has had his fair share of hiccups, but he provides solid entertainment with a twist ending to make you rethink the events you just watched (although it's often unsurprising because everyone expects and looks for it). The same is true of Devil, but the similarities end there.

Shyamalan's replacement director is significantly better, although not perfect. He keeps the movie plowing full force ahead while allowing you time to stop and think. You doubt every character's motivations more than once. The tension is kept at a palpable and heart-stopping level through excellent pacing. The deaths in Devil are expertly done--all off camera so that we imagine the worst. However, the scenes of pitch black are way overused. And the cinematography and special effects are below average. The best I can say of the acting is that it is not quite believable. I'm not saying that the actors did a bad job; it's just that the plot itself is so impossible that I can't imagine how anybody would react in such a situation. Overall, if the trailer had you excited, you will love this movie. It delivers thrills and chills in a well-crafted psychological horror movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1314655/

September 12, 2010

Eat Pray Love (2010)

2/5

Eat Pray Love is a movie that pretends to be more than it is. It imagines itself as a universally philosophical journey that one woman takes to discover what's important in her life following an impending divorce. It instead plays as a travelogue to Italy (where she eats), India (where she prays), and Bali (where she loves) with a superficial sheen of self-discovery, but lacking any depth or importance. The plot is barebones and unconvincing. Perhaps the book is better, but watching this movie I had no idea why Liz (Roberts) was so fed up with her husband (Crudup) that she needed a divorce. I normally wouldn't have cared except that it was the impetus of her actions and the crux of the movie. Her journey is worthless if we don't understand why she's going on it in the first place. My other big complaint was at the end, where she meets and (apparently) falls in love with Felipe (Bardem). For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. They are together for a few unwitnessed days/weeks and suddenly they are in love? Their romance is assumed instead of shown (no thanks to the overabundant narration). There was more passion with the food in Italy.

Despite my criticisms, I didn't actually hate this movie. In fact, I didn't mind it at all, thanks to the acting, cinematography, and editing. While none of the actors were bad, they were pretty flat and boring. I couldn't tell if it was bad acting or bad writing, but based on the rest of the screenplay, I'm going to assume it's bad writing. However, Roberts and Jenkins were given very interesting characters to play, and they fill each scene they're in with emotion and empathy. While I don't think the cinematography was actually that impressive, the locales themselves are gorgeous. They're captured in exquisite detail, and I felt transported to each city. The editing was surprisingly the best part about the movie. It is extremely well done, cutting across time and space to unite multiple ideas and thoughts. But most people, myself included, can't treasure technical prowess if the storyline is bad or forgettable. And that is this film's fatal flaw. If you were interested in the movie based on the trailer, you might enjoy wasting 2 hours and 15 minutes watching it. But for everyone else, just pretend it never existed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0879870/

September 08, 2010

Jack Goes Boating (2010)

4/5

The plot of Jack Goes Boating focuses on the blossoming relationship between Jack (Hoffman) and Connie (Ryan) and the slowly disintegrating marriage of their close friends Clyde (Ortiz) and Lucy (Rubin-Vega). The movie is based off a play of the same name (with Hoffman reprising his stage role). Some of it feels much better suited to a film than a play while some of it follows the opposite logic. Its theatrical roots are very clearly evident: the whole movie is basically a collection of conversations with the occasional city shot interspersed between people talking about the events going on in their lives. We witness very little with our own eyes. I wish Hoffman had spent more time in the adaptation so that this film shows instead of tells. However, there were two things about the film that could not be replicated on stage. One was the close-up shots of the characters (because Hoffman "wanted to see them think") and the second was the "visualizations" that Jack does to prepare himself for a new endeavor. This one scene sticks out in my head where we see Jack leave his swim practice and walk over a bridge. He stops in the middle, looks out at the cars passing underneath, and lowers his head. He closes his eyes and suddenly he is in a swimming pool. We see what he sees and then we see it blend with the reality of his situation--and it is a remarkably poignant moment.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that it stays with you. As seems to be more and more common with independent films, the two leads are awkward and risk-averse, fearful of relationships due to perceptions of their own quirks and shortcomings. I left the theater not thinking much of them, but the characters wouldn't leave my mind. I began to see the depth and realism imbued in the actors' performances, and the tragedy and the hope that their stories bring. It made an impact on me. The romance between Jack and Connie is tender and heartfelt, the frustration between Clyde and Lucy is left appropriately below the surface, but you can see them struggling at every moment to maintain the appearance of a wonderful marriage. And despite some of the film's flaws, I think that the movie's ultimate goal was to make the audience think and wonder about the life of the characters before the movie begins and after the movie ends. It succeeds on that point admirably well.

Philip Seymour Hoffman's directorial debut is surprisingly adept visually, but on the whole was not as impressive as I was hoping it would be. Apart from certain shots and visual flairs, most of the cinematic elements simply serve the purpose of turning this play into a movie, and have no inherent artistic quality in and of themselves. It's not a poor first feature by any means, but it's certainly not the best I've seen. Watch it if you are a fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman or indie romances with oddball characters, but understand that it may not be exactly what you expect.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278379/

September 07, 2010

Jar City (2006)

3/5

Jar City is an Icelandic mystery that mixes genetics with murder in a slick, well-shot production. The movie starts in on a young child who is dying of an unknown disease in a hospital. We are then introduced to a much older person who has been murdered in his home, hit over the head by a heavy ashtray. We learn that the victim was a rapist and was involved with two other ne'er-do-wells who rampaged freely back in the 70's. Two police detectives (Sigurðsson, Haraldsson) dig deep into the past to try to identify the murderer, but soon discover more than they bargained for. But how does any of this relate to the story of the young child in the beginning? (I could tell you if you wanted to know, because it's somewhat interesting medically and I don't think this movie is good enough to recommend just to find that little nugget of information out.)

Technically, the movie is a mixed bag. It has some very impressive cinematography (beautiful landscapes within artful compositions), but also has more than its fair share of underexposed, grainy scenes. The acting is acceptable given the somewhat bland and uninteresting characters, but there is nothing particularly memorable about any of it. Apparently the movie is based on a series of novels with the same characters, which explains why there are a lot of backstories that were hinted at but never fully explored. Similarly, the film itself has mostly superficial thematics that never get fleshed out. I feel as if this whole story is much better suited for literature than film, where you have time to think about the characters and the meaning of the events. In this movie, all you get is the murder mystery without any of the interesting textures that stick in your brain. You can watch it if it sounds interesting, but it's something you'll likely forget about soon after watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805576/

September 05, 2010

Toy Story 3 (2010)

4.9/5

Toy Story 3 is another spot-on piece of entertainment to come out of Pixar. The plot follows the toys' attempt to escape the prison-like Sunnyside daycare center after being mistakenly discarded as trash while Andy moves his stuff for college. The new toys were far more interesting than those in the second one and the recurring toys were given even more texture and complexity. The incinerator scene was both harrowing and heartwarming, and surprisingly draining emotionally. The second half of the film is directed effortlessly as a prison escape, and there are thrills and creativity aplenty. The inventiveness of the animators allows them to envision an alternate world for the toys with its own set of rules (especially with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head) that feels completely believable and fresh. And just as you think there is no way the toys will survive, the writers blindside you with a surprise you never could have expected.

The concept of abandonment makes its somewhat tired presence here once more, but a few more interesting thematics crop up as well. The toys could easily represent parents who must be there for their kids at every waking moment, even when the kid grows apart with teenage rebellion or adult maturity. If so, the daycare allegory doesn't really follow. It feels like a closer approximation of heaven and hell. And what would donation represent? I see some very intriguing potential here, but I'm not so sure it was fully thought-out.

This movie is tough to rate. On the one hand, the storytelling and technical precision make this a splendid film to enjoy. On the other hand, I miss the refreshing, eye-opening take on our world that the first one presented. I wish this one had blown me away with its thematics as much as it did with its visuals and storytelling. But maybe I'm being too hard on it and expecting too much from it. It really is a joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435761/

September 04, 2010

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010)

2/5

Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an inappropriately-titled movie. The kid (Gordon) is not wimpy; he's just a superficial, image-obsessed boy who thinks he's cooler than he is and will do anything to make the "Class Favorites" section of the yearbook, even betray his best friend (Capron). Quite frankly, it's difficult to sympathize with his plight, and to even cheer him on at the end once he learns the error of his ways. I don't know if I would want my kids to watch this, because I'm not convinced that the protagonist's heart is in the right place. I don't want my kids to have the same motivations he has. And the movie is clearly directed towards kids, with nothing for adults to enjoy as one would find in a Pixar film. Even so, it contains the occasional scene where I smiled or laughed. My favorite character was actually the best friend, who should have been the model of the movie. He is big, childish, and out of place, but he believes in himself and puts himself out there for his friend. And the movie shows that he is rewarded for it. He was the heart and soul of the movie; the wimpy kid was just a jerk. Not my first choice for a kids movie, but not my last either. Watch at your own discretion.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196141/

September 02, 2010

The Last Song (2010)

1/5

I officially hate Nicholas Sparks. The Last Song is manipulative, melodramatic dross (definition: worthless or dangerous material that should be removed) that is neither entertaining nor inspiring nor meaningful nor any positive adjective. Before I even get into my rant, this sentence serves as a "spoiler" alert, because I want everybody reading this to know that I must reveal plot points to effectively show how disgustingly bad this movie is. The plot follows an ugly New York vegetarian eco-terrorist teen (Cyrus) who starts up a summer romance with an ugly volleyball playing, aquarium-volunteering mechanic (Hemsworth) while staying in Georgia over the summer with her father (Kinnear) and younger brother (Coleman). She is nothing but a moody, unlikeable brat the entire time, even after she finds out that her father is dying of cancer. She befriends a troll/ogre/ghoul (Chaikin) but is cruelly betrayed by the uggo after a ludicrous misconception concerning her sleazy pyromaniac boyfriend (Lashaway).

The writing is preposterous, the acting by the two leads could serve as an ipecac replacement, and the directing should have a black box warning for increased suicidality. There is a scene where sea turtle eggs hatch and waddle into the ocean. The movie tries to play it off as cute, but it just looks like a horde of cockroaches are infesting our waterways. There is another scene where Miley Cyrus is at the funeral for her father. Her boyfriend walks into the church (late, for some reason) and a super-bright beam of sunlight penetrates her father's stained-glass window. Then she says--out loud--"Hi, Daddy." If it sounds as if this entire review is just me spitting venom, that's because this movie needs to be dissolved in acid and removed from the world of cinema; it makes me ashamed to call myself a film lover.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294226/

August 31, 2010

Let The Right One In (2008)

1/5

Let The Right One In is described as a Swedish romantic horror movie about a young boy (Hedebrant) who is the victim of bullying and his vampire love interest (Leandersson) who cannot enter residences without being invited in (thus the unnecessarily unrelated title). The movie is paced slowly, full of dark atmospheric locations where nothing happens and artsy shots of objects that resemble still-life paintings more than film. Much of the plot is inferred with silence and "knowing looks," which depends heavily on social conventions and can make the movie confusing for US audiences. The characters are bland and uninteresting--the director/writer presumably think it is "interesting" to imagine vampires realistically with the same problems that non-vampires have. The acting was anywhere from adequate to poor, depending on how nice you're feeling. The computer graphics are atrocious to the point where it hurt the mood of the film. (All those fake cats were laughably bad, and you're not scared if you're laughing.) All in all, this movie takes a potentially fascinating concept and turns it into a dull, boring, confusing mess. Avoid at all costs.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/

August 29, 2010

Toy Story 2 (1999)

4/5

Pixar's Toy Story 2 is a well-made family film, but nowhere near as fresh or inventive as the first one. The plot follows toy cowboy Woody (Hanks) as he is stolen by Al the Toy Collector (Knight) to be sold to a museum in Japan as part of a collection known as Woody's Roundup Gang, which includes cowgirl Jessie (Cusack), steed Bullseye, and prospector Stinky Pete (Grammar). Buzz (Allen) and the gang go on a mission to save him, but Woody must decide if he even wants to return to a child he knows will grow disinterested in him over time or go to the museum to be eternally revered by kids behind a glass display case.

The major new theme in this film is the idea that it is better to be loved and forgotten than to never have been loved at all. However, the idea of abandonment has already been addressed in the prior film, and much more poignantly so. In that movie it was a frightening possibility that Woody fought tooth and nail to overcome, while here it is just a hint of a prospect. Much of this film I thought was a reiteration or reaffirmation of the first one, albeit wrapped up in a splendidly entertaining package. I wasn't a huge fan of the new characters that were brought in, but I did enjoy getting to know Hamm (Ratzenberger), Rex (Shawn), Mr. Potato Head (Rickles), and Slinky Dog (Varney) a bit better. They were far more fleshed out and interesting in this movie. All in all, this is an enjoyable follow-up to the first one, with a haunting and mesmerizing song by Sarah McLachlan, but a bit of a letdown considering how stunning and original the first one was.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120363/

August 27, 2010

Mother (2009)

4/5

Mother is a Korean film about the mother (Kim) of a mentally challenged man-child (Won) who is accused by the police (Jae-Moon) of killing a young schoolgirl (Na). Of course the mother knows her son could not have done it and will go to great lengths to prove his innocence. As she begins her amateur sleuthing, she stumbles upon the seedy underbelly of her town and the victim's salacious past. She digs past her unsettling revelations and teams up with her son's friend (Jin) to beat the truth out of certain witnesses. But even after you discover the events that happened that fateful night, the movie contains 30 very interesting minutes of a character study that are more provocative than the plot twists that preceded it.

This film, by the director of The Host, is an incredibly tense and atmospheric thriller. Even so, it is surprisingly relationship-driven, with the weirdly intimate and overprotective mother-son interaction providing the foundation and fascination of this awfully strange movie. I don't quite know what to make of it. It lingers in your brain after the final frame and keeps you thinking about the movie, but it also may turn a large portion of its audience away with disgust. While the characters intrigued me, the acting didn't impress me. That may be a result of the directing, which constantly used artsy-fartsy compositions at the cost of fluidity. Still, some of the shots and the editing as a whole were phenomenal. They cut across time and place to similar objects, similar perspectives, or similar themes. But the editing also has its own faults, as the movie was unnecessarily slow and long in some portions. It's impossible to recommend this movie to just anyone who likes murder mysteries and crime thrillers, but it's really unique for a wide range of reasons and there may be something to ponder in here for everyone. As long as they can stomach the more disturbing aspects of the film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216496/

August 21, 2010

Going the Distance (2010)

5/5

Going the Distance is an irreverent romantic comedy that will please those looking for raunchy laughs or sappy tearjerking. The plot follows Erin (Barrymore) and Garrett (Long), two people who fall in love one summer and find themselves fighting to survive in a long-distance relationship. Most romantic comedies work as follows: the two leads are stripped of any unique or interesting qualities so that nobody in the audience can find a fault with them (except maybe loving the other person too much) as the forces of the world tear them apart. But because the studios need to turn it into a comedy, they give the guy and the girl cohorts of friends with quirky senses of humor who are free to get a little more wild and risky. While this movie certainly has some unbelievable side characters (Day, Sudeikis, Applegate, Gaffigan), it doesn't dumb down the main characters into bland milquetoasts in the hopes that we will relate to and empathize with them. Going the Distance has characters that we care for because it takes the opposite tack. These people are real; they are vibrant and alive, imperfect, passionate, even distasteful at times. The decision to use off-screen couple Drew Barrymore and Justin Long was without a doubt the correct one, because you can see their love for each other in every frame on the screen.

The acting is pitch-perfect. It makes the writing seem nonexistent. Everything they say just rolls off the actors' tongues in perfect harmony and synchrony with their body language. Drew Barrymore has just the right amount of sass to make her adorable and edgy without being annoying. Justin Long is far more charming and charismatic than I ever thought was possible. Charlie Day steals every single scene he is in, playing a character that is almost identical to his role in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (which I hope is almost identical to his personality in real life). Though the jokes are risky, they hit all the right notes at all the right times. The movie honestly shows emotions without glamorizing it or turning it into melodrama. It lets scenes play themselves out, whether filled with joy or despair. And despite some predictability, this movie is a near-perfect romantic comedy. I can't wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1322312/

August 14, 2010

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

4/5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an incredibly immersive tale of mystery and suspense. The environment is dark and dismal, with men arbitrarily assaulting women, raping them, and murdering them in brutal ways. The original title is literally translated to Men Who Hate Women, which is a far more apt title based on the thematics threading themselves through every plot line. Lisbeth Salander (Rapace) is a computer hacker investigating journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist) on trial for a libel suit. Mikael is hired by Henrik Vanger (Taube) to investigate his niece's disappearance from 40 years prior. He believes she was killed by a member of his own family, of which three are neo-Nazis and the rest are cruel and hateful. He has reached a dead-end when Lisbeth, who is still hacking his computer, discovers the answer to the puzzling set of numbers that stopped him. He enlists her help and together they stumble on something far bigger and more disturbing than they first imagined.

Lisbeth is inwardly preoccupied, but incredibly resourceful when the outside world intrudes on her. We imagine Lisbeth's past based on a few facts--she has a probation officer and she was previously in a psychiatric hospital--but we end the film knowing very little about her history with any certainty. We are forced to witness her current abuse, by strangers and by authority figures, in scenes that are difficult to watch. But they are necessary for us to understand her sense of meaning and rightness in the world. I do not believe we are meant to relish the revenge that is taken against these women-hating men, but it is clear that the author believes in some form of justice despite the horrible events that take place. It seems that what Lisbeth represents may be far more important than who she actually is.

The acting was phenomenal, due to Rapace's burning intensity and Nykvist's everyman curiosity. The cinematography and editing suffered from a few mistakes, but on the whole they never detracted from the experience. The cinematics were surprisingly precise, with almost all of the elements combining into a taut, intellectual thriller that kept you guessing until the very end. There are only a few suspects, so it is possible you may have guessed the evildoer before being revealed, but by that time the whole crux of the movie has shifted so that what you thought was fact turns out to be a lie. It very effectively gives us a plot twist that is neither predictable nor gimmicky. This is a well-made movie, unexpected but much appreciated, depressing but hopeful, that will keep you gripped to your seat. Watch it. I plan on watching the sequel while it's still in theaters. Stay tuned.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132620/

August 13, 2010

Small Change (1976)

3/5

Small Change is in many ways exactly what you'd expect from Truffaut after seeing his entire oeuvre. It focuses on the childhood experience, on sexual discovery and other coming-of-age aspects, and it does so with lingering cinematography and awkward editing. But it broaches some difficult topics that seem to me a fascinating departure from Truffaut's typical fare as well. While watching the film, I presumed "childhood" to be its theme (although my teachers loved telling me that a single word can never be a theme). But actually childhood is more the idea--the mood, the atmosphere--than it is the theme. It is the setting in which events take place, events that happen haphazardly without a plot to lead them along. And that is one of the film's strengths: it reproduces the feeling of being a child, strung along by random events with no control over or prediction of tomorrow. It is episodic and unrelenting, without a beginning or end in sight. You are just stuck in the middle as life happens around you.

Unfortunately, that is also the film's weakness. The lack of a plot made a lot of the movie painfully tedious. Not knowing what will happen next turns even the shortest of movies into ones that are too long. There are some memorable moments (an infant by an open window ledge on the 9th floor) and other moments that stir up memories of ourselves and the stubborn refusals, incorrect assumptions, and rebellious behavior of our own childhood. But we cannot relate to all the moments, so some just pass us by and feel like wasted footage. Although Truffaut gets the mood right, he didn't get the movie as a whole right, at least for me. I don't go into a movie hoping for a yearbook so I can relive my past. I go for the possibilities of the future. I go for concepts that stimulate my brain or events that force a visceral reaction out of me, be it tension or heartbreak or joy. This movie did not do that. It may be the perfect film for some people, but it is not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074152/

Day for Night (1973)

4.9/5

Day for Night is one of three or so Truffaut movies that were independently identified and recommended to me. And correctly so. This is by far his best movie, and one of the best movies I've seen about making movies. This movie is the complete opposite of almost all of his earlier movies, but the funny thing is that it draws from Fellini and Altman more than from Truffaut himself. It doesn't really feel like his personal style of movie, and I am extremely thankful for that. The plot follows a director (Truffaut) on the set of his new movie, Meet Pamela, starring Julie Baker (Bisset), Alexandre (Aumont), and Alphonse (Leaud). The movie they are making is a tragedy, and we fear that the movie we are seeing may suffer a similar fate. We see a fragile actress who had a nervous breakdown on her previous film, a dependent actor immediately and obsessively in love with a freewheeling spirit, and a secretive actor who makes nightly visits to the airport for reasons nobody knows. There are moments where dedication and sacrifice are needed, where creative thinking and improvisation are essential. But despite the problems on set, there are moments of happiness and fluidity. And it is for those moments that people dedicate their lives to making movies.

The filmmaking in this movie shows some New Wave flourishes, but it is subdued in favor of brevity and efficiency in plot and style. The colors are bright without being oversaturated, the camera movements are meaningful without lingering, and the editing is brisk without being curt. In this movie, Truffaut fixes almost all of my complaints from all of his previous movies. But not quite. He still overuses zooms, still writes dialogue that sounds like it's written, and still uses bizarrely jarring cuts. But those annoyances are few and far between in this one. Day for Night is a tremendous film, and one that I can see watching time and time again. It is made by a true lover of film for true lovers of film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070460/