A Lot Like Love (2005)

3/5

A Lot Like Love is a pleasant way to spend an afternoon in. The plot follows Ashton Kutcher (in a role that showed his charm and charisma) and Amanda Peet in a series of fortuitously romantic run-ins spread out across 7 years that eventually blossom into something resembling love. The movie plays out more like a series of moments in time--a few slices of life, if you will--than a continuous story. I find it much more bold and interesting a movie given that it takes that risk; it doesn't tell its story in the safer, conventional manner that plagues average movies. Here, each character matures and changes without overt explanation. We are simply to assume that life has changed them, in the way that life changes people. There are some stale cinematography, some odd editing decisions, but all in all the movie is sweet and unassuming. The fact that it is exactly what you predict it to be makes no difference. No, this romantic comedy is not the movie to change your mind about romantic comedies. But I am beginning to think that the goal of many romantic comedies is not to change your mind about the genre, but rather just to serve as a pleasant way to spend an afternoon in.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391304/

The Lovely Bones (2009)

2/5

Peter Jackson's adaptation of Alice Sebold's book The Lovely Bones is an interesting concept, but one that I did not find fulfilling or satisfying. It felt depressing instead of uplifting, with a poorly defined purpose that was carried out even more poorly. The plot follows 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Ronan) after being murdered by neighbor George Harvey (Tucci). Her death is a terrifying, painful, and drawn out one. It devastates and nearly destroys her family; her mother (Weisz) copes through acceptance and isolation and her father (Wahlberg) through denial and investigation. The police fail to locate the man after two years, and he prepares to strike again.

Technically, the film appears competent but has a number of underlying imperfections. Jackson uses editing expertly to build tension, however, the mood shifts at a brisk and almost too rapid pace. The audience is never quite sure what emotion to feel at what time. The directing also felt timid and uncertain, as if Jackson didn't think everything out and just started shooting. The beginning scenes hide Tucci's face, as if his identity would be a mystery throughout the film, but after about 5 minutes we find out who he is. Did Jackson not realize that a good 90% of the movie would be based around us knowing who he is or was there some ultra-subtle purpose that I missed?

I'm confused as to Jackson's motivations for a number of other scenes, especially those concerning Susie. I don't know what the "in between" represents or how any of her postmortem emotions are new, interesting, or even relevant. This newfangled purgatory is baffling, bizarre, and unnecessary, although I guess that's what separates it from other movies about similar topics. Unfortunately, I still found it to be an empty metaphor with uncertain meaning. The CGI is another area that appeared magical at first, but on closer inspection was just not quite good enough to be realistic. It was off by just a small amount, but enough to make you realize that what you were watching wasn't filmed but made, and that made it stand out even more. He spent far too much time on special effects and far too little time fortifying the story, understanding its meaning, and figuring out how best to show that to the audience.

I left the theater imagining that this was a great movie, or at least a good one. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it had less meaning than I attributed to it and more problems than I originally recognized. Don't let Jackson's infamous special effects trick you: this movie is nothing special, and not worthy of your time or money. It's a simple story told simplistically. Other movies have tread more tenderly, examined the topics more sensitively, and forced you to think more honestly and deeply about your feelings than this movie did. For my money, I'd rather see In the Bedroom or Little Children again. Pass on The Lovely Bones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/

Up in the Air (2009)

4/5

Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a film that sidesteps your expectations and delivers something surprisingly moving. The plot follows a professional "termination engineer" Ryan Bingham (Clooney) as he fires employees for bosses who don't want to do it themselves. He takes prides in the number of frequent flier miles he earns and the freedom he enjoys by not tying himself to a home or to friends. On a trip he meets Alex (Farmiga) and they begin a casual romance. His paradigm becomes endangered when a new Cornell grad named Natalie Keener (Kendrick) proposes online employment transition, allowing them to save 85% on travel costs. Clooney is forced to take her with him on his next few trips to show her the tricks of the trade and why her online termination plan will never succeed.

The acting was fine, but some of the characters' interactions seemed a bit too forced and written. Farmiga's character was confusing for the sake of being confusing, to produce the illusion of complexity and to advance the plot, instead of feeling realistic and true. It took me a little while after seeing the movie to realize that the focus is not on Clooney and Farmiga's relationship. It is instead on Clooney's worldview, his vulnerability, and his transition into the future. And quite frankly, that's much more interesting than a movie about their relationship anyway.

The intro credit sequence was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. Never in my life did I imagine myself saying that for a series of aerial images of the American heartland with "This Land Is Your Land" playing in the background. But they made magic out of nothing, it seems. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was never quite as good as those first two minutes. The comedy was brisk, producing some clever moments as well as some laugh out loud moments, but after a while it seemed to depend a bit too much on the use of swear words as punchlines. The movie is a good one, but understand that it may not be about the same thing you think it's about. Also, it just doesn't live up to the bar Reitman set for himself with his amazing previous films, Thank You for Smoking and Juno.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

4.9/5

Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes lived up to all my expectations, and I was expecting a lot. The plot follows Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Law) after they capture Lord Blackwood (Strong) and turn him in to the police for sacrificing people in black magic rituals. He is sentenced to death by hanging and Dr. Watson himself pronounces him dead, but Lord Blackwood rises from the grave a few days later and the otherworldly killings begin again. To make matters worse, one of Holmes's old love interests, Irene Adler (McAdams), comes back into his life after being hired by a mysterious professor to ask him to locate a missing scientist. Everything eventually ties together at the end, but a new mystery emerges that will likely be tackled in a sequel. A sequel that I will be first in line to watch.

For fans of Guy Ritchie or fans of Robert Downey Jr., this is a match made in heaven. This ranks up there as one of the absolute coolest movies either of them have done. As an action movie, we get to see Holmes's deductive reasoning in action--literally--in some awesome fight sequences. The difference between this and Guy Ritchie's earlier movies is that here he has excellent source material to provide well-developed characters that round out the over-stylized action. All their flaws and complexities are explored so we can see with absolute clarity how annoying Holmes can be and how angry Watson can get. I'm a sucker for con movies, sweet action flicks, and Guy Ritchie pictures; in Sherlock Holmes I can get all my desires satisfied. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/

Zoolander (2001)

2/5

Zoolander is not my kind of film. The plot follows male model Derek Zoolander (Stiller) after losing model of the year to Hansel (Wilson) and after losing his three roommates and close friends in a freak accident. He is being brainwashed by fashion designer Mugatu (Ferrell) to assassinate the Malaysian prime minister, who is implementing changes in his country that will ruin Mugatu's sweatshops. What frustrated me the most about the movie was the way all the characters spoke their lines--or maybe it was just Ben Stiller, who does most of the talking in the film anyway. He overly articulates every single word as if every one of his lines is a punchline, except only about 1 in 50 are. It's frustrating on my ear and my brain to keep expecting a punchline and not getting one, and it particularly hurts the weak jokes. The comedy itself is fair--although not always to my tastes--although I felt that the movie got a lot funnier over time (I especially loved the X-Files and Godfather references). Anyway, Zoolander may be your kind of film, but I am not a huge fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196229/

Taking Woodstock (2009)

3/5

Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is a curious film because it seems to have an uncertain target audience. The plot follows Demetri Martin and his crazy mother Imelda Staunton who run a cheap hotel on the countryside. At risk for defaulting on their mortgage, they attempt to convince the music festival Woodstock to host in their city in order to gain heavy hotel traffic. Suffice it to say, the plot is not the film's strong suit. My favorite aspects of the movie were the characters and the acting. They were all fascinating personas, adeptly portrayed, but I feel like I have no idea why they did the things they did. I didn't really understand their motivations; their "complexities" remained wholly nebulous to me. I also enjoyed the comedy, but it felt very subdued and infrequent, as if it were not the main focus of the movie. I am not sure what the main focus of the movie was, in fact. Most of the filmmaking was not particularly memorable, including cinematography, editing, and music. All in all, I didn't find this to be a particularly impressive film, especially coming from Ang Lee, but it's not bad per se. I'm just confused as to its purpose.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127896/

Paper Heart (2009)

2/5

Paper Heart's trailer is full of more concentrated entertainment than the film itself. The movie is a quasi-documentary about actress slash comedian Charlyne Yi as she tours the country interviewing people on their thoughts about love. During the filming, she meets Michael Cera and they start dating. The Cera subplot-that-becomes-the-main-plot doesn't for one second feel believable. And that's the problem with this movie: it's so obviously staged. Which would be fine if it were enjoyable or creative or clever, but instead it's simple and basic and awkward. Is it just me, or is anybody else sick of Michael Cera playing the same awkward man-child in the same awkward relationship as the other three million "quirky" indie comedies he stars in? Charlyne Yi is equally awkward with an endearing laugh that quickly becomes annoying after hearing it for more than three seconds. And it goes on for many more than three seconds. This is an aggravating film for many reasons, most aggravating perhaps because there are some nuggets of quality and I can't just dismiss it as being all bad. My favorite parts were Yi's re-imaginings of the random stories, especially the finale. Other than that, trash. And who wants to watch garbage?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331064/

Nine (2009)

4/5

I am a huge fan of Rob Marshall's Nine. It has been poopooed on by Negative Nancy film critics on each and every print and web publication, but I don't really care for their elitist perspectives, and neither should you. Nine is engaging, entertaining, and enlivening. It is full of energy and style and does not apologize for being in your face. I loved absolutely every minute of it. The movie is an adaptation of a Broadway musical based on a classic Italian film by Federico Fellini called 8 1/2. For any true lover of cinema, you are pretty much required to see 8 1/2, but that doesn't mean you're required to appreciate it or even like it. For my part, I both liked and appreciated it, and yet I find Rob Marshall's Nine to be a more accessible and more enjoyable version. No, it's not "better" than 8 1/2, but I feel more inclined to watch Nine with my friends (especially non-cinephiles) than 8 1/2.

The plot follows director Guido Contini (Day-Lewis) as his producer is pressuring him to make a new movie by creating a gigantic set, a poster, and a press conference even though Contini has no script and no concept. Stressed out, he runs away from Rome and tries hiding in a spa resort, asking his mistress (Cruz) to come while suggesting his wife (Cotillard) stay home. Eventually his producer finds him and brings the crew and set over so that he can continue his work. I'll leave the rest of the plot unstated and let you enjoy the rest of the movie yourself.

The acting was magnificent, as expected based on the Oscar-heavy cast. Marion Cotillard is a marvel, and I have become a complete fan of her acting after seeing this movie. She is soft and tender and fierce and sweet and everything you can imagine all wrapped up in an angelic visage and portrayed to perfection. I don't think I would have loved this movie nearly as much had she not been cast. Technically, the movie is more than competent. From his experience adapting musicals, I expected the costuming and makeup to be excellent--and it was. However, the cinematography, lighting, and editing impressed me because I never considered Marshall to be a particularly cinematic filmmaker. But here he has proved me wrong. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the songs blew me away. They're catchy and powerful and memorable.

However, the picture is not all rosy. I feel like some characters were miscast, specifically Daniel Day-Lewis. He does a fine job to the best of his ability, but he just doesn't fill out the character as I would have expected and would have liked. Javier Bardem (Marshall's original choice) would have been perfect, and would have given Cotillard a run for her money as the best part of the movie. Additionally, Nicole Kidman's role was relatively minor and the love between her character and Day-Lewis's didn't resonate as being believable. Still, even as it is, the movie is phenomenal. Watch it in theaters while you still can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0875034/