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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

Two English Girls (1971)

1/5

Two English Girls is a terrible movie, just like most of Truffaut's movies. I truly wish I had never burned the 15 movies of his that I had access to without first watching one or two. The plot follows Claude (Leaud) and two English girls (Markham, Tendeter) with whom he falls in love. Their love is instant and without explanation; it is less love and more melodrama and angst. I don't know what century this movie takes place in, but the movie plods along as if from a much slower era. The dialogue is stilted. It sounds better written than coming from the mouths of French and English actors who over-articulate as if they're learning new languages. An obtrusive and unnecessary narrator describes people's internal emotions instead of having them act it out, which also makes for an overly talky movie. The cinematography and editing are both poor. The colors range from far too dark to supersaturated; the film lingers on unrelated and unimportant shots like a stairwell or countryside landscapes. And there are a slew of unnecessary plot points that could have been excluded to make this movie shorter. (Or better yet, maybe Truffaut would have decided to exclude the whole thing and I wouldn't have had to sit through this movie at all! In fact, I wish that had happened for all of Truffaut's terrible movies.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066989/

Salt (2010)

3/5

Salt is a preposterous action movie starring Angelina Jolie as the titular character. When a Russian defector (Olbrychski) accuses CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Jolie) of being a Russian spy, she goes on the run from fellow agents Winter (Schreiber) and Peabody (Ejiofor) to prove her innocence and protect her husband (Diehl). As countless twists and turns pile up, we go back and forth between her possible motivations. Yes, all is technically explained (or at least left open for you to come up with your own explanations) in hindsight, but it never really made any sense while you were watching it. And that is the most frustrating part about this movie: you never know how to feel or whom to root for. This kind of uncertainty might work in a psychological thriller, but an action movie where someone's life is on the line all the time requires you to love and trust the main character. You must always fear for their life so that with every near miss you can breathe a sigh of relief. That tension is lost in this movie for most of the second half.

The action was above average for the most part, but nowhere near memorable (except maybe the final kill). The dialogue was bland and cliched. If this movie starred anybody besides Angelina Jolie, then it would have fallen by the wayside of our collective memory. But it does star Angelina Jolie, and she carries the entire film. She is mesmerizing. She makes a satisfactory film enjoyable, despite its slew of unimpressive features. Should you see it? Only if you're a fan of Angelina and/or senseless action. It seems like a lot of guys are.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944835/

What Happens in Vegas (2008)

2/5

What Happens in Vegas should have stayed in Vegas instead of being made into a movie. The plot follows Jack Fuller (Kutcher) and Joy McNally (Diaz) who get hitched in a drunken stupor after respectively being fired by his father and dumped by her fiance. They decide the marriage was a mistake and agree to get a divorce. As they are bitterly parting ways, Jack takes Joy's last token and plays the slot machine and wins 3 million dollars. They both feel entitled to the money, but the judge in the divorce hearings sentences them to 6 months of attempting a real marriage before he releases the funds to either one of them. They soon realize that they don't have to fake trying to be married to each other as long as they make it seem as if the other person isn't trying (e.g., by tempting them with attractive sexpots and/or Zach Galafianakis of The Hangover fame).

The directing in this movie is atrocious, as is every other aspect one might look for in a respectful movie. The only redeeming quality about this movie is the acting by Diaz and Kutcher after about the one hour mark. Before the one hour mark, their characters are despicable lowlifes and the jokes/pranks they play on each other are equally mean and petty. Once they start developing a real connection to each other is when we finally see some depth and honesty in their roles. It really is a pretty remarkable transformation. The leads' sassy best friends (Bell and Corddry) are pretty engaging and humorous throughout the film, however. They were the only things keeping us from turning the movie off after ten minutes and throwing the disc into my brand new shredder. If you give this movie a chance and find that you've made it through an hour of this film, you will be pleasantly surprised by a heartfelt ending (followed by an awesome punch in the balls). But avoid it if you can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033643/

Toy Story (1995)

5/5

Pixar's Toy Story is not the same movie I saw so many years ago. I remember much of the storyline (because of course the plot is still the same), but watching it from a more mature perspective opened my eyes to a lot of what I had either missed or ignored. The plot follows a collection of young Andy's toys who are constantly threatened to be replaced at every birthday and Christmas. Andy's favorite cowboy Woody (Hanks) is one such victim, being forsaken for the year's coolest space ranger Buzz Lightyear (Allen). Jealous, Woody plays a prank on Buzz that goes horribly wrong, the other toys band up against him for eliminating their new friend, and now Woody must save Buzz from the treacherous clutches of the evil neighbor Sid.

What surprised me on this viewing was just how dark this movie was. My understanding from IMDb's trivia page is that the producers wanted it to be edgy. They went down that path originally by writing Woody as an unlikeable sarcastic jerk (and there are some remnants of his unlikable qualities, despite Hanks's incredibly empathetic performance), but this final version is much more shocking. The toys in this world live to serve their master, to give him unconditional love regardless of whether he loves them back or throws them aside. These toys are voiced and animated as humans; how are we to respond when we see Sid explode army soldiers, rip off dolls' heads, and otherwise perform twisted chimeric experiments on the toys? The experience is surprisingly disturbing for a "family movie" and it is definitely edgy.

What stayed the same across these viewings was the animation, which is a real testament to the people working at Pixar. It's so easy for an animated film to look outdated 15 years in the future, but Toy Story does not endure such a fate. The animators took care to give it a unique aesthetic so that when you watch it 15 years in the future or 50 years in the future, you know it is meant to look exactly as it looks. It never becomes outdated, it only serves as a reminder of the style it helped create. The same can be said of the acting: the voice actors are recognizable even today, but they were chosen because of their acting ability, and that will shine through long into the future. They take you on a rollercoaster ride of emotions as you alternatively love and hate them, often from the subtlest of voice changes.

Toy Story is a fantastic movie that goes where few animated films have dared tread. Even today, 15 years later, it is rare to find as mature a family film as this one. Pixar has traditionally provided important adult thematics in films that appeal to younger audiences, and Toy Story is the start of it all. What an amazing and refreshing experience it is to watch this movie!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/

Ramona and Beezus (2010)

4/5

Ramona and Beezus is an absolutely delightful film. The movie follows the Quimby family during a particularly troublesome time in their life. The father (Corbett) loses his job after taking out a loan for a home expansion project, the mother (Moynahan) must now return to part-time employment, the older sister Beezus (Gomez) faces difficulties with her love life, and Ramona (King) is just trying to stay afloat with school and family. Everything wraps up more than perfectly in this super saccharine family movie.

The filmmaking is fairly standard, but there are some magical scenes that reveal Ramona's creative imagination. The sequences look like a mix between stop-motion and construction paper cutouts, and it's precisely the manner in which I believe Ramona daydreams. They were without a doubt the most memorable cinematic qualities of the movie. The acting is the other strong aspect of the film. Joey King is the most adorable child actress in recent memory; her entire face lights up with joy and scrunches down when pouting. You find yourself really caring for her and her overexaggerated worries, even though she's going through simple elementary school stuff. She makes the movie as enjoyable as it is and she is the reason that I highly recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493949/