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/

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/

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/

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.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1103153/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/