Viridiana (1961)

1/5

Buñuel's Viridiana is poorly-made nonsense. Nun-to-be Viridiana (Pinal) is invited back to her uncle's mansion before she takes her vows before God. There, she discovers that her uncle (Rey) wants to marry her, and he enlists the aid of his maid (Lozano) to force her to stay with him. Things don't go as planned and the rest of the movie diverges from acceptable storytelling and just kind of bumbles around into chaos. The film is not really about the story at all, so I won't bother telling you any more of the plot. Suffice it to say, it's incomprehensible (in purpose) and more than a bit frustrating.

Nothing feels believable, including any supposed satire. The writing is poor. The filmmaking is poor. This is essentially a student film, complete with above-average actors made to perform stilted and staged dialogue by a pretentious director who thinks he knows better than everyone else. Buñuel's tunnel vision disdain for the church (and apparently kindness in general) borders on offensive. But more insulting than the content itself is Buñuel's use of overt imagery and obvious symbolism, because nobody could have figured out his genius strokes without having him graciously dumb it down for all us idiot audience members. If I wanted to watch a feel-bad movie where well-intentioned people are made to pay for their beneficence, I would have watched the equally terrible Au Hasard Balthazar and walked out halfway through. But who does? Avoid this movie unless you like being sledgehammered in the face with negative sentiment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055601/

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

3/5

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is standard summer blockbuster fare that, like Sherlock Holmes, came out 5 months too late. The plot follows IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) on a mission to stop a madman (Nyqvist) from starting a nuclear war. It's a movie trope we're all too familiar with, and the only thing this particular movie brings to the table is lots and lots of exciting action (and little else). It's not so much that there are plot holes, it's more that the filmmakers just didn't care about the plot. Nor did they care about the acting, as Paula Patton is clearly just a pretty face and nothing more.

Ah, but the action. The stunts on the Burj Khalifa are truly breathtaking and the chase through the sandstorm is inventive and thrilling. The climax in the motorized parking garage is truly edge-of-your-seat entertainment. But unfortunately that's about it. If you're the type of person who enjoys this kind of action and doesn't mind the nonsensical, unbelievable plot, then you will clearly enjoy it. If you were excited by the enormous number of positive reviews and thought this movie might be somehow different from every other action movie you've seen before, start rethinking. This is nothing more than a simple action movie, but at least it's a decent one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

4/5

David Fincher's remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is as terrifying, gripping, and disturbing as the Swedish version. When I first heard Fincher was doing the American remake, I was ecstatic. The content and atmosphere was classic Fincher, and the extended 8-minute trailer was riveting. To say my expectations were high was an understatement: they were nigh unattainable. And, lo and behold, the movie failed to meet them.

Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that this is so similar to the Swedish version. I typically favor American remakes (such as The Departed) as they inherently bring uniquely American cultural and social viewpoints that we can better relate to, independent of the quality of the directing or the cinematic techniques. But here, I just didn't get that. It felt overly faithful to the Swedish film, to the point of zealotry, and there was very little that was new or different.

The changes that Fincher did make were fairly minimal, but had enormous impact. I was a little bit more confused by the Vanger family tree this time around (although you would think it would be less confusing having already seen it and having it in English this go around). The beginning felt extended while the ending felt rushed. And the minor variation in the ending had huge implications for Lisbeth's character that I just can't shake. I have no idea how the novel ended, but I feel that Fincher's ending broke down the entire essence and persona of the titular character. She feels like a completely different Lisbeth.

Don't get me wrong. This is an absolutely engrossing movie, made with directorial precision and technical finesse. Beautiful cinematography, phenomenal music, and stellar acting. Rooney Mara more than holds her ground against the powerhouse that was Noomi Rapace. Perhaps I just set my sights too high, and perhaps I am being much too critical of the film, but I feel like the Swedish version speaks to me more. It has its imperfections, as does this American version, but the Swedish version is the one I think of whenever I think of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/

Horrible Bosses (2011)

4/5

Horrible Bosses follows three friends who decide to kill their bosses. Nick (Bateman) has been working late nights and weekends for 8 years to earn a promotion to VP of Sales, only to have the CEO (Spacey) take on the position himself. After an unfortunate event, Kurt (Sudeikis) finds himself under the rule of his old boss's son (Farrell), a cokehead and all-around dick. Newly-engaged Dale (Day) is being sexually harassed by his sociopathic boss (Aniston). When things become too unbearable, they decide their bosses would be better off dead and bumble around in search of a hitman. They end up with Jamie Foxx, who has a hilarious moniker that I will let you discover for yourself when you watch the movie.

As far as comedies go, there is nothing particularly new or unique about this one. However, it is a solid film, filled with raunchy humor and efficient pacing. The jokes come fast and furious, delivered with precise comic timing from lovable characters. Charlie Day pretty much plays himself, which I can't get enough of, and the other two are in their usual good form. The movie breaks no new ground, and (save for one shocking death) is fairly predictable throughout, but does what it sets out to do admirably well. I laughed my way through this movie and enjoyed every moment of it; what more can I say?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1499658/

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows (2011)

4/5

Guy Ritchie's sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, is an entertaining action flick that fails to engage the audience in the same way that the original did. The plot centers around Professor Moriarty (Harris), who has been planting bombs in government buildings to incite fear and anarchy. Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Law) must figure out his plan and stop him before he starts a world war. The plot itself doesn't matter, however, because this is just a summer blockbuster that was released 5 months too late. Ritchie (or his screenwriter) has eliminated the complex, flawed characters from the first film and instead replaced them with hero archetypes without any unique characteristics. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his creations are nowhere to be found in this film. Just Guy Ritchie and his eye for cool.

This is a solid action movie, exciting and enthralling, dripping with slick humor and slicker style, but there's no substance. Just like the popcorn you eat while watching, nothing on the screen satisfies. It's just empty calories that never seem to fill you up. But this is some of the best popcorn I've had this year.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/

New Year's Eve (2011)

2/5

New Year's Eve is the bland, uninspired follow-up to Garry Marshall's mediocre Valentine's Day. There is no story to speak of. There are instead about a dozen trite, overused blueprints of ideas that are empty and meaningless. They are all instead vehicles for the two dozen stars to be themselves on camera and try to make money without doing any acting whatsoever. The movie over-relies on archetypes, movie tropes, and celebrity status. Lea Michele sings. Jon Bon Jovi sings. Robert De Niro plays a gruff old guy with regret. And Sofia Vergara plays a sexy lady with an accent. It's the same thing we've seen over and over again. (And Sofia Vergara was significantly funnier on Conan than in this movie.)

The best thing about this movie is the Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer storyline. It had cutesy charm, much more than I expected. But even their portion of the movie lacked motivation and backstory. The other thing I liked about it is a line Josh Duhamel says (although he is in fact just quoting his dead father, and it seems to come out of nowhere): "What would you do today if you knew you wouldn't fail? Now go out and do it." Despite all the ridiculous star power in this movie, it holds no power and deserves only two stars. Avoid.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598822/

We Bought A Zoo (2011)

3/5

Cameron Crowe's We Bought A Zoo is an upbeat, sugar-coated movie about a family that is falling apart after a recent death. Similar to The Descendants in plot, Crowe's film takes the more saccharine, family-friendly approach. Benjamin Mee (Damon) buys a new house that doubles as a zoo for his 7-year-old daughter Rosie (Jones), after being forced to move because of his son's poor behavior in school. As part of the contract for buying the property, he reopens the zoo and invests heavily, both financially and emotionally, in the animals and zookeepers (Johansson).

The problem with this film is that it's more of a performance than a realistic portrayal. Even though it was based on a true story, it feels less believable than The Descendants. This is not a fault of the acting, which is absolutely superb. The problem is the script, which bludgeons "take-home point" after "take-home point" instead of focusing on the people. It has a number of subplots that feel both unnecessary and strained. When it tries to wrap up all its various storylines into neat little packages by the end of the film, it just feels like it has more endings than The Lord of the Rings. The movie is enjoyable and entertaining--it's not a bad movie by any means--but I just wish it spent more time exploring the motivations and reactions of the characters instead of the intricacies of running a zoo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389137/

The Descendants (2011)

4.9/5

Alexander Payne's The Descendants is a phenomenal film. The plot is filled with human complexities that are so intricately woven together that attempting to summarize it would do the film a disservice. To be brief: Matt King (Clooney) is in the middle of selling a large plot of Hawaiian land when his wife (Hastie) falls into a vegetative state after a boating accident. He has to take care of his two daughters, Alex (Woodley) and Scottie (Miller), while telling their friends and family that his wife is to be taken off life support. There is so much more here, but I don't want to make the story seem simpler than it is with my rudimentary retellings, nor do I want to ruin the experience of discovery and involvement.

The film effortlessly walks the line between comedy and tragedy with a heartbreaking script and breathtakingly honest performances. (Not to mention unparalleled medical accuracy for a Hollywood film.) It is reminiscent of Payne's earlier film Sideways, juxtaposing opposite moods like Wes Anderson but in a more muted and mature fashion. On the whole, the movie feels authentic and believable despite those sometimes acute shifts in tone. This is the result of a script that is precise and articulate, and a director who can lift the words off the page and pull the truth out of his actors. Clooney gives one of his best performances ever. He exudes vulnerability, strength, wisdom, naïveté, charisma, and ugliness in equal parts, painting a picture of a desperate man searching for meaning in the face of death. He pulls at our heartstrings with such ferocity that I feared they might break. I'm surprised I didn't cry during the film's final tender scenes.

The movie occasionally missteps, but I won't belabor its minor faults. This movie is both fascinating and enjoyable, a testament to the human experience, and I cannot wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033575/

Ip Man (2008)

3/5

Ip Man tells the sensationalized, quasi-true story of martial arts grandmaster Ip Man (Yen) during the Japanese invasion and occupation of China in WWII. The movie is a fairly rudimentary one in terms of its storytelling, filmmaking, and acting. The plot is simple and predictable, the acting is passable, and the cinematography is forgettable. The film uses simple archetypes instead of complex characters: the good guys are perfect and the bad guys are unreasonably evil. Where this movie really shines is the fighting. This showcases some of the most impressive martial arts I've seen in recent memory, with appropriate slow-motion and exciting camera angles. It puts the martial arts on display like poetry, and it is truly enthralling to watch. However, there are too many flaws overall to truly recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't like kung fu movies. If you do, though, this is one you don't want to miss.

Note: I saw the (laughably pathetic) dubbed version of this film, which is available for free on Amazon Prime Instant Video, instead of the subtitled version of this film, which is available on Netflix.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220719/

Biutiful (2010)

4/5

Iñárritu's Biutiful is a powerful, moving film about a single father dying of cancer. Uxbal (Bardem) has custody of his two kids, Mateo (Estrella) and Ana (Bouchaib), because of his bipolar wife's erratic behavior. He also runs a fake handbag business, managing Chinese sweatshop workers (Shen) and Senegalese street vendors (Ndiaye). After learning of his diagnosis, he tries to reconcile with his wife (Álvarez) for his children's sake, but all his attempts to do the right thing for everyone he cares about spiral out of control.

Iñárritu is a master of multiple story lines. Although they all stem from the same root (instead of intersecting randomly as they have in the past), we still enjoy vast, diverse, sprawling epics. Iñárritu does not shy away from tough topics, tackling illegal immigration, parenting with mental illness, and coming to grips with death. He brings these into sharp focus with an ear for incisive dialogue and an eye for evocative shots. For being such a dark, depressing movie, it contains extremely colorful shots that somehow still maintain a gritty blackness. The acting by Bardem is absolutely incredible. His silent looks, his flashes of anger, holding emotions in and letting rage out, all come together to give us a crystal clear picture of the chaos behind his passing life.

Despite my praise for the thematics and tone of the film, Biutiful can be a little slow. It's about thirty minutes longer than it needs to be. Despite its pace, it is steady in its progression and sure in its footing. The cinematography is too handheld for me, unnecessarily so. I wished the camera would just stop moving every once in a while. They invented tripods for a reason. Also, the nudity in this film seems superfluous and over-the-top. By the end of it, you're just tired of all the breasts. Still, this is a terrific movie. It is refreshing to see that Iñárritu still has important things to say and the talent to say it in prolific ways.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1164999/

The Ides of March (2011)

4/5

George Clooney's The Ides of March is a well-made, high-quality political thriller. Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is running for president with campaign managers Paul Zara (Hoffman) and Steven Meyers (Gosling). Although Morris seems like an ideal candidate, problems start cropping up when his opponent's campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti), tells Steven some damaging news in strict privacy. Things get even more complicated when Steven gets romantically involved with a young intern (Wood) who has a few secrets of her own.

Technically, the film is impressive. The Ides of March showcases just about the finest ensemble cast in recent memory, perhaps ever. Although Gosling is billed as the lead, each of the supporting cast delivers stand-out performances so good that it makes Gosling's acting look simple and immature in comparison. While the script has sharp dialogue, it ultimately lacks the originality and creativity to make the story stand out. Clooney's directing, on the other hand, has matured significantly since his debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Instead of flashy filmmaking, he goes for simple, understated techniques to enhance the overall experience. Subtle moves, like close-ups that build tension by gradually getting tighter, show his command of cinematic technique. All the individual parts come together to make a cohesive whole, but nothing jumps out to make me sing its praises. This is a solid film that does one thing well, but there's nothing revolutionary going on here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/

Breaking Dawn: Part 1 (2011)

1/5

Wow. And I thought the first two were bad (I thankfully "missed out" on the third one). This movie goes over the intricacies and technicalities of vampire weddings, vampire pregnancies, and vampire babies in excruciating, explicit, unexpectedly graphic detail. Quite frankly, the sex scenes and the birthing scenes were truly disturbing affairs that I wish I could unwatch. Everything about this movie is staged, written, and stilted, much like Sharktopus and other B movies. It felt like everyone was putting on a performance for the camera, and nothing about this (admittedly preposterous) fantasy felt believable in any way. The technical aspects were just as laughable as before, with horrendous pacing, poor special effects, and uninspired action. Oh, and very awkward intimacy (with some neonatophilia). Ultimately, I think my biggest frustration is that nothing actually happens during this movie until it actually ends. It's all a bunch of angry outbursts without any climax, without any substance. This isn't just a bad movie; it's an infuriating one. Watch at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1324999/

The Vow (2012)

3/5

The Vow tells the ridiculous but apparently true story of a woman (McAdams) who wakes up from a car accident with short term memory loss. She remembers her mom (Lange), her dad (Neill), her sister (McNamee), and her ex-fiancé (Speedman), but not her recently-wed husband (Tatum) and his weird cadre of hipster friends (which is a plus in my book). The rest of the movie is spent trying to restore her memory and win back her love. The script was predictable but appropriately tender. There were scenes with awkward cheesy teen romance and others where we felt intimately close to everything going on.

Much like The Time Traveler's Wife, The Vow is about two imperfect people who do the best they can in an impossible situation. Both tell stories of people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control, whether it's time travel or amnesia, who end up causing pain to the people who love them. McAdams, with that mesmerizing sparkle in her eye, plays to perfection the exact same role she always does: the fiercely independent, slightly selfish artist whose love knows no bounds. The supporting cast, including Tatum, varied between acceptable and above average. Lange stood out the most, delivering a fantastically moving moment near the end of the film.

Although similar in almost all respects to The Time Traveler's Wife, The Vow fell behind in a number of areas. First, its cinematography was nothing to write home about. Second, the medicine was surprisingly less believable than the science of time travel. (I honestly don't think anybody in Hollywood knows what intubation or extubation looks like.) The Vow is a solid romance and a must for fans of Rachel McAdams. But for everyone else, the predictable story and middling technical aspects will leave you wanting more.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606389/

Sharktopus (2010)

1/5

For being an "original Syfy movie," Sharktopus is about as unoriginal as they come. In this bizarre fantasy world, the US Navy has created a shark-octopus hybrid killing machine to keep our waters safe from drug runners, despite that job belonging to the US Coast Guard. When Sharktopus gets loose, Nathan Sands (Roberts) sends his scientist daughter (Lane) with a hunky boat driver (Bursin) to track it down and recapture it while he drinks scotch and video chats. The terrible script is made worse by awful "acting," although I honestly don't know if this monstrosity would be any better with good acting. The more believable performances almost seem out of place. The actors were likely cast for their lack of acting ability, as every word comes from idiots reading a script without realizing "scared" denotes their emotion. The male lead is shirtless most of the movie and seems to enjoy flexing his pecs for our apparent enjoyment, although it comes off as kind of circus freak-ish. Actresses are noticeably sucking in their stomachs in a pitiful attempt to look skinnier on camera. And that brings me to the special effects, which are laugh out loud bad. I think the screenshot I've included in this review insults the movie far more than my words ever could. I really have nothing more to say about that.

To summarize, this is a B monster movie with C actors, D filmmaking, and F special effects. This film was followed by another original Syfy movie, Supergator, which I passed on. I suggest you pass on any original Syfy movie you come across. You can thank me later.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1619880/

J. Edgar (2011)

4/5

Clint Eastwood's biopic of J. Edgar Hoover is a compelling portrait of a unique character in American history. The plot follows the controversial rise of J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) to the director of the FBI--his anti-Communist crusades, criminal forensics, and government blackmail--and then analyzes how those same ideas eventually contributed to his public downfall. It tackles his personal relationships and his political ambition in equal parts, forming a tapestry of contradictions and dichotomies inherent in everybody but rarely projected onto the big screen with such clarity and precision. It chronicles his complex love for his mother (Dench), his secretary (Watts), and his number two man (Hammer) with tenderness and honesty instead of the gaudy spectacle and homophobic fantasies that seem to have incessantly plagued his reputation.

DiCaprio's understated performance is remarkable, providing depth and subtlety alongside rage and hidden feelings. He is able to generate empathy for a hard, rigid, oftentimes unlikeable man. His portrayal serves as the foundation for this phenomenal film. While the supporting cast throws in stellar performances, they quickly fall by the wayside in the grand scheme of things. Without DiCaprio in the lead, J. Edgar would still be a good movie, but it would be a forgettable movie as well.

The movie has its fair share of imperfections. Eastwood did not do enough to lift the screenplay out of its decidedly literary beginnings and translate it to the medium of film. There are often "profound" ramblings by Hoover--unrelated to the images on screen--that were arbitrarily lodged in anytime there wasn't dialogue. The timeline would flip between eras too eagerly, making it difficult to get a sure footing on the time and place of certain events. The cinematography was post-processed too much, giving it an inconsistently old-timey look that felt disingenuous. Minor side characters, like Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were cast to mimic the famous political figures instead of to act as them. They focused on the accent instead of the words and the motivations behind the words. Despite these minor niggles, this is a terrific film and should not be missed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/

Margin Call (2011)

4/5

Margin Call chronicles the beginning of the recent economic downfall from the point of view of the insiders within Lehman Brothers who first discovered the impending collapse. Although the script occasionally feels repetitive or simplistic, it is sharp, incisive, and filled with thematics that span far more than this particular financial crisis. It is augmented by a spectacular cast with exceptional performances. It's been a while since I've seen Kevin Spacey in such a phenomenal role, and he does not disappoint here. He brings maturity, subtlety, and humility to a towering character. He delivers his lines with precision, power, and nuance.

The director manages to turn the talk-heavy screenplay into a thrilling, energetic film (although perhaps punctuated by a few too many shots of shocked faces). He makes investment banking vernacular exciting, focusing on power plays to allow us to witness experts do what they do best. For me, nothing is as awesome as seeing professionals perform, and we get all that and more in Margin Call. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/

Prom (2011)

2/5

Prom is a vapid, innocuous, forgettable piece of Disney Channel entertainment. The plot follows the disparate lives of random high school students in the month leading up to senior prom. There aren't really any characters so much as there are a smattering of overused, two-dimensional archetypes: the jock who cheats on his girlfriend, the straight A student who falls for the rebel punk, the nerdy guy who can't seem to ask a girl out. The writing was standard high school fare, chock-full of overdone voice-over and moments of obvious epiphanies, albeit with a few quality lines and situations that made me smile or laugh. The acting was middle-of-the-road, which is more than I expected coming into this movie. The bubblegum romance is good enough for a quickie, but not mature enough for a relationship. To put it simply, this is a mindless movie, but it was an innocent and fun waste of time.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1604171/

Hanna (2011)

4/5

Hanna is a terrific movie. The plot follows the daughter (Ronan) of a rogue agent (Bana) on a quest to take revenge on the person who killed her mother (Blanchett). The scenario surrounding that basic premise is fairly uninspired and recycled, borrowing heavily from action movie tropes without anything to call its own. The writing is just as dull as the plot, with characters that, while well-acted, end up flat and boring because there's nothing original or even remotely interesting about what they do or what they say.

What this movie does have, and in abundance, is style. Its visual flair makes it a delight to watch from beginning to end. The movie uses the most exotic, curious, beautiful locales to set gun fights and chase scenes. It combines refreshing cinematography with eclectic, exciting music to create something unique and memorable despite its bland storyline. Wright directs this film with ease, using some of the same techniques he used in his earlier Pride & Prejudice and Atonement to striking effect. He even cuts away from the action from time to time to focus on images or ideas that are more captivating than the fighting itself. This is not a traditional action movie, and may in fact alienate some typical action fans, but it will enthrall those who appreciate the essence of cool.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993842/

Confidentially Yours (1983)

2/5

Truffaut's Confidentially Yours is certainly a whimper of a final film. The plot follows Julien Vercel (Trintignant), who is being accused of murdering Massoulier with a shotgun to the face. We soon find out that Massoulier was sleeping with Vercel's wife (Sihol). When she ends up dead, even Vercel's lawyer (Laudenbach) cannot help him. He goes into hiding with the help of his secretary (Ardant). She's the only one who believes he's innocent--and she's willing to lie, cheat, and steal amidst the seedy underbelly of France to expose the truth.

Just about every facet of this film is mediocre or subpar. The acting is awkward and unconvincing. The shifts in mood destroy what little tension Truffaut is able to manage. Poor lighting and poor writing make the film impossible to enjoy. Half the scenes are too dark for me to tell what's going on and the other half seem intentionally obfuscated to keep it "mysterious." While I was intrigued and engaged initially, the unsatisfying ending absolutely ruins the rest of it. The "explanation" just doesn't make much sense and there are a lot of loose ends that never get tied up. A supposed tribute to Hitchcock, Confidentially Yours only serves to show us that it takes more than studying a master to replicate his genius.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086551/

Drive (2011)

2/5

Drive is an over-stylized mess of a movie without a clear focus, although it's directed as if it had one. The threadbare plot is too simple and pointless to warrant a sentence reiterating it; suffice it to say it's about crime, revenge, and a little bit of driving (but not as much as the title would lead you to believe). Ryan Gosling plays the strong, silent superhero who "doesn't carry a gun" but has no qualms with stomping skulls in. He plays it well--his acting is probably the best part of the movie--but he does it under misguided direction from Refn. He alternates between stoic and angry and child-like on a dime, but doesn't do it in a convincingly personal or meaningfully complex way, just on the whims of the plot so we can see some sensational yelling or killing at random intervals.

Refn directs the movie like a comic book, with striking visuals and superb juxtaposition telling the story in place of dialogue. The 80's synth music and pink typography give it a retro feel, but it feels a little out of place. I commend the style, but I guess I came into the theater expecting the maturity of a novel. I typically don't like violence without a purpose: I want a movie to give me something back to make up for assaulting my senses. But Refn's goal with Drive seems simply to shock and appall you without any substance beneath the special effects. All in all, I cannot recommend this movie.

Also, it stole its tagline from No Country for Old Men.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/

Moneyball (2011)

4.9/5

Moneyball is a superb film about a revolution in the game of baseball. Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager for the Oakland A's, is losing his top three players to higher-paying teams. While trying to find the cheapest "good" players he can, he discovers Peter Brand (Hill). Brand is an econ major who enjoys watching baseball, but he brings with him a new way to build a team, using statistical analysis to figure out which players are undervalued because of perceived defects (e.g., a pitcher who throws funny, a batter who waddles). Instead of scouting for the all-star with good looks, a clean swing, and a hot girlfriend, Beane and Brand are searching for the people with the highest on-base percentage and recruiting them for dirt cheap.

Although based on a true story, the only reason this movie feels as authentic as it does is because of the genuine performances from the stellar cast. We see regret in Pitt's face, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy from an actor we would expect the exact opposite out of. In Hill we see the everyman with a bright idea without the confidence to stand behind it. The dialogue is pristine and the cinematography and editing are crisp. Every scene is filled with energy and humor and Miller transforms all that verve into a lively, entertaining film. Much like Sorkin's previous screenplay, this one is about a small idea that challenges the status quo and changes a way of life. This movie is ultimately about progress, at the social level and at the individual level, despite being a "baseball movie." I am not a big fan of sports movies, but this is one of the best. Moneyball is a movie that just happens to be about sports, and an incredible one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/

Possession (2002)

2/5

Possession is a film adaptation of a book that is likely superior in every way. The plot focuses on two English literature historians, Roland Michell (Eckhart) and Maud Bailey (Paltrow), who both research Victorian-era poets: Michell knows Randolph Henry Ash (Northam) and Bailey knows Christabel LaMotte (Ehle). As the two uncover a heretofore secret, hidden love affair from the past, they discover the emergence of their own love for each other. Yes, the storyline sounds more than a little cheesy, but it reminded me--in a good way--of Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love. (Unfortunately, it never even came close to being as good as that movie.) All the storytelling elements were there to make this a truly compelling story, but the rest of the filmmaking was not. The acting oscillated between flat and harsh. The written dialogue was unconvincing and stilted. Most of the shots were plain Jane boring. A few times LaBute surprised me with some clever juxtaposition of scenes or imagery, but I left the movie unimpressed. (It doesn't help that it ends on a ridiculously laughable action/chase/fight scene.) Trust me when I say that Possession is a movie not worth seeing. If the plot sounds interesting, I would suggest you try reading the book instead.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256276/

Happythankyoumoreplease (2010)

3/5

Happythankyoumoreplease is another middle-of-the-road quirky indie comedy, but what this one has that no other one has is an annoying title that omits spaces for no reason whatsoever. The plot follows three couples in New York: 1) Sam (Radnor) and Mississippi (Mara) after a three-night stand, 2) Annie (Akerman) and Sam #2 (Hale) in a workplace romance, and 3) Mary Catherine (Kazan) and Charlie (Schreiber) with an unexpected pregnancy. I really don't have much to say about this movie, except that it is exactly what I expected based on the preview.

It's about six 20-something romantics and their sex lives, who try to find grand meaning in the smallest details of their boring lives. The characters were bland and uninteresting; nobody had a backstory to make them fleshed out or complex. The acting was equally unmemorable and flat. The movie's saving grace was the humor (yes, it was funny), but the script overall was pretty weak. (And I always hate it when people try to argue that New York is the greatest city in the world when we all know it's Chicago.) And although they feel trite and overused, the movie's messages are thoughtful and real. It's a happy enough indie movie that's enjoyable enough to sit through without feeling like your time was wasted, but it's nothing to write home about.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1481572/

50/50 (2011)

3/5

50/50 tells the story of Adam (Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old who discovers he has a rare form of cancer that carries with it a 50% chance of death. His reaction is a mixture of numbness and distance; other people react differently. His girlfriend (Howard) cheats on him, his best friend (Rogen) uses the diagnosis to pick up girls, and his mother (Huston) constantly nags him to let her take care of him. He sees a therapist (Kendrick) to help sort out his emotions, but she is inexperienced and unprepared for the relationship they develop.

The acting by Huston and Kendrick was phenomenal. Every single time they were on screen, I was astounded and moved by the emotions on display. Rogen's acting was his typical fare, boisterous and hilarious. Gordon-Levitt was probably the weakest link, playing a relatively boring character to mediocrity. The writing was basic and plodding at some points and profoundly touching at others (my favorite scene in the movie is where Adam talks to his father before his surgery, because it is the only time he is directly addressed after being practically ignored or treated as a joke throughout the film).

For me, the movie's biggest problem lies in the medical setting. Maybe I'm biased, but I just could not believe how the doctors treated him; it felt like unrealistic melodrama and pity-mongering. On top of all that are countless medical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Granted, 50/50 feels true enough for most people watching, and it's about mood and not medicine, but it bugged me incessantly and prevented me from enjoying the movie. Overall, it's good at tugging at your heartstrings while tickling your funny bone, but I would avoid it if you're at all familiar with the medical field.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306980/

Contagion (2011)

4.9/5

Steven Soderbergh's Contagion is a phenomenal, finely-crafted film. This doomsday thriller uses an exquisitely contagious pathogen to intertwine the lives of people around the world. The movie starts with Beth Emhoff (Paltrow) after she develops an annoying cough. She flies home from China to meet her husband (Damon) in Minneapolis and manages to spread it across Kowloon, Guangdong, Chicago, and San Francisco within days. Scientists at the CDC (Ehle, Martin) and WHO (Cotillard) are racing against the clock to find patient zero and treat the disease. Dr. Cheever (Fishburne) and Dr. Mears (Winslet) begin isolating known contacts, quarantining the sick, and dealing with the press while an internet blogger (Law) proclaims the miracles of a homeopathic drug. Seemingly minuscule actions rapidly spiral out of control and we cannot help but try to follow along at its breakneck speed.

There is an intensity and urgency to everything about the movie; its feverish pace is electrifying. The film manages to pack a lot of content into its 90-minute running time, and luckily this movie has some very intriguing thematics and hypotheticals from every sphere of society for you to ponder. Technically, the filmmaking is exceptional. Soderbergh switches between storylines swiftly and smoothly without it feeling startling or obnoxious. The acting is pristine and believable, which is difficult to do considering the somewhat alien and unpredictable scenario. The writing is equally authentic. The challenge in medical films is getting the science right, but Contagion does it with aplomb. There is nary a misstep in sight, despite a few improbable stretches of the imagination for the sake of artistic license. It's not quite a perfect movie, but Contagion has just about everything you could want in a movie and I can't wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598778/

Soul Surfer (2011)

3/5

Soul Surfer is a very Christian movie that was not advertised as such. Nor was it written or acted as such. That's a good thing, because otherwise you'd end up with a movie like Fireproof. Soul Surfer tells the true story of Hawaii surfer Bethany Hamilton (Robb), who gets her left arm bitten off by a shark on the eve of her professional surfing career. She is saved by Hercules (Sorbo), although I don't think that's his name in this movie. Her father (Quaid) continues to push her to surf, while her mother (Hunt) isn't so sure it's the right decision. She gets frustrated at having to relearn something that used to be so natural to her and wants to quit, but she convinces herself to go on a missions trip to Thailand to gain some perspective.

Soul Surfer is a rare Christian movie where it's a movie first and an advertisement for Christianity second. Unfortunately, it's not exactly the best movie on its own merits, but it's assuredly one of the better Christian movies I've seen in recent memory. The acting was pleasantly believable (except for Carrie Underwood, who destroys every scene she's in). The dialogue was surprisingly well-written and realistic. The script managed to insert Christianity and churchgoing as everyday entities in the protagonist's life instead of emphasizing them to the point of awkwardness. It also didn't force a romance onto us, although it gave us the threads to create one if we wanted it. All in all, the movie is entertaining and uplifting without being too cheesy or ridiculous. I would recommend it to anyone who's interested; don't let the Christian aspect throw you off.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596346/

The Debt (2010)

4/5

The Debt is a compelling mystery thriller about missed opportunities and making up for past mistakes. The plot follows three Mossad agents 30 years after killing the Nazi war criminal known as the "Surgeon of Birkenau" (Christensen). Rachel (Mirren), Stephan (Wilkinson), and David (Hinds) have been continually venerated for their contributions, giving talks to the military and television show hosts for years. The movie starts at a release party for a new book, written by Stephan and Rachel's daughter Sarah (Aboulafia), based on their perspective. It then backtracks several times to the events that transpired 30 years ago, and we get to witness the almost-romance between Rachel (Chastain) and David (Worthington) and the truth behind their legendary acts.

The movie works on just about every level it aspires to. It is gripping and tense, keeping you on the edge of your seat with your heart pumping adrenaline into every artery of your body. The directing and editing are calculated and precise, giving us just the right amount of story arc and excitement in each time period before switching back over. The story is thought-provoking and engaging. Though the details of their situation will almost certainly never come up in your life, everybody eventually must grapple with similarly complex ethical dilemmas. The characters are fascinatingly intricate, but hindered by uneven acting that felt too simplistic at times and too complicated at others. The poor casting decisions didn't help; there was a striking similarity between the old David and young Stephan that made it difficult to follow. And while this movie works as a character study, a mystery thriller, and a provocative parable, it is by no means a masterpiece on any of those genres. Still, The Debt is a well-made movie that scores high marks all around.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226753/

13 Assassins (2010)

4/5

Takashi Miike's 13 Assassins is a precisely-constructed samurai movie. The plot centers around Shinzaemon (Yakusho), a samurai tasked with killing the evil Lord Naritsugu (Inagaki) for terrorizing innocent townspeople and committing sadistic acts of violence. Shinzaemon enlists the aid of 12 other fighters, including his nephew Shinrouko (Yamada) and the hunter Koyata (Iseya), but they must defeat 200 soldiers and Naritsugu's bodyguard Hanbei (Ichimura) first. With some trickery and bribery, they force Naritsugu to go through a small, booby-trapped town in the hopes of evening the score and successfully completing their mission.

Much like Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, the first half of the movie focuses on character development while the second half centers around the climactic battle itself. Miike does a remarkable job showing us just how depraved Lord Naritsugu is, using overwhelmingly graphic imagery to an almost nauseating level. There are a few other characters that are equally well-developed (Hanbei, Shinrouko, Koyata), but most are forgettable and basically interchangeable. I was not particularly impressed with the writing or acting; most of the dialogue felt stilted with performances that were equally wooden, although perhaps that is the point. The second half is exciting, but the filmmaking itself is fairly lackluster, with uninteresting cinematography and standard editing. One thing that made it harder to enjoy was that everybody looks so similar. It is almost impossible to differentiate the various samurai. All I could tell was that the good guys were in black. Still, this is a very good film and highly recommended for anyone who likes this genre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1436045/

127 Hours (2010)

3/5

127 Hours tells the true story of Aron Ralston (Franco), an engineer who gets trapped under a boulder while canyon-exploring alone. I think just about everybody knows what he had to do to escape, but I won't ruin it for you if you don't (perhaps because you're the one who's been living under a rock, huzzah!). Knowing how the film ends--you know, from hearing about it on the news in real life--turned out to be a huge detractor from the film's thrill and excitement. Lingering scenes that would normally build tension just feel like unwanted guests in your home that you want to kick out so you can get on with your day. Pacing became critical, as everyone is just waiting for the eventual finale to come. Luckily the movie didn't overstay its welcome too much, thanks to pitch-perfect acting and on-point editing. The directing also helped keep the film interesting, using hallucination scenes and unique POV shots to explore Ralston's internal struggles and emotions. All in all, this is a well-made film about last year's water cooler topic that will likely soon be forgotten.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1542344/

Friends With Benefits (2011)

4/5

Friends With Benefits has a fairly uninspired plot. Two twenty-somethings, Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis), decide to start a purely physical relationship after being dumped for being either emotionally absent or emotionally guarded. This being a romantic comedy made in Hollywood, you know how the entire story unfolds from the premise alone: one develops feelings for the other, they break up because of a mistake one of them makes, and eventually get back together and live happily ever after. Like it or not, that's the formula you're buying with your movie tickets.

Fortunately, this movie is probably the smartest it could have been given that preordained scenario thanks to pristine execution and delivery. The dialogue is sharp and witty, the acting believable and emotionally fulfilling (unlike the characters themselves), and the mood is appropriately adult (plenty of nude butts and four-letter words). I was surprised at how much I bought the film, which I think is a testament to the directing and the acting. I actually felt the emotions that the characters were going through, and to me that means the movie has succeeded. So despite the predictable plot, despite occasionally feeling like the simple message was beat into my head, I don't think there's much higher you can aim for in a film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632708/

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

4/5

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes. It tells the affecting story of young scientist Will Rodman (Franco), who is researching a novel medication to cure his father (Lithgow) from Alzheimer's. They start testing the brain booster on lab monkeys, but the operation is shut down after one monkey escapes and shows signs of aggression. Rodman is forced to take care of that monkey's baby, Caesar, which he manages to accomplish with the help of veterinarian Aranha (Pinto). As Caesar ages, the newly-formed family grows quite close, in heartwarming, Disney-esque montages. But Caesar quickly learns that not all humans are fond of apes or Disney montages.

The story has considerable range for what I'm sure everybody was expecting to be a simple action flick. The action itself comes in spurts, giving the overall movie a realistically tense and unpredictable atmosphere. The CGI was pretty close to perfect--it was so good that I actually had no idea it was CGI and kept wondering how they filmed the movie. But the picture is not all rosy. The acting was mediocre at best, forgettable at worst. The dialogue was equally bland and unremarkable. The characters were flat archetypes, and Pinto's veterinarian character was the worst offender. She was worthless, serving as nothing more than a pretty face in an otherwise drab, hairy film. But these niggles are minor complaints in the grand scheme of things, especially in the vanishingly rare genre of action movies that are actually good.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318514/

The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest (2009)

3/5

The final part of the Millennium Trilogy, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest, is one of those movies that probably didn't have to exist at all. It reveals nothing new or interesting about the characters and instead just drags them into pointless scenarios for the illusion of franchise closure. The movie brings back characters that were pretty much dead at the end of the second movie, only to kill them off again. It puts the protagonist on trial for murder, only to find her not guilty (sorry, spoiler alert!). It does all this useless stuff to make the movie seem interesting or important, only to have nothing actually matter in the end.

Directing-wise, the movie is less impressive than the second one, which is less impressive than the first one. Mr. Alfredson tries to deliver fictional tension, but we rarely feel it because the scenes have no meaning behind them. It progresses at a stop-and-go pace, varying between exciting but nonsensical and brooding but pointless. I'm not sure if there is more to the book that the movie skimped out on or if it's just the book itself, but this is a movie that has no reason to be made. And to be fair, the movie itself isn't bad, I just don't know why it exists. The sad part is that everybody who saw the first two will see this one too, no matter what I say in my review, because people can't stand knowing there's a sequel to a series they've started just sitting there unwatched. Well, watch away.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343097/

Glee: The 3D Concert Movie (2011)

2/5

Glee: The 3D Concert Movie is, as the title so blandly suggests, a concert movie of Glee in 3D. It also briefly documents how the lives of three teens were changed by Glee, which is surprisingly fascinating and affecting but also chintzy and overly melodramatic. It gives a little staying power and substance to an otherwise forgettable and disappointing film. The problem with releasing a concert movie for a TV show is that there are newer, more popular songs with every new episode that everyone will want to hear when they watch this movie. Not knowing when this concert took place, especially in the context of the show, will make it very unsatisfying to people who are expecting to hear specific songs that were released after this movie was made. Unfortunately, there's no way to really find out which songs they will sing and which ones they will not unless you go see the movie. And that's really my problem: I wanted to hear them sing a lot of songs they never sang. The ones that they did sing were great and I really enjoyed them, but it was an entirely frustrating experience overall.

Of note, in the screening I saw, the audio and video were out of sync by about half a second throughout the entire movie. That, combined with the bad 3D filmmaking, made it all the more headache-inducing and annoying.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1922612/

17 Again (2009)

3/5

17 Again is a movie that surprised me for many reasons. It's funnier than I expected and more heartwarming than I imagined. The story is fairly simple and juvenile: faced with impending divorce, Mike O'Donnell (Perry) is transported back to his high school form (Efron), where he helps his daughter (Trachtenberg) break up with a sleazebag (Parrish) and gives his son (Knight) confidence to stand up against bullies while simultaneously winning back his wife's affection (Mann). I don't want to ruin the movie for anyone who has been living under a rock since the invention of cinema and is unfamiliar with how Hollywood works, but let's just say this movie ends in the expected manner.

The acting and the dialogue are where this movie shines. It is probably Zac Efron's best acting to date. I know that's not really saying much, but he was actually pretty good. The script was far more poignant than I thought it would be given its premise, and far more clever and witty than I gave it credit for. The basic plot of a major life change prompting someone to re-evaluate their priorities feels quite tired and trite, and this movie attempts to freshen it up with an unnecessarily silly scenario instead of a realistic, believable one. I think it could have been an awesome movie if they chose the latter route, but this decision, as well as most of the directorial traits and technical aspects, ended up making the movie mediocre, unremarkable, and forgettable. All in all, not a bad movie and above average as a form of entertainment, but I'm a little disappointed that it wasn't more than that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974661/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a fitting end to a rather bland film series. I'm sure the books are much more interesting (even the Wikipedia articles are far more interesting), but the movie versions just don't do it for me. They feel like simplified, truncated versions of something that might actually be good. They're made for people who have read the book; everyone else is cheated of truly experiencing the magic of the series. Nothing about these movies is thought out in a cinematic fashion, nothing is added or changed to make it fit better in movie form. It's a simple translation to a different format and that's exactly what it feels like.

That being said, the movie is fairly entertaining and enjoyable to watch. It's not a bad movie by any means. It's predictable with an appropriate amount of action to spice up the boring dialogue and plot, but being so predictable makes the whole thing advance at a laborious pace. You know what's going to happen next and you're just waiting for it to happen. Special effects were pretty crappy, acting was acceptable, and cinematography was stale. It's nice to see a finale to the series, but I think they probably should've just stuck with the written word. Obviously the fans will watch this movie no matter what I say, but nothing has changed with this movie to turn a newcomer into a fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

4/5

Crazy Stupid Love has commas in the official title that I am intentionally omitting because they annoy me. The movie itself does not annoy me. In fact, it surprised me with its humor and heart. The plot follows Cal (Carell) and Emily (Moore) Weaver. Emily wants a divorce, and in fact she has already cheated on him with her co-worker David Lindhagen (Bacon). Cal's son (Bobo) is in love with his babysitter (Tipton), who is in fact in love with Cal. Cal starts frequenting bars, whining to no one in particular nonstop for two weeks about the impending divorce, until Jacob (Gosling) becomes so annoyed that he takes him under his wing and shows him how to assert his manhood and pick up women for one-night stands. Cal's first "success" is with a crazy teacher (Tomei) who seems excited by his honesty, but he never calls her back. Jacob, on the other hand, meets Hannah (Stone), who shakes him of his womanizing ways and turns him into a boyfriend.

There is one fantastic scene in the middle of the film that involves Cal and Emily talking on the phone, and it becomes evident that she still loves him and cares for him and misses him even if she can't live with him. It is a tender moment that is filled with genuine emotion and more complexity than you might at first assume. It almost forced a tear out of my eye. In fact, almost the entire plot seems very simple superficially but becomes much more multi-faceted just below the surface.

The acting by the entire ensemble is wonderful; everyone is able to juggle empathy with wit in fluid harmony. The directing as a whole was very effective, although it felt somewhat choppy as people were ignored for chunks at a time. On the whole, Crazy Stupid Love impressed me unexpectedly, much like Bandslam. If you had any interest in the actors or the plot, I would not hesitate to recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1570728/

Rango (2011)

3/5

Rango tells the story of a lizard (Depp) who stumbles into a Western. The town of Dirt is inhabited by other similarly-sized creatures, although sometimes it's really difficult to tell what kind of animal each character is supposed to be, and they are in the midst of a water shortage crisis. Rango manages to earn himself a sheriff's star by unwittingly taking out the town's predator and is soon tasked by the mayor (Beatty) with giving the townspeople hope in the face of rapidly dwindling resources. They must find out who is stealing their water and why before it's too late.

The acting is solid, the animation is fun, and the pacing is fluid. The plot is essentially a rehashing of Chinatown with the occasional twist and turn to make it a little bit more exciting and kid-friendly in the hopes that it doesn't feel predictable. Unfortunately, it is predictable. Adding failed plan after failed plan in the last 10 minutes doesn't make it surprising. It just makes it painful for everyone waiting for the film to end.

The best part about this movie is probably the character of Rango, who seems to be able to confabulate on the fly in a very entertaining manner. It makes for a clever script with sharp dialogue, including some excellent jokes, but on the whole I didn't get much out of it. Ultimately, the film tried too hard to satisfy too many different genres that it never really impressed me on any one of them. All in all, this is a strange but fairly mediocre film that entertains but doesn't stick with you. Watch it if it sounds interesting, but don't go out of your way to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/

Love On The Run (1979)

3/5

Truffaut's Love On The Run is the final piece in the Antoine Doinel series. And how thankful I am for that! The Doinel movies were always hit or miss with me, occasionally funny, sometimes provocative, usually amateurish, but never boring. Like The Man Who Loved Women, the protagonist is a womanizer who writes a book about his experiences with women. This story begins with a divorce. As he ends his marriage to Christine (Jade), Antoine (Léaud) bumps into his old flame Colette (Pisier). While reminiscing on a train about their past together, they are reminded of the harsh truth behind why they never worked out as a couple. His current girlfriend Sabine (Dorothée) dumps him, and he bumps into his mother's old lover while wandering the streets in despair. The movie continues on in this way, essentially reviewing the life of Antoine Doinel through flashbacks that are nothing more than scenes from Truffaut's old Doinel films. It was like a clip show at the end of a TV series, and it probably means more to the creator than to the viewer. Very nostalgic without any new content. Watch it to end the saga, but don't expect to see anything too inspiring.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078771/

The Man Who Loved Women (1977)

3/5

Truffaut's The Man Who Loved Women is a fascinating character study of a man who has dedicated his entire life to seducing and bedding women. Although the bulk of the movie consists of him attempting the aforementioned (and often succeeding), it's more than just a series of sexual encounters. It delves into his thought processes, his theories on man-woman interactions, and his troubled past. It's not exactly the most organized of movies, as it manages to introduce and expand on all those varied tasks somewhat haphazardly, but it does accomplish more than the plot summary might initially suggest. Part of the charm of including such disparate parts of this man's personality is that it makes it feel less written and more real, more honest. As the film progresses, the sexcapades almost intrude on the more intriguing characteristics of the man pursuing them. Unfortunately, the directing itself is as lost as the protagonist, giving the film an episodic, tumultuous feel. If only more thought had been put into the story's overall structure, I think this could have been a great film. Unfortunately, it is merely adequate.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076155/

The Color of Paradise (1999)

3/5

Majid Majidi's The Color of Paradise tells the story of a blind boy (Ramezani) who goes home from his special school for the summer. Although Mohammad enjoys talking with his grandmother (Feyzi) and playing with his two sisters (Safari, Sharifi), his father (Mahjoub) wants him to work for a blind carpenter (Fatemi) in the city instead. I had high expectations for the movie going into it, as I had just seen Majidi's previous film Children of Heaven, but nearly everything about this movie let me down. The acting is weak, so weak in fact that it takes away from the story itself. The characters are all whiny and annoying. The plot is uninspired and overly melodramatic. Not only that, it doesn't really go anywhere. Loose ends are left dangling willy-nilly. Technically, the movie was equally disappointing. There were scenes of beauty, both in terms of landscapes and human compassion, but then Majidi goes crazy with slow motion to beat it into your head. The movie isn't a bad one, but I would avoid it unless you already know you're going to be a fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0191043/

Children of Heaven (1997)

4/5

Majid Majidi's Children of Heaven tells the touching story of a brother and sister in Iran. Ali (Hashemian) loses his sister's shoes when he buys potatoes for his parents on his way home. Zahra (Seddiqi) is upset, but she knows she cannot tell her parents because they do not have enough money to buy new shoes. In order to make it up to his sister, Ali promises to let her borrow his shoes. But since they both need it for school, they devise a plan to share the sneakers. She wears it for her school in the morning and they switch in the middle of the day so he can wear it for his school. Unfortunately, the timing doesn't quite work out, and Ali gets into trouble for being late to school repeatedly. There is a lot more to the story than that, but I'll let you discover the rest of this crowd-pleasing movie on your own.

To be honest, I didn't think I would enjoy this movie as much as I did, but I found myself smiling time and time again. Much like Jafar Panahi's The White Balloon, the story is filled with scenes of such innocence and warmth. Majidi has done the seemingly impossible task of transporting us into the thoughts and values of these kids: finding the missing shoes is just about the most important thing in the world. I can't remember the last time my heart was pounding this hard watching a bunch of kids run. It is a testament to Majidi's ability to engage an audience and take us on the journey he wants to show us.

The acting is another marvel. The children are better than some adults working in America, and the fact that they chose just about the cutest little girl in the world to play Zahra doesn't hurt either. However, the movie is not perfect. There is this one rather bizarre interlude involving gardening and a young boy wearing pink. I'm sure there is a lot of subtle Iran-specific social commentary that I am missing, but I'm not quite sure why it was in this movie. It feels out of place compared with the rest of the piece. All in all, this is an inspiring and uplifting tale of the lengths to which we will go for our family.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118849/

Broken Flowers (2005)

3/5

Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers was--remarkably--not as bad as all his other movies. The movie actually held my interest and packs an emotional punch. The plot follows Don Johnston (Murray) on a quest to find an old girlfriend who wrote him a letter telling him he has a son. Watching Broken Flowers, I noticed that he has a unique sense of style that permeates past their dress and into their interactions and mannerisms. His style is not universal or classic, but indie and fickle. I have a feeling that I don't like Jarmusch's older movies for that very reason: they just don't age very well. But I'm finally starting to see the comedy in his films. I think it's all dependent on the actors he chooses, because Bill Murray saves the film with his seemingly effortless comic timing (moreso than Roberto Benigni in Down By Law). Murray somehow matches an apathetic outward demeanor with internal fascination. It is truly remarkable to watch him act.

Be that as it may, I'm not the biggest fan of Jarmusch's filmmaking. He still lingers on shots for far too long when editing, making every shot begin and end 1-2 seconds before and after they should. He frequently fades in and out, both visually and aurally, which probably contributes to the feeling that this movie is more like stop-and-go traffic than fluid, smooth storytelling. It's jagged and stilted, with episodic interludes and minimal overarching structure. This is probably his best movie after Night on Earth, but I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone who isn't already a fan. It will probably be good enough to satisfy Bill Murray fans, however, as he manages to carry the entire project on his shoulders with aplomb.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412019/

Dead Man (1995)

1/5

Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man is one of the most uninteresting, meandering, meaningless movies I've seen since Truffaut's The Soft Skin. I sat there for two hours watching scenes transition to different scenes with the barest semblance of plot or purpose. The movie follows William Blake (Depp) as he makes his way from Cleveland to the West in the late 19th century. He gets mixed up in violence and must go on the run to save his life, but I think the title is meant to insinuate that he is already dead. People who like the movie will tell you it's about a man's transformation in the time of our country's transformation, but I think those people are just seeing stuff that isn't there. Or, perhaps, seeing the bits and pieces of stuff beneath all the garbage piled on top of it.

Johnny Depp kind of reminded me of Guy Pearce in this movie, and I mean that in a bad way. He has dead expressions and no depth. He sounds entirely uninterested in just about everything going on, even when he's supposed to be scared or excited. Regardless of whether his affect is intentional or not, it's simply boring and painful to watch. I don't even want to talk about the dialogue, because I'll just get upset. The script tries to be edgy and badass, but instead it's spoken by what sounds like bad student actors trying to be edgy and badass. Mix this bad acting (or bad directing, I'm honestly not sure which it is) with crappy special effects and cheesy old-time film techniques and you have an entirely laughable production. It's times like these I wish I had waited before burning an entire director's oeuvre until I knew I liked them.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112817/