Megamind (2010)

4/5

Megamind is a surprisingly clever and innovative animated superhero movie. It draws from a number of the classics, but synthesizes all that material together into something all its own (much like Hot Fuzz). It felt new, exciting, and hilarious. The comedy was fantastic. I normally hate Ben Stiller movies and Will Ferrell movies, but I was pleasantly surprised by the humor displayed in this film. Maybe it's the fact that I'm not staring at Will Ferrell's ugly face or protuberant belly (which he seems so proud of that he cannot wait to expose himself in any and every one of his movies), but I actually thought he did a terrific job here. And I especially loved the mispronounced words (even though I hated all those same mispronounced words in Zoolander).

One very strange thing about this movie is the voice acting. It was great, don't get me wrong, but I always found myself hearing the actor instead of the character. I was never able to separate the person on screen from the person behind the mic. It was always Will Ferrell is doing this, Tina Fey is doing that. I think part of that is the large amount of voice-over narration, where it's easy to recognize their voice because you don't see the animated character disguising it. All in all, however, that's a relatively minor fault and I would definitely recommend this movie. It was such a wonderfully unexpected joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1001526/

You Don't Know Jack (2010)

4/5

You Don't Know Jack is an HBO made-for-TV movie about Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Pacino). Growing up I had heard about him on the news and his association with physician-assisted suicide, but I never really knew what was going on. This movie does a great job at filling in that gap, both historically and emotionally. It is engaging and well-acted. Pacino gives a stellar performance, at a level I haven't seen from him in quite some time. He gives his character warmth and heart, despite having an unlikable, brusque personality. We understand his motivations, even if we disagree with his philosophy or his practices. Unfortunately, the other characters (Huston, Sarandon, Goodman) were fairly bland and forgettable. They added very little to the gestalt.

Technically, the film was above average. The cinematography was surprisingly sharp and the editing was appropriately lean. The medicine was put on the backburner to discuss the ethics, which disappointed me. I don't mind medicine being the background (there's nothing worse than a movie putting medicine front and center and getting it all embarrassingly wrong), but I do feel extremely unsatisfied by the ethical discussion. Nothing was delved into in enough detail; nobody watching this movie would change their mind about the topic. Overall, this was an engrossing and enlightening film, but more for the historical aspects than the ethical ones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132623/

Love & Other Drugs (2010)

4/5

Love & Other Drugs is a remarkably tender, heartfelt, and mature "romantic dramedy." The movie focuses on Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal), a budding new sales rep for Pfizer, and his relationship with Maggie Murdock (Hathaway), a young woman recently diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson's. Their relationship is not the simple fare we have become accustomed to in today's romantic comedies, where characters get into predictable, stupid fights over meaningless misunderstandings. Instead it tackles difficult issues, and it does so with humor and poignancy. There is a phenomenal moment in the movie that touched me and moved me far more than I thought it would. It occurs when Maggie finally realizes that her life has meaning outside of her disease and that it is worth living--and when Jamie truly fathoms the repercussions of being in love with a dying woman. The way they react is mesmerizing and agonizing; it is immeasurably sad and simultaneously beautiful.

The movie was not without its flaws. Unfortunately, as with almost every single movie that tackles anything even remotely scientific, there are a few scenes where people just spew arbitrary medical jargon around without any sense as to what they're saying. It's more than frustrating; it's insulting too. Another negative is that there is a heavy dose of nudity and vulgar scenarios/jokes. I didn't mind it personally, but it can makes for an uncomfortable group viewing experience. As for the cinematography and editing, they were above average but not particularly memorable. The tone felt a little haphazard, with the mood jumping around like it didn't know what genre it was, although I haven't decided yet if that's one of the film's shortcomings or assets. Overall, this is a superbly made film, with just the right amounts of laughter and tears. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758752/

Source Code (2011)

3/5

Source Code is a competent and clever thriller with its fair share of plot twists and plot holes. The movie follows a soldier named Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) in the "source code," a program designed to simulate the last 8 minutes of someone's memory before they died. He's sent back onto a train heading to Chicago just 8 minutes before it is blown up by a terrorist. Dr. Rutledge (Wright), who created the source code, wants him to identify the person responsible so they can prevent a second terrorist bombing. On the train, however, he meets (and falls in love with) another passenger (Monaghan).

By far the greatest aspect of this movie is its locale. They must have chosen the single most beautiful day Chicago has ever seen and filmed everything that day. This city looks so attractive it might as well be our tourism ad; this is probably the best Chicago has looked since Road to Perdition. As for the rest of the movie, it's more of a mixed bag. The characters are all relatively bland, despite Gyllenhaal, Farmiga, and Monaghan giving it their best shot, but two in particular stand out as exceptionally awful: the terrorist character and Dr. Rutledge. They are both so one-dimensional that they might as well have not existed at all. There is absolutely no satisfaction at capturing the terrorist because he is so utterly worthless. His motivation is that 1) the world is hell and 2) you need to destroy the old world to make way for the new one. That is the extent of his reasoning. Dr. Rutledge is not only shallow, he is also bizarre and uninteresting. Also, quiz question for those who have seen the movie: how exactly is Vera Farmiga communicating with Jake Gyllenhaal? It doesn't really make any sense, does it? Anyway, the meat of the movie is a relatively enjoyable action mystery thriller, but when you come back and think about the entirety of the movie for just a minute or two longer, you realize the pieces don't quite add up to a fulfilling whole.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/