The Odd Life of Timothy Green (2012)

3/5

The Odd Life of Timothy Green is a fairly benign family film. The plot follows Cindy (Garner) and Tim Green (Edgerton), a young infertile couple. The movie starts after another unsuccessful attempt at pregnancy. Distraught, they drive home barely talking to each other. To cheer themselves up, they allow themselves to dream up the perfect child. They write down the six characteristics they would see in their child, put the papers in a box, and bury the box in the yard. Magically, a ten-year-old boy named Timothy (Adams) sprouts out of the ground and into their lives.

All the technical aspects of the film, from acting to shooting to editing, are satisfactory enough not to stand out. The movie is honestly quite silly. But the plot is merely a device to allow the characters to learn about life, love, and parenting. Despite that, there are so many extraneous scenes to explain the plot instead of digging in to meatier thematics. It actually held a lot of potential with its simple metaphor, but the director chose to go for trite tropes rather than intellectually-stimulating concepts. Still, it's a saccharine story with attractive actors and colorful cinematography and is perfectly fine for afternoon filmgoing. It just isn't as good as it could be.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462769/

Life of Pi (2012)

4.9/5

The film adaptation of Yann Martel's Life of Pi is one of Ang Lee's best films, and probably my personal favorite. The film hews closely to the book, giving us a story wrapped within a story. We are introduced to Pi (Khan) as he prepares a meal for his guest, a young writer (Spall) who has come to hear about Pi's miraculous tale. After a younger Pi (Sharma) gets shipwrecked while traveling to America, he somehow survives on a lifeboat alone with a tiger named Richard Parker. The writer has been told that the story will make you believe in God, although he has his doubts. But the more Pi recounts, the more we are drawn into his most unbelievable and incredible story.

I found the first 30 minutes of exposition intriguing but not quite fascinating enough given its lack of plot. After the freighter sinks, however, we are completely immersed in the story. And we let the movie take over. The special effects are without equal. I honestly had no idea how any of the scenes were filmed, what was CGI and what was real. Except for two shots with noticeable letterboxing (once vertically and once horizontally), every frame was a beautiful image to enjoy. And the 3D was used to perfection. There is one scene, one brief moment, that brings to mind the joy and exhilaration at the heart of movies, ever since the first film by the Lumière brothers. Everyone in the audience jumped out of their seats.

Irfan Khan is an exquisite actor; his performance is undeniably tender and moving. The rest of the cast, however, was not as impressive. But Khan is the heart of the story, and his telling is what's most important. Since seeing this movie, I have spent many nights pondering its meaning. It encourages and invites discussion. It sticks with you. It provides an open canvas on which you can put your own feelings and beliefs. And it is the best movie of the year so far.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/

Lincoln (2012)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is a tremendous film. Although the biopic only details the last year or so of Lincoln's life and presidency, it focuses on his most important contribution to the United States: the passage of the amendment that prohibits slavery. There is little of the Civil War, and there is lots of oration and debate. Luckily for me, I prefer thoughtful parables and eloquent monologues to simple-minding fighting, and that is exactly what this movie provides. Oh, and it brings with it plenty of sly witticisms and clever jokes.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the titular character, although Day-Lewis completely disappears within Lincoln. Watching the 2.5 hour movie, I never once felt I was seeing Day-Lewis on screen. I only saw Lincoln. That is perhaps the greatest commendation I can give to an actor. Sally Field is immensely believable as Lincoln's wife; her presence allows us an unexpected and sharply penetrating look into Lincoln's personal life, including its love, its turmoil, and its troubles. Tommy Lee Jones gives an equally remarkable performance as Thaddeus Stevens, one of the biggest proponents for the end of slavery and the equality of every man and woman.

The movie is, unfortunately, relatively light on story. The dialogue could also feel preachy from time to time. There are actually quite a few loose ends and irrelevant side plots that crop up. Quite frankly, I don't understand the purpose of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, or why such a well-known actor was chosen to portray him. And James Spader and his men seem to stick around well past their utility and relevance. Overall, though, the movie is equal parts iconic and inspirational. It's a historical drama with the right amount of modern sensibilities peppered throughout its joyously old-timey vernacular.

IMDb link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Headhunters (2011)

4/5

Headhunters is a film based on the book of the same name by Jo Nesbø. To review the movie, I must first describe the book. The book is full of twists and turns. It is written in such a way that surprises and delights with every chapter. Even the premise of the book is only revealed after the first chapter (an interview with a potential applicant). And once you discover the premise while reading the second chapter, you want to go back and re-evaluate that first chapter for its double meanings and hidden subtext. The premise of the movie is not only revealed in the description for the film, it is used as an action-y setting for the opening credits. So now, even before we get to that interview in the first scene, we know what is up and the scene loses its cleverness and mystery. This is to say nothing of the biggest curve ball of the book--the big reveal at the end--which is announced much earlier on in the book and merits no less than a pause for the movie-going audience.

All things considered, the movie is a relatively faithful adaptation, in that specific events happen in the same way and order that they did in the book. But it loses the charm and brilliance of the writing. Still, the film is enjoyable and engaging and one that I highly recommend. More than anything, however, I recommend reading the book. The twists are absolutely to die for; you can't put it down until the jaw-dropping finale. Writing this review for the movie just makes me want to read the book again--that's how good it is.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

Breaking Dawn: Part 2 (2012)

3/5

Unfortunately, the final piece of this five part saga was significantly better than I hoped and anticipated. I say unfortunately because it would be much easier to just malign the whole series and dismiss it as a silly tween's simple-minded fantasy. But this movie is better than all the previous ones. For one reason and one reason alone. There is an epic fight sequence at the finale. And instead of being a pastiche of piss-poor special effects you might find in original SyFy movies like Sharktopus (as I initially expected), it turned out to be a well-coordinated, well-shot, surprisingly visceral and white-knuckle experience. Seriously, the action was better than some blockbuster superhero movies I've seen recently (i.e., The Dark Knight Rises).

Now, don't confuse my meaning. I am not suggesting that the movie is good. It's not. Everything before the battle sequence is about what I expected from the previous four films. The majority of that first hour could probably have been condensed into a 3-minute montage. There is barely any plot advancement or character development (although I guess that's not something to be expected from this series). It felt like the ending of The Lord of the Rings, a collection of thirteen disparate loose ends that the movie was working on tying up in standalone scenes instead of integrating them into a broader context.

That is to say nothing of the story itself, which is simply laughable. It turns out that vampires are actually X-Men with sharp teeth, because they all seem to have special mutant powers. And apparently the only way to kill a vampire is by ripping off its head and setting it on fire. Who knew? (Who knew also that that kind of stuff was PG-13?) Also, inexplicably, they decided to use a CGI baby in a number of scenes instead of a real baby. Not for the baby to do anything special--just to be a baby. But I guess that's the whole Twilight series: a bizarre, out-of-body experience that is totally unnecessary and bordering on offensive.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1673434/

Flame & Citron (2008)

3/5

Flame & Citron is a Danish film about the Danish resistance movement against the Nazis in WWII. The film itself is well-made, with crisp cinematography and expert use of lighting. The acting is phenomenal and emotionally complex. It brings to the fore some fascinating thematics on honor and murder and family and country. Unfortunately, subpar editing fills the film with myriad unnecessary scenes and makes it feel overlong. Maybe I'm just not interested in the subject matter, but I found myself a little bored throughout. Unless you enjoy WWII movies, I cannot find too many great things about this movie to make me recommend it. I also cannot find too many terrible things about it either, so take that for what it's worth. It's strictly middle of the road as far as I'm concerned. 

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0920458/

Argo (2012)

4/5

Ben Affleck's Argo recreates the Iran hostage crisis of 1979/1980 with remarkable visual accuracy. After protestors overtake the US Embassy in Iran, 6 would-be hostages escape out a back entrance and hide in the Canadian ambassador's house. Meanwhile the US government is planning a daring "exfiltration" operation led by Tony Mendez (Affleck). Mendez creates a fake movie called Argo, gets Hollywood effects expert John Chambers (Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) to back the ruse, and flies into Iran with fake passports for the fake film crew. As this is going on, the Iranian military within the US Embassy are piecing together shredded documents that contain pictures of the missing employees.

The movie is well-made in terms of its cinematic technique, and Goodman and Arkin deliver knockout performances, but the movie as a whole just doesn't have a clear focus. It starts as a thrilling historical drama, with tense intimate situations and riveting political narratives. But when it turns to the Hollywood scenes, it becomes almost farcical in its tongue-in-cheek joking. It's quite funny, but the humor doesn't seem to fit. The two parts never quite match up, as if they don't belong in the same movie. Argo had no unifying mood to carry us through both halves of the film, and we are left with a jarring disconnect during each transition. Still, the movie is entertaining and exciting, and it's one of those rare movies that allows us a fascinating glimpse into an important piece of history through its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/

Looper (2012)

4/5

Rian Johnson's Looper is a smart, slick film. It takes place in a future where time travel and telekinesis co-exist, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is offensively stratospheric, and where "loopers" kill people from the future and incinerate their bodies. Much like Children of Men, Looper gives us a believable, richly-textured, and incredibly-detailed world while simultaneously advancing an expertly-paced thriller plot. Both the setting and the story are complex and tapestried, both surprise you time and again, and both keep your neurons firing non-stop. The plot is intelligent and fresh, interesting but not too cerebral. It is a marvel of imagination and storytelling. But for me it's missing something.

Except for the Drive-level ultra-violence and over-the-top blood, it's a movie that checks all the right boxes, and yet somehow it doesn't excite me as much as it should. The acting is on-point, the script is well-written, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the directing is pristine. Every individual element is impressive on its own, but they don't cohere into something that truly thrills me. No matter how much I enjoyed the film on an intellectual level, I simply couldn't engage with it on an emotional one. I can't wait to rewatch this movie in case I find myself in the latter camp, but I'm doubtful I'd make the crossover. I can see this movie being very special for many people; as of now it's just not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Lady Vengeance (2005)

2/5

Chan-wook Park's Lady Vengeance is his third and final film about vengeance. I don't know why he has fixated on vengeance, nor have I ever found his trilogy to be especially provocative or necessary. The films are mostly just disturbing and horrific without much value or entertainment. What I do appreciate in this film that I didn't get in the previous ones is a rather unique thematic twist as we approach the finale. Park doesn't make the movie a question of personal revenge, from some fictional character who was wronged, but a communal one. We are the community; what would we do, being reminded of our violent past after we've moved on? Take justice into our own hands or let old wounds heal?  But after the initial spark of that promising thought fades away, Lady Vengeance becomes just another bloody fantasy once again and I become disappointed by Chan-wook Park once again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451094/

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

1/5

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a traumatic, searing film. It is brutal and unsparing. It delivers hit after unfortunate hit, for our story's protagonists and for our own sense of hope and joy. The movie is bleak and dreary, violent and sadistic. It manages to be viscerally intense without being visually graphic. It hits you with ideas and horrors that you wish you will never imagine again. It reminded me of I Stand Alone, but without much to say, kind of like Audition. It is haunting, to be sure, but not in a meaningful way. I abhor violence in movies for violence's sake. It is an assault on my eyes and my mind, so it should serve some function or be overcome by an equal and opposite force. That is not the case with this movie, and so I am left a victim of the film.

I was not particularly impressed with the cinematography. The director is trying too hard to be artistic and has forgotten that movies are supposed to flow. The acting, which for all I know might be categorically stellar in a vacuum, is absolutely ridiculous in the context of the events that take place in this film. I have no real-world comparison by which I can judge their performances. Also, not that I really cared, but there are some pretty gigantic plot holes that are simply not addressed (ones that are crucial to the progression of the story). All in all, I have no idea to whom I might recommend this film. I feel like doing so would make me a masochist.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310775/

Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011)

3/5

Jiro Dreams of Sushi is a documentary about one of the best sushi chefs in the world. His name is Jiro Ono, and he's been making sushi for almost 80 years. The movie is not about the sushi, although there are enough sumptuous shots of the cuisine to make your mouth water. It is not about the fish market or his rice dealer, although they provide a surprisingly exciting backstory. It is a character study. It is an examination of an 85-year-old man who tasks himself daily with innovating and improving his technique. He comes from a time and place where a man is what he does, where your work is your life. But the movie fails to reach deeper, fails to keep digging into what makes this man who he is, fails to ask why? one more iteration. It is a sketch instead of a portrait. It satisfies itself with showing you a beautiful shot of sushi, instead of attempting to give you the experience of a real one in your mouth. And that is its fatal flaw.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772925/

Celeste and Jesse Forever (2012)

4.9/5

Celeste and Jesse Forever turned out to be an unexpected treasure that sticks with you long after the credits close. Although I describe it as a treasure, the movie is about as far from a Disney "happily ever after" as you can get. In fact, it starts precisely after most rom coms would end, six years after best friends Celeste (Jones) and Jesse (Samberg) have married, and six months into their separation and impending divorce. It depicts a depressing, sobering take on relationships that don't work out, no matter how much we might want them to. It manages to charm and delight the audience while simultaneously tearing apart our heart. It flits between those two extremes like an expert Wes Anderson film, and I hate it for being so effective.

The title is misleading, because the movie is not about Celeste and Jesse, but about Celeste. It is a character study, and Rashida Jones gives a phenomenal performance. We see the whole breakup through her lens, and we see how much she hurts. We don't see how hard it is for Jesse; we only see snippets of him, snapshots in time. And it doesn't matter whether he's happy or sad, because whenever he comes back into Celeste's life is another crack in her armor, another arrow in her shield.

Much like a film noir, we know how it will end as soon as it starts. That doesn't make it predictable, but fatalistic. It is a torture, as we get ever closer to the final movement we know is coming but hoping never gets here. The chemistry between the two leads makes it that much more painful to watch. There is one scene I do not think I can ever forget, which is acted and filmed to heart-wrenching perfection. The two of them are sitting together on a couch, about to kiss, fighting their desires to do what is right and honorable, fighting what is good and true because of circumstance, fighting and fighting and--whether they succeed or fail--ending up with nothing. The whole movie is encapsulated by that one scene.

After all I said, you would think this movie was a weepy downer drama. It's not. It's a surprisingly fun romp, filled with levity and jokes galore, but it cannot gloss over its bleak undertone. And it manages to end with just the right amount of hope and light amidst the darkness. The movie is an exceptional one, despite some forgivable flaws, and one I highly recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1405365/

Empire Records (1995)

3/5

Empire Records is the kind of classic 90's movie that could never be made now. It acts silly for the sake of silliness, turns mature on a dime, then swerves back to insane. It doesn't fit a genre except the time period in which it was made. There are no words to describe this movie; just know that it is an experience. The story revolves around a young cadre of employees in a local record store about to be bought out by Music Town, the non-infringement version of Tower Records, on the illustrious Rex Manning Day. There is one surprisingly tender moment in this film, when Joe (LaPaglia) tells Deb (Tunney) that she's doing a good job, amidst the utter chaos and non sequitur that comprises the rest of the film. I'm not typically a fan of such haphazard storytelling, but this movie brings back such fond memories of the kind of movies I grew up with that I cannot ignore it. This movie is something else, that's for sure, but it contains a charm and fire you will remember, even if you aren't one of its cult followers.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112950/

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is a middling experience from conception to execution. The plot is absolutely ridiculous, starring a bad guy with a more preposterously complicated and ludicrously conceived plan than a James Bond villain. The web is littered with countless reviews describing the innumerable plot holes in this film; my favorite is the "prison" that has no guards whatsoever and has an open hatch where everyone is allowed to attempt escape. (Luckily, this prison also apparently neighbors Gotham City!) In the bad science department, I think it actually one-ups Batman Begins, with its notion that someone's broken vertebrae can be realigned as if it were a shoulder dislocation (you know, because there's no spinal cord running through the "out of place" vertebrae that might be irreparably damaged). Also, our protagonist is absent for about half the film, during which time it turns into a WWII Nazi Germany movie.

And that's just the storyline. The technical aspects of the movie fared no better. Similar to the first one, the action is unintelligible thanks to close-ups, quick cuts, and poor lighting. The intro sequence is, quite honestly, unnecessary garbage. The acting is its own form of mess, except for Caine--who truly blew me away with a performance that should have been reserved for a far better film--and Hathaway. Despite the remarkable failure of the individual cinematic elements, The Dark Knight Rises kept me glued to my seat. Nolan is able to achieve an indescribable anticipation and a palpable excitement, an aura of cool. Unfortunately, it lacks any substantive backing to that nebulous quality, which would surely disappear if I were to see the movie again. Honestly, I cannot recommend this film. Despite all the hype and popularity, it is destined to become a cult classic, loved by a few and forgotten by everyone else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/

Romantics Anonymous (2010)

4/5

Romantics Anonymous is a tender, affecting tale of two shy souls who develop feelings for the other person but don't know what to do about it. The man, Jean-Pierre (Poelvoorde), owns a failing chocolate factory. He hires the woman, Angélique (Carré), to sell his wares to vendors, unaware that she is a legendary chocolate-maker. Angélique attends the titular anonymous meetings, and she is buoyed and encouraged by her peers to follow her heart. Jean-Pierre sees a psychiatrist, who continually challenges him to take control over his fears. And so it begins.

The script is not the most imaginative piece of literature, being both predictable and saccharine at the same time, but it serves the story well. The directing is nothing new, but it suffices. The movie is exceedingly cute, almost to a fault. The acting is where the film finds its heart. We hurt for these characters, we agonize for their faults and blunders, we ache for their fears and insecurities. We want them to be happy, to find happiness in each other, but it is so hard to be optimistic given who they are, knowing that their whole life experiences have led them to act and trust as they do now. But the movie is superb, keeping it light and humorous when necessary, and holding onto sadness and pain for those certain moments. Romantics Anonymous is a standout film that comes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1565958/

Magic Mike (2012)

2/5

Steven Soderbergh's Magic Mike is loosely based on Channing Tatum's early stripping days in Tampa. It is essentially a dance movie like Step Up with more bare chests and pelvic thrusts. The plotting is uninspired: Tatum introduces 19-year-old Adam (Pettyfer) to male stripping, When Adam discovers he has a knack for it, he becomes entrenched in drugs and high-risk sexual behavior. Tatum is trying to get out of the stripping "business," although I personally thought his dancing was better than his custom furniture, which teetered between eyesore and offensive. It's nothing you haven't seen before, and it's not done particularly well by Soderbergh this time. The dancing was "Xquisite," but the acting was not. McConaughey did give an uncharacteristically competent and believable performance, and Tatum's acting continues to gradually improve, but I would still place both of them in the category of "would not cast in my own movie unless I wanted star power." On the whole, it's a decent enough movie but fails to introduce us to anything new or different.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1915581/

Ted (2012)

4/5

Seth MacFarlane's Ted is a hilariously ridiculous movie. It's essentially a buddy movie, about John (Wahlberg) and Ted (MacFarlane)--a living, breathing teddy bear. John, picked on and tormented as a kid, made a wish to have his teddy bear come to life and be his best friend forever. And his wish came true! Ted enjoyed some childhood celebrity before the pair eventually settled into their mid-thirties routine of smoking pot and vegging out on a couch. But John's girlfriend of four years, Lori (Kunis), feels like John+Ted is getting in the way of John+Lori. There is one (disgustingly hilarious) event involving a game of truth or dare with some strippers that Ted brought over to their apartment that pushes Lori over the edge, and she demands that John choose between her and Ted.

I think Ted did a surprisingly good job describing the difficulty of balancing friendships and relationships and growing up without leaving your past behind. It contained a number of tender moments that felt authentic and honest--and were completely unexpected coming from the creator of Family Guy. What was not unexpected, on the other hand, was the over-the-top fight scene that was as ridiculous and enjoyable as I was hoping it would be. MacFarlane did a great job writing and directing the piece, able to pace it well in a format completely different from 20-minute televised serials. But I think he let himself go a little too crazy, specifically regarding the utterly bizarre Giovanni Ribisi character. Overall, a formidable and highly recommended entry from MacFarlane.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637725/

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

3/5

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a fairly predictable feel-good movie about a group of exceptionally uninspired characters who, for various personal reasons, all end up at the titular Indian resort for the elderly. One is looking for his long-lost love (Wilkinson), one is recovering from the loss of a loved one (Dench), one couple is examining possible retirement homes (Nighy, Wilton), one Lothario (Pickup) and one gold-digger (Imrie) are looking for partners. Oh, and of course, one is a racist who actually has a heart of gold (Smith), shuttled off to a foreign country for reasons well beyond her control.

All in all, the movie is entertaining and enjoyable. It has its moments of laughter and bittersweet tenderness. And it ends with a particularly stirring image. But for all the tearjerking, it's a rather simple exercise in plotting and characterization. It feels more like a postcard of India filled with caricatures than a believable story. The characters simply don't feel realistic; they change the whole course of their life based on a few days in a foreign country. But unlike this movie, people don't actually change so dramatically after going on a vacation and being exposed to new and different ideas. Even people who realize that something needs to change in order for them to be happy don't do it willy-nilly. (And I still can't for the life of me figure out why the racist lady all of a sudden becomes un-racist.) It's fine as far as entertainment goes, but it doesn't feel like it holds much substance in the end.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1412386/

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

5/5

The Silence of the Lambs is an absolutely unforgettable movie. It is a psychological thriller, but it exceeds its genre in just about every way imaginable. It stands miles above the rest, without threat of being touched, let alone overtaken. The characters are imagined with such vivid, brilliant clarity, and are brought to life by impeccable acting, that they have entered our collective memory and our cultural lexicon. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) and Clarice Starling (Foster) are as American as apple pie. We have before us two people, startling in their crispness, put in a unique situation. One is behind glass, imprisoned but in control; the other is on the outside, lost as she attempts to catch a serial killer (Levine) who skins his victims. Lecter is the one in power, because of his medical knowledge and experience, but he does not take advantage of it. He helps and she accepts; she gets closer to him and the answers. The relationship that develops between the two is by far the most fascinating aspect of the movie--subtle but real, twisted but tender, unexpected but much appreciated.

This is to say nothing of the plot, which is excellent. It is smart and fast-paced, with just the right amount of exposition and mystery. The editing plays a very important role near the finale, although it is perhaps a bit too clever for its own good and takes us out of the moviegoing experience. But there are two scenes that, for me, have etched themselves in my brain forever. One, halfway through, is an escape. It is perhaps the most fiendishly devious escape I have ever seen, and it is so unimaginably sinister. In Lecter's moment of triumph, we are witness to his inimitable intelligence and his macabre sense of humor. The second scene I'm sure is on everybody's list. That scene in pitch black is one of the most heart-pounding in existence. I don't know that anything has ever topped it for me; I'm not sure I would want to watch a movie that could, because I would be shaking in my bed at night if such a scene existed. That scene is perfect, I would not change a single millisecond of it. It is cinema at its very best.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/

Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)

4/5

Steven Soderbergh's Sex, Lies, and Videotape is the quintessential independent film of the late 80's/early 90's, and it undoubtedly set the bar for independent film for the next decade. It focuses on the characters more than the plot, their motivations more than their actions, and their relationships more than their promiscuity. It is appropriately patient, awkwardly humorous, and sensually descriptive. It is emotionally explosive and subtly fascinating. But it is also maddeningly unclear sometimes.

The movie is basically a four-person character study. But it never feels as if the writer created the characters and manipulated them to his whims like voodoo dolls. Instead, the characters were real people, and the writer simply watched them interact in his mind, and faithfully transcribed the events. This is an expertly-written film that feels impossibly realistic and true. And contains interesting thematic elements. It examines the ubiquity of sex and lies, through the eyes of each character. It uses videotape and asks what it means to watch, to point the camera at someone, and to have it pointed at yourself.

The movie is certainly dated, and shows its age from hairstyles to clothing to slang, but that never takes away from the experience. What does take away is the somewhat deflated ending; and the feeling that I never got a satisfying explanation of what exactly happened in the characters' pasts and why. Part of me enjoys that, knowing that real life is never so tidy, but the rest of me is annoyed. Still, the movie is a great watch and asks intriguing questions. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098724/

A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas (2011)

2/5

A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas is a very Harold & Kumar movie, it's just not a very good movie. It is, in fact, a very stupid movie. The story and the jokes feel like rehashed sloppy second versions of the first one (and probably the second one too, but I never saw it). It is just as rude, crass, and vulgar as every other stoner comedy made in the last 10 years. And it is just as funny as well--which is to say only occasionally funny. The jokes, when they do hit home, can be great. But they can be abysmal as well. The shining light in this series is Neil Patrick Harris, and he does not disappoint here. Unfortunately, he is not enough to make this a memorable movie in any sense of the word. The best I can say about Harold & Kumar is that it is mindless entertainment, with a big focus on mindless. If I were Kal Penn, I probably wouldn't have quit my day job to make this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1268799/

The Avengers (2012)

4/5

The Avengers is a spectacle in the most gaudy way possible. I suppose that's not entirely unanticipated given the fact that the last six movies put out by Marvel have basically been advertisements for this one. And that this comic book nerd's fantasy has been decades in the making. It had to come out with a bang. And bang it did, with the most profitable opening weekend of all time. And yet, despite all its financial success, I don't feel like this movie will be remembered for very long. It's one of those movies everybody just had to see because everyone else was talking about it, but then it seemed to slowly fade into obscurity.

Iron Man and The Dark Knight were, for me, the two big superhero movies from the last 10 years, each taking wildly divergent paths. The Dark Knight was serious, filled with gritty realism and terrifying villains. Iron Man was humorous, good-natured fun. The Avenger is firmly entrenched in the latter camp; it's the next movie in a line of factory-made films cut from the same cloth as Iron Man aimed to guarantee success with the least risk possible. And it is an entertaining, well-written, well-paced film that probably didn't offend anybody. But it was more of a Marvel movie than a Joss Whedon movie, and I think that's my issue with the film.

Joss Whedon's writing and directing here was relatively uninspired compared to The Cabin in the Woods, Serenity/Firefly, and Dollhouse. There were some clever lines and cool twists in the plot, and Whedon effortlessly balanced five major leads with widely varying characteristics and motivations, but nothing about this movie really impressed me in any way. It's a fine movie; I just expected a lot more given Whedon's involvement. He can--and will--do better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

Fast Five (2011)

4/5

Fast Five, no matter how much better it is than the previous four films in the franchise, is a pretty silly movie. It starts with a jailbreak that is somehow perfectly orchestrated such that they are able to wedge a sports car under a moving prison transport, get the bus to roll over about ten times without killing any inmates, and then rescue Vin Diesel and take him to Rio. Diesel and his gang then proceed to rob "the most powerful gangster in all of Rio" in the most preposterous manner imaginable while The Rock tries to track him down, killing anyone and everyone in his path like he's the Hulk.

The cinematic elements are fairly standard for modern action movies: quick cuts, shiny shots, and all the explosions, chases, and fistfights you can take. The movie often hides what is going on from the viewers for no reason other than to surprise them later, and you have to try especially hard to suspend your disbelief in this movie, but the screenplay contain some clever twists, especially with respect to the heist. The dialogue, however, is laughable. Vin Diesel's performance makes the script seem even more ridiculous, as he apparently has confused yelling with acting. The Rock, who I respect much more than in his early days, is not only the best actor in the film, but the best by about ten orders of magnitude. It's a very enjoyable movie that succeeds as mindless entertainment, but don't expect anything more than that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596343/

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

4.9/5

The Cabin in the Woods is one of the most fascinating, enthralling movies I've seen in a long time. Written by Joss Whedon, it is a testament to the power of inventive, immersive storytelling. It gives me hope that there's still new ideas to be discovered and shared. The plot starts with five friends (Connolly, Hemsworth, Hutchison, Kranz, Williams) who take a trip to the titular cabin in the woods. They are warned by a gas station attendant (De Zarn) not to enter, but they choose to continue on, only to enter a world of horrors.

The movie is a joy to watch. It starts from a simple premise and constantly expands, adding layer after layer of complexity until its brilliant finale. It is set in a slasher horror genre, but contains elements of reality TV and ancient mythology. After a while, the horror element fades away and you are left with nothing but quality storytelling in a universe you've never before set foot in. It is exciting and entertaining, although it will not appeal to everybody. It aims to shock, at times, but also to make you smile. It succeeds admirably on all counts, and it is delightful the entire time.

As far as the acting goes, Kranz, Jenkins, and Whitford steal the show. They are incredible and they leave the rest of the cast in the dust. The camerawork and editing are pretty much what you'd expect from a horror movie, with the requisite shots of blurry objects sneaking up in the background and quick cut/loud noise combos. But even those are done in an almost tongue-in-cheek way that makes the whole movie all the more fun. I cannot seem to praise this movie enough, and I cannot wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

3/5

The Five-Year Engagement is a middle-of-the-road modern-day romantic comedy. The movie starts with Tom (Segel) botching his proposal to Violet (Blunt) one year after they first met, then continues on for the next five years as their wedding gets further and further postponed for various reasons. Things crop up in their lives and they start to doubt that they really are perfect for each other. It has its fair share of quirky side characters, some of whom you love (Kaling, Hart, Posehn) and some of whom you love to hate (Pratt, Ifans). It's got the big fight in the middle--although it does it in a way that makes both leads less likeable--and a terrifically sappy ending to jerk some tears out of your nasolacrimal ducts. The humor is occasionally raunchy to give manly men laughs but is usually simple and clean for the more mainstream viewers. It's formula to a T, and it's entertaining enough. It just isn't exciting enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1195478/

Haywire (2011)

4/5

Steven Soderbergh's Haywire is a tightly-paced action thriller about a covert ops agent (Carano) who is double-crossed by her boss (McGregor). If the plot feels tired and rehashed, that's because it is. Story-wise, nothing about this movie is all that new or interesting, despite the scriptwriter's best efforts at infusing it with twists and turns. Two things make this movie good, and two things only. One is the directing and the other is the fighting. And there are a lot of fight scenes. Soderbergh avoids the frenzied over-editing you find in lots of modern action films and keeps the camera far enough away so you can actually tell what's going on. The fighting feels authentic thanks to the lead, Carano, who is an MMA fighter and American Gladiator. Unfortunately, she's not a great actress. Her lines are cold and hard, so half the time she manages to sound like a badass and the other half she sounds like an idiot reading a script. If you know what to expect going in, this movie will more than live up to your expectations, but it's far from a genre-bending production.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1506999/

Paul (2011)

3/5

Paul is the sci-fi version of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Like the other two, it was written by its leads Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and is filled to the brim with references to all the best films of the genre that came before it. But unlike the other two, it felt like they were trying too hard to recapture their past success and just ended up beating a dead horse. The spoof/parody/homage formula they created was intriguing in Shaun of the Dead, perfected in Hot Fuzz, and has now become washed up in Paul. (Or maybe I'm just not as big a sci-fi fan as I am an action fan.)

There are jokes aplenty in this movie and I laughed more than my fair share for a comedy, but for some reason the film just didn't engage me. The character of Paul had too much Seth Rogen in him, the road trip adventure felt bland and unexciting, and for whatever reason I never found myself caring about what was happening. The movie is fine as far as entertainment goes, but I expect better from them. If it seems like I'm harsh on the movie, it's because I know those two can do better. And I hope they do on their next project.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092026/

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey (2011)

4/5

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey is a truly fascinating movie. It is a character study of Kevin Clash, the man behind Elmo. As a young black kid growing up in Baltimore, he found his calling in puppetry. After being inspired by Jim Henson's Muppets, he created his own puppets and started putting on puppet shows for kids and charities in his neighborhood. He eventually got a shot in public access television before moving onto the big leagues and working with Jim Henson himself on Sesame Street.

As a documentary, it's impressive. We get to witness important personal moments in his life, but those are almost too intimate to watch while simultaneously being beautifully human and touching. Likewise, there is a wealth of footage that shows Clash's love affair with puppetry. We get to see his inimitable skill as he creates entire lives with his hands and his voice, and teaches others to do the same. We see his eyes brighten up with joy when he first visits the puppet factory, and every time he puts a puppet on his hand. The storytelling itself is even more terrific than I could have hoped for, bringing everything back to the beginning and rewarding the patient viewer. Being Elmo is a mesmerizing story that is sure to delight all viewers.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787660/

Little Giants (1994)

3/5

Little Giants is one of those 90's movies that just don't get made anymore. It has a silly story, cheesy moments, and all the charm you can stuff in 100 minutes. Brothers Danny (Moranis) and Kevin (O'Neill) O'Shea are as different as you can get. Kevin escaped his small town home and became a football super-star while Danny remained at home and raised a family. When Kevin comes back to create a championship peewee football team, Danny feels bad for all the kids who weren't picked, including his own daughter Icebox (Waldron). Danny decides to create his own team and manages to wrangle all the misfits in town, and it suddenly turns into classic David vs. Goliath tale.

The movie is neither clever nor subtle, but it works precisely because it hams it up. Like all those cult classics you avoid unless you're part of the cult, you watch this movie with nostalgia for your youth and innocence. It reminds you of the times when you thought snot was funny and misheard words or misunderstood phrases were strokes of genius. The script is full of those awesome laugh-out-loud moments. The acting is passable but not believable. The characters are more exaggerated than circus drawings. The plot is more predictable than a Disney film. But it doesn't matter. It's senseless fun that you can appreciate it for what it is: a silly romp that never apologizes for being guilty fun.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110364/

Titanic (1997)

4.9/5

James Cameron's Titanic is an engrossing film, epic in scope yet focused on the individual players. It is a romance, certainly, but a classic one that will appeal even to non-romantics because it is a good story first and foremost. While there is nothing particularly original about the plot, it is a universal and timeless tale, well-told: doomed love attempting to escape the shackles of modern society; man's hubris resulting in their inevitable demise. Where it succeeds is in allowing the plot to go where the characters find themselves, instead of forcing the characters down the writer's pre-ordained path.

The technical achievements in the film are extraordinary for the time, and mesmerizing still. The cinematography and special effects are awe-inspiring, and the editing keeps the 3 hour movie surprisingly brisk and fast-paced. The acting, however, is where the movie really shines. Not only impressive for their ages, but impressive in their own right, DiCaprio and Winslet give heart-wrenching and breathtaking performances. I somehow forgot that they can make your heart skip with anticipation, with dread, with hope. You really care for the leads, and the stakes are raised that much higher when the big ship starts its slow descent.

The movie isn't perfect. It has a somewhat silly narrator structure wrapped around the perfectly self-sufficient story, and Bill Paxton's acting therein just left me cold. The script is also full of sailing cliches and movie tropes, from the captain sinking with the ship to the overly noble orchestra playing waltzes while the Titanic literally sinks inch by inch. Even if that stuff actually happened, that shouldn't have been the focus of the movie. Regardless, I finally appreciate why this movie holds such power to nearly everybody who watches it. It is a phenomenal achievement all around.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/

Rashomon (1950)

5/5

Rashomon was the first Kurosawa movie I'd ever seen, and it blew me away. The movie is based on a short story called "In a Grove," which describes an incident that takes place in the woods. The incident involves the death of a samurai (Mori) and the rape of his wife (Kyo) after an encounter with the bandit Tajomaru (Mifune). But the exact details of what transpired there we may never know. The movie proper begins at Rashomon Gate in a torrential downpour. We see a priest (Chiaki) and woodcutter (Shimura), who both witnessed the court hearings and walked away baffled. After hearing each individual's conflicting account of the incident, each more self-incriminating than the last, the priest is on the verge of losing his faith in mankind.

The movie I remember is better than the movie I saw. The movie I analyzed is better than the movie I saw. That is not to disparage Rashomon at all, as it is a great film that has stood the test of time, but rather a mark on its characteristics. It is more art than entertainment, more stimulating to discuss than enjoyable to see. Whereas I could rewatch No Country for Old Men 100 times for the sheer fun of it, Rashomon more appropriately aims to contribute through its complex thematic possibilities. It is a movie that discusses insight and ideas first and foremost and then tries to tack on the human element afterward. The acting serves to advance the plot, and fails at realism or empathy. Unlike The Rules of the Game, the dialogue contains hardly any quotable gems. But there is something inimitable and profound about this movie that I cannot shake, something that sparked a fire in me and inspired me to search out art house cinema. Rashomon turned me on to Kurosawa, and to the moving pictures as works of art, and for that I will always be indebted to this film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042876/

Double Indemnity (1944)

5/5

Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity is the definitive film noir, perfecting all the elements of the genre while somehow surpassing all expectations. The byzantine plot follows the seedy underbelly of insurance fraud, as insurance salesman Walter Neff (MacMurray) is approached by Phyllis Dietrichson (Stanwyck) to set up an accident insurance policy for her husband and then kill him. She serves as the femme fatale, really little more than a representation of man's greed and lust, wrapped up in a sexy little package called opportunity. We start the movie at its chronological conclusion, giving us a sense of fatalism inherent in all noirs, a realization that no matter how many times we see it, it will never end the way we want it to. And the ending rivals the best that cinema has to offer. With one simple sentence and one small gesture, we gain such a terrifying depth of understanding about the relationships between the main characters that are absent in typical noirs. Where most depend on archetypes, Double Indemnity separates itself from the rest of the flock by giving everyone such unique, personal characteristics that it is impossible not to feel for them. Especially when they lose it all.

"I killed him for the money. And for a woman. I didn't get the money. And I didn't get the woman." MacMurray speaks the stylized dialogue of the intro with the necessary coolness of a true antihero, and continues to deliver the hard-boiled jargon as if there were no other way to talk. The subtlety hiding beneath the words echoes the suspense and deepens our understanding of each personality: "I don't like [carrying matches]. They always explode in my pocket." Each word and each glance drowns you in information you will not comprehend until a second or third viewing. The cinematography is just as good, if not better, than the impeccable script. It uses harsh lighting to brilliant effect, often shadowing our protagonist in bars cast by window blinds. And Wilder ratchets up the tension with simple set pieces and efficient editing. I guarantee you will be watching this movie on the edge of your seat.

I simply cannot praise this movie enough. Film noir is my favorite genre and this is the reason why. Watch it, and then watch it again and again and again. You will not be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/

City Lights (1931)

4.9/5

Charlie Chaplin's City Lights is a marvelous film, filled with cutesy charm and sharp wit. The story follows Chaplin's lovable tramp, who meets a blind flower girl (Cherrill) and falls in love with her. He also meets a drunken millionaire (Myers), who proceeds to forget their nights out together the next morning when he sobers up. That is, for the most part, the extent of the plot. Most of the movie feels very episodic in nature, with vaudevillian set pieces interspersed here and there with little connection or relevance to the story. And yet somehow it all flows together fluidly and expertly.

Yes, it is a silent film. But to me that seems an arbitrary distinction that sheds no light on how good the movie is. It's like describing The Godfather as a 2D movie, or Casablanca as a black and white movie. More importantly, it is a ceaselessly entertaining film that delights and surprises at every twist and turn, even today. Chaplin possesses an impossibly precise sense of comic timing. Every joke is just the right length, straining the scenario to the breaking point without every going past it and delivering on all its promises. It does not have the same social imperative as Modern Times or The Great Dictator, but it has a tenderly human element that just makes your heart melt.

And yet, for some reason, I remembered this movie being funnier. Maybe I am just coalescing all the good parts of all his movies into some imaginary perfect film, but I was expecting even more than what this movie provided. Still, this is an impeccably-made film by a true auteur and one I cannot recommend highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021749/

The Hunger Games (2012)

4/5

The Hunger Games is more of a phenomenon than a movie, based on the first of Suzanne Collins's trilogy of books that took the world by storm. I won't bore you with the movie's plot, because you've probably already figured it out from the seemingly endless tide of people around you who have already read the books and can't stop chattering about them. The series is essentially a love story between Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) with a little bit of action, violence, and political intrigue thrown in to spice it up. The story involves all three basic formulas for romance: 1) love triangle, 2) two people forced together by circumstance who fall in love, and 3) two people who love each other torn apart by circumstance. No wonder it's so successful.

As far as adaptations go, this one is fair. It takes no risks, aiming right in the middle of mediocrity to offend nobody, and indeed it fails at just about nothing. Unfortunately, it could have been really spectacular if helmed by a director with a vision. Instead, the director seems to harbor some sort of foolish fondness for over-editing and Shakicam shots, a term I coined myself to describe the silly trend of ignoring the revolutionary invention known as the Steadicam and going ultra-Bourne Supremacy on everything. The editing was by far the worst part about the movie, with Hemsworth's acting taking a close second. Not only is there split-second splicing of every action scene--making it impossible to tell what was going on--but the movie could have been cut to a more manageable 2 hours and have been just as satisfying, if not more so. As for the actor who played Gale, he was atrocious at line delivery. The only thing he did well was look down mopingly whenever Katniss and Peeta kissed, because apparently he has mastered that one skill set of neck flexion.

There are, however, some moving parts that carried over well from the book. One, my favorite, is Peeta's interview with Caesar (Tucci) and Katniss's subsequent reaction. Another is Katniss's first kill in the games, with an emotional tug that was cleverly flipped around from how it occurred in the book. The movie also added the character of Seneca Crane (Bentley), the Head Gamemaker, in a surprisingly intelligent way. Bentley, along with Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, were absolutely fantastic in their roles and brought the characters to life. The movie itself is a must-see for anyone who's read the book. It's also a must-see for anyone who doesn't like being out of the loop, as this is the kind of movie that everybody will be talking about. If you don't care about any of those things, well, then you're probably not reading this review anyway. So go out and watch the movie; it's an entertaining ride and does its fair share to bring the book to life.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Bob le Flambeur (1956)

2/5

Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob le Flambeur is a character study of the titular gambler (Duchesne). As the movie begins, we see him enjoy hefty winnings from a racetrack bet only to lose it all on roulette that night. Out of money and burdened with debt, he collects a team of thieves to help him complete a heist on a casino. But things don't go as planned.

The movie has alternately been described as a film noir and a precursor to the French New Wave, preceding both Godard and Truffaut. I can see elements of both, but I feel that they embody opposite ideals and disparate moods. One deals in archetypes, the other in innovation; one in seediness, the other in rejuvenation. The movie has a fractured tone as a result, and prevented me from really getting into it.

Plot-wise, much of the movie reminded me of Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven. Where that movie had slick editing, this one had amateurish camerawork. Where that had wit and cleverness, this has the occasional stray joke and just one real surprise. The acting is bare-bones and basic, serving the story instead of the characters. But despite all those negatives, this movie has a truly remarkable ending that almost makes up for its technical flaws. Almost.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047892/

Young Adult (2011)

3/5

Jason Reitman's Young Adult is somewhat of a diversion from his earlier comedies (Thank You for Smoking, Juno). It follows the story of young adult fiction writer Mavis Gary (Theron), who returns to her small town of Mercury after learning that her high school boyfriend (Wilson) has just had a child. Aiming to ruffle some feathers and win him back, she accidentally bumps into someone else she went to high school with: Matt Freehauf (Oswalt). Matt walks with a cane, after having been beat up back in high school for supposedly being gay, and tries to convince her not to ruin the new couple's life. But he can only do so much, because he's not the only one with old wounds.

Ultimately, I think this movie takes a sobering look at the terrors of high school relationships, how awful and cruel those interactions can be, and how they can stir up primal emotions our evolutionarily-mature cerebral cortices should be able to inhibit. High school can be painful, and filled with painful memories, even in the most well-adjusted graduate. It's where we first develop a sense of superiority, a sense of insecurity, or a sense of dependency--and also a sense of self. It's a far more complex movie than any trailer could do justice to, and perhaps than even the film itself can. It is a funny movie, in the sense that there are sarcastic jokes and awkward moments, but it's also a very sad story, in the sense that we are faced by depressing realities. But for me, it was just hard to get into. There is more focus on the editing than the dialogue, more emphasis on the representation of the characters than the people who live these lives. It's a dark comedy, intelligently told, and wholly unlike Reitman's earlier works. If you decide to watch this movie, just go in knowing what to expect.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1625346/

King Kong (1933)

4/5

The original King Kong was a monumental achievement in filmmaking for its time. Made almost 80 years ago, it still manages to tell an engrossing tale of hubris, humanity, and love. The movie starts with film director Carl Denham (Armstrong), about to set sail into uncharted territory with a film crew and enormous supply of tranquilizing gas bombs. He won't tell any of his compatriots the exact location until they near it, but he plans to shoot his newest adventure film there. He brings on a young Ann Darrow (Wray) as his lead actress to act against Jack Driscoll (Cabot). And so begins the story that inevitably ends in disaster.

The movie is remarkably efficient (especially in comparison to the remake that almost doubles the running time), and serves as an example of impeccable storytelling. We are immediately placed in the mystery of the moment, buffeted along by every twist and turn in the plot. The titular ape does not appear until almost halfway through the film, but our eyes are glued to the screen the entire time. It turns into an epic love story, one of unrequited love and sacrifice. We watch as our antihero protagonist builds up a tribute to himself and to mankind that eventually comes crashing down. Literally. The plot is so thick with multiple thematic meanings that it becomes a joy to analyze.

Unfortunately, the movie has more than its fair share of faults. The performances are rather stilted and bland. The dialogue itself isn't bad--when it's not racist or sexist, that is--but the delivery absolutely kills it. It's not such a bad thing the first time you watch it, but it seems to lose a little of its luster with every repeat viewing. There is also a large amount of obvious green-screening. But the most glaring problem is the stop motion animation. While hailed at the time as being unbelievably, unexpectedly realistic, it just looks comical now. This would have been more bearable if the effects simply stayed in the background, but the director spends exorbitant amounts of time showing off the latest and greatest like he's Michael Bay. It's as if the director forgot the focus should be on the story and the characters, and chooses instead to focus on the novelty of the animation. It doesn't help that the computer-generated effects in the remake easily outperform all the hard work put into the original.

All in all, the film is somewhat of a mixed bag. It was clearly a labor of love, and involves a richness and depth you wouldn't expect in this type of film, but it just doesn't hold its weight against modern cinema. It's hard to watch knowing a better-looking version is available, although I feel a twinge of nostalgia every time I think of this movie. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024216/

Footloose (2011)

2/5

This 2011 remake of Footloose is kind of a funny movie, although not always intentionally so. It purports to be a movie about an out-of-towner (Wormald) who discovers that public dance has been outlawed in his new small town home and attempts to overturn that silly law. It is also about a foolish, old-school preacher (Quaid) who must learn humbling life lessons from his far wiser, far sassier, daughter (Hough) and her precocious teen friends. I guess it's also supposed to be a dance movie, but there are about 3-4 scenes total that involve any kind of dancing. I say that it's funny because I can't wrap my head around the plot enough to suspend my disbelief. A group of drunk teens gets into a car accident while leaving a party that involved dancing, and the next logical step is to outlaw dancing. A high schooler gets so fed up with the unfairness and oppression leveled at him by adults that he has to go to an abandoned warehouse and dance his heart away. Most preposterous of all, however, is the drag race involving schoolbuses that ends in flames. Honestly, I'm not quite sure that the filmmakers were going for, but whatever it was, I don't think they succeeded.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068242/

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010)

3/5

Tsui Hark's Detective Dee movie has a ridiculously long title and a preposterous plot to match. I was suckered into watching this because it was on Time's list of the top ten movies of the year, as number 3 behind The Artist and Hugo, and I was surprised that I had never heard of it. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect, but I certainly hoped it would be good, especially since it had been lauded as "Crouching Tiger meets Sherlock Holmes." The movie starts with the mysterious death of two men who are working on a gigantic Buddha for the coronation of China's first female emperor (Lau), two men who literally explode into flames when the sun hits their skin. The empress enlists the titular detective (Lau) to solve the crime, but sends her aide (Li)--a martial artist with a whip--and an official from the Royal Court (Chao)--a martial artist with an axe--to keep an eye on him.

The story includes transfiguration, fighting puppets, and talking deer. But it also includes a surprisingly affecting love story and a clever mystery. So what that some of it makes no sense, that the line work is simplistic, and that the special effects are laughable? Nothing impresses, nothing offends. It's mindless entertainment in the cinematic style of old Asian dramas. It is what it is and nothing more. Watch it if that's the kind of movie you like, but don't go in hoping to be converted to a new genre you've never tried before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1123373/

Drunken Angel (1948)

3/5

Drunken Angel is an early Kurosawa film, billed as a film noir but playing more like a character study. The story follows Dr. Sanada (Shimura), a gruff physician working in a poverty-stricken district with a trash-infested swamp serving as the centerpiece for the village (and thematically probably much more, although I can't figure out what). He works not for money or prestige, but for the inherent reward of helping people in need. He begins an uneasy friendship with a gangster named Matsunaga (Mifune) after diagnosing him with tuberculosis. Tensions heighten when Okada (Yamamoto) returns from prison, declaring power over Matsunaga's turf and claiming ownership of a young woman who works for Dr. Sanada (Nakakita).

The movie is surprisingly unique, and for whatever reason I could not predict what would happen next. Kurosawa has a way of making movies that envelop you in them, that place you in the action, so that you enjoy the story instead of analyze it. Even so, I was disappointed in the film. Some characters were written flat while others felt like explosive caricatures. The titular doctor has an unusual habit of throwing bottles at his patients and calling them fools. The compositions were second-rate (made worse by the sub-standard Criterion transfer), the camerawork was shoddy, and the editing was choppy. Much of the medicine in the movie is unintentionally comic, likely because it is old medicine and not because of bad writing. Overall the movie just felt a little less put-together than his later films. You could see sparks of genius and the direction he wanted to take it, but without the proper tools to get him there. A fine effort, but there is much better Kurosawa to be had.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040979/

An Affair to Remember (1957)

4/5

Leo McCarey's An Affair to Remember is a surprisingly affecting and powerful tale of true love and bad timing. Nickie Ferrante (Grant) is a notorious playboy Lothario, who is finally settling down and marrying the heiress of a fortune (Patterson). Terry McKay (Kerr) is a professional night club singer, and also currently engaged (Denning). They meet on a transatlantic ocean liner and, of course, fall in love. Once they realize this, unfortunately, the boat is about to dock, and they promise each other that they will meet again in 6 months at the Empire State Building and marry each other then. But things do not quite work out as planned.

The first half of the movie was, I'll be honest, forgettably straightforward. Nothing really stood out, except one scene where they visit Nickie's grandmother (Nesbitt), and I almost stopped watching the movie halfway through. I'm glad I did not give up, however, as the second half is uniquely fascinating and tragically beautiful. The scenes where they break off their respective engagements is ferociously brutal, heart-rending, and touching. What perfect filmmaking, where Kerr walks out onto the balcony and you see the bay door reflecting an image of the Empire State Building by her side. And the final scene brings you to the breaking point--you cannot help but feel with all your heart when you watch it. It is overflowing with regret, with mercy, with pride, and with so much human imperfection as to make your whole body tingle with emotion. Despite any issues I have with the first half of the movie (and all the cheesy singing), I can't help but remember all the good things it delivers on. For any romantic out there, you need to watch this film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050105/

Salmon Fishing In The Yemen (2011)

3/5

Salmon Fishing In The Yemen is a terrifically predictable romance about an unlikely couple (McGregor, Blunt) forced together by circumstance (Waked, Scott Thomas) and then torn apart by equally implausible circumstance (Mison). It is filled with inspiring music that swells up during talk about fishing and ominous overtones that creep up during moments of danger. It is not the most sophisticated film as far as subtlety is concerned, but its traditional storytelling structure is better than some indie romances I've seen in the past. The chemistry between the two leads is unexpectedly good, and that more than makes up for the mediocre rest. As for the plot, everything ties up a little too neatly and happily at the end to be believable. But it's a mindless movie with sufficient heart and humor to appeal to the masses. It's a movie that doesn't ask you to think too hard about it once the credits roll and you shuffle out of the theater. It is harmless Sunday morning fare and it serves its purpose well.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441952/