Sharknado (2013)

1/5

Sharknado is a movie about a tornado that rains hungry sharks down on LA. Its tagline is "Enough Said," which is appropriate, since that is all you need to know about it. It is astonishing--literally jaw-dropping--how awful this movie is. I'm not sure I have the words to adequately quantify how bad it is, but I'll give it a shot.

First, the script. It is mind-numbingly stupid. Its existence is unfathomable. Watching the characters think and act is an exercise in suspending disbelief. Second, the special effects. Syfy's CG department has not advanced one bit since Sharktopus. In fact, if I were the person who worked on the special effects for this movie, I would probably intentionally excise it from my resume. They leave essentials like textures and lighting by the wayside, where the cinematography, editing, and acting sit as well. Third, the "director," and I use that term loosely. Mr. Ferrante intercuts scenes from unrelated b-roll with tight shots of line-reading, splicing together shots from different times of day with different ambient lighting temperatures as if they're all from the same scene.

This movie is absolutely engrossing, but only because it's so absurd. Much like Movie 43, it's hard to turn your eyes away. You will always underestimate how much worse the movie can get. I do have to say that watching it let me catch up on some sleep. And I was actually struck by how good the Dodge Ram and Lowe's commercials were in comparison to this garbage. Honestly, I don't know why I keep subjecting myself to the Syfy Original Movie torture. I need to stop.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2724064/

Holiday Affair (1949)

3/5

Holiday Affair is a sentimental Hollywood holiday story with enough cute kids and Christmas cheer to pull at your heartstrings and make you swoon. Janet Leigh plays an indiscreet "comparison shopper" who gets caught by a kind and generous salesman named Steve (Mitchum) when she tries to return a toy train set the day after she buys it. Instead of turning her in, Steve gives her a pass and ends up getting fired. He quickly falls in love with her and her young son (Gebert), but soon discovers that she's already engaged to a perfectly adequate lawyer named Carl (Corey) with plans to get married several days later on New Year's.

The movie is fairly straightforward with a very simple premise: how will these two lovebirds end up together? But it challenges us to find a solution to the love triangle and it somehow surprises us with the only solution possible. It seems to hurdle toward an impossibility, but deftly twists around the curve at a steady pace. Just thinking about it makes me smile even now. It's not the best shot, the best edited, or the best acted movie of its day. Not even close. But its story has charm and its actors have electricity. And while it's an enjoyable enough holiday movie, I'm not sure it's good enough to make the yearly Christmas roster.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041473/

The Heat (2013)

4/5

The Heat tells the odd-couple story of an uptight FBI agent (Bullock) who is forced to work with a crude, plainclothes Boston cop (McCarthy) to take down a druglord. I had extremely low expectations going in, but I came away extremely impressed. I blame the trailers, which advertised it as a simplistic, family-friendly PG-13 cop movie starring Oscar-winner Sandra Bullock in silly situations and always-hilarious Melissa McCarthy telling tame jokes. It is not. It's a delightfully R-rated, profane, and ribald buddy comedy version of Bridesmaids, with some added action elements and even more irreverence. I loved it! Bullock and McCarthy have an incredible chemistry together that brings out the heart beneath the humor. I can give it no greater compliment than to say I laughed my heart out the whole time and enjoyed every minute of it. And I hope to see it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404463/

The Sunset Limited (2011)

3/5

Cormac McCarthy's The Sunset Limited, as adapted by Tommy Lee Jones, is an interesting story. White (Jones) is a retired professor who attempts suicide by jumping in front of the titular train. Black (Jackson) is an ex-convict who rescues White from death and brings him back to his apartment. And that's where the movie begins, as they start to talk. It retells the age-old battle between cynicism and hope, atheism and religion. Everything up until the ending seems tried and true, an ancient cliché, but it brings it to a close in a way that seems novel and intriguing.

The cinematography is surprisingly inventive and entertaining, despite taking place in a single room in real time. The editing keeps the pacing tight and, as far as directing goes, Jones does an expert job. But the problem with the movie is that it's overly-talky. I wouldn't expect anything less from Cormac McCarthy, but it's a little excessive in a film. What reads well doesn't always screen well. That is really the problem with The Sunset Limited. Although his technical feats are much appreciated, I would have hoped Jones could have adapted it a little bit better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/

Monsters University (2013)

4/5

Monsters University, the prequel to Monsters Inc., is another impressive installment in Pixar's already phenomenal canon. It tells the story of the unlikely meeting between Mike Wazowski (Crystal) and James P. Sullivan (Goodman) in the scare academy. Like the best prequels, it deepens our love for each character, enriching their personalities and unveiling their motivations. We learn how they got to where they are today, what obstacles they had to overcome, what imperfections they had to live with, what prejudices they had to endure. They become more compelling than ever before and so we treasure our time with them.

The story and animation are both absolutely charming. The pacing is spot-on, shifting from comedy to excitement to sentiment with seeming ease. It is a delight to watch and it will leave you grinning with glee. Part of what makes Monsters University so good is how good Monsters Inc. is, knowing how it all ends. And now that we have Monsters University to enjoy, Monsters Inc. becomes that much better too!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453405/

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

4/5

Catching Fire, the second in Collins's dystopian series, delivers another extremely faithful adaptation. Like the book it's based on, Catching Fire is better than The Hunger Games. Ironically, watching this movie made me realize how bad the first one was. It probably deserved a 3/5, but I must have given it an extra 1 star because of my fondness for the book. Catching Fire, however, is more exciting and action-packed--with less of the morally-reprehensible kids-killing-kids storyline--than the first one. I probably would have enjoyed the movie even more if I weren't so tired going in, and I even nodded off a few times in the first half of the movie, but it maintained a perfectly tight pace in the second half.

The acting by all parties is surprisingly adept. Although by no means Oscar-worthy, Lawrence, Hutcherson, and Claflin all do their job at evoking emotions and making you care about them. You care not only that they survive the games but also that they satisfy their hearts' desires. The real treasure is the directing itself, which combines emotion, mystery, and action effortlessly. The script is taut and the editing lean. Although the runtime is well over 2 hours, it doesn't feel like there are any extraneous or wasted scenes (which litter the first one in an attempt to be "faithful" to the source material). It stands on its own as a good movie, independent of the phenomenon that is The Hunger Games. For anyone who enjoyed the books, this is an easy recommendation. I only wish the next one wasn't split into two parts.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951264/

Movie 43 (2013)

1/5

Movie 43 is an abomination of filmmaking. It is an offensive assault on the senses for 90 straight minutes. This thing--which I refuse to call a movie--is a collection of unrelated images and scenarios designed to disgust and disturb. It is the kind of thing created for reaction videos, with no inherent value. From neck testicles to cartoon cat masturbation fantasies, from parental abuse and incest to graphic leprechaun violence, from gratuitous nudity to yellowface surgery, there is no line it won't cross. I'm disappointed that so many quality actors have sullied their names by taking part in this evil transgression of cinema, this shameful plague of a thing. It makes me shudder just thinking about it. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1333125/

About Time (2013)

4.9/5

About Time is billed as a romantic comedy in the same vein as Notting Hill and Love Actually (appropriately so, since they were all written and directed by Richard Curtis). And while it is a remarkably affecting and effective romantic comedy, it is so much more than that. Curtis spends equal amounts of time on romantic love and familial love, on joy and sorrow, on birth and death. It is a grand opera, with equal parts comedy and tragedy, but it never loses sight of the individual. It captures life's little moments, as experienced by a hopeless romantic, and lets us treasure them.

On his 21st birthday, Tim (Gleeson) is told by his father (Nighy) that he has the ability to travel back in time. After a chance meeting with Mary (McAdams), he believes he has found true love. But he later undoes the entire encounter by accident when trying to fix another friend's problem. And so he begins to understand the true nature and the dramatic consequences of his newfound power.

Domhnall Gleeson is absolutely astonishing, bringing an instant charm and vulnerability to the screen. He is the beating heart of the movie and he knocks it out of the park. Rachel McAdams is, most surprisingly, the frumpiest she's ever been in a movie--and she plays it extraordinarily well. I cannot think of a more comforting or attractive version of her than in this movie. Nighy shows his veteran chops, being both stoic and drained, loving and firm. His life story is written in his small actions, his posture, his tone. The cast has an extraordinary chemistry that is nearly impossible to replicate. This movie must have been as magical to make as it feels to watch.

About Time is a whirlwind of emotion. It yanks at the heartstrings in just the right amounts, without feeling melodramatic or manipulative. There is a rare humanity that ebbs beneath every scene and fills the movie with empathy. This is about love, about growing up, about changing but being true to yourself. There are some sappy parts, for sure, and parts that defy the movie's own time travel logic, but they never hamper your enjoyment of the film. It's a movie made for the gut, not the head, and it hits its mark perfectly. About Time is a special movie and one that I plan on enjoying again and again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2194499/

Iron Man 3 (2013)

4/5

Iron Man 3 was better than I thought it would be. After my disappointment with the second one, I was worried that this one would be even worse. Luckily, it managed to elicit enough thrills and laughs during its 2-hour runtime to keep a smile on my face. The pacing had enough momentum to keep me intrigued and on the edge of my seat. The action was well-filmed, keeping us involved in what was happening but far enough away so we could actually tell what was going on. And the characters were... well, they were comic book characters, let's be honest. They're not all that complex or developed, and they're not meant to be. But it's easy to accept. I think my least favorite part of the movie was the heinous voice-over that bookended the film. Although it kind of felt like the stylings of a comic book, it was wholly unnecessary in a movie. All in all, not the worst of the bunch, but definitely not as fresh and exciting as the first one. It's a no-brainer if you enjoy the series already, but it lacks much of the creativity and innovation that made this superhero series so engaging in the first place.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1300854/

Mud (2012)

4/5

Mud is essentially a coming-of-age tale hidden within a character study wrapped in a crime thriller. One fateful morning, Ellis (Sheridan) and Neckbone (Lofland) meet a mysterious stranger with crosses under his boots and a gun tucked into his pants who calls himself Mud (McConaughey). Ellis cautiously helps Mud get food and supplies so that he can flee the people chasing him, but soon finds himself getting in way over his head. As the danger mounts and he gets deeper and deeper into trouble, Ellis discovers that Mud may not be who he thinks he is.

Mud is a uniquely American movie, although not because of its setting or vernacular. It projects universal ideas, but does it with an American ethos and sensibility: the loneliness of rejection, the guilt of parents' divorce, the hurt of being lied to. It echoes an honesty and authenticity that is rare in modern film, but it's ultimately unsatisfying. The resolution at the end, while exciting and stimulating, feels a little barebones. It supplants emotional truth with a gunfight, it forgoes maturation and change for a protection borne of necessity, and it wraps up way too many threads into what ends up being one very eventful night for our protagonist. But it tries so hard to be something so good that it is hard not to give it credit. It's a wonderful film with big ideas that doesn't quite meet its own lofty ambitions.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935179/

Captain Phillips (2013)

4.9/5

Paul Greengrass's Captain Phillips is a superbly-crafted thriller. Based on a true story (similar to his previous work United 93), it somehow manages to keep you in suspense, on the edge of your seat in anticipation, uncertain of its conclusion. The movie follows the titular character, in a stellar turn by Tom Hanks, as his boat gets attacked by Somali pirates. I won't give away any more details in the hopes that you get to enjoy all the surprises from the very beginning, but suffice it to say the entire 2 hours are enthralling. You will exit the theater with white knuckles from gripping the armrests so hard.

Owning the Shakicam documentary-style footage (which I tend not to be a fan of in general), Greengrass provides an authentic texture to his film. It put us in the action without making us nauseated. And nothing feels staged or scripted (except for the car ride in the first 5 minutes of the movie). We are swept along, in seeming real-time, as the terrifying, bewildering events unfold. Hanks gives a spectacular performance, running the gamut of emotions, allowing us insight into his ingenuity, courage, and humanity. Although we only see his character for several hours, we understand his whole being, every aspect of what makes him the man that he is. That is no small feat, but Hanks makes it seem natural, expected, easy.

I watched the closing credits still reeling, vividly aware of the magic that had been created on screen and shared with the world. I was awash with sundry sensations: relief, pride, anger, hope. It took me several minutes for my pulse to normalize, to digest everything I had just witnessed. And I remained in awe even after that, because it is simply that good. Captain Phillips is a stunning example of why we go to the movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535109/

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

4/5

I have trouble reviewing movies I grew up watching, especially ones that have the cachet of Spielberg and the nostalgia of youth behind it. The Lost World is one such example. It is a remarkable but imperfect piece of filmmaking, yet all its flaws are ignored when remembering it 15 years later. Not quite the breathtaking, innovative escapism that Jurassic Park was, this sequel somehow manages to be both more mundane and more extravagant. Industrial Light & Magic's CGI here is astounding, even by today's standards. But all the special effects are front and center, with a spotlight shining down, instead of simply existing as a tool in the storyteller's arsenal. Though the plotting is as richly intricate and textured as the first one was, it puts too much emphasis on the spectacle of the dinosaurs. It makes the Tyrannosaurus Rex the protagonist, without humanizing it enough to make it feel like King Kong for a new generation. Like the 2005 King Kong remake, it centers on special effects instead of story, action instead of characters, and that is where it misses out on its full potential. The Lost World loses the awe that Jurassic Park had. The thrills excite, the jokes lighten the mood, and the movie reaches its inevitably satisfying conclusion, but not nearly as well as the first one did.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119567/

World War Z (2013)

3/5

World War Z aims to give a realistic telling of the human fight for survival against a zombie epidemic, led by A-list celebrity and veteran actor Brad Pitt. It is reportedly based on a book of the same name, but its entire third act was completely rewritten for the movie. The action is quite thrilling--brimming with intensity and excitement--and the alternate universe they created feels wholly immersive, but I'm afraid that's where the positives end. There is no real character development to speak of and the acting is as flat as asystole. (Side note: Google just gave me a red underline for asystole, which means that Google is an ortho resident.) The rewritten final act feels decidedly empty and unsatisfying, although the book's version might have felt even emptier from what I've read online. All in all, World War Z is a mediocre action flick that somehow manages to feel a little more down to earth than the obscene spectacles of summer blockbusters while still failing to elicit more than gut reactions to action scenes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/

Prisoners (2013)

4/5

Prisoners is a viscerally intense and provocative morality tale about the lengths people will go to save the ones they love. The story is a difficult one to stomach: Keller Dover (Jackman) has his daughter stolen from him on Thanksgiving Day. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) initially suspects teenager Alex Jones (Dano), but quickly dismisses him after discovering he has the IQ of a 10-year-old child. Dover is convinced Jones is involved, however, and imprisons him in an abandoned building where he tortures him for information.

The acting is absolutely phenomenal. Jackman gives an emotionally searing performance, straight from the heart. Although his portrayal did at times seem to border on the melodramatic and overwrought, he walked that line expertly. Gyllenhaal is every bit his equal, although less explosive and incendiary. The problem with both characters (and, in fact, with almost every character) is that they don't feel unique at all. From the angry dad who takes matters into his own hands to the mother who shuts out the rest of the world to the driven detective who makes promises he can't keep, the interpersonal dynamic presented in this movie feels completely unoriginal and cliched. We've seen it before in The Lovely Bones and AMC's The Killing. That, or there is only one way families respond to tragedies involving their children.

But the movie grabs you, asphyxiates you. It has scenes of intense power and breathless anticipation. It emanates an aura of tension, an atmosphere of mystery. It's incredibly eerie. It's a promising start for director Villeneuve--he gives David Fincher a run for his money in the genre of dark, intelligent, moody psychological thrillers--and I hope he continues down this road in the future. I will definitely be watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392214/

Gravity (2013)

4.9/5

Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity is a visually mesmerizing and intensely satisfying film. It is, at its heart, a survival tale. Sandra Bullock plays a medical engineer lost in space, fighting for her life in thrilling, edge-of-your-seat action scenes that will leave you gasping for air. But add on to that a character study of an isolated woman, floating alone in the wide expanse of space. The movie gives us time to ruminate, reminisce, remember; it gives us space to think about mankind's history and achievements, man's hubris and arrogance. But add on to that the technical achievements of filming outer space in zero gravity. The effects are so complex they seem to defy explanation, so seamless they feel real. You don't even feel like you're in a theater; you're just floating in space, watching what happens next.

Bullock gives an indelible performance: her fear, her frustration, her courage, her failures all feel so achingly true. She keeps this story of space grounded in humanity. We feel for her. We want her to live, so every small setback feels epic, every new obstacle feels impossible. Despite my praise for the acting, the real star of the show is the cinematography. It is awe-inspiring and stunning. I saw Gravity in a regular theater, but I'm beginning to think that was a mistake. Gravity is the kind of movie that was envisioned and created for the kind of immersive theater experience that can only be appreciated in IMAX 3D. I can't wait to see it again--the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/

The Great Gatsby (2013)

3/5

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby somehow manages to be both a tepid and titillating reinterpretation of the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic. In the most banal ways it seems to copy the book verbatim, with Tobey Maguire basically reading Fitzgerald's elegant prose in an unnecessary and belabored voice-over. At 2.5 hours runtime, the film's editing is incredibly mis-managed thanks to an overlong first half filled with pedestrian introductions and explanations reminiscent of lazy storytelling.

And yet something about the anachronistic music and Leonardo DiCaprio's enigmatic charisma manages to pull you in and excite you. It becomes filled with verve and vivacity. The acting by DiCaprio and Mulligan is particularly compelling. Their characters, and the magnetic attraction between the two, are the heart and soul of the film. But as good as they are, the rest of the cast fails to impress. And while Baz Luhrmann can do incredible things with music, he seems unable to direct the rest of the movie with equivalent panache.

Films made out of books must be adapted, not simply migrated to the silver screen. Luhrmann should have tried harder to pin down the spirit of the book--that je ne sais quoi that made generations consume it so voraciously--and communicate that same elusive vitality to the movie. Instead he has taken some of the words to the cinema, but has left the heart on the page.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343092/

You're Next (2011)

3/5

You're Next is a fairly standard slasher movie with a somewhat clever premise. A dysfunctional family plans a reunion in an isolated vacation home in the woods when a group of psychotic murderers start picking them off one by one. But the family soon realizes that it wasn't a random act of violence; they were being watched and tracked for days. The "clever premise" is the twist at the end, the explanation of what's happening, but that's about the only novel part of the movie. The rest is predictable and expected gory filmmaking with a badass heroine. All in all, a decent flick if you're a fan of the horror genre, but nothing that will sway horror-haters.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853739/

Drinking Buddies (2013)

3/5

Drinking Buddies is a fairly standard indie romantic dramedy with quirky characters and a mildly unique perspective. The plot follows two brewery co-workers, Luke (Johnson) and Kate (Wilde), who start to develop feelings for the other person, despite both being in relationships. On a camping trip with the two couples, Luke's partner (Kendrick) and Kate's partner (Livingston) share a kiss. How Luke and Kate react, how they involve themselves in the other person's life, and how alcohol affects their decisions is what the movie focuses on.

Whereas most Hollywood romances tend to be intentionally escapist, this movie grounds itself firmly in reality. All four leads deliver well-crafted, nuanced performances. It is who they are, not the situations they find themselves in, that gives the movie its voice. The characters are not perfect, and their decisions often frustrate us, but their charm and humor win us over. The character development is so warmly authentic that it is hard to stay mad at them.

But the movie as a whole, whether it's because of the worn-out, too-familiar storyline or the plodding progression, was not particularly compelling. The ending is not what I was expecting or hoping for, but perhaps that is the point of the movie and the reason for its title. Like its characters, the movie has its ups and downs, but ends up squarely in the middle of the pack.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265398/

The Hangover Part II (2011)

3/5

The Hangover Part II has been much maligned for being exactly the same as the first one. And yes, the plot structure is almost identical. But even after the novelty of the mystery framework wears off, it's just as eminently watchable. The movie remains hilarious because it delivers memorable characters in ridiculous, over-the-top scenarios. It was funny the first time and it's still funny the second time. As far as raunchy wedding comedies go, I thought Bridesmaids was a better movie overall, but this series loves to go to places you never imagined, way over the lines you were hoping it wouldn't cross, and it does so in an inviting, charismatic way. I can't wait to watch the third one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411697/

Natural Born Killers (1994)

3/5

Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers is a frenetic film, filled with so much energy and bombast it practically leaps off the screen and slaps you in the face. The movie follows Mickey (Harrelson) and Mallory (Lewis), two lovers who go on a mass murdering rampage, and the media that glorifies it. In the wake of recent school shootings and suicides publicized on Twitter, it feels even more timely than ever. People will always want their 15 minutes of fame, no matter how they get there.

The movie is visceral--it shouts loud and it hits hard--but somehow manages to be less graphic than more modern movies. It is violent, though, in every sense of the word: an offensive assault on our senses and sensibilities. Its aggressive pacing involves us in the story, exhilarating us and titillating us without giving us any room to breathe and process what we see. And we become awe-struck by the images of violence on the screen. Is that not precisely the kind of voyeurism we are supposed to condemn?

But despite what he has to say, Stone uses a sledgehammer to pound his point home. To say it lacks subtlety is to say that an elephant is larger than a mosquito. It blasts its message nonstop, using anything and everything from random video projections in the background of scenes to story elements like Downey Jr's sensationalist television series. It leaves nothing to the imagination, and our imagination is stronger and more horrific than anything Stone has to say.

Tarantino came up with the story, and I can tell that if he directed this it would have been a masterpiece. But Stone's version is messy and chaotic, unvarnished and unfocused. I'm glad I saw the movie just so I can say for sure that I don't need to see any more Oliver Stone films. Not that this is a bad film; it's just not my style. There's nothing deeper here than what Stone shows you. But Natural Born Killers does spark the conversation, and that's definitely worth something.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110632/

Finding Nemo (2003)

4/5

Finding Nemo is another home run for Pixar, filled with expectedly charming anthropomorphic ocean creatures, superb writing, and exciting action. A family film about a clownfish named Marlin (Brooks) searching for his son Nemo (Gould) in the Great Barrier Reef, it has memorable characters and funny situations that will delight and surprise you. And despite what I say in the next paragraph, it is a fantastic movie that would be hard not to recommend to just about anyone. But it didn't light a fire in me.

The problem with the movie is that it lacks a propulsive premise. It has a cohesive, all-encompassing arc with effective character development and plot progression, but it feels too episodic. This would have been better served as a miniseries or television show. Every step on Marlin's journey is a random aside, a small comedic sidestep, none of which contribute much to the overall narrative. Some games have minigames that add to your enjoyment of the primary game; Finding Nemo feels like it has nothing but minigames. Because of that, we as viewers are lost in the same expansive ocean, pulled forward unaware. In certain movies this can be exciting and enthralling; in this one it merely serves to frustrate. And though it seems like I'm complaining, would anybody have objected to seeing these characters reprise their roles weekly on the Disney Channel, becoming ever more complex, fascinating, and endearing?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266543/

Admission (2013)

3/5

Admission is essentially a Tina Fey vehicle, which automatically makes it immensely entertaining. The perpetually-fantastic Tina Fey plays a Princeton admissions officer named Portia, who finds love in an alternative school's guidance counselor named John (played by the always-lovable Paul Rudd). John tells Portia some revelatory news: one of his students may be Portia's son, whom she gave up for adoption years earlier. On her new-found journey as a parent, she learns life lessons about relationships (both romantic and maternal) in hilarious fashion before the film finally ends in a sad but hopeful spirit.

The movie is fairly simple and mindless. The throwaway story does a fair job at serving up jokes, but any attempts to be meaningful and melodramatic fall flat. Luckily, they are easy to ignore. The characters are bland and forgettable, but the actors still manage to charm with their wry wit and precise comedic timing. This movie isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but it's appealing enough to satisfy on a lazy weekend afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1814621/

Jurassic Park (1993)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park is a classic 1990's creature film, and perhaps the most memorable one in history. Based on Crichton's book, it melds science with fiction to create a terrifying but believable alternate world. Entrepreneur John Hammond (Attenborough) extracts dinosaur DNA from ancient mosquitoes to create an amusement park filled with dinosaurs. Before announcing it to the public, he invites experts in the field of paleontology (Neill, Dern) and chaos theory (Goldblum) for a preview showing, along with his grandkids. Unfortunately, things go very wrong when the dinosaurs escape.

What makes this movie so unforgettable is not the special effects, awesome (in the traditional sense of the word) though they may be. The cererbral concept, the thought of creating dinosaurs, is exhilarating and thrilling. Its story is a classic tale of man's hubris leading to destruction, of greed leading to demise, of fear and courage. An epic battle plays out between the kings of old and the kings of new, brawn vs. brains.

Throw in Goldblum's spot-on neuroses and Spielberg's unerring eye for cinema and you get a movie that stands the test of time. It's invigorating and endearing because it puts its story and its characters front and center, allowing the CGI to be eye candy and window dressing. Special effects won't always seem so incredible, but good stories never grow old. And Jurassic Park tells a phenomenal story.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

4/5

Alfred Hitchcock's remake of his own The Man Who Knew Too Much is engaging from beginning to end. It is essentially the same mistaken identity tale that Hitchcock loves to tell. It isn't ground-breaking work by any means, but it is entertaining and thrilling. Hitchcock is a master craftsman, an expert at spinning yarns and pulling out the tension from any premise, and he keeps us spellbound with his filmmaking. The final orchestra scene is still as edge-of-your-seat as it was almost 60 years ago. Hitchcock has lost none of his touch. Despite the occasional innocent old-timey racism and brown/whiteface, it manages to stay fresh and feel novel. The Man Who Knew Too Much is a classic Hitchcock film that will delight any modern fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049470/

Cloud Atlas (2012)

3/5

Cloud Atlas is an ambitious project for even the most visionary directors. It tracks six separate storylines that connect and intersect in moods and themes. Directed by three people, the Wachowskis and Tykwer attempt to use the same actors across time and space to link the storylines. That unnecessary dedication to a concept is perhaps the reason for dressing its white actors up in "yellowface" to make them look Asian, which is off-putting and unsettling to say the least. Ignoring that, the movie still has its imperfections and failings.

Although the movie intercuts six stories remarkably well, it feels lopsided and uneven. The stories are given equal weight even though some are far less interesting than others. While the book tells the various fictions sequentially, the movie unifies them into a singular, simultaneous narrative. I'm not sure it was the right decision, as it comes with numerous compromises, but it shows that the directors care about the story enough to attempt to adapt the ideas instead of the words.

As the movie ended, I wasn't sure what I got out of it. Its self-importance was lost on me. I felt like the movie is engaging and compelling for its storytelling, but not its story; its filmmaking, but not its content. It's appealing but empty, exciting but unsatisfying. It was made to be bold, not to be felt. I can't imagine anyone going into the theater will go out feeling anything but disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/

Upside Down (2012)

2/5

Upside Down is a rather silly movie about two worlds connected to each other by an international corporation's elevator bridge, but kept separate by opposing gravitational forces. It provides three "rules" at the beginning of the film: the first two are pretty much assumed and do not require enumeration, but the third doesn't really make any sense at all and is just there to provide an artificial complication to an otherwise simple premise. It tells a cliched love story between an up-worlder (Dunst) and a down-worlder (Sturgess) in a visually titillating universe. But the world they live in gets boring fast. Unlike a Jean-Pierre Jeunet movie, it doesn't bring any creativity or cleverness to the world it creates. (Also, they just seem to ignore the parts of each world that aren't in apposition (i.e., the "dark side" of each planet).

Add on top of all that inane acting and a bland script, and you have a disappointment. But the ultimate--and most frustrating--problem with the movie is that it lacks a climax. It just ended without a confrontation or conflict. It floated about until it eventually had nothing more to happen besides give the two love-birds their happily-ever-after. Honestly, I really can't recommend this movie to anybody. Don't let the trailer deceive you into thinking this might turn out to be a good movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1374992/

The Terminator (1984)

3/5

The Terminator is James Cameron's first big movie (unless you count Piranha Part Two: The Spawning, about flying killer fish, which I have not seen and do not wish to) and you can tell he doesn't have the same technical expertise as he displays in his later movies. But you can see the nuggets of talent that enabled him to make the two most profitable films of all time. Cameron loves special effects--and there are quite a few good special effects here--but they severely date the film. And the bad special effects (e.g., the animatronic Schwarzenegger) overshadow the good ones.

Make no mistake, Schwarzenegger is the reason to see this movie. He delivers killer one-liners with aplomb and keeps the tension throughout. Unfortunately, this movie has been overshadowed by its bigger brother and sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day. And for good reason: the sequel is far better in just about every way. But this movie is good enough to put you on the edge of your seat and pull you in until the very end. I suppose that's enough to enjoy the movie, but it's not enough to keep it in the conversation whenever somebody mentions Terminator.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/

This Is The End (2013)

4/5

This Is The End is a raunchy, vulgar, hilarious comedy written and directed by Seth Rogen. It is entirely his show, and he delivers the most over-the-top laughs you can imagine by going way farther than you'd expect. The plot follows two friends (Jay Baruchel and Seth Rogen) at James Franco's housewarming party when the apocalypse suddenly strikes. Our unfortunate protagonists are not taken up to heaven in the Rapture. Instead, they must fight hunger, distrust, and well-endowed demons in order to survive.

What makes it more clever than just an average comedy is that all the actors play quasi-real versions of themselves. They look the same and have the same name, but they don't behave the same way they do in real life. The best example is Michael Cera, in the most widely-divergent role of his entire career, playing himself. Even without that twist, it was still a lot of fun seeing a bunch of familiar faces in small cameos.

The cinematic properties are passable but forgettable. And nobody expects to be impressed by those things when they enter a theater to see a Seth Rogen film. Instead, the film stands on its humor, and Rogen is able to deliver side-splitting laughs. His timing is impeccable, whether we are simply witnessing bickering friends or being horrified by extravagant gross-outs and extreme sight gags. (I honestly cannot wrap my head around any reason for there to be so many demon penises on screen in any movie ever.) There were times when I finished laughing and realized I had not inhaled for the previous 30 seconds. Yes, my respiratory rate was literally 2 breaths per minute. This is an amazing movie that I highly recommend for anyone who is a fan of Seth Rogen.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1245492/

White House Down (2013)

3/5

Stop me if you've heard this one before: a terrorist plot to overtake a building is thwarted by a lone off-duty officer behind enemy lines. No, it's not Die Hard. It's White House Down. If you want to put it in a positive light, you can call it an homage or a re-envisioning. If you want to hate on it, you can call it a blatant rip-off. In truth, it probably lies somewhere in between, and it might have worked if Emmerich were a superior director.

The casting is the best part of the movie. Channing Tatum nearly matches Bruce Willis in terms of his on-screen presence and comic timing. (I say this knowing full well that I'll be blasted as a blasphemer or a Tatum fanboy.) But Emmerich takes it one step further by adding Jamie Foxx into the mix, turning it into a buddy movie with an undeniable chemistry between the two leads. It seems like it has all the right ingredients for success, but it just doesn't have that special sauce. Emmerich directs the action just a little too over-the-top. Even I could not suspend my disbelief (and this coming from someone who recently saw Fast & Furious 6). The bad guys are unoriginal and bland, even before comparing them to Die Hard and the inimitable Alan Rickman. The movie sags at around the 2/3 mark and it never manages to pick up the pace after that (even with the unnecessarily ludicrous plot twist at the end). For those of you that don't know, this is basically the exact opposite of what you want in an action movie.

Whereas Die Hard was a classic, White House Down will quickly fade out of our collective memory. That's okay though. It served its purpose as a summer blockbuster popcorn flick. It's entertaining enough for an action movie and I don't feel like I wasted my money. Just don't let the similarities to a much better movie get your hopes up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2334879/

Fast & Furious (2009)

2/5

Fast & Furious is a movie I started watching around midnight, extremely tired, and it was not exciting enough to prevent me from nodding off several times throughout. It's a much-needed reboot of the franchise after the almost-universally maligned Tokyo Drift. While the following two sequels (Fast Five and Fast & Furious 6) are more traditional action films, this one maintains its origins as a street racing movie and sprinkles a touch of drug running into the mix. I can't say I remember much of the plot, but I think it's safe to say that it was pretty standard for this type of film (i.e., forgettable). The script was bland and the acting was limp. And, unlike the later sequels, it didn't have The Rock to save it. If only Fast & Furious 6 weren't so amazing, then I wouldn't have felt compelled to come back and revisit the whole series.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013752/

Fast & Furious 6 (2013)

5/5

Fast & Furious 6 is a shot of adrenaline straight to the heart. It is non-stop excitement from beginning to end, perfectly paced without a single misstep. Its story continues right where Fast Five left off and never pauses for a second. It's filled with a fair number of plot twists and, partly because it sheds its underground street racing roots, it keeps you engaged until the gut-shot preview of Fast Seven. But the plot is not why you see this movie. You watch it for the way it collects all the coolest characters from the previous movies and assembles them into an Avengers-style superhero team. They team up against an especially cruel and evil villain (Evans) who has some devious tricks up his sleeve (i.e., those bad-ass "flip cars").

The action scenes are more often than not obscenely absurd, but even at their most extreme they are more intelligible than the fast-cut close-up style permeating more traditional action movies. Stunts remain more visceral experiences than CGI action, and this movie serves as the perfect example. The car chases are riveting, the fistfights are thrilling. I was honestly on the edge of my seat, heart pumping, holding my breath for two whole hours. And the movie manages all this with a levity and comedy that work (against all odds) to shape it into a well-balanced piece of entertainment. Yes, the characters are archetypes without any complexity. But their one note-ness gives them charm and focus and sympathy. I found myself so invested in the characters and what happened to them that I couldn't stop myself from jumping out of my seat and yelling yeah! in the middle of the theater. And I did not feel embarrassed at all. I never thought I'd be saying any of this about a Fast & Furious movie, but color me surprised. Fast & Furious 6 is one of the most engrossing action movies I've seen--ever--and I cannot wait to see it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1905041/

The Son of No One (2011)

2/5

The Son of No One is a middling and uninspired character study of a rookie cop with a dark past and a ridiculous mustache. Tatum plays Officer White to utter mediocrity. He is unlikable, unsympathetic, and bland. All the other characters are even less appealing. The story is straightforward to the point of mind-numbing simplicity. Dito Montiel's directing is remarkable only because he manages to stretch out a 30-minute short story into a feature-length film by filling it with long pauses and shots of people deep in thought. The one thing I commend Montiel for is achieving a phenomenally dark atmosphere and tense mood throughout. It kept me on the edge of my seat, although I felt foolish for doing so after discovering the big picture. The mood, while well-done, placed an unnecessary heaviness on the film and made it altogether too dreary and depressing. I would avoid this hodgepodge of mediocrity unless you're a huge Channing Tatum fan (and even then you'll probably be disappointed by his silly facial hair and flat acting).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535612/

Now You See Me (2013)

4/5

Now You See Me is a deliciously devious con/heist movie with an engaging cast of characters and compelling story. A group of four magicians (Eisenberg, Harrelson, Fisher, Franco) are brought together by a mysterious stranger to perform a series of grand illusions, with the ultimate goal of Robin Hood-esque bank-robbing. A local cop (Ruffalo) and Interpol officer (Laurent) chase after them, wondering the whole time what their true motives are. And what their final act will be.

What makes this movie so fun is the sense of wonder you get watching the actors perform. The movie is not so much about magic as it is about deception, manipulation, and subverting expectations. You don't really concern yourself with how the illusions were performed--instead you find yourself focusing on the misdirection and the acting. Eisenberg delivers arrogance to perfection (only to be outdone by Freeman's know-it-all cockiness). Franco endears with his youthful charm and innocence, making him the most sympathetic character in the whole movie.

Now You See Me is riveting from beginning to end, thanks to a well-crafted story and well-paced editing. But the film ultimately fails in the finale. The big reveal at the end is terribly unsatisfying. Quite frankly, the twist just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yes, it is possible for everything to be explained as it was, but it is fantastically absurd and illogical. It feels as if it were written in an effort to confuse and surprise the audience, not in an effort to be true to the world it creates. But, strangely enough, none of that changes my enjoyment of the film. It is still eminently watchable and utterly delightful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1670345/

Men In Black 3 (2012)

4/5

Men In Black 3 is the sequel that nobody asked for and that everybody was surprised by. It offers an origin story for both leads that brings complexity and depth to the characters, making them more authentic and infinitely more heartwarming. You wouldn't expect that from a simple sci-fi action comedy--and you wouldn't expect for it to be done so expertly--but it gives us all that on top of everything else that makes the series so watchable. Past all the superfluous and silly special effects, past all the precisely-delivered one-liners, past all the action and excitement, the movie leaves an indelible mark in your memory because it plucks the heartstrings so powerfully. Honestly, seeing that finale just made my heart drop a little. How can you not feel something when you discover what turned Josh Brolin into Tommy Lee Jones? That small, perfect moment at the end is what makes Men In Black 3 the best of the series. And what makes me want to see it again and again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1409024/

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

2/5

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a fairly tame 3D adventure flick for kids. The movie is a sequel because it takes place after another movie and has the same main character, but it actually requires no knowledge of the previous film to enjoy it. (Or not enjoy it, if you want to be snarky.) The problems start with the story, which is outright silly. The problems continue with special effects that already look outdated, combined with an incessant use of 3D objects coming out of the screen at you. The story follows a self-proclaimed "Vernian," someone who believes that all of Jules Verne's novels describe real places. The titular island, which houses tiny elephants and gigantic bees, is actually a day away from submerging and becoming Atlantis, which provides the perfect impetus to turn this scientific exploration into an action adventure. The story elements, from the budding romance to the stepfather-son bonding, all felt like checkboxes that producers filled out in an attempt to sell more tickets. The movie's saving grace was Dwayne Johnson, who was able to provide both believable action and comic relief. He is the only reason to see this movie. He is able to add a star to just about any movie just by being in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397514/

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

4/5

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a phenomenally thrilling summer blockbuster and not much more. This time, the intrepid crew of the USS Enterprise finds themselves thrust unwittingly into the midst of a budding intergalactic war that could end with Earth's destruction. The villain is a genetically-engineered super-human (Cumberbatch) who has nothing but vengeance on his mind. Taking place a short time after the first one, the characters have not grown or matured at all since we last saw them. They are as familiar and simplistic as they were previously, with flat personalities and predictable motivations.

But the movie is better than its predecessor thanks to a more engaging story and more exciting action. The plot is nothing to write home about, but it propels the characters forward with nigh unstoppable velocity. The cinematography is fraught with the same ubiquitous lens flares that plagued the previous film. The real surprise--for me, at least--is Cumberbatch. He is charming but devious, cunning but friendly, repulsive but inviting. He makes the movie stand out, and I can't wait to see him in more stuff (Sherlock is next on my long list of TV shows to watch).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/

Hitchcock (2012)

3/5

Hitchcock tells the story of the titular director's decision to make Psycho, and the personal and professional challenges that came alongside it. As a whole, the movie is entertaining fare. But I think the problem is that the movie doesn't know its audience. Is it for Hitchcock fans? Psycho fans? movie fans? Who knows? It provides a teeny glimpse into the great director's life, but not nearly enough to satisfy. In fact, I would venture to say that the movie is more about Mrs. Hitchcock than about Mr. Hitchcock (and Mirren absolutely shines in her role). That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I decided to rent the movie, so I was left with a perfectly fine movie that I wasn't expecting and didn't hate. If you decide to watch it, just know what you're getting into and you'll probably be able to enjoy it more.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0975645/

This Is 40 (2012)

3/5

Judd Apatow's This Is 40 is the coyly self-proclaimed "sort-of sequel" to Knocked Up. Except the two main characters of that movie can't seem to find the time to even make a cameo here (despite its 135 minute runtime). Instead we get to see the unhappily-married life of Pete (Rudd) and Debbie (Mann) as they approach middle age.

The movie wasn't bad so much as it was overlong. I know it wasn't as long as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it certainly felt that way. It had a meandering plot that rotated around both funny and unfunny subplots instead of having a real story arc to propel it forward. The humor it contained was surprisingly topical and observational, kind of like an updated version of Seinfeld for married life, but not as timeless and not as hilarious. It was just kind of there. It was clearly a project that Judd Apatow wanted to do more than one audiences wanted to see.

What makes the movie even more frustrating is that the story starts to spin out of control and--instead of tying up loose ends, or even attempting to--it just ends in a musical rainbow of blah. What? Does Apatow think people don't need resolution any more? We're okay with movies just stopping when the writers don't have any good ideas anymore? Honestly, I left the movie about the same as when I came in, except with a lower credit balance and a half-eaten bucket of popcorn. Trust the "mixed" reviews: this movie is mediocre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758830/

Rust and Bone (2012)

2/5

Jacques Audiard's Rust and Bone is an overwhelmingly punishing film. The movie is filled with relentless sadness. It's not so much a love story as it is a character study. Two, in fact. We are introduced to Ali (Schoenaerts), an unemployed father who makes money participating in street fights, and Stéphanie (Cotillard), a whale trainer who loses her legs after a freak accident. They begin an uneasy friendship that progresses to an unhealthy relationship. The duo are hit time and time again by pain, hardship, and bad luck. It seems to never end. And love does not conquer all, if there is any to be found in this movie.

Cotillard, as always, plays her role to perfection, eliciting subtleties and complexities that could not have been written in any script. The range she is capable of in her face alone seems limitless. She puts Schoenaerts to shame, making him about as forgettable as his character. Thanks to its tremendous performances, the movie strikes deep. Far too deep. I hated it when I saw people make the wrong decisions, when they acted selfish or hurtful, when they got what was coming to them. It all seemed too human and honest and genuine.

I don't say this lightly, because I am a huge fan of Audiard's other works (The Beat That My Heart Skipped, A Prophet), but Rust and Bone was a disappointing and unwelcome film. Not because it's a bad movie, but because it is too effective. It devastated me. It's hard to articulate how I felt at the end of the 2 hours: exhausted, frustrated, with just a tinge of hope to make sure nobody commits suicide after watching it. It's not a pick-me-up so much as it is a put-me-down. And you will be depressed for some time after watching it. If this does not seem like your type of movie, then avoid it. If this does, then let me know and I can recommend some good psychiatrists to go with it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2053425/

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

4/5

Disney's Wreck-It Ralph was a surprisingly entertaining movie. The story follows Wreck-It Ralph (Reilly), the bad guy in a video game named after its hero, Fix-It Felix (McBrayer). Disgruntled and tired of being the villain, going home to a bed of bricks, he goes on a quest to win a medal in the hopes of being liked. He accidentally finds himself in a candy-coated racing game called Sugar Rush, where he meets a "glitch" named Vanellope (Silverman), who wants nothing more than to race in the big leagues. But she needs his medal to enter the race.

Now that we have all that plot out of the way, let's get to the good stuff. The movie is charming and sweet, but not too saccharine that it hurts. Although the movie is predictable in many ways, it still manages to surprise and delight along the way, thanks to its bevy of side characters and inventive plotting. And all the video game references are just icing on the cake, filling the movie with multiple aha! moments that leave you with a smile on your face. I honestly have nothing really bad to say about this movie. It's a fun way to spend an afternoon reminiscing about all those afternoons you spent playing video games as a kid. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772341/

Django Unchained (2012)

4/5

Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is an unforgettable film. The plot, which follows the recently-freed slave Django (Foxx) and his bounty hunter partner Dr. Schultz (Waltz), propels itself forward at an almost unstoppable pace. It contains so much forward momentum from simplistic plot devices that, when a sharp turn near the end is revealed, it forces you to stop and catch your breath. The whole heartbeat of the movie skips. And you sit there re-evaluating what exactly it is that you just watched.

I initially left the movie filled with disgust and revulsion. I found it terrifying in every sense of the word: to witness the way that people act, how they treat other human beings, when they feel as if there are no consequences for their actions. Tarantino lays bare the darkest qualities of mankind, and does so in such an entertaining way that we become partners in the filth. How devious of him.

But the more I thought about it, the more compelling I found it. That primary emotional response of horror is intentional; DiCaprio performs a difficult role seemingly effortlessly. He is more charmingly evil than Waltz was in Tarantino's previous Inglourious Basterds, which I never would have thought possible before this movie. He is simply spellbinding.

But what is the point of the movie? Perhaps Tarantino is using his lens to reflect on modern society. Or perhaps it's just an exploitation film about a bygone era. Does there have to be a point? People said the same thing about Pulp Fiction. Is it superficial style or is there something hidden deeper within? I still don't know the answer, to both films. But I believe that, with any movie, you get out what you put in. And the more I think about Django Unchained, the more I am discovering, both about the film and about myself.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853728/

Hope Springs (2012)

2/5

Hope Springs follows an aging married couple (Jones, Streep) who have spent 30+ years together, coexisting with frictionless perfection. But in so doing, they have lost whatever romance they once had. The movie never explains (to my satisfaction anyway) why they lost that intimacy, nor does it explore Streep's motivation for wanting it back. Regardless, they seek out the help of Dr. Feld (Carell) and his week-long intensive couples counseling. The movie is billed as a romantic comedy (I think), but it's more a series of awkward encounters that did little more than gross me out.

I mean, I will admit it had the occasional saccharine moment and life lesson strewn about, but these pleasantries were just surrounded by uncomfortable situation after uncomfortable situation. I can't look back on this movie with anything but disgust. It is made for a specific age group and I believe it can only truly be appreciated by that age group. (Imagine, if you will, a kids movie where characters eat their own boogers; kids might find it hilarious, but it's just a disturbing image for everyone else.)

I realized very early on that I am much too young to be watching Hope Springs. But I kept watching until the grisly end. That's the problem with my obsessive-compulsive personality: finishing things that don't need to be finished. This movie may very well be a good movie for people who emerged from their midlife crises 2 decades ago, but I am certainly not its target audience. Unless you're about to become a Medicare beneficiary, I would not recommend you see this film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535438/

Brave (2012)

4/5

Pixar's Brave follows the coming-of-age of Scottish Princess Merida (Macdonald). Merida, like Jasmine before her, doesn't want to be a princess. She would rather live free in the woods with her bow and arrow like Katniss, but her mother (Thompson) wants her to be a proper princess. Frustrated by the seemingly endless etiquette training and suitor shopping, she runs off into the woods and makes a short-sighted wish that turns out to have terrible consequences. She must learn to fully appreciate her mother before her rash decision can be reversed.

What made the movie so disappointing is that I was expecting an unforgettable Pixar treasure and instead I got a run-of-the-mill Disney princess movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just had some pretty high expectations that were not met. Brave has more than its fair share of clever jokes and creative moments that elevate it past typical cartoons, but it doesn't have the same level of spit and shine that I've come to expect from Pixar's storytelling. In fact, I would say that it was fairly comparable to Disney's recent Tangled, which I enjoyed immensely. Brave is a terrific film. Just know what to expect when you pop the disc in.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin is a rousing adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones, but even more playful and fun. It follows the titular character Tintin (Bell) and his dog Snowy as they investigate clues on a transcontinental journey involving pirates and shipwrecks and hidden treasure. The plotline itself is not particularly groundbreaking or inventive, but it serves the movie well and pushes the story forward at a rapid pace. What really makes this movie such a treasure to watch is its charming characters. Their innocent naivete combined with their clever puzzle-solving and thirst for answers give them unending sympathy no matter what mistakes they make. I can see why the comics were so popular.

The motion capture is a little bit of a double-edged sword. It places the film's characters directly in the uncanny valley, which may put off a lot of viewers. However, it enables Spielberg to take the chase and action scenes to stunning new heights, to truly thrill and excite. It delights and rewards those able to suspend their disbelief. And delighted I was. Just thinking about this movie puts a smile on my face. It was a pleasure to watch and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983193/

Anna Karenina (2012)

3/5

Joe Wright's Anna Karenina is a stunning reinterpretation of the Tolstoy novel. No, I haven't read the book, but I imagine it doesn't all take place within a theater. And I'll bet money that it doesn't contain some of the most gorgeous, luscious cinematography ever laid to film. So for that, I must give Joe Wright credit, as he has once again constructed a visual masterpiece. But unfortunately that is where the accolades must end.

I really didn't think there was much here. It's not deep, it's not profound. It's not even a love story. It's basically a story of a selfish person with no self-control in a society whose rules are not so different from our own. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but I imagine it's not as famous as it is unless it contained a little more depth than what I was able to extract here. The acting, the story, and the pacing all failed to impress me (although getting such a behemoth of a book down to 130 minutes is an achievement in itself). While I was able to enjoy the beautiful set pieces and costumes, the astounding cinematography, and the clever directing, that is not enough to carry this movie to the great heights it hopes to achieve. For that, I guess I'll have to read the book.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781769/