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/