Thor: The Dark World (2013)

2/5

Thor 2 is just as bad as Thor 1, but mired in even more CGI nonsense than its predecessor. The characters are boring, the plot is boring, and even the action is boring. It's like watching a bad video game. I really have nothing more to say about this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981115/

Big Hero 6 (2014)

4/5

Big Hero 6 is a wonderfully enjoyable animated film by Disney. Much of the film centers around the relationship between Hiro (Potter), a young technophile and "bot fighter," and his older brother Tadachi (Henney), an engineering student at a futuristic tech institute. Tadachi has created a health-focused robot called Baymax (Adsit), but Hiro is less than impressed at the huggable marshmallow of a machine. After a catastrophe at the institute's tech fair, Hiro must join up with a band of misfit superheroes to protect the city from a nefarious villain.

The same production company behind Frozen makes essentially its action-oriented counterpart, focusing on brotherly love in the context of a superhero world instead of a princess fairytale. It features similar themes and predictable plot points, but the repetition surprisingly does nothing to take away from the overall experience. Disney films are never really about shocking audiences with plot twists but about wowing them with stellar storytelling and magical details. Big Hero 6 delights--it's adorable, exciting, and fun--and is another big win for Disney.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2245084/

Chef (2014)

4/5

Jon Favreau's Chef is a surprisingly affecting movie. It tells the story of an acclaimed chef (Favreau) who is unable to make the creative dishes he wants to because his boss (Hoffman) prefers "crowdpleasers." His ex-wife (Vergara) wants him to start up a food truck because it will allow him the freedom to be innovative and adventurous, but he dismisses the idea. After a fiasco with a food critic (Platt) spreads like wildfire on social media, he finds himself out of options.

I'll be honest, most of the movie is fairly mediocre. Straightforward story, predictable plot, forgettable photography. Like all food porn, this movie will make your mouth water. But it's also emotion porn, a real tearjerker and heart-warmer that will make you go awwww. The acting shines. From rather basic characterizations emerge real people in real situations, radiating a life on screen that is rarely seen in the commoditized Hollywood machine. I'm smart enough to know I'm being manipulated by the story, but I still enjoyed every minute of it. The movie hits all the right notes, combining hilarity and heart, and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2883512/

Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

Thor (2011)

2/5

Marvel's Thor is a surprisingly silly movie compared to the company's earth-centric counterparts: the Captain America and Iron Man franchises. Focusing on the inhabitants of an entirely fictitious world called Asgard, it naturally spends a good 30 minutes on definition and exposition. It's boring, bland storytelling, full of made-up methods of transportation like horse-riding across rainbow roads and being slingshot out of gyroscopic planetariums.

My biggest problem is that I find all the characters unlikeable, including the eminently pleasant Natalie Portman. Although he gains a little depth by the end of the film, Thor is essentially a loud-mouthed, arrogant, English-accented buffoon with an idiotic smile. (And, as a side note, how come all the Asgardians speak English?) Portman plays a physicist who enjoys hipster clothes and gets easily distracted by cut male figures. Happily, the movie has some gripping action scenes that pull you in and keep your eyes glued to the screen. But besides their visual appeal, they aren't particularly compelling aspects to the film. Some are outright ridiculous, like a muddy wrestle in the rain.

But Thor is not a particularly good movie. And certainly not a movie good enough to take the Marvel name and stand with the rest of them. To be honest, I only watched this movie so that I could see the second Thor movie so that I could be prepared for the second Avengers movie. I wish I had just never watched it. The best thing about my decision to watch this movie is that I won't feel bad deleting it from the DVR and recording something better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/

Begin Again (2013)

4/5

John Carney's Begin Again is a touching musical drama. Keira Knightley plays a songwriter who discovers her boyfriend, celebrity singer Dave Kohl (Levine), has cheated on her. Alone in New York, she meets up with an old friend (Corden) and they sing at an open mic night. The simple, unvarnished ballad she delivers grabs the attention of a music producer (Ruffalo) who was just fired from the studio he founded. They form an unlikely partnership and work together on a bold idea for a new album, in which every song is recorded live in the streets of New York.

If it sounds familiar, it's because it's written and directed by the same person who made Once: John Carney. The songs are tender and soulful, well-made and heartfelt. With indie filmmaking and an indie spirit, the movie as a whole absolutely delights. The big problem is that Begin Again feels so much like Carney's previous musical. That doesn't make it bad, just tired and old. The only reason I like this more than Once is that it takes place in New York and is targeted more toward American sensibilities. But redoing the same type of story filled with the same type of songs for a different time and place isn't enough. I want to see new stuff from this brilliant musical director. I want to know what else he's capable of.

The acting was fantastic. Knightley delivers another stellar performance, filled with small looks and movements that carry enormous weight to them. Her singing voice isn't bad either. Adam Levine is like her opposite, with awesome singing but mediocre acting. The rest of the cast is fantastic, somehow bringing a vivacity to the movie that gives it an instant nostalgia, like you're watching a once-in-a-lifetime event unfold before your very eyes. I think that's Carney's strongest aspect as a director, creating an urgency to his movies and compelling you to watch them. I can't wait for his next one; I just hope he brings more to the table that we haven't seen before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1980929/

Men, Women & Children (2014)

5/5

Jason Reitman's latest film is an utterly absorbing, thought-provoking film. It is a movie about kids growing up and couples growing apart, about technology and communication, and about interaction and isolation. An ensemble drama, it follows several threads: a husband (Sandler) and wife (DeWitt) who start cheating on each other, a mother (Garner) who safeguards her daughter (Dever) from the dangers of the Internet, another mother (Greer) who seems to do the opposite, and a high schooler (Elgort) who gives up football for online gaming.

The topic of technology leading to isolation has been done before (the aptly-titled Disconnect tackles the issue exceptionally well). But Men, Women & Children is not about technology. It is about coming of age in modern society. And it teaches us all about that in devastating, funny, touching ways. The title tells you the focus of the film; it is about the individuals that make up society, not the technology. Each story feels heartfelt and true, rich with subtext and hidden meaning. The performances are subtle, with big names playing small roles. Despite restrained acting, the movie does occasionally veer into melodrama. But on the whole, it reflects life accurately in both tone and color.

People will talk about this movie for its depiction of technology, because everything is replicated with precision. The UI is spot-on, whether we're looking at Facebook on a computer or a text message on an iPhone. Even the sounds of notifications ring true to our 21st century ear. But Reitman takes it one step further. The way he shows technology is itself a comment on technology. Screens pop up and overlay the action with every bowed head. They may sit in the background, but they never go away. As audience members, we find our eyes drawn to the neighbors' Twitter feed instead of the protagonists' actions. Is this how we live now, looking down everytime we feel a buzz when something else is going on right in front of our very eyes?

The big problem with being so pixel-perfect is that it securely sets Men, Women & Children in this time and place. User interfaces and interaction metaphors change at an ultrafast pace, which may date this movie just 6 months from now. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think I'll have a very different perspective watching this movie 20 years from now. Not just because the change in technology will make this movie look and feel old, but because life will have happened to me. I will start to recognize the nuance in characters' motivations; I will be hit harder by the mistakes they make and touched more profoundly by the affection they show. And that's what this movie gets so right. That's why I can't wait to watch this movie again: 20 years from now and hopefully many times in between.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3179568/

John Wick (2014)

2/5

John Wick is a pretty silly movie. The conceit of the film is that a well-known assassin named John Wick (Reeves) retires from the killing business for a woman (Moynahan) who ends up dying of an unknown chronic disease. When a seemingly random crime takes away the final gift from his late wife, Wick returns to his violent past on a quest for vengeance.

The movie has a few unique aspects, but is otherwise drab and uninspired. What's cool? The video game-like action and the snippets of comedy. It didn't feel like other shoot-em-up action flicks; it felt like a shoot-em-up action game. And it never takes itself too seriously, throwing in hilarious jokes at its own expense. Sometimes it feels overly silly, but it works more often than I would have expected. What's poor? Everything else. The movie starts in media res for no other reason than that it's commonplace now. It adds nothing to the excitement or the plot; if anything it flattens and compresses the story's progression. The script is full of cliched one-liners delivered with surprising blandness coming from the somewhat well-respected actors. There is no build-up to an explosive finale. It just continues from one random action scene to the next, with perhaps the coolest one being the first one. All in all, I cannot recommend this film to even the most diehard of Keanu Reeves fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666/

Gone Girl (2014)

4/5

David Fincher's adaptation of Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl is extremely faithful to the source material. The novel is a disturbing, chilling story of twisted love and cunning revenge and Fincher brings it to the screen expertly. Nick Dunne (Affleck) discovers his wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing on the morning of their fifth anniversary under suspicious circumstances. Although their relationship started with unquestioning affection, it deteriorated over the years to a hateful place when the movie begins. And as the police investigation progresses, Nick is suspected of being her murderer. With a script that is very intelligent in what it retains and what it excises, the story has plenty of twists and turns to surprise and shock.

The casting is spot-on. Ben Affleck plays Nick to perfection, exuding calm aloofness at inopportune times or cool charm when it counts. He is able to be loved then hated then admired then disdained. He is as complex as you could imagine him to be, and then some. Rosamund Pike steals the show as her persona is gradually revealed over the course of the film. I don't want to ruin any of the surprise, but you will be absolutely stunned by this performance. She is a revelation.

Fincher's directing is as smooth and atmospheric as ever. Cinematography is moody and brooding; editing is tense but pensive. Everything works together to present a polished, pristine version of incomprehensible acts of evil and villainy. Even the way the on screen text is displayed, from the way the intro credits seem to disappear just a half-second too quickly to the way the dates fade in as the story progresses, works to unsettle you.

But despite how well-made it is, both as an adaptation of a book and a film in its own right, the story is just too exhausting, too excruciating to watch more than once. It deflates you and disgusts you. The poignant points are all cynical ones and the movie seems to deliver a message without hope. It is worth watching once, but take in as much as you can when you do because I can't imagine many people will take much pleasure in rewatching it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/

Blended (2014)

4/5

What bizarro universe have I entered where I suddenly find chick flicks to be genuinely good? Blended is another recent unexpected delight, a satisfying romantic comedy filled with humor and heart. It follows two single parents (Sandler, Barrymore) who unexpectedly fall in love during a trip to Africa focused on "blending" non-traditional families. It adds in parenting challenges and family values to a tired and predictable formula, but for some reason that does the trick. Blended is an absolutely wonderful experience.

To be honest, I pretty much hate all Adam Sandler movies without exception. Blended is the rule-breaker (just like Stranger Than Fiction was for Will Ferrell). This is not a Sandler "vehicle," and because of that he is fantastic in this movie as a regular dad struggling to raise three girls. Drew Barrymore is her same lovable self, which can certainly feel old and boring if you're not a fan, but it works for me. I love the film's perspective: kids come first 100% of the time. For some reason it really resonated with me, as I'm sure it will for a large number of its intended viewers. The movie has some great comedic one-liners (although it also has a good number of cringe-worthy moments that fall flat on their face) with a strong emotional tug. No, it's not particularly well-shot or tightly-edited, but it has a solid story and solid performances and that makes for solid entertainment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086772/

The Other Woman (2014)

4/5

The Other Woman is a surprisingly stellar film, funny and emotional in just the right concentrations. The plot follows Carly (Diaz) as a high-powered lawyer who discovers that the man she's dating, Mark (Coster-Waldau), has both a wife (Mann) and a second mistress (Upton). The initial premise sounds bland and cliché at first--and little more than a substandard chick flick--but it surprises time and time again. The writing is extremely well-done (e.g., "cry on the inside like a winner") and the characters feel much more fleshed out than those occupying your standard rom-com. Diaz is truly outstanding. I am not a fan of Cameron Diaz in general, but this is honestly one of my favorites roles from her entire career.

The Other Woman has a couple of flaws. First, it is filled with unusual, sometimes uncomfortable, music choices. Second, Mark's final comeuppance (despite how much we have all grown to hate him) is excessively over-the-top, indulging in way too much schadenfreude for comfort. But for all it gets wrong, it gets the most important things right. The Other Woman is a comedy with heart and strong characters that make you a little better off after watching it. And isn't that what movies are all about?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2203939/

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (2014)

2/5

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is the most recent in a seemingly endless spate of uninspired summer sequels that do little more than attempt to rehash a winning franchise/formula and only end up disappointing everybody. It brings back some actors but not others (I was really hoping for a Clive Owen cameo, but it never came) and jumbles up the timeline in the most unnecessarily labyrinthine way. A lot of it just didn't make sense if you spent more than a few seconds thinking about the plot. The one saving grace is the pure villainy of the film's title character; she is a femme fatale for the ages.

A Dame To Kill For looks exactly the same as the original without feeling as inventive or awe-inspiring. While the first one was fresh and gritty, this one is tired and gruesome. The special effects and the writing both go way overboard in an attempt to one-up itself and raise the bar on violent deaths even more extravagantly. It's all a little too much--honestly even a little sickening--and we've seen it before. I loved the first one and saw it three times the first week it came out in theaters, but I have no desire to watch this one ever again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458481/

Muppets Most Wanted (2014)

2/5

Muppets Most Wanted is another sequel that seems to serve as little more than the next episode in a TV show instead of a standalone movie. Granted, I haven't seen the first one and I'm not a particular fan of the Muppets, but I thought I'd give this movie a chance. The plot is silly and simple in a kid-friendly way, but there's not a lot of thinking or humor for adults to enjoy. The songs are fine, but the overall writing and acting both felt bland and uninspired. The best thing about this movie was the random cameos (and, of course, seeing Ty Burrell and Tina Fey). I still don't understand the appeal of the Muppets, and this movie doesn't change that. I would only watch this movie if you know you already want to watch this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2281587/

Rio 2 (2014)

3/5

Rio 2 is a lot like Rio, but with more blue birds. The movie brings back Blu (Eisenberg) and Jewel (Hathaway), now married with three kids: a bookworm (Stenberg), a daredevil (Gagnon), and a singer (Crow). They actually remind me of someone else's three kids, although those kids are much cooler than these birds =). They find their way back to Jewel's home, where she reunites with her father (Garcia) and a smooth-talking childhood friend (Mars). But their time together is about to be cut short (literally) when an amoral businessman has plans to destroy their rain forest home to make a profit.

The new characters all feel rather stereotypical, like clichés added in to fill a gap nobody cared was there. Instead of writing the story first, figuring out who was important and why, it felt like financiers and producers told the creative team to incorporate a celebrity singer and characters that fit mold x, y, and z. They were just stuffed in to an already crowded cast without much added value. Bruno Mars seems to have been brought in solely for his singing voice (although his acting isn't too bad), as he headlines almost all the songs.

All in all, the movie is still fun--it's actually a great way to spend the afternoon--but it's just not the same novel experience that the first one was. With its star-studded cast, it certainly has one or two famous actors or actresses you'll enjoy watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2357291/

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

4.9/5

Marvel's new cinematic franchise Guardians of the Galaxy is an extraordinarily fun film and an unparalleled success. I won't bore you with plot details, but I will say that it is more an adventure movie (a là Star Wars or Indiana Jones) than a comic book/superhero movie. Even if it doesn't sound like your cup of tea, don't wait for it to come out on Redbox. It is a profoundly visual experience, a motion picture in every sense of the word, and should be enjoyed in a theater. You will be utterly delighted. It's hard to remember the last time I went into the theater without expectation and ended up with a smile plastered on my face and my mouth agape in awe for two straight hours.

Chris Pratt leads the cast as Star Lord, and he brings levity and charisma to the role. But he also brings gravitas, which I was not expecting from Anna Faris's goofy husband. He has a presence on screen that makes me think he could be what Harrison Ford was in the 70's: a superstar. But with all his charm, Star Lord is not the most lovable character. That title belongs to Groot and Rocket, voiced by Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper respectively. They steal every scene they're in, leaving you itching for the next one. Laugh-out-loud lines coupled with an endearing friendship make the duo unforgettable.

The cinematography is agile and the editing is tight. For its 2-hour runtime, it breezes by surprisingly quickly and packs in a bunch of plot (sometimes revealing just hints of backstory to leave you wanting more). The director made some bold choices with mood and tone, but it works perfectly here. Somehow, it feels like a brand-new type of movie. The biggest challenge will be making sure the next one is as on-point as this film is. Guardians of the Galaxy has unique, memorable characters, an exciting story filled with seemingly unending thrills, and the promise of more adventure to come with what I hope are numerous sequels and prequels. I honestly cannot wait for all this series has to offer.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/

Lucy (2014)

2/5

Luc Besson's Lucy is a sci-fi action movie built on an entirely fictitious and impossible premise. Lucy (Johansson) is a young woman studying in Taiwan who gets tricked into being a drug mule. When the drugs accidentally get released into her bloodstream, she develops the ability to use more than "10% of her brain." Using "more" of her brain apparently gives her superpowers that somehow transcend the laws of physics.

The premise is insane--no one can argue that. But improbable scenarios do not necessarily make for bad movies (see The Lucky Ones, for example). In this one, though, it kinda does. To be fair, the movie has some phenomenal computer-generated special effects and some scenes were just flat-out cool. But that's about all it has going for it. And that doesn't make up for bland acting, stilted pacing, or atrocious writing. The whole affair is pretty tepid for such an outrageous idea. It manages to satisfy just long enough so you don't ask for your money back but not long enough for you to remember anything about it after you finish. If I somehow had the ability to go back in time, I would pass on it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

A Most Wanted Man (2014)

2/5

Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film is a maddening, frustrating, underwhelming film. Although the movie was described as a spy movie, I somehow mistook that to mean espionage thriller. Silly me. It is certainly about spies, but it focuses more on the bureaucracy of their lifestyle rather than the intrigue of the job. The acting was, unsurprisingly, the best part, with Hoffman delivering a phenomenal final performance. He leaves an indelible impression when the credits finally start to roll.

But it takes so long for those credits to roll. The movie was painfully slow and plodding. And while some individual shots were beautiful, there was too much lingering on meaningless objects that extend the length of the movie without deepening your understanding of the film. I suppose I shouldn't have been all that surprised, since A Most Wanted Man was directed by Anton Corbijn. (Corbijn also directed The American, another overly-stylized "spy movie" that would rather focus on lofty existential crises instead of espionage.) Even knowing this is the last Hoffman project, I still can't recommend this movie to any but the most diehard of fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972571/

Curly Sue (1991)

3/5

Curly Sue is a cheesy but charming 90's movie from John Hughes. The movie follows two homeless con artists, Alisan Porter as the titular adolescent and James Belushi as her father figure, who wander around the country trying to win the hearts and minds of generous people in order to get a bite to eat and a bed to sleep in. When they try to con a seemingly heartless divorce lawyer (Lynch), the lies start to get in the way of genuine feelings.

The movie is sweet and silly in an innocent, naive way, although a little heavy on the visual gags and body humor for my tastes. It's rather barebones from a writing and a technical standpoint, but I don't think Hughes intended it to be a particularly ground-breaking cinematic feat. The heart is in the story and the characters and they satisfy completely. This is an endearing movie that's pleasant enough to fill your next free afternoon with nostalgia.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101635/

Rio (2011)

4/5

Rio is an insanely fun adventure flick with a fantastic cast and delightful animation. The movie takes place in Rio, as you might expect, where a blue macaw (Eisenberg) is brought by an ornithologist (Santoro) to mate with a female macaw (Hathaway) and save their species. Unfortunately, the pair are stolen by exotic animal smugglers who want to take them out of the country and sell them to the highest bidder!

The best part about the movie is how beautiful it looks. The cinematography is inventive and liberating, letting us fly through scenes with its feathered cast. The colors are bright and the editing is fine-tuned. The Latin music feels authentic and invigorating. But the characters are generic and the acting is only adequate. I can't help but see the actors instead of the characters. The story isn't the most imaginative in the world, but the script is full of both terrific visual gags and hilarious witticisms. All in all, Rio is a whole lot of fun and a great way to spend an afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1436562/

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

4/5

I had never seen Disney's Sleeping Beauty until now. I can imagine watching it back in the 50's and being astounded by the artwork and design. Even now it stands apart from the cartoons that preceded it and the CGI that followed it. It feels like a lost relic, a type of animation all its own, and a treasure to behold. Although I was always a bit fuzzy on the details of the story, the age-old cliche of a prince's kiss waking up a princess from slumber is familiar territory for anyone who's ever heard a fairy tale. But this movie goes beyond the story, filling its minutes with charm and levity to balance out the frightening evil and villainy. Speaking of Maleficent (the character), it's actually really interesting to see the interplay between this movie and the live-action Maleficent (the movie). Although created 55 years apart, the plot and characterization of one adds to the other. Perhaps I judged Maleficent a bit too harshly and without the requisite background information to allow me to enjoy it to its fullest. (Although I blame my wife, who was so excited to see Maleficent that she couldn't wait for me to see Sleeping Beauty.) Even with the splendor of today's CGI, Sleeping Beauty stands out as an utterly mesmerizing piece of art.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053285/

22 Jump Street (2014)

3/5

The sequel to the TV show reboot that took the world by storm is more of a mixed bag than the slam-dunk repeat formula success story that I'm sure its producers wanted. The writing, which combines raunchy humor with bromance and heart, is adequately funny but never feels emotionally honest. The jokes feel recycled, as does the overall plot progression. The novelty of 21 Jump Street is entirely lost. It's a great piece of entertainment, but it's also an empty, forgettable one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294449/

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

3/5

The latest Jack Ryan movie is a reboot of the Tom Clancy franchise starring Chris Pine as the titular "shadow recruit." It's a great way to spend 100 minutes of your day for a quick fix of entertainment, but it's ultimately a pretty empty shell of a movie. The characters are generic cardboard cutouts and the acting is forgettable. There is absolutely no chemistry between Chris Pine and Keira Knightley. While the espionage is thrilling, it feels almost mechanical in the way each scene is played out, as if every component is merely following a strict set of instructions. There is nothing organic about it. And the technical aspects of the movie are perfunctory. This is a movie made with money in mind and not much else. Still, it's pretty fun.

On a side note, I accidentally rented this movie instead of The Wolf of Wall Street. I have no idea why; I just clicked on the wrong movie in Redbox. I still need to see The Wolf of Wall Street. Darn.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205537/

The Signal (2014)

3/5

The Signal is a movie I had not known about until I read a positively glowing review from The Verge. Now I know not to watch a movie I had previously had no interest in watching based solely on their reviews. Silly me. The movie purports to be about three MIT students who chase a hacker into the middle of the desert and find themselves quarantined by government-types. It is 90 minutes of slow-paced mystery with portentious cinematography and slow reveals that are meant to blow your mind. Unfortunately, the script isn't nearly interesting enough to do anything close to that, even with its "twist ending." Honestly, the best part about the movie was the atmosphere you find yourself immersed in; it's creepy and unsettling and disorienting, like the very best horror/sci-fi movies. But that's not enough to make me recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2910814/

The Fault In Our Stars (2014)

4.9/5

The film adaptation of John Green's The Fault In Our Stars is an extraordinarily faithful adaptation. Having read the book just months prior to seeing the movie, I am impressed by how much the characters and actions on screen matched my own vision for them. It delivers all the melodramatic heartbreak and sentimental tearjerking you would expect from a book about two kids with cancer who fall in love. Neither Hazel (Woodley) nor Gus (Elgort) look particularly Hollywood-attractive, but their on-screen chemistry is undeniable. However, despite how perfect they are for each other, fate conspires to pull them apart. The story is more than a little bit emotionally manipulative, but it is tragically sweet and hits all the right notes. Everything just feels so ... lovely and tender.

While overly sensational and extravagantly "young adult," the story is attempting at something more than simply pulling at the heartstrings of America's youth. It touches on a multitude of topics, but the most impenetrable one to me revolves around literature, the creation of stories, and the way we project our own qualities on others. Willem Dafoe plays Van Houten, the author of Hazel's favorite book. His contribution to the story is both confusing and infuriating, but his unclear motivations and his abrupt exit are some of the most profound aspects to the story. His presence is both unusual and unsettling and makes me like the movie all that much more.

This movie is not for everyone--in fact, it may feel a bit childish or immature to some--but for those who fall under its spell, it is spectacular.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582846/

The Spectacular Now (2013)

2/5

The Spectacular Now is a depressing and infuriating film. It stars Miles Teller as an alcoholic high school student who has confidence and charisma but no plans or hopes for his future. After being dumped by his "hot" girlfriend (Larson), he befriends an "unattractive" girl (Woodley) and she is smitten by his charms. They begin a romance that everybody around them knows is bad for both of them. Instead of some introspection, they just keep chugging along and enjoying the oh-so-spectacular moment.

I'm not really sure what the point of the movie is. It presents itself as a coming-of-age tale but nobody actually learns anything or comes of age. It's frustrating and painful to watch. Shailene Woodley gives a superb performance, emanating high school vulnerability as she is drawn to the debonair Teller, who also gives a stunning performance. But the rest of the technical aspects of the movie are either mediocre or subpar. Underage alcohol consumption in films should come with consequences, and this movie all but pretends there are none. (Or there are some, but then it gives the characters "second chances" without anybody learning anything.)

And just to complain some more: I'm still not clear why there needs to be any voice-over, at any point during this movie, given the fact that there is nothing particularly insightful that needs to be passed on to the audience. By the way, the college essay motif has been so entirely overplayed that it is hard to imagine that even an amazing movie could bring something new to the table. Avoid this movie, unless you're a rabid fan of Woodley and/or Teller's acting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1714206/

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

4.9/5

Edge of Tomorrow is one of the smartest action movies I've seen in a very long time. Tom Cruise stars as an unwilling businessman-turned-foot soldier in the midst of a global battle against an alien invasion. He gets killed quickly in the trenches, only to discover that he must relive that fateful day over and over again. He finds out that this same phenomenon happened to another soldier (Blunt) earlier in the war, so he seeks her out in the hopes that they can join forces and defeat the aliens.

Battle scenes have a jarring, chaotic feel, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan during the beachfront invasion. In the midst of the violence, the cinematography remains smooth and crisp, with sharp editing and clear shots. But director Doug Liman also does a lot with the repeating day premise. The day resets sometimes quickly, for comic effect, sometimes slowly, for an agonizing emotional hit. Despite the repetition, every time feels interesting and exciting, new and worthwhile. It builds on the Groundhog Day framework instead of stealing from it.

There is an unexpected chemistry on screen between Cruise and Blunt, adding a tender human element to the exciting sci-fi backstory. It's not particularly fresh, but it feels genuine. And it makes watching the movie so much more rewarding. I highly recommend Edge of Tomorrow: it's genre-defying in the best way possible, straddling diverse moods expertly, appealing to the comic, romantic, action junkie, time travel nerd in all of us.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/

The World's End (2013)

4/5

The World's End is a delightful finale to a delightful pseudo-trilogy about friendship, aliens, and the end of the world. The movie starts with Simon Pegg reuniting with his high school buddies (Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan) on a quest to relive his adolescent dream of drinking a pint of beer at each of the 12 pubs in his bucolic hometown. A few pubs in, they discover that the town has been taken over by aliens masquerading as good-natured townsfolk.

The movie is just as outrageous as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, with exciting fight scenes, well-written dialogue, and rapid-fire British jokes. But two-thirds of the way through you realize that the filmmakers deceived you: it will not end as predictably or simplistically as you might have thought or hoped. It will stretch the limits of your expectations and your imagination in a way that will put a smile on your face and a twinkle in your eye. The World's End is a smart movie, sharp-witted with lots of insight and inside jokes that will keep you glued to your seat, but there is nothing formula about it. If you prefer the winding path of uncertainty to the well-trodden one of genre filmmaking, then The World's End goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213663/

Maleficent (2014)

3/5

Disney's Maleficent stars Angelina Jolie as the titular character, and her casting is the best decision the filmmakers' could have made. She gives a spectacularly complex performance as the kind-hearted Maleficent, a fairy who places a curse on Sleeping Beauty as revenge for being stripped of her wings and the power of flight. She brings depth and gravitas that has felt absent in most Disney characters and she alone is the reason to see this movie.

Although the story is full of surprising twists, it is laid out and presented with such unoriginal style as to make it feel old and overused. We start with a voice-over explaining that there are two worlds: the world of fairies and the world of humans. We are introduced to Maleficent's childhood and the magical world she inhabits. She swirls and swoops in extravagant 3D as if to show off the prowess of Disney's CGI programmers. Then she meets a human, falls in love, and gets her heart broken. And on and on it goes in such an unsurprising and familiar progression as to make the whole movie feel like something we've seen a hundred times before, except this time they've recycled familiar names and placed them on opposite sides of the moral compass from the first time they were in a Disney movie.

Now, to be fair, I am far from an expert on Disney and far from an expert on Maleficent. I haven't seen Sleeping Beauty and I've barely seen Maleficent (I was extremely tired and found myself nodding off several times during the movie)! So I suppose it is a little unfair that I am reviewing this movie. But looking at this movie from a purely cinematic perspective, I see a lot of missed potential. Although the art direction and costuming are fantastic, Maleficent feels like even more of a money-making operation than most of Disney's products. They are cashing in on the Wicked train by turning a bad guy into a misunderstood good guy and passing the bad guy buck onto some other poor schmuck. Whereas Wicked felt fresh, original, and textured, Maleficent just feels like a copycat. I wanted this movie to be as phenomenal as Wicked was, but I didn't get that. A good movie that disappoints you is worse than a mediocre movie that meets all your expectations.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587310/

About Last Night (2014)

3/5

About Last Night feels like a stale romantic comedy that lacks vision, innovation, and risk-taking. There's nothing particularly bad about it, but it's very, very plain. Kevin Hart and Michael Ealy play best friends. Hart meets Regina Hall and the two enjoy each other's company on an extremely physical level. Ealy finds romance in Joy Bryant, who plays Hall's roommate, and the two get serious fast. Their tale is as old as time: meet, fall in love, break up, reconnect. Kevin Hart and Regina Hall, on the other hand, provide oodles of laughter throughout their on-again, off-again relationship. Although just as predictable from a plot perspective, they bring outrageous hilarity to an otherwise staid, boring movie. About Last Night is mediocre on just about all levels, but the good news is that half of it feels like a Kevin Hart comedy special.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1826590/

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

4/5

X-Men: Days of Future Past reignites the fire that made the X-Men movies such hits. The story is set at some ambiguous time in the future, in which mutant-killing machines named Sentinels are continuously hunting the last of the mutant race. Fortuitously, Ellen Page's character can send people back in time, and Hugh Jackman's character has the "healing power" to withstand going back to the 1970's and changing the course of human--err, mutant--history. (I'm still not sure how going back in time is physically damaging to the human body, but I guess the producers wanted to milk the Wolverine cow for as much advertising power as they could.)

The movie feels a little over the top, with a depressing post-apocalyptic vision of the future and an overwhelming sense of dread permeating the entire movie. The stakes in action movies just seem to get bigger and bigger with every franchise sequel. But there is one truly magical scene early on in the movie (when the younger generation of mutants break Magneto out of prison) that is filled with such levity and fun, such imagination and creativity, to make you think you were in a different movie. Unfortunately, after that scene, the movie returns to its aggressively-serious, doom-filled march.

I'm sure the comic canon fanatics will have complaint after complaint with the creators playing fast and loose with characters, backstories, and time travel, but the fact remains that the latest X-Men movie is one of the rare action movies that remains a mystery despite a predictable plot progression. Although you know the general trend of what happens, it keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering not just who will live and who will die, but how exactly all the details play out. The story is a bit convoluted and probably has its fair share of plot holes, but the action is astutely-directed, the editing is exciting and tight, and the production value is excellent. It's one of the best entrants in the X-Men series and a fantastic summer blockbuster.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/

Godzilla (2014)

3/5

Gareth Edwards's Godzilla reboot is not really a monster movie; it is a surprisingly well-constructed and engaging story that just happens to have some monsters in it. The acting is first-rate, the camerawork is top-notch, and the computer-generated creatures feel believable. But for all the things it got right, it got one big thing wrong.

The most glaring problem with this movie is the same one I found in The Shining: there's a lot of build-up without any follow-through (until the last few minutes of the movie anyway). It's exhausting and frustrating, not exciting and tense. Imagine thinking, "Something's gonna happen, something's gonna happen, something's gonna happen," and then nothing happens. Over and over again. I can't imagine watching it again; I'd just be skipping through the first 75 minutes because it's a lot of nothing followed by more nothing.

A pretty good movie otherwise.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831387/

Disconnect (2012)

4/5

Disconnect is a thought-provoking movie about human connections and social interactions. Ostensibly a meditation on the isolating nature of modern technology, there is nothing particularly modern about bullying, sexual desire, or con men. The stories depicted could take place at any point in time; they are merely upgraded to cyberbullying, pay-per-view webcams, and cybercrime/identity theft. The three distinct storylines only peripherally interact, which is perhaps itself meant to describe our contemporary isolation. Lonely and disconnected, the characters seek out comfort in the company of strangers. They allow themselves to be vulnerable and they get taken advantage of.

Technically, the movie works extremely well. For instant messaging and texting, Disconnect shows us transluscent screens that overlay real life. It is a simple but effective metaphor that speaks volumes. Except for that visual flair, the movie sticks with documentary-style realism and subtle acting. Each individual story feels authentic--and has probably happened hundreds of times already. But the best part of the movie is that it doesn't succumb to saccharine sentimentality in the end. It doesn't give us the happy ending Hollywood thinks everybody wants. It sticks with reality, and for that I am extremely thankful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1433811/

Neighbors (2014)

3/5

Neighbors is an astonishingly stupid adult comedy starring Seth Rogen and Zac Efron as feuding neighbors. I call it an adult comedy because of the content--which includes plenty of sex, drugs, and profanity--but it is really quite puerile in just about every other way. From uninspired acting to barebones characterization, the movie isn't so much a movie as it is a collection of gag jokes and juvenile pranks shot on screen. It's surprisingly similar in feel and scope to the movie Jackass, but with a little extra fiction added on. Even though it's not the most wholesome movie, the humor works. I was laughing the entire time. I won't say that I'm proud of it, but I certainly enjoyed the very vulgar Neighbors.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2004420/

Philomena (2013)

4/5

Philomena is a tremendously tragic true story that pulls at your heartstrings and uplifts your spirit in profound ways. The movie follows Philomena (Dench) as an aging woman trying to reconnect with her adopted son, who was conceived out of wedlock and sold by the convent she was living in as a young woman. A reporter (Coogan) takes on the human interest story after he loses his job as a political correspondent and faces writer's block researching Russian history. So begins the unlikely duo's adventure to uncover the mystery of Philomena's lost son; and so begins their budding friendship.

The movie reveals pieces of information bit by bit to keep you hooked on the twisting, turning plot. The story alone is fascinating enough to make the movie engaging, but it is the performances that make the movie so compelling and ultimately so heartbreaking. We become intensely attached to the characters and we feel their pain and anger. The subject matter is challenging and difficult to stomach, but the pathos and humor infused into each character makes it all worthwhile. The actors reveal humanity at its best and its worst in portrayals that vibrate with truth and honesty. It is hard to separate yourself from the characters and their emotions once the film ends, but it gives us one of the most satisfying endings I can recall in recent memory. Philomena is a treasure to watch and to behold.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/

Man of Tai Chi (2013)

2/5

Keanu Reeves's directorial debut is a shallow, plodding mess. It has an enormous number of problems, seemingly unending in quantity, although I will attempt to enumerate them all below. First, it is multilingual, with half of it filmed in Chinese and the other half in English. This wouldn't be an issue if the story and acting were compelling enough to make you want to read the subtitles and find out what's going on, but they're not. Second, the plot and performances are subpar, even for a basic action movie. The plot follows Tiger Chen as a character named Tiger Chen, a budding tai chi fighter who finds himself in an underground fighting club in order to make ends meet. (Does tai chi even have a combat component?) Third, there is an abundance of characters without any real purpose (e.g., the camera guy who films everything, the girl who tells the combatants to fight). Fourth, Reeves casts himself as the evil villain (i.e., the final boss that Chen must fight), and his hubris is the film's undoing. He concludes the film with a disappointing, sluggish, awkward fight scene that is painful to watch. The choreography is actually the best part of the movie, with some truly awesome fight scenes, and there are more fight scenes in this movie than a lot of other kung fu movies. But all in all, there's nothing about this movie that's compelling enough to recommend it to any but the most diehard of action buffs.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2016940/

The Hangover: Part III (2013)

1/5

The Hangover Part III is simply awful. The movie reunites the "wolfpack" once again (Cooper, Helms, Galifianakis), only this time without any roofies or hangovers. Instead, Marshall (Goodman) has kidnapped them and sent them on a mission to find the wolfpack-adjacent international criminal Leslie Chow (Jeong). What ensues is not so much hilarity as it is vulgarity. Director Todd Phillips confuses humor with shock, using the winding plot and the $15 million paychecks of otherwise reputable actors to gross us out in whatever way possible. The first two were funny; this one is nauseating. The pre-credit epilogue is truly gag-worthy, and I remain thankful that they never found any pictures explaining how they got in that particular predicament. The story lines, the performances, and the directing were never the trilogy's strong suit, so what does this one have to offer us? A few uncomfortable laughs in an otherwise filthy mess. Not even Melissa McCarthy can save this garbage. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951261/

The Conjuring (2013)

4/5

James Wan's The Conjuring is a compelling piece of horror entertainment. It will make you jump out of your seat while watching it and make you afraid of the dark for days after finishing it. The movie claims to have been extracted from the case files of the same real-life self-proclaimed "paranormal experts" (Wilson, Farmiga) who brought you The Amityville Horror, but it won't convince any skeptics. I'm not sure why they spent so much of the movie emphasizing the "based on a true story" premise when the story and acting turn out to be so forgettable. If anything, it made the movie less scary. While we can always go back and try to poke holes in the "facts," we will automatically suspend our disbelief for a film that is up-front about being fictitious.

Where the movie shines is in its pacing, cinematography, and atmosphere. The movie starts slowly, building up an unease and tension that gives you a chance to exhale just frequently enough so you don't pass out. Wan conceives of haunting imagery that will stick with you, from dolls to jack-in-the-boxes, and lets your mind run wild. He lulls you into a state of calm before a torrential storm that you know is coming. And he does it so well. The Conjuring does just about everything right in a horror movie, but it doesn't do anything extra. And that is my biggest frustration with this movie. Nothing elevates it past its genre status, and it remains a one-trick pony for the people who already like that one particular trick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1457767/

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

4/5

Dallas Buyers Club is a truly phenomenal piece of filmmaking and a truly remarkable work of art. It sets its story in the early AIDS epidemic, when AIDS was stigmatized as a "gay disease" and effective therapy was just starting to hit clinical trials. Matthew McConaughey plays a young homophobic man whose life is turned upside down when he finds out he may die in a month from AIDS. Unable to take part in an AZT trial and concerned that the drug itself may make patients sicker, he goes on a quest to bring non-FDA-approved drugs across the border into the US to sell to people who have no other options. Surprisingly, the medicine feels accurate and true in a way most movies get wrong, from simple turns of phrase to minor background details. And although the specific details of the story are dated, the FDA approval process feels just as frustrating now as it must have been then.

The movie is filled with tour de force performances from McConaughey and Leto. They embody evocative and tender portraits of imperfect humans doing the best they can in an unfair world. It is heartbreaking watching their trials and tribulations, their successes and failures, their joys and their miseries. They give unforgettable (Oscar-winning) performances. The directing undeniably places artistic tendencies first, treating every shot and scene as creative canvases instead of necessary storytelling elements. It has the occasional misstep and hollow ring to it, even bordering on the melodramatic from time to time, but it's so good that it's easy to forget its imperfections. Dallas Buyers Club is a fantastic film

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/

The Grandmaster (2013)

2/5

Wong Kar-Wai's The Grandmaster is an overwhelming disappointment. It tells the story of legendary fighter Ip Man, whose only claim to fame seems to be that he was Bruce Lee's teacher (which is how they advertise the movie to get you interested in it, then never mention it again any time ever). Wong's filmic lyricism seems like a perfect fit for the acrobatic beauty of martial arts, but here--as in his previous "action" movie Ashes of Time--it feels overbearing and clunky. Wong slows down fight scenes shot at normal FPS, so we get to see them as choppy, blurry messes. If only he had filmed them in a high shutter speed to begin with, we would have been able to enjoy some of the most beautiful, crisp fight scenes in recent memory. But no, he ruins it.

If that weren't enough, the fighting is less than half the movie, and midway through the movie the mood switches from action to romance without telling anybody. However, the love story is between a married man and a lover instead of the man and his wife. I guess that part could have been interesting if it weren't presented in such a banal and trite manner. But it was. There's not much to say about this movie. Avoid it. Trust me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462900/

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

4.9/5

The Captain America sequel is easily the best superhero movie that Marvel has ever produced. The story follows soon after the events of The Avengers, with Captain America (Evans) still getting used to modern life in DC. I won't bore you with the details of the plot, which has its fair share of fun twists and shocking turns, and will instead leave you to enjoy it when you watch the movie. Surprisingly, one of the film's strongest attributes is its story, which is intelligent in scope and mature in style, delving into themes that feel both timely and timeless. The writing itself won't win any awards, but it's surprisingly competent given the fact that it's drawn using characters from a comic book series. Despite its superheroes and super-villains, it feels more grounded in reality than any of the other Marvel movies.

The action scenes are superb, using mostly midrange shots and avoiding over-editing so you can tell what's going on. The directors took a risk using live-action stunts instead of an overabundance of and over-dependence on CGI, and it pays off. It's a visceral, electrifying movie that gets your blood pumping and keeps your heart racing. The pacing is exquisitely done, maintaining tension from the very beginning to the very end. My only real hang-up with this film is the character of Falcon (Mackie), who feels altogether silly and unnecessary. In other news, the character of Black Widow (Johansson) is becoming much more interesting with every movie she's in, as we learn more about her talents and her past. For my money, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the pinnacle of Marvel's canon so far.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/

The Lego Movie (2014)

3/5

The Lego Movie is a two-hour long advertisement that you have to pay to see. Yes, it has a story and characters, but so do thirty-second TV bits. And that doesn't change the fact that it is an advertisement for a brand, even if it is a brand that many people have fond childhood memories of. I typically don't mind product placement (e.g., I, Robot) or obvious sponsorship (e.g., The Hire: Powder Keg) as long as the movie can stand on its own merits. This movie cannot. If our analytic functions weren't so warped by our communal nostalgia of the lovable building bricks, it would be obvious to everybody just how middle-of-the-road this movie is.

The movie is frustrating because its creators seem confused as to what they are trying to say. Every theme seems half-baked, every new message inconsistent with the last one. The Lego Movie is a conceptual mess. The only thing I am certain of is that this movie thinks Legos are awesome and that you should go buy some right now!

The movie starts by satirizing the idea that following rules is good, by mocking the idea that teamwork is beneficial. (Side note: is it even really that bad to abide by laws? to work as a team?) It uses the incredibly catchy song Everything Is AWESOME!!! as a representation of the fascist, domineering society where we lose our individuality, but then uses that very same song to cheer up one of the characters later on. So are we supposed to like it or are we supposed to reject it? Because it's currently one of the most popular songs on iTunes.

And I'm a little confused by the ending. I don't want to spoil things for those who haven't seen it, so I urge people who don't want this mediocre movie spoiled to stop reading now. After this sentence there be spoilers. So is Emmett real or is he in the boy's imagination? If it's all made up, then how did Emmett move around on the table and attract the boy's attention? If it's all real, then it seems as if the boy just took credit for building literally hundreds of new designs that the Lego people actually built! Seems a little fishy to me. See what I mean when I say that the movie feels underdeveloped and poorly-thought out?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1490017/

Don Jon (2013)

3/5

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Don Jon is a bold directorial debut that succeeds on many fronts but doesn't fully satisfy. The movie stars Gordon-Levitt as a New Jersey twenty-something whose life revolves around a few things. One of them is online porn. His hook-up, Johansson, questions why he would watch porn when he can have "the real thing." And the movie spends a fair amount of time trying to answer that very question. It's actually an interesting one, one I think perhaps might be better served by a documentary-style investigation rather than writerly musings.

As far as the plot goes, it's a fairly predictable, well-worn story arc without a bunch of surprises. Gordon-Levitt infuses the movie with humorous ironies (I love his road rage when he's going to church) that make it feel fresh and fun. But the movie also has plenty of annoyances. For one, Gordon-Levitt's hair is horrific. It is eye-searing. And their New Jersey accents grind through your eardrum and drill into your brain. The subject matter is still somewhat unseemly for many people, and the movie isn't nearly charming enough to overpower their disgust.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229499/

Epic (2013)

3/5

For some reason, I had developed an irrationally strong desire to watch Epic when it was first announced, and this compulsion persisted even after all the middling reviews came out. My guess is that it had something to do with Snow Patrol's The Lightning Strike playing over the very first trailer I saw. Regardless, I came in to this movie with high hopes. But the reviews were accurate: it's not as epic as I wanted it to be.

Epic is a perfectly fine movie. It is entertaining and funny and moving just when it needs to be. The animation is crisp and beautiful and the voice-acting is surprisingly adept (although I kept imagining the actors instead of the characters they were supposed to be playing because their voices were so distinct). Aziz Ansari and Chris O'Dowd just about steal the show as the bumbling sidekicks. The romance between Seyfried and Hutcherson--and even between her and her father, played by Sudeikis--strikes just the right balance between innocence and affection. The plot is a little convoluted and it whips along at a pretty good pace, but it doesn't nearly have the thematic depth or complexity I've come to expect from other animated films. All in all, I would describe this movie as sufficient. It pleases enough to justify the time you spent on it, but it's no Pixar movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848537/

Her (2013)

5/5

Spike Jonze's Her is an expertly-crafted and beautifully-told love story. Although it is set in the future, it is a love story through and through. After a painful breakup with his girlfriend (Mara), Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) finds himself unexpectedly falling for his personal assistant, Samantha (Johansson). Their mutual attraction blossoms into a tender romance that some view with prejudice and others with acceptance. Despite the occasional false steps and fights, their relationship feels promising. But that is when the specter of doubt begins to rear its ugly head.

The movie's conceit is that Samantha is a piece of software, an operating system with an artificial intelligence that rivals and perhaps surpasses human intelligence. In fact, the film is advertised that way, banking on its strangeness to be the talk of the town. But it is so much more than a simple gimmick.

As far as storytelling goes, Her is a masterpiece. It is Annie Hall for the tech generation, and I do not say that lightly. It embodies the ups and downs of love, the sidesteps and detours of life, the frailty and imperfections of people. Her is somehow all those things delivered in a crisply-shot and sharply-written film. It is ferociously funny and manipulatively tender. It matches an unparalleled ebullience with a debilitating dread. It pulls at just the right heartstrings at just the right times.

From the subtle use of grain and POV to the story's fundamental architecture, Jonze directs masterfully. He elicits nuance out of the actors, whether it's the flicker of their facial muscles or the timbre of their voice, that elevates their performance well past our expectations. He uses flashbacks to tell the backstory so simply, so effortlessly, so precisely, that I cannot believe they are fictional at all. I cannot imagine that someone has not had those exact emotions before. They are silent reveries, uncontrollable daydreams, pure nostalgia.

The movie is not unassailable. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the thought process behind the movie's absurd fashion choices. I sincerely hope we don't dress like that at any point in the near or distant future. But even if this movie is eerily accurate about what we wear in the future, what's the point? It only serves to distract. It is the elephant in the room instead of the painting in the background. Is the movie supposed to be about love or is it supposed to be about navel-hugging belt-less tweed pants pulled up as high as possible around multiple layers of collared shirts?

Perhaps Her bites off a bit more than it can chew, but it is easily one of the best movies of the year. It has already taken hold of our culture, as evidenced by the innumerable parodies floating around online, and tickled something inside all of us. It is a magnificent film and a magical film. It is unique but universal. Watching Her is an experience everyone should get to enjoy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/

Despicable Me 2 (2013)

4/5

Despicable Me 2 is the sequel to the endearing animated family film Despicable Me. While trying to raise his three adopted daughters (Cosgrove, Fischer, Gaier), ex-supervillain Gru (Carrell) is contracted by Lucy (Wiig) to locate and eliminate a new supervillain. Along the way he unexpectedly falls in love with Lucy, but higher forces conspire to pull them apart. From a technical standpoint, this movie is better than the first. Beautiful animation and first-rate voice-acting give it a brilliant polish and shine. The movie has plenty of good jokes--I was laughing the whole way through--but they did not have the same oomph that the first one had.

Something about Despicable Me 2 just feels staid, old, and contrived instead of feeling fresh, unexpected, and new. It is more childish, or maybe just more child-oriented, than the first one was. While many animated movies have parts for kids and adults, it seems that Despicable Me 2 uses adult humor (e.g., sexual double entendres) to placate the 20+ crowd instead of delivering mature, thoughtful themes (e.g., on parenting). While there's certainly nothing wrong with making a movie focused predominantly on kids, it definitely loses something that the first one had. It loses a certain gravitas, an opportunity to stand the test of time, a chance to be a classic. It's a terrifically entertaining movie, but it's also just a little disappointing.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1690953/