The Bourne Legacy (2012)

2/5

The Bourne Legacy, the fourth Bourne movie, has a very confusing plot. The general outline is that a covert government agency is killing all their secret operatives after a benign-appearing YouTube video is leaked. One black ops agent (Renner) escapes death and travels to the Philippines with a scientist (Weisz) so that he can inject himself with a virus. Yes, it does sound absolutely preposterous. And to make matters worse, there are simply too many story lines and too many characters to keep track of. The director, Tony Gilroy, seems to focus on the wrong things in each scene, as if uncertain what the movie is about. He goes back and forth between time and place way too frequently without any real explanation or clear motivation. This results in an extended second half that doesn't make sense within the film's logic, where seemingly ever character (big, small, good, bad) takes enormous risks out of proportion to expected benefits.

Superficially, the movie looks very exciting. There is a lot of anger and yelling, a lot of drama and histrionics. But the action scenes aren't so much exciting as they are filled with loud action-y music. Instead of gunfights and fistfights, we get running and chasing. Instead of action, we get super-fast cuts. I estimate that the average length of each shot is around 1 second. Not to spoil the movie, but Matt Damon never appears in it, although his character is unendingly discussed peripherally. To make matters worse, it has an extremely unsatisfying ending. Do not recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

2/5

Fifty Shades of Grey is a surprisingly successful movie about a college graduate (Johnson) who begins a dominance/submission relationship with a young business magnate (Dornan). It originally started out as fan fiction for Twilight, with the titular Christian Grey originally written as a non-vampire billionaire version of Edward Cullen in an alternate universe. It makes sense, then, why the writing feels particularly amateurish and the bare-bones plot feels long and drawn-out. It also makes sense why it feels so much like a fantasy, a dream-like series of events filled with tension and delayed gratification devoid of any actual content.

Despite the awful writing and acting, this was not a 1 star movie. It largely succeeds at stimulating the audience's imagination with its BDSM eroticism, exposing flesh right to the edges of the screen. And although it tries too hard to be provocative, I actually appreciated how it forces non-traditional ideas about sex and pleasure into the mainstream. I did, however, find all the side comments about the main character being gay alarming because it conflates all non-heterosexual experiences as "not normal."

As a side note, I have never been more embarrassed in my life than when I asked for 2 tickets to see Fifty Shades of Grey. I hope you never have to go through something like that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2322441/

Boyhood (2014)

2/5

Richard Linklater's decade-long experiment Boyhood is not a very good movie. It feels honest and true, with almost voyeuristic and documentarian authenticity, but those qualities don't make it engaging or compelling. It's a great idea, filming short snippets in real time across years, and I'm amazed that it was accomplished at all given the industry's eagle eye on quarterly profit margins. It could be the future of filmmaking, but I hope that better storytellers can do something more with it. While it tackles some strong emotional threads, including domestic violence, alcoholism, and abandonment, Boyhood feels incomplete and unsatisfying. Even though it recycles a number of themes, it all feels like one big unfinished thought. The only thing more frustrating than a slice-of-life movie without an ending is 12 of them stacked together. Linklater delivers an emotion instead of a story, but perhaps the same people who appreciate Terrence Malick's evocative but empty films will also appreciate Boyhood.

It should have been called Before Adulthood, because it feels very similar to Linklater's previous series of interconnected films where the predominant architecture of the film involves a couple walking around and waxing poetic across the expanse of time. No matter how intriguing the discussion is, the Before series is just a bunch of talking heads. In Boyhood especially you realize that even when things besides conversations happen, Linklater prefers writing to acting, prefers telling to showing. Is there any reason this was a movie instead of a book or a podcast? Did we gain anything at all from having this appear on screen? No. This is not a movie. This is a piece of prose that just so happens to involve cameras and actors.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/

Wish I Was Here (2014)

2/5

Zach Braff's second film, Wish I Was Here, is about two brothers (Braff, Gad) who must deal with their father's illness and impending death. The movie has less to say than Garden State and is even more plain in how it says it. The characters are less interesting, the writing is less interesting, and even the music is less interesting. (The funniest part was Josh Gad trolling Miley Cyrus on Twitter, and I don't mean that as a compliment.) There's just no magic in this movie and no compelling reason to keep watching it. Even though the effort of sitting on a couch and staring at a screen is minimal, I found myself itching to do something else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2870708/

Look Who's Talking Now (1993)

2/5

Look Who's Talking Now is a very silly and very 90's movie. It is the third (and final) movie in a trilogy that I have not yet seen and have no desire to see. Still, I'm sure I'm not missing much. John Travolta and Kirstie Alley star as a married couple who adopt two very different dogs that can talk to each other. It's basically an odd couple romance between talking dogs, with some human humor thrown in. It's not very good, but it's also pretty benign, so I won't tease you if you like it.

There is one caveat, though. I wouldn't watch it if you've seen It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. Watching Danny DeVito's character on that show will absolutely ruin this movie for you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

2/5

The third installment in the Hunger Games trilogy is--surprisingly--not the last, as you might expect from my use of the word trilogy. Instead, the producers behind the franchise are hoping to eke out every last cent possible from its fan base in the great tradition of Harry Potter and Twilight. It is worse off for it, as this film plods along slowly, without much purpose except to prepare us for the next one. It is not only painfully slow, it is also tremendously different in terms of style, mood, and thematics. The third Hunger Games movie could have been great if it ended the series, building on the momentum generated from the first two films, but it's not. Instead it's mediocre filler that prolongs the inevitable release of the finale.

This is (obviously) not an issue with the book, because the book doesn't end where the movie ends. If, in fact, the story benefited from being split into two parts, I presume the book would have been split into two books. It is not. It is one book. It is one story. If you need more time to tell the story you want to tell, make a miniseries instead of a movie. If you are unable to make creative decisions when it comes to editing, you are not a filmmaker. You are a moneymaker. And The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1, if you couldn't tell from the title, is a moneymaking grab.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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 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/

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/

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/

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/