Vacancy (2007)

4/5

Vacancy is a terrifying horror thriller that threatens two characters we quickly come to care about and builds tension in measured, metered doses. The plot follows David (Wilson) and Amy (Beckinsale) as a couple whose marriage is on the verge of dissolution. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stop at a cheap motel. The desk clerk (Whaley) offers them the less-than-romantic honeymoon suite at a discount. Cockroaches line the bathroom walls, brown water shoots out of the faucet, and cable doesn't work. Luckily, there are a few VHS tapes they can watch. To their horror, they quickly discover that they're watching snuff films of murders that take place in that very motel. And David and Amy are going to be the next victims.

Vacancy is a calculated movie that paces itself expertly starting from the intro credit sequence, where they use typography and music in the same vein as Hitchcock to get your heart racing, to the final shot of the film. Small camera moves, such as lingering on an empty room, add immensely to the anxiety. The cinematography is pristine and crisp, evoking the harsh lighting of film noir for its own nefarious purposes. The director makes you feel claustrophobic and trapped for just the right amount of time before letting you breathe. And when he does, he lets you catch your breath just long enough before you unconsciously hold it in again. This movie is a taut thriller that should serve as an example of how to build suspense. It's not the most original movie, and there are a few scenes that work only if you suspend your disbelief, but this movie had me scared from beginning to end. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452702/

Paranormal Activity (2007)

2/5

Paranormal Activity was not a good movie for anyone who's seen the trailer. You've already seen all the exciting parts! And it's probably not a good movie for anyone who hasn't seen the trailer. It's just not a good movie overall. The plot follows the unbelieving Micah (Sloat) after he buys an HD camera to document the "demonic hauntings" of his easily scare-able girlfriend Katie (Featherston). It slowly progresses as a series of ominous noises, rustling bedsheets, and fickle light switches until the final climactic five minutes. And I mean slowly. The pacing is atrocious. It bores instead of building tension. Except it thinks it's building tension, so it goes on and on and on when nothing actually happens.

Being shot entirely on a cheap camera by the actors may have sounded like a great idea for a low-budget horror film trying to copy on the success of The Blair Witch Project, but it just made the movie ugly and aggravating to the viewers. I'm certain the movie would have been at least twice as good had it been shot in a traditional style; nothing was gained by being a self-shot "movie within a movie." I suppose it tried to make it seem as if it were archival footage from a true occurrence, but it didn't work because we knew it was all fake. I went to see this movie because my cousin said he was afraid to sleep afterwards. The only reason I'd be unable to sleep is knowing I wasted my money and time on this subpar "horror" flick. Pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179904/

The King of Kong (2007)

4/5

The King of Kong is an utterly engrossing, utterly captivating documentary on the world of competitive classic gaming. It follows newcomer Steve Wiebe in his attempt to beat the classic Donkey Kong champion Billy Mitchell. The players are absolutely fascinating; they are humanly complex with richness and depth that resonate with honesty. They don't fully reveal themselves to the camera and so you get the sense that they have lives outside of the movie, which is the ultimate goal of any film. Character studies are always vastly more interesting in documentaries than any traditional narrative could be, and The King of Kong is a prime example.

The structure of the film is brilliant. It sets up the story perfectly, from the greatness of the champion to the genius of the challenger. The editing is effective and efficient. It builds up the tension and excitement far better than most action blockbusters or mystery thrillers have been capable of. Watching it on Netflix Play Now, the film occasionally stopped due to poor buffering, and I just yelled at the screen, giddy to know what happened next. I can't imagine doing that for any other documentary. This movie is a true piece of entertainment, and despite the low-quality camerawork and simple special effects, I highly highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0923752/

High School Musical 2 (2007)

2/5

Apparently I am in the minority, but I thought High School Musical 2 was better than the first one. But not by much. The intro countdown to summer was actually really cool and creative, but after that it went downhill. Fast. With preposterously conceived perversions of reality that these "high school students" call "summer vacation" working in a country club. No aspect of the plot or story even remotely seems familiar to anyone going through high school and/or summer break. The characters themselves appear to be empty shells of what might have at one point in time constituted unbastardized versions of real people. The "adorable" relationships from the original become strained to their breaking points, just about eliminating the fun found in the first one. The benefit from this, however, was a more mature look at serious situations that might force audience members to question how they would react in similar scenarios.

Despite suffering from some weak synchronizing of song and video, the songs were actually a lot better than in the first one. More interesting, at the very least. Unfortunately, the dances themselves felt much more awkward and out of place; I wish that I could have told them to stop their dancing and that they would have then listened to me. While still unarguably a made-for-TV children's movie, it managed to make me laugh. Mr. Fulton (Taylor) was absolutely hilarious, even better than Ms. Darbus from the first one. Overall, I can't recommend this to anyone except those who have seen the first one and are in love with it. For everyone else, just walk away now.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810900/

Rendition (2007)

4/5

Rendition is a skillfully-crafted and provocative thriller that puts human faces on the unjust way in which our system of laws can be used and exploited. A chemical engineer (Metwally) on his way back from South Africa is taken away by cops in an airport in DC and sent to a secret prison facility where he is to be tortured by non-US officials for information on a recent suicide bombing as a CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal) watches. His wife (Witherspoon) tries her hardest to find out what's happened to her husband, even going so far as to call up an old boyfriend (Sarsgaard) who works for a senator (Arkin). It turns out that the senator has connections with the woman (Streep) who authorized his rendition. When all laid out in just a few sentences, the plot does sound a bit coincidental and unrealistic. However, when you watch the movie, you see a film that is sympathetically acted, intricately poignant, and effortlessly believable.

The movie had a strong technical base off of which to build its narrative. The shots were beautiful, the editing well-paced, and the music heart-pounding. As a result of all three factors, the build up to the climax was palpably tense. And while the acting was spot-on, the writing and dialogue could have used a little work. Half the time they went out of their way to make what was going on explicit, while the other half of the time they assumed the audience knew what had happened or the characters correctly predicted everything that was going on, despite it all being classified top secret. These small errors aside, this gripping thriller based on the government's anti-terrorism policies is well worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/

You Kill Me (2007)

2/5

You Kill Me is supposed to be a dark comedy, but it's more of an indie dramedy full of lingering camera shots, deadpan dialogue, and quirky characters. Ben Kingsley plays an alcoholic hitman who is sent to San Francisco by his mafia uncle (Philip Baker Hall) to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. Luke Wilson becomes his gay AA sponsor, Bill Pullman becomes his temporary West Coast realtor, and Tea Leoni becomes his 20-years younger love interest. I suppose the premise is smirk-worthy, but not laugh-out-loud hilarious. None of this movie really made laughter emanate from my belly uncontrollably, although at times I thought to myself, "That's pretty clever."

The best aspect of this movie was how perfectly it depicted the pain of Alcoholics Anonymous. It felt like church for atheists; everyone telling you you're wrong, and being overly friendly and superficial about it. Additionally, the performances were quite good. I'm not quite sure how strong their characters were, because they felt quite dull and uninteresting except for the aforementioned character traits. All in all, it wasn't particularly funny or memorable. Don't bother checking this film out unless you really really really really like the actors. Or you really hate AA.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796375/

Exodus (2007)

2/5

Ho-Cheung Pang's Exodus is a bad movie, plain and simple. The whole of events could be retold in a 10-30 minute short. And we would lose nothing but frustration. What was initially an interesting concept quickly turned into boredom, as if the writers were searching for something to happen and found nothing but the banal. A cop interrogates a man caught videotaping women in a bathroom, who claims that there is a syndicate of women plotting the murder of all men. The confession goes missing, but when he re-interrogates the man, his (obviously?) ludicrous story changes after a female cop talked to him. Could it be true?

There seemed to be no point to the movie. It said nothing about male-female interactions, despite the rather rampant possibilities, and nothing new about the human and collective conscious. The dialogue was blunt and meaningless, as far as I could tell. The Engrish subtitles didn't help. There were some good parts, such as the (overlong) intro and the (overlong and unnecessary) finale, especially in terms of cinematography and music. But they felt out of place, bookends by a talented director added in to even out a crappy middle by a terrible director. I could have enjoyed 90 minutes of my life if I had not seen this movie, so be sure to thank me when you end up turning down this crap because of my review.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091616/

The Reaping (2007)

3/5

The Reaping was a surprisingly effective supernatural horror movie. The plot follows Hilary Swank as an atheistic zealot out to scientifically disprove all miracles. When a small, religious Louisiana town starts being struck down by what they fear are the ten Biblical plagues, David Morrissey asks her to go down and investigate. The plagues keep coming, and she finds herself at a loss to explain every single one. The townspeople don't, however; they blame it on a 12 year old girl who may be the devil incarnate.

The best part about this movie by far is its ending. The epiphany at the end, following by the obligatory final twist, was perfect. It made you rethink the entire movie in new terms, which is exactly what a twist should do. Unfortunately, the way it accomplished this feat was the worst part about the movie. Flashbacks. Terrible, convoluted, nagging flashbacks. In fact, when combined with the ubiquitous dreams and hallucinations, it was pretty difficult to understand what was real and what wasn't. Until the end anyway, and even then some stuff was still quite random and inexplicable. The second best part is the visual experience. Not simply its composition and cinematography, but its stunning, striking, shocking images and concepts that you will forever associate with the film. The second worst part is the acting and the dialogue. Though I actually liked Swank's character and performance, the rest of the cast remained unquestionably two-dimensional and forgettable. (I did like Morrissey's accent, though.) The third best part is the mood. It was frightening, to say the least, as the film effectively utilized both quick scares and unsettling ideas/images. The third worst part was an irrelevant and unnecessary intro detailing just what exactly Swank's job was (although it did have a cool House vibe). After all that, it ends up about even, although I definitely recommend it if you were ever interested in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444682/

Zeitgeist (2007)

1/5

The biggest crime about Zeitgeist is that it claims to be a documentary when it is nothing but propaganda dreck. I felt like I was watching Triumph of the Will, except bad. It asks us to believe in it with the same blind faith it hopes to dispel. The movie is basically a series of preposterous conspiracy theories with little relationship to each other and little factual basis behind them. It names Jesus as an Egyptian astrotheological allegory, the 9/11 attacks as government-backed, and the Federal Reserve as the principal instigator of the world wars, as well as Vietnam and Iraq (despite previously suggesting it was the US Government). It is about as believable as Wanted or Audition, except it thinks it's real. Imagine if either of those movies were billed as docs, and you have Zeitgeist.

As if its own contradictions and spelling errors weren't enough evidence that this "documentary" was made with little preparation and littler background research, the cheesy Windows Media Player visualizations paired with incessant, inane, boring voice-over monologue should serve as further proof that even the filmmakers care not the least for its subject matter. This easily could have been made in Windows Movie Maker in half an hour with default transitions and effects. While interesting at first, it gradually manipulates you into believing more and more of its absurd theories. It may well be the worst-made movie of all time to appear on IMDb in any way, shape, or form. This is almost as bad as Audition. Seriously.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1166827/

Rush Hour 3 (2007)

3/5

Brett Ratner's Rush Hour 3 continues in its tried and true tradition of black-Chinese action-comedy. You pretty much know what you're getting into when you start watching this movie. There are no surprises. This time, the team goes to Paris to get to the bottom of a mystery involving the Chinese triad and help prevent the assassination of the Chinese ambassador. Most of the jokes were awful and groan-inducing (they even did a who's on first bit with Chinese men named Yu and Mi). On the other hand, most of the action scenes were truly awesome and extremely well-choreographed. They were exciting, fun, and funny. All of the rest was pretty standard stuff (cinematography, editing, script, acting, etc. were all unimpressive).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293564/

Disturbia (2007)

4/5

DJ Caruso's Disturbia was an exceedingly well-made suspense thriller about a teenager who suspects his neighbor is a serial killer. A remake/modernization of Hitchcock's Rear Window, it must inevitably be compared to its source material. And I'm glad to say that it stands its ground surprisingly well. The basic framework of the movie stays pretty similar, except we are in the suburbs instead of an apartment complex, we have teenagers instead of adults, and our main character is kept immobile through house arrest, not a broken leg. Also, they add a little bit of romance in this version (he's already engaged in the original), which I could've done without, and a lot more tension and excitement, which was a wise choice for its target audience. The last thirty minutes or so were absolutely terrifying (although the logic behind it is a bit shaky). As far as all these differences go, most of them worked really really well.

Much was also kept the same. I'm glad that they had multiple neighbors and multiple side stories. While not as charming as in the original, they were still engaging and entertaining. One thing that made the original so good was the use of first person shots. They continued that technique here, albeit in a more muted fashion. They move exactly as we would move, and show exactly what we want to see. This natural movement helped us get involved in the storytelling. Technically, it was better than a lot of movies, but not exceptional. The acting was on point, the characters believable, and the dynamics between them fleshed out and full. The pacing seemed to be effortless perfection. The cinematography and editing worked well together. The music was sometimes out of place or overbearing, but on the whole it kept the mood nicely. I highly recommend this movie, to those who have seen Rear Window and those who haven't, and to those who just want a truly suspenseful and thrilling movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486822/

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

4/5

Paul Haggis's In the Valley of Elah manages to be touching without the oversentimentality that usually suffocates his films. Based on a true story, the movie follows Tommy Lee Jones as a retired career officer who starts investigating the disappearance of his son after his return from Iraq. From the very beginning, the mystery is paced exceptionally well, continually pulling you in and keeping your brain active the entire time. While not as gripping as A Few Good Men (and ultimately not as good, in my opinion), it is without a doubt more timely and relevant.

The acting was really good, although I think Tommy Lee Jones was better in No Country for Old Men than in this. Much of it was subtle and understated, making it feel richer and more genuine. Paul Haggis used a number of extended shots to give the actors room to act, instead of cutting between shot/countershot close-ups across 30 different takes. He has definitely learned to use the camera to compose interesting shots and movements. (One of my big arguments against Crash is that it had almost zero cinematic qualities; it's good to see that Haggis is finally learning.) If you were interested in this flick when it first came out, I definitely recommend you see it. And if not, perhaps you should consider it anyway.

Note: It was awesome seeing Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, AND Barry Corbin all in this film. It's like all those bad comedies that become so much better because of cameos from side characters on the Office. Except it's cameos from No Country for Old Men!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/

Perfect Stranger (2007)

2/5

Perfect Stranger is a movie too full of twists and turns to be believable. It starts off as Halle Berry playing a reporter who specializes in sex scandals involving powerful men. After the newspaper heads put the kibosh on her latest six-month project involving a politician, she quits her job in anger. And another one magically falls into her lap, this time involving Bruce Willis as an advertising CEO. The friend who gave Halle Berry all the information suddenly turns up dead, and all our suspicions turn to the obvious. But all is not what it seems in this neverending labyrinth of lies and deceit and frustration. In fact, it gets so convoluted, that the filmmakers shot three different endings, with three different people as the killer, so you can trust that the core story is really unimportant to them.

The worst part is not how arbitrary the movie treats its subject matter. The worst part is the subtopic of sex chatroom addiction (which we only discover through fake "IOL" instant messaging and slow, ugly, fictional OSes) that it picks up, plays with for a few minutes, and then leaves behind with complete disinterest. The movie truly has no focus. The only possible theme I can figure out is that everyone has secrets--and everyone gets caught.

There were a few positives. The acting was surprisingly adept, although there wasn't a particularly strong script to make it worth it. The music was pitch perfect throughout. And there were some really tense, frightening scenes. The cinematography wasn't bad, but the editing ruined a lot of it for me (too many cross dissolves and flashbacks). If you can stomach unreasonably preposterous crime movies whose ending you don't see coming (well, maybe you saw one of the two they didn't use coming), then you may enjoy this filthy dreck. But I sure didn't.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457433/

Dan in Real Life (2007)

3/5

Dan in Real Life is a movie whose entire story you know in detail if you've seen the trailer. A widower (Steve Carell) takes his three daughters to a family reunion, of sorts, where he meets a girl and falls in love with her. Only to find out later that she's his brother's girlfriend. The fairly predictable plot never really kept my attention and never really surprised me. And neither did Steve Carell. The director decided to hinge the movie on his puppy dog innocence instead of his offbeat, awkward humor. He (and Dane Cook) had very little opportunity to make us laugh, thanks to the rather bland script. (One point in the middle, though, I did laugh. But it was because of the absurdly rich suburban activities he and his entire family were able to partake in on a non-holiday in a countryside.)

Technically, there was nothing noteworthy. It was much more a romantic comedy chick flick than anything else, which I wasn't really expecting. Still, it accomplished what it set out to do (with few risks and fewer rewards), so I can't really give it a lower star rating than 3. But overall it was pretty disappointing if you're expecting a Steve Carell vehicle. If you're expecting blah, then this movie will satisfy you. But why would you watch a movie you knew to be mediocre instead of great?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480242/

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

3/5

Lars and the Real Girl is a pretty typical indie drama romance comedy smorgasbord of heartache, love, and laughs. It follows an underdeveloped man-child weirdo lead (Ryan Gosling) and his sex doll Bianca, which is his outlet and the movie's "unique" quality that indie fanboys (and fangirls) will surely love. The real love interest is an equally weird uggo who is too perky and aggressive in the dating arena for how little success she must have had given her uggo-ness. But like a lot of indie films, this one has a heartwarming story, laugh-out-loud moments, and melodramatic tearjerker scenes. If you can stand the contemporary awkward American "independent" cinema, then you'll probably like this movie.

Now, to rant: I don't know who the character is supposed to be. It's a fantastic situation that has zero conceivable relevance to most viewers' everyday lives. He shifted from absurdly bizarre in the beginning to perfectly normal in the end. Everything was tied up way too neatly for me. And it seemed like the entire forward momentum of the story was based around the protagonist, a character whose motivations and mindset I didn't understand at all. Any change in the story was a direct result of a change in Gosling's character--the supporting cast was powerless to influence the plot progression. The only reason it kept going was because it was a 2 hour movie, not because it necessarily would have. Still, all my nitpicky complaints didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie. So if this seems interesting to you, check it out. You indie fanboy. (Or fangirl).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

Nanking (2007)

3/5

Nanking describes the events of the winter of 1937 in Nanking, China: the heinous crimes committed by the Japanese during their occupation of the city and the protection offered by foreigners who created a Safety Zone. It serves mostly as a description, however, and doesn't succeed as a documentary. It is too mild and tepid to make any point worth making. It seems too afraid to offend, reiterating how all Japanese were not the cruel villains committing these sins. But it does not condemn the evil that caused it; in fact, it says nothing at all of evil, or of the nature of mankind, or of anything global or universal. It relays facts and draws no conclusions, and so we walk out of the theater knowing a little more about a tragic series of specific events and nothing else.

That being said, there are several moments that just tear me up inside thinking of them; horrifying firsthand accounts of atrocities backed by stunning archival footage I can never forget. While edited together proficiently, they never reached their full potential. In retelling the events chronologically, the filmmakers muted the emotional and visceral climaxes of the anecdotes. They seemed afraid of taking chances, and took the simple way out hoping the subject matter would be enough to make this movie good. It is not.

An interesting technique they used was having actors read diary entries and letters of real people involved. Seeing people I recognized made it hard for me to envision them as the people they were portraying. Additionally, the fact that they were reading letters, talking at you instead of to you, provided a distancing feel as opposed to an inviting one. Still, I commend this film for publicizing the rape of Nanking, for revealing something that has been hidden and denounced time and time again. You don't need to watch this movie, but you do need to know about this terrible scar on mankind's history.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0893356/

Margot at the Wedding (2007)

2/5

Margot at the Wedding is the reason I hate independent films. With mainstream movies, you more or less know what you're gonna get. With indie crap, they're always a risk: sometimes they pleasantly surprise you, but more often than not they disappoint you and waste your time. Throughout the movie, the characters echoed my sentiments at the bizarre actions of every other character: "What?" Confusion reigns supreme in this dreck. It tries too hard to be the weird, unique indie film for the sake of being that weird, unique indie film that it forgets to tell a story, any story. Strange things happen for no apparent reason. It tries to be a slice-of-life piece, but the characters are simply too unbelievable to exist in any life that can be sliced.

To its credit, I thought Kidman's transformation into an obscenely crazy person was impressive. And a lot of the jokes were really funny. My favorite line of the movie: "My scrotum's longer than my penis." Still, these are not enough to justify the rest of this movie. After seeing The Squid and the Whale, I thought I liked Noah Baumbach. I was very incorrect.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0757361/

4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days (2007)

5/5

Cristian Mungiu's Palme d'Or-winning abortion drama 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is a harrowing, emotionally-draining experience. The minimalist, neorealist filmmaking wrenches the viewer's stomach tighter and tighter as the story builds, in real-time, to its devastating finale. The audience waits in breathless anticipation and trepidation throughout the entire two hours. Much of the power stems from Anamaria Marinca's gripping, tour-de-force performance. She is fully entrenched in her character, in all her moments of controlled anger and suffocating fear. Not only do we believe her, but we understand her. We see someone willing to do anything for a friend and we would like to say that we would do the same.

The remainder of the film's power is evoked through an unflinching and uncompromising camera. Long, patient, brilliantly-composed shots coax a gamut of genuine emotions out of the actors. There is one scene in particular where we witness a disgusting, vile act--not through the lens of the camera, but through the reactions of the characters. As we slowly realize what has happened, we cannot help but recoil in horror: at the extent of human depravity, at the ease with which people can take advantage of others' vulnerabilities. It is a reminder that injustice is everywhere, that mistakes we make don't always have a fair price.

Ultimately, this is not a perfect movie. The beginning does not effectively engage the audience. A heavy seriousness in the first scene makes the mood appear more important than the characters and their motivations. The editing in the final 30 minutes started to sag and loosen, allowing the movie to stray into the overlong and the unrelated. A number of shots were too dark for the audience to see what was going on. But none of these problems should stop you from seeing this mature work of art. It is a bleak and depressing portrait of a time and place we desperately wish would disappear. It is hopeless, but sometimes we need these films to help us discover the hope within our own lives.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1032846/

Across the Universe (2007)

3/5

Julie Taymor's Across the Universe is essentially a series of Beatles covers with hints of a story feebly wrapped around it. What little plot there is follows uninteresting characters falling in and out of love in uninteresting ways during the Vietnam era. These faults would sound the death knell of an ordinary movie, but this one more than makes up for it with its bold images and exhilarating creativity. The best thing one could say about Across the Universe is that it tries. It tries so hard it infects the audience with its own joyous celebration. But sometimes it tries too hard. And despite its successes, it manages to fall flat on its face a number of times.

The first hour and fifteen minutes was absolutely perfect. It was everything a movie musical can and should be. The cinematography was crisp and beautiful, the special effects awe-inspiring, and the characters engaging. But the best part was the music. It successfully enhanced the entire film experience. It strengthened every emotion, deepened every character, and moved the audience more profoundly than any other single filmic technique. "Let It Be" and "Come Together" are by far the highlights for me, perhaps of any musical I've ever seen. I cannot imagine how wide-eyed and open-mouthed I must have been watching them. Even the more lively dance numbers I found myself comparing to Singin' in the Rain.

But the movie lacked a legitimate take-home message, just that love is cool and war is not. The editing seemed nonexistent, as if every scene they shot was included no matter how much it destroyed the pacing and alienated the audience. The acting redefined average. To be fair, the script and dialogue were pretty pitiful in the first place, so the actors didn't have much to work with. I hated how the movie idealized the bohemian lifestyle and bellowed its anti-war mentality. But more than that, I hated the 30 minute hallucinatory dreck masquerading as a subplot people might actually care about. Not even cameos by Bono, Eddie Izzard, and Salma Hayek could salvage them. To drop so dramatically from amazing to amazingly bad is impressive, and not in a good way. But in the last 15 minutes or so the movie picks up again to end it on a saccharine, innocuous note. For any fans of the Beatles, which should be a vast majority of people, go watch this movie. You will most certainly not be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0445922/