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 Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest (2009)

3/5

The final part of the Millennium Trilogy, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest, is one of those movies that probably didn't have to exist at all. It reveals nothing new or interesting about the characters and instead just drags them into pointless scenarios for the illusion of franchise closure. The movie brings back characters that were pretty much dead at the end of the second movie, only to kill them off again. It puts the protagonist on trial for murder, only to find her not guilty (sorry, spoiler alert!). It does all this useless stuff to make the movie seem interesting or important, only to have nothing actually matter in the end.

Directing-wise, the movie is less impressive than the second one, which is less impressive than the first one. Mr. Alfredson tries to deliver fictional tension, but we rarely feel it because the scenes have no meaning behind them. It progresses at a stop-and-go pace, varying between exciting but nonsensical and brooding but pointless. I'm not sure if there is more to the book that the movie skimped out on or if it's just the book itself, but this is a movie that has no reason to be made. And to be fair, the movie itself isn't bad, I just don't know why it exists. The sad part is that everybody who saw the first two will see this one too, no matter what I say in my review, because people can't stand knowing there's a sequel to a series they've started just sitting there unwatched. Well, watch away.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343097/

17 Again (2009)

3/5

17 Again is a movie that surprised me for many reasons. It's funnier than I expected and more heartwarming than I imagined. The story is fairly simple and juvenile: faced with impending divorce, Mike O'Donnell (Perry) is transported back to his high school form (Efron), where he helps his daughter (Trachtenberg) break up with a sleazebag (Parrish) and gives his son (Knight) confidence to stand up against bullies while simultaneously winning back his wife's affection (Mann). I don't want to ruin the movie for anyone who has been living under a rock since the invention of cinema and is unfamiliar with how Hollywood works, but let's just say this movie ends in the expected manner.

The acting and the dialogue are where this movie shines. It is probably Zac Efron's best acting to date. I know that's not really saying much, but he was actually pretty good. The script was far more poignant than I thought it would be given its premise, and far more clever and witty than I gave it credit for. The basic plot of a major life change prompting someone to re-evaluate their priorities feels quite tired and trite, and this movie attempts to freshen it up with an unnecessarily silly scenario instead of a realistic, believable one. I think it could have been an awesome movie if they chose the latter route, but this decision, as well as most of the directorial traits and technical aspects, ended up making the movie mediocre, unremarkable, and forgettable. All in all, not a bad movie and above average as a form of entertainment, but I'm a little disappointed that it wasn't more than that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974661/

The Secret In Their Eyes (2009)

4/5

The Secret In Their Eyes is another film that, like Cell 211, anchors its characters as immutable and already fully-formed, despite following them and their evolution over 25 years. The movie deals with the involvement of Esposito (Darín), Sandoval (Francella), and Hastings (Villamil) in the case surrounding Liliana Coloto's rape and murder by Isidoro Gómez (Godino). Esposito wants to write a book on the case 25 years later and decides to revisit Hastings to reminisce and perhaps even attempt to rekindle an old flame. Neither of them have quite forgotten the case and what it did to them; it lingers with them almost daily. However, the case is not quite as closed as they believe it to be.

The performances are excellent, filling out well-developed characters with sympathy and tenderness. The plot is above average, though not nearly as compelling as I was hoping for coming in. (I did have pretty high expectations though, for some reason.) The cinematography and editing were more than competent, but neither were all that memorable. The overall direction of the film, especially the use of flashbacks to hold the tension between the mysterious past and the uncertain present, was truly an impressive feat to watch. However, something about this film just didn't feel right to me. It didn't hit me on an emotional level for some reason; everything was too calculated. The director precisely progressed the plot to make me think and feel a certain way. It didn't feel natural. Despite my hangups, I thought this movie was an excellent crime thriller and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305806/

Cell 211 (2009)

4.9/5

Cell 211 is a gripping and surprising Spanish film about a prison riot. Juan Oliver (Ammann) arrives 1 day early to his new post as a prison guard, only to be knocked unconscious during an accident right before a prison riot breaks out. He regains consciousness just in time to figure out what's going on and pretends to be a new prisoner. The leader of the riot, Malamadre (Tosar), takes him under his wing. Juan Oliver must pretend to help Malamadre while simultaneously attempting to get out alive. This is only the beginning of the movie, but I'll leave the rest for you to discover on your own, because how the movie reveals itself is one of the movie's very best treasures.

I don't want to ruin it, but I feel I should mention that this movie does not have a Hollywood ending. In fact, none of the twists and turns are very Hollywood. Many reviews have called the movie completely unpredictable, but to me it feels more like a movie you do not anticipate. It propels you along at such a pace that you do not have time to think about what is to come, you can only attempt to catch your breath and digest all that has already passed.

The writing in this film is superb. It is not simply the plot, which is very good, but the characters. I have often said that people never transform over the course of a movie; instead you see into their hearts and souls more and more deeply as events pass. And you see all the nuance and subtlety that you didn't see before, so they appear to transform before your eyes into complex, fleshed-out humans. That is precisely what goes on here: Juan Oliver is the same person he was at the beginning of this movie--although we would all like to think a transformation takes place--which makes this movie all the more compelling. Absolutely spellbinding acting and crisp cinematography rounds out this fantastic film. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242422/

In the Loop (2009)

4/5

Wow. In the Loop is hilarious. It had me cracking up non-stop with unending vulgarities, random asides, and preposterous situations. The movie is supposedly a political satire--although the story arc itself never really made me laugh--about a group of politicos linked together by the possibility of war. There is Simon Foster (Hollander), who made a statement about the war being "unforeseeable," then flipflopping and suggesting that sometimes we must "climb a mountain of conflict" to reach peace on the other side. There is Karen Clark (Kennedy), who is very much against the war based on a paper recently put out by her aide Liza Weld (Chlumsky). There is Linton Barwick (Rasche), perhaps the funniest of them all, who feels a war is inevitable after receiving compelling but faked evidence from Malcolm Tucker (Capaldi). Linton and Karen both try to use Simon's quotes to defend their side, but even his new aide Toby Wright (Addison) cannot fix the situation. In fact, he ends up making it worse by sleeping with Liza and leaking story after story to a CNN friend.

If the plot sounds too intricate to follow, it's not. The personalities are so well-developed and visually distinct that you remember them and all their mannerisms well after the film has finished. The acting is on point, but I have to give credit to the brilliant, sharp, incisive script. The writing is impeccable. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that had me laughing this hard, sitting in my apartment by myself on a lonely, fateful Sunday afternoon. The editing was also remarkable, as it effortlessly united numerous disparate stories to feel like a single tapestry of chaos. The cinematography, on the other hand, struck me as rather bland, trying to pull off a documentary feel and not really impressing. You don't have to be a politics aficionado to enjoy this film, just someone who appreciates witty dialogue and amazingly unique characters. Highly, highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

4/5

The Girl Who Played With Fire centers around journalist Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and computer hacker Salander (Rapace). When Salander is suspected in a triple murder, Blomkvist attempts to get to the bottom of it. And that's about it for the plot. The Girl Who Played With Fire is, like almost all sequels, not nearly as good as the first one. Part of it is the writing (this being the middle of a trilogy) and part of it is the directing (this being a different director). The movie as a whole just doesn't seem as tight or as meaningful. The cinematography feels video-esque and the atmosphere less moody. Unnecessary scenes are retained and almost emphasized. Despite that, it's still a good movie. There were tense moments where the lives of people you cared about hung in the balance. There was fascinating depth added to Salander's originally superficial character. But overall, it feels as if there just wasn't as much care put into it or as much detail paid attention to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216487/

New York, I Love You (2009)

2/5

Unlike its predecessor Paris, je t'aime, New York, I Love You is a terrible movie. It is a terrible, terrible movie. It is a collection of short films that reveal characters who become intertwined with other characters in New York City. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that if you just watched it. It would appear to an innocent bystander to be a random smattering of ludicrous events that are pretentiously written, acted, and directed that give the illusion of lofty meaning and artistic flair. It is filled with empty stories based off of shallow ideas. However, amongst the 11 short films, there were two (2) good segments. The first starred Bradley Cooper and Drea De Matteo as two strangers who spent a night together that became more than a one-night stand; it is about the fears and doubts they have about what it meant for them and for the other person as they barrel through the city to meet again. It has a tremendously powerful ending. The second starred Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an old married couple who head out on their 63rd anniversary to Coney Island, where they had their first date. They exchange playful banter, as unique and genuine as a real-world couple who might have lived in each other's companies longer than they have lived alone, who love and hate everything about the other person. It reminded me of No Country for Old Men in the best possible way. Still, those two gems in this giant pile of poop aren't quite valuable enough to recommend wading through it all. Ick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808399/

Micmacs (2009)

4/5

Micmacs is a return to form for the exquisite Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The movie is as inventive, clever, and fun as all his other movies, with the expected bedazzling visual style and quirky, lovable heroes. The movie centers around Bazil (Boon). After being shot in the head by a stray bullet, he loses his job at a video rental store and takes to the streets for money. He is given shelter and friendship by a group of oddly-talented misfits (Pinon, Marielle, Ferrier, Moreau, Crémadès, Sy, Baup) who live underneath a garbage dump. One day he finds himself walking down a street separating the two biggest arms manufacturers in France. He gets it in his head--like the bullet that still resides there--to teach them a lesson for all the pain he's suffered at their hands, but he is going to need the help of all of his newfound friends.

The movie is simultaneously magical and believable. Jeunet creates a bizarre, exceptional world brimming with personalities instead of characters, spectacles instead of events, and mazes instead of plots. But it is a world that is self-contained, a world that survives under its own unique rules and regulations and not necessarily those of our world. His movies do not require you to suspend your disbelief so much as they require you to engage and engorge your belief, to open up your mind to match his own. Jeunet is full of imagination and, luckily for us, he is able to faithfully reproduce that same world for our benefit. His movies leave you with a grin on your face and a lightness in your soul.

But I have spent many words explaining why I like Jeunet and very little on why I like this movie. Micmacs is as technically proficient as any other Jeunet movie, and perhaps even a bit more ingenious, but it did not have the same oomph as Amélie or A Very Long Engagement. Nor did it have as clear or as relevant a message, at least for me (I found even less here than in Delicatessen). But none of that is a bad thing and none of that diminishes this movie in the slightest. Micmacs is overwhelmingly enjoyable and entertaining, otherworldly in the best possible way, and it is a movie that I would not hesitate to watch over and over again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149361/

The Road (2009)

2/5

The Road is a poorly-made adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. It follows a man (Mortensen) and his son (Smit-McPhee) fighting to survive in a post-apocalyptic world terrorized by nomadic groups of rapists and cannibals. The book is extraordinary, even though its message can be somewhat difficult to decipher. The movie, despite some arresting images, is unimpressive in almost every way and contains some very odd decisions by director John Hillcoat. He uses music in an attempt to bring emotion to a stoic piece, but instead just adds melodrama. He films a birth scene with as much uncomfortable awkwardness as the sex scene in Munich. He uses inane and unnecessary voice-over narration to reiterate what we are already watching on screen. The editing is jarring and stilted. The acting is either overwrought overacting or amateur hour. I'm not saying this is a bad movie, I just see no reason to waste your time watching it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

A Prophet (2009)

4.9/5

Jacques Audiard's A Prophet tells the story of 19-year-old Malik (Rahim). He is sentenced to prison for 6 years for assaulting a cop. He is very rapidly educated on the prison hierarchy and code. On the first day he is kicked and beaten for his sneakers. On the second day he is extended a proposition by Luciani (Arestrup): kill newcomer Reyeb (Yacoubi) or be killed. Liking neither option, he attacks another prisoner in the hopes that he is sent to solitary confinement. But he discovers that Luciani is the prison overlord and he has influence even over the security guards. Malik must accept. He is instructed on how to conceal a razor blade in his mouth. At the right moment, he will grip it between his teeth and slit Reyeb's carotid artery. He practices many times in front of a mirror, every mistake causing blood to flow from his lips. When the time finally comes, he messes up. And it leaves him trembling.

This is only the beginning of the film. It still has 6 years and 2 hours to go. We come to care for Malik. We sympathize with him. And because we like him, we root for him. We want him to rob efficiently, threaten brutally, and kill successfully. We want him to climb the ladder as high as possible to get the revenge he deserves. We quickly forget that he is a criminal. We ourselves get indoctrinated into the values of the prison world, on the importance of power and respect above all else. And when the film ends, we can only watch in silence and awe at the person he becomes.

The movie is impeccably directed, from the visceral cinematography to the tense editing. Every technical aspect in this movie is astounding to see. The film offers plenty of social commentary in its thematics to ponder and discuss, but the acting is where this movie shines. Rahim and Arestrup are absolutely mesmerizing. We believe them every second of the film. From terrified to terrifying and vice versa, these actors play characters who hide their emotions as much as possible and they do it with the necessary subtlety and nuance. Their transformation is so gradual that it turns invisible, believable, and all the more shocking. It is a phenomenal achievement. And one that should not be missed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235166/

Coco Before Chanel (2009)

3/5

Coco Before Chanel, according to IMDb, tells the "story of Coco Chanel's rise from obscure beginnings to the heights of the fashion world." She is played by Audrey Tautou, and she brings a disarmingly innocent smile to a fiercely independent yet loyal woman. She befriends the rich but ugly Balsan (Poelvoorde) before befriending the rich and handsome Boy (Nivola). All the pieces are there--the acting is pitch-perfect, the cinematography and editing were precise, and the ending is beautiful--but it didn't feel as gripping or riveting as I was hoping it would be. Maybe it was because I saw it at 11pm after an exciting Bulls game and some expensive cheap beer (I did in fact nod off for the last 15 minutes, although I watched those final 15 minutes again the next morning), but there was something very bland and boring about this story that I can't quite put my finger on. The whole affair just seemed subdued and formal instead of spicy and fresh. I wanted a little more vivacity and vibrancy for this kind of a story. As it stands, I wasn't too terribly impressed. It works on many levels, just not the ones I needed it to work on.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1035736/

Mother (2009)

4/5

Mother is a Korean film about the mother (Kim) of a mentally challenged man-child (Won) who is accused by the police (Jae-Moon) of killing a young schoolgirl (Na). Of course the mother knows her son could not have done it and will go to great lengths to prove his innocence. As she begins her amateur sleuthing, she stumbles upon the seedy underbelly of her town and the victim's salacious past. She digs past her unsettling revelations and teams up with her son's friend (Jin) to beat the truth out of certain witnesses. But even after you discover the events that happened that fateful night, the movie contains 30 very interesting minutes of a character study that are more provocative than the plot twists that preceded it.

This film, by the director of The Host, is an incredibly tense and atmospheric thriller. Even so, it is surprisingly relationship-driven, with the weirdly intimate and overprotective mother-son interaction providing the foundation and fascination of this awfully strange movie. I don't quite know what to make of it. It lingers in your brain after the final frame and keeps you thinking about the movie, but it also may turn a large portion of its audience away with disgust. While the characters intrigued me, the acting didn't impress me. That may be a result of the directing, which constantly used artsy-fartsy compositions at the cost of fluidity. Still, some of the shots and the editing as a whole were phenomenal. They cut across time and place to similar objects, similar perspectives, or similar themes. But the editing also has its own faults, as the movie was unnecessarily slow and long in some portions. It's impossible to recommend this movie to just anyone who likes murder mysteries and crime thrillers, but it's really unique for a wide range of reasons and there may be something to ponder in here for everyone. As long as they can stomach the more disturbing aspects of the film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216496/

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

4/5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an incredibly immersive tale of mystery and suspense. The environment is dark and dismal, with men arbitrarily assaulting women, raping them, and murdering them in brutal ways. The original title is literally translated to Men Who Hate Women, which is a far more apt title based on the thematics threading themselves through every plot line. Lisbeth Salander (Rapace) is a computer hacker investigating journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist) on trial for a libel suit. Mikael is hired by Henrik Vanger (Taube) to investigate his niece's disappearance from 40 years prior. He believes she was killed by a member of his own family, of which three are neo-Nazis and the rest are cruel and hateful. He has reached a dead-end when Lisbeth, who is still hacking his computer, discovers the answer to the puzzling set of numbers that stopped him. He enlists her help and together they stumble on something far bigger and more disturbing than they first imagined.

Lisbeth is inwardly preoccupied, but incredibly resourceful when the outside world intrudes on her. We imagine Lisbeth's past based on a few facts--she has a probation officer and she was previously in a psychiatric hospital--but we end the film knowing very little about her history with any certainty. We are forced to witness her current abuse, by strangers and by authority figures, in scenes that are difficult to watch. But they are necessary for us to understand her sense of meaning and rightness in the world. I do not believe we are meant to relish the revenge that is taken against these women-hating men, but it is clear that the author believes in some form of justice despite the horrible events that take place. It seems that what Lisbeth represents may be far more important than who she actually is.

The acting was phenomenal, due to Rapace's burning intensity and Nykvist's everyman curiosity. The cinematography and editing suffered from a few mistakes, but on the whole they never detracted from the experience. The cinematics were surprisingly precise, with almost all of the elements combining into a taut, intellectual thriller that kept you guessing until the very end. There are only a few suspects, so it is possible you may have guessed the evildoer before being revealed, but by that time the whole crux of the movie has shifted so that what you thought was fact turns out to be a lie. It very effectively gives us a plot twist that is neither predictable nor gimmicky. This is a well-made movie, unexpected but much appreciated, depressing but hopeful, that will keep you gripped to your seat. Watch it. I plan on watching the sequel while it's still in theaters. Stay tuned.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132620/

Bandslam (2009)

4/5

Bandslam is surprising from beginning to end, which I will attribute to terrible marketing. I--and I think most people who saw the movie--was expecting some sort of cheesy Disney High School Musical battle of the bands movie made for tweens. What I got was a mature coming-of-age story about Will Burton (Connell) and Charlotte Banks (Michalka) that used music as a backdrop and texture for the whole film. The characters are written with intelligence and complexity and portrayed with intimacy and compassion.

We start the movie assuming that Will is a quirky emo high schooler who's sensitive to bullying and obsessed with David Bowie. But as the movie progresses, we find that all of our assumptions are wrong. He is a rare breed of indie rock lover who truly understands music and is able to articulate his appreciation or distaste. Charlotte Banks is the former singer of their high school's popular band Glory Dogs. She befriends Will, but we cannot help but feel she is manipulating the situation for her own ulterior motives. Again we are proven wrong in a very surprising way. It might feel as if the movie is trying to trick you, but it's not. It presents these characters as they are and lets our own preconceived notions fill in the gaps with stereotypes.

The music is excellent. It is a perfect blend of catchy beats and meaningful lyrics. The directing is exceptional. It takes a solid script and adds emotional overtones through smart editing and cinematography choices. It mixes all the elements of a film together effortlessly to create a rich and full experience. I was wholly enveloped in their world: my heart would sink to the floor or be lifted up with each revelation. When I listen to the songs from the movie, they take on more meaning and emotion than most songs because of the events in the movie I associate with them. But the movie is not without its faults. It sometimes felt written and way too tidy for real life. Some parts seemed overwhelmingly improbable. On the whole, however, this movie was an unexpected treasure. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976222/

It's Complicated (2009)

3/5

It's Complicated is a benign piece of entertainment that follows divorced couple Jane (Streep) and Jake (Baldwin) Adler. Jake cheated on Jane 10 years ago with the much-younger Agness (Bell) and ended up marrying her; he is now cheating on his current wife Agness with his ex-wife Jane. Jane isn't convinced that it will work out again with Jake, even if he leaves Agness, and finds a budding romance in her new architect Adam (Martin). She tries balancing her two men, but finds it far too complicated and decides that she must pick one. Who will she pick?

The writing and acting worked well together, delivering impeccable comic timing. Unfortunately, the movie as a whole isn't as funny as I know the writer and actors to be capable of, nor is it as meaningful or interesting. And that is the worst part about the movie for me: I couldn't really understand what the characters were going through. I mean, I could imagine what they were going through, but the movie presented all of its content in such a comical and flamboyant manner that I can't say I'm anywhere closer to understanding divorce than before I saw this movie. I'm not saying the movie has an obligation to do this, and in fact the movie works as a simple 2 hour escape, but I was just hoping that it would be closer to Meyers's previous The Holiday. The movie as a whole turned out rather bland for me (maybe I was just expecting too much), but it will certainly suffice for someone looking for a romantic comedy with old people making out (and undressing).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1230414/

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an all right movie. It's very confusing if you haven't read the books, or if haven't seen the other three or four or five or six or however many movies there were that preceded this one, or if you saw them but you don't remember them. I fall in all three of those categories, and it was very confusing for me. I'm not certain of the plot except that there are some wizards and some bad guys and they are fighting each other. Some people think that Harry is the "Chosen One" but others do not--I don't really know what that means though. Voldemort makes an appearance as the child Tom Riddle. Helena Bonham Carter is evil and can fly around as a cloud of smoke, along with some other people who are dressed equally goth. There's a vanishing closet that's really just a portal to another vanishing closet. That's all I can remember about the plot.

I think this movie was really just there for the ending (where something terrible happens, but I can't reveal what or I would "spoil" the movie). Every other part of the movie is essentially just buying time until what I assume will be a final battle between Voldemort and Harry in the last movie (which will be in two parts to milk as much money out of you as they can). It's just kind of simple, mindless nothing. Some of that nothing is boring, some of it is exciting, some of it is scary, and some of it is funny; it's all equally worthless though. I'm fairly certain you could have skipped this movie and gone on to the next one if you wanted. But the movie is an entertaining one. You probably will not be disappointed if you just want to waste 2.5 hours watching something fun.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/

The Young Victoria (2009)

4/5

Going into the movie, I did not know anything about The Young Victoria. But it surprised me in ways I never expected a movie like this would. It is a period piece set in the early 1800's, as the young Princess Victoria (Blunt) takes on her role as England's new Queen at the age of 18. New and inexperienced, she enlists the aid of Prince Albert (Friend) of Belgium and the Prime Minister of England Lord Melbourne (Bettany). People become concerned that she may be manipulated to do their bidding, and indeed the political intrigue is present for those who like that kind of thing. She grows close to Prince Albert but appears to trust Lord Melbourne more, and indeed there is romance for those who like that kind of thing. But it does not fit snugly into a single genre, and that is what I liked most about this movie. It is simply a retelling of what happened in Queen Victoria's early life, and does not cater to plot conventions and predictable story arcs.

On to the technical aspects: the costuming, makeup, and set design were appropriately detailed for being a period piece, but this movie had so much more to offer. It is superbly directed. The cinematography is spectacular, made even more captivating by the impeccable editing. As complex as the editing can be, it is never confusing (at least, after the first 30 minutes of learning everyone's name and royalty status). The acting was equally remarkable, especially the sensational performance by Blunt. I had seen her before only in bits and pieces of The Devil Wears Prada, but here she was wholly convincing as the independent, unyielding new Queen. She manages to bring empathy and awe to the role of someone struggling against those who would have her do their bidding (quite the opposite of the puppet that Helen Mirren played in The Queen). However, the movie seemed a bit short and a little incomplete. It felt like a slice of life and, quite frankly, it left me wanting more. This movie is exquisitely crafted and intelligently told. I highly recommend it for those looking for good editing, good writing, or just plain good acting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

2/5

Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a mesmerizing acid-trip of a film, but little more. The plot follows the centuries-old Dr. Parnassus (Plummer) and his troupe of storytellers (Garfield, Troyer, Ledger) as they attempt to free the minds and save the souls of modern-day Londoners through his imaginarium. He must win over 5 souls before the devilish Mr. Nick (Waits) wins over 5 souls as part of a wager to save his daughter (Cole) before she turns 16. Yes, it's fairly convoluted and entirely fantastical, but it is precisely this freedom from rules and expectations that make this movie so exhilarating and captivating. Because it is so bizarre, you never know what happens next or how it will end--you are continually drawn along its winding trail until the very end.

But that is also one of the film's flaws. Sometimes it feels drawn out or scatterbrained. And while it keeps stringing you along, you get the sense that most of the questions you have about what exactly is going on will never be answered. As for the other technical aspects, this film is a mixed bag. The acting is competent (as far as I could tell), but the characters are all so unorthodox and otherworldly that it's hard to appreciate the acting that they're doing. Some aspects of the writing and story are fascinating, but the plot overall is unnecessarily tortuous and confusing. The movie as a whole feels like the work of a mad genius, someone so far ahead of everyone else's reality and so far ahead of modern technology that frustratingly incomplete ideas obscure the underlying brilliance. Either that or Gilliam is just crazy. Gilliam has made much better movies; this is nowhere near his best.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

4/5

Because of some middling comments I had overheard about the movie, I was not expecting to love Disney's classically animated The Princess and the Frog as much as I did, but it is an extraordinary film and a pleasure to watch. The plot follows a young girl in New Orleans named Tiana who wants to turn her dream of running her own restaurant into a reality. Prince Naveen, who was recently cut off from his rich parents, visits New Orleans and is intoxicated by the voodoo doctor's fortunes of wealth. He accepts the shadow man's offer of a future of "green," only later realizing that it meant he would be turned into a frog. He hops on over to Tiana, mistakes her for a princess, and kisses her. Unfortunately, it causes her to turn into a frog as well, instead of turning him back into a prince. The rest of the movie details their quest to turn human again and stop the witch doctor from taking over the town and sucking out everyone's souls.

The movie is visually breathtaking. The 2D animation is sharp and smooth--and quite a refreshing departure from the typical animated film of the late 2000's. The story is captivating from beginning to end. There are scares and triumphs, thrills and laughs, in the perfected proportions that can only come from years of cartooning experience. Granted, there are a few unnecessary scenes/side plots (e.g., the three frog hunters), but they add in some fun, excitement, and drama. The characters are intriguing and charismatic; they draw you close with their friendliness, warmth, and emotion. And the story unfolds like a puzzle that gets slowly put together into an awesome tapestry. The plot is not without a few predictabilities and the music is not without some repetitive or forced dynamics, but on the whole this movie has all the elements you remembered and loved about the best Disney movies of the 1990's.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780521/