It Follows (2014)

3/5

The plot of It Follows centers around Jay (Monroe) and her family and friends. After having sex with a boy (Weary), she discovers that he has passed something on to her, something that makes her the target of a sinister force that wants to kill her. The force can take on any human form, from a loved one to a stranger, and it can only walk--never run--towards its next victim.

It Follows is a very interesting take on a horror movie. It's a film with a clever premise that is inherently fascinating and intriguing but one that never manages to capitalize on its own initial potential. It's a modern film that feels very much set in the late 80's, with ominous, overbearing synth music reminiscent of Michael Mann's Manhunter and slow, overbearing super-long zooms.

It has some very impressive qualities, including more than adequate special effects. By setting the film in Detroit, it provides an eerie and haunting backdrop behind the main event. There are two scenes of incredible tension and uncertainty--one on a beach and one in a pool--that stand out in my mind. I love the way the film forces you to watch the background of every scene, scanning for a body gradually closing in on the camera. But it's also really, really, really weird: from the bizarre apparel teens wear to the clamshell e-readers they use. And the filmmakers have a seeming obsession with body fluids and the idea of sexual contamination. The movie is unsettling in many ways, but it never quite delivers on what it always seems to be building up to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3235888/

The Internship (2013)

3/5

The Internship is a fairly predictable buddy comedy that I've come to expect from the likes of Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn. The movie focuses on two middle-aged salesmen who lose their job and apply for an internship at Google in the hopes of rebooting their career. As you might expect, they have no technical background but a wealth of people skills and they eventually triumph in the face of much smarter but less experienced college-age kids. The movie has its fair share of laughs, romance, and feel-good moments. There's honestly nothing surprising at all about this movie. It's a light piece of fluff that will brighten your day if you have it on in the background while doing some actual work.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/

Into the Woods (2014)

3/5

Into the Woods is a musical fairy tale that revolves around a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt) who cannot seem to get pregnant. They discover that a curse of infertility has been placed on them by the witch living next door (Streep). The only way to reverse it is to bring her ingredients from other fairy tales: Rapunzel's hair, Little Red Riding Hood's little red riding hood, Jack and the Beanstalk's white cow, and Cinderella's slipper.

The film version of Into the Woods suffers from the fact that it was made by Disney. The play's raison d'être is to satirize the overly-romanticized fairy tales on which Disney prides itself, to make them darker and dig deeper into their sentimental "happily ever afters." Disney's version is no longer edgy; all the adulteries and deaths are cleaned up and hidden so that the film will be appropriate for little kids. There is one glaring exception to this general sentiment and that is the Big Bad Wolf. Johnny Depp somehow manages to turn the character of a hungry wolf into a stalker pedophile, which would be uncomfortable to watch in any film but is downright disturbing in a Disney film.

As if that wasn't enough to ruin the movie, they cut out my favorite part. In the original production, the narrator eventually becomes part of the action and gets killed in the ensuing chaos. There is no narrator in Disney's movie. (Well, there is, but he's not a character involved in the story.) The worst!

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

Rio 2 (2014)

3/5

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

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

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

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

Curly Sue (1991)

3/5

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

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

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

22 Jump Street (2014)

3/5

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

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

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

3/5

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

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

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

The Signal (2014)

3/5

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

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

Maleficent (2014)

3/5

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

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

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

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

About Last Night (2014)

3/5

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

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

Godzilla (2014)

3/5

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

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

A pretty good movie otherwise.

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

Neighbors (2014)

3/5

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

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

Don Jon (2013)

3/5

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

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

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

Epic (2013)

3/5

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

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

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

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

3/5

Disney's Saving Mr. Banks is an expectedly heartwarming story about the creation of the Mary Poppins movie. Walt Disney (Hanks) has been trying for decades to woo P.L. Travers (Thompson) into giving them the rights to adapt her Mary Poppins books for the silver screen. Due to recent financial difficulties, she finally agrees to meet with the Disney songwriters (Novak, Schwartzman, Whitford) as long as she gets the final say in what ends up in the film. Upon first blush, she appears to be a crotchety old fart with a bug up her butt; she is senselessly rigid and unreasonable in her demands. But as the movie progresses she opens up, first to her chauffeur (Giamatti) and then to Disney himself. We discover what her childhood was like, why she wrote the Mary Poppins stories, and why she clings so closely to the words she put on the page.

Immediately after exiting the theater, I remember thinking how life-affirming and rewarding the movie felt. But looking back, it seems extraordinarily Hollywood-ized. Disney is basically advertising itself, which heavily limits how much we might believe that this was "based on a true story." If you've seen the trailer, there really is nothing particularly surprising about Saving Mr. Banks, from the saccharine atmosphere to the predictable storyline. After all, the ending "reveal" is so obvious they made it the title of the movie.

But the movie is not about twists and mysteries; it's about characters and their motivations. And there again the movie stumbles. Travers feels like an obstacle the entire time, who is eventually overcome by American bravado and intelligence, instead of a complex character with nuance and subtlety. Instead of framing the movie as a character study, Hancock directs it so conservatively that it loses the depth that Thompson worked so hard to infuse in her character. There is so much more to P.L. Travers than her childhood, but that is all we get to see. The movie rides on her ability to generate empathy within the audience members, and Hancock shoots himself in the foot by making her the enemy at the outset.

Now, that's not to say that this isn't an entertaining or enjoyable film. It very much is. It's delightful and funny too. And it will have you reaching for your tissue every once in a while. But it doesn't feel honest to me. It feels deceptive and inauthentic. And it's such a shame because so many fine actors deliver impeccable performances here. It's a good movie, but not as good as it could have been.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140373/

White Christmas (1954)

3/5

White Christmas is a whimsical musical from the 50's set after World War II and starring Bing Crosby. That's about all you need to know to get a sense of what it's like. There is nothing inspired or creative about this film. It feels like it was churned out of the Hollywood studio machine--and almost certainly was. The plot follows two soldiers (Crosby, Kaye) who take up a performing career after the war. They meet two singing sisters (Ellen, Clooney) and unexpectedly find themselves performing together at an empty hotel run by their old commanding officer (Jagger). Wanting to do something special for him, they decide to film a live TV special there without letting him know.

The movie is decidedly middle of the road. The acting is flat--somehow deadpan with a smirk, like they know they're being filmed--and the cinematography is bland. The story is straightforward but tepid, although it has a fair number of tear-jerking scenes and laugh-out-loud moments. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever find myself truly attached to war movies because I never had to go through anything resembling war. I just don't have a connection to the subject matter and cannot appreciate it as much as someone who does.

I'm not quite sure why it's a Christmas classic, because there are far better movies that fit the bill. I guess this one has singing in it, so I suppose it's got that going for it. The songs are kind of catchy at first, but in retrospect quickly become forgettable and meaningless. (I would argue the same is true about Singin' in the Rain, which I love.) At the end of the day, I'd rather watch Holiday Affair than White Christmas during the next winter season, although neither of them really wowed me. White Christmas gets a solid meh from me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047673/

Frozen (2013)

3/5

Disney's Frozen is a commercially-successful princess movie chock-full of uplifting songs and adorable animation. And while it has its charms, it just didn't satisfy any of my expectations. For me, it's fairly middle of the road. I have a lot of issues with it--first and foremost being that a lot of it simply doesn't make sense--so I'll go on a short rant before I come to my conclusion.

1. The relationship between the sisters feels inauthentic. As if the mere fact that they are sisters is enough that they display unconditional love for each other. Maybe that's how Disney stories have always been and I haven't been paying attention, but it just didn't feel real for me.
2. Why are there trolls? Why do they possess certain magical properties and not others? What purpose do they serve? And, most importantly, what makes them "love experts"?
3. Why is Olaf the snowman so absurd? He is not merely comic relief; he is the epitome of non sequitur. How and why does he exist at all? Even visually, he seems out of place in the film. In terms of mood, he's even more nonsensical.
4. I find myself opposed to the morals of the film's conclusion. The suspicious character, who does not seem particularly bad, is imprisoned. The truly evil murderous villain, on the other hand, is simply sent back home for his family to punish. Is that really the message we want children to get out of this movie?
5. The songs feel more like Broadway songs than Disney songs. They're extremely dynamic with a full sound and mature voice behind them. They're fantastic songs, but they don't fit comfortably within the Disney canon.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the movie is perfectly adequate but not particularly special. It will entertain and it will delight, but it feels so haphazardly constructed that I cannot imagine it will stand the test of time. It's fine. Most people will like it. But it's ultimately a distraction; it is not Disney's reclamation of success.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294629/

Holiday Affair (1949)

3/5

Holiday Affair is a sentimental Hollywood holiday story with enough cute kids and Christmas cheer to pull at your heartstrings and make you swoon. Janet Leigh plays an indiscreet "comparison shopper" who gets caught by a kind and generous salesman named Steve (Mitchum) when she tries to return a toy train set the day after she buys it. Instead of turning her in, Steve gives her a pass and ends up getting fired. He quickly falls in love with her and her young son (Gebert), but soon discovers that she's already engaged to a perfectly adequate lawyer named Carl (Corey) with plans to get married several days later on New Year's.

The movie is fairly straightforward with a very simple premise: how will these two lovebirds end up together? But it challenges us to find a solution to the love triangle and it somehow surprises us with the only solution possible. It seems to hurdle toward an impossibility, but deftly twists around the curve at a steady pace. Just thinking about it makes me smile even now. It's not the best shot, the best edited, or the best acted movie of its day. Not even close. But its story has charm and its actors have electricity. And while it's an enjoyable enough holiday movie, I'm not sure it's good enough to make the yearly Christmas roster.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041473/

The Sunset Limited (2011)

3/5

Cormac McCarthy's The Sunset Limited, as adapted by Tommy Lee Jones, is an interesting story. White (Jones) is a retired professor who attempts suicide by jumping in front of the titular train. Black (Jackson) is an ex-convict who rescues White from death and brings him back to his apartment. And that's where the movie begins, as they start to talk. It retells the age-old battle between cynicism and hope, atheism and religion. Everything up until the ending seems tried and true, an ancient cliché, but it brings it to a close in a way that seems novel and intriguing.

The cinematography is surprisingly inventive and entertaining, despite taking place in a single room in real time. The editing keeps the pacing tight and, as far as directing goes, Jones does an expert job. But the problem with the movie is that it's overly-talky. I wouldn't expect anything less from Cormac McCarthy, but it's a little excessive in a film. What reads well doesn't always screen well. That is really the problem with The Sunset Limited. Although his technical feats are much appreciated, I would have hoped Jones could have adapted it a little bit better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/

World War Z (2013)

3/5

World War Z aims to give a realistic telling of the human fight for survival against a zombie epidemic, led by A-list celebrity and veteran actor Brad Pitt. It is reportedly based on a book of the same name, but its entire third act was completely rewritten for the movie. The action is quite thrilling--brimming with intensity and excitement--and the alternate universe they created feels wholly immersive, but I'm afraid that's where the positives end. There is no real character development to speak of and the acting is as flat as asystole. (Side note: Google just gave me a red underline for asystole, which means that Google is an ortho resident.) The rewritten final act feels decidedly empty and unsatisfying, although the book's version might have felt even emptier from what I've read online. All in all, World War Z is a mediocre action flick that somehow manages to feel a little more down to earth than the obscene spectacles of summer blockbusters while still failing to elicit more than gut reactions to action scenes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/