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/

Les Misérables (2012)

4/5

Tom Hooper's Les Misérables is an utterly absorbing musical from beginning to end. I went into this movie knowing nothing of the story, having never heard a song outside of its trailer, and was entirely entranced and enchanted the entire time. If you know nothing about it, I recommend going in blind and letting it tell its own story instead of having me attempt to simplify it into 1-2 sentences here. Not that the plot itself is really all that special, there are just a few surprises pretty early on I was grateful to have discovered on my own.

The music is superb, with Anne Hathaway's heartbreaking rendition of I Dreamed a Dream utterly stealing the show. I honestly almost choked watching her sing; all I could do to breathe was let out shallow little gasps in between her bravura vocals. Hearing this performance is worth the price of admission alone. On My Own, performed by Samantha Barks, is a close second. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe give compelling performances as well, although I wasn't too impressed with their singing. This is apparently the first film to record music live on set on this large a scale, and I'm convinced that it's the way to go. It lets the actors emote a million times better than they could have in a sound booth 3 months before filming.

However, the movie has its flaws. It is paced like a musical rather than a film. Each song basically serves as a scene. Years pass in between songs and the audience is allowed a quick exposition of the intervening time before launching into yet another song. It's a little disorienting and unsettling. The camerawork is a little aggressive as well, almost taking on its own (unwanted) personality and characteristics. Still, I enjoyed the film greatly and felt it was a terrific introduction to the musical. Consider me a fan, because I plan on listening to the soundtrack multiple times before seeing it again in theaters in preparation for seeing it live on stage.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/

Letters to Juliet (2010)

3/5

Letters to Juliet is the prototypical romantic comedy, from the awkward meet-cute to the conflict between two loves to the cheesy finale. And quite frankly, the formula works. It was a light, enjoyable flick with charismatic characters and playful hearstring-tugging. The story follows Sophie (Seyfried) with her fiancé Victor (García Bernal) in Verona on a pre-wedding honeymoon in preparation for the opening of his new restaurant. Instead of spending time with Sophie, Victor ends up trying all the foods and wines from Italy on his own, while she begins to get involved with the "secretaries of Juliet." Strangers write letters to Juliet and attach them to a wall, and the secretaries collect them all and write back. Sophie finds one letter that had been lost for 50 years and writes back, only to have the original writer Claire (Redgrave) show up with her grandson Charlie (Egan) on a quest for her long-lost love.

As you can imagine (and visibly see in the trailer), the old woman finds her long lost love and the young girl starts to get close to the young boy. I'm sure you can guess how the movie will end, but the point of the movie is precisely that you get exactly what you want out of watching it. I could complain about minor details like the slow pacing, sloppy writing, and confusing camerawork time after time, but the technical details simply don't matter for this movie. The movie's charm is in its inhabitants, and their relationships with each other, and that is really something to cherish about this film. The people are friendly and funny (how Claire treats her grandson, how Victor talks about food) and their connections--while far from unique--are precisely what we want our own connections to be. And that is where this film succeeds; it gives us exactly what we want, and it does so in the beautiful country of Italy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892318/

Dear John (2010)

2/5

Dear John is a bad movie. It is based on a Nicholas Sparks novel, and I presume that novel is bad as well, because the bad part about this movie is its story. The cinematography was fine, the acting was fine, but the story sucked. The story starts with an army sergeant (Tatum) during a 2-week leave back home with his dad (Jenkins) in Charleston. On the beach, he meets a girl who also went back home to Charleston for spring break from college (Seyfried). They fall madly in love and, at the conclusion of the 2 weeks, he of course has to go back to the army and she of course has to go back to school. They promise that they will write each other as often as is humanly possible and things go just peachily at first. But where would the romance be without some trials and tribulations along the way that they must overcome? Do they overcome it? Ah, I guess you'll have to see it to find out what happens next.

But I don't think anyone should see this movie, so I'll just tell you what happens next: she sends him a Dear John letter and tells him she's engaged to someone else. Oh no! The problem with this movie is that it sets itself up as a movie with the potential to tug at your heartstrings and ultimately satisfy your desire for their love to be fulfilled. Instead it is painful obstacle after obstacle until they finally smack into a brick wall and give up. It is not a story of true love triumphing in the face of uncontrollable external factors; it is the story of affection and need failing in the face of inconvenience. And don't talk to me about the ending. The ending is not a redemption; it is sap and sentimentality without any resonance of truth. It is the author writing a convenient end to an inconvenient setup. It is illogical, frustrating, and out of context. Don't watch this movie. You will either be disappointed or angry, and neither is what you want to feel after emerging from the theater.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0989757/