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/

Drinking Buddies (2013)

3/5

Drinking Buddies is a fairly standard indie romantic dramedy with quirky characters and a mildly unique perspective. The plot follows two brewery co-workers, Luke (Johnson) and Kate (Wilde), who start to develop feelings for the other person, despite both being in relationships. On a camping trip with the two couples, Luke's partner (Kendrick) and Kate's partner (Livingston) share a kiss. How Luke and Kate react, how they involve themselves in the other person's life, and how alcohol affects their decisions is what the movie focuses on.

Whereas most Hollywood romances tend to be intentionally escapist, this movie grounds itself firmly in reality. All four leads deliver well-crafted, nuanced performances. It is who they are, not the situations they find themselves in, that gives the movie its voice. The characters are not perfect, and their decisions often frustrate us, but their charm and humor win us over. The character development is so warmly authentic that it is hard to stay mad at them.

But the movie as a whole, whether it's because of the worn-out, too-familiar storyline or the plodding progression, was not particularly compelling. The ending is not what I was expecting or hoping for, but perhaps that is the point of the movie and the reason for its title. Like its characters, the movie has its ups and downs, but ends up squarely in the middle of the pack.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265398/

End of Watch (2012)

4/5

End of Watch is a gritty police drama that combines elements of realism and truth with humor and warmth. It follows two young officers (Gyllenhaal, Peña) patrolling the streets of LA together. Instead of focusing on the minutiae of cop life, it centers on the relationship between the two leads and simply explores where their job takes them. The writing is filled with harrowing experiences that make your heart stop beating for a few seconds. The movie is exciting, thrilling, terrifying, and heartfelt.

The editing is just about perfect. It collapses time to focus on the most startling arrests and the biggest personal life events: weddings, birthdays, etc. It uses the found footage concept to perfection, unlike Chronicle. Chronicle took the concept too far, to the point where it impeded the storytelling and lessened your enjoyment of the film. Here, it provides a framework, a context, a setting. It gives shape and meaning to the story instead of forcing the story in one direction or becoming the story itself.

But, honestly, the actors are the reason to see this movie. Gyllenhaal and Peña give truly outstanding and memorable performances. They each bring their own individual charisma to the screen, and together they have a natural chemistry that takes your breath away. The movie is far from perfect, with numerous unbelievable scenarios and occasional unclear motivations. Be that as it may, the movie was a joy to watch and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1855199/

Pitch Perfect (2012)

2/5

Pitch Perfect is a movie firmly rooted in one point in time: now. I realized while watching it that there will never be a repeat viewing that I enjoy as much as this initial one. The problem is that much of the film's excitement stems from their covers and mash-ups of the current top 40 hit songs. In a few years, people won't even remember some of these songs--the whole movie will lose what little edge and relevance it can claim as its own. It's already a film version of the fad known as Glee, so what hope does it have of standing on its own in the future?

Granted, it's not a bad movie. There's plenty of humor to go around. Rebel Wilson, whose character first horrified me in Bridesmaids, is growing on me as the (incredibly bright) future of comedy. Anna Kendrick does a great job with what she's given. But what she was given was a mediocre script and unimaginative dialogue. A lot of the humor is awkward or misguided and the jokes fall flat, which is probably the most embarrassing thing that can be said of any form of comedy. The songs are catchy and performed well, but most will have no staying power. All in all, this is a forgettable film that fails to impress on any but the most basic qualities of entertainment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981677/

50/50 (2011)

3/5

50/50 tells the story of Adam (Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old who discovers he has a rare form of cancer that carries with it a 50% chance of death. His reaction is a mixture of numbness and distance; other people react differently. His girlfriend (Howard) cheats on him, his best friend (Rogen) uses the diagnosis to pick up girls, and his mother (Huston) constantly nags him to let her take care of him. He sees a therapist (Kendrick) to help sort out his emotions, but she is inexperienced and unprepared for the relationship they develop.

The acting by Huston and Kendrick was phenomenal. Every single time they were on screen, I was astounded and moved by the emotions on display. Rogen's acting was his typical fare, boisterous and hilarious. Gordon-Levitt was probably the weakest link, playing a relatively boring character to mediocrity. The writing was basic and plodding at some points and profoundly touching at others (my favorite scene in the movie is where Adam talks to his father before his surgery, because it is the only time he is directly addressed after being practically ignored or treated as a joke throughout the film).

For me, the movie's biggest problem lies in the medical setting. Maybe I'm biased, but I just could not believe how the doctors treated him; it felt like unrealistic melodrama and pity-mongering. On top of all that are countless medical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Granted, 50/50 feels true enough for most people watching, and it's about mood and not medicine, but it bugged me incessantly and prevented me from enjoying the movie. Overall, it's good at tugging at your heartstrings while tickling your funny bone, but I would avoid it if you're at all familiar with the medical field.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306980/

New Moon (2009)

1/5

New Moon is a bad movie. This is the extent to which I know the plot: the vampire (Pattinson) makes up some reason to leave the town, which of course makes the pale girl (Stewart) depressed. She starts getting closer with her werewolf neighbor (Lautner) and then has to choose between them. There's little else in the 2+ hour movie, although I did learn a few things during the course of watching it. First, Kristen Stewart is ugly when she cries. I think she's ugly all the time, but apparently that sentiment is not as universally shared as I thought. Second, Taylor Lautner has a fairly fit physique. I know this because EVERY SINGLE SCENE with him in it had him shirtless. Kyle thinks his back muscles make him look like a camel or something. Third, Robert Pattinson has kind of a grotesque, gargoylish, sickly frame that makes me think he should see a doctor for anorexia or heroin addiction. Fourth, the CGI werewolves looked like they have really fat necks. It was weird. Oh, and I presume the director had a call for extra pauses, and asked the male pauses to have sex with the female pauses, because there are a bajillion pregnant pauses in this movie intended to simulate fierce thinking and emo angst. Nearly half an hour is wasted on long, drawn out dialogue where the teenagers cannot find the words they want to say. The movie has a lot of forced writing, forced acting, and forced action. It's a round peg of a book being forced into a square hole of a movie. I can't wait for the third one!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259571/

Up in the Air (2009)

4/5

Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a film that sidesteps your expectations and delivers something surprisingly moving. The plot follows a professional "termination engineer" Ryan Bingham (Clooney) as he fires employees for bosses who don't want to do it themselves. He takes prides in the number of frequent flier miles he earns and the freedom he enjoys by not tying himself to a home or to friends. On a trip he meets Alex (Farmiga) and they begin a casual romance. His paradigm becomes endangered when a new Cornell grad named Natalie Keener (Kendrick) proposes online employment transition, allowing them to save 85% on travel costs. Clooney is forced to take her with him on his next few trips to show her the tricks of the trade and why her online termination plan will never succeed.

The acting was fine, but some of the characters' interactions seemed a bit too forced and written. Farmiga's character was confusing for the sake of being confusing, to produce the illusion of complexity and to advance the plot, instead of feeling realistic and true. It took me a little while after seeing the movie to realize that the focus is not on Clooney and Farmiga's relationship. It is instead on Clooney's worldview, his vulnerability, and his transition into the future. And quite frankly, that's much more interesting than a movie about their relationship anyway.

The intro credit sequence was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. Never in my life did I imagine myself saying that for a series of aerial images of the American heartland with "This Land Is Your Land" playing in the background. But they made magic out of nothing, it seems. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was never quite as good as those first two minutes. The comedy was brisk, producing some clever moments as well as some laugh out loud moments, but after a while it seemed to depend a bit too much on the use of swear words as punchlines. The movie is a good one, but understand that it may not be about the same thing you think it's about. Also, it just doesn't live up to the bar Reitman set for himself with his amazing previous films, Thank You for Smoking and Juno.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/