Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

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/

Rio (2011)

4/5

Rio is an insanely fun adventure flick with a fantastic cast and delightful animation. The movie takes place in Rio, as you might expect, where a blue macaw (Eisenberg) is brought by an ornithologist (Santoro) to mate with a female macaw (Hathaway) and save their species. Unfortunately, the pair are stolen by exotic animal smugglers who want to take them out of the country and sell them to the highest bidder!

The best part about the movie is how beautiful it looks. The cinematography is inventive and liberating, letting us fly through scenes with its feathered cast. The colors are bright and the editing is fine-tuned. The Latin music feels authentic and invigorating. But the characters are generic and the acting is only adequate. I can't help but see the actors instead of the characters. The story isn't the most imaginative in the world, but the script is full of both terrific visual gags and hilarious witticisms. All in all, Rio is a whole lot of fun and a great way to spend an afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1436562/

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/

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is a middling experience from conception to execution. The plot is absolutely ridiculous, starring a bad guy with a more preposterously complicated and ludicrously conceived plan than a James Bond villain. The web is littered with countless reviews describing the innumerable plot holes in this film; my favorite is the "prison" that has no guards whatsoever and has an open hatch where everyone is allowed to attempt escape. (Luckily, this prison also apparently neighbors Gotham City!) In the bad science department, I think it actually one-ups Batman Begins, with its notion that someone's broken vertebrae can be realigned as if it were a shoulder dislocation (you know, because there's no spinal cord running through the "out of place" vertebrae that might be irreparably damaged). Also, our protagonist is absent for about half the film, during which time it turns into a WWII Nazi Germany movie.

And that's just the storyline. The technical aspects of the movie fared no better. Similar to the first one, the action is unintelligible thanks to close-ups, quick cuts, and poor lighting. The intro sequence is, quite honestly, unnecessary garbage. The acting is its own form of mess, except for Caine--who truly blew me away with a performance that should have been reserved for a far better film--and Hathaway. Despite the remarkable failure of the individual cinematic elements, The Dark Knight Rises kept me glued to my seat. Nolan is able to achieve an indescribable anticipation and a palpable excitement, an aura of cool. Unfortunately, it lacks any substantive backing to that nebulous quality, which would surely disappear if I were to see the movie again. Honestly, I cannot recommend this film. Despite all the hype and popularity, it is destined to become a cult classic, loved by a few and forgotten by everyone else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/

One Day (2011)

2/5

One Day feel like a concept film, an experimental trial of style regardless of its impact on content. The movie starts with Emma (Hathaway) on July 15, mid-2000, then reverses back to July 15, 1998 and goes forward year by year until we catch up to the start of the film. The relevance of this day is obfuscated for no particular reason. It initially seems as if it commemorates the day she first meets Dex (Sturgess), as it follows their interactions on that day each year, but the true "secret" is revealed near the end. After that secret is revealed, it goes even further back to uncover even more unseen scenes.

And that is the real problem with the movie. It is mysterious for the sake of being mysterious. It does it to hide the story in the hopes of surprising you at the end, instead of doing it for any thematic benefit. You watch the first half of the film wondering why you're sitting there watching the film at all. This frustration is made worse by the fact that there is no chemistry between the two leads. There is no electricity or excitement. The acting is competent, but there is nothing tying the two together through time and space. They are two independently adequate actors. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how good the technical aspects are (they are decent) because the movie fails to engage us with its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1563738/

Love & Other Drugs (2010)

4/5

Love & Other Drugs is a remarkably tender, heartfelt, and mature "romantic dramedy." The movie focuses on Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal), a budding new sales rep for Pfizer, and his relationship with Maggie Murdock (Hathaway), a young woman recently diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson's. Their relationship is not the simple fare we have become accustomed to in today's romantic comedies, where characters get into predictable, stupid fights over meaningless misunderstandings. Instead it tackles difficult issues, and it does so with humor and poignancy. There is a phenomenal moment in the movie that touched me and moved me far more than I thought it would. It occurs when Maggie finally realizes that her life has meaning outside of her disease and that it is worth living--and when Jamie truly fathoms the repercussions of being in love with a dying woman. The way they react is mesmerizing and agonizing; it is immeasurably sad and simultaneously beautiful.

The movie was not without its flaws. Unfortunately, as with almost every single movie that tackles anything even remotely scientific, there are a few scenes where people just spew arbitrary medical jargon around without any sense as to what they're saying. It's more than frustrating; it's insulting too. Another negative is that there is a heavy dose of nudity and vulgar scenarios/jokes. I didn't mind it personally, but it can makes for an uncomfortable group viewing experience. As for the cinematography and editing, they were above average but not particularly memorable. The tone felt a little haphazard, with the mood jumping around like it didn't know what genre it was, although I haven't decided yet if that's one of the film's shortcomings or assets. Overall, this is a superbly made film, with just the right amounts of laughter and tears. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758752/

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

3/5

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is as weird and darkly comic as all his other movies. The plot follows the young Alice (Wasikowska) after being proposed to in front of a huge party by a wealthy lord named Hamish. She is a young independent soul who doesn't like corsets or stockings and certainly doesn't want to wed someone just because he is rich and she is getting older. But that is the option she is presented with, and the hundreds of guests in attendance seem to be pushing her towards the safe choice. She asks for some time to think it over. And with that time, she manages to fall down a rabbit hole and into "Underland," which she mistakenly calls Wonderland.

The movie is blandly quirky and innocently morbid, but somehow also reassuring and uplifting by the end. There were some funny moments (almost entirely involving Helena Bonham Carter) and some boring moments (almost entirely involved Johnny Depp). The oddness of the story didn't work for me. I found it neither charming nor endearing; it was just a charade to distract the audience from the simpleness of the story. And the visuals, while Burton-esque to a T, were filmed and/or animated poorly. Quite frankly, nobody understands 3D as well as James Cameron does right now. (That scene where Alice is falling down the rabbit hole made me almost vomit from nausea.) At first I thought Tim Burton just made bizarre movies for the sake of being bizarre, but now I'm starting to think that he doesn't really know how to make a movie that isn't bizarre. That, or he doesn't see the point in it. Still, this is a pretty entertaining movie. Watch it if you're a Burton or Depp fanboy, but don't expect anything grand.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/

Valentine's Day (2010)

3/5

Uhh, I have no idea why Valentine's Day has been getting such terrible reviews, but it is utterly undeserving of such negativity. It was a fine romantic comedy, equal parts predictable (Kutcher and Garner) and equal parts unpredictable (Cooper and Roberts). It had cliches, but it also had surprises. (Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Ashton Kutcher plays a charismatic hero with aplomb and sympathy.) And it made me laugh and smile, which is exactly what it set out to do.

The plot is too complicated to type out here (or maybe I just don't remember all the details), but that doesn't really matter. Just know that it's about a bunch of men and women who get into and out of relationships on Valentine's Day. The technical aspects are nothing to write home about. The characters were simple but the acting was good. Some of the stories were not as good as some of the others, but the ones that were good were very good. There was some repetition and it felt just a tad too long, but all in all it was a solid romantic comedy. Watch this movie if you're interested in it; I don't think you'll be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0817230/

Get Smart (2008)

3/5

Get Smart is one of many modern movie adaptations of old TV shows. I've never seen the original, but I'm glad for it (apparently a number of reviewers find it to be unfaithful). It's a spy movie spoof about a bumbling new field agent chasing after terrorist bad guys. The story is pretty bare bones. Naturally, the music, cinematography, and editing are all adequate and forgettable. But it's a great combination of hilarity and action. The best part about this movie is the characters, the interactions between them, and the actors portraying them. I love Steve Carell in everything he does. I'm not a fanboy--he just hasn't let me down. Ever. If you love Steve Carell, you will love this movie. If you don't, I don't know who you are or why you're reading this, because you're obviously not my friend. Anyway. Just know that this is a very entertaining, very light, action comedy movie. And enjoy!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425061/