About Time (2013)

4.9/5

About Time is billed as a romantic comedy in the same vein as Notting Hill and Love Actually (appropriately so, since they were all written and directed by Richard Curtis). And while it is a remarkably affecting and effective romantic comedy, it is so much more than that. Curtis spends equal amounts of time on romantic love and familial love, on joy and sorrow, on birth and death. It is a grand opera, with equal parts comedy and tragedy, but it never loses sight of the individual. It captures life's little moments, as experienced by a hopeless romantic, and lets us treasure them.

On his 21st birthday, Tim (Gleeson) is told by his father (Nighy) that he has the ability to travel back in time. After a chance meeting with Mary (McAdams), he believes he has found true love. But he later undoes the entire encounter by accident when trying to fix another friend's problem. And so he begins to understand the true nature and the dramatic consequences of his newfound power.

Domhnall Gleeson is absolutely astonishing, bringing an instant charm and vulnerability to the screen. He is the beating heart of the movie and he knocks it out of the park. Rachel McAdams is, most surprisingly, the frumpiest she's ever been in a movie--and she plays it extraordinarily well. I cannot think of a more comforting or attractive version of her than in this movie. Nighy shows his veteran chops, being both stoic and drained, loving and firm. His life story is written in his small actions, his posture, his tone. The cast has an extraordinary chemistry that is nearly impossible to replicate. This movie must have been as magical to make as it feels to watch.

About Time is a whirlwind of emotion. It yanks at the heartstrings in just the right amounts, without feeling melodramatic or manipulative. There is a rare humanity that ebbs beneath every scene and fills the movie with empathy. This is about love, about growing up, about changing but being true to yourself. There are some sappy parts, for sure, and parts that defy the movie's own time travel logic, but they never hamper your enjoyment of the film. It's a movie made for the gut, not the head, and it hits its mark perfectly. About Time is a special movie and one that I plan on enjoying again and again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2194499/

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

3/5

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a fairly predictable feel-good movie about a group of exceptionally uninspired characters who, for various personal reasons, all end up at the titular Indian resort for the elderly. One is looking for his long-lost love (Wilkinson), one is recovering from the loss of a loved one (Dench), one couple is examining possible retirement homes (Nighy, Wilton), one Lothario (Pickup) and one gold-digger (Imrie) are looking for partners. Oh, and of course, one is a racist who actually has a heart of gold (Smith), shuttled off to a foreign country for reasons well beyond her control.

All in all, the movie is entertaining and enjoyable. It has its moments of laughter and bittersweet tenderness. And it ends with a particularly stirring image. But for all the tearjerking, it's a rather simple exercise in plotting and characterization. It feels more like a postcard of India filled with caricatures than a believable story. The characters simply don't feel realistic; they change the whole course of their life based on a few days in a foreign country. But unlike this movie, people don't actually change so dramatically after going on a vacation and being exposed to new and different ideas. Even people who realize that something needs to change in order for them to be happy don't do it willy-nilly. (And I still can't for the life of me figure out why the racist lady all of a sudden becomes un-racist.) It's fine as far as entertainment goes, but it doesn't feel like it holds much substance in the end.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1412386/

Rango (2011)

3/5

Rango tells the story of a lizard (Depp) who stumbles into a Western. The town of Dirt is inhabited by other similarly-sized creatures, although sometimes it's really difficult to tell what kind of animal each character is supposed to be, and they are in the midst of a water shortage crisis. Rango manages to earn himself a sheriff's star by unwittingly taking out the town's predator and is soon tasked by the mayor (Beatty) with giving the townspeople hope in the face of rapidly dwindling resources. They must find out who is stealing their water and why before it's too late.

The acting is solid, the animation is fun, and the pacing is fluid. The plot is essentially a rehashing of Chinatown with the occasional twist and turn to make it a little bit more exciting and kid-friendly in the hopes that it doesn't feel predictable. Unfortunately, it is predictable. Adding failed plan after failed plan in the last 10 minutes doesn't make it surprising. It just makes it painful for everyone waiting for the film to end.

The best part about this movie is probably the character of Rango, who seems to be able to confabulate on the fly in a very entertaining manner. It makes for a clever script with sharp dialogue, including some excellent jokes, but on the whole I didn't get much out of it. Ultimately, the film tried too hard to satisfy too many different genres that it never really impressed me on any one of them. All in all, this is a strange but fairly mediocre film that entertains but doesn't stick with you. Watch it if it sounds interesting, but don't go out of your way to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is an all right movie, just like its predecessor. It is exceedingly and unnecessarily confusing for people who haven't read the books, even if you have struggled to keep up with the movies. (I have not even done that, as I just now realized that I have never seen the third, fourth, or fifth movie.) Unlike its predecessor, however, there is finally some content and plot progression. Even though the plot is mind-numbing, it piqued my interest enough for me to read up on characters' backstories on Wikipedia for a good 1-2 hours after the movie. Perhaps one reason I found the plot to be so lackluster is that I've seen it all before--only better--in a little fantasy series entitled The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter seems to have borrowed so extensively from that franchise, in fact, that it also picked up the same plodding pace and heavy atmosphere.

The movie has more than its fair share of flaws. The mood seemed to jump from terrifying horror to child-like comedy at the drop of a hat. It felt as if a bunch of different people gave their input for each scene and the director didn't bother trying to unite it all into a coherent whole. The visual appearance of the film also suffered from poor directing choices. The action sequences were nothing more than poor special effects experiments. And during those CGI fiascoes, it was usually impossible to tell what was going on thanks to unnecessarily rapid cutting and equally unnecessarily close shots. And, for better or worse, this film is so much more "mature" (i.e., bleak and dismal) compared to the early Harry Potter films. All in all, I was appropriately planted to my seat while watching the movie, but mostly because it made me want to find out about all the good stuff that didn't make it into the movie. As for the film itself, I can only recommend it to people who are already die-hard Harry Potter fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/

Valkyrie (2008)

4/5

Bryan Singer's Valkyrie is a superbly-made thriller based on the true story of Operation Valkyrie, an attempt by German officers to assassinate Hitler and stage a coup against the SS/Gestapo. As we all know, the operation failed, but I had no idea how close it was to succeeding. If only this one small thing had been different, if only that one person had done something else, and the entire course of human history could have been so dramatically altered. Watching this movie, I felt that tension, that what-if, that hope that the past could be rewritten. Singer has not only crafted an exhilarating thriller, but has also managed to make us forget what actually happened, if only for a moment.

I have no idea how historically accurate this movie is, and can only assume it is more inaccurate than accurate. That doesn't bother me. Some people may have come into the movie expecting a historical drama, and it may bother those people, but the movie is no such thing. It is a first-rate thriller, and knowing that will help you appreciate the elements that add to the suspense and forgive any poetic license or lack of characterization. The movie did what it set out to do expertly. Of all Singer's direction, what stands out most is the pacing and mood. We are drawn in so intimately to the plot, to every minuscule victory and defeat, that we fail to realize our knuckles getting whiter from clenching our fists so tightly in anticipation of the events to come. Every other facet of the film is either above average or at the very least adequate. Despite being much-maligned in a number of scathingly negative reviews, I found Cruise's performance to be "perfectly satisfactory," to quote Ebert's review. I was a bit perplexed by the inclusion of certain unnecessary scenes, but they were few and far between and easily forgivable. All in all, this delivered on every expectation I had going in. Any World War II buffs looking to learn more about Operation Valkyrie might want to stick to the History Channel and pass on this movie. But if you're a fan of suspense and were intrigued by the trailer, I highly recommend you check this out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

3/5

After the atrocity that was Pirates 2, I told myself I wouldn't see the third one. But I did anyway. Partly because Sameer said it was pretty good, but mostly because I had the option to see it in Blu-Ray. Here are my conclusions: Blu-Ray is amazing. Pirates 3 is okay.

The best thing about Pirates 3 is how pretty it is. The striking cinematography combines seamlessly with the special effects. And it is breathtaking in high definition. (The text was so crisp!) The second best thing is the humor. The drama and tension are very regularly punctuated by comic relief that I found hilarious. (I was especially happy when I discovered that Ragetti, the pirate with the wooden eye, was played by the same actor who played Gareth on the UK version of The Office.) The third best thing is the action. It was always fun, mostly because it was so utterly preposterous and fantastical. Also the music worked pretty well.

The worst thing about the movie was how unnecessarily convoluted the plot was. I had no idea what was going on. Ever. About an hour and a half through, I gave up, paused the movie, and forced everyone else to explain to me what was going on. That took about 20 minutes. Then there was another hour and a half of movie. Which brings me to the second worst thing about the movie. The length. It is unnecessarily long. This is probably to deal with the unnecessarily convoluted plot. But there are also literally about 30 minutes that could have been taken out without any effect on the movie, except making it better. Also, I'm sick of movies that lead into the sequel at the end. That also happened at the end of Heroes, season 1. And that show sucks.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449088/

Hot Fuzz (2007)

4.9/5

Hot Fuzz is the first movie I saw in theaters after Grindhouse where I felt like I got my money's worth, and then some. (It was also the first movie I saw in theaters after Grindhouse, not counting Cannes.) From start to finish, there was never a dull or boring moment. The dialogue was witty and peppered with multiple references to I don't even know how many movies, many of them classics (2 that I caught and remember from Chinatown, 1 from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and at least 3 from The Departed). Every single time I recognized one of them, I smiled so wide I almost couldn't focus on the rest of the dialogue (partly because they race through it, as is typical of British humor). The story didn't rely on these homages, though; it had a life and soul of its own (and plot, as much as any action movie can have a plot of its own these days). The music and action was extremely well done; I didn't realize such a funny movie could also be so tense. The cinematography and editing were also excellent, even ignoring the homages and considering the camerawork and cutting on their own merits. The acting was also quite good. And the best part about this movie is the replay value. I can watch this many more times (and very much want to right now) and catch a ton of different things each time. It's layered not unlike an onion, and that is a sure reason I will come back to it time and time again.

As always with any British movie, sometimes their accents made it difficult to hear them and therefore get some of the jokes and plot points. Being a comedy-spoof-action movie, it doesn't have much staying power or meaning. When it does try to go for that dramatic message, however, the entire movie slows down a bit too much and it isn't very convincing. I do admire that they're trying though, but I don't know how well it fits. The character list is massive and mostly forgettable, with some characters clearly being superfluous--I don't know why that many people were in this movie at all. It is at times shockingly and extravagantly gory, like Shaun of the Dead, but it was less expected in this movie. Overall though, these are pretty small and fictitious negatives about the movie, so I strongly recommend you go out and see this as soon as you are able.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425112/

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

4/5

I found Shaun of the Dead to be a very entertaining movie. I laughed more than I thought I would and I was on the edge of my seat more than I thought I would be. (To be honest, I had no idea what to expect.) It is a British movie, and as such has British humor, which I like. I think the reason that this movie was so successful is because it's so inventive. It is like almost no other movie I have seen. Yes, it tries to incorporate more genres than it can handle, but I don't think the point was to be a romantic comedy and a zombie horror movie and a spoof, but to mix those into a wholly new genre. It's able to create a world that is believable in the same way that fantasy worlds can be believable. The characters just fit in the worlds so well.

It is a surprisingly well-produced film, with excellent cinematography and editing. The music was also quite good. I think a lot of the humor fell a bit flat though--there's nothing worse in a comedy than a joke nobody laughs at. The story was surprisingly engrossing, the characters very fleshed out, and the tension palpable. There were emotional parts that hit harder than in a drama because I wasn't expecting them. Overall, though, it's hard to recommend. I think it requires a specific audience to enjoy. If you only like romantic comedies or you only like zombie horror movies or you only like spoofs, you might not like this movie. But if you're open to trying out creative new movies, then you might want to check this one out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0365748/