Eat Pray Love (2010)

2/5

Eat Pray Love is a movie that pretends to be more than it is. It imagines itself as a universally philosophical journey that one woman takes to discover what's important in her life following an impending divorce. It instead plays as a travelogue to Italy (where she eats), India (where she prays), and Bali (where she loves) with a superficial sheen of self-discovery, but lacking any depth or importance. The plot is barebones and unconvincing. Perhaps the book is better, but watching this movie I had no idea why Liz (Roberts) was so fed up with her husband (Crudup) that she needed a divorce. I normally wouldn't have cared except that it was the impetus of her actions and the crux of the movie. Her journey is worthless if we don't understand why she's going on it in the first place. My other big complaint was at the end, where she meets and (apparently) falls in love with Felipe (Bardem). For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. They are together for a few unwitnessed days/weeks and suddenly they are in love? Their romance is assumed instead of shown (no thanks to the overabundant narration). There was more passion with the food in Italy.

Despite my criticisms, I didn't actually hate this movie. In fact, I didn't mind it at all, thanks to the acting, cinematography, and editing. While none of the actors were bad, they were pretty flat and boring. I couldn't tell if it was bad acting or bad writing, but based on the rest of the screenplay, I'm going to assume it's bad writing. However, Roberts and Jenkins were given very interesting characters to play, and they fill each scene they're in with emotion and empathy. While I don't think the cinematography was actually that impressive, the locales themselves are gorgeous. They're captured in exquisite detail, and I felt transported to each city. The editing was surprisingly the best part about the movie. It is extremely well done, cutting across time and space to unite multiple ideas and thoughts. But most people, myself included, can't treasure technical prowess if the storyline is bad or forgettable. And that is this film's fatal flaw. If you were interested in the movie based on the trailer, you might enjoy wasting 2 hours and 15 minutes watching it. But for everyone else, just pretend it never existed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0879870/

Public Enemies (2009)

2/5

Michael Mann's Public Enemies is a disappointment from start to finish. The plot follows bank robber John Dillinger (Depp) in the early 1930's and the rising crime spree that spurs the police to declare a war on crime. Melvin Purvis (Bale) is put in charge of the Dillinger Squad and is responsible for taking him down, dead or alive. Where Mann's films usually succeed--tense action--here he fails. The gunfights are little more than confusing cuts and annoying noise. The fact that everyone looks, dresses, and talks the same makes it even harder to tell what's going on and who's getting shot. It completely deflates the tension. Mann's use of digital cameras at night without lighting worked in his modern revision of Miami Vice, but the grainy picture feels anachronistic in this film. The romance with Billie Frechette (Cotillard) actually feels slightly stronger here than in his previous films, although love stories were never his strong suit. But all in all, it's a fairly frustrating film and simply doesn't live up to my expectations. I don't know who should see this film, but I would not recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/

Watchmen (2009)

4/5

Watchmen was not as bad as I expected. I expected another 300, but I got something much better. After seeing both, I realized that Zack Snyder does little to alter, either improve or tarnish, the source material he is given. As far as graphic novels are concerned, Frank Miller's 300 sucks and Alan Moore's Watchmen rocks. Everything I liked about this movie originated from Alan Moore--the believable story, the complex characters, the mature mood and atmosphere. Everything I didn't like originated from Zack Snyder--the incessant slow-motion, the bad special effects, the poor music choices. There is one thing I will credit Zack Snyder with adapting successfully, and that is the intro credit sequence to backdrop the story's timeline.

Still, there were a number of changes Snyder should have made to make the adaptation more successful. First, it should have been around 2 hours (instead of 2 hours 45 minutes) and more focused. Snyder allowed extraneous material to bog down the pacing and confuse the audience. Second, there was way too much nudity, especially of a certain blue penis. (Also, why does Dr. Manhattan have eyebrows but no pubic hair?) Third, the actors spoke with comic book stylings, which stood as a stark contrast to the mature mood evoked by the movie's story. Fourth, it didn't really explain the universe. Why are these superheroes stronger/faster/smarter than everyone else? How can someone just raise their daughter into a career of crime-fighting? Why does Rorschach's mask constantly change ink patterns? How is Ozymandias faster than a speeding bullet? Most of these complaints are minor, but I often think of them when I think of this movie. Still, Watchmen is an altogether enjoyable experience and one I would highly recommend to people who are curious as to what might really happen in an alternate universe of superheroes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/

The Good Shepherd (2006)

4/5

It's been awhile since I saw a movie where I didn't think about how I was going to write the review while I was still watching it. Or look at the time. This movie is engaging from the start, entrancing in every aspect. Loosely based on real events and real people during the 50's and 60's as the CIA was being formed, the plot sucks in the attentive viewer and keeps them breathless the entire time. It's been advertised as a spy thriller, but in reality it's a thinking man's drama. It is meditative. It asks questions and pretends no answers.

I was impressed by the acting (especially Matt Damon's morally ambiguous protagonist), although some characters seemed extraordinarily flat and poorly cast. (I was particularly disappointed at Robert De Niro's and Angelina Jolie's relatively limited screen time.) I found the pacing nearly flawless, although ironically it also felt like some scenes were pointless or shoddily constructed. Most of the dialogue was unnecessarily convoluted and deceptive, to the point where the audience loses track of what people say and mean or pretend to say and mean. Also, I thought there were a couple unexplained events and/or plot holes, whichever you want to call them. All these negative aspects seem to point towards it having a lower score, but the movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's truly an experience, and one not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/