World War Z (2013)

3/5

World War Z aims to give a realistic telling of the human fight for survival against a zombie epidemic, led by A-list celebrity and veteran actor Brad Pitt. It is reportedly based on a book of the same name, but its entire third act was completely rewritten for the movie. The action is quite thrilling--brimming with intensity and excitement--and the alternate universe they created feels wholly immersive, but I'm afraid that's where the positives end. There is no real character development to speak of and the acting is as flat as asystole. (Side note: Google just gave me a red underline for asystole, which means that Google is an ortho resident.) The rewritten final act feels decidedly empty and unsatisfying, although the book's version might have felt even emptier from what I've read online. All in all, World War Z is a mediocre action flick that somehow manages to feel a little more down to earth than the obscene spectacles of summer blockbusters while still failing to elicit more than gut reactions to action scenes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/

Moneyball (2011)

4.9/5

Moneyball is a superb film about a revolution in the game of baseball. Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager for the Oakland A's, is losing his top three players to higher-paying teams. While trying to find the cheapest "good" players he can, he discovers Peter Brand (Hill). Brand is an econ major who enjoys watching baseball, but he brings with him a new way to build a team, using statistical analysis to figure out which players are undervalued because of perceived defects (e.g., a pitcher who throws funny, a batter who waddles). Instead of scouting for the all-star with good looks, a clean swing, and a hot girlfriend, Beane and Brand are searching for the people with the highest on-base percentage and recruiting them for dirt cheap.

Although based on a true story, the only reason this movie feels as authentic as it does is because of the genuine performances from the stellar cast. We see regret in Pitt's face, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy from an actor we would expect the exact opposite out of. In Hill we see the everyman with a bright idea without the confidence to stand behind it. The dialogue is pristine and the cinematography and editing are crisp. Every scene is filled with energy and humor and Miller transforms all that verve into a lively, entertaining film. Much like Sorkin's previous screenplay, this one is about a small idea that challenges the status quo and changes a way of life. This movie is ultimately about progress, at the social level and at the individual level, despite being a "baseball movie." I am not a big fan of sports movies, but this is one of the best. Moneyball is a movie that just happens to be about sports, and an incredible one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/

The Tree of Life (2011)

1/5

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is quite possibly worse than Audition. This movie is terrible from beginning to end. I don't remember another time I felt so assaulted by the inane and banal. Quite frankly, I don't know what the plot is, or even what the movie is "about." It plays a lot like David Gordon Green's George Washington, detailing a youth's summer(s) and attempting to evoke some sort of nostalgia in the audience without actually having any story. In The Tree of Life, there seems to be no real dialogue. Nobody says anything to other people. And when people do mutter something, they always whisper in raspy voices (because apparently that makes it more profound). There is an unannounced 30-minute segment detailing the origin of life, starting from the Big Bang and advancing from single-celled organisms to preposterous imaginary dinosaurs. There are random shots of the most disturbing painted clowns I have ever seen. There is no coherency and no meaning. Unfortunately, I don't think Terrence Malick is aware of that; instead he feels he needs two and a half hours to show precisely that. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/

Megamind (2010)

4/5

Megamind is a surprisingly clever and innovative animated superhero movie. It draws from a number of the classics, but synthesizes all that material together into something all its own (much like Hot Fuzz). It felt new, exciting, and hilarious. The comedy was fantastic. I normally hate Ben Stiller movies and Will Ferrell movies, but I was pleasantly surprised by the humor displayed in this film. Maybe it's the fact that I'm not staring at Will Ferrell's ugly face or protuberant belly (which he seems so proud of that he cannot wait to expose himself in any and every one of his movies), but I actually thought he did a terrific job here. And I especially loved the mispronounced words (even though I hated all those same mispronounced words in Zoolander).

One very strange thing about this movie is the voice acting. It was great, don't get me wrong, but I always found myself hearing the actor instead of the character. I was never able to separate the person on screen from the person behind the mic. It was always Will Ferrell is doing this, Tina Fey is doing that. I think part of that is the large amount of voice-over narration, where it's easy to recognize their voice because you don't see the animated character disguising it. All in all, however, that's a relatively minor fault and I would definitely recommend this movie. It was such a wonderfully unexpected joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1001526/

Mr. And Mrs. Smith (2005)

3/5

Mr. And Mrs. Smith is an entertaining action flick that began the Hollywood couple known as Brangelina. Looking over the IMDb trivia, it seems as if five or six different actresses were considered before Jolie; it's hard to imagine our celebrity world if they had never met. But enough asides, it's time to discuss the movie. The plot follows married couple John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith. They seem like a normal suburban couple with dysfunctional problems after the initial lust has faded. Except they're also assassins, and their alternate lifestyles may be adding undue strain on their marriage by constantly keeping secrets from each other. On their latest job, they are both tasked to kill the other; can they follow through or is their love stronger than that? The answer may surprise you (but probably won't, because the movie is very predictable).

The plot in this movie is barebones. When it does attempt to explain itself, it fails pretty spectacularly. To put it simply, no part of this movie makes any sense whatsoever. The dialogue is amazing though. It is sharp, quick, and efficient. It says so much with so few words. It relies on the actors' chemistry and body language to tell their history and their behavior. The directing allows the actors space to act without forcing rapid-fire dialog or editing. And it's funny. As an action movie, Mr. And Mrs. Smith is somewhat middle of the line. I didn't find it particularly compelling, or particularly nauseating, so that's a good sign. All in all, it's a fairly average action flick that has some strong elements along with some weak elements. If the trailers looked interesting to you, I'm sure you'll enjoy checking it out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

4/5

Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is a stunning film, but it is by no means Tarantino's best. The story follows several tracks that all converge on one night for the premiere of a German propaganda film called Nation's Pride (fake trailer here). The first track is that of a group of merciless Jewish Nazi-killers known as The Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt). The second and third tracks concern a young Jewish girl named Shosanna (Laurent), who just barely escapes with her life after SS Col. Hans Landa (Waltz) kills her entire family. There are a few more tracks involving actors and actresses and translators and Hitler as the movie closes in on its explosive finale, but I'll leave that to you to experience when you watch it.

One thing that really irked me was that the intro credits, the musical style, and even the chapter narrative structure are all straight-up stolen from, or at least strongly reminiscent of, Tarantino's last stand-alone project, Kill Bill. The problem is that those aspects weren't even the best part about Kill Bill, which leads me to believe he's running out of creativity. For example, the Samuel L. Jackson narration, which probably seems cool on paper, ultimately feels empty on screen (mostly because he has nothing important to say). Also, while better than most movies, the dialogue in Inglourious Basterds isn't as luscious as I know he's capable of, and I feel the replay value will probably suffer as a result. Despite these disappointments, Tarantino is effective at building tension from simple situations and maintaining it over a 2.5 hour movie through stellar cinematography, lighting, and editing, which are all up to his usual exquisite form. I definitely recommend this movie to Tarantino fans, just understand that there's nothing revolutionary about it. In fact, it sits rather low on my ranking of Tarantino films. But it's still a quality film that's worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

2/5

When I first heard about David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button a year ago, I must admit I was very excited. But the more I saw trailers for it, the less and less thrilled I became. And when I finally saw the movie, my feelings had turned completely dead to what I originally thought was an innovative concept. I don't know why it happened, but I'm sad that it did, because I was unable to truly enjoy this movie. After thinking about what it meant to age backwards, to see everyone you "grew up" with die, to love someone and lose them, I let those thoughts all percolate in my mind. And by the time I saw the movie, there was nothing new for me to take away from it.

If you strip out the gimmick, you'll see that the story itself is fairly plain and uninteresting. It's as if they wanted to make a new Forrest Gump but ran out of interesting stories and just went with second-rate ones. And it's long. You can try convincing yourself that it's a sweeping epic, but you'd just be lying to yourself. It was like watching Ben Stein read War and Peace. The acting was all right, although I never really felt it to be a powerful or emotionally gripping piece. The romance was unconvincing and quite frightening actually. The pacing was lethargic, and many worthless scenes were kept when they should have been cut. The best thing that can be said about this movie is its visual style. Fincher knows good cinematography. And with that, seamlessly integrating CGI into it. Even in that regard, however, it resembled a Jeunet picture (Amelie, A Very Long Engagement) more than a Fincher picture (Seven, Zodiac) because the tones were much warmer than I'm used to seeing from Fincher. Fincher directing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button felt like Lynch directing The Elephant Man.

Overall, I have to say I'm very disappointed with this film. I don't know how "bad" it is, but I do know I got nothing out of it. I can see others enjoying it, but I don't know how deep their appreciation for it really goes. To me, it felt like the filmmakers took a great concept and wrote 3 hours of filler around it. And much like Memento, we're left with a movie that a lot of people like for its initial idea, but is ultimately a subpar, immature, unfinished picture. At its heart, there's really nothing this film has to offer me except negative three hours and negative eight bucks.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421715/

Burn After Reading (2008)

4/5

Burn After Reading starts with Malkovich being fired from his job as a CIA analyst. His righteous irateness is immediately hilarious, but also becomes a part of his character as the film progresses. His job loss sends his wife Swinton to a divorce lawyer, and she copies his private files to a disc for her financial security. The disc is lost in a health club, where trainers Pitt and McDormand find it and try to use it to blackmail Malkovich. Swinton is also cheating on Malkovich with Clooney, who meets McDormand through online dating and cheats on both his wife and Swinton with her too. Oh, and Simmons is in there as the CIA head and voice of reason who verbalizes just how confusing and meaningless the entire movie was. If that simplification of the plot was too complicated to follow, then you might not enjoy this movie. But if you can wade through that morass, or if you just don't care about plot, then this could be the comedy for you. Why?

Because the Coens are amazing. Amazing writers, producers, editors, directors. They are amazing at everything they do. Burn After Reading is another comedic hit that further confirms my faith in their constant and consistent ability to impress. No matter the genre, be it a western cat-and-mouse chase or a doofus spy thriller, they manage to transform it into a dark comedy. And because of this, the film becomes its own unique creation, the world is completely new to us, and we have no idea what we'll witness on the journey the Coens take us through. The acting is spot-on, the writing memorable, and the mood flawlessly evoked. The shots are beautiful, the compositions precise, the movements natural. Everything the Coens put in this movie--from bizarre phrases to peculiar mannerisms--is put in with such conviction and certainty that you watch the movie with the feeling that this is so right. I can't even get into specifics, because I would just gush worthless hyperbole. If you love the Coens, this will not disappoint. If you don't "get" them, then this is not the movie to change your mind. But I'm so glad to be in the former group.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

2/5

I was pretty disappointed by Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. It might be that I just don't like vampire movies, but I think the bigger reason is that I just don't like bad movies. Apparently the movie's sympathetic vision of vampires was revolutionary ... or something. It didn't seem that novel or interesting to me. It follows the story of Louis (Brad Pitt) over the past 200+ years after being turned by Lestat (Tom Cruise). Kirsten Dunst plays an angsty and needy teenage vampire and Antonio Banderas plays a suave yet flamboyant vampire. All of them are orgiastically homoerotic towards each other.

I'm sure there's a lot about vampire culture I don't understand, but the stuff I did understand wasn't very good. The story plodded along, the wooden dialogue stumbled forward, the actors didn't complement each other. The camera focused on meaningless gestures, the editing lacked purpose, and the movie felt like it took three hours. I had to stand up and walk around to stay awake, which annoyed every one else I saw it with. But as soon as I stopped walking around and sat down, I fell right back asleep. The positives: some interesting ideas and cool special effects. I'm sorry to say it, but don't bother with this movie unless your a vampirophile.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110148/

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

4/5

Ocean's Thirteen is entertainment of the guiltiest form. Although far from an artistic endeavor, it keeps you hooked. You know what will happen, but you watch anyway because the ride is so much fun. With its wonderful tongue-in-cheek style, you can tell just how much the actors were enjoying themselves. The numerous self-references, movie references, and in-jokes prove this. (I am a sucker for Godfather references.) I think Soderbergh really hit home with the style. From the 60's credits to the wipes and zooms, it truly felt like the movies it stole from. The pacing worked exceptionally well and I loved how the stories interweaved. Ocean's Twelve unevenly favored a few characters while most of our favorites were imprisoned and helpless. Here we see everyone working their magic the way we first met them, in perfect synchrony and balance. In this movie, Soderbergh fixed all the mistakes present in Twelve. And Pacino is great as the bad guy. It's a fun movie, so check it out if you liked the others (or at least the first one).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0496806/

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

3/5

Ocean's Twelve was an enjoyable comedy/heist movie. The heist elements were pretty subpar for the most part with a couple cool things thrown in here and there, but I thought it was just so funny. My expectations were so low because everyone came out disappointed (because the first one was so good) that I actually had a really fun time watching this. The acting as always was great, the laughs consistent and solid, and the directing light and fun. There are cameos and big names like nothing you've ever seen before. And, for the most part, it just works. You let go of small inconsistencies because you're entertained.

However, the plot was pretty pitiful, a fact that cannot go ignored; it felt like it was trying to construct a story around the actors' schedules and not the other way around. Because of that, I was actually impressed when all the actors were on the screen together. But the story's limitations really hinder it, considering it's a crime movie with more than twelve main characters in it. Each character really should have some fundamental role in the narrative, and they don't. They're merely accessories. This is what is lacking in this movie that people seemed to love about the first one. Anyway, I greatly enjoyed myself while watching it, and if you're interested you should definitely check it out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0349903/

Babel (2006)

4.9/5

This is one of the most richly tapestried movies to show up in theaters this year, in plot, acting, and theme. The emotions, as in every Iñárritu movie, are explosive. Iñárritu really lets his actors give it their all. Layers upon layers of themes run rampant throughout, the main one being: miscommunication causes tragedy (à la Camus's famous Le Malentendu). But when that tragedy strikes, sadness is universal, heard loud and clear through silence. The story of the Japanese girl seems particularly out of place given the rest of the movie's plot, but it is only superficially so. Not only does it fit the main theme to a T, it also generates so many other themes (baring body vs. soul, being unable to hear vs. being unable to understand, distance and proximity, family and strangers, redemption and forgiveness, and many more) that I can see why Iñárritu decided to use it. By the way, the music is phenomenal. Its companion use with silence is so utterly devastating and haunting.

This movie is definitely not for everyone. It's an intense viewing experience and difficult to dissect; but such analysis is utterly necessary after watching this movie. Many will forgo trying to understand some parts and simply discard what made them uncomfortable because it's easier that way. Scenes often extend past their utility, forcing the viewer to question its meaning. That is not, however, an excuse for bad editing and overlong scenes, which Babel is not without. The coincidences and chain reactions sometime seem too constructed and planned for, a guilt similarly structured movies (like Crash) share. A lot of people are going to come into this movie expecting something similar to Crash; they are going to be very disappointed. Babel is hard to digest; its message isn't cookie-cutter simple and superficial or obvious. But for those it reaches, it's magnificent.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449467/