Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (2014)

2/5

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is the most recent in a seemingly endless spate of uninspired summer sequels that do little more than attempt to rehash a winning franchise/formula and only end up disappointing everybody. It brings back some actors but not others (I was really hoping for a Clive Owen cameo, but it never came) and jumbles up the timeline in the most unnecessarily labyrinthine way. A lot of it just didn't make sense if you spent more than a few seconds thinking about the plot. The one saving grace is the pure villainy of the film's title character; she is a femme fatale for the ages.

A Dame To Kill For looks exactly the same as the original without feeling as inventive or awe-inspiring. While the first one was fresh and gritty, this one is tired and gruesome. The special effects and the writing both go way overboard in an attempt to one-up itself and raise the bar on violent deaths even more extravagantly. It's all a little too much--honestly even a little sickening--and we've seen it before. I loved the first one and saw it three times the first week it came out in theaters, but I have no desire to watch this one ever again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458481/

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

2/5

Moonrise Kingdom is probably my least favorite Wes Anderson movie. I don't know what it is, but I just don't find it compelling at all. The story is about two strange kids who have a mutual attraction to each other (for no discernible reason whatsoever) and take it to unhealthy boundaries in a disturbing island environment. With a gnome-like narrator. Maybe it's me and my distaste of child acting or children's tales, but I couldn't get into it. And if you're not into the story, then you're just watching unusual events unfold in an unusual way on screen. That's Anderson's modus operandi I guess.

Honestly, I have nothing very positive to say about this movie. It's fine. It exists. It's a movie. It's not offensive. It's got its quirks and funny moments, it's got great actors impressing me with their talent, but all of these elements cannot bring the movie to life for me. It's a futile attempt to create fire out of sparks--the problem is there's no tinder, no content underneath it all.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1748122/

Looper (2012)

4/5

Rian Johnson's Looper is a smart, slick film. It takes place in a future where time travel and telekinesis co-exist, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is offensively stratospheric, and where "loopers" kill people from the future and incinerate their bodies. Much like Children of Men, Looper gives us a believable, richly-textured, and incredibly-detailed world while simultaneously advancing an expertly-paced thriller plot. Both the setting and the story are complex and tapestried, both surprise you time and again, and both keep your neurons firing non-stop. The plot is intelligent and fresh, interesting but not too cerebral. It is a marvel of imagination and storytelling. But for me it's missing something.

Except for the Drive-level ultra-violence and over-the-top blood, it's a movie that checks all the right boxes, and yet somehow it doesn't excite me as much as it should. The acting is on-point, the script is well-written, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the directing is pristine. Every individual element is impressive on its own, but they don't cohere into something that truly thrills me. No matter how much I enjoyed the film on an intellectual level, I simply couldn't engage with it on an emotional one. I can't wait to rewatch this movie in case I find myself in the latter camp, but I'm doubtful I'd make the crossover. I can see this movie being very special for many people; as of now it's just not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Perfect Stranger (2007)

2/5

Perfect Stranger is a movie too full of twists and turns to be believable. It starts off as Halle Berry playing a reporter who specializes in sex scandals involving powerful men. After the newspaper heads put the kibosh on her latest six-month project involving a politician, she quits her job in anger. And another one magically falls into her lap, this time involving Bruce Willis as an advertising CEO. The friend who gave Halle Berry all the information suddenly turns up dead, and all our suspicions turn to the obvious. But all is not what it seems in this neverending labyrinth of lies and deceit and frustration. In fact, it gets so convoluted, that the filmmakers shot three different endings, with three different people as the killer, so you can trust that the core story is really unimportant to them.

The worst part is not how arbitrary the movie treats its subject matter. The worst part is the subtopic of sex chatroom addiction (which we only discover through fake "IOL" instant messaging and slow, ugly, fictional OSes) that it picks up, plays with for a few minutes, and then leaves behind with complete disinterest. The movie truly has no focus. The only possible theme I can figure out is that everyone has secrets--and everyone gets caught.

There were a few positives. The acting was surprisingly adept, although there wasn't a particularly strong script to make it worth it. The music was pitch perfect throughout. And there were some really tense, frightening scenes. The cinematography wasn't bad, but the editing ruined a lot of it for me (too many cross dissolves and flashbacks). If you can stomach unreasonably preposterous crime movies whose ending you don't see coming (well, maybe you saw one of the two they didn't use coming), then you may enjoy this filthy dreck. But I sure didn't.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457433/

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

3/5

Live Free or Die Hard is pretty much the same movie as Shoot 'Em Up in terms of ridiculous, unrelenting action and corny, cheeseball comedy. And it works. Live Free or Die Hard looks a lot prettier though, and the script is more realistic (and by extension more ludicrous in its attempt to be realistic and therefore funnier overall). There was also a random woman that kept popping up in scenes as some FBI guy's aide and just look around at stuff, including the camera filming her, which I thought was hilarious. However, I HATED the editing. I could tell every single time they cheated by dubbing over audio and splicing in video as a band-aid and it pissed me off! I prefer the original Die Hard, but this is good senseless fun as well.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0337978/

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/

Grindhouse (2007)

4/5

Grindhouse is pure entertainment of the most guilty form. And two movies for the price of one! With the most hilarious trailers in between them! I don't remember the last time I had this much unadulterated fun in a movie theater. I've seen "better" movies in theaters recently, but never enjoyed myself this much.

The first movie, Planet Terror, is from Robert Rodriguez, who has always loved the exaggerated. This is why the El Mariachi trilogy was so successful--it is excessive. But in Grindhouse, Rodriguez really lets loose. And being a grind house film, he has an excuse to. Planet Terror is everything I expected: gory, gross, and cheesy. Heads explode, penises melt, guns attached to amputated stubs shoot rockets. This is the kind of movie you'll watch in a theater and come out cheering, "THAT WAS AWESOME!" But it doesn't just copy other movies without a life and mind of its own. There is a "missing reel" in the movie, which Rodriguez cleverly uses to advance the plot without wasting our time. Rodriguez also uses stock footage effects to enhance our moviegoing experience, rather than detract from it. This is loads of fun, but be warned: it is disgusting and definitely not for everyone's palate.

The second movie, Death Proof, is from Quentin Tarantino. Every single one of Tarantino's movies has been a spin on a typical genre, and Death Proof is no exception. Like most of his movies, there is a ton of dialogue, and it is all luscious. It is like silk in your ear. But coming after Rodriguez's movie, I felt a bit disappointed. Wasn't this supposed to be a grind house film? Well, it is, in a way, and it isn't, in Tarantino's way. It has the same elements: sexploitation, blaxploitation, psychotic murderers, and old muscle cars. But there is something undeniably fresh about the way Tarantino puts it all together. And despite what I said coming out of the theater, upon reflection I see it as a movie that can and should stand on its own as an excellent example of Tarantino's style. It is actually good filmmaking. I don't know how well it works as the second half of Grindhouse, because Planet Terror is raw, old-school, brainless fun and Death Proof is polished, new, inventive art. It's an interesting dichotomy. Regardless, I would recommend you check Grindhouse out in theaters if you still can, because this is not to be missed on the big screen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0462322/

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

3/5

Lucky Number Slevin is, all things considered, a pretty entertaining movie. It's very fun, clever, and exciting, with an incredibly well-thought out twist at the end to make you sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately, because it's set up that way, it probably doesn't have a very good replay value. The twists at the end got a bit too ludicrous to be believable, and certainly unnecessary. And in explaining every minutiae of plot twists, the pacing suffers. It is especially exasperating when you've already figured out half of it, but they spend five minutes explaining anyway. The action was almost nonexistent; where present, it was obscured by bad editing techniques and flashy special effects. The camerawork was absolutely atrocious, which probably was one reason the editing was so jarring and gimmicky. While the idea was good, the script itself was pretty terrible; other than a snicker here or there, it was entirely bland and self-indulgent. But all in all, the movie is supposed to be a gangster/con movie, and it pulls it off pretty well.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425210/