Abduction (2011)

2/5

John Singleton's Abduction did little more than reaffirm my belief that Taylor Lautner is a terrible actor. The movie is just another excuse to try to put his shirtless body on as many screens as possible. What audiences actually saw was his lack of acting ability. The (terrible) story focuses on Nathan Price (Lautner), a high school student who finds out that his "parents" aren't his real parents on the same day that he witnesses their murder. And from that point on, he's running from multiple ne'er-do-well groups while trying to discover the truth behind his childhood.

Sounds like it could be good, right? Especially with John Singleton--who made the phenomenal Boyz N The Hood--helming the project. Unfortunately, he's working a pretty low standard this time. (By the way, did anybody else notice a nauseating amount of Apple product placement?) Singleton tries, and fails, at mixing emotion with action. He blasts loud rock music nearly nonstop in lieu of using intelligence and pacing to build suspense. The plotting is entirely preposterous, starting with a ludicrous pre-teen's fantasy of high school life and keeping up the laughs with unbearable dialogue. Not much of the movie makes sense when you think about it (so I suggest you don't), and the action scenes are surprisingly few and far between. All things considered, there's not much reason for me to recommend this film to anybody.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1600195/

J. Edgar (2011)

4/5

Clint Eastwood's biopic of J. Edgar Hoover is a compelling portrait of a unique character in American history. The plot follows the controversial rise of J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) to the director of the FBI--his anti-Communist crusades, criminal forensics, and government blackmail--and then analyzes how those same ideas eventually contributed to his public downfall. It tackles his personal relationships and his political ambition in equal parts, forming a tapestry of contradictions and dichotomies inherent in everybody but rarely projected onto the big screen with such clarity and precision. It chronicles his complex love for his mother (Dench), his secretary (Watts), and his number two man (Hammer) with tenderness and honesty instead of the gaudy spectacle and homophobic fantasies that seem to have incessantly plagued his reputation.

DiCaprio's understated performance is remarkable, providing depth and subtlety alongside rage and hidden feelings. He is able to generate empathy for a hard, rigid, oftentimes unlikeable man. His portrayal serves as the foundation for this phenomenal film. While the supporting cast throws in stellar performances, they quickly fall by the wayside in the grand scheme of things. Without DiCaprio in the lead, J. Edgar would still be a good movie, but it would be a forgettable movie as well.

The movie has its fair share of imperfections. Eastwood did not do enough to lift the screenplay out of its decidedly literary beginnings and translate it to the medium of film. There are often "profound" ramblings by Hoover--unrelated to the images on screen--that were arbitrarily lodged in anytime there wasn't dialogue. The timeline would flip between eras too eagerly, making it difficult to get a sure footing on the time and place of certain events. The cinematography was post-processed too much, giving it an inconsistently old-timey look that felt disingenuous. Minor side characters, like Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were cast to mimic the famous political figures instead of to act as them. They focused on the accent instead of the words and the motivations behind the words. Despite these minor niggles, this is a terrific film and should not be missed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/

The Family Stone (2005)

3/5

The Family Stone is a bit of an awkward family drama/romantic comedy combination. The plot follows Everett (Mulroney) as he comes back home for Christmas to introduce his new girlfriend Meredith (Parker) to his family and to ask his mother (Keaton) for the family wedding ring so he can propose to her. His youngest sister Amy (McAdams) already hates her for reasons that are unknown to me--and presumably everyone else watching the movie--and plays mean tricks on her so the rest of the family will share in her distaste. Everett's brother Ben (Wilson) feels bad for her and tries comforting her, but she feels so harassed that she invites her sister Julie (Danes) to join her. When Everett picks Julie up from the bus station, he falls head over heels for her. There are a few more family members and plot points that I'll let you discover firsthand if you choose to watch this, but that's the basic framework.

Despite the few comedic moments in the trailer, I didn't find the movie as a whole to be very funny. It also wasn't very uplifting or feel-good. A lot of what happened just seemed outright mean and/or depressing. Throughout the movie I felt like it was all a big inside joke that I didn't get, but in the end all was explained satisfactorily with subtle hints instead of over-the-top verbalizations. And the final shot was terrifically bittersweet. All the technical aspects were competent, but nothing truly impressed me. All in all, see the movie if you liked the trailer or the actors, but I don't think this movie is the one to change your mind about the genre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356680/

Zodiac (2007)

4/5

Zodiac is a 2 hour and 40 minute epic about the real-life unsolved case of a serial killer terrorizing the California community in the late 60's and early 70's, the media sensation covering it, and one cartoonist's obsession with it. Fincher's directing was phenomenal throughout; despite the film's running time, I was tense and terrified the entire time. The acting by all was equally stellar and a real pleasure to watch. The music did a great job at setting and maintaining mood. The cinematography and editing were just as amazing, and probably Fincher's best to date. Eye-catching shots were crisp and clean with a glossy sheen; I loved the silky smooth shadows flowing across people's faces, cars, and houses. The beginning had a lot of unique point-of-view and tracking/following shots, but they were gradually replaced with more traditional shots as the bulk of the content began. This film's greatest strengths are the flawlessly-captured time and place and the thoroughly-detailed characters. And the script was witty and fun.

The biggest detractor from the movie was its length. The movie consists of several main stories that could each have their own film, and if you're not interested in one, that's half the movie that's gonna bore you. None of the stories felt tacked on because they were all given a great amount of depth, but perhaps too much for everyone's tastes. Luckily, I loved all the stories and didn't really mind the length because of the great acting and great directing. The movie needs to decide what it wants to tell and tell that; instead it provides a great many details from a great many number of sources with no main driving force. Characters appear and drop off when the details bring them to the forefront. Many subplots seemed forced, as if every lead in the case and new piece of evidence required a thrilling story to go with it. Also, the movie loses a little steam at around the 2/3 mark, when a typical movie would be approaching its end and this one has none in sight. All in all, however, I highly recommend this film if you are at all interested in detective stories or movies about serial killers. This one is fantastic, and it goes past the surface of a simple story and into the real effects on the lives of those following the case.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0443706/