Into the Woods (2014)

3/5

Into the Woods is a musical fairy tale that revolves around a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt) who cannot seem to get pregnant. They discover that a curse of infertility has been placed on them by the witch living next door (Streep). The only way to reverse it is to bring her ingredients from other fairy tales: Rapunzel's hair, Little Red Riding Hood's little red riding hood, Jack and the Beanstalk's white cow, and Cinderella's slipper.

The film version of Into the Woods suffers from the fact that it was made by Disney. The play's raison d'être is to satirize the overly-romanticized fairy tales on which Disney prides itself, to make them darker and dig deeper into their sentimental "happily ever afters." Disney's version is no longer edgy; all the adulteries and deaths are cleaned up and hidden so that the film will be appropriate for little kids. There is one glaring exception to this general sentiment and that is the Big Bad Wolf. Johnny Depp somehow manages to turn the character of a hungry wolf into a stalker pedophile, which would be uncomfortable to watch in any film but is downright disturbing in a Disney film.

As if that wasn't enough to ruin the movie, they cut out my favorite part. In the original production, the narrator eventually becomes part of the action and gets killed in the ensuing chaos. There is no narrator in Disney's movie. (Well, there is, but he's not a character involved in the story.) The worst!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

4.9/5

Edge of Tomorrow is one of the smartest action movies I've seen in a very long time. Tom Cruise stars as an unwilling businessman-turned-foot soldier in the midst of a global battle against an alien invasion. He gets killed quickly in the trenches, only to discover that he must relive that fateful day over and over again. He finds out that this same phenomenon happened to another soldier (Blunt) earlier in the war, so he seeks her out in the hopes that they can join forces and defeat the aliens.

Battle scenes have a jarring, chaotic feel, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan during the beachfront invasion. In the midst of the violence, the cinematography remains smooth and crisp, with sharp editing and clear shots. But director Doug Liman also does a lot with the repeating day premise. The day resets sometimes quickly, for comic effect, sometimes slowly, for an agonizing emotional hit. Despite the repetition, every time feels interesting and exciting, new and worthwhile. It builds on the Groundhog Day framework instead of stealing from it.

There is an unexpected chemistry on screen between Cruise and Blunt, adding a tender human element to the exciting sci-fi backstory. It's not particularly fresh, but it feels genuine. And it makes watching the movie so much more rewarding. I highly recommend Edge of Tomorrow: it's genre-defying in the best way possible, straddling diverse moods expertly, appealing to the comic, romantic, action junkie, time travel nerd in all of us.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/

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/

The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

3/5

The Five-Year Engagement is a middle-of-the-road modern-day romantic comedy. The movie starts with Tom (Segel) botching his proposal to Violet (Blunt) one year after they first met, then continues on for the next five years as their wedding gets further and further postponed for various reasons. Things crop up in their lives and they start to doubt that they really are perfect for each other. It has its fair share of quirky side characters, some of whom you love (Kaling, Hart, Posehn) and some of whom you love to hate (Pratt, Ifans). It's got the big fight in the middle--although it does it in a way that makes both leads less likeable--and a terrifically sappy ending to jerk some tears out of your nasolacrimal ducts. The humor is occasionally raunchy to give manly men laughs but is usually simple and clean for the more mainstream viewers. It's formula to a T, and it's entertaining enough. It just isn't exciting enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1195478/

Salmon Fishing In The Yemen (2011)

3/5

Salmon Fishing In The Yemen is a terrifically predictable romance about an unlikely couple (McGregor, Blunt) forced together by circumstance (Waked, Scott Thomas) and then torn apart by equally implausible circumstance (Mison). It is filled with inspiring music that swells up during talk about fishing and ominous overtones that creep up during moments of danger. It is not the most sophisticated film as far as subtlety is concerned, but its traditional storytelling structure is better than some indie romances I've seen in the past. The chemistry between the two leads is unexpectedly good, and that more than makes up for the mediocre rest. As for the plot, everything ties up a little too neatly and happily at the end to be believable. But it's a mindless movie with sufficient heart and humor to appeal to the masses. It's a movie that doesn't ask you to think too hard about it once the credits roll and you shuffle out of the theater. It is harmless Sunday morning fare and it serves its purpose well.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441952/

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

3/5

Gnomeo & Juliet is a clever animated film about garden gnomes. As you can probably tell by the title, it is very loosely based on the William Shakespeare play Romeo & Juliet. Except this 3D cartoon version is a comedy instead of a tragedy. Much like Toy Story, the gnomes live in a world where real people don't know that they can move and talk. And in the Capulet and Montague gardens are blue and red garden gnomes, separated by a fence, constantly at war with each other. Gnomeo (McAvoy) meets Juliet (Blunt); the two fall in love then discover that they are on opposite sides of the fence.

For the educated viewer, you can enjoy the numerous references to other Shakespeare plays. The movie is full of subtle jokes paired with more obviously hilarious scenes. It was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting it to be, with a light atmosphere and familiar voices. There's nothing particularly impressive about anything in this movie, but it's a solid piece of entertainment to pass away a lazy summer afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377981/

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

4/5

The Adjustment Bureau is a sort of sci-fi romance that is compelling on an emotional level and fascinating on an intellectual level. The plot follows David Norris (Damon) and Elise Sellas (Blunt) and their relationship after a chance meeting in a men's room after Norris loses his bid for senate seat. They keep running into each other and they feel a deep connection with each other as if they were meant to be together. Norris is watched by a man in a suit and fedora (Mackie) who is part of the adjustment bureau, a group of individuals whose sole purpose is to ensure that everything in our lives go according to a certain plan. Unfortunately, this plan does not include Norris and Sellas together. And so the adjustment bureau keeps trying to pull them apart while the two of them fight to be with each other.

Technically, the movie had both good and bad components that added up to something mediocre. The writing is intriguing as far as the concept is concerned, and it can generate a healthy discussion of fate vs. free will, but there are also some very obvious weak points. Some people disliked the ending for being too cheesy, but I didn't mind it so much on an initial viewing. The dialogue was especially poor, however, and everything that came out of the mouths of the people in the adjustment bureau was stale and stilted. Their acting was equally forgettable. On the other hand, Damon and Blunt were incredible. The entire premise of the movie hinges on the chemistry between the two leads--the fact that you believe that they are destined for each other--and they pull it off. They were not only believable, but also genuine, tender, and sympathetic. It would be impossible to believe they weren't in love. While the technical aspects were somewhat of a mixed bag, the emotional impact elevated this movie well above average and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/

The Young Victoria (2009)

4/5

Going into the movie, I did not know anything about The Young Victoria. But it surprised me in ways I never expected a movie like this would. It is a period piece set in the early 1800's, as the young Princess Victoria (Blunt) takes on her role as England's new Queen at the age of 18. New and inexperienced, she enlists the aid of Prince Albert (Friend) of Belgium and the Prime Minister of England Lord Melbourne (Bettany). People become concerned that she may be manipulated to do their bidding, and indeed the political intrigue is present for those who like that kind of thing. She grows close to Prince Albert but appears to trust Lord Melbourne more, and indeed there is romance for those who like that kind of thing. But it does not fit snugly into a single genre, and that is what I liked most about this movie. It is simply a retelling of what happened in Queen Victoria's early life, and does not cater to plot conventions and predictable story arcs.

On to the technical aspects: the costuming, makeup, and set design were appropriately detailed for being a period piece, but this movie had so much more to offer. It is superbly directed. The cinematography is spectacular, made even more captivating by the impeccable editing. As complex as the editing can be, it is never confusing (at least, after the first 30 minutes of learning everyone's name and royalty status). The acting was equally remarkable, especially the sensational performance by Blunt. I had seen her before only in bits and pieces of The Devil Wears Prada, but here she was wholly convincing as the independent, unyielding new Queen. She manages to bring empathy and awe to the role of someone struggling against those who would have her do their bidding (quite the opposite of the puppet that Helen Mirren played in The Queen). However, the movie seemed a bit short and a little incomplete. It felt like a slice of life and, quite frankly, it left me wanting more. This movie is exquisitely crafted and intelligently told. I highly recommend it for those looking for good editing, good writing, or just plain good acting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/

Dan in Real Life (2007)

3/5

Dan in Real Life is a movie whose entire story you know in detail if you've seen the trailer. A widower (Steve Carell) takes his three daughters to a family reunion, of sorts, where he meets a girl and falls in love with her. Only to find out later that she's his brother's girlfriend. The fairly predictable plot never really kept my attention and never really surprised me. And neither did Steve Carell. The director decided to hinge the movie on his puppy dog innocence instead of his offbeat, awkward humor. He (and Dane Cook) had very little opportunity to make us laugh, thanks to the rather bland script. (One point in the middle, though, I did laugh. But it was because of the absurdly rich suburban activities he and his entire family were able to partake in on a non-holiday in a countryside.)

Technically, there was nothing noteworthy. It was much more a romantic comedy chick flick than anything else, which I wasn't really expecting. Still, it accomplished what it set out to do (with few risks and fewer rewards), so I can't really give it a lower star rating than 3. But overall it was pretty disappointing if you're expecting a Steve Carell vehicle. If you're expecting blah, then this movie will satisfy you. But why would you watch a movie you knew to be mediocre instead of great?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480242/