Gravity (2013)

4.9/5

Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity is a visually mesmerizing and intensely satisfying film. It is, at its heart, a survival tale. Sandra Bullock plays a medical engineer lost in space, fighting for her life in thrilling, edge-of-your-seat action scenes that will leave you gasping for air. But add on to that a character study of an isolated woman, floating alone in the wide expanse of space. The movie gives us time to ruminate, reminisce, remember; it gives us space to think about mankind's history and achievements, man's hubris and arrogance. But add on to that the technical achievements of filming outer space in zero gravity. The effects are so complex they seem to defy explanation, so seamless they feel real. You don't even feel like you're in a theater; you're just floating in space, watching what happens next.

Bullock gives an indelible performance: her fear, her frustration, her courage, her failures all feel so achingly true. She keeps this story of space grounded in humanity. We feel for her. We want her to live, so every small setback feels epic, every new obstacle feels impossible. Despite my praise for the acting, the real star of the show is the cinematography. It is awe-inspiring and stunning. I saw Gravity in a regular theater, but I'm beginning to think that was a mistake. Gravity is the kind of movie that was envisioned and created for the kind of immersive theater experience that can only be appreciated in IMAX 3D. I can't wait to see it again--the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/

The Descendants (2011)

4.9/5

Alexander Payne's The Descendants is a phenomenal film. The plot is filled with human complexities that are so intricately woven together that attempting to summarize it would do the film a disservice. To be brief: Matt King (Clooney) is in the middle of selling a large plot of Hawaiian land when his wife (Hastie) falls into a vegetative state after a boating accident. He has to take care of his two daughters, Alex (Woodley) and Scottie (Miller), while telling their friends and family that his wife is to be taken off life support. There is so much more here, but I don't want to make the story seem simpler than it is with my rudimentary retellings, nor do I want to ruin the experience of discovery and involvement.

The film effortlessly walks the line between comedy and tragedy with a heartbreaking script and breathtakingly honest performances. (Not to mention unparalleled medical accuracy for a Hollywood film.) It is reminiscent of Payne's earlier film Sideways, juxtaposing opposite moods like Wes Anderson but in a more muted and mature fashion. On the whole, the movie feels authentic and believable despite those sometimes acute shifts in tone. This is the result of a script that is precise and articulate, and a director who can lift the words off the page and pull the truth out of his actors. Clooney gives one of his best performances ever. He exudes vulnerability, strength, wisdom, naïveté, charisma, and ugliness in equal parts, painting a picture of a desperate man searching for meaning in the face of death. He pulls at our heartstrings with such ferocity that I feared they might break. I'm surprised I didn't cry during the film's final tender scenes.

The movie occasionally missteps, but I won't belabor its minor faults. This movie is both fascinating and enjoyable, a testament to the human experience, and I cannot wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033575/

The Ides of March (2011)

4/5

George Clooney's The Ides of March is a well-made, high-quality political thriller. Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is running for president with campaign managers Paul Zara (Hoffman) and Steven Meyers (Gosling). Although Morris seems like an ideal candidate, problems start cropping up when his opponent's campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti), tells Steven some damaging news in strict privacy. Things get even more complicated when Steven gets romantically involved with a young intern (Wood) who has a few secrets of her own.

Technically, the film is impressive. The Ides of March showcases just about the finest ensemble cast in recent memory, perhaps ever. Although Gosling is billed as the lead, each of the supporting cast delivers stand-out performances so good that it makes Gosling's acting look simple and immature in comparison. While the script has sharp dialogue, it ultimately lacks the originality and creativity to make the story stand out. Clooney's directing, on the other hand, has matured significantly since his debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Instead of flashy filmmaking, he goes for simple, understated techniques to enhance the overall experience. Subtle moves, like close-ups that build tension by gradually getting tighter, show his command of cinematic technique. All the individual parts come together to make a cohesive whole, but nothing jumps out to make me sing its praises. This is a solid film that does one thing well, but there's nothing revolutionary going on here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/

The American (2010)

4/5

Anton Corbijn's The American is a slowly-paced but superbly-crafted cerebral thriller. The plot follows an assassin (Clooney) who wants to quit for love (Placido), but his employer (Leysen) has one last job for him. The plot is the film's weakest aspect, as it is flimsy, cliché, and predictable. But everything else about this movie is exquisite. The cinematography is stunning and is paired with impeccable editing. It lingers just the right amount to let you appreciate the beauty without it feeling forced on you. The music is refreshingly different and appropriately atmospheric. The slick production is well-directed, adding tension to the simplest scenes and unnerving you when you least expect it. The use of colors and subtle shifts in composition add meaning to an already intriguing and complex thematic framework. Clooney continues to surprise me with his choice of roles after his equally fascinating turn in Up in the Air. All in all, I cannot recommend this film enough. Just know that it is not a James Bond action movie. It can be slow-paced, forcing the audience to be patient, so you must be in the right mood. But if you are, you will enjoy what this film has to offer.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440728/

Up in the Air (2009)

4/5

Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a film that sidesteps your expectations and delivers something surprisingly moving. The plot follows a professional "termination engineer" Ryan Bingham (Clooney) as he fires employees for bosses who don't want to do it themselves. He takes prides in the number of frequent flier miles he earns and the freedom he enjoys by not tying himself to a home or to friends. On a trip he meets Alex (Farmiga) and they begin a casual romance. His paradigm becomes endangered when a new Cornell grad named Natalie Keener (Kendrick) proposes online employment transition, allowing them to save 85% on travel costs. Clooney is forced to take her with him on his next few trips to show her the tricks of the trade and why her online termination plan will never succeed.

The acting was fine, but some of the characters' interactions seemed a bit too forced and written. Farmiga's character was confusing for the sake of being confusing, to produce the illusion of complexity and to advance the plot, instead of feeling realistic and true. It took me a little while after seeing the movie to realize that the focus is not on Clooney and Farmiga's relationship. It is instead on Clooney's worldview, his vulnerability, and his transition into the future. And quite frankly, that's much more interesting than a movie about their relationship anyway.

The intro credit sequence was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. Never in my life did I imagine myself saying that for a series of aerial images of the American heartland with "This Land Is Your Land" playing in the background. But they made magic out of nothing, it seems. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was never quite as good as those first two minutes. The comedy was brisk, producing some clever moments as well as some laugh out loud moments, but after a while it seemed to depend a bit too much on the use of swear words as punchlines. The movie is a good one, but understand that it may not be about the same thing you think it's about. Also, it just doesn't live up to the bar Reitman set for himself with his amazing previous films, Thank You for Smoking and Juno.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

3/5

Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox is an entertaining way to spend 80 minutes of your life, but it's not especially provocative or particularly mind-blowing. The plot follows a fox (Clooney) and his wife (Streep) as they buy a house in a tree that overlooks three mean farmers' local businesses. Being a wild animal, he steals chickens from Boggis, turkeys from Bunce, and cider from Bean. The farmers try to dig the fox out of his hole, but as their digging becomes more and more widespread, other animals in the area become victims too. With the animals against him and the humans getting ever closer, it seems as if the fox family is out of options. But being a clever beast, the fantastic Mr. Fox concocts a plan to keep their land out of the humans' grasps.

The animation is breathtaking and refreshing. It is beautiful and awe-inspiring. But while the movie holds a lot of visual appeal, the story and dialogue fail to really elevate the movie past its quirky, unique animation style. The humor is dry and definitely not to everyone's tastes. Everything is spoken matter-of-factly--meaning there are no punchlines--that it could easily turn people off of the movie (even though I personally found it hilarious). It definitely feels more like a Roald Dahl adaptation than a movie from Wes Anderson's head, which may make you want to see the movie or may make you want to reconsider. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really have much of a point. It's a very simplistic tale about animals fighting against humans. What you see is what you get; there is no subtle underlying meaning or great moral underpinning. All in all, the movie is filled with clever moments and aesthetic flair, but the whole package is nothing to get too excited over.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

2/5

The Men Who Stare at Goats is a disappointing "comedy" about the US Army's attempt to engineer psychic spies and the adventures of one journalist (Ewan MacGregor) as he tries to cover the story. It was advertised as being based on a true story, but that statement rings false. It's either an inside joke or an outright lie. The plot is so preposterous that it is impossible to suspend your disbelief.

The characters are shallow, unoriginal caricatures of people we've seen a million times before. The acting is only mediocre, even from some of my favorite actors (Kevin Spacey, George Clooney). It's probably not their fault and instead the fault of the terrible writing. The jokes are few and far between. When they do pop up, they fall flat about 25% of the time (and that's a lot for a movie that pauses for expected laughter). Coming out of the movie, I thought it was decent. Sitting down to write this review made me think about it more. And that only made it less and less appealing. Don't waste your time with this movie. Just watch the trailer and pretend the movie is as good as that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234548/

Leatherheads (2008)

2/5

It's a shame that this movie was bad. It had so much potential, only to fall flat on its face. I love John Krasinski, I love George Clooney (both as an actor and as a director), and I love the screwball comedies of the 1930's and 1940's that this film paid homage to. But it was just so much worse than what I've seen before from all three. Krasinki was inappropriately cast in a role he didn't fit into, a role that was ridiculously one-dimensional to boot. Clooney's direction was uninspired and generic; he brought nothing new or interesting to the piece. And the movie just wasn't that funny. It was way too long and drawn out and carried with it almost none of the rapid-fire witty banter that characterizes the older films. The pacing was atrociously slow--with many unnecessary scenes left in--while bad jokes were emphasized and lingered on.

On the positive side, there were some very funny, clever moments. Unfortunately, they were fewer and farther between than the kind of crappy comedies from the late 1990's and early 2000's that I hate (you know, the ones starring Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller, and Adam Sandler). One delightful surprise was Renée Zellweger; I am far from a fan of hers, but she pulled off her role perfectly. All in all, this movie goes highly unrecommended by me. I can't imagine anyone who might truly enjoy this movie, except maybe the cohort of John Krasinski's adoring base of fangirls who will sit through anything he's in.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379865/

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/

Michael Clayton (2007)

4/5

Michael Clayton follows the title character as he attempts to clean up the biggest legal mess of his career when the lead defense counsel in a huge class action lawsuit stops taking his medicine and starts revealing secrets. If it sounds confusing now, wait until you see the movie. Going in knowing the basic plot, it took me more than half the running time to figure out who the characters were and who they represented. It reminded me a lot of Syriana, where even though things were happening on screen, I didn't really understand what was going on. People always talk to each other with subtleties I don't catch, skirting around the issues and hinting at ulterior motives.

But about halfway through, it all just clicked. And I was hooked. This is actually one of the rare movies where I appreciated the use of in media res. The written dialogue was amazing, and the stunning performances by the actors made the somewhat literary words seem real and natural. The music was integral to building up the suspense in a rather talk-heavy movie and went much appreciated. I thought the editing and plotline could have used a little work, as it seems that some events were added in to introduce suspense without an actual reason for their presence. There was nothing wrong with the cinematography, but nothing terrific about it either.

I missed a huge thing that Sameer brought to my attention, which really elevated the movie for me. There is one scene where Michael Clayton is holding an envelope containing a check in one hand and a memo containing evidence against his parent law firm in the other, almost weighing the two. It's a striking image and particularly moving at a later scene where he talks about selling out his friend. This is a movie I want to see again, because I know I missed a lot. I highly recommend it if you are interested in movies involving legal matters, power plays, and experts doing what they do best. Just don't expect an action suspense thriller.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0465538/

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/

The Good German (2006)

3/5

The best part about The Good German is how it looked. A murder mystery set in 1945 post-war Berlin, it attempts to emulate a film noir style but doesn't quite succeed. The problem is that Soderbergh doesn't know film well enough, and doesn't get the specifics right. I liked how he made the film look, with his stark black and white photography and slightly blurred images, but film noir didn't look like that. While film back then was never quite as crisp as the HD cameras we have now, it was certainly more crisp than the TV-style images inhabiting this movie. And the heavy black and whites with minimal gray midtones was too stark for 40's noir; it felt more in line with the worse film grain from the mid-30's. Additionally, while noirs are supposed to have confusing, labyrinthine plots, this one is a bit excessive. At the end of the movie, I really had no idea what had happened, which is never a good thing. I understood more about The Big Sleep. It seemed as if there were a bunch of innuendos and assumptions that the characters went with that I never got, which left me in the dark for most of the movie. Also, there were so many "references" or "homages" to Casablanca, not just in shots, but in entire plot constructions, that it just felt like theft to me.

On the other side of the stick, the cinematography was amazing. The lighting and composition in so many scenes were spot-on and looked like actual 1940's film noir. The consistently bleak mood and dark underbelly of surviving in such a ravaged situation fit nicely in the noir genre. While the swearing and sex were not exactly staples of film noir, their inclusion in the movie made it feel more crude and more vulgar, which I believe is how film noir felt in the 40's. The acting was amazing by all parties. Tobey Maguire unnerved me, Cate Blanchett was equally stunning and deceptive, and George Clooney, it seemed, really would stop at nothing to get to the truth. Unfortunately, this movie is not a film noir, for a great many reasons, and despite all its efforts, it is merely an unsuccessful attempt at one. Not really recommended, but A for effort.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0452624/

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/