Ted (2012)

4/5

Seth MacFarlane's Ted is a hilariously ridiculous movie. It's essentially a buddy movie, about John (Wahlberg) and Ted (MacFarlane)--a living, breathing teddy bear. John, picked on and tormented as a kid, made a wish to have his teddy bear come to life and be his best friend forever. And his wish came true! Ted enjoyed some childhood celebrity before the pair eventually settled into their mid-thirties routine of smoking pot and vegging out on a couch. But John's girlfriend of four years, Lori (Kunis), feels like John+Ted is getting in the way of John+Lori. There is one (disgustingly hilarious) event involving a game of truth or dare with some strippers that Ted brought over to their apartment that pushes Lori over the edge, and she demands that John choose between her and Ted.

I think Ted did a surprisingly good job describing the difficulty of balancing friendships and relationships and growing up without leaving your past behind. It contained a number of tender moments that felt authentic and honest--and were completely unexpected coming from the creator of Family Guy. What was not unexpected, on the other hand, was the over-the-top fight scene that was as ridiculous and enjoyable as I was hoping it would be. MacFarlane did a great job writing and directing the piece, able to pace it well in a format completely different from 20-minute televised serials. But I think he let himself go a little too crazy, specifically regarding the utterly bizarre Giovanni Ribisi character. Overall, a formidable and highly recommended entry from MacFarlane.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637725/

Avatar (2009)

4/5

The plot of James Cameron's Avatar follows a wheelchair-bound ex-Marine named Jake Sully (Worthington) as he makes his way to the planet Pandora, which is inhabited by the humanoid alien race of Na'vi and is filled to the brim with precious minerals. He is sent there to control an avatar--a genetically crafted Na'vi body--through a scientific program run by Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) whose mission is to understand the aliens' world and culture. However, they aren't the only humans on Pandora. A mining expedition is attempting to extract as much of the precious minerals as they can from Pandora and have recruited military personnel to protect them from the "hostile" Na'vi.

The world is filled with small differences that appear to be minor details but manage to significantly differentiate it from Earth. For example, on the tips of the lengthy Na'vi hair are tentacles that allow them to connect to other animals (and in fact to the planet itself). No, it's not "realistic," but it is believable. There exist no inconsistencies that take you out of the experience and remind you that this is just a movie. While the dialogue isn't particularly impressive, the writing paints the planet in such a way as to make it true to itself and completely immersive. However, Avatar is by no means perfect. The story is extremely conventional--think of it as a sci-fi version of the anti-imperialist Pocahontas story--and therefore quite predictable. Still, there are a few unexpected surprises to the plot and the action is absolutely spectacular. It progresses at a flawless pace and is breathtaking and exciting.

Avatar is a compelling argument for the 3D action film. I was never a huge believer in 3D, since it seemed gimmicky and could easily give you a headache (especially in a film that lasts 2 hours and 45 minutes, as this one does), but Avatar was made to be seen in 3D. And it shows. Every single shot of every single action scene--of which there are many--is enhanced by the depth of the environment and the movement across the planes of action. I heard that James Cameron invented a large part of the 3D technology that's been used in other movies as he was developing this film; I believe it. Simply put, Cameron knows what he's doing with 3D. If you were interested in seeing a 3D movie, this is the one to watch. Just make sure you see it in IMAX 3D, because I only saw it in regular 3D and now I have to see it again. I just have to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Public Enemies (2009)

2/5

Michael Mann's Public Enemies is a disappointment from start to finish. The plot follows bank robber John Dillinger (Depp) in the early 1930's and the rising crime spree that spurs the police to declare a war on crime. Melvin Purvis (Bale) is put in charge of the Dillinger Squad and is responsible for taking him down, dead or alive. Where Mann's films usually succeed--tense action--here he fails. The gunfights are little more than confusing cuts and annoying noise. The fact that everyone looks, dresses, and talks the same makes it even harder to tell what's going on and who's getting shot. It completely deflates the tension. Mann's use of digital cameras at night without lighting worked in his modern revision of Miami Vice, but the grainy picture feels anachronistic in this film. The romance with Billie Frechette (Cotillard) actually feels slightly stronger here than in his previous films, although love stories were never his strong suit. But all in all, it's a fairly frustrating film and simply doesn't live up to my expectations. I don't know who should see this film, but I would not recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/

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/

Lost in Translation (2003)

4.9/5

Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation is by far her best film. It is a rare example of a slice-of-life romance that is actually a slice-of-life and actually a romance. With strikingly beautiful and tenderly poignant images, we get a sense of Coppola's love for her characters and the city they find themselves in. We know that they are honest portraits of real people amidst foreign customs. We see this truth in the sparse writing, the subtle acting, the patient directing. In the lingering moments between words and actions, we see awkward new love and dispassionate marriage. We see so much about the lives of these wanderers through the movements of their bodies, the checking of their words, that we understand why they make the connection that they do. And that is the heart of this movie.

Technically there were few missteps; the only thing that comes to mind is the occasional loose editing. Overall there were more flaws. Many complain that the film is racist. While it uses all the obvious jokes and stereotypes, they serve as playful descriptions, not hateful mockery, of Japanese people and culture. Perhaps one of the charms of the movie, one of the things that lends it a sense of realism, is the lack of grand insightful themes. The dialogue always feels so much more profound than it actually is, which leaves the viewer wondering what more this movie could have been. And I know that this movie will appeal to far fewer people than other great films. But for those it affects, well. Watch it and find out for yourself.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335266/