Iron Man 3 (2013)

4/5

Iron Man 3 was better than I thought it would be. After my disappointment with the second one, I was worried that this one would be even worse. Luckily, it managed to elicit enough thrills and laughs during its 2-hour runtime to keep a smile on my face. The pacing had enough momentum to keep me intrigued and on the edge of my seat. The action was well-filmed, keeping us involved in what was happening but far enough away so we could actually tell what was going on. And the characters were... well, they were comic book characters, let's be honest. They're not all that complex or developed, and they're not meant to be. But it's easy to accept. I think my least favorite part of the movie was the heinous voice-over that bookended the film. Although it kind of felt like the stylings of a comic book, it was wholly unnecessary in a movie. All in all, not the worst of the bunch, but definitely not as fresh and exciting as the first one. It's a no-brainer if you enjoy the series already, but it lacks much of the creativity and innovation that made this superhero series so engaging in the first place.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1300854/

Prometheus (2012)

3/5

Ridley Scott's Alien quasi-prequel Prometheus is one of the most frustrating films I've seen recently. It has a lot of big ideas, thought-provoking dialogue, and terrifying science fiction coupled with unanswered questions and endless let downs. It is undeniably awe-filled but also incredibly unsatisfying. The movie starts with what I assume is the dawn of man in an infuriatingly ambiguous but visually stunning introduction. And it continues in much the same manner; every positive that the film contains is perfectly balanced by a negative. Crisp cinematography coupled with poor pacing; inspiring dialogue matched to flat acting; and stimulating thematics married to simplistic answers. At the end of the movie, I was left grasping at straws, remembering scenes of horror and moments of wonder and always wishing they gave me more than what they did. This is obviously required viewing for any fan of Ridley Scott or the Alien series, but it's only going to irritate everybody else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

The King's Speech (2010)

4/5

The King's Speech is about a king (Firth) with a stuttering problem who must give a stirring, patriotic speech to his citizens as Britain enters WWII. His wife (Bonham Carter) enlists the help of a peculiar linguistics coach (Rush) as a last resort. As far as plot goes, that's about all there is to it. Although it's a simple story, it is exquisitely told. With perfectly composed shots, precisely metered pacing, and superb acting, the film rises above its straightforward writing. Colin Firth is magnificent in his role, bringing sympathy without pity to a nuanced, intricate character. He manages to be both intelligent and tender, manages to instill both strength and levity. Bonham Carter and Rush do fantastic jobs in supporting roles to make the whole thing an acting powerhouse. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't stand out quite like the acting does. It's perfectly competent technically, but all you'll remember when you think back on the movie is how good the acting is. And it is really good.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/

The Road (2009)

2/5

The Road is a poorly-made adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. It follows a man (Mortensen) and his son (Smit-McPhee) fighting to survive in a post-apocalyptic world terrorized by nomadic groups of rapists and cannibals. The book is extraordinary, even though its message can be somewhat difficult to decipher. The movie, despite some arresting images, is unimpressive in almost every way and contains some very odd decisions by director John Hillcoat. He uses music in an attempt to bring emotion to a stoic piece, but instead just adds melodrama. He films a birth scene with as much uncomfortable awkwardness as the sex scene in Munich. He uses inane and unnecessary voice-over narration to reiterate what we are already watching on screen. The editing is jarring and stilted. The acting is either overwrought overacting or amateur hour. I'm not saying this is a bad movie, I just see no reason to waste your time watching it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

The Hurt Locker (2008)

4/5

Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker is a superb, engrossing, taut film. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant William James. A soldier in Iraq, his job is to defuse bombs, whether they're boobytrapped under the ground or strapped to innocent Iraqis. If you've never seen a movie about defusing bombs, it's probably the most intense plot device you can imagine (except maybe Russian roulette). And you will be gripping the armrests throughout every scene involving said plot device. But that is not the whole movie; it is more than a simple anxiety-filled film. There is a phenomenal amount of emotion in this heart-felt character study of a man who is addicted to putting his life on the line, a man unsure of his ability to save lives, and a man scared of death who hides it by yelling. The acting was exceptional, giving fully developed characters complexity and humanity. For a few minutes, I actually forgot I was watching a movie with actors--I thought I saw soldiers in Iraq afraid for their lives.

Technically, there is much to like about the film. The cinematography is flat-out perfect. The use of rapid zooms, 16mm film cameras, and slow motion provide a realism and tension that work together effortlessly and seamlessly. The editing was brilliant, extending the uncertainty to its breaking point, but never past it. Unfortunately, there were also several unnecessary scenes. And the film felt a bit long. This is in large part due to the lack of a story arc; we are left at the mercy of the director as to how many vignettes are told before the film ends. Still, this is a film well worth watching and comes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/