X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

4/5

X-Men: Days of Future Past reignites the fire that made the X-Men movies such hits. The story is set at some ambiguous time in the future, in which mutant-killing machines named Sentinels are continuously hunting the last of the mutant race. Fortuitously, Ellen Page's character can send people back in time, and Hugh Jackman's character has the "healing power" to withstand going back to the 1970's and changing the course of human--err, mutant--history. (I'm still not sure how going back in time is physically damaging to the human body, but I guess the producers wanted to milk the Wolverine cow for as much advertising power as they could.)

The movie feels a little over the top, with a depressing post-apocalyptic vision of the future and an overwhelming sense of dread permeating the entire movie. The stakes in action movies just seem to get bigger and bigger with every franchise sequel. But there is one truly magical scene early on in the movie (when the younger generation of mutants break Magneto out of prison) that is filled with such levity and fun, such imagination and creativity, to make you think you were in a different movie. Unfortunately, after that scene, the movie returns to its aggressively-serious, doom-filled march.

I'm sure the comic canon fanatics will have complaint after complaint with the creators playing fast and loose with characters, backstories, and time travel, but the fact remains that the latest X-Men movie is one of the rare action movies that remains a mystery despite a predictable plot progression. Although you know the general trend of what happens, it keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering not just who will live and who will die, but how exactly all the details play out. The story is a bit convoluted and probably has its fair share of plot holes, but the action is astutely-directed, the editing is exciting and tight, and the production value is excellent. It's one of the best entrants in the X-Men series and a fantastic summer blockbuster.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/

Movie 43 (2013)

1/5

Movie 43 is an abomination of filmmaking. It is an offensive assault on the senses for 90 straight minutes. This thing--which I refuse to call a movie--is a collection of unrelated images and scenarios designed to disgust and disturb. It is the kind of thing created for reaction videos, with no inherent value. From neck testicles to cartoon cat masturbation fantasies, from parental abuse and incest to graphic leprechaun violence, from gratuitous nudity to yellowface surgery, there is no line it won't cross. I'm disappointed that so many quality actors have sullied their names by taking part in this evil transgression of cinema, this shameful plague of a thing. It makes me shudder just thinking about it. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1333125/

Prisoners (2013)

4/5

Prisoners is a viscerally intense and provocative morality tale about the lengths people will go to save the ones they love. The story is a difficult one to stomach: Keller Dover (Jackman) has his daughter stolen from him on Thanksgiving Day. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) initially suspects teenager Alex Jones (Dano), but quickly dismisses him after discovering he has the IQ of a 10-year-old child. Dover is convinced Jones is involved, however, and imprisons him in an abandoned building where he tortures him for information.

The acting is absolutely phenomenal. Jackman gives an emotionally searing performance, straight from the heart. Although his portrayal did at times seem to border on the melodramatic and overwrought, he walked that line expertly. Gyllenhaal is every bit his equal, although less explosive and incendiary. The problem with both characters (and, in fact, with almost every character) is that they don't feel unique at all. From the angry dad who takes matters into his own hands to the mother who shuts out the rest of the world to the driven detective who makes promises he can't keep, the interpersonal dynamic presented in this movie feels completely unoriginal and cliched. We've seen it before in The Lovely Bones and AMC's The Killing. That, or there is only one way families respond to tragedies involving their children.

But the movie grabs you, asphyxiates you. It has scenes of intense power and breathless anticipation. It emanates an aura of tension, an atmosphere of mystery. It's incredibly eerie. It's a promising start for director Villeneuve--he gives David Fincher a run for his money in the genre of dark, intelligent, moody psychological thrillers--and I hope he continues down this road in the future. I will definitely be watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392214/

Les Misérables (2012)

4/5

Tom Hooper's Les Misérables is an utterly absorbing musical from beginning to end. I went into this movie knowing nothing of the story, having never heard a song outside of its trailer, and was entirely entranced and enchanted the entire time. If you know nothing about it, I recommend going in blind and letting it tell its own story instead of having me attempt to simplify it into 1-2 sentences here. Not that the plot itself is really all that special, there are just a few surprises pretty early on I was grateful to have discovered on my own.

The music is superb, with Anne Hathaway's heartbreaking rendition of I Dreamed a Dream utterly stealing the show. I honestly almost choked watching her sing; all I could do to breathe was let out shallow little gasps in between her bravura vocals. Hearing this performance is worth the price of admission alone. On My Own, performed by Samantha Barks, is a close second. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe give compelling performances as well, although I wasn't too impressed with their singing. This is apparently the first film to record music live on set on this large a scale, and I'm convinced that it's the way to go. It lets the actors emote a million times better than they could have in a sound booth 3 months before filming.

However, the movie has its flaws. It is paced like a musical rather than a film. Each song basically serves as a scene. Years pass in between songs and the audience is allowed a quick exposition of the intervening time before launching into yet another song. It's a little disorienting and unsettling. The camerawork is a little aggressive as well, almost taking on its own (unwanted) personality and characteristics. Still, I enjoyed the film greatly and felt it was a terrific introduction to the musical. Consider me a fan, because I plan on listening to the soundtrack multiple times before seeing it again in theaters in preparation for seeing it live on stage.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/

The Prestige (2006)

4/5

I went into The Prestige not expecting to like it, as I hate all other Christopher Nolan movies (Batman Begins, Insomnia, Memento), but I found this one surprisingly entertaining. As a story involving competition between illusionists, it's very clever, but can at times be too clever. The script is excellent and the acting matches. I thought the camerawork and style did not distract from the quality of the piece, as it did in his other movies. I liked how Nolan was not afraid to tread into other territories than just the main rival magician storyline (I especially liked the part where Fallon comforts the daughter when her parents are arguing). There were a lot of subtle touches and hints of things to come, e.g. the little boy crying about the dead bird, asking why its brother had to die.

The movie is definitely too long; it very barely manages not to feel like an ordeal towards the end. I still don't like Nolan's obsession with nonlinear storytelling because it feels like he's making the movie artificially more complicated so when the dumb audience figures out the timing of each scene, they feel smart and therefore like the movie more. Much of the inherent deception seemed superfluous and could have easily been cut out to make the movie tighter and more engaging. Indeed, a lot of the movie did seem extraneous in general (for example, why was Thomas Edison involved?). Even so, it was a very enjoyable moviegoing experience and is highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0482571/

The Fountain (2006)

4.9/5

The Fountain is first and foremost a journey, intellectually, emotionally, and thematically. There is a surprisingly seamless quality to the film, as every scene and setting shares the same hues and composition. And the compositions (basically every single shot) are absolutely breathtaking in beauty. Aronofsky has created an amazing theoretical experience, one that is difficult to comprehend. Despite that, it is extremely confident in itself--it does not dumb itself down for the audience to better understand. This confidence carries the movie; if made by a weaker director, it wouldn't have worked. He gives it some unknown, ethereal quality that makes me love it. Hugh Jackman's acting was powerfully real and heartfelt, made stronger by the emotive music.

The problems arose as a result of some of the best aspects of the movie. Its abstract nature and faith in the audience's intellect made any possibility of immediate understanding difficult. It will take a lot of time and thought to perform even a partial analysis. The beautiful shot compositions were a bit jarring, because Aronofsky didn't take into account transitional shots that would smooth out the flow. These weren't necessary evils; they could have easily been prevented had Aronofsky simply thought about them. Even so, these faults were relatively small.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0414993/

Scoop (2006)

4/5

I saw this new Woody Allen comedy yesterday with Sameer and I must say, I was impressed. I laughed a lot. It was extremely funny in that New York/Woody Allen style that he's perfected over the years (fantastic one-liners), even though he saves most of the humor for himself. Scarlett Johansson plays a dumb but dedicated student journalist as best she can, but Allen's writing for that part just wasn't very convincing. Fortuitously, the failure of the role's realism gave the movie a more airy, light-hearted feel that helped overall. I liked the small reference to Match Point where Johansson pretends to be an actress. One thing I was especially fond of was how the movie comes full circle and ends up back where it started (on the River Styx); something about that just feels sublime to me.

The special effects distracted from the movie, besides just looking campy and 80's. Hugh Jackman's character was simply a poor rehashing of the upper class family from Match Point, and Allen didn't really do much to make him unique in any way, shape, or form. Also, some elements of the plot just don't add up, but who cares? It's a movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0457513/