Rio 2 (2014)

3/5

Rio 2 is a lot like Rio, but with more blue birds. The movie brings back Blu (Eisenberg) and Jewel (Hathaway), now married with three kids: a bookworm (Stenberg), a daredevil (Gagnon), and a singer (Crow). They actually remind me of someone else's three kids, although those kids are much cooler than these birds =). They find their way back to Jewel's home, where she reunites with her father (Garcia) and a smooth-talking childhood friend (Mars). But their time together is about to be cut short (literally) when an amoral businessman has plans to destroy their rain forest home to make a profit.

The new characters all feel rather stereotypical, like clichés added in to fill a gap nobody cared was there. Instead of writing the story first, figuring out who was important and why, it felt like financiers and producers told the creative team to incorporate a celebrity singer and characters that fit mold x, y, and z. They were just stuffed in to an already crowded cast without much added value. Bruno Mars seems to have been brought in solely for his singing voice (although his acting isn't too bad), as he headlines almost all the songs.

All in all, the movie is still fun--it's actually a great way to spend the afternoon--but it's just not the same novel experience that the first one was. With its star-studded cast, it certainly has one or two famous actors or actresses you'll enjoy watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2357291/

Rio (2011)

4/5

Rio is an insanely fun adventure flick with a fantastic cast and delightful animation. The movie takes place in Rio, as you might expect, where a blue macaw (Eisenberg) is brought by an ornithologist (Santoro) to mate with a female macaw (Hathaway) and save their species. Unfortunately, the pair are stolen by exotic animal smugglers who want to take them out of the country and sell them to the highest bidder!

The best part about the movie is how beautiful it looks. The cinematography is inventive and liberating, letting us fly through scenes with its feathered cast. The colors are bright and the editing is fine-tuned. The Latin music feels authentic and invigorating. But the characters are generic and the acting is only adequate. I can't help but see the actors instead of the characters. The story isn't the most imaginative in the world, but the script is full of both terrific visual gags and hilarious witticisms. All in all, Rio is a whole lot of fun and a great way to spend an afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1436562/

White House Down (2013)

3/5

Stop me if you've heard this one before: a terrorist plot to overtake a building is thwarted by a lone off-duty officer behind enemy lines. No, it's not Die Hard. It's White House Down. If you want to put it in a positive light, you can call it an homage or a re-envisioning. If you want to hate on it, you can call it a blatant rip-off. In truth, it probably lies somewhere in between, and it might have worked if Emmerich were a superior director.

The casting is the best part of the movie. Channing Tatum nearly matches Bruce Willis in terms of his on-screen presence and comic timing. (I say this knowing full well that I'll be blasted as a blasphemer or a Tatum fanboy.) But Emmerich takes it one step further by adding Jamie Foxx into the mix, turning it into a buddy movie with an undeniable chemistry between the two leads. It seems like it has all the right ingredients for success, but it just doesn't have that special sauce. Emmerich directs the action just a little too over-the-top. Even I could not suspend my disbelief (and this coming from someone who recently saw Fast & Furious 6). The bad guys are unoriginal and bland, even before comparing them to Die Hard and the inimitable Alan Rickman. The movie sags at around the 2/3 mark and it never manages to pick up the pace after that (even with the unnecessarily ludicrous plot twist at the end). For those of you that don't know, this is basically the exact opposite of what you want in an action movie.

Whereas Die Hard was a classic, White House Down will quickly fade out of our collective memory. That's okay though. It served its purpose as a summer blockbuster popcorn flick. It's entertaining enough for an action movie and I don't feel like I wasted my money. Just don't let the similarities to a much better movie get your hopes up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2334879/

Django Unchained (2012)

4/5

Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is an unforgettable film. The plot, which follows the recently-freed slave Django (Foxx) and his bounty hunter partner Dr. Schultz (Waltz), propels itself forward at an almost unstoppable pace. It contains so much forward momentum from simplistic plot devices that, when a sharp turn near the end is revealed, it forces you to stop and catch your breath. The whole heartbeat of the movie skips. And you sit there re-evaluating what exactly it is that you just watched.

I initially left the movie filled with disgust and revulsion. I found it terrifying in every sense of the word: to witness the way that people act, how they treat other human beings, when they feel as if there are no consequences for their actions. Tarantino lays bare the darkest qualities of mankind, and does so in such an entertaining way that we become partners in the filth. How devious of him.

But the more I thought about it, the more compelling I found it. That primary emotional response of horror is intentional; DiCaprio performs a difficult role seemingly effortlessly. He is more charmingly evil than Waltz was in Tarantino's previous Inglourious Basterds, which I never would have thought possible before this movie. He is simply spellbinding.

But what is the point of the movie? Perhaps Tarantino is using his lens to reflect on modern society. Or perhaps it's just an exploitation film about a bygone era. Does there have to be a point? People said the same thing about Pulp Fiction. Is it superficial style or is there something hidden deeper within? I still don't know the answer, to both films. But I believe that, with any movie, you get out what you put in. And the more I think about Django Unchained, the more I am discovering, both about the film and about myself.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853728/

Horrible Bosses (2011)

4/5

Horrible Bosses follows three friends who decide to kill their bosses. Nick (Bateman) has been working late nights and weekends for 8 years to earn a promotion to VP of Sales, only to have the CEO (Spacey) take on the position himself. After an unfortunate event, Kurt (Sudeikis) finds himself under the rule of his old boss's son (Farrell), a cokehead and all-around dick. Newly-engaged Dale (Day) is being sexually harassed by his sociopathic boss (Aniston). When things become too unbearable, they decide their bosses would be better off dead and bumble around in search of a hitman. They end up with Jamie Foxx, who has a hilarious moniker that I will let you discover for yourself when you watch the movie.

As far as comedies go, there is nothing particularly new or unique about this one. However, it is a solid film, filled with raunchy humor and efficient pacing. The jokes come fast and furious, delivered with precise comic timing from lovable characters. Charlie Day pretty much plays himself, which I can't get enough of, and the other two are in their usual good form. The movie breaks no new ground, and (save for one shocking death) is fairly predictable throughout, but does what it sets out to do admirably well. I laughed my way through this movie and enjoyed every moment of it; what more can I say?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1499658/

Valentine's Day (2010)

3/5

Uhh, I have no idea why Valentine's Day has been getting such terrible reviews, but it is utterly undeserving of such negativity. It was a fine romantic comedy, equal parts predictable (Kutcher and Garner) and equal parts unpredictable (Cooper and Roberts). It had cliches, but it also had surprises. (Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Ashton Kutcher plays a charismatic hero with aplomb and sympathy.) And it made me laugh and smile, which is exactly what it set out to do.

The plot is too complicated to type out here (or maybe I just don't remember all the details), but that doesn't really matter. Just know that it's about a bunch of men and women who get into and out of relationships on Valentine's Day. The technical aspects are nothing to write home about. The characters were simple but the acting was good. Some of the stories were not as good as some of the others, but the ones that were good were very good. There was some repetition and it felt just a tad too long, but all in all it was a solid romantic comedy. Watch this movie if you're interested in it; I don't think you'll be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0817230/

Jarhead (2005)

4.9/5

Sam Mendes's Jarhead adapts Anthony Swofford's memoirs of his time in the Marines during the Gulf War. Yet it isn't really a war movie; it transcends simple genre descriptions. It constantly transforms itself from sharp humor to brutal violence, from the boredom of waiting to the tension of war, from the whitest sands to the reddest fires. These transitions are fluid, organic--a microcosm of how our lives and emotions are tossed around by events beyond our control. It is a film that must be felt to be truly appreciated.

This movie stands apart from others on its technical merits. The acting is realistic, the editing precise, special effects seamless. The cinematography by long-time Coens-collaborator Roger Deakins is constantly breathtaking--he manages to make the desert mesmerizing. The gritty, ultracontrasty look, combined with the hand-held camerawork, gave the movie a sense of realism. The musical choices and placement elevated it into evocative poetry though, which made the movie a much fuller experience. Another reason I love this movie is because it shows the director's evolution and expansion to take full advantage of the medium of film. His first movie after directing plays was American Beauty, and since then he has moved to more and more cinematic movies like Road to Perdition and now Jarhead.

While rewatching it, I noticed some parts I forgot were there, points in time that seemed less necessary, scenes that were looser and floppier. The editing wasn't as tight as I remembered. Other than that, though, I can think of no major points against this movie. It is beautiful, powerful, and meaningful. Do not pass this up.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0418763/

The Kingdom (2007)

3/5

I got to see a special advanced screening of Peter Berg's The Kingdom with Sameer, Jason, and Jed last night. I was really excited about it because of the director, the producer, and the cast--and it lived up to my expectations as an action movie. But it should have stayed in that realm. It tried too hard to be a serious, Syriana-esque look at the oil situation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. You could sense Berg's insecurity venturing into that area, because every time he strayed from action/comedy, he beat into your head just what exactly was going on and what it meant. Please, trust your audience or they won't trust you.

As an action movie, it's stellar. Most of the time I was engaged and excited, but it was in the last 30 minutes that Berg shows his true colors: that final action scene was almost unbearably tense, on par with Mann's best works. The quality extends to the comedic element as well, thanks mostly to Jason Bateman's character (although the others have their moments too). And I absolutely loved the introductory credit sequence; it is one of the best I've seen in any movie recently.

And yet, everything else is absolutely filthy, like a pungent, noxious odor or being raped to death by a horse. The camerawork was almost as bad as The Bourne Supremacy. I'm all for equal rights, but please stop letting people with Parkinson's operate the camera. Both the thought and actual execution of artificially creating movement made me want to throw up. Another thing that pissed me off was subtitling the name/position of characters, once more adding fictitious complexity and marring an otherwise excellent piece. From the overbearing melodramatic music combined with slow-motion walking so we know we're supposed to feel sad to the back-and-forth finale to make sure we understand the parallelism, everything screams out obvious, blunt, heavy-handed filmmaking.

But don't let that stop you from seeing it. This has some of the best action you will ever see this year and keeps your heart pounding hard throughout. Look past the faults and watch it when it comes out this Friday. That is, if you're interested in any of the things I was excited about when I went in. It's worth the sledgehammer filmmaking techniques.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0431197/

Ali (2001)

4/5

I knew nothing about Muhammad Ali's life story going in, so this movie was a very eye-opening experience for me. I like how the movie wasn't simply a boxing movie, but really dug into all aspects of his character, including the social and political realms he affected. His motto, "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," could describe this movie as well. It flows naturally from scene to scene buoyantly and then strikes the viewer hard when the fight scenes occur. Technically, this movie matches Mann's other works. The crisp and beautiful cinematography by Lubezki is exceptional in this piece, bringing a visceral realism to the fights and ethereal fluidity to the rest. The music was spot-on, although sometimes a bit too prevalent. The acting by all parties was outstanding, although I think Smith's acting in the title role was slightly too weak to carry the entire picture (although quite strong overall). But it was really fun to hear Ali trash-talk.

It did have quite a few problems as well, I thought. It was too long. It meandered in meaningless areas that I never really cared for (although more knowledgeable fans might have found them interesting) and unexplained subplots. A firm sense of time and place was never really achieved. There were no dates or locations to inform the audience; the only markers were social events like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.'s deaths. The problem with the amazing cinematography was that Mann got too enamored of it, unable to cut parts out to keep the piece tight. The editing was competent for the most part, but failed to impress. Other than these minor squabbles, though, I really liked the film.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0248667/

Miami Vice (2006)

4/5

I saw this with Sameer, Kyle, Joe, and Erik, and none of them thought it was very good. I, on the other hand, found Michael Mann's latest movie to be the flat-out best action movie so far this year. It had some of the most tense and taut scenes I have ever witnessed in any movie. The last hour was cinema at its absolute best. The soundtrack was consistently amazing--something that everybody in the group agreed on.

The middle part was a bit slow, but never boring. Half the time I didn't understand what people were saying due to accents, but it didn't really matter. It was about crime and being cool, not the plot. It was the mood that Mann captured perfectly.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0430357/