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/

Broken Flowers (2005)

3/5

Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers was--remarkably--not as bad as all his other movies. The movie actually held my interest and packs an emotional punch. The plot follows Don Johnston (Murray) on a quest to find an old girlfriend who wrote him a letter telling him he has a son. Watching Broken Flowers, I noticed that he has a unique sense of style that permeates past their dress and into their interactions and mannerisms. His style is not universal or classic, but indie and fickle. I have a feeling that I don't like Jarmusch's older movies for that very reason: they just don't age very well. But I'm finally starting to see the comedy in his films. I think it's all dependent on the actors he chooses, because Bill Murray saves the film with his seemingly effortless comic timing (moreso than Roberto Benigni in Down By Law). Murray somehow matches an apathetic outward demeanor with internal fascination. It is truly remarkable to watch him act.

Be that as it may, I'm not the biggest fan of Jarmusch's filmmaking. He still lingers on shots for far too long when editing, making every shot begin and end 1-2 seconds before and after they should. He frequently fades in and out, both visually and aurally, which probably contributes to the feeling that this movie is more like stop-and-go traffic than fluid, smooth storytelling. It's jagged and stilted, with episodic interludes and minimal overarching structure. This is probably his best movie after Night on Earth, but I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone who isn't already a fan. It will probably be good enough to satisfy Bill Murray fans, however, as he manages to carry the entire project on his shoulders with aplomb.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412019/

Source Code (2011)

3/5

Source Code is a competent and clever thriller with its fair share of plot twists and plot holes. The movie follows a soldier named Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) in the "source code," a program designed to simulate the last 8 minutes of someone's memory before they died. He's sent back onto a train heading to Chicago just 8 minutes before it is blown up by a terrorist. Dr. Rutledge (Wright), who created the source code, wants him to identify the person responsible so they can prevent a second terrorist bombing. On the train, however, he meets (and falls in love with) another passenger (Monaghan).

By far the greatest aspect of this movie is its locale. They must have chosen the single most beautiful day Chicago has ever seen and filmed everything that day. This city looks so attractive it might as well be our tourism ad; this is probably the best Chicago has looked since Road to Perdition. As for the rest of the movie, it's more of a mixed bag. The characters are all relatively bland, despite Gyllenhaal, Farmiga, and Monaghan giving it their best shot, but two in particular stand out as exceptionally awful: the terrorist character and Dr. Rutledge. They are both so one-dimensional that they might as well have not existed at all. There is absolutely no satisfaction at capturing the terrorist because he is so utterly worthless. His motivation is that 1) the world is hell and 2) you need to destroy the old world to make way for the new one. That is the extent of his reasoning. Dr. Rutledge is not only shallow, he is also bizarre and uninteresting. Also, quiz question for those who have seen the movie: how exactly is Vera Farmiga communicating with Jake Gyllenhaal? It doesn't really make any sense, does it? Anyway, the meat of the movie is a relatively enjoyable action mystery thriller, but when you come back and think about the entirety of the movie for just a minute or two longer, you realize the pieces don't quite add up to a fulfilling whole.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/

W. (2008)

2/5

Oliver Stone's W. claims to be an honest representation of the former President in the hopes of dismantling years of misconceptions, both positive and negative, but is instead a ludicrous farce filled with exaggerations and caricatures. The movie goes back and forth between history and the present, starting with his time in office and intercutting with past events that led him there (including random, unrelated ones). I can imagine this was done for no other reason than to make up for lacking transitions and storyline inconsistencies. There is no progression or escalation, merely event after event after event, which makes the 2 hour runtime laboriously slow. (I thought it was nearing the end before 90 minutes in.) And each vignette is only hinted at, nothing is fleshed out, so we are left with a frustratingly inadequate and incomplete picture of a man nobody really cares about anymore. Not only that, but the rest of the screen is filled with people who are more focused on their horrific accents than their characters, which turn out to be flatter than their real counterparts (and those I've only seen in stilted TV announcements).

The one redeeming factor is the humor that is infused in this film, although I'm not sure it was all intentional. Because everything is so extreme, it is also preposterous to the point of comedy. The movie cannot be taken seriously anymore. Dick Cheney is a raving, power-hungry, egomaniacal lunatic--weren't we trying to dispel myths and prejudices? Condoleezza Rice is, for some bizarre reason, an uglier, female version of Neil Goldman from Family Guy. Below I have included a clip with Neil Goldman; as you watch it, just imagine Thandie Newton in disfiguring makeup prosthetics talking to Bush, and you have the movie W. Don't watch this movie; it's a waste of time.



IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

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/

Casino Royale (2006)

4/5

I was expecting this Bond movie to be particularly good, since they usually are when they cast a new actor to play Bond, but I was let down. Don't get me wrong; it's not bad, it's just not as good as it should have been. It seemed to follow the trend of humanizing superhero characters as in the two Spiderman movies and Batman Begins, which took away from the Bond we know and love and have grown up with. Why are there no gadgets in this movie? The music was a heavy-handed attempt at being emotive, which just made it ludicrously melodramatic in some places, and mediocre at best in others. It was much too long--its ending felt longer than the ending(s) for the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Yes, all 13 of them.

The action in the beginning was amazing. Absolutely flawless. The women are unbelievably sexy and the cars are stunning. The pacing up until the finale is surprisingly well done, and Campbell is able to switch moods effortlessly. The acting is phenomenal, something you don't usually see in a Bond flick. It's a real treat to see Bond's transformation from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. It's definitely a good addition to the Bond lineage, I just don't know if I like the direction it's going.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/