The Hangover: Part III (2013)

1/5

The Hangover Part III is simply awful. The movie reunites the "wolfpack" once again (Cooper, Helms, Galifianakis), only this time without any roofies or hangovers. Instead, Marshall (Goodman) has kidnapped them and sent them on a mission to find the wolfpack-adjacent international criminal Leslie Chow (Jeong). What ensues is not so much hilarity as it is vulgarity. Director Todd Phillips confuses humor with shock, using the winding plot and the $15 million paychecks of otherwise reputable actors to gross us out in whatever way possible. The first two were funny; this one is nauseating. The pre-credit epilogue is truly gag-worthy, and I remain thankful that they never found any pictures explaining how they got in that particular predicament. The story lines, the performances, and the directing were never the trilogy's strong suit, so what does this one have to offer us? A few uncomfortable laughs in an otherwise filthy mess. Not even Melissa McCarthy can save this garbage. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951261/

Monsters University (2013)

4/5

Monsters University, the prequel to Monsters Inc., is another impressive installment in Pixar's already phenomenal canon. It tells the story of the unlikely meeting between Mike Wazowski (Crystal) and James P. Sullivan (Goodman) in the scare academy. Like the best prequels, it deepens our love for each character, enriching their personalities and unveiling their motivations. We learn how they got to where they are today, what obstacles they had to overcome, what imperfections they had to live with, what prejudices they had to endure. They become more compelling than ever before and so we treasure our time with them.

The story and animation are both absolutely charming. The pacing is spot-on, shifting from comedy to excitement to sentiment with seeming ease. It is a delight to watch and it will leave you grinning with glee. Part of what makes Monsters University so good is how good Monsters Inc. is, knowing how it all ends. And now that we have Monsters University to enjoy, Monsters Inc. becomes that much better too!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453405/

Argo (2012)

4/5

Ben Affleck's Argo recreates the Iran hostage crisis of 1979/1980 with remarkable visual accuracy. After protestors overtake the US Embassy in Iran, 6 would-be hostages escape out a back entrance and hide in the Canadian ambassador's house. Meanwhile the US government is planning a daring "exfiltration" operation led by Tony Mendez (Affleck). Mendez creates a fake movie called Argo, gets Hollywood effects expert John Chambers (Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) to back the ruse, and flies into Iran with fake passports for the fake film crew. As this is going on, the Iranian military within the US Embassy are piecing together shredded documents that contain pictures of the missing employees.

The movie is well-made in terms of its cinematic technique, and Goodman and Arkin deliver knockout performances, but the movie as a whole just doesn't have a clear focus. It starts as a thrilling historical drama, with tense intimate situations and riveting political narratives. But when it turns to the Hollywood scenes, it becomes almost farcical in its tongue-in-cheek joking. It's quite funny, but the humor doesn't seem to fit. The two parts never quite match up, as if they don't belong in the same movie. Argo had no unifying mood to carry us through both halves of the film, and we are left with a jarring disconnect during each transition. Still, the movie is entertaining and exciting, and it's one of those rare movies that allows us a fascinating glimpse into an important piece of history through its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/

The Artist (2011)

2/5

Michel Hazanavicius's The Artist is an interesting film. It is (almost entirely) a silent film, about the transition from silent film to talking moving pictures, similar to Singin' in the Rain. George Valentin (Dujardin) is the silent film star and Peppy Miller (Bejo) is the rising new talent. As Peppy continues her ascension to the top by embracing the future, Valentin inevitably loses his fame and fortune by his refusal to give in to what he sees as a passing fad. Valentin sees all of his wealth auctioned off and is eventually pushed to the brink of suicide.

The story is deeper than it seems at first. One could look at it with the lens of gender politics. It serves as an allegory for the emasculation of man, as well as the rise of the powerful woman and feminism as a whole. One could also look at it with the lens of revolution. It is about anything and everything in life that is affected by the unending onslaught of technological advances. We saw it with talking pictures, with color film, and perhaps we are seeing it now with 3D movies. But it is about any revolution, not just in movies and not just with technology. It is about men clinging to their past glory and failing to fully grasp the threat of change.

But just because a movie has a lot to say doesn't mean it's good. I came into the theater knowing nothing about the film, not even that it was silent, and I think that was a mistake. I felt increasingly claustrophobic in the theater, as if I was taking off in an airplane and my ears weren't popping. The pressure kept building up and building up in my head as I waited for someone to make a sound, but the oppressive silence continued. I understand why Hazanavicius chose to make it silent, and indeed there are two phenomenal scenes that derive their power from the silence (the nightmare sequence and the "BANG!" at the end), but I just couldn't take it.

I don't know what it was about this movie, because I love silent films that were made in that era, but I just could not tolerate this one. It already had the difficult task competing with Singin' in the Rain in content, and starting the movie off in silence drew comparisons to how The Wizard of Oz started off in monochrome. (Also, there is a scene where Peppy sticks her arm in the sleeve of a hanging jacket and pretends it is a man hugging her that I am sure was stolen for another movie, but I can't remember which, and I find that irritating for some reason.)

All in all, this is a movie that takes a chance by using silence, and does so to great effect, but which may easily alienate some viewers. I don't quite know how to explain my bad experience, but I am sure others will be better able to appreciate this film for what it is.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/

You Don't Know Jack (2010)

4/5

You Don't Know Jack is an HBO made-for-TV movie about Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Pacino). Growing up I had heard about him on the news and his association with physician-assisted suicide, but I never really knew what was going on. This movie does a great job at filling in that gap, both historically and emotionally. It is engaging and well-acted. Pacino gives a stellar performance, at a level I haven't seen from him in quite some time. He gives his character warmth and heart, despite having an unlikable, brusque personality. We understand his motivations, even if we disagree with his philosophy or his practices. Unfortunately, the other characters (Huston, Sarandon, Goodman) were fairly bland and forgettable. They added very little to the gestalt.

Technically, the film was above average. The cinematography was surprisingly sharp and the editing was appropriately lean. The medicine was put on the backburner to discuss the ethics, which disappointed me. I don't mind medicine being the background (there's nothing worse than a movie putting medicine front and center and getting it all embarrassingly wrong), but I do feel extremely unsatisfied by the ethical discussion. Nothing was delved into in enough detail; nobody watching this movie would change their mind about the topic. Overall, this was an engrossing and enlightening film, but more for the historical aspects than the ethical ones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132623/

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

4/5

Because of some middling comments I had overheard about the movie, I was not expecting to love Disney's classically animated The Princess and the Frog as much as I did, but it is an extraordinary film and a pleasure to watch. The plot follows a young girl in New Orleans named Tiana who wants to turn her dream of running her own restaurant into a reality. Prince Naveen, who was recently cut off from his rich parents, visits New Orleans and is intoxicated by the voodoo doctor's fortunes of wealth. He accepts the shadow man's offer of a future of "green," only later realizing that it meant he would be turned into a frog. He hops on over to Tiana, mistakes her for a princess, and kisses her. Unfortunately, it causes her to turn into a frog as well, instead of turning him back into a prince. The rest of the movie details their quest to turn human again and stop the witch doctor from taking over the town and sucking out everyone's souls.

The movie is visually breathtaking. The 2D animation is sharp and smooth--and quite a refreshing departure from the typical animated film of the late 2000's. The story is captivating from beginning to end. There are scares and triumphs, thrills and laughs, in the perfected proportions that can only come from years of cartooning experience. Granted, there are a few unnecessary scenes/side plots (e.g., the three frog hunters), but they add in some fun, excitement, and drama. The characters are intriguing and charismatic; they draw you close with their friendliness, warmth, and emotion. And the story unfolds like a puzzle that gets slowly put together into an awesome tapestry. The plot is not without a few predictabilities and the music is not without some repetitive or forced dynamics, but on the whole this movie has all the elements you remembered and loved about the best Disney movies of the 1990's.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780521/

The Big Lebowski (1998)

4/5

The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I was a bit underwhelmed. I had heard the superlatives thrust about in zealous reviews, but at that time I was unfamiliar with the Coens and I didn't know "what it was that they did." Now I know, and I am truly impressed by their work here. Their inimitable style--from the precisely-crafted dialogue to the beautifully-envisioned compositions--is in full force in this movie. Unforgettable characters have emerged from forgettable roles. Simple phrases have become generational mottos. This is a movie that will remain in the collective cultural memory for a long time to come.

The humor finds itself in what the characters do and do not say and how they say it; it finds itself in their actions but more importantly in their motivations; it finds itself in the times, the places, and the moods of these individuals we slowly grow to appreciate if not love (thanks to narration by a "stranger"). While it is not particularly rare for me to laugh during a movie, it is hard for me to remember laughing so loudly, forcefully, and obnoxiously before this one.

Even so, the animated dream sequences are dated. I really don't like special effects that don't hold up over time. But there is a far more significant underlying problem I have with the film. As when I saw it the first time, I have trouble finding a point to it--something I can apply to my daily life more than simply quoting hilarious lines and/or putting them in my movie quotes quizzes. Maybe this movie is just entertainment, but I think the Coens should do more than that. I certainly know they can. But the question is whether or not I got anything more out of it than hearty laughs and good memories; and what is the answer? Does anyone have an answer in the affirmative, because I very much would like to love this movie more than I already do, and that is one major hurdle it must jump. Still, I would pop this movie in the DVD player in a heartbeat if I ever needed a quick laugh. And it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it already.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Bee Movie (2007)

4/5

Bee Movie is hilarious! Seinfeld's post-Seinfeld stuff has been excruciatingly disappointing, but this movie is exceptional. Though there was nothing stunning about the animation (as there was in Ratatouille), it did take advantage of CGI to create an awe-inspiring and fully-envisioned bee world. The story, while predictable, still managed to be unique and innovative. I knew how everything would turn out, but I had no idea what crazy adventures would happen along the way. This was also somewhat of a detriment, as the movie kept plodding along after the main storyline came to a close and re-opened again two more times. The jokes were fast-paced, but sometimes the funniest ones were muttered to the side instead of boasted with confidence. All in all, I'm glad Jerry Seinfeld made this movie, because it restored my faith in his abilities as a comedian. And it was a lot of fun. Highly recommended if you like Seinfeld.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0389790/

Bringing Out The Dead (1999)

3/5

Bringing Out The Dead follows Frank Pierce, a paramedic in New York's Hell's Kitchen who hasn't saved anyone in several months and has become haunted by ghosts of those he lost, for three of the busiest days of the year. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking. There is one extremely surreal sequence in wintertime, with snow falling upwards, that is almost too powerful. The visual imagery throughout was awe-inspiring. The editing was brilliant as well. The intro credit sequence was the best part about the movie, although it set my expectations impossibly high for the rest of the piece to follow. The music throughout was exceptional at setting and maintaining mood. Without the music, the movie would be a completely different experience--a much worse experience.

The exotic cast of characters, while played extremely well by more than capable actors, felt a bit too exaggerated for my tastes. (Also, every time I saw Marc Anthony on screen, I thought of Johnny Depp.) It seemed as if Scorsese didn't know whether the film should speak to us on a dramatic level or a surrealist level, so he did both. The result is an uneven movie that doesn't quite satisfy. On another note, I wasn't too keen on the depiction of the paramedics and people in the health profession overall--they all just seemed insane. And I felt a lot of the dialogue and voice-over narration was stale, uninspired, and just plain boring. Also, the stock plot conflict and resolution was predictable and painfully simple/bad. Whatever. It's a Scorsese picture, so you gotta see it. And for the quality of the cinematography, editing, and music you've come to expect in his pictures, you won't be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0163988/

Fallen (1998)

3/5

This movie has some really good elements. The dialogue is witty, oftentimes laugh-out-loud hilarious, and the twist on the narration at the end is ridiculously clever (and without a doubt my favorite part of the entire movie). There are scenes that stand out, like when the demon chases the woman by touching people nearby, or the first confrontation between the demon and Denzel Washington's character.

The acting, music, and cinematography were acceptable, but not exceptional. The characterization was pitiful if not nonexistent. A lot of the plot was hackneyed and/or easy to predict, so the thriller aspect of this movie lost its impact. I felt it lost a lot of steam near the ending, so it was just tedious waiting for the ending. Many people thought the ending was kind of cheap (I don't have too much of a problem with it). But overall, the cool scenes, the twist on narrative, the witty dialogue; it's just not enough to make this movie interesting enough to recommend.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0119099/