The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

4.9/5

Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street is a riveting, sensational film by a master storyteller. The movie follows a young trader named Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) who quickly rises to the top by starting his own firm and using manipulative sales tactics to sell high-risk stocks with large profit margins. Along the way, he engages in reckless behavior (mostly drugs) and revels in excess (million dollar parties on his million dollar yacht) while being chased down by the SEC and FBI (Chandler).

Scorsese uses frenetic filmmaking to show us his vices in all their glorious detail, combining fast editing with long shots to tell exactly the story he wants to tell. And he fully embraces the idea of storytelling, reminding you who is narrating and what their motives are: whether through a Porsche changing from red to white mid-shot, "thought bubbles" between Belfort and his Swiss banker (Dujardin), or re-editing his stories in retrospect. Scorsese is so convincing, so compelling, that it's hard to think trading is not normally like this.

Here Scorsese is dealing in his own trade. Both Scorsese as a filmmaker and DiCaprio as Belfort sell their audience, bit by bit, on why their product is not only good, but necessary. They are able to create demand out of thin air. And that is why Scorsese is the best at what he does. Quite honestly, Scorsese can make a movie about anything and make it enthralling, engaging, and explosive. Here he does it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/

22 Jump Street (2014)

3/5

The sequel to the TV show reboot that took the world by storm is more of a mixed bag than the slam-dunk repeat formula success story that I'm sure its producers wanted. The writing, which combines raunchy humor with bromance and heart, is adequately funny but never feels emotionally honest. The jokes feel recycled, as does the overall plot progression. The novelty of 21 Jump Street is entirely lost. It's a great piece of entertainment, but it's also an empty, forgettable one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294449/

The Lego Movie (2014)

3/5

The Lego Movie is a two-hour long advertisement that you have to pay to see. Yes, it has a story and characters, but so do thirty-second TV bits. And that doesn't change the fact that it is an advertisement for a brand, even if it is a brand that many people have fond childhood memories of. I typically don't mind product placement (e.g., I, Robot) or obvious sponsorship (e.g., The Hire: Powder Keg) as long as the movie can stand on its own merits. This movie cannot. If our analytic functions weren't so warped by our communal nostalgia of the lovable building bricks, it would be obvious to everybody just how middle-of-the-road this movie is.

The movie is frustrating because its creators seem confused as to what they are trying to say. Every theme seems half-baked, every new message inconsistent with the last one. The Lego Movie is a conceptual mess. The only thing I am certain of is that this movie thinks Legos are awesome and that you should go buy some right now!

The movie starts by satirizing the idea that following rules is good, by mocking the idea that teamwork is beneficial. (Side note: is it even really that bad to abide by laws? to work as a team?) It uses the incredibly catchy song Everything Is AWESOME!!! as a representation of the fascist, domineering society where we lose our individuality, but then uses that very same song to cheer up one of the characters later on. So are we supposed to like it or are we supposed to reject it? Because it's currently one of the most popular songs on iTunes.

And I'm a little confused by the ending. I don't want to spoil things for those who haven't seen it, so I urge people who don't want this mediocre movie spoiled to stop reading now. After this sentence there be spoilers. So is Emmett real or is he in the boy's imagination? If it's all made up, then how did Emmett move around on the table and attract the boy's attention? If it's all real, then it seems as if the boy just took credit for building literally hundreds of new designs that the Lego people actually built! Seems a little fishy to me. See what I mean when I say that the movie feels underdeveloped and poorly-thought out?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1490017/

This Is The End (2013)

4/5

This Is The End is a raunchy, vulgar, hilarious comedy written and directed by Seth Rogen. It is entirely his show, and he delivers the most over-the-top laughs you can imagine by going way farther than you'd expect. The plot follows two friends (Jay Baruchel and Seth Rogen) at James Franco's housewarming party when the apocalypse suddenly strikes. Our unfortunate protagonists are not taken up to heaven in the Rapture. Instead, they must fight hunger, distrust, and well-endowed demons in order to survive.

What makes it more clever than just an average comedy is that all the actors play quasi-real versions of themselves. They look the same and have the same name, but they don't behave the same way they do in real life. The best example is Michael Cera, in the most widely-divergent role of his entire career, playing himself. Even without that twist, it was still a lot of fun seeing a bunch of familiar faces in small cameos.

The cinematic properties are passable but forgettable. And nobody expects to be impressed by those things when they enter a theater to see a Seth Rogen film. Instead, the film stands on its humor, and Rogen is able to deliver side-splitting laughs. His timing is impeccable, whether we are simply witnessing bickering friends or being horrified by extravagant gross-outs and extreme sight gags. (I honestly cannot wrap my head around any reason for there to be so many demon penises on screen in any movie ever.) There were times when I finished laughing and realized I had not inhaled for the previous 30 seconds. Yes, my respiratory rate was literally 2 breaths per minute. This is an amazing movie that I highly recommend for anyone who is a fan of Seth Rogen.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1245492/

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/

21 Jump Street (2012)

4/5

I didn't know this going in, but 21 Jump Street is a comic adaptation of an 80's police procedural TV show about cops who go undercover into high schools and colleges because of their youthful appearances. In this 2012 version, best friends Jenko (Tatum) and Schmidt (Hill) are sent into the undercover unit at 21 Jump Street, aka the Aroma of Christ Korean church, with the mission of infiltrating a drug ring that has popped up at a local high school. Jenko is excited to relive his glory days, but soon discovers that the status symbols and hierarchy that put him on top have completely reversed compared to 7 years prior. Now the environmentally-friendly vegans (Franco, Larson) are the cool kids, and Schmidt realizes he may finally get a second chance at high school popularity.

To put it simply, the movie is awesome. It is one of the funniest I've seen recently, on par with the best of Judd Apatow (and in the same raunchy, irreverent style). It pokes fun of endless remakes, of the action comedy genre, and especially of itself. It spends no time on character development and no time on plot progression. Instead it spends 100% of the time on comedy, and it more than pays off in the jokes department. However, it doesn't try to make a point, and therefore it doesn't have the same potential as the best comedies in terms of staying power. But this movie is spectacularly funny, and I cannot recommend it enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232829/

Moneyball (2011)

4.9/5

Moneyball is a superb film about a revolution in the game of baseball. Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager for the Oakland A's, is losing his top three players to higher-paying teams. While trying to find the cheapest "good" players he can, he discovers Peter Brand (Hill). Brand is an econ major who enjoys watching baseball, but he brings with him a new way to build a team, using statistical analysis to figure out which players are undervalued because of perceived defects (e.g., a pitcher who throws funny, a batter who waddles). Instead of scouting for the all-star with good looks, a clean swing, and a hot girlfriend, Beane and Brand are searching for the people with the highest on-base percentage and recruiting them for dirt cheap.

Although based on a true story, the only reason this movie feels as authentic as it does is because of the genuine performances from the stellar cast. We see regret in Pitt's face, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy from an actor we would expect the exact opposite out of. In Hill we see the everyman with a bright idea without the confidence to stand behind it. The dialogue is pristine and the cinematography and editing are crisp. Every scene is filled with energy and humor and Miller transforms all that verve into a lively, entertaining film. Much like Sorkin's previous screenplay, this one is about a small idea that challenges the status quo and changes a way of life. This movie is ultimately about progress, at the social level and at the individual level, despite being a "baseball movie." I am not a big fan of sports movies, but this is one of the best. Moneyball is a movie that just happens to be about sports, and an incredible one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/

Megamind (2010)

4/5

Megamind is a surprisingly clever and innovative animated superhero movie. It draws from a number of the classics, but synthesizes all that material together into something all its own (much like Hot Fuzz). It felt new, exciting, and hilarious. The comedy was fantastic. I normally hate Ben Stiller movies and Will Ferrell movies, but I was pleasantly surprised by the humor displayed in this film. Maybe it's the fact that I'm not staring at Will Ferrell's ugly face or protuberant belly (which he seems so proud of that he cannot wait to expose himself in any and every one of his movies), but I actually thought he did a terrific job here. And I especially loved the mispronounced words (even though I hated all those same mispronounced words in Zoolander).

One very strange thing about this movie is the voice acting. It was great, don't get me wrong, but I always found myself hearing the actor instead of the character. I was never able to separate the person on screen from the person behind the mic. It was always Will Ferrell is doing this, Tina Fey is doing that. I think part of that is the large amount of voice-over narration, where it's easy to recognize their voice because you don't see the animated character disguising it. All in all, however, that's a relatively minor fault and I would definitely recommend this movie. It was such a wonderfully unexpected joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1001526/

How To Train Your Dragon (2010)

4/5

How To Train Your Dragon by DreamWorks is a phenomenal animated film on the same level as most Pixar movies. The plot follows the young Viking Hiccup (Baruchel) and his great warrior father Stoick (Butler) on an island plagued by dragon attacks. Hiccup isn't like the other Vikings--he's scrawny and uses his brain to invent weapons instead of wielding giant hammers and axes--and his father lets him know how disappointed he is in him because of it. Wanting to kill a dragon and prove to his father that he's a manly Viking, he tests out a new weapon on an elusive dragon species called the Night Fury. He strikes the dragon down, injuring the tail so that he can no longer escape. He has the opportunity to kill the dragon but discovers that he can't. He sees the dragons with the same fear that he felt and realizes that they're just like him, instead of the evil creatures he's been taught must be killed on sight. But that is just the beginning of this epic tale.

This movie is an exhilarating and memorable ride. Despite a few bad puns, the writing is exceptional. I was a huge fan of the repetition of certain phrases that, when placed in different contexts, showed new meaning. I liked the play on words with the concept of "dragon training," and how it did a complete reversal from what it was in the beginning of the movie. To me, the writers clearly treated this film with care, intellect, and a faith and respect in their audience that is a rarity in "kids" movies these days. That kind of attention to detail was present in their incredible graphics as well, even though I didn't see it in 3D (I think they give me more headaches than they're worth). Without going for the cuteness of Pixar or the realism of Beowulf, they managed a charismatic and charming style that feels appropriate for the subject matter and wholly original.

There were a few things I didn't like about the movie, however. First, Baruchel's voicing of Hiccup was irritating. By about 10 minutes in, I just got annoyed at his whiny, monotonous tenor and wished he was played by anybody else, even Michael Cera. Second, the fight and reunion with his father felt written and didn't quite ring true, although it nonetheless contained some tearjerking ability. Third, there were some aspects of the plot I didn't (and still don't) get, but they're relatively minor and don't really hinder your enjoyment of the film. This movie goes wholly recommended by me, because it has just about everything you could ask for in a film, including the all-important entertainment value.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892769/

The Invention of Lying (2009)

3/5

Ricky Gervais's The Invention of Lying is a fairly entertaining movie that took its clever premise in a direction I had no idea was coming. The plot started off in a contrived world where not only does everyone tell the truth, but they say what's on their mind regardless of other people's company. It made for some good moments in the beginning (for example, what's on the mind of two people on a semi-blind date, what the waitstaff is thinking when they serve you your food, etc.) but it quickly grew old and tired. And just in time, Ricky Gervais's character somehow inexplicably discovers how to lie and takes advantage of it. One day his mother is on her deathbed and he comes up with the idea of heaven to cheer her up. From there on out it becomes a completely different movie that I can't really say I was ready for.

The best part of the movie was its special guest appearances, from Philip Seymour Hoffman to Jason Bateman. They were always completely unexpected and entirely hilarious. The second best part was that the concession stand people accepted my expired coupon for a large popcorn and drink, which was most likely the cause of the single worst part about the moviegoing experience. My bladder filled up to an amount I cannot remember it ever filling up to in my 23 year existence about 30 minutes into the 90 minute movie. I tried holding out for that last hour, squirming in my seat, but after 45 minutes I simply couldn't take it any longer and skipped about 2-3 minutes of the movie to pee. It was glorious. But that middle 45 minutes were the worst. Anyway, the movie's style of humor is pretty close to what it appears in the trailer, but its view on religion may either intrigue or offend you. If you like Ricky Gervais and you're not particularly religious or you're not easily offended, then you may enjoy this movie immensely.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/

Funny People (2009)

3/5

Despite the rating of 3 stars, Judd Apatow's Funny People is not a mediocre movie. It's actually a great movie that suffers from some serious flaws. The plot follows star comedian George Simmons (Sandler) after he is diagnosed with AML. While depressed, he hires young stand-up comic Ira Wright (Rogen) to be his assistant and help write jokes for him. He finally starts accepting his impending death and, because of it, begins rekindling old relationships, including the love of his life, Laura (Mann). He miraculously recovers and, with his new lease on life, decides to pursue Laura and what he hopes is the key to his happiness.

Some of the scenes in this movie are incredibly powerful and moving (for example, when he first finds out about the disease, or when he fears that the drugs are making him sicker, or when he starts opening up to people, or the complicated mess they get into at the end). Some of the scenes, mostly the stand-up routines, are ridiculously hilarious. And I especially loved all the scenes where real-life comedians (Norm MacDonald, Dave Attell, Sarah Silverman, Ray Romano) play themselves. But some scenes just muddle the message and some scenes that need to be there just aren't. It's frustrating in a movie that seems so close to greatness fall so short. And it's unsatisfying. Even after 2 hours and 15 minutes, when I realized the credits were about to roll on the final shot, I thought to myself, "That's it? There's nothing more he has to say?"

The humor is actually fairly dissonant; you get the Adam Sandler humor of old mixed with the Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow humor of new and they just don't go together. I often had to force myself to laugh at most of Sandler's comedic lines. I never really found him that funny to start with, and this movie didn't change my opinion. On the bright side, the acting was effective and empathetic, from all parties, and most directorial decisions were spot-on. The cinematography was surprisingly effective at setting mood and evoking emotion with simple point-of-view shots. The editing was good for the most part, although it lagged in some parts as well. All in all, the movie was technically proficient with some very emotional scenes that ultimately leave you unfulfilled and aggravated. If you like Judd Apatow movies, you'll probably like this one, but it's definitely not as good as his other two.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201167/

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

4/5

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is yet another successful comedy from the Judd Apatow producing team. It's funny, it's smart, it's tender--what more could you want in a movie? Jason Segal announces his presence as a viable leading man: he's a quirky "composer" who gets dumped by his superstar girlfriend Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) and goes to Hawaii to get over her. As he soon finds out, he's staying at the same resort as his ex and her new superstar musician love interest Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). He quickly pairs up with Jackie from That 70's Show (Mila Kunis), only she's less annoying and more attractive in this movie.

Now that you know the basic framework and characters, I'm sure you know how it ends. Regardless, how it gets there is a hilarious and unique romp. (And thirty minutes shorter than his other movies too!) The humor is infectious; you feel the same joy the characters feel. You also feel their sadness because there is an honesty to the actors' performances that extend past the dialogue and the simple genre of comedy. This movie, as in all of Apatow's films, contains some of the strongest and most indelible side characters of any movie in recent memory. We may have seen this trope before, but we've never experienced it alongside these people. (Especially Kenneth from 30 Rock!)

The movie has some flaws. At times, I felt the jokes fell a bit flat. The timing was a bit off too--you didn't have enough time to laugh at the jokes. Additionally, half the movie had no establishing shots, making it hard to get a feel for the setting. The flashbacks were used effectively sometimes, but was very confusing in conjunction with the lack of establishing shots. Still. If you find me talking about technical flaws like establishing shots in a comedy, you know it got at least most things right. So if you liked Knocked Up and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, watch this movie and have a blast.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0800039/

Superbad (2007)

3/5

Superbad is about two best friends trying to get laid at a big high school party before they graduate and go off to different colleges. I don't really know why it's called Superbad, since it's quite good. It's a funny movie, no doubt about that. I'm just disappointed after seeing the much more mature 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Mature in terms of character depth and story development. It seemed to me that those movies had a central emotional and thematic core around which the rest of the movie took place. Not so here; it really is as shallow as the plot outline I described above sounds. Additionally, 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were much more grounded in reality. But Superbad was so utterly ridiculous. It started off with people talking and being angry and hilarious, which I loved, but quickly deteriorated to the most ludicrous situations you can imagine. I got more and more dejected as the movie went on. But it is so funny. If you like to laugh, watch this movie. Seriously. It is amazing. And I had no idea penis drawings could be so hilarious.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0829482/