Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (2014)

2/5

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is the most recent in a seemingly endless spate of uninspired summer sequels that do little more than attempt to rehash a winning franchise/formula and only end up disappointing everybody. It brings back some actors but not others (I was really hoping for a Clive Owen cameo, but it never came) and jumbles up the timeline in the most unnecessarily labyrinthine way. A lot of it just didn't make sense if you spent more than a few seconds thinking about the plot. The one saving grace is the pure villainy of the film's title character; she is a femme fatale for the ages.

A Dame To Kill For looks exactly the same as the original without feeling as inventive or awe-inspiring. While the first one was fresh and gritty, this one is tired and gruesome. The special effects and the writing both go way overboard in an attempt to one-up itself and raise the bar on violent deaths even more extravagantly. It's all a little too much--honestly even a little sickening--and we've seen it before. I loved the first one and saw it three times the first week it came out in theaters, but I have no desire to watch this one ever again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458481/

Don Jon (2013)

3/5

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Don Jon is a bold directorial debut that succeeds on many fronts but doesn't fully satisfy. The movie stars Gordon-Levitt as a New Jersey twenty-something whose life revolves around a few things. One of them is online porn. His hook-up, Johansson, questions why he would watch porn when he can have "the real thing." And the movie spends a fair amount of time trying to answer that very question. It's actually an interesting one, one I think perhaps might be better served by a documentary-style investigation rather than writerly musings.

As far as the plot goes, it's a fairly predictable, well-worn story arc without a bunch of surprises. Gordon-Levitt infuses the movie with humorous ironies (I love his road rage when he's going to church) that make it feel fresh and fun. But the movie also has plenty of annoyances. For one, Gordon-Levitt's hair is horrific. It is eye-searing. And their New Jersey accents grind through your eardrum and drill into your brain. The subject matter is still somewhat unseemly for many people, and the movie isn't nearly charming enough to overpower their disgust.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229499/

Premium Rush (2012)

1/5

Premium Rush is one of the most ridiculous movies I've seen recently. The story is not only ludicrous on its own merits, it is also told in an unnecessarily convoluted fashion. It goes backwards and forwards and every which way, with its only purpose seemingly to keep certain plot points hidden from the audience so that they can reveal it as a big surprise at the end. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling so long as it adds some sort of value instead of just existing for the sake of being different. The plot, as in all action movies, is pretty underwhelming: a guy rides a bike around NYC while being chased by cops in cars and on bikes. That's about it. There were way too many 1) chase scenes in which cyclists get terribly injured, 2) irrelevant side characters, and 3) not-so-subtle racial stereotypes. All in all, it's a pretty middling action flick with nary a redeeming factor and lots to dislike.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1547234/

Lincoln (2012)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is a tremendous film. Although the biopic only details the last year or so of Lincoln's life and presidency, it focuses on his most important contribution to the United States: the passage of the amendment that prohibits slavery. There is little of the Civil War, and there is lots of oration and debate. Luckily for me, I prefer thoughtful parables and eloquent monologues to simple-minding fighting, and that is exactly what this movie provides. Oh, and it brings with it plenty of sly witticisms and clever jokes.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the titular character, although Day-Lewis completely disappears within Lincoln. Watching the 2.5 hour movie, I never once felt I was seeing Day-Lewis on screen. I only saw Lincoln. That is perhaps the greatest commendation I can give to an actor. Sally Field is immensely believable as Lincoln's wife; her presence allows us an unexpected and sharply penetrating look into Lincoln's personal life, including its love, its turmoil, and its troubles. Tommy Lee Jones gives an equally remarkable performance as Thaddeus Stevens, one of the biggest proponents for the end of slavery and the equality of every man and woman.

The movie is, unfortunately, relatively light on story. The dialogue could also feel preachy from time to time. There are actually quite a few loose ends and irrelevant side plots that crop up. Quite frankly, I don't understand the purpose of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, or why such a well-known actor was chosen to portray him. And James Spader and his men seem to stick around well past their utility and relevance. Overall, though, the movie is equal parts iconic and inspirational. It's a historical drama with the right amount of modern sensibilities peppered throughout its joyously old-timey vernacular.

IMDb link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Looper (2012)

4/5

Rian Johnson's Looper is a smart, slick film. It takes place in a future where time travel and telekinesis co-exist, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is offensively stratospheric, and where "loopers" kill people from the future and incinerate their bodies. Much like Children of Men, Looper gives us a believable, richly-textured, and incredibly-detailed world while simultaneously advancing an expertly-paced thriller plot. Both the setting and the story are complex and tapestried, both surprise you time and again, and both keep your neurons firing non-stop. The plot is intelligent and fresh, interesting but not too cerebral. It is a marvel of imagination and storytelling. But for me it's missing something.

Except for the Drive-level ultra-violence and over-the-top blood, it's a movie that checks all the right boxes, and yet somehow it doesn't excite me as much as it should. The acting is on-point, the script is well-written, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the directing is pristine. Every individual element is impressive on its own, but they don't cohere into something that truly thrills me. No matter how much I enjoyed the film on an intellectual level, I simply couldn't engage with it on an emotional one. I can't wait to rewatch this movie in case I find myself in the latter camp, but I'm doubtful I'd make the crossover. I can see this movie being very special for many people; as of now it's just not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is a middling experience from conception to execution. The plot is absolutely ridiculous, starring a bad guy with a more preposterously complicated and ludicrously conceived plan than a James Bond villain. The web is littered with countless reviews describing the innumerable plot holes in this film; my favorite is the "prison" that has no guards whatsoever and has an open hatch where everyone is allowed to attempt escape. (Luckily, this prison also apparently neighbors Gotham City!) In the bad science department, I think it actually one-ups Batman Begins, with its notion that someone's broken vertebrae can be realigned as if it were a shoulder dislocation (you know, because there's no spinal cord running through the "out of place" vertebrae that might be irreparably damaged). Also, our protagonist is absent for about half the film, during which time it turns into a WWII Nazi Germany movie.

And that's just the storyline. The technical aspects of the movie fared no better. Similar to the first one, the action is unintelligible thanks to close-ups, quick cuts, and poor lighting. The intro sequence is, quite honestly, unnecessary garbage. The acting is its own form of mess, except for Caine--who truly blew me away with a performance that should have been reserved for a far better film--and Hathaway. Despite the remarkable failure of the individual cinematic elements, The Dark Knight Rises kept me glued to my seat. Nolan is able to achieve an indescribable anticipation and a palpable excitement, an aura of cool. Unfortunately, it lacks any substantive backing to that nebulous quality, which would surely disappear if I were to see the movie again. Honestly, I cannot recommend this film. Despite all the hype and popularity, it is destined to become a cult classic, loved by a few and forgotten by everyone else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/

50/50 (2011)

3/5

50/50 tells the story of Adam (Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old who discovers he has a rare form of cancer that carries with it a 50% chance of death. His reaction is a mixture of numbness and distance; other people react differently. His girlfriend (Howard) cheats on him, his best friend (Rogen) uses the diagnosis to pick up girls, and his mother (Huston) constantly nags him to let her take care of him. He sees a therapist (Kendrick) to help sort out his emotions, but she is inexperienced and unprepared for the relationship they develop.

The acting by Huston and Kendrick was phenomenal. Every single time they were on screen, I was astounded and moved by the emotions on display. Rogen's acting was his typical fare, boisterous and hilarious. Gordon-Levitt was probably the weakest link, playing a relatively boring character to mediocrity. The writing was basic and plodding at some points and profoundly touching at others (my favorite scene in the movie is where Adam talks to his father before his surgery, because it is the only time he is directly addressed after being practically ignored or treated as a joke throughout the film).

For me, the movie's biggest problem lies in the medical setting. Maybe I'm biased, but I just could not believe how the doctors treated him; it felt like unrealistic melodrama and pity-mongering. On top of all that are countless medical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Granted, 50/50 feels true enough for most people watching, and it's about mood and not medicine, but it bugged me incessantly and prevented me from enjoying the movie. Overall, it's good at tugging at your heartstrings while tickling your funny bone, but I would avoid it if you're at all familiar with the medical field.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306980/

Inception (2010)

5/5

Christopher Nolan's Inception is a near-perfect film. It follows a thief named Cobb (DiCaprio) and his team of extractors (Gordon-Levitt, Hardy, Rao, Page) as they invade people's dreams and steal their secrets. They are hired to carry out a new kind of job called inception: implant an idea in someone else's head through their dreams. In order to do this and convince the dreamer that it is their own idea, they must go three levels deep--a dream within a dream within a dream. With each level removed from reality, time slows down exponentially, such that entire lives can be lived within mere seconds. Imagine the life you're living now; imagine dying 80 years after being born and then waking up to find yourself still young. And that is the idea from which this entire movie stems, from which it will no doubt be compared to the likes of The Matrix. But what Inception has over The Matrix is that we all dream, and we all know what it's like to wake up from a dream. We can imagine that what we're living in now is just a dream, and maybe--just maybe--we can wake up and get a second chance at life.

The cinematography in this film is crisp and direct. Except for the impressive and awe-inspiring gravity-defying action scenes in the hotel, it's merely adequate. It's not particularly cumbersome nor is it particularly artistic, but it gets the job done. The acting feels much the same. It is written well enough to make the characters distinct and separate, but they never feel like more than just archetypes. Even DiCaprio's character, by far the most complex and mature, feels like a rehashing of the tormented soul he played in Shutter Island. And Marion Cotillard, whose acting I fell in love with in Nine, plays a representation of an idea instead of a real human being. But these are the weakest aspects of the movie.

Inception's strengths are its storytelling, directing, and editing. The story, as I've described above, is what will win this movie its fans and its cult following. The plot, compelling as it is, exists solely to propel the idea that the world we think is real may just be a dream. And as Cobb warns us in the film, an idea is the most dangerous, insidious, persistent threat to our health and wellbeing that we can imagine. The story is combined with precise editing to create an airtight film that never lets you catch your breath or blink your eyes. It is nonstop intellectual and visceral action from beginning to end, with stunning efficiency and economy. And Nolan's directing puts this movie together into an unforgettable whole, with nary a missing piece or unseen error. This is a movie that was not thrown together in a day; it took years of planning and execution and is all the better for it. No, it's not a perfect movie and it may not be for everybody, but it's one of the most riveting, revolutionary movies I've seen come out of Hollywood in a long, long time. I suggest you watch it as soon as possible, before all the water cooler chatter about it ruins the film for you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

4.9/5

Marc Webb's (500) Days of Summer has an infuriating title. It's annoying typing all those parentheses while organizing an outing to see the movie; or while adding, deleting, and re-adding it to Google Calendar when plans change; or while talking about how good it is with friends. And I would bet money on the fact that the parentheses don't even mean anything. They're just flourishes to make the movie seem indie-cool. Luckily, that's the worst part about the movie. Everything else is perfect.

Starring two of the leading indie actors working today (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel), you can tell this is going to be an indie film. And it is. From the hipster outfits to the eclectic soundtrack, from the quirky habits to the unique sensibilities, this is indie to a T. But not the original independent of the 70's, the now-mainstream, now-conventional independent of contemporary cinema. Being what it is, it's not always original. In fact, most of the filmmaking techniques are repackagings of those found in Annie Hall (which is incidentally my favorite romantic comedy of all time). But what it copies, it copies well. It is polished and pristine. And most importantly, it works. I've seen characters break into song and dance before, I've seen unorthodox or broken timelines before, and I've seen brilliant use of split-screen before, but it all comes together here to create a compelling, fulfilling, emotional whole.

The story is a typical boy-meets-girl tale, but the narrator warns us that it is not a love story. And he's right. To a romantic, every girl you fall for is the love of your life. And since the movie is told from the guy's point of view, it seems like she really is "the one." And in that tender moment where he finally realizes that she isn't right for him, where he accurately pinpoints her role in his life, the movie peaks. You get that warm, fuzzy feeling in the film's bittersweet finale that every romance aspires to. You cherish the film, realizing that all the special effect gimmicks, all the "experimental" styles, all the editing, the cinematography, the acting, the writing--all that was there for the sole purpose of sending your heart aflutter. And like I said, it works. If you liked Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Garden State, don't hesitate to watch this movie. You will fall in love with it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1022603/

The Lookout (2007)

3/5

The aptest word to describe this movie is, for me, unfulfilling. It starts out strong with an absolutely beautiful opening scene that explains the tragedy that results in Chris Pratt's head injury and debilitation that is his central characteristic throughout the rest of the movie. But from there, it never quite lives up to expectations. Coming in, I thought it was going to be a crime movie/character study à la The Beat That My Heart Skipped, but it doesn't even approach the depth, quality, or intensity that that movie contains. As is very often the case, in trying to be both kinds of movies, it succeeds at neither. Much of the story seems sloppy and unnecessary and characters come and go without being fully fleshed out. The writing relied excessively on voice-over and flash-back. The heist/crime aspect was simple and uninteresting and it took away from the emotional aspect of a character living with pain and guilt. The character study had potential, but not much else, as the movie spent more time on the plotting and execution of the bank robbery than on developing his mental anguish.

The acting by Jeff Daniels was awesome; his unique character is very memorable and well-envisioned. I didn't find Joseph Gordon-Levitt's acting spectacular, but I don't think he had much to work with. He was excellent in the very few opportunities he had to be excellent. There were some very pretty shots (in the beginning and during the actual bank heist). And while it never quite satisfied, the morsels of tenderness and emotion sprinkled throughout the movie felt real and true. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're interested in the actors, because they are really the only above average qualities this movie has.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427470/

Mysterious Skin (2004)

4/5

This movie is first and foremost incredibly gay, but that is just the necessary backdrop for an emotional journey into the lives of two tormented youths. The editing often faded from one boy's face/body to the other's to give the impression that they were somehow connected, if not the same. Yet they both react to the same situation in two vastly different ways, one with ignorance and the other with embrace. I may have slightly "ruined" the ending, but I don't think what happened was really a mystery; it's merely the end of a journey of self-discovery, which is really the heart of the film. And this journey is expressed vividly by amazing acting all around.

Being so exquisitely and flamboyantly gay, it limits its message to a very specialized audience. While the movie was effective, I wasn't quite sure what its point was with a lot of scenes. It seemed like there was a gratuitous amount of unnecessarily explicit sexual encounters for the sake of either making you disgusted or depressed at the depth of depravity in our society. Some characters, like some scenes, didn't really have points and were just there to change up the scenery. The editing was extremely artsy and made the movie feel pretentious, which took away from the feeling of the story being realistic and raw. Even so, I think it's an extremely well-made movie, but definitely not for everyone's palate.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0370986/