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/

Men In Black 3 (2012)

4/5

Men In Black 3 is the sequel that nobody asked for and that everybody was surprised by. It offers an origin story for both leads that brings complexity and depth to the characters, making them more authentic and infinitely more heartwarming. You wouldn't expect that from a simple sci-fi action comedy--and you wouldn't expect for it to be done so expertly--but it gives us all that on top of everything else that makes the series so watchable. Past all the superfluous and silly special effects, past all the precisely-delivered one-liners, past all the action and excitement, the movie leaves an indelible mark in your memory because it plucks the heartstrings so powerfully. Honestly, seeing that finale just made my heart drop a little. How can you not feel something when you discover what turned Josh Brolin into Tommy Lee Jones? That small, perfect moment at the end is what makes Men In Black 3 the best of the series. And what makes me want to see it again and again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1409024/

True Grit (2010)

4/5

The Coen brothers' True Grit is an honest-to-goodness Western through and through. It follows 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) seeking revenge for the murder of her father by a drifter named Tom Chaney (Brolin). She hires US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Bridges) to track him down; he tries his best to dissuade her, but she is steadfast in her determination. Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon) joins in on the hunt, as he has been following Chaney since he killed a senator in Texas and aims to bring him back there for a hefty reward. The trio bicker back and forth in delicious Coen dialogue and have some gunfights with the baddies in precise Coen fashion before the final letdown in typical Coen style.

The movie is as technically proficient as ever. There is not a single misstep or error. The cinematography is beautiful and evocative. It feels rich and warm and barren and cold in metered, measured doses. The editing enhances the cinematography by letting it breathe when appropriate and taking your breath away when the story calls for it. But where this movie shines is in the writing and the acting. I recently realized that I am a big fan of the Coens' writing. The words they put down on paper are eloquent and earthy and the way they direct their actors to speak them deadpan works to subtly downplay their elegance. Their dialogue is even better than Tarantino's--and far more poignant and nuanced. Furthermore, the Coens do this on a consistent basis, in every single film they make, which just makes us take it for granted. As for the acting, Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation to behold, dominating every scene she's in (which is essentially the whole movie). She steals the limelight from Bridges and Damon, although their performances are impressive for their grit and charm in their own rights. And wow, does she earn it. Much like Aronofsky's Black Swan, True Grit is a technically proficient film that will be remembered not for the directing or the writing, but for the passionate, unforgettable performance of a young actress with seemingly limitless potential.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403865/

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/

Milk (2008)

4/5

Gus Van Sant's Milk tells the incredibly powerful true story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to major public office in San Francisco during the 70's. With flawless editing and pacing, Van Sant seamlessly integrates new footage with historical footage to fully engulf you in the feel and mood of the times. The acting is tender, honest, and subdued, fitting in perfectly with the documentary realism of the film. The portrayal of the homosexual community is equally sympathetic and genuine--and enlightening and moving to all who are not members of the community. Thanks to the eloquent writing, I could feel their pain, their struggle, and their elation at every small step towards equality.

Milk is more than a simple movie; it is a cry for help and an argument for social justice. But by entrenching itself so firmly in a specific time and place, and for a specific cause, it loses a bit of its universal appeal. Harvey Milk constantly emphasized that his movement was for homosexuals, not civil rights as a whole. Regardless, gay rights will undoubtedly remain a relevant issue for most of the rest of my life. And for that, I am grateful that I saw this movie. I'm not sure of its replay value, but I highly recommend you see Milk if you haven't already.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013753/

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

4/5

Paul Haggis's In the Valley of Elah manages to be touching without the oversentimentality that usually suffocates his films. Based on a true story, the movie follows Tommy Lee Jones as a retired career officer who starts investigating the disappearance of his son after his return from Iraq. From the very beginning, the mystery is paced exceptionally well, continually pulling you in and keeping your brain active the entire time. While not as gripping as A Few Good Men (and ultimately not as good, in my opinion), it is without a doubt more timely and relevant.

The acting was really good, although I think Tommy Lee Jones was better in No Country for Old Men than in this. Much of it was subtle and understated, making it feel richer and more genuine. Paul Haggis used a number of extended shots to give the actors room to act, instead of cutting between shot/countershot close-ups across 30 different takes. He has definitely learned to use the camera to compose interesting shots and movements. (One of my big arguments against Crash is that it had almost zero cinematic qualities; it's good to see that Haggis is finally learning.) If you were interested in this flick when it first came out, I definitely recommend you see it. And if not, perhaps you should consider it anyway.

Note: It was awesome seeing Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, AND Barry Corbin all in this film. It's like all those bad comedies that become so much better because of cameos from side characters on the Office. Except it's cameos from No Country for Old Men!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/

American Gangster (2007)

3/5

American Gangster tells the story of Frank Lucas, the biggest, baddest, blackest gangster in 60's-era America, and Detective Richie Roberts, the honest cop chosen by the Feds to stop the growing drug problem. There were some things I liked and some things I didn't like about this 2.5 hour movie. So let me break it down to you by half hour episodes. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced to the trite, hackneyed police corruption plot we've seen a million times before combined with the archetypal family man gangster. In the second 30 minutes, we are introduced to superfluous characters and side stories that take up too much time. The third 30 minutes contain periods of ferocity and tension punctuating the rather senselessly boring nothing that takes up the majority of the movie. The fourth 30 minutes we finally see a bit more excitement and character development. It starts to be more than random information being slowly revealed to us. We are actually engaged by the characters and their actions for once. The fifth 30 minutes are incredible. A truly powerful climax and a high-note to end the movie on. It almost makes up for the rest of the movie. Almost.

The movie is more than technically proficient, but less than necessary when it comes to storytelling. Why are we watching any of this? The one word to describe this movie would be excess. It's as if they had a solid story, and then decided to add junk on the sides. Ridley Scott should decide which story he wants to tell and tell it. He goes for the gangster building up his empire and the cop investigating the rising drug problem. They eventually intersect, so why not just start the story there? People keep asking, who is this guy? How does he do what he does? But we don't feel the same sense of wonder and awe that the rest of the characters do because we know who he his and we know how he sells better heroin for less money. The first hour and a half should have been cut, replaced by 15-30 minutes of more revealing storytelling from either Crowe or Washington's perspective. That would make this a much tighter, much better movie. Instead, it's a limp, overlong, unsuccessful attempt at an epic gangster movie in the vein of The Godfather.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0765429/

No Country for Old Men (2007)

5/5

Watching this movie again, after contemplating it for half a year, I am struck by how much I remember. How every single scene in my memory matches perfectly what I was watching on screen today. Every frame is burned in my brain. The story allegedly focuses on a cowboy who, upon finding a stash of heroin and two million dollars in cash, is chased by a ruthless killer who will stop at nothing to retrieve the money. But to say that is what the movie is about is to deny it depth. It is not about a specific story set in a specific place and time, but about the darkness in man, the descent of society, and how we are helpless to prevent our own downfall. Aside from the pure thrill rush of seeing such a flawlessly-crafted movie, its insight into humanity will ensure its place in the annals of film history.

No Country for Old Men is the latest by the Coen brothers, who are known for their ability to remold every genre and inject humor into even the darkest of situations. The first time I saw this movie, I don't think I ever laughed. Or smiled. I was too scared to. In terms of suspense, this movie outshines even The Silence of the Lambs. But there are so many humorous moments to even out the bleak, soulless remainder of the movie. What the Coens have achieved is an atmosphere that is completely unique; they have put us in a world that is completely their own. We have no way of predicting what will happen next or how the movie will end because we have never set foot in a world quite like this one.

Technically, there is not a single misstep or error. Every composition and camera movement is accomplished with such purpose and precision. There is something tranquil and calming about the way they shoot the barren landscapes, terrifying and tense about the dark hotels and pooling blood. The editing is pristine, and its role extends past mere function into thematics. In the Coens' refusal to show certain events we consider essential, we realize the true essence of the movie. The acting by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem is spot-on, but Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal of Ed Tom Bell is absolutely spellbinding. He quite literally becomes his character, emanating his very being without needing to speak a single line. A shift in his weight or a sluggish turn and we know more about him than any words could tell. That is not to say the dialogue is unnecessary--it is brilliant and profound, unnerving and unforgettable. At the end of this movie, you will sit there stunned. And you will remember it for a long time to come.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0477348/