The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

3/5

Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer is an unexpectedly thrilling crime/courtroom drama. Mick Haller (McConaughey) is the titular lawyer who takes on the case of Louis Roulet (Phillippe), a wealthy playboy accused of assaulting a prostitute. Roulet is unwilling to take any deals or plead anything besides not guilty, so Haller considers it a challenge worthy of his skills. However, Haller discovers some information that makes him doubt Roulet's honesty and innocence, which ends up putting him in quite the pickle as he debates breaking attorney-client privilege.

The opening credits were well-done, evoking an authentic 70's feel that unfortunately was never carried through to the rest of the film. Likewise, the story started with enormous potential, but it quickly whittled its way down to the predictable and expected. Connelly's writing is exciting, but not particularly original or mind-blowing. The pacing unfortunately turned out to be one of the movie's weaker suits. The characters' motivations were revealed too early, which just left you waiting for events to unfold instead of having you sit on the edge of your seat wondering who was telling the truth and who was not.

All in all, the movie has its ups and downs, which balances it out to about 3 stars. McConaughey does a fine job as the lead, but there's something about him I just don't like in this film. I think it's his gaunt eyes and cachectic face that ooze a sense of unease and distrust. His character might be a little sleazy, but I don't think I'm supposed to find him so eerily unsettling. Some of the supporting actors are spectacular (viz. William H. Macy) while others are not (viz. Ryan Phillippe). For a mindless piece of entertainment, The Lincoln Lawyer is decent, but that's about all I'll give it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189340/

J. Edgar (2011)

4/5

Clint Eastwood's biopic of J. Edgar Hoover is a compelling portrait of a unique character in American history. The plot follows the controversial rise of J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) to the director of the FBI--his anti-Communist crusades, criminal forensics, and government blackmail--and then analyzes how those same ideas eventually contributed to his public downfall. It tackles his personal relationships and his political ambition in equal parts, forming a tapestry of contradictions and dichotomies inherent in everybody but rarely projected onto the big screen with such clarity and precision. It chronicles his complex love for his mother (Dench), his secretary (Watts), and his number two man (Hammer) with tenderness and honesty instead of the gaudy spectacle and homophobic fantasies that seem to have incessantly plagued his reputation.

DiCaprio's understated performance is remarkable, providing depth and subtlety alongside rage and hidden feelings. He is able to generate empathy for a hard, rigid, oftentimes unlikeable man. His portrayal serves as the foundation for this phenomenal film. While the supporting cast throws in stellar performances, they quickly fall by the wayside in the grand scheme of things. Without DiCaprio in the lead, J. Edgar would still be a good movie, but it would be a forgettable movie as well.

The movie has its fair share of imperfections. Eastwood did not do enough to lift the screenplay out of its decidedly literary beginnings and translate it to the medium of film. There are often "profound" ramblings by Hoover--unrelated to the images on screen--that were arbitrarily lodged in anytime there wasn't dialogue. The timeline would flip between eras too eagerly, making it difficult to get a sure footing on the time and place of certain events. The cinematography was post-processed too much, giving it an inconsistently old-timey look that felt disingenuous. Minor side characters, like Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were cast to mimic the famous political figures instead of to act as them. They focused on the accent instead of the words and the motivations behind the words. Despite these minor niggles, this is a terrific film and should not be missed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/

Life As We Know It (2010)

4/5

Life As We Know It is a tender, heartfelt romantic comedy that hits all the right notes. When Peter (MacArthur) and Alison (Hendricks) Novack die in a car accident, their two best friends are given guardianship of their 1-year-old daughter, Sophie. Holly (Heigl) is a driven, organized entrepreneur and chef; she is taking out construction loans to expand her pastry shop into a full-out restaurant. Messer (Duhamel) is a suave womanizer living the life every guy dreams of: he watches basketball games for a living and gets free dinner and drinks from women who want to sleep with him. Out of their love for their friends and the child, they accept. But fitting into their roles as Sophie's parents is much more difficult than they anticipated.

The acting in this movie is superb. Duhamel was the best part about When In Rome, and he's the best part about Life As We Know It too. He has charm and wit, but lacks the sleaze you'd associate with someone who supposedly sleeps around with every woman he can find. One of the negatives about this movie is that I just didn't find him convincing as Messer. He somehow changed the character into someone likable and sympathetic. I doubt that the person on screen was the same person scripted. Luckily, Heigl is his match, revealing an understated but explosive personality. She is not what you'd expect, given her professional, work-obsessed appearance and relative lack of a personal life. Yes, she wants a family, but she wants it on her terms, not thrust on her like this.

I spent a paragraph describing the characters because characters are what make a movie like this successful, endearing, and memorable. They are imbued with humor and played with honest emotion. Their intricacies and complexities are precisely brought to life on screen. The rest of the technical details like dull cinematography and subpar editing just fall by the wayside when you see this movie. No, I didn't laugh as much in this movie as I did in Going the Distance, but this one did pull at the heartstrings a little bit more. This may not be the movie for everyone, but you'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by some of the scenes in this movie.

Note: There is a crucial scene near the climax/finale dealing with a phone call. The phone that rings is an original Sprint Palm Pre with all original webOS UI, and I don't think I have ever been so excited to see anything or anyone in a movie in my life. I literally jumped out of my seat and started hitting my girlfriend's arm to get her attention as I giggled like a little schoolgirl. I have no idea why. I also noticed that my favorite Parker Jotter pen and Oxo mug made cameos, which was pretty cool as well.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055292/

Hulk (2003)

4/5

Ang Lee's Hulk exceeded all my expectations. Going in, I wasn't particularly excited to be watching this unappealing and poorly-reviewed 140-minute adaptation of a comic book I never read. But Lee's expert direction quickly engaged me and all my self-imposed distancing faded. After an initially wobbly start (a habit of Lee's I now expect), I couldn't turn my eyes away. I lost track of time and got caught up in the story.

By far the best aspect of this movie is its story. Disregard the mediocre script and dull dialogue and instead focus on the characters and their motivations; you will find an epic, Shakespearean tragedy. The movie is a surprisingly mature examination of themes concerning familial relationships, love and sacrifice, and mistakes and second chances. Ang Lee allows the scenes to breathe; he lets silence and inaction talk, which went much appreciated by me. I was impressed by the honest performances by Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, and Nick Nolte. (Eric Bana's titular performance left me underwhelmed.)

The visual style is unique; Lee is very aware of the movie's graphic novel roots. He uses moving panels, multiple angles, and special transitioning effects to create a one-of-a-kind viewing experience. Sometimes it was obtrusive, but more often than not it heightened the tensions and emotions. While such effects were fantastic, the computer-generated Hulk was (expectedly) a bit lacking. Even so, I think it held up rather well considering that it's 5 years old. The movie is (certainly) a bit overlong and not as tight as it could be, but at no part are you ever really disinterested. For that I am thankful, because I know a lot of 90 minute movies that feel a lot longer than this one did. If you know what you're getting into, I highly recommend this thrilling and serious action movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0286716/