The Fault In Our Stars (2014)

4.9/5

The film adaptation of John Green's The Fault In Our Stars is an extraordinarily faithful adaptation. Having read the book just months prior to seeing the movie, I am impressed by how much the characters and actions on screen matched my own vision for them. It delivers all the melodramatic heartbreak and sentimental tearjerking you would expect from a book about two kids with cancer who fall in love. Neither Hazel (Woodley) nor Gus (Elgort) look particularly Hollywood-attractive, but their on-screen chemistry is undeniable. However, despite how perfect they are for each other, fate conspires to pull them apart. The story is more than a little bit emotionally manipulative, but it is tragically sweet and hits all the right notes. Everything just feels so ... lovely and tender.

While overly sensational and extravagantly "young adult," the story is attempting at something more than simply pulling at the heartstrings of America's youth. It touches on a multitude of topics, but the most impenetrable one to me revolves around literature, the creation of stories, and the way we project our own qualities on others. Willem Dafoe plays Van Houten, the author of Hazel's favorite book. His contribution to the story is both confusing and infuriating, but his unclear motivations and his abrupt exit are some of the most profound aspects to the story. His presence is both unusual and unsettling and makes me like the movie all that much more.

This movie is not for everyone--in fact, it may feel a bit childish or immature to some--but for those who fall under its spell, it is spectacular.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582846/

Jurassic Park (1993)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park is a classic 1990's creature film, and perhaps the most memorable one in history. Based on Crichton's book, it melds science with fiction to create a terrifying but believable alternate world. Entrepreneur John Hammond (Attenborough) extracts dinosaur DNA from ancient mosquitoes to create an amusement park filled with dinosaurs. Before announcing it to the public, he invites experts in the field of paleontology (Neill, Dern) and chaos theory (Goldblum) for a preview showing, along with his grandkids. Unfortunately, things go very wrong when the dinosaurs escape.

What makes this movie so unforgettable is not the special effects, awesome (in the traditional sense of the word) though they may be. The cererbral concept, the thought of creating dinosaurs, is exhilarating and thrilling. Its story is a classic tale of man's hubris leading to destruction, of greed leading to demise, of fear and courage. An epic battle plays out between the kings of old and the kings of new, brawn vs. brains.

Throw in Goldblum's spot-on neuroses and Spielberg's unerring eye for cinema and you get a movie that stands the test of time. It's invigorating and endearing because it puts its story and its characters front and center, allowing the CGI to be eye candy and window dressing. Special effects won't always seem so incredible, but good stories never grow old. And Jurassic Park tells a phenomenal story.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/

Wild at Heart (1990)

4/5

Wild at Heart is so funny. I was laughing the entire time. I would love to see this movie with Sameer; he would laugh with me at literally every single word that is spoken and action that occurs. But there are two different reasons one might laugh. You can laugh because you think it's just a bad movie, but I am fairly certain that it is not. It is in fact cleverly mocking bad movies. It is a satire and a spoof, and a shallow exploitation film set in the late 80's. It is like Rodriguez's Planet Terror except set in a more realistic world (although thinking about it, not that much more realistic) with more sexploitation than horror zombie flick. In the first five minutes of the movie, there is excessive violence, cursing, nudity, and sex. The movie loves its shallowness; Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern speak their lines with the most effective faked fervor I can remember.

All that being said, it is what it is. A stupid, cheesy, exploitation 80's grind house film. Even though it is a satire of that genre as well, it fits the mold perfectly and cannot sit outside of it. It is funny, but not very fulfilling or meaningful. You walk out of the theater and think about something else.

Note: I saw this movie as part of the Cannes retrospective series on the beach, so there were many distractions (although I think I tuned them out pretty well).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100935/