Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

Elysium (2013)

4/5

Neill Blomkamp's Elysium will, of course, draw comparisons to the director's previous work, District 9, since both are sci-fi action movies employing hyper-realistic special effects, cinema verité-style camerawork, and plots that play like morality tales about the maltreatment and subjugation of a population's citizens. While the combination of all those things felt exhilarating and unprecedented 5 years ago, here they feel a bit tired.

Elysium, like District 9 and Children of Men, delivers a precisely-detailed and complexly-envisioned future. But the characters with which it inhabits that world are unexciting; their quest is uncompelling; the stakes are underwhelming. It is not enough for the background to be thematically interesting, because the foreground is what will get our blood pumping and bring us to our feet cheering. Instead the story feels like a pretty barebones excuse for fights and explosions. Luckily, the (rather sparse) action is exceptional, leaps and bounds better than most of what we are seeing in theaters today. Some scenes are so visually arresting, so stunningly beautiful, that they seem somehow operatic and timeless. That they are simultaneously violently graphic and viscerally horrifying does not diminish their value, but simply brands them in our minds.

Elysium is ultimately not as good as District 9. While perhaps more technically impressive than his previous work, it needed a stronger story to unlock all the potential it had. What frustrates me is that we know Blomkamp can do better. And I sincerely hope he pulls through on the next one, because I love watching his movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535108/

We Bought A Zoo (2011)

3/5

Cameron Crowe's We Bought A Zoo is an upbeat, sugar-coated movie about a family that is falling apart after a recent death. Similar to The Descendants in plot, Crowe's film takes the more saccharine, family-friendly approach. Benjamin Mee (Damon) buys a new house that doubles as a zoo for his 7-year-old daughter Rosie (Jones), after being forced to move because of his son's poor behavior in school. As part of the contract for buying the property, he reopens the zoo and invests heavily, both financially and emotionally, in the animals and zookeepers (Johansson).

The problem with this film is that it's more of a performance than a realistic portrayal. Even though it was based on a true story, it feels less believable than The Descendants. This is not a fault of the acting, which is absolutely superb. The problem is the script, which bludgeons "take-home point" after "take-home point" instead of focusing on the people. It has a number of subplots that feel both unnecessary and strained. When it tries to wrap up all its various storylines into neat little packages by the end of the film, it just feels like it has more endings than The Lord of the Rings. The movie is enjoyable and entertaining--it's not a bad movie by any means--but I just wish it spent more time exploring the motivations and reactions of the characters instead of the intricacies of running a zoo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389137/

Contagion (2011)

4.9/5

Steven Soderbergh's Contagion is a phenomenal, finely-crafted film. This doomsday thriller uses an exquisitely contagious pathogen to intertwine the lives of people around the world. The movie starts with Beth Emhoff (Paltrow) after she develops an annoying cough. She flies home from China to meet her husband (Damon) in Minneapolis and manages to spread it across Kowloon, Guangdong, Chicago, and San Francisco within days. Scientists at the CDC (Ehle, Martin) and WHO (Cotillard) are racing against the clock to find patient zero and treat the disease. Dr. Cheever (Fishburne) and Dr. Mears (Winslet) begin isolating known contacts, quarantining the sick, and dealing with the press while an internet blogger (Law) proclaims the miracles of a homeopathic drug. Seemingly minuscule actions rapidly spiral out of control and we cannot help but try to follow along at its breakneck speed.

There is an intensity and urgency to everything about the movie; its feverish pace is electrifying. The film manages to pack a lot of content into its 90-minute running time, and luckily this movie has some very intriguing thematics and hypotheticals from every sphere of society for you to ponder. Technically, the filmmaking is exceptional. Soderbergh switches between storylines swiftly and smoothly without it feeling startling or obnoxious. The acting is pristine and believable, which is difficult to do considering the somewhat alien and unpredictable scenario. The writing is equally authentic. The challenge in medical films is getting the science right, but Contagion does it with aplomb. There is nary a misstep in sight, despite a few improbable stretches of the imagination for the sake of artistic license. It's not quite a perfect movie, but Contagion has just about everything you could want in a movie and I can't wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598778/

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

4/5

The Adjustment Bureau is a sort of sci-fi romance that is compelling on an emotional level and fascinating on an intellectual level. The plot follows David Norris (Damon) and Elise Sellas (Blunt) and their relationship after a chance meeting in a men's room after Norris loses his bid for senate seat. They keep running into each other and they feel a deep connection with each other as if they were meant to be together. Norris is watched by a man in a suit and fedora (Mackie) who is part of the adjustment bureau, a group of individuals whose sole purpose is to ensure that everything in our lives go according to a certain plan. Unfortunately, this plan does not include Norris and Sellas together. And so the adjustment bureau keeps trying to pull them apart while the two of them fight to be with each other.

Technically, the movie had both good and bad components that added up to something mediocre. The writing is intriguing as far as the concept is concerned, and it can generate a healthy discussion of fate vs. free will, but there are also some very obvious weak points. Some people disliked the ending for being too cheesy, but I didn't mind it so much on an initial viewing. The dialogue was especially poor, however, and everything that came out of the mouths of the people in the adjustment bureau was stale and stilted. Their acting was equally forgettable. On the other hand, Damon and Blunt were incredible. The entire premise of the movie hinges on the chemistry between the two leads--the fact that you believe that they are destined for each other--and they pull it off. They were not only believable, but also genuine, tender, and sympathetic. It would be impossible to believe they weren't in love. While the technical aspects were somewhat of a mixed bag, the emotional impact elevated this movie well above average and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/

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/

Invictus (2009)

3/5

Clint Eastwood's Invictus is a simple sports movie that was poorly advertised as a political biopic of Nelson Mandela. The film attempts to straddle multiple genres, and it actually does so quite well, but the problem is that none of the component parts are very fleshed out or satisfying. For example, Nelson Mandela is painted as a man who is filled to the brim with provocative quotes on life, but you never really figure out his motivations or reasonings. Matt Damon's character makes the observation that after being imprisoned for so long, he walked out ready to forgive those who put him in prison. He doesn't understand why, and neither do we. We never truly discover what makes him so perfect. Not only that, but hinting at a failed marriage is not enough to make him "complex." It seemed like Eastwood was more checking off the "imperfect" box than actually making Mandela realistic. The same shortcomings could be said of the rugby aspect. Invictus is an exciting sports movie, but it was not truly inspirational as it was very adamantly trying to be.

The technical aspects were also a mixed bag. For example, the acting was spectacular but the characters were incompetently written. Most of the cinematography and editing was adequate, but the final few minutes featured horrendous slo-mo that was so obviously overdone that it made me cringe. For every pro, there's a comparable con. The movie is not a great movie, but it also isn't a bad movie. It's just somewhere in the middle. So watch it if you feel like you've been waiting for this movie, but otherwise I'd say pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1057500/

The Informant! (2009)

4/5

Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! is a rare mix of comedy, drama, and annoying music. The plot follows Matt Damon as a biochemist in a corn processing conglomerate in the 1990's who starts helping the FBI set up a case against his company for price-fixing lysine. He wears a wire and provides evidence, but as the trial looms closer the agents on the case (Bakula and McHale) can't help but feel that he isn't telling them the whole truth. The storyline could have easily been turned into an action thriller or a sentimental drama, but Soderbergh chose to emphasize its sometimes outlandish scenarios and turn it into a comedy. And in order to make sure the audience fully appreciated its levity, he soaked the movie in the musical equivalent of urine. One review I read called it "wacky, circus-like music," but that is an understatement. My ear felt like it was ravaged raw. I had to nurse it back to health.

Despite the aural travesty, this movie had a lot to like. From the simplest decisions like font choice to the complex decisions like voice-overs and shot-by-shot editing, Soderbergh does a fantastic job. The movie feels like it was made in the 90's, which may be a good or bad thing depending on who the viewer is, but it was impressive nonetheless. It was the subtleties like overblown highlights and faded colors that really made the film feel 15 years old. Certainly not one of Soderbergh's best or worst films, it's still a solid piece of entertainment with some sadness, some sympathy, and a whole lot of humor. If the previews piqued your interest, it's definitely good enough for you to drop $10 on it. But don't say I didn't warn you if you come out of the theater with bleeding ears.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130080/

Ponyo (2008)

4/5

Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is a wonderfully inventive, creative foray into another universe. The story follows a young boy named Sosuke (Jonas) and a magical goldfish creature (Cyrus) that he saves and names Ponyo. Sosuke lives with his mother (Fey) in a seaside village, alone on a cliff, while his father (Damon) is out at sea. Ponyo's father (Neeson) wants to get his daughter back because the future of the world depends on it. And so begins their magical story together.

The best part about Miyazaki's directing is by far the fantastic world he creates, the characters that inhabit it, and the rules they live by. It is fully-realized and awe-inspiring, and it is something I have never seen before. Much like Tim Burton's works, the movie has the potential to frighten and terrify, but instead benevolently lets us enjoy the triumphs over the catastrophes. However, the directing and the movie as a whole suffer from a few problems as well. There is no real conflict to consider except perhaps that nobody really knows what's going on, so they might "make a mistake" and cause the world to be destroyed. In fact, the audience doesn't know what's going on at all either because the background story isn't fleshed-out enough for anybody's to comprehend it. Side stories seem to be picked up and ignored almost haphazardly. And Fey's voice acting was sometimes good, sometimes downright bad--I'm sorry to report--but mostly just distracting. Overall, however, these flaws aren't that bad. If you're a Miyazaki fan, this will definitely not disappoint.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0876563/

Stuck on You (2003)

3/5

The Farrelly brothers' Stuck on You is a surprisingly tender comedy about two conjoined twins who own the Quikee Burger fast food joint. Walt (Kinnear) wants to be an actor, while Bob (Damon) enjoys running their restaurant. They each find their true loves in Eva Mendes and Wen Yann Shih respectively, although not immediately and not without obstacles on the way. Through random events, they end up meeting both Cher and Meryl Streep, who unintentionally and unexpectedly skyrocket Walt's career. His fame causes a rift between the two brothers, but the movie ends with a happy ever after.

There were far more hilarious, clever, and subtle moments and far fewer gimmicky, simple jokes than I would've thought. The plot was remarkably unpredictable, although that was partially because most of the movie seemed to happen by chance. The characters were surprisingly nuanced and sympathetic, although they often acted in a very slapstick and over-the-top manner. All in all, I had a great time watching this movie and would definitely recommend you not change the channel if and when it comes on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338466/

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

4/5

Paul Greengrass's The Bourne Ultimatum is riveting. Not only does it have some of the most tense action scenes put to film, but it has them one after another with almost no lag time. The editing is simply stunning. Not a single wasted frame. While I despised the over-the-top shakiness in the second movie, this movie's less obtrusive, more muted camerawork was actually quite effective at making it realistic and thrilling. Probably because you could still tell what was going on. What made this movie stand out from your typical action fare was its political and thematic underpinnings. While it focuses most obviously on the dichotomy between following orders and making your own decisions, it also delves into modern American politics unapologetically. My favorite line in the movie was by Strathairn: "Don't second-guess an operation from an armchair."

I didn't really like the intro at all. It did nothing to serve the story and its lack of any explanation simply made its inclusion unnecessary. Additionally, some of my enjoyment was slightly marred by the terrible smile by Julia Stiles in the next to final frames. And for some reason Jason Bourne is superhumanly strong and incapable of being injured. But if you like action, you need to see this movie. Now. It truly is the best action movie of the year.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0440963/

The Good Shepherd (2006)

4/5

It's been awhile since I saw a movie where I didn't think about how I was going to write the review while I was still watching it. Or look at the time. This movie is engaging from the start, entrancing in every aspect. Loosely based on real events and real people during the 50's and 60's as the CIA was being formed, the plot sucks in the attentive viewer and keeps them breathless the entire time. It's been advertised as a spy thriller, but in reality it's a thinking man's drama. It is meditative. It asks questions and pretends no answers.

I was impressed by the acting (especially Matt Damon's morally ambiguous protagonist), although some characters seemed extraordinarily flat and poorly cast. (I was particularly disappointed at Robert De Niro's and Angelina Jolie's relatively limited screen time.) I found the pacing nearly flawless, although ironically it also felt like some scenes were pointless or shoddily constructed. Most of the dialogue was unnecessarily convoluted and deceptive, to the point where the audience loses track of what people say and mean or pretend to say and mean. Also, I thought there were a couple unexplained events and/or plot holes, whichever you want to call them. All these negative aspects seem to point towards it having a lower score, but the movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's truly an experience, and one not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

4/5

Ocean's Thirteen is entertainment of the guiltiest form. Although far from an artistic endeavor, it keeps you hooked. You know what will happen, but you watch anyway because the ride is so much fun. With its wonderful tongue-in-cheek style, you can tell just how much the actors were enjoying themselves. The numerous self-references, movie references, and in-jokes prove this. (I am a sucker for Godfather references.) I think Soderbergh really hit home with the style. From the 60's credits to the wipes and zooms, it truly felt like the movies it stole from. The pacing worked exceptionally well and I loved how the stories interweaved. Ocean's Twelve unevenly favored a few characters while most of our favorites were imprisoned and helpless. Here we see everyone working their magic the way we first met them, in perfect synchrony and balance. In this movie, Soderbergh fixed all the mistakes present in Twelve. And Pacino is great as the bad guy. It's a fun movie, so check it out if you liked the others (or at least the first one).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0496806/

Chasing Amy (1997)

4.9/5

Chasing Amy is definitely Kevin Smith's best movie. It effortlessly mixes comedy, drama, and romance into something with a serious thematic message that both tugs your heartstrings and tickles your funny bone. It is so fulfilling on every one of those levels, a seeming elusive task that so many other hybrid films cannot manage. The acting by all parties is spot-on, especially Ben Affleck in what may be his finest performance. The jokes are non-stop. (The "snoochie boochie" line had me cracking up for over a minute straight.) The emotional aspect reminded me of Casablanca--our emotions are played with at every evolution of the character through exposing their pasts and motivations. Overall, it was an exhilarating experience.

Technically, the film is somewhat lacking. The cinematography and editing are merely adequate--he points the camera at people and lets them work. This is pretty disappointing given the high quality acting and dialogue. And at only ten years old, it's starting to feel a bit dated already, which doesn't speak well for its longevity. Still, a movie I hope to return to time and time again.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118842/

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

3/5

Ocean's Twelve was an enjoyable comedy/heist movie. The heist elements were pretty subpar for the most part with a couple cool things thrown in here and there, but I thought it was just so funny. My expectations were so low because everyone came out disappointed (because the first one was so good) that I actually had a really fun time watching this. The acting as always was great, the laughs consistent and solid, and the directing light and fun. There are cameos and big names like nothing you've ever seen before. And, for the most part, it just works. You let go of small inconsistencies because you're entertained.

However, the plot was pretty pitiful, a fact that cannot go ignored; it felt like it was trying to construct a story around the actors' schedules and not the other way around. Because of that, I was actually impressed when all the actors were on the screen together. But the story's limitations really hinder it, considering it's a crime movie with more than twelve main characters in it. Each character really should have some fundamental role in the narrative, and they don't. They're merely accessories. This is what is lacking in this movie that people seemed to love about the first one. Anyway, I greatly enjoyed myself while watching it, and if you're interested you should definitely check it out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0349903/

The Departed (2006)

5/5

I just came back from seeing The Departed with Jed, Sameer, and Amar. This movie is phenomenal. It is a return to the genre the great master reinvented. I had ridiculously high expectations for this movie, and they were surpassed. It has the flash and fun of GoodFellas and Casino mixed in with the intensity and subtlety of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. This is the zenith of entertainment in art. This is why you watch movies.

First off, the characters are the most unique, off-the-wall screen presences I can remember. The acting is so absolutely amazing that they are actually able to pull this off. The colors, style, and subtlety pervaded every shot and scene that to list off each memorable part of the movie would be to describe every second of it. The script is consistently funny, the violence sudden and shocking, and the subtext omnipresent. Watch it if you want to enjoy a good time, or if you want to analyze it as cinematic art. Just watch it.

The introductory scenes were so bizarre; it looked like an abundance of b footage spliced together randomly. I feel like Scorsese didn't really have a vision for how he wanted the beginning to look. I might be wrong though. And after the first ten minutes, I was so absorbed in the movie that I couldn't generate any more fictitious reasons like the one above to not love the movie. In fact, why am I writing this review and not seeing it again?

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0407887/

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

3/5

Terry Gilliam's movies are always a pleasure to watch; they are visually appealing and inventive. The Brothers Grimm, while not very coherent or cohesive, is tons of fun. It has entertainment, laughs, thrills, and Gilliam's beautiful shots. I really like how all of the Grimm stories were incorporated, although they were incorporated in the most random and nonsensical manner. Which brings me to the negatives. This movie makes absolutely no sense. You will not be able to understand what is going on half the time. If you like Gilliam, though, you might want to check this out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0355295/