Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

1/5

Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman is an abhorrent exploitation film masquerading as a delightful action flick. The movie serves as a modern send-up of the British spy movies from the 60's, but it does everything it can to distance itself from James Bond. It trades in dry humor for vulgar jokes, action for violence, and style for looks. It's self-referential in a way that outdoes even the countless satires of the genre. It's funny and fun until it's not. It takes a sharp turn and quickly becomes dark and disturbing. The ultra-violence is grotesque and nauseating, seemingly thrown on screen with gleeful abandon and disregard for taste. It's hard to imagine a world where people enjoy the stomach-churning images and call it entertainment, but the success of this film means that we are apparently living in it right now.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802144/

Now You See Me (2013)

4/5

Now You See Me is a deliciously devious con/heist movie with an engaging cast of characters and compelling story. A group of four magicians (Eisenberg, Harrelson, Fisher, Franco) are brought together by a mysterious stranger to perform a series of grand illusions, with the ultimate goal of Robin Hood-esque bank-robbing. A local cop (Ruffalo) and Interpol officer (Laurent) chase after them, wondering the whole time what their true motives are. And what their final act will be.

What makes this movie so fun is the sense of wonder you get watching the actors perform. The movie is not so much about magic as it is about deception, manipulation, and subverting expectations. You don't really concern yourself with how the illusions were performed--instead you find yourself focusing on the misdirection and the acting. Eisenberg delivers arrogance to perfection (only to be outdone by Freeman's know-it-all cockiness). Franco endears with his youthful charm and innocence, making him the most sympathetic character in the whole movie.

Now You See Me is riveting from beginning to end, thanks to a well-crafted story and well-paced editing. But the film ultimately fails in the finale. The big reveal at the end is terribly unsatisfying. Quite frankly, the twist just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yes, it is possible for everything to be explained as it was, but it is fantastically absurd and illogical. It feels as if it were written in an effort to confuse and surprise the audience, not in an effort to be true to the world it creates. But, strangely enough, none of that changes my enjoyment of the film. It is still eminently watchable and utterly delightful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1670345/

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

2/5

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a fairly tame 3D adventure flick for kids. The movie is a sequel because it takes place after another movie and has the same main character, but it actually requires no knowledge of the previous film to enjoy it. (Or not enjoy it, if you want to be snarky.) The problems start with the story, which is outright silly. The problems continue with special effects that already look outdated, combined with an incessant use of 3D objects coming out of the screen at you. The story follows a self-proclaimed "Vernian," someone who believes that all of Jules Verne's novels describe real places. The titular island, which houses tiny elephants and gigantic bees, is actually a day away from submerging and becoming Atlantis, which provides the perfect impetus to turn this scientific exploration into an action adventure. The story elements, from the budding romance to the stepfather-son bonding, all felt like checkboxes that producers filled out in an attempt to sell more tickets. The movie's saving grace was Dwayne Johnson, who was able to provide both believable action and comic relief. He is the only reason to see this movie. He is able to add a star to just about any movie just by being in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397514/

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/

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

3/5

Gnomeo & Juliet is a clever animated film about garden gnomes. As you can probably tell by the title, it is very loosely based on the William Shakespeare play Romeo & Juliet. Except this 3D cartoon version is a comedy instead of a tragedy. Much like Toy Story, the gnomes live in a world where real people don't know that they can move and talk. And in the Capulet and Montague gardens are blue and red garden gnomes, separated by a fence, constantly at war with each other. Gnomeo (McAvoy) meets Juliet (Blunt); the two fall in love then discover that they are on opposite sides of the fence.

For the educated viewer, you can enjoy the numerous references to other Shakespeare plays. The movie is full of subtle jokes paired with more obviously hilarious scenes. It was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting it to be, with a light atmosphere and familiar voices. There's nothing particularly impressive about anything in this movie, but it's a solid piece of entertainment to pass away a lazy summer afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377981/

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/

The Dark Knight (2008)

4/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is far, far superior to his earlier Batman Begins. With this film, Batman has stepped out of the action comic niche and into the serious drama genre. And yet, I find that it doesn't have much to say in that regard. Despite being bleak and hopeless, it reveals no message. Unlike No Country for Old Men or A Clockwork Orange, the discomfort and unpleasantness you endure while watching are not rectified in the end by a meaningful message. It tells us that the (fictional) citizens of Gotham still have hope, despite living in a city with corrupt cops and innocents-killing villains. I wouldn't have hope, I'd have a moving van reserved. So, granted, it doesn't have a message. But what's the big deal? A lot of movies don't. The big deal is that this movie is so effective at what it sets out to do. It is so well-crafted that you feel the unease and nervousness prickling your skin and upsetting your stomach. And there is no redemption at the end. There is nothing. So why did I watch it?

Technically, the movie is more than adequate. The editing and pacing were superb; not a single frame of what ended up in the final cut was off. The film started off tense with a heist on par with Michael Mann's Heat, and never sagged one bit. When you watch this film, you are enveloped by it. The problem was in its 2.5 hour runtime, which arose not in post-production but in pre-production, while the story was still being formulated. A number of scenes should have been eliminated altogether because they showed nothing new, but merely reiterated what we already knew. Another set of scenes ended abruptly (after the Joker crashes Bruce Wayne's fundraiser, for example) with no resolution or transition, and needed to be reworked. Some technological advances were simply dumb and annoying to the audience (the Bat-Sonar), while others were novel and exciting (the Batcycle/Batpod). The cinematography, while definitely a step up from Batman Begins, was still nothing particularly amazing. (Although after seeing so many awful indie films with bad lighting, I'm impressed to see a movie set almost constantly in darkness where I can tell exactly what's going on at all times.) The music was phenomenal on its own and pitch-perfect in conjunction with the mood and atmosphere of the film. I couldn't get the theme out of my head for at least an hour afterwards.

And onto the acting. Forget everyone else, because all you will care about is Heath Ledger's Joker. He steals the show. Not just in every frame he's in, but in every frame of the movie. You simply cannot stop thinking about him. Even Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is forgettable in comparison. Now, is it worthy of a posthumous Oscar? It's way too early to tell. But if he gets nominated, I think he should/will win, out of respect for the dead. The rest of the acting was adequate and not the least bit noteworthy. I didn't think that Maggie Gyllenhaal was a good choice to replace Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. She was pretty unattractive in this film (which is shocking, because she can be really attractive in other films like Stranger Than Fiction) and a pretty weak character overall, although she served more of a purpose in this film than in the last one.

Overall, I highly recommend the film. It's difficult for me to say that I enjoyed watching it, due to its unbearably painful and unyielding darkness, but I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised at how much better it was from the first one. It would have been awful to pay money and spend 3 hours in a theater watching a poorly-made version of itself. So, if you liked Batman Begins, you will without a doubt love this one. (It's probably you fanboys who got it to the top spot on IMDb.) If you hated Batman Begins, give this one a chance. But I don't think you're missing much if you skip out on seeing this film, except perhaps the ability to discuss it with all the rest of the people in the world.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/

The Prestige (2006)

4/5

I went into The Prestige not expecting to like it, as I hate all other Christopher Nolan movies (Batman Begins, Insomnia, Memento), but I found this one surprisingly entertaining. As a story involving competition between illusionists, it's very clever, but can at times be too clever. The script is excellent and the acting matches. I thought the camerawork and style did not distract from the quality of the piece, as it did in his other movies. I liked how Nolan was not afraid to tread into other territories than just the main rival magician storyline (I especially liked the part where Fallon comforts the daughter when her parents are arguing). There were a lot of subtle touches and hints of things to come, e.g. the little boy crying about the dead bird, asking why its brother had to die.

The movie is definitely too long; it very barely manages not to feel like an ordeal towards the end. I still don't like Nolan's obsession with nonlinear storytelling because it feels like he's making the movie artificially more complicated so when the dumb audience figures out the timing of each scene, they feel smart and therefore like the movie more. Much of the inherent deception seemed superfluous and could have easily been cut out to make the movie tighter and more engaging. Indeed, a lot of the movie did seem extraneous in general (for example, why was Thomas Edison involved?). Even so, it was a very enjoyable moviegoing experience and is highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0482571/

Children of Men (2006)

5/5

Children of Men transfixed me from its beautiful opening shot and never let me down from that point on. The use of long tracking shots throughout the entire movie gave it a gritty, raw realism that made it incredibly powerful. The beauty of the piece is not just in the shot compositions and precise attention to detail, but also the manner in which such cinematic techniques are all put into practice. Everything about this dystopic future is the background because it is the setting of the story and not the story itself. That is perhaps why an explanation for mankind's infertility is never even attempted. Much of the movie is seen through windows, often barred, trapped in cars or buses. Sometimes the background is so richly textured that it is impossible to focus on the events taking place, and we drown in the abundance of information, requiring multiple viewings.

With a single event about thirty minutes into the movie a la Hitchcock's Psycho, Cuarón totally threw out the conventions of modern cinema and had me on the edge of my seat for the rest of the movie. There was no way to predict what was going to come next; anything was possible. And that made this movie truly terrifying. But the heart of this movie is the setting, the sad world our future becomes, where not even the cure to our disease can stop the bloodshed and anarchy.

The dialogue was brilliant, the acting phenomenal. Clive Owen is a magician, but he never steals the show because every other actor was awesome as well. There is one scene I can still see, in which Michael Caine is talking about Clive Owen's baby while Owen is listening in just around the corner. There is so much emotion and heartfelt sadness in that one scene that I would've been satisfied if all of the movie built up to just that one moment. And that is only halfway in; it just gets better from there. There wasn't much wrong with this movie, except that the camerawork was a bit shakier than I would've liked (although nothing so bad as in The Bourne Supremacy).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0206634/

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

4/5

The Man Who Would Be King is a rousing adventure movie, one of the few in the genre. It was able to be serious and funny, epic and personal, adventurous and thought-provoking. There is some real emotion on screen because the acting by all parties was excellent. Huston's direction (The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) was equally impressive. Some of the shot compositions were just unreal. I really liked how the plot fit together so well; seemingly minor details were brought back later on in big ways.

It does feel a bit dated, with oversaturated colors and bizarre language. The vernacular is somewhat off-putting at first, but you slowly get used to it and it helps put the entire picture in a different world. The music chimed in at weird places sometimes, or it felt like it wasn't the right mood. Sometimes the editing was a bit too blunt. As an adventure movie, it must inevitably be compared to Indiana Jones and, unfortunately, I don't think it's nearly as good, but it's still a really entertaining movie!

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0073341/