The Internship (2013)

3/5

The Internship is a fairly predictable buddy comedy that I've come to expect from the likes of Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn. The movie focuses on two middle-aged salesmen who lose their job and apply for an internship at Google in the hopes of rebooting their career. As you might expect, they have no technical background but a wealth of people skills and they eventually triumph in the face of much smarter but less experienced college-age kids. The movie has its fair share of laughs, romance, and feel-good moments. There's honestly nothing surprising at all about this movie. It's a light piece of fluff that will brighten your day if you have it on in the background while doing some actual work.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/

Midnight in Paris (2011)

4/5

Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is a delightfully light fantasy comedy that takes place in Paris over the course of several magical midnights. The plot follows Gil (Wilson) and Inez (McAdams) tagging along with Inez's parents in Paris for a few weeks. They bump into one of Inez's old pseudo-intellectual friends (Sheen), who is absolutely infuriating to Gil (and the audience), and Inez naturally wants to spend as much time with him as possible. After a few frustrating nights together, Gil decides to walk home by himself only to find himself wandering the streets of Paris utterly lost. An old Puegeot stops by at midnight and picks him up to take him to a very different kind of Paris (which I will let you have the pleasure of discovering for yourself).

The movie is very similar to Allen's previous works, especially The Purple Rose of Cairo, albeit with literary references instead of filmic ones. And it is just as charming, airy, and melancholy as that film. Unfortunately, because it feels so identical, I felt I didn't get much out of the film. It's hilarious in that Woody Allen way, but not much more. It's a very pleasant way to spend an afternoon, but nothing compared to Allen's best work.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1605783/

Zoolander (2001)

2/5

Zoolander is not my kind of film. The plot follows male model Derek Zoolander (Stiller) after losing model of the year to Hansel (Wilson) and after losing his three roommates and close friends in a freak accident. He is being brainwashed by fashion designer Mugatu (Ferrell) to assassinate the Malaysian prime minister, who is implementing changes in his country that will ruin Mugatu's sweatshops. What frustrated me the most about the movie was the way all the characters spoke their lines--or maybe it was just Ben Stiller, who does most of the talking in the film anyway. He overly articulates every single word as if every one of his lines is a punchline, except only about 1 in 50 are. It's frustrating on my ear and my brain to keep expecting a punchline and not getting one, and it particularly hurts the weak jokes. The comedy itself is fair--although not always to my tastes--although I felt that the movie got a lot funnier over time (I especially loved the X-Files and Godfather references). Anyway, Zoolander may be your kind of film, but I am not a huge fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196229/

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

3/5

Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox is an entertaining way to spend 80 minutes of your life, but it's not especially provocative or particularly mind-blowing. The plot follows a fox (Clooney) and his wife (Streep) as they buy a house in a tree that overlooks three mean farmers' local businesses. Being a wild animal, he steals chickens from Boggis, turkeys from Bunce, and cider from Bean. The farmers try to dig the fox out of his hole, but as their digging becomes more and more widespread, other animals in the area become victims too. With the animals against him and the humans getting ever closer, it seems as if the fox family is out of options. But being a clever beast, the fantastic Mr. Fox concocts a plan to keep their land out of the humans' grasps.

The animation is breathtaking and refreshing. It is beautiful and awe-inspiring. But while the movie holds a lot of visual appeal, the story and dialogue fail to really elevate the movie past its quirky, unique animation style. The humor is dry and definitely not to everyone's tastes. Everything is spoken matter-of-factly--meaning there are no punchlines--that it could easily turn people off of the movie (even though I personally found it hilarious). It definitely feels more like a Roald Dahl adaptation than a movie from Wes Anderson's head, which may make you want to see the movie or may make you want to reconsider. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really have much of a point. It's a very simplistic tale about animals fighting against humans. What you see is what you get; there is no subtle underlying meaning or great moral underpinning. All in all, the movie is filled with clever moments and aesthetic flair, but the whole package is nothing to get too excited over.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/

Marley & Me (2008)

3/5

Marley & Me is pretty typical family-friendly fare for a quiet night in with the kids. The plot follows Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston as John and Jenny Grogan, a newly-married couple who both write for a living. John, not yet wanting kids but wanting to satisfy his wife's desire to take care of something, decides to take the advice of his friend and get a puppy. That puppy grows into the "world's worst dog," as they like to refer to him, but his endearing antics and (literal) puppy dog face make it impossible to hate him. Marley simultaneously enriches and ruins their lives as they start a family, work past marital disputes, and deal with the stresses of parenthood and work. It's all a very simple story that takes few risks and reaps few rewards. There are no bad guys and no mistakes in their near-perfect, sugar-coated life, but they do experience some ups and downs thrown their way by random chance. Although it is unrealistically portrayed, there were a few key humorous and emotional moments that kept my attention and helped this movie stand out from all the other entries into the "family pet" genre. If you were interested in it, it will not disappoint you; but if you weren't interested in it, it will fail to surprise you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/

Wedding Crashers (2005)

4/5

The Wedding Crashers is a hilarious, vulgar, tender romantic comedy. With so many disparate moods, it's a miracle it feels so fluid and put together. The story follows two best buds (Wilson and Vaughn) who crash weddings together; that is, they go to weddings and prey on horny singles seeking true love. It sounds a lot creepier typed out than it plays on the screen. They've been doing it for 12 years and Wilson wants to get out, but he falls in love on his last big crash. And oh no! She's getting married to a creep who sucks! Who could have predicted that? Anyway, it all ends happily ever after as expected, and it's a joy ride along the way.

There are some problems. To start with, there are way too many random and unnecessary moments, scenes, jokes, etc. There is a lot of gratuitous nudity and crude sexual humor. It's certainly more of a guy movie than a girl movie because of it. And it used more wipes than Star Wars combined with Pan's Labyrinth. The ending was a bit drawn out, and they kept adding more and more side characters as the movie went on. Most of the time, all this crap was added in for the jokes, but after a while it just got kind of repetitive. Regardless, it's a thoroughly enjoyable movie and a fun break from the real world.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396269/

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

4.9/5

The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson's latest film, follows the antics of three brothers on a spiritual quest to rid themselves of the emotional baggage of their father's recent death and mother's disappearance. Like all of Anderson's films, there are moments of heartbreaking emotion, juxtaposed effortlessly to choke up any laughter still left in your throat after the uproarious scenes that immediately preceded them. Unlike his other movies, this back and forth was not as prevalent as before. Most of the time it was subtle, but what surprised me was the dialogue-free 10 minute stretch in the middle of the film as we breathlessly witness a suffocating moment and its indelible consequences. Its impact is profound, its inclusion necessary. The symbolism and themes presented by the movie, left open to the viewer for interpretation and application in their own lives, places this film above simple comedy.

In typical Anderson style, the quirky music is exceptional, a perfect companion to the texture of the rest of the piece. The acting matches this bizarre mood, filling out the fictional characters with real humans. I was fascinated by the camerawork and Anderson's insistence--almost an obsessive need--to shoot at precise, 90 degree angles. His quick sideways tracking/panning made it impossible to see anything between the absolute cardinals, a sentiment echoed in his refusal to show transition shots during editing. He made some cinematography choices I disagreed with, however. I have an intense dislike for zooms (even when used as effectively as in Barry Lyndon), and their overabundance here dismayed me. He also overdid the slow-motion shots; if used half as often, they would have reached optimal impact. Still, these issues are relatively minor and easily overlooked. Behind The Royal Tenenbaums, this is probably Anderson's finest film to date.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0838221/