Prisoners (2013)

4/5

Prisoners is a viscerally intense and provocative morality tale about the lengths people will go to save the ones they love. The story is a difficult one to stomach: Keller Dover (Jackman) has his daughter stolen from him on Thanksgiving Day. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) initially suspects teenager Alex Jones (Dano), but quickly dismisses him after discovering he has the IQ of a 10-year-old child. Dover is convinced Jones is involved, however, and imprisons him in an abandoned building where he tortures him for information.

The acting is absolutely phenomenal. Jackman gives an emotionally searing performance, straight from the heart. Although his portrayal did at times seem to border on the melodramatic and overwrought, he walked that line expertly. Gyllenhaal is every bit his equal, although less explosive and incendiary. The problem with both characters (and, in fact, with almost every character) is that they don't feel unique at all. From the angry dad who takes matters into his own hands to the mother who shuts out the rest of the world to the driven detective who makes promises he can't keep, the interpersonal dynamic presented in this movie feels completely unoriginal and cliched. We've seen it before in The Lovely Bones and AMC's The Killing. That, or there is only one way families respond to tragedies involving their children.

But the movie grabs you, asphyxiates you. It has scenes of intense power and breathless anticipation. It emanates an aura of tension, an atmosphere of mystery. It's incredibly eerie. It's a promising start for director Villeneuve--he gives David Fincher a run for his money in the genre of dark, intelligent, moody psychological thrillers--and I hope he continues down this road in the future. I will definitely be watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392214/

Looper (2012)

4/5

Rian Johnson's Looper is a smart, slick film. It takes place in a future where time travel and telekinesis co-exist, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is offensively stratospheric, and where "loopers" kill people from the future and incinerate their bodies. Much like Children of Men, Looper gives us a believable, richly-textured, and incredibly-detailed world while simultaneously advancing an expertly-paced thriller plot. Both the setting and the story are complex and tapestried, both surprise you time and again, and both keep your neurons firing non-stop. The plot is intelligent and fresh, interesting but not too cerebral. It is a marvel of imagination and storytelling. But for me it's missing something.

Except for the Drive-level ultra-violence and over-the-top blood, it's a movie that checks all the right boxes, and yet somehow it doesn't excite me as much as it should. The acting is on-point, the script is well-written, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the directing is pristine. Every individual element is impressive on its own, but they don't cohere into something that truly thrills me. No matter how much I enjoyed the film on an intellectual level, I simply couldn't engage with it on an emotional one. I can't wait to rewatch this movie in case I find myself in the latter camp, but I'm doubtful I'd make the crossover. I can see this movie being very special for many people; as of now it's just not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Taking Woodstock (2009)

3/5

Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is a curious film because it seems to have an uncertain target audience. The plot follows Demetri Martin and his crazy mother Imelda Staunton who run a cheap hotel on the countryside. At risk for defaulting on their mortgage, they attempt to convince the music festival Woodstock to host in their city in order to gain heavy hotel traffic. Suffice it to say, the plot is not the film's strong suit. My favorite aspects of the movie were the characters and the acting. They were all fascinating personas, adeptly portrayed, but I feel like I have no idea why they did the things they did. I didn't really understand their motivations; their "complexities" remained wholly nebulous to me. I also enjoyed the comedy, but it felt very subdued and infrequent, as if it were not the main focus of the movie. I am not sure what the main focus of the movie was, in fact. Most of the filmmaking was not particularly memorable, including cinematography, editing, and music. All in all, I didn't find this to be a particularly impressive film, especially coming from Ang Lee, but it's not bad per se. I'm just confused as to its purpose.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127896/

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

3/5

Spike Jonze's Where The Wild Things Are is a technical marvel but an emotional disappointment. The plot follows a young, lonely Max (Records) who is unable to express all the feelings he experiences as he grows up. After an argument with his mother, he runs away into the woods and finds himself in the land of the Wild Things. For those who have never read the book (or seen the trailers), the Wild Things are 8 foot tall monsters with gigantic heads. They are without a doubt the stars of the show, with phenomenal costuming and superb computer graphics. They seem so real in every sense of the word; it is an incredible feat of filmmaking prowess.

But the rest of the movie makes very little sense. The lack of a plot makes the 90 minute runtime exhausting and boring instead of engaging and exciting. Most of the characters are relatively unlikable and possess very few redeeming qualities. And what were we supposed to take from the movie? What I did like was how the film was able to conjure up the point of view of a young child who doesn't always get what he wants and doesn't understand why. The sadness on his face when other kids destroy his igloo is genuine and palpable. The way he plays with his mother's stockings when she's working effuses the loneliness he feels. Emotionally, there is much potential but it is never fully explored or satisfactorily concluded. If you like Spike Jonze and don't much care for the content then you will like this movie much more than if you love the book and don't know who Spike Jonze is. Enjoy at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386117/

There Will Be Blood (2007)

5/5

Wow. I expected There Will Be Blood to be good, but ... wow. That was a stunning cinematic experience. There is an intensity to every single frame that holds you rapt for the entire 160-minute running time; you cannot turn away for even a second. Much of the film's power stems from Daniel Day-Lewis's enormous, towering performance of Texas oilman Daniel Plainview. It is further amplified by the haunting, dissonant score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood. This is the ultimate American parable on capitalism and competition, ambition and greed, success and vengeance. As Plainview goes from miner to prospector to millionaire, with it comes all the trappings of fame and wealth.

Daniel Day-Lewis's acting is simply unparalleled this year. His subtle mannerisms reveal his distorted thought processes while his wild ferocity showcase an awe-inspiring bravura. We empathize with him, though we do not understand him. We want him to succeed, though we do not like him. He grips us tight and pulls us close. On the other end is Paul Dano's Eli Sunday in an unexpected yet equally stellar performance. Though he contains just as much silent fury and displays of grandeur, we are repulsed by him. For the sole reason that he is Plainview's competitor, and therefore his enemy. The tension between these two vile creatures keeps us glued to the screen--their explosive clash at the climactic finale is unforgettable.

Despite this glowing praise, I also had some legitimate complaints. First, although I was engrossed for the whole movie, that was only because I had never seen it before. Looking back, I remember a lot of unnecessary scenes and excessively long takes--ones that would more likely than not bore me if I were to see this movie again. Thirty minutes could have been shaved off with smart editing. Second, it can be a bit confusing. Little is explained and much is left for the audience to infer; this is great for thematics but awful for key plot elements. Third, I found the acting by Dillon Freasier in the role of Plainview's adopted son to be dramatically bad. Maybe it was just in comparison to the rest of the performances, but I just didn't buy it. Fourth, several important shots were blurry, as if the camera operator didn't know how to focus. It was both distracting and angering. Though this movie has its flaws, it succeeds on a visceral and emotional level. There Will Be Blood has the ability to show us the power of cinema at its peak.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0469494/

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

4/5

I saw this movie with my mother and brother for my birthday. It is both incredibly funny and incredibly heartfelt. There are some scenes of ridiculous emotional power, punctuated by extremely hilarious situations. The movie attempts to be both true to life and laugh-out-loud funny, and it succeeds admirably. It doesn't tie up the loose ends that don't need to be tied up; this dysfunctional family has problems that can't be solved in two hours and so they're not. The ending is so unexpected yet so fulfilling that it is sure to be remembered for years to come. It had me cracking up for five minutes straight.

I thought some of the film was uneven and some of the transitions between comedy and drama were too sudden. This movie contains sad scenarios, but instead of letting the emotions fully play out, they are instead cut up (and so the effect is diminished) by comedy. Wes Anderson's movies (e.g. The Royal Tenenbaums), on the other hand, have the opposite strategy, which I think works much better. Its standard is comedy, so when it suddenly switches to tragedy, we are taken aback more so than normal; the laugh escaping our mouth is choked and held in check. Otherwise, it's an amazing movie I wholeheartedly recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449059/