The Bourne Legacy (2012)

2/5

The Bourne Legacy, the fourth Bourne movie, has a very confusing plot. The general outline is that a covert government agency is killing all their secret operatives after a benign-appearing YouTube video is leaked. One black ops agent (Renner) escapes death and travels to the Philippines with a scientist (Weisz) so that he can inject himself with a virus. Yes, it does sound absolutely preposterous. And to make matters worse, there are simply too many story lines and too many characters to keep track of. The director, Tony Gilroy, seems to focus on the wrong things in each scene, as if uncertain what the movie is about. He goes back and forth between time and place way too frequently without any real explanation or clear motivation. This results in an extended second half that doesn't make sense within the film's logic, where seemingly ever character (big, small, good, bad) takes enormous risks out of proportion to expected benefits.

Superficially, the movie looks very exciting. There is a lot of anger and yelling, a lot of drama and histrionics. But the action scenes aren't so much exciting as they are filled with loud action-y music. Instead of gunfights and fistfights, we get running and chasing. Instead of action, we get super-fast cuts. I estimate that the average length of each shot is around 1 second. Not to spoil the movie, but Matt Damon never appears in it, although his character is unendingly discussed peripherally. To make matters worse, it has an extremely unsatisfying ending. Do not recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/

The Lovely Bones (2009)

2/5

Peter Jackson's adaptation of Alice Sebold's book The Lovely Bones is an interesting concept, but one that I did not find fulfilling or satisfying. It felt depressing instead of uplifting, with a poorly defined purpose that was carried out even more poorly. The plot follows 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Ronan) after being murdered by neighbor George Harvey (Tucci). Her death is a terrifying, painful, and drawn out one. It devastates and nearly destroys her family; her mother (Weisz) copes through acceptance and isolation and her father (Wahlberg) through denial and investigation. The police fail to locate the man after two years, and he prepares to strike again.

Technically, the film appears competent but has a number of underlying imperfections. Jackson uses editing expertly to build tension, however, the mood shifts at a brisk and almost too rapid pace. The audience is never quite sure what emotion to feel at what time. The directing also felt timid and uncertain, as if Jackson didn't think everything out and just started shooting. The beginning scenes hide Tucci's face, as if his identity would be a mystery throughout the film, but after about 5 minutes we find out who he is. Did Jackson not realize that a good 90% of the movie would be based around us knowing who he is or was there some ultra-subtle purpose that I missed?

I'm confused as to Jackson's motivations for a number of other scenes, especially those concerning Susie. I don't know what the "in between" represents or how any of her postmortem emotions are new, interesting, or even relevant. This newfangled purgatory is baffling, bizarre, and unnecessary, although I guess that's what separates it from other movies about similar topics. Unfortunately, I still found it to be an empty metaphor with uncertain meaning. The CGI is another area that appeared magical at first, but on closer inspection was just not quite good enough to be realistic. It was off by just a small amount, but enough to make you realize that what you were watching wasn't filmed but made, and that made it stand out even more. He spent far too much time on special effects and far too little time fortifying the story, understanding its meaning, and figuring out how best to show that to the audience.

I left the theater imagining that this was a great movie, or at least a good one. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it had less meaning than I attributed to it and more problems than I originally recognized. Don't let Jackson's infamous special effects trick you: this movie is nothing special, and not worthy of your time or money. It's a simple story told simplistically. Other movies have tread more tenderly, examined the topics more sensitively, and forced you to think more honestly and deeply about your feelings than this movie did. For my money, I'd rather see In the Bedroom or Little Children again. Pass on The Lovely Bones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/

The Brothers Bloom (2008)

5/5

Rian Johnson's The Brothers Bloom is the best con movie to come out in years--maybe ever. It exceeds standards set by its predecessors on what a con movie needs to be, and sets brand new ones for how entertaining and enjoyable it can and should be. It keeps you hooked and in control for the first 2/3, then spins wildly and wonderfully beyond your grasp for the last 1/3. You are wholly lost in a grand mosaic of deceit, lies, and cons on top of cons. You never quite know for sure who's playing whom and who will emerge at the top of the pile. You have suspicions, but you're never 100%. And because the foundation of the story itself is built on shifting sand, nagging doubts incessantly pepper your predictions. It's absolute bliss for anyone enamored of the genre.

From start to finish, Rian Johnson's creativity and inventiveness plastered a grin on my face and kept it there. We are introduced to the brothers with a poem, one that subtly foreshadows the puckish yet poignant mood of the piece. And one that is referenced again at the end, as the entire piece is brought back full circle. The movie playfully prides itself on anachronisms with a self-referential, tongue-in-cheek attitude. It joyously combines 1940's costuming with 1970's music and modern technology to create an altogether novel and singular experience. The cinematography is subtle but powerful and the editing clean and brisk. The acting is spot-on, the characters rich and unique. The plot and dialogue are smart, sharp, and simply sublime. It all combines in perfect harmony to create a movie that is fresh, fun, and stimulating on numerous levels. Watching it was pure ecstasy for me. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844286/

The Mummy (1999)

2/5

I will, for once, start out my review by saying that it is an unfair assessment. I was not paying attention for most of the movie due to a number of distractions, mostly involving volume, exhaustion, and my contact lenses. (For example, I did not realize that the female protagonist was Rachel Weisz until I looked it up on IMDb later to write this very review you are now reading!) However, I remain confident in my reviewing abilities and am fairly certain my star rating is accurate, give or take 0.5 stars (which I don't use anyway).

To get more to the point: The Mummy takes place in the mid 1920's, except for an intro involving an overbearing voice-over narration, a nearly-nude Egyptian woman with a complicated and oft-repeated name, a pharaoh, a high priest, their love triangle, and an ancient curse involving reincarnation, which takes place ~3,500 years earlier. Back to the 1920's, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and her onscreen brother go and wake the mummy up from the dead and then eventually send him back to the dead by film's end. The plot really is quite preposterous and predictable (Sameer figured it out 45 minutes in and then left). It reminded me of a mix between Aladdin, Star Wars, The Da Vinci Code, and The Ten Commandments.

I did actually notice a few shots that I thought were fantastic. Typically they were not, however. The editing and music did not do much; in fact, the mood was so dead for most of the movie that the rhythmic humming of a nearby dishwasher made the movie far more tense than it intended to be. I found the acting surprising, for two reasons. 1) Brendan Fraser was not as bad as I thought he'd be and 2) Rachel Weisz was not as good as I thought she'd be. The character I liked the most was Weisz's brother, who was always hilarious. The action itself was alright, although it never really held my attention. Neither did the first hour. Still, it will probably keep you glued to the screen if you find it playing on TV, whether you like it or not. So I guess that counts for something.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/

My Blueberry Nights (2007)

4/5

I waited for two hours to see this movie, and I was not disappointed. It's quite good, but I'm going to write about what I didn't like about it first to get that painful stuff out of the way. Norah Jones's acting was atrocious in the beginning; it seemed amateurish, ditzy and unreal, as if she were reading a script, and reading it poorly. After a while I got more used to it and it fit in with her character better. Also, she looked A LOT like Hilary Swank, and I just couldn't get that fact out of my head while watching it. Jude Law was a bit unnatural too. The cinematography looked beautiful, but it played not so well. It was a bit edit-heavy and the lovely slow-motion shots in his earlier films no longer had their "cool" effect; instead it ended up being just excessive and annoying.

Now, onto the good stuff! I loved the Strathairn/Weisz segment and the Portman segment. It was back to the good old Wong Kar Wai I know and love, and in perfect form. The acting was flawless, the characters unique and full, the story touching and meaningful, and the emotions/tensions high. The dialogue was much much better than the Law segment(s) and had a much richer analytic framework. The music choice was always awesome, although sometimes its presence might have been a bit overpowering and too ever-present for my tastes. I especially liked the musical homage to In the Mood for Love at the end of the movie. I left the theater thankful for my experience, despite the long wait in the sun and the flaws in the movie. It is well worth watching for any Wong Kar Wai fan.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0765120/

The Fountain (2006)

4.9/5

The Fountain is first and foremost a journey, intellectually, emotionally, and thematically. There is a surprisingly seamless quality to the film, as every scene and setting shares the same hues and composition. And the compositions (basically every single shot) are absolutely breathtaking in beauty. Aronofsky has created an amazing theoretical experience, one that is difficult to comprehend. Despite that, it is extremely confident in itself--it does not dumb itself down for the audience to better understand. This confidence carries the movie; if made by a weaker director, it wouldn't have worked. He gives it some unknown, ethereal quality that makes me love it. Hugh Jackman's acting was powerfully real and heartfelt, made stronger by the emotive music.

The problems arose as a result of some of the best aspects of the movie. Its abstract nature and faith in the audience's intellect made any possibility of immediate understanding difficult. It will take a lot of time and thought to perform even a partial analysis. The beautiful shot compositions were a bit jarring, because Aronofsky didn't take into account transitional shots that would smooth out the flow. These weren't necessary evils; they could have easily been prevented had Aronofsky simply thought about them. Even so, these faults were relatively small.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0414993/