White House Down (2013)

3/5

Stop me if you've heard this one before: a terrorist plot to overtake a building is thwarted by a lone off-duty officer behind enemy lines. No, it's not Die Hard. It's White House Down. If you want to put it in a positive light, you can call it an homage or a re-envisioning. If you want to hate on it, you can call it a blatant rip-off. In truth, it probably lies somewhere in between, and it might have worked if Emmerich were a superior director.

The casting is the best part of the movie. Channing Tatum nearly matches Bruce Willis in terms of his on-screen presence and comic timing. (I say this knowing full well that I'll be blasted as a blasphemer or a Tatum fanboy.) But Emmerich takes it one step further by adding Jamie Foxx into the mix, turning it into a buddy movie with an undeniable chemistry between the two leads. It seems like it has all the right ingredients for success, but it just doesn't have that special sauce. Emmerich directs the action just a little too over-the-top. Even I could not suspend my disbelief (and this coming from someone who recently saw Fast & Furious 6). The bad guys are unoriginal and bland, even before comparing them to Die Hard and the inimitable Alan Rickman. The movie sags at around the 2/3 mark and it never manages to pick up the pace after that (even with the unnecessarily ludicrous plot twist at the end). For those of you that don't know, this is basically the exact opposite of what you want in an action movie.

Whereas Die Hard was a classic, White House Down will quickly fade out of our collective memory. That's okay though. It served its purpose as a summer blockbuster popcorn flick. It's entertaining enough for an action movie and I don't feel like I wasted my money. Just don't let the similarities to a much better movie get your hopes up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2334879/

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

4.9/5

The Cabin in the Woods is one of the most fascinating, enthralling movies I've seen in a long time. Written by Joss Whedon, it is a testament to the power of inventive, immersive storytelling. It gives me hope that there's still new ideas to be discovered and shared. The plot starts with five friends (Connolly, Hemsworth, Hutchison, Kranz, Williams) who take a trip to the titular cabin in the woods. They are warned by a gas station attendant (De Zarn) not to enter, but they choose to continue on, only to enter a world of horrors.

The movie is a joy to watch. It starts from a simple premise and constantly expands, adding layer after layer of complexity until its brilliant finale. It is set in a slasher horror genre, but contains elements of reality TV and ancient mythology. After a while, the horror element fades away and you are left with nothing but quality storytelling in a universe you've never before set foot in. It is exciting and entertaining, although it will not appeal to everybody. It aims to shock, at times, but also to make you smile. It succeeds admirably on all counts, and it is delightful the entire time.

As far as the acting goes, Kranz, Jenkins, and Whitford steal the show. They are incredible and they leave the rest of the cast in the dust. The camerawork and editing are pretty much what you'd expect from a horror movie, with the requisite shots of blurry objects sneaking up in the background and quick cut/loud noise combos. But even those are done in an almost tongue-in-cheek way that makes the whole movie all the more fun. I cannot seem to praise this movie enough, and I cannot wait to watch it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

Happythankyoumoreplease (2010)

3/5

Happythankyoumoreplease is another middle-of-the-road quirky indie comedy, but what this one has that no other one has is an annoying title that omits spaces for no reason whatsoever. The plot follows three couples in New York: 1) Sam (Radnor) and Mississippi (Mara) after a three-night stand, 2) Annie (Akerman) and Sam #2 (Hale) in a workplace romance, and 3) Mary Catherine (Kazan) and Charlie (Schreiber) with an unexpected pregnancy. I really don't have much to say about this movie, except that it is exactly what I expected based on the preview.

It's about six 20-something romantics and their sex lives, who try to find grand meaning in the smallest details of their boring lives. The characters were bland and uninteresting; nobody had a backstory to make them fleshed out or complex. The acting was equally unmemorable and flat. The movie's saving grace was the humor (yes, it was funny), but the script overall was pretty weak. (And I always hate it when people try to argue that New York is the greatest city in the world when we all know it's Chicago.) And although they feel trite and overused, the movie's messages are thoughtful and real. It's a happy enough indie movie that's enjoyable enough to sit through without feeling like your time was wasted, but it's nothing to write home about.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1481572/

Friends With Benefits (2011)

4/5

Friends With Benefits has a fairly uninspired plot. Two twenty-somethings, Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis), decide to start a purely physical relationship after being dumped for being either emotionally absent or emotionally guarded. This being a romantic comedy made in Hollywood, you know how the entire story unfolds from the premise alone: one develops feelings for the other, they break up because of a mistake one of them makes, and eventually get back together and live happily ever after. Like it or not, that's the formula you're buying with your movie tickets.

Fortunately, this movie is probably the smartest it could have been given that preordained scenario thanks to pristine execution and delivery. The dialogue is sharp and witty, the acting believable and emotionally fulfilling (unlike the characters themselves), and the mood is appropriately adult (plenty of nude butts and four-letter words). I was surprised at how much I bought the film, which I think is a testament to the directing and the acting. I actually felt the emotions that the characters were going through, and to me that means the movie has succeeded. So despite the predictable plot, despite occasionally feeling like the simple message was beat into my head, I don't think there's much higher you can aim for in a film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632708/

Eat Pray Love (2010)

2/5

Eat Pray Love is a movie that pretends to be more than it is. It imagines itself as a universally philosophical journey that one woman takes to discover what's important in her life following an impending divorce. It instead plays as a travelogue to Italy (where she eats), India (where she prays), and Bali (where she loves) with a superficial sheen of self-discovery, but lacking any depth or importance. The plot is barebones and unconvincing. Perhaps the book is better, but watching this movie I had no idea why Liz (Roberts) was so fed up with her husband (Crudup) that she needed a divorce. I normally wouldn't have cared except that it was the impetus of her actions and the crux of the movie. Her journey is worthless if we don't understand why she's going on it in the first place. My other big complaint was at the end, where she meets and (apparently) falls in love with Felipe (Bardem). For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. They are together for a few unwitnessed days/weeks and suddenly they are in love? Their romance is assumed instead of shown (no thanks to the overabundant narration). There was more passion with the food in Italy.

Despite my criticisms, I didn't actually hate this movie. In fact, I didn't mind it at all, thanks to the acting, cinematography, and editing. While none of the actors were bad, they were pretty flat and boring. I couldn't tell if it was bad acting or bad writing, but based on the rest of the screenplay, I'm going to assume it's bad writing. However, Roberts and Jenkins were given very interesting characters to play, and they fill each scene they're in with emotion and empathy. While I don't think the cinematography was actually that impressive, the locales themselves are gorgeous. They're captured in exquisite detail, and I felt transported to each city. The editing was surprisingly the best part about the movie. It is extremely well done, cutting across time and space to unite multiple ideas and thoughts. But most people, myself included, can't treasure technical prowess if the storyline is bad or forgettable. And that is this film's fatal flaw. If you were interested in the movie based on the trailer, you might enjoy wasting 2 hours and 15 minutes watching it. But for everyone else, just pretend it never existed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0879870/

Dear John (2010)

2/5

Dear John is a bad movie. It is based on a Nicholas Sparks novel, and I presume that novel is bad as well, because the bad part about this movie is its story. The cinematography was fine, the acting was fine, but the story sucked. The story starts with an army sergeant (Tatum) during a 2-week leave back home with his dad (Jenkins) in Charleston. On the beach, he meets a girl who also went back home to Charleston for spring break from college (Seyfried). They fall madly in love and, at the conclusion of the 2 weeks, he of course has to go back to the army and she of course has to go back to school. They promise that they will write each other as often as is humanly possible and things go just peachily at first. But where would the romance be without some trials and tribulations along the way that they must overcome? Do they overcome it? Ah, I guess you'll have to see it to find out what happens next.

But I don't think anyone should see this movie, so I'll just tell you what happens next: she sends him a Dear John letter and tells him she's engaged to someone else. Oh no! The problem with this movie is that it sets itself up as a movie with the potential to tug at your heartstrings and ultimately satisfy your desire for their love to be fulfilled. Instead it is painful obstacle after obstacle until they finally smack into a brick wall and give up. It is not a story of true love triumphing in the face of uncontrollable external factors; it is the story of affection and need failing in the face of inconvenience. And don't talk to me about the ending. The ending is not a redemption; it is sap and sentimentality without any resonance of truth. It is the author writing a convenient end to an inconvenient setup. It is illogical, frustrating, and out of context. Don't watch this movie. You will either be disappointed or angry, and neither is what you want to feel after emerging from the theater.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0989757/

Burn After Reading (2008)

4/5

Burn After Reading starts with Malkovich being fired from his job as a CIA analyst. His righteous irateness is immediately hilarious, but also becomes a part of his character as the film progresses. His job loss sends his wife Swinton to a divorce lawyer, and she copies his private files to a disc for her financial security. The disc is lost in a health club, where trainers Pitt and McDormand find it and try to use it to blackmail Malkovich. Swinton is also cheating on Malkovich with Clooney, who meets McDormand through online dating and cheats on both his wife and Swinton with her too. Oh, and Simmons is in there as the CIA head and voice of reason who verbalizes just how confusing and meaningless the entire movie was. If that simplification of the plot was too complicated to follow, then you might not enjoy this movie. But if you can wade through that morass, or if you just don't care about plot, then this could be the comedy for you. Why?

Because the Coens are amazing. Amazing writers, producers, editors, directors. They are amazing at everything they do. Burn After Reading is another comedic hit that further confirms my faith in their constant and consistent ability to impress. No matter the genre, be it a western cat-and-mouse chase or a doofus spy thriller, they manage to transform it into a dark comedy. And because of this, the film becomes its own unique creation, the world is completely new to us, and we have no idea what we'll witness on the journey the Coens take us through. The acting is spot-on, the writing memorable, and the mood flawlessly evoked. The shots are beautiful, the compositions precise, the movements natural. Everything the Coens put in this movie--from bizarre phrases to peculiar mannerisms--is put in with such conviction and certainty that you watch the movie with the feeling that this is so right. I can't even get into specifics, because I would just gush worthless hyperbole. If you love the Coens, this will not disappoint. If you don't "get" them, then this is not the movie to change your mind. But I'm so glad to be in the former group.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/