Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

4/5

Avengers: Age of Ultron is just another cog in the Marvel moneymaking machine and lacks just about any element of individual charm. It exists entirely within the context of a larger goal and throws everything that might make it unique or memorable by the wayside. Although directed by Joss Whedon, it allows for none of the clever dialogue, unique characters, or genre-defying storytelling that made him who he is. If anything, we see sarcastic side remarks that permeate the background like a whiny kid who doesn't get what he wants. And I wish Whedon could have gotten what he wanted, so he could have turned this unwieldy behemoth into a truly spectacular film.

As the movie started, it felt like there was too much going on and not enough depth to do the story justice. The plot is way too complex and confusing to figure out. But it manages to expand on characters and relationships in ways I didn't expect. For the most part, the movie succeeds. It gets your blood pumping and your heart racing. It's well-paced and thrilling. It's filled with entertainment and laughs.

But it has a large number of problems. The CGI is competent but overwrought. It allows for some cool slo-mo shots and striking visual compositions, but it also turns what should be exciting action scenes into boring, anemic exercises in computer animation. There was no physical action that made Captain America: The Winter Soldier so great. And the overarching plot is just so predictable. We've seen this all before time and time again in all the Marvel movies that preceded it and we'll see it time and time again in all the movies that follow, too. It's just different actors in different suits, but the same things happen every time. Perhaps the biggest problem is that this movie has no heart, just a wallet. I need to learn to stop giving it my cash.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/

Chef (2014)

4/5

Jon Favreau's Chef is a surprisingly affecting movie. It tells the story of an acclaimed chef (Favreau) who is unable to make the creative dishes he wants to because his boss (Hoffman) prefers "crowdpleasers." His ex-wife (Vergara) wants him to start up a food truck because it will allow him the freedom to be innovative and adventurous, but he dismisses the idea. After a fiasco with a food critic (Platt) spreads like wildfire on social media, he finds himself out of options.

I'll be honest, most of the movie is fairly mediocre. Straightforward story, predictable plot, forgettable photography. Like all food porn, this movie will make your mouth water. But it's also emotion porn, a real tearjerker and heart-warmer that will make you go awwww. The acting shines. From rather basic characterizations emerge real people in real situations, radiating a life on screen that is rarely seen in the commoditized Hollywood machine. I'm smart enough to know I'm being manipulated by the story, but I still enjoyed every minute of it. The movie hits all the right notes, combining hilarity and heart, and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2883512/

Lucy (2014)

2/5

Luc Besson's Lucy is a sci-fi action movie built on an entirely fictitious and impossible premise. Lucy (Johansson) is a young woman studying in Taiwan who gets tricked into being a drug mule. When the drugs accidentally get released into her bloodstream, she develops the ability to use more than "10% of her brain." Using "more" of her brain apparently gives her superpowers that somehow transcend the laws of physics.

The premise is insane--no one can argue that. But improbable scenarios do not necessarily make for bad movies (see The Lucky Ones, for example). In this one, though, it kinda does. To be fair, the movie has some phenomenal computer-generated special effects and some scenes were just flat-out cool. But that's about all it has going for it. And that doesn't make up for bland acting, stilted pacing, or atrocious writing. The whole affair is pretty tepid for such an outrageous idea. It manages to satisfy just long enough so you don't ask for your money back but not long enough for you to remember anything about it after you finish. If I somehow had the ability to go back in time, I would pass on it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

4.9/5

The Captain America sequel is easily the best superhero movie that Marvel has ever produced. The story follows soon after the events of The Avengers, with Captain America (Evans) still getting used to modern life in DC. I won't bore you with the details of the plot, which has its fair share of fun twists and shocking turns, and will instead leave you to enjoy it when you watch the movie. Surprisingly, one of the film's strongest attributes is its story, which is intelligent in scope and mature in style, delving into themes that feel both timely and timeless. The writing itself won't win any awards, but it's surprisingly competent given the fact that it's drawn using characters from a comic book series. Despite its superheroes and super-villains, it feels more grounded in reality than any of the other Marvel movies.

The action scenes are superb, using mostly midrange shots and avoiding over-editing so you can tell what's going on. The directors took a risk using live-action stunts instead of an overabundance of and over-dependence on CGI, and it pays off. It's a visceral, electrifying movie that gets your blood pumping and keeps your heart racing. The pacing is exquisitely done, maintaining tension from the very beginning to the very end. My only real hang-up with this film is the character of Falcon (Mackie), who feels altogether silly and unnecessary. In other news, the character of Black Widow (Johansson) is becoming much more interesting with every movie she's in, as we learn more about her talents and her past. For my money, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the pinnacle of Marvel's canon so far.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/

Don Jon (2013)

3/5

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Don Jon is a bold directorial debut that succeeds on many fronts but doesn't fully satisfy. The movie stars Gordon-Levitt as a New Jersey twenty-something whose life revolves around a few things. One of them is online porn. His hook-up, Johansson, questions why he would watch porn when he can have "the real thing." And the movie spends a fair amount of time trying to answer that very question. It's actually an interesting one, one I think perhaps might be better served by a documentary-style investigation rather than writerly musings.

As far as the plot goes, it's a fairly predictable, well-worn story arc without a bunch of surprises. Gordon-Levitt infuses the movie with humorous ironies (I love his road rage when he's going to church) that make it feel fresh and fun. But the movie also has plenty of annoyances. For one, Gordon-Levitt's hair is horrific. It is eye-searing. And their New Jersey accents grind through your eardrum and drill into your brain. The subject matter is still somewhat unseemly for many people, and the movie isn't nearly charming enough to overpower their disgust.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229499/

Her (2013)

5/5

Spike Jonze's Her is an expertly-crafted and beautifully-told love story. Although it is set in the future, it is a love story through and through. After a painful breakup with his girlfriend (Mara), Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) finds himself unexpectedly falling for his personal assistant, Samantha (Johansson). Their mutual attraction blossoms into a tender romance that some view with prejudice and others with acceptance. Despite the occasional false steps and fights, their relationship feels promising. But that is when the specter of doubt begins to rear its ugly head.

The movie's conceit is that Samantha is a piece of software, an operating system with an artificial intelligence that rivals and perhaps surpasses human intelligence. In fact, the film is advertised that way, banking on its strangeness to be the talk of the town. But it is so much more than a simple gimmick.

As far as storytelling goes, Her is a masterpiece. It is Annie Hall for the tech generation, and I do not say that lightly. It embodies the ups and downs of love, the sidesteps and detours of life, the frailty and imperfections of people. Her is somehow all those things delivered in a crisply-shot and sharply-written film. It is ferociously funny and manipulatively tender. It matches an unparalleled ebullience with a debilitating dread. It pulls at just the right heartstrings at just the right times.

From the subtle use of grain and POV to the story's fundamental architecture, Jonze directs masterfully. He elicits nuance out of the actors, whether it's the flicker of their facial muscles or the timbre of their voice, that elevates their performance well past our expectations. He uses flashbacks to tell the backstory so simply, so effortlessly, so precisely, that I cannot believe they are fictional at all. I cannot imagine that someone has not had those exact emotions before. They are silent reveries, uncontrollable daydreams, pure nostalgia.

The movie is not unassailable. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the thought process behind the movie's absurd fashion choices. I sincerely hope we don't dress like that at any point in the near or distant future. But even if this movie is eerily accurate about what we wear in the future, what's the point? It only serves to distract. It is the elephant in the room instead of the painting in the background. Is the movie supposed to be about love or is it supposed to be about navel-hugging belt-less tweed pants pulled up as high as possible around multiple layers of collared shirts?

Perhaps Her bites off a bit more than it can chew, but it is easily one of the best movies of the year. It has already taken hold of our culture, as evidenced by the innumerable parodies floating around online, and tickled something inside all of us. It is a magnificent film and a magical film. It is unique but universal. Watching Her is an experience everyone should get to enjoy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/

Hitchcock (2012)

3/5

Hitchcock tells the story of the titular director's decision to make Psycho, and the personal and professional challenges that came alongside it. As a whole, the movie is entertaining fare. But I think the problem is that the movie doesn't know its audience. Is it for Hitchcock fans? Psycho fans? movie fans? Who knows? It provides a teeny glimpse into the great director's life, but not nearly enough to satisfy. In fact, I would venture to say that the movie is more about Mrs. Hitchcock than about Mr. Hitchcock (and Mirren absolutely shines in her role). That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I decided to rent the movie, so I was left with a perfectly fine movie that I wasn't expecting and didn't hate. If you decide to watch it, just know what you're getting into and you'll probably be able to enjoy it more.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0975645/

The Avengers (2012)

4/5

The Avengers is a spectacle in the most gaudy way possible. I suppose that's not entirely unanticipated given the fact that the last six movies put out by Marvel have basically been advertisements for this one. And that this comic book nerd's fantasy has been decades in the making. It had to come out with a bang. And bang it did, with the most profitable opening weekend of all time. And yet, despite all its financial success, I don't feel like this movie will be remembered for very long. It's one of those movies everybody just had to see because everyone else was talking about it, but then it seemed to slowly fade into obscurity.

Iron Man and The Dark Knight were, for me, the two big superhero movies from the last 10 years, each taking wildly divergent paths. The Dark Knight was serious, filled with gritty realism and terrifying villains. Iron Man was humorous, good-natured fun. The Avenger is firmly entrenched in the latter camp; it's the next movie in a line of factory-made films cut from the same cloth as Iron Man aimed to guarantee success with the least risk possible. And it is an entertaining, well-written, well-paced film that probably didn't offend anybody. But it was more of a Marvel movie than a Joss Whedon movie, and I think that's my issue with the film.

Joss Whedon's writing and directing here was relatively uninspired compared to The Cabin in the Woods, Serenity/Firefly, and Dollhouse. There were some clever lines and cool twists in the plot, and Whedon effortlessly balanced five major leads with widely varying characteristics and motivations, but nothing about this movie really impressed me in any way. It's a fine movie; I just expected a lot more given Whedon's involvement. He can--and will--do better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

We Bought A Zoo (2011)

3/5

Cameron Crowe's We Bought A Zoo is an upbeat, sugar-coated movie about a family that is falling apart after a recent death. Similar to The Descendants in plot, Crowe's film takes the more saccharine, family-friendly approach. Benjamin Mee (Damon) buys a new house that doubles as a zoo for his 7-year-old daughter Rosie (Jones), after being forced to move because of his son's poor behavior in school. As part of the contract for buying the property, he reopens the zoo and invests heavily, both financially and emotionally, in the animals and zookeepers (Johansson).

The problem with this film is that it's more of a performance than a realistic portrayal. Even though it was based on a true story, it feels less believable than The Descendants. This is not a fault of the acting, which is absolutely superb. The problem is the script, which bludgeons "take-home point" after "take-home point" instead of focusing on the people. It has a number of subplots that feel both unnecessary and strained. When it tries to wrap up all its various storylines into neat little packages by the end of the film, it just feels like it has more endings than The Lord of the Rings. The movie is enjoyable and entertaining--it's not a bad movie by any means--but I just wish it spent more time exploring the motivations and reactions of the characters instead of the intricacies of running a zoo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389137/

Iron Man 2 (2010)

3/5

Iron Man 2 is not quite as good as Iron Man, mostly because it copied the first one and therefore lost the refreshing originality that distinguished that movie from all the other superhero movies. The plot is fairly simplistic (evil Russian physicist Ivan Vanko has a bone to pick with Tony Stark and creates a suit with electric whips to kill him) but it suffices for the genre. There are a number of dumb/inconsistent plot points that make the movie more preposterous and less believable than it already is (e.g., creating a new element by changing how protons, neutrons, and electrons interact; flashing a warning light 30 seconds before the evil drones are set to explode so that the hero can escape). And the tension during the action sequences was completely deflated because the movie basically turned into a straight-up comedy. Instead of caring that the explosions didn't kill the characters we got attached to, it felt like we were watching a CGI demonstration for July 4.

All that being said, the movie is quite enjoyable. It is far funnier than I remember the first one being. (That swinging doohickey was comic genius!) The jokes are well-timed and delivered with aplomb. The acting by all parties met my expectations, although Robert Downey Jr.'s smugness is now starting to get on my nerves a little bit. If you liked the first one, you'll surely like this one, but I'm not envisioning it blowing anyone's socks off. Don't be afraid to wait for it on DVD. Btw, don't bother watching the 5 second snippet at the end. Let me save you the trouble. He finds Thor's hammer. Now you can leave 10 minutes earlier without having to sit through the 9 minute 55 second-long credits. You're welcome.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

4/5

Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona tells its entire story in the title, which I'm sure Allen intended. It is about Vicky (Hall) and Cristina (Johansson) during a summer vacation in Barcelona, where they meet Juan Antonio (Bardem) who invites them to drink wine and make love to him. As a young narrator informs us, the two girls have differing views on love. Vicky is engaged to Doug (Messina) but is afraid she wants more than her boring but otherwise perfect marriage. Cristina is always looking for more and different ways to be pleased until she finds what she's looking for. Juan Antonio is frank and honest with his emotions and sexuality. While these all sound like unique characters, they're not; they're caricatures exaggerated to make fun of each social class (educated homemaker wishing for something more, ever-unsatisfied free spirit, and romantic bohemian artist). Even the side characters are laughable.

This is not to denigrate the acting, which was excellently understated, but rather to emphasize the humor. I was laughing throughout the entire piece, not because of the things that happened, but because of the characters' impressions of themselves--how they talked and what they said--that revealed Allen poking fun at each of these social circles. Technically, the movie was solid, with little risk and littler reward. (There was an odd cross dissolve during a shot/countershot conversation, but nothing else particularly awful comes to mind.) I actually didn't mind the narration that much (and thankfully they didn't try to explain it at the end like in Million Dollar Baby). The movie is a fairly light romp through what is clearly a male fantasy with nothing profoundly insightful, but it's well worth the ride.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497465/

Lost in Translation (2003)

4.9/5

Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation is by far her best film. It is a rare example of a slice-of-life romance that is actually a slice-of-life and actually a romance. With strikingly beautiful and tenderly poignant images, we get a sense of Coppola's love for her characters and the city they find themselves in. We know that they are honest portraits of real people amidst foreign customs. We see this truth in the sparse writing, the subtle acting, the patient directing. In the lingering moments between words and actions, we see awkward new love and dispassionate marriage. We see so much about the lives of these wanderers through the movements of their bodies, the checking of their words, that we understand why they make the connection that they do. And that is the heart of this movie.

Technically there were few missteps; the only thing that comes to mind is the occasional loose editing. Overall there were more flaws. Many complain that the film is racist. While it uses all the obvious jokes and stereotypes, they serve as playful descriptions, not hateful mockery, of Japanese people and culture. Perhaps one of the charms of the movie, one of the things that lends it a sense of realism, is the lack of grand insightful themes. The dialogue always feels so much more profound than it actually is, which leaves the viewer wondering what more this movie could have been. And I know that this movie will appeal to far fewer people than other great films. But for those it affects, well. Watch it and find out for yourself.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335266/

Ghost World (2001)

3/5

Ghost World is a bizarre, angst-filled, social-outcast teen comedy starring Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson. After finally graduating high school, they decide to play a mean prank on Steve Buscemi, quite the middle-aged loser, after which Birch forms a strong bond with him. Their relationship forms the backbone of the story. Overall, it's a very fun and enjoyable movie. Most of the cinematography, shot compositions, and editing were spot-on and quite a joy to watch. I loved the blunt, comedic dialogue, the quirky attitude of the three main eccentrics, and the subtle jabs at "normalcy." The script is great except for some minor pacing and progression issues. I found the emotional aspects touching, although not particularly groundbreaking or new. All the acting, however, was amazing; I especially loved Steve Buscemi and Bob Balaban. There was one great scene with Birch in art class that I found flawless; she just deflates for a couple frames when her teacher dismisses her drawings as simple, light-hearted entertainment. Actually, that reminds me: every single scene in the art studio was absolutely hilarious. Also, I really liked the ending, even though it was predictable.

Thora Birch has a face that makes her look twelve and boobs the size of Greenland; it's really quite a striking and not altogether normal physique that distracts from her acting. She's really whiny in this movie, all the characters are, and their emo-ness is funny to laugh at at first, but after a while it just gets a bit old. Scarlett is really young, but still really hot, which almost makes me feel like a pedophile, but not quite. The unique story is not for everyone, and the Harold and Maude relationship between Birch and Buscemi stumbles into real pedophilia, although a romantic kind and not really a disgusting kind. There are a lot of minor characters that have greater meaning like Norman, but also a lot of worthless, throwaway ones like Josh. Same with side stories and events. And I'm not really sure what the time period was supposed to be. Anyway, check out this movie if you want a little smarter comedy about misfits.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0162346/

The Black Dahlia (2006)

2/5

The Black Dahlia is a completely fictionalized detective story set in the 40's about the real-life murder and dismemberment of Elizabeth Short. Based on a novel by James Ellroy (L.A. Confidential) and directed by Brian De Palma, I was pretty excited when I first found out about it, and pretty disappointed to hear all the terrible reviews. But I gave it a chance anyway, which was unfortunate. This movie is not very good. The problem with this movie was not that it was too confusing, but that it just didn't make any sense. The characters' motivations and actions were out of the blue and absolutely ludicrous sometimes. Everything was so exaggerated. The plot of the first half feels random and unnecessary, only for the second half to reveal that all these coincidences and side stories were vitally important. Most important-looking characters ended up being superfluous and most forgettable ones turned up again at the end. It somewhat cheapens the whole thing. The dialogue tried too hard and fell flat. It was often hard to hear what people were saying, or divine the meaning behind their words. The characters were unconvincing and felt really out of place in the environment, although I did like the acting. I particularly hated the echoing voices of people remembering important things that others had said.

The cinematography, set design, and costumes worked really great. There was one really slick sequence where Johansson's character sees Hartnett's character with another woman that I thought was done exceptionally well. Some of the fighting was cool, although it was mostly in the beginning. The music really wasn't bad at all and the editing was at least undistracting and competent. At least most of the movie was pretty interesting, despite not really knowing what was going on. All in all, very highly unrecommended whether you're interested in it or not (although it wasn't as terrible as my extremely low expectations).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0387877/

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/

Scoop (2006)

4/5

I saw this new Woody Allen comedy yesterday with Sameer and I must say, I was impressed. I laughed a lot. It was extremely funny in that New York/Woody Allen style that he's perfected over the years (fantastic one-liners), even though he saves most of the humor for himself. Scarlett Johansson plays a dumb but dedicated student journalist as best she can, but Allen's writing for that part just wasn't very convincing. Fortuitously, the failure of the role's realism gave the movie a more airy, light-hearted feel that helped overall. I liked the small reference to Match Point where Johansson pretends to be an actress. One thing I was especially fond of was how the movie comes full circle and ends up back where it started (on the River Styx); something about that just feels sublime to me.

The special effects distracted from the movie, besides just looking campy and 80's. Hugh Jackman's character was simply a poor rehashing of the upper class family from Match Point, and Allen didn't really do much to make him unique in any way, shape, or form. Also, some elements of the plot just don't add up, but who cares? It's a movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0457513/