Cloud Atlas (2012)

3/5

Cloud Atlas is an ambitious project for even the most visionary directors. It tracks six separate storylines that connect and intersect in moods and themes. Directed by three people, the Wachowskis and Tykwer attempt to use the same actors across time and space to link the storylines. That unnecessary dedication to a concept is perhaps the reason for dressing its white actors up in "yellowface" to make them look Asian, which is off-putting and unsettling to say the least. Ignoring that, the movie still has its imperfections and failings.

Although the movie intercuts six stories remarkably well, it feels lopsided and uneven. The stories are given equal weight even though some are far less interesting than others. While the book tells the various fictions sequentially, the movie unifies them into a singular, simultaneous narrative. I'm not sure it was the right decision, as it comes with numerous compromises, but it shows that the directors care about the story enough to attempt to adapt the ideas instead of the words.

As the movie ended, I wasn't sure what I got out of it. Its self-importance was lost on me. I felt like the movie is engaging and compelling for its storytelling, but not its story; its filmmaking, but not its content. It's appealing but empty, exciting but unsatisfying. It was made to be bold, not to be felt. I can't imagine anyone going into the theater will go out feeling anything but disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/

Arbitrage (2012)

2/5

Arbitrage is a film that mystifies me in innumerable ways. Part of that is its plot, which whirlwinds past business concepts and legal mumbo jumbo with a little too much freedom. The story follows successful magnate Robert Miller (Gere) about to close the deal of a century: the sale of his hedge fund empire and with it the $400 million hole he's been hiding from his CFO and daughter (Marling). This sale will cure all his woes without any consequences (including being charged with fraud apparently, which seemed a little fishy to me). Miller is also hiding an affair from his wife (Sarandon), and things go from bad to worse when his mistress (Casta) dies in a car accident while he's driving.

The plot could have been salvaged by great directing, but it wasn't. Everything from cinematography to editing was simply mediocre. However, despite the middling technical aspects, the movie has two very interesting thematic threads. The first tackles the concept of image vs. depth, glossy sheen vs. true value. Gere plays a powerful man--does it matter that his company is worth nothing? The second describes the balancing act between work life and home life. It unravels this age-old battle down to the very core in two amazing scenes. The first is when Gere erupts and tells his own daughter that she's nothing more than his employee. The second is when Sarandon uses divorce as a bargaining chip for a business transaction. Still, these two flares of brilliance are not enough to light up the whole film. I would avoid it unless you know exactly what you're getting into--and if you knew that then you wouldn't need to see the film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764183/

You Don't Know Jack (2010)

4/5

You Don't Know Jack is an HBO made-for-TV movie about Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Pacino). Growing up I had heard about him on the news and his association with physician-assisted suicide, but I never really knew what was going on. This movie does a great job at filling in that gap, both historically and emotionally. It is engaging and well-acted. Pacino gives a stellar performance, at a level I haven't seen from him in quite some time. He gives his character warmth and heart, despite having an unlikable, brusque personality. We understand his motivations, even if we disagree with his philosophy or his practices. Unfortunately, the other characters (Huston, Sarandon, Goodman) were fairly bland and forgettable. They added very little to the gestalt.

Technically, the film was above average. The cinematography was surprisingly sharp and the editing was appropriately lean. The medicine was put on the backburner to discuss the ethics, which disappointed me. I don't mind medicine being the background (there's nothing worse than a movie putting medicine front and center and getting it all embarrassingly wrong), but I do feel extremely unsatisfied by the ethical discussion. Nothing was delved into in enough detail; nobody watching this movie would change their mind about the topic. Overall, this was an engrossing and enlightening film, but more for the historical aspects than the ethical ones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132623/

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/

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

4/5

Paul Haggis's In the Valley of Elah manages to be touching without the oversentimentality that usually suffocates his films. Based on a true story, the movie follows Tommy Lee Jones as a retired career officer who starts investigating the disappearance of his son after his return from Iraq. From the very beginning, the mystery is paced exceptionally well, continually pulling you in and keeping your brain active the entire time. While not as gripping as A Few Good Men (and ultimately not as good, in my opinion), it is without a doubt more timely and relevant.

The acting was really good, although I think Tommy Lee Jones was better in No Country for Old Men than in this. Much of it was subtle and understated, making it feel richer and more genuine. Paul Haggis used a number of extended shots to give the actors room to act, instead of cutting between shot/countershot close-ups across 30 different takes. He has definitely learned to use the camera to compose interesting shots and movements. (One of my big arguments against Crash is that it had almost zero cinematic qualities; it's good to see that Haggis is finally learning.) If you were interested in this flick when it first came out, I definitely recommend you see it. And if not, perhaps you should consider it anyway.

Note: It was awesome seeing Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, AND Barry Corbin all in this film. It's like all those bad comedies that become so much better because of cameos from side characters on the Office. Except it's cameos from No Country for Old Men!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/