The Conjuring (2013)

4/5

James Wan's The Conjuring is a compelling piece of horror entertainment. It will make you jump out of your seat while watching it and make you afraid of the dark for days after finishing it. The movie claims to have been extracted from the case files of the same real-life self-proclaimed "paranormal experts" (Wilson, Farmiga) who brought you The Amityville Horror, but it won't convince any skeptics. I'm not sure why they spent so much of the movie emphasizing the "based on a true story" premise when the story and acting turn out to be so forgettable. If anything, it made the movie less scary. While we can always go back and try to poke holes in the "facts," we will automatically suspend our disbelief for a film that is up-front about being fictitious.

Where the movie shines is in its pacing, cinematography, and atmosphere. The movie starts slowly, building up an unease and tension that gives you a chance to exhale just frequently enough so you don't pass out. Wan conceives of haunting imagery that will stick with you, from dolls to jack-in-the-boxes, and lets your mind run wild. He lulls you into a state of calm before a torrential storm that you know is coming. And he does it so well. The Conjuring does just about everything right in a horror movie, but it doesn't do anything extra. And that is my biggest frustration with this movie. Nothing elevates it past its genre status, and it remains a one-trick pony for the people who already like that one particular trick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1457767/

Source Code (2011)

3/5

Source Code is a competent and clever thriller with its fair share of plot twists and plot holes. The movie follows a soldier named Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) in the "source code," a program designed to simulate the last 8 minutes of someone's memory before they died. He's sent back onto a train heading to Chicago just 8 minutes before it is blown up by a terrorist. Dr. Rutledge (Wright), who created the source code, wants him to identify the person responsible so they can prevent a second terrorist bombing. On the train, however, he meets (and falls in love with) another passenger (Monaghan).

By far the greatest aspect of this movie is its locale. They must have chosen the single most beautiful day Chicago has ever seen and filmed everything that day. This city looks so attractive it might as well be our tourism ad; this is probably the best Chicago has looked since Road to Perdition. As for the rest of the movie, it's more of a mixed bag. The characters are all relatively bland, despite Gyllenhaal, Farmiga, and Monaghan giving it their best shot, but two in particular stand out as exceptionally awful: the terrorist character and Dr. Rutledge. They are both so one-dimensional that they might as well have not existed at all. There is absolutely no satisfaction at capturing the terrorist because he is so utterly worthless. His motivation is that 1) the world is hell and 2) you need to destroy the old world to make way for the new one. That is the extent of his reasoning. Dr. Rutledge is not only shallow, he is also bizarre and uninteresting. Also, quiz question for those who have seen the movie: how exactly is Vera Farmiga communicating with Jake Gyllenhaal? It doesn't really make any sense, does it? Anyway, the meat of the movie is a relatively enjoyable action mystery thriller, but when you come back and think about the entirety of the movie for just a minute or two longer, you realize the pieces don't quite add up to a fulfilling whole.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/

Up in the Air (2009)

4/5

Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a film that sidesteps your expectations and delivers something surprisingly moving. The plot follows a professional "termination engineer" Ryan Bingham (Clooney) as he fires employees for bosses who don't want to do it themselves. He takes prides in the number of frequent flier miles he earns and the freedom he enjoys by not tying himself to a home or to friends. On a trip he meets Alex (Farmiga) and they begin a casual romance. His paradigm becomes endangered when a new Cornell grad named Natalie Keener (Kendrick) proposes online employment transition, allowing them to save 85% on travel costs. Clooney is forced to take her with him on his next few trips to show her the tricks of the trade and why her online termination plan will never succeed.

The acting was fine, but some of the characters' interactions seemed a bit too forced and written. Farmiga's character was confusing for the sake of being confusing, to produce the illusion of complexity and to advance the plot, instead of feeling realistic and true. It took me a little while after seeing the movie to realize that the focus is not on Clooney and Farmiga's relationship. It is instead on Clooney's worldview, his vulnerability, and his transition into the future. And quite frankly, that's much more interesting than a movie about their relationship anyway.

The intro credit sequence was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. Never in my life did I imagine myself saying that for a series of aerial images of the American heartland with "This Land Is Your Land" playing in the background. But they made magic out of nothing, it seems. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was never quite as good as those first two minutes. The comedy was brisk, producing some clever moments as well as some laugh out loud moments, but after a while it seemed to depend a bit too much on the use of swear words as punchlines. The movie is a good one, but understand that it may not be about the same thing you think it's about. Also, it just doesn't live up to the bar Reitman set for himself with his amazing previous films, Thank You for Smoking and Juno.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/