Vantage Point (2008)

4/5

Vantage Point is a movie Sameer and I light-heartedly made fun of for its over-the-top action and cliched dialogue while simultaneously watching the trailer again and again in anticipation of its release. We decided not to see it in theaters due a slew of bad reviews, but I am happy to announce that all those reviews were wrong! This movie met and exceeded all my expectations. The plot follows an attempted assassination on the President while at a counter-terrorism summit that continually gets more and more unnecessarily convoluted and never actually reveals the terrorists' true motivations. And yet, by the end of the movie, you don't care at all. Because it set up a series of small mysteries and revealed them incrementally such that you finish the film feeling satisfied. It is remarkably successful at getting you to suspend your disbelief from beginning to end.

Dennis Quaid was an actor whom I (and Hollywood) had forgotten about. But he gives a strong, convincing performance that anchors this entire movie. The cinematography was alright, but the real visual star was the locale. The shots were beautiful, although the rapid-fire editing made it somewhat difficult to see at times. The dialogue was not as awful as the trailer made it seem--they picked the worst sentences for the trailer, which magnified their stupidity. The action, however, was incredible. I'm generally not a fan of car chases, but this one had me sitting on the edge of my seat. It is absolutely amazing. This entire movie emanates a feeling of cool. Think Lost meets 24. And watch it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443274/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

The Good Shepherd (2006)

4/5

It's been awhile since I saw a movie where I didn't think about how I was going to write the review while I was still watching it. Or look at the time. This movie is engaging from the start, entrancing in every aspect. Loosely based on real events and real people during the 50's and 60's as the CIA was being formed, the plot sucks in the attentive viewer and keeps them breathless the entire time. It's been advertised as a spy thriller, but in reality it's a thinking man's drama. It is meditative. It asks questions and pretends no answers.

I was impressed by the acting (especially Matt Damon's morally ambiguous protagonist), although some characters seemed extraordinarily flat and poorly cast. (I was particularly disappointed at Robert De Niro's and Angelina Jolie's relatively limited screen time.) I found the pacing nearly flawless, although ironically it also felt like some scenes were pointless or shoddily constructed. Most of the dialogue was unnecessarily convoluted and deceptive, to the point where the audience loses track of what people say and mean or pretend to say and mean. Also, I thought there were a couple unexplained events and/or plot holes, whichever you want to call them. All these negative aspects seem to point towards it having a lower score, but the movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's truly an experience, and one not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

Smoke (1995)

3/5

Smoke is a mildly pleasing film with a mildly pleasing script that gives great actors mildly pleasing characters to play. It started off with potential, and every so often it would approach that potential and then pull back a little, as if afraid to take a risk. My favorite part was near the beginning, where William Hurt's character flips through a book of photographs taken at the same time every day of the same place as Harvey Keitel talks over the images. It was absolutely beautiful. The rest had snippets of genius, but nothing fulfilling.

The movie is a slice-of-life intertwining tale of the many people who interact with Harvey Keitel inside of and outside of his cigar and tobacco shop. Because there is no real main conflict, you are just pulled along, waiting for the next thing to happen without any expectations. Quite frankly, it gets a little boring. The editing sometimes felt amateurish and sometimes felt pretentious. Though I really liked some of the cinematography, most of it was rather bland and watery. All in all, it's not bad, but there's no real point in going out of your way to watch it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0114478/