Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

4/5

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is yet another successful comedy from the Judd Apatow producing team. It's funny, it's smart, it's tender--what more could you want in a movie? Jason Segal announces his presence as a viable leading man: he's a quirky "composer" who gets dumped by his superstar girlfriend Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) and goes to Hawaii to get over her. As he soon finds out, he's staying at the same resort as his ex and her new superstar musician love interest Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). He quickly pairs up with Jackie from That 70's Show (Mila Kunis), only she's less annoying and more attractive in this movie.

Now that you know the basic framework and characters, I'm sure you know how it ends. Regardless, how it gets there is a hilarious and unique romp. (And thirty minutes shorter than his other movies too!) The humor is infectious; you feel the same joy the characters feel. You also feel their sadness because there is an honesty to the actors' performances that extend past the dialogue and the simple genre of comedy. This movie, as in all of Apatow's films, contains some of the strongest and most indelible side characters of any movie in recent memory. We may have seen this trope before, but we've never experienced it alongside these people. (Especially Kenneth from 30 Rock!)

The movie has some flaws. At times, I felt the jokes fell a bit flat. The timing was a bit off too--you didn't have enough time to laugh at the jokes. Additionally, half the movie had no establishing shots, making it hard to get a feel for the setting. The flashbacks were used effectively sometimes, but was very confusing in conjunction with the lack of establishing shots. Still. If you find me talking about technical flaws like establishing shots in a comedy, you know it got at least most things right. So if you liked Knocked Up and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, watch this movie and have a blast.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0800039/

Nanking (2007)

3/5

Nanking describes the events of the winter of 1937 in Nanking, China: the heinous crimes committed by the Japanese during their occupation of the city and the protection offered by foreigners who created a Safety Zone. It serves mostly as a description, however, and doesn't succeed as a documentary. It is too mild and tepid to make any point worth making. It seems too afraid to offend, reiterating how all Japanese were not the cruel villains committing these sins. But it does not condemn the evil that caused it; in fact, it says nothing at all of evil, or of the nature of mankind, or of anything global or universal. It relays facts and draws no conclusions, and so we walk out of the theater knowing a little more about a tragic series of specific events and nothing else.

That being said, there are several moments that just tear me up inside thinking of them; horrifying firsthand accounts of atrocities backed by stunning archival footage I can never forget. While edited together proficiently, they never reached their full potential. In retelling the events chronologically, the filmmakers muted the emotional and visceral climaxes of the anecdotes. They seemed afraid of taking chances, and took the simple way out hoping the subject matter would be enough to make this movie good. It is not.

An interesting technique they used was having actors read diary entries and letters of real people involved. Seeing people I recognized made it hard for me to envision them as the people they were portraying. Additionally, the fact that they were reading letters, talking at you instead of to you, provided a distancing feel as opposed to an inviting one. Still, I commend this film for publicizing the rape of Nanking, for revealing something that has been hidden and denounced time and time again. You don't need to watch this movie, but you do need to know about this terrible scar on mankind's history.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0893356/

The Stone Carvers (1984)

4/5

The Stone Carvers, by Paul Wagner and Marjorie Hunt, is an exceptionally well-produced, eminently fascinating portrait of Italian American stone carvers working in DC on the National Cathedral. They understand the form so intimately that they make the whole 30 minute story seem so organic while simultaneously having so much direction and purpose in every shot and every scene. While the subject matter may not sound interesting to you now, the filmmakers are able to craft the movie around people who are entertaining, engaging, and full of vibrancy and life. It's hard to take your eyes off of them.

I did not like the PBS feel to the film. This one part in particular had some sort of instructional, descriptive scrolling text that seemed so archaic and out of place. Also, the subjects were at times difficult to understand due to their thick accents. That is not really the film's fault (yes, they could have subtitled it), but it does hinder your enjoyment of the film a little bit. It is a great watch and definitely deserving of the Academy Award.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0088177/

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/

Hulk (2003)

4/5

Ang Lee's Hulk exceeded all my expectations. Going in, I wasn't particularly excited to be watching this unappealing and poorly-reviewed 140-minute adaptation of a comic book I never read. But Lee's expert direction quickly engaged me and all my self-imposed distancing faded. After an initially wobbly start (a habit of Lee's I now expect), I couldn't turn my eyes away. I lost track of time and got caught up in the story.

By far the best aspect of this movie is its story. Disregard the mediocre script and dull dialogue and instead focus on the characters and their motivations; you will find an epic, Shakespearean tragedy. The movie is a surprisingly mature examination of themes concerning familial relationships, love and sacrifice, and mistakes and second chances. Ang Lee allows the scenes to breathe; he lets silence and inaction talk, which went much appreciated by me. I was impressed by the honest performances by Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, and Nick Nolte. (Eric Bana's titular performance left me underwhelmed.)

The visual style is unique; Lee is very aware of the movie's graphic novel roots. He uses moving panels, multiple angles, and special transitioning effects to create a one-of-a-kind viewing experience. Sometimes it was obtrusive, but more often than not it heightened the tensions and emotions. While such effects were fantastic, the computer-generated Hulk was (expectedly) a bit lacking. Even so, I think it held up rather well considering that it's 5 years old. The movie is (certainly) a bit overlong and not as tight as it could be, but at no part are you ever really disinterested. For that I am thankful, because I know a lot of 90 minute movies that feel a lot longer than this one did. If you know what you're getting into, I highly recommend this thrilling and serious action movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0286716/

Margot at the Wedding (2007)

2/5

Margot at the Wedding is the reason I hate independent films. With mainstream movies, you more or less know what you're gonna get. With indie crap, they're always a risk: sometimes they pleasantly surprise you, but more often than not they disappoint you and waste your time. Throughout the movie, the characters echoed my sentiments at the bizarre actions of every other character: "What?" Confusion reigns supreme in this dreck. It tries too hard to be the weird, unique indie film for the sake of being that weird, unique indie film that it forgets to tell a story, any story. Strange things happen for no apparent reason. It tries to be a slice-of-life piece, but the characters are simply too unbelievable to exist in any life that can be sliced.

To its credit, I thought Kidman's transformation into an obscenely crazy person was impressive. And a lot of the jokes were really funny. My favorite line of the movie: "My scrotum's longer than my penis." Still, these are not enough to justify the rest of this movie. After seeing The Squid and the Whale, I thought I liked Noah Baumbach. I was very incorrect.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0757361/

The Ice Storm (1997)

4/5

I didn't know much about Ang Lee's The Ice Storm when I saw it, so it took me a while to internalize the time and place. But understanding the setting--70's suburbia in the midst of their own version of a sexual revolution--is integral to fully appreciating the film. The story looks at both the parents and children of a dysfunctional family, and each generation's exploration of freedom in sexuality and inebriation, both different and identical. It is a world so very far from ours, and at the same time so near, that we are able to laugh at the forgotten customs and traditions while simultaneously picking up on the tragic nature of their current expressions.

The Ice Storm examines the paradox of family: how we can distance those we grow closest to, how we can hate those we love most, and how we require security but want excitement. There is a sense of impending doom, a foreboding heaviness, that keeps you breathless in anticipation for the full running time. It is a testament to Lee's abilities that he can insert moments of laughter without cutting the tension. We always know that something will happen to these people, these people so desperate for release and escape. It is the inevitable outcome of human nature.

Technically, the movie worked well. The editing especially was stellar, as it interwove multiple stories with such immaculate precision that we not only remember every complex character, but we also understand their motivations, their wants and fears. The acting brought to life already strong writing. Still, a lot of the movie was just flat-out weird and unconvincing. As in other films by Lee, the movie was peppered with unnatural angles, discontinuous blocking, and bizarre compositions. Much of the cinematography seemed drab and underwhelming, but maybe that is the point? Regardless of any minor flaws, this film goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0119349/

The Big Lebowski (1998)

4/5

The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I was a bit underwhelmed. I had heard the superlatives thrust about in zealous reviews, but at that time I was unfamiliar with the Coens and I didn't know "what it was that they did." Now I know, and I am truly impressed by their work here. Their inimitable style--from the precisely-crafted dialogue to the beautifully-envisioned compositions--is in full force in this movie. Unforgettable characters have emerged from forgettable roles. Simple phrases have become generational mottos. This is a movie that will remain in the collective cultural memory for a long time to come.

The humor finds itself in what the characters do and do not say and how they say it; it finds itself in their actions but more importantly in their motivations; it finds itself in the times, the places, and the moods of these individuals we slowly grow to appreciate if not love (thanks to narration by a "stranger"). While it is not particularly rare for me to laugh during a movie, it is hard for me to remember laughing so loudly, forcefully, and obnoxiously before this one.

Even so, the animated dream sequences are dated. I really don't like special effects that don't hold up over time. But there is a far more significant underlying problem I have with the film. As when I saw it the first time, I have trouble finding a point to it--something I can apply to my daily life more than simply quoting hilarious lines and/or putting them in my movie quotes quizzes. Maybe this movie is just entertainment, but I think the Coens should do more than that. I certainly know they can. But the question is whether or not I got anything more out of it than hearty laughs and good memories; and what is the answer? Does anyone have an answer in the affirmative, because I very much would like to love this movie more than I already do, and that is one major hurdle it must jump. Still, I would pop this movie in the DVD player in a heartbeat if I ever needed a quick laugh. And it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it already.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Never Back Down (2008)

2/5

Jeff Wadlow's Never Back Down (working title Get Some) is, for all intents and purposes, Fight Club meets Bring It On. And it is an amazing movie. By which I mean to say that I was very amazed by it. Amazed at the atrocious acting, at the lifeless characters, at the predictable plot, and at the cheesy dialogue. But amazed most of all that I was actually able to enjoy it.

To discuss the acting first: Sean Faris's "knowing smiles" and "charming smirks" made ME want to clock him, for looking so retarded. His glib self-satisfaction and fighter mentality didn't mesh with his emo outsider persona. His home life and past mistakes were disarmingly mind-numbing. His mother and younger brother are utter buffoons, shallowly envisioned and hollowly portrayed. All the girls in the movie, and I mean ALL of them, were written as absolute idiots, in every respect. The mother, in an argument about fighting, asks him if he thinks breaking things is fun. Then she throws a glass against the wall and breaks it, encourages her younger son to do the same, and agrees that it does feel good. Then cleans it up, because that's her job as mother. Uhh, what? Another time, this one chick says, I think you'll lose in a fight, and then is confused as to why that might upset the person she told.

These are all faults of an insultingly stupid script. Not a single line said in the movie could be taken seriously. Everything was laughable. Of all the movies I've seen so far this year, which granted is two, Never Back Down takes the cake for funniest. It is difficult not to laugh at such a preposterous premise executed with such acute, unerring, seemingly planned, precision in creating this farcical, sentimental dreck. Which reminds me: What high school do these people attend? I want to go to this imaginary paradise, where all the girls are sexy, bikini-clad models, where lesbians make out in bubble baths while others watch, and where the most violent school rivalry ends peacefully in that seemingly ubiquitous "nod and smile" of approval.

All that being said, it does in fact try to be more than a cheesy teen emo fighting romance. You have to give it credit for trying. Unfortunately, the attempt itself just made the whole movie seem more pathetic. While everyone groaned and poopooed the literary correlations (the shield of Achilles in the Iliad), I really liked it and thought it elevated the movie to a more sophisticated realm. And it was a blast to watch. Even if you don't think the serious parts are funny, you will still laugh at the intended comedic elements, which are frequent and many. I had a good time watching it. But I really hope Sean Faris never acts again.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1023111/

The Wedding Banquet (1993)

4/5

Ang Lee's The Wedding Banquet is a bittersweet comedy drama about cultural traditions, hidden sexuality, and familial relationships--how these three things can easily and confusingly intertwine. The plot follows a gay Asian American who agrees to a marriage of convenience to satisfy his nagging parents, but it gets wonderfully out of control when they arrive and demand an extravagant wedding banquet to celebrate. It is a rare treat for a movie to have a story as rich as this one while simultaneously attacking the viewer from all emotional and thematic fronts, never letting up until the fantastically touching closing frame. It is the kind of movie that makes you glad to be human, in all our frailty and folly, because we are in the end capable of goodness and decency. It is both moving and hilarious, but more importantly the movie has a determined sense of purpose. It has universal messages and is never afraid to venture into territory that might appear beyond its scope.

I liked the movie, it seems, in every aspect except the technical one. The filmmaking felt quite amateurish at times, with bizarre blocking and blunt editing every so often invading my enjoyment of the story. (A remarkable thing considering the editing in his next film, Eat Drink Man Woman, was probably the best part.) As in his following film, the first 20 or so minutes were weakened by stilted acting and mechanical dialogue. These disappear after the introductory scenes, but their presence at all is curious indeed. Despite these technical imperfections, the viewer becomes quickly entranced by Ang Lee's exceptional storytelling ability. This film should not be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0107156/