W. (2008)

2/5

Oliver Stone's W. claims to be an honest representation of the former President in the hopes of dismantling years of misconceptions, both positive and negative, but is instead a ludicrous farce filled with exaggerations and caricatures. The movie goes back and forth between history and the present, starting with his time in office and intercutting with past events that led him there (including random, unrelated ones). I can imagine this was done for no other reason than to make up for lacking transitions and storyline inconsistencies. There is no progression or escalation, merely event after event after event, which makes the 2 hour runtime laboriously slow. (I thought it was nearing the end before 90 minutes in.) And each vignette is only hinted at, nothing is fleshed out, so we are left with a frustratingly inadequate and incomplete picture of a man nobody really cares about anymore. Not only that, but the rest of the screen is filled with people who are more focused on their horrific accents than their characters, which turn out to be flatter than their real counterparts (and those I've only seen in stilted TV announcements).

The one redeeming factor is the humor that is infused in this film, although I'm not sure it was all intentional. Because everything is so extreme, it is also preposterous to the point of comedy. The movie cannot be taken seriously anymore. Dick Cheney is a raving, power-hungry, egomaniacal lunatic--weren't we trying to dispel myths and prejudices? Condoleezza Rice is, for some bizarre reason, an uglier, female version of Neil Goldman from Family Guy. Below I have included a clip with Neil Goldman; as you watch it, just imagine Thandie Newton in disfiguring makeup prosthetics talking to Bush, and you have the movie W. Don't watch this movie; it's a waste of time.



IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

Changeling (2008)

4/5

Clint Eastwood's Changeling tells the emotional true story of LA mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) whose missing son Walter is claimed to be returned by police captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan). Except the boy is not her son, and the police deny their mistake. She finds an ally in Reverend Briegleb (John Malkovich), who encourages her to fight the corrupt LAPD. After she publicly announces the police's error, they lock her up in a mental asylum, force-feed her medication, and threaten electric shock therapy. I will leave the rest of the story's twists and turns open for you to discover yourselves.

While the drama was a bit overwrought and overbearing in the beginning, it works. We feel her pain and sympathize with her quest for truth, hanging on every new piece of evidence in the hopes of discovering what happened. Jolie does an exemplary job here; we are not watching an actress, but a distressed mother at her wit's end, with every imaginable injustice cast upon her and no end in sight. The abuses of power, by both the police and the psychiatrists, are horrifying, ugly, and almost unbearable.

Eastwood directs the film with intensity and brilliance. He has imbued Changeling with astute set design, painterly lighting, and evocative cinematography. The editing and pacing are spot-on as well, thanks in no small part to the story and its writing. Most movies sag in the middle half, but Changeling shifts into an exciting suspense thriller halfway through to help us get through its 2 hour 22 minute running time while still remaining true to its dramatic roots.

The ending, which is as inconclusive as all historical mysteries, is still extremely satisfying. Changeling exposes fears that I'm sure any parent can relate to, and it does so without simplifying or sugar-coating them. But it is not just for parents. It is for anyone who has ever loved a family member or friend to the point where they cannot stop loving them. And so I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone who fits that description.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824747/

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

4/5

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is essentially the dirty version of what every upstart indie filmmaker goes through. It stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as two roommates who turn to making a certain type of adult movie to pay their bills. Despite being directed by Kevin Smith, the casting makes it feel like a Judd Apatow movie. Their acting, in concert with Smith's writing, give the film a realism you wouldn't think possible based on the plot. And their little arguments and amusing antics make it hilarious. But just like every Kevin Smith movie, there is one ridiculously gross moment that you don't expect and will never forget, even though it's on screen for less than a second.

But perhaps I appreciate this movie a bit more than most people might, because I know this kind of guerrilla filmmaking. I've lived it. I made my boom pole out of a golf club instead of a hockey stick and I shot at a grocery store instead of a coffee shop, but I've lived it. And I know what it's like when the people you work with become your best and closest friends. So I share a nostalgia with the movie that helps me love it. Still, I'm sure anyone who likes either Kevin Smith or Seth Rogen will love this movie too. Just be prepared for nudity and sex, because there's a lot of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007028/

Watchmen (2009)

4/5

Watchmen was not as bad as I expected. I expected another 300, but I got something much better. After seeing both, I realized that Zack Snyder does little to alter, either improve or tarnish, the source material he is given. As far as graphic novels are concerned, Frank Miller's 300 sucks and Alan Moore's Watchmen rocks. Everything I liked about this movie originated from Alan Moore--the believable story, the complex characters, the mature mood and atmosphere. Everything I didn't like originated from Zack Snyder--the incessant slow-motion, the bad special effects, the poor music choices. There is one thing I will credit Zack Snyder with adapting successfully, and that is the intro credit sequence to backdrop the story's timeline.

Still, there were a number of changes Snyder should have made to make the adaptation more successful. First, it should have been around 2 hours (instead of 2 hours 45 minutes) and more focused. Snyder allowed extraneous material to bog down the pacing and confuse the audience. Second, there was way too much nudity, especially of a certain blue penis. (Also, why does Dr. Manhattan have eyebrows but no pubic hair?) Third, the actors spoke with comic book stylings, which stood as a stark contrast to the mature mood evoked by the movie's story. Fourth, it didn't really explain the universe. Why are these superheroes stronger/faster/smarter than everyone else? How can someone just raise their daughter into a career of crime-fighting? Why does Rorschach's mask constantly change ink patterns? How is Ozymandias faster than a speeding bullet? Most of these complaints are minor, but I often think of them when I think of this movie. Still, Watchmen is an altogether enjoyable experience and one I would highly recommend to people who are curious as to what might really happen in an alternate universe of superheroes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/

The Reader (2008)

2/5

The Reader is, if nothing else, an intriguing movie; it follows the relationship between Michael Berg (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes) and Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet), starting from their first torrid love affair when he was 15 and she 33 and ending some 30-40 years later. The film is a romance, I suppose, with elements of the legal drama thrown in to make it more exciting. But it is a romance fraught with confusion and misunderstanding, by both those participating as well as us audience members watching. Many of the characters' actions and motiviations appear hidden, vague, or unknown by even the writer. To me, it was all too illogical to be believable. (Not illogical in the way that love can make people act irrationally, but illogical in the way that the character's mere existence is a baffling conundrum.)

To its credit, the movie has some compelling performances. All three main actors were stellar. And I found myself attracted to the idea of one man's entire life being defined and destroyed by a single adolescent summer. It is the writing and the directing that I have trouble accepting. The screenwriter merely combined hackneyed ideas like concentration camps and suicide that he thought might produce melodrama instead of filling the script with realistic characters or creative concepts. The director chose to include gratuitous nudity in the hopes of appearing artistic instead of using it tastefully and tactfully for emotional impact or some other legitimate purpose. The Reader is one of those movies that I feel caters to an audience that likes to feel smart for "understanding" it, but is in reality a movie that cannot stand on its own merits. Perhaps those people do get something out of it, but I think they're putting in most of what they're getting out. I for one got very little out of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976051/

RocknRolla (2008)

4/5

Guy Ritchie's RocknRolla is pretty much the same movie as all of Guy Ritchie's other gangster movies. The complicated and confusing plot is made more imperceptible by thick, obfuscatory British accents. And while it started out with a story that seemed uninteresting and unengrossing, there was just enough innovation and cleverness to make it fresh and new. The cinematography, style, and editing all feel the same as his earlier movies (which is a compliment). The decidedly quick-witted humor is also back, and in full force. Guy Ritchie knows British movies, British actors, and British sensbilities, but not American ones. Jeremy Piven and Ludacris felt a little out of place here. Still, RocknRolla is an altogether enjoyable film that is on par with Snatch. I recommend it to anyone who knows and enjoys Guy Ritchie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032755/

Milk (2008)

4/5

Gus Van Sant's Milk tells the incredibly powerful true story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to major public office in San Francisco during the 70's. With flawless editing and pacing, Van Sant seamlessly integrates new footage with historical footage to fully engulf you in the feel and mood of the times. The acting is tender, honest, and subdued, fitting in perfectly with the documentary realism of the film. The portrayal of the homosexual community is equally sympathetic and genuine--and enlightening and moving to all who are not members of the community. Thanks to the eloquent writing, I could feel their pain, their struggle, and their elation at every small step towards equality.

Milk is more than a simple movie; it is a cry for help and an argument for social justice. But by entrenching itself so firmly in a specific time and place, and for a specific cause, it loses a bit of its universal appeal. Harvey Milk constantly emphasized that his movement was for homosexuals, not civil rights as a whole. Regardless, gay rights will undoubtedly remain a relevant issue for most of the rest of my life. And for that, I am grateful that I saw this movie. I'm not sure of its replay value, but I highly recommend you see Milk if you haven't already.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013753/

Blindness (2008)

4/5

Blindness, directed by City of God's Fernando Meirelles, is a frightening, eye-opening film. In an unnamed, English-speaking city, an epidemic of blindness breaks out and the government begins to quarantine those infected. One woman (Julianne Moore) is still able to see, and helps her husband (Mark Ruffalo) govern Ward 1 of the quarantine facility with fairness and equality. A gangster (Gael García Bernal) uses his gun and threats of violence to take over Ward 3 and eventually the entire facility. He controls the food rations and requires other wards to pay him in jewelry; once that runs out, women. And from this basic, unsettling premise, we see the terrifying lengths men and women will go to when pitted against each other in a place without rules. What hope does good have at winning, or even surviving, against evil? Much like I Stand Alone, the movie is a bleak reminder of humanity at its most hopeless.

Technically, much of the movie was excellent. I loved the cinematography and its special effects, which simultaneously gave the film a gritty, raw realism and an evocative feel and mood. The music was memorable and brilliant, but felt out of place at times (it seemed a bit too playful). The editing was usually on-point but could sometimes be slow or poorly-timed. The characters were a bit bland, but the acting was more than adequate and altogether impressive. While movies like this are effective at what they set out to do, they are unpleasant and difficult to watch. Still, I felt moved by it and recommend it to those interested.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861689/

Frost/Nixon (2008)

3/5

Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon is better than most of Ron Howard's recent movies (Cinderella Man, The Da Vinci Code), but it's still a Ron Howard movie, which means it's still not great. The movie overdramatizes a series of long-winded and forgettable interviews between British talk show host David Frost (Sheen) and former president Richard Nixon (Langella) surrounding Watergate. There's a lot of build-up without a satisfying climax or conclusion (it takes about 100 minutes before the unfulfilling, deflated admission of guilt). Interspersed throughout the film are a number of fake interviews with the characters at some unknown time looking back on the Frost/Nixon interviews and how they affected them; maybe it would have been better if they were interviews with the actual people instead of the actors. The sole purpose of their inclusion seemed to be to explain what was going on emotionally and cerebrally instead of leaving it up to the viewer to understand by themselves.

The best part of the movie was the characterization and acting. I was surprised by how well-rounded, human, and fair Howard allowed his characters. The actors did more than their fair share, fully infusing their characters with nuance, tragedy, and comedy. The cinematography was also crisp and sharp, although at times a bit overwrought. If only the writing and pacing were better, this might have been a much better movie on the whole. Still, though, I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who isn't already intrigued by the relevant events.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870111/

Taken (2009)

3/5

Taken was sold to me as Bourne--but middle-aged. And it was sold accurately. The little plot there is (co-written by Luc Besson) follows an ex-CIA agent (Liam Neeson) racing to find his kidnapped daughter (Maggie Grace) in Paris. The first 30 minutes of the film actually give the movie a strong dramatic foothold, which helps us empathize with the father and his situation (albeit in a manner that is both overly melodramatic and unabashedly stereotypically extreme). It provides an unexpectedly long but satisfactory framework for the next 60 minutes, where the father kills everyone everywhere in every way imaginable. I suppose it is written, acted, and shot in a realistic manner, but the final product is just too ludicrous to be seen as such.

Speaking of which, the movie is extremely well-made: action-packed and adrenaline-filled, slick and cool. The cinematography is crisp, the fight scenes thrilling, the pacing tense. And while I trash-talk the plot, the all-too-real sex trafficking terrors it brings up are worth thinking about and fighting against. All in all, Taken is a solid piece of entertainment and I do not regret spending $0 on my free ticket. Anyone who loved Bourne is going to love this, so go out and enjoy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/