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/

Love & Other Drugs (2010)

4/5

Love & Other Drugs is a remarkably tender, heartfelt, and mature "romantic dramedy." The movie focuses on Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal), a budding new sales rep for Pfizer, and his relationship with Maggie Murdock (Hathaway), a young woman recently diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson's. Their relationship is not the simple fare we have become accustomed to in today's romantic comedies, where characters get into predictable, stupid fights over meaningless misunderstandings. Instead it tackles difficult issues, and it does so with humor and poignancy. There is a phenomenal moment in the movie that touched me and moved me far more than I thought it would. It occurs when Maggie finally realizes that her life has meaning outside of her disease and that it is worth living--and when Jamie truly fathoms the repercussions of being in love with a dying woman. The way they react is mesmerizing and agonizing; it is immeasurably sad and simultaneously beautiful.

The movie was not without its flaws. Unfortunately, as with almost every single movie that tackles anything even remotely scientific, there are a few scenes where people just spew arbitrary medical jargon around without any sense as to what they're saying. It's more than frustrating; it's insulting too. Another negative is that there is a heavy dose of nudity and vulgar scenarios/jokes. I didn't mind it personally, but it can makes for an uncomfortable group viewing experience. As for the cinematography and editing, they were above average but not particularly memorable. The tone felt a little haphazard, with the mood jumping around like it didn't know what genre it was, although I haven't decided yet if that's one of the film's shortcomings or assets. Overall, this is a superbly made film, with just the right amounts of laughter and tears. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758752/

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/

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010)

2/5

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend is a romantic comedy about two men, Ethan (Gorham) and Troy (Landes), who are both in love with one woman (Milano). Ethan is a struggling writer, a nice guy who loves kids and cheesy dates. Troy is a successful ad executive, a less desperate nice guy who can shower her with attention and fancy gifts. The movie ends with an unexpected twist, which I won't reveal if by the slightest off-chance you're interested in seeing this movie, but that's about all it has going for it. The writing and acting are atrocious. Everything feels written and staged; nothing feels genuine. Which is also why there's no chemistry between any of the leads. And there are a lot of random events and bizarre scenarios that are never really explained. Also, the character Ethan looks a LOT like Ethan Hawke, only gawkier and uglier, and it kept distracting me. Also, the technical aspects are blah. We stopped watching halfway through, after which point I decided I would have been happy to never revisit it. I'm happy it didn't end as crappy as it began, but I wouldn't watch it again just for that twist ending.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1447793/

Buried (2010)

1/5

Buried stars Ryan Reynolds as a man in a box. That box is a coffin in the middle of Iraq. It is billed as a horror movie, but it is closer to an angry political statement that uses violence and gore to make you squeamish instead of making a point. It is set in a locale that screams politics, but ultimately the movie has nothing to say. There is no value in this movie as entertainment, art, or discussion.

For some unknown reason, this film has been getting good reviews. The worst part is that people are complimenting the technical aspects like cinematography, lighting, editing, etc. Not only were they subpar, they actually hindered the experience. Half of the movie is pitch black. I know that every aspiring director thinks hearing audio on a black screen is brilliant, but it isn't. Not in a theater when you can see everyone's heads in front of you and not on a DVD at home when you can see out a window or down a hall. Your eyes just drift to whatever is happening elsewhere and you end up ignoring the movie. The lighting--when there is any--is either uninteresting or just plain irritating. The cinematography is cramped, which I guess is a good thing because that's what they were going for, but not in a skilled way. It's just bland, like they stuck a camera in a box with a man in a box. And for some reason, people have been praising Ryan Reynolds's performance. He was adequate. He sufficiently portrayed a boring character in a unique situation.

But even bad directing and bad decision-making doesn't necessarily mean a movie deserves 1 star. So why does this one? Because it is offensive in every way. It is not a horror movie. The best ones change the way you look at the world and the worst ones at least get your sympathetics going. This just activates your area postrema like Audition. It is not a political movie because it does not have a point to make. It is merely a depraved movie. People give controversial or taboo movies the benefit of the doubt, and we assume they have a message to bring to light, but just putting it in a certain time and place does not give a meaningless movie a message.

In general, I'm not the biggest fan of one-man shows. I didn't like Castaway, which at least had some wit and charm to go with the pain. This one had bad directing, annoying cinematography, and inflammatory subject matter to go with the pain. And painful it was. Stay very far away.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462758/

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

4/5

The Adjustment Bureau is a sort of sci-fi romance that is compelling on an emotional level and fascinating on an intellectual level. The plot follows David Norris (Damon) and Elise Sellas (Blunt) and their relationship after a chance meeting in a men's room after Norris loses his bid for senate seat. They keep running into each other and they feel a deep connection with each other as if they were meant to be together. Norris is watched by a man in a suit and fedora (Mackie) who is part of the adjustment bureau, a group of individuals whose sole purpose is to ensure that everything in our lives go according to a certain plan. Unfortunately, this plan does not include Norris and Sellas together. And so the adjustment bureau keeps trying to pull them apart while the two of them fight to be with each other.

Technically, the movie had both good and bad components that added up to something mediocre. The writing is intriguing as far as the concept is concerned, and it can generate a healthy discussion of fate vs. free will, but there are also some very obvious weak points. Some people disliked the ending for being too cheesy, but I didn't mind it so much on an initial viewing. The dialogue was especially poor, however, and everything that came out of the mouths of the people in the adjustment bureau was stale and stilted. Their acting was equally forgettable. On the other hand, Damon and Blunt were incredible. The entire premise of the movie hinges on the chemistry between the two leads--the fact that you believe that they are destined for each other--and they pull it off. They were not only believable, but also genuine, tender, and sympathetic. It would be impossible to believe they weren't in love. While the technical aspects were somewhat of a mixed bag, the emotional impact elevated this movie well above average and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/

Beastly (2011)

1/5

Beastly isn't just a bad movie--it's an atrocious movie. It's worse than Twilight. The plot is loosely based on Beauty and the Beast, but takes place in a modern-day preppy New York high school. The updated setting requires some modifications to the story, and the writer decided to use all those opportunities to make it as terrible as possible. The movie takes the clichéd cocky, image-obsessed rich boy (Pettyfer) and pairs him up with the clichéd smart, hard-working loner (Hudgens). A witch (Olson) puts a spell on him to make him ugly and he has one year to find someone to love him. His dad (Krause) abandons him in a hermit home with a nanny (Hamilton) and a blind tutor (Patrick Harris) that have no purpose other than to give him trite advice.

Everything about this movie is offensively bad. The plot just doesn't make any sense. At all. It is literally impossible to suspend your disbelief for this movie. And it stacks on more plot holes and hackneyed "twists" to an already fragile foundation that make you throw your hands up in the air in exasperation. (The entire situation that forced them together is perhaps the most preposterous and aggravating part of the whole movie.) The third-grade writing combines with the weak acting to create a spectacle, and I don't mean that in a good way. It's more of a train wreck that has you rubbernecking as you pass by. It is really mind-blowing that something could be this bad. My best guess is that the dialogue is what a pre-teen imagines might sound cool and witty but is ultimately shallow and meaningless. Not only that, but the tone is inconsistent and the pacing is more painful than stop and go traffic. Is it trying to be funny, romantic, scary, emotional? Who knows? Certainly not the director.

Unfortunately, it's not all bad. And I hate saying this in my review, because that might give people some sliver of hope. But in all honesty, there are about 2 or 3 funny parts where I may have smiled and 2 or 3 lines that stood out and were probably put in by an editor or producer who was much more intelligent than the writer. That being said, avoid this movie at all costs. I don't care if you are a fan of any of the actors in this movie, it is just not worth it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152398/

The King's Speech (2010)

4/5

The King's Speech is about a king (Firth) with a stuttering problem who must give a stirring, patriotic speech to his citizens as Britain enters WWII. His wife (Bonham Carter) enlists the help of a peculiar linguistics coach (Rush) as a last resort. As far as plot goes, that's about all there is to it. Although it's a simple story, it is exquisitely told. With perfectly composed shots, precisely metered pacing, and superb acting, the film rises above its straightforward writing. Colin Firth is magnificent in his role, bringing sympathy without pity to a nuanced, intricate character. He manages to be both intelligent and tender, manages to instill both strength and levity. Bonham Carter and Rush do fantastic jobs in supporting roles to make the whole thing an acting powerhouse. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't stand out quite like the acting does. It's perfectly competent technically, but all you'll remember when you think back on the movie is how good the acting is. And it is really good.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

4/5

The Girl Who Played With Fire centers around journalist Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and computer hacker Salander (Rapace). When Salander is suspected in a triple murder, Blomkvist attempts to get to the bottom of it. And that's about it for the plot. The Girl Who Played With Fire is, like almost all sequels, not nearly as good as the first one. Part of it is the writing (this being the middle of a trilogy) and part of it is the directing (this being a different director). The movie as a whole just doesn't seem as tight or as meaningful. The cinematography feels video-esque and the atmosphere less moody. Unnecessary scenes are retained and almost emphasized. Despite that, it's still a good movie. There were tense moments where the lives of people you cared about hung in the balance. There was fascinating depth added to Salander's originally superficial character. But overall, it feels as if there just wasn't as much care put into it or as much detail paid attention to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216487/

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

4/5

The Kids Are All Right is an indie slice-of-life movie about a lesbian couple--Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore)--whose children (Wasikowska, Hutcherson) decide they want to meet their sperm donor dad (Ruffalo). When they do, he instantly connects to the daughter while the son remains somewhat distant. Eventually he falls in both the kids' favor and they invite him over to meet their parents. Things get a little bit more confusing when Jules starts having sex with him.

As far as the acting goes, Annette Bening is phenomenal in a role that is understated and subtle. There are few flashes of anger, but you can tell her mood precisely by the smallest facial movements. She plays to perfection the entire life of a woman we only get to spend a few hours with, and we see the mistakes of her past and her thoughts of the future. She puts on display so much more than what is written in the script. As far as the script goes, it's good but not great. My big problem with it is the ending. It feels as if they were just shallowly writing everything off, or giving us a wry wink and nod and saying, "We know this movie isn't real and it doesn't matter what happens in the end." Either way, it really didn't satisfy me. I didn't feel any closure whatsoever. On the opposite end, the best thing about the script was its humor (far funnier than some other indie films like Margot at the Wedding).

With a title like The Kids Are All Right, it's begging for immature movie reviewers clamoring that the movie is just all right. But luckily I think it's more than that; it's entertaining, it's moving, it's funny. And it has some fantastic acting. I just wish it had an ending to match.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/