Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

3/5

Gnomeo & Juliet is a clever animated film about garden gnomes. As you can probably tell by the title, it is very loosely based on the William Shakespeare play Romeo & Juliet. Except this 3D cartoon version is a comedy instead of a tragedy. Much like Toy Story, the gnomes live in a world where real people don't know that they can move and talk. And in the Capulet and Montague gardens are blue and red garden gnomes, separated by a fence, constantly at war with each other. Gnomeo (McAvoy) meets Juliet (Blunt); the two fall in love then discover that they are on opposite sides of the fence.

For the educated viewer, you can enjoy the numerous references to other Shakespeare plays. The movie is full of subtle jokes paired with more obviously hilarious scenes. It was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting it to be, with a light atmosphere and familiar voices. There's nothing particularly impressive about anything in this movie, but it's a solid piece of entertainment to pass away a lazy summer afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377981/

The Tree of Life (2011)

1/5

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is quite possibly worse than Audition. This movie is terrible from beginning to end. I don't remember another time I felt so assaulted by the inane and banal. Quite frankly, I don't know what the plot is, or even what the movie is "about." It plays a lot like David Gordon Green's George Washington, detailing a youth's summer(s) and attempting to evoke some sort of nostalgia in the audience without actually having any story. In The Tree of Life, there seems to be no real dialogue. Nobody says anything to other people. And when people do mutter something, they always whisper in raspy voices (because apparently that makes it more profound). There is an unannounced 30-minute segment detailing the origin of life, starting from the Big Bang and advancing from single-celled organisms to preposterous imaginary dinosaurs. There are random shots of the most disturbing painted clowns I have ever seen. There is no coherency and no meaning. Unfortunately, I don't think Terrence Malick is aware of that; instead he feels he needs two and a half hours to show precisely that. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/

Super 8 (2011)

4/5

Super 8 is a movie that involves aliens and military cover-ups, but I believe the heart of the movie is about the magic of film. The plot follows a young group of filmmakers, including make-up artist Joe Lamb (Courtney), director Charles Kaznyk (Griffiths), and actress Alice Dainard (Fanning), after a train crash rocks the small town of Lillian. When the US Air Force comes to clean up the wreck, they keep local police in the dark as to the true nature of their cargo. When mysterious events start taking place in the town, sheriff Jackson Lamb (Chandler) steps up to the USAF to find out what exactly is going on.

A lot of reviews have compared this movie quite favorably to ET and "early Spielberg." It's true that there is a lot in common in both mood and plot--young heroes and innocent humor--but Super 8 brings a lot more to the table than just a well-done homage to its own producer. As the title suggests, the focus of Super 8 is the wonder of film. The kids are filmmakers, and they love the freedom and escape the fiction of cinema brings with it. But the most poignant, touching moment in the film is when Joe is watching an old film of his mom. Alice comes in and they just watch together, under its spell. You can tell as the silent film stock is bringing back memories and welling up emotion that no love letter or picture or locket could ever do. And in that instant you realize why this filmmaker--the kids in the movie and the real-life ones responsible for making this one--believe that the movies are magical.

But Super 8 is far from perfect. A number of the characters were flat, often feeling as if they were twisted around and manipulated to create the plot instead of true, fleshed-out individuals lost in the plot. Some of the dialogue just fell flat and sounded hollow. And the tension would occasionally drop off instead of constantly building up, but none of these negatives detract too heavily from the overall experience. This film was an absolute joy to watch. It reminded me why I go to the movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650062/

Midnight in Paris (2011)

4/5

Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is a delightfully light fantasy comedy that takes place in Paris over the course of several magical midnights. The plot follows Gil (Wilson) and Inez (McAdams) tagging along with Inez's parents in Paris for a few weeks. They bump into one of Inez's old pseudo-intellectual friends (Sheen), who is absolutely infuriating to Gil (and the audience), and Inez naturally wants to spend as much time with him as possible. After a few frustrating nights together, Gil decides to walk home by himself only to find himself wandering the streets of Paris utterly lost. An old Puegeot stops by at midnight and picks him up to take him to a very different kind of Paris (which I will let you have the pleasure of discovering for yourself).

The movie is very similar to Allen's previous works, especially The Purple Rose of Cairo, albeit with literary references instead of filmic ones. And it is just as charming, airy, and melancholy as that film. Unfortunately, because it feels so identical, I felt I didn't get much out of the film. It's hilarious in that Woody Allen way, but not much more. It's a very pleasant way to spend an afternoon, but nothing compared to Allen's best work.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1605783/

X-Men: First Class (2011)

3/5

X-Men: First Class is just another mediocre superhero movie. The movie tracks the origins of Professor X (McAvoy) and Magneto (Fassbender) when they battled together against a common enemy, Sebastian Shaw (Bacon), during the Cold War. The plot is trite and unoriginal, the side characters are forgettable cardboard cut-outs, and the dialogue is nauseating. And Beast is just laughable. The rest was a mixed bag. The special effects were either seamless (yay) or appallingly bad (boo). The action sequences were usually pretty tense and exciting. What the movie had going for it was the character development in the young Xavier and Magneto. They were given much more depth and humanity than in the previous X-Men movies, but unfortunately not enough to recommend this movie to any but the most devout of comic book nerds. Overall, I was thoroughly underwhelmed by this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is an all right movie, just like its predecessor. It is exceedingly and unnecessarily confusing for people who haven't read the books, even if you have struggled to keep up with the movies. (I have not even done that, as I just now realized that I have never seen the third, fourth, or fifth movie.) Unlike its predecessor, however, there is finally some content and plot progression. Even though the plot is mind-numbing, it piqued my interest enough for me to read up on characters' backstories on Wikipedia for a good 1-2 hours after the movie. Perhaps one reason I found the plot to be so lackluster is that I've seen it all before--only better--in a little fantasy series entitled The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter seems to have borrowed so extensively from that franchise, in fact, that it also picked up the same plodding pace and heavy atmosphere.

The movie has more than its fair share of flaws. The mood seemed to jump from terrifying horror to child-like comedy at the drop of a hat. It felt as if a bunch of different people gave their input for each scene and the director didn't bother trying to unite it all into a coherent whole. The visual appearance of the film also suffered from poor directing choices. The action sequences were nothing more than poor special effects experiments. And during those CGI fiascoes, it was usually impossible to tell what was going on thanks to unnecessarily rapid cutting and equally unnecessarily close shots. And, for better or worse, this film is so much more "mature" (i.e., bleak and dismal) compared to the early Harry Potter films. All in all, I was appropriately planted to my seat while watching the movie, but mostly because it made me want to find out about all the good stuff that didn't make it into the movie. As for the film itself, I can only recommend it to people who are already die-hard Harry Potter fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

4/5

Kung Fu Panda 2 tells the backstory of Po (Black), the obese bumbling panda warrior that was raised by a goose (Hong). Po rejoins his team of kung fu masters to protect a village from a pack of wolves. Those wolves are henchmen for the evil peacock Shen (Oldman), who is building weapons of mass destruction to take over China. As Po gets closer and closer to Shen, he also gets closer and closer to the shocking truth of his past. Honestly, the plot is ludicrous. I'm embarrassed just typing it out. You don't need me to tell you that it is the weakest aspect of the movie. Fortunately, however, the directing, the animation, and the acting are all amazing. They integrate seamlessly to fashion this wonderfully endearing film.

Just like in the first one, the filmmakers use the animation to free themselves from the limitations of live action instead of trying to mimic it like in WALL-E. For example, the first battle against the wolves in the musician's village. Each attack, block, and fall is perfectly synchronized with musical instruments to turn the violence into a delightful melody. Another example, the scene in which the kung fu masters are hiding inside a dragon costume (by far the best scene of the movie). It almost plays like a video game and rekindles viewers' fond memories to elevate this movie off the screen and into our collective experiences. That, and it was just plain hilarious. This movie is not perfect by any means, but it's a lot of fun and it's a breath of fresh air for the world of animated films.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/

Bridesmaids (2011)

4/5

Bridesmaids is easily the funniest movie I've seen this year. Like Knocked Up and The Hangover, the humor is raunchy bordering on vulgar. And best of all, it is non-stop. The movie is about preparing for a wedding. More specifically, it is about how all the pre-wedding traditions (dress-fitting, bridal shower, bachelorette party) get butchered by the maid of honor. Annie (Wiig) is the awkward but kindhearted best friend, too exaggerated to be a real person but genuine enough that her downfalls can pull at your heartstrings. Lillian (Rudolph) is the bride-to-be, caught between the nostalgia of her humble past and the allure of a lavish wedding. Annie is, of course, the maid of honor, but after a few botched jobs, the friends have a falling out and Lillian's new best friend Helen (Byrne) takes over the wedding planning.

I neglected to mention the rest of the cast, all unique and memorable. But the one that stands out the most is the groom's sister Megan (McCarthy). She is amazing. She carries the humor and the heart in this movie as much as Kristen Wiig does. She absolutely blew me away. Her character and her portrayal adds a whole new dimension to the movie that elevates this film above most other modern comedies. I loved her.

As for the technical aspects of the movie, I was impressed that the cinematography and editing was not terrible, but not actually impressed with it at all. The writing, as you can tell by my profuse praise of the comedy in the film, is right on point. The actors add impeccable timing to make this film a riot. The story is a good length and it touches on some finer points of friendship and female-female interactions that I didn't think it would touch on. When it comes to movies, Bridesmaids has just about the whole package. I recommend it 100%.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1478338/

Something Borrowed (2011)

3/5

Something Borrowed is a trite romantic comedy about a love triangle on the eve of a wedding (thus the stupid title). The main character is Rachel (Goodwin). Rachel has been best friends with Darcy (Hudson) since childhood. In law school, she met Dex (Egglesfield). And though they like each other, they are too shy to pursue the other's affection. Instead, Darcy's outgoing personality and Dex's openness leads to the two getting engaged.

As for the film itself, nearly every aspect is middle-of-the-road. It's predictably written (including its dumb ending) and appropriately funny. The technical aspects, from cinematography to editing, are completely unremarkable. However, there is one gem in the rough, and that gem is John Krasinski. He epitomizes humor. He is full of wit and sass, mixed in with genuine emotion and heart. I wish he were real and I wish he were my friend. For any Krasinski fan, Something Borrowed is a must-watch. As good as he is, though, he's not good enough to make up for the rest of this movie. If you're not interested in this movie already (and you're not interested in Krasinski), this movie will be an absolute waste of time.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491152/

Fireproof (2008)

2/5

Fireproof is a very Christian movie with very bad acting and a very bad script. The plot follows Caleb Holt (Cameron) and Catherine Holt (Bethea) as their marriage is falling apart. Divorce is imminent, but Caleb's father (Malcolm) wants him to wait 40 days before proceeding. He sends him a book called The Love Dare, which contains instructions and Bible verses for each of 40 days in order to save a failing marriage. Spoiler alert: it works!

The trailer looked bad, but I was unprepared for how disastrous everything about this movie turned out to be. I don't have a problem with Christian movies (in fact, I wish there were more good ones), but I do have a problem when the director uses a movie to lecture people. People were speaking to the audience about God instead of to each other. Nothing felt genuine. It was like watching a book being read to me with occasional snippets of religious ideas. I can't blame everything on the script, because the acting is equally amateurish and superficial (the best actor was the girl in a car accident screaming in fear). This was essentially a well-financed student film project with good equipment and poor talent. And an overabundance of firefighter metaphors.

Be that as it may, the movie somehow still manages to be inspirational. You wouldn't expect it, but some of the problems feel so down-to-earth and applicable compared to the melodrama you might see in other movies about marriage and divorce. Unfortunately, realism doesn't always make for a pleasant viewing experience. The only people I would recommend this movie to are Christians or people looking to save a marriage that is worth saving. Otherwise, pass on it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129423/