The Guard (2011)

3/5

The Guard is an independent Irish movie about Boyle (Gleeson), a local sergeant in the law-enforcing Garda who stumbles upon a violent murder in a sleepy town in Ireland, and Wendell (Cheadle), an FBI agent tracking down drug-runners with a cocaine supply worth $500m. They discover the two events are interconnected and must team up to take down the baddies, one of whom (Strong) has become nostalgic for the days where his occupation was a difficult and dangerous endeavor.

The movie is a fish-out-of-water tale combined with odd couple dynamics within a black comedy atmosphere. Usually when I throw in multiple genres, I describe movies that fail to satisfy on many (if not all) fronts. Here, it is a bit different because the movie aspires to none of those individual formats and instead hopes to just be true to itself. It succeeds. It doesn't feel like a clone or a Frankenstein, but a wholly and completely fresh world.

The plot is fairly basic without any real intrigue or suspense, but that is not why you watch the movie. The cinematography contains that quirky indie obsession with transforming the ordinary into the beautiful (sometimes successfully, sometimes not), but that is not why you watch the movie. You watch because of the people. It relies on its characterizations, which are a strange combination of stereotype, archetype, and oddball fascination. They're certainly different, but I don't think they offer anything truly arresting as far as character studies go. The thick accents add a little Fargo-esque humor but also make the dialogue difficult to understand. Honestly, it's a solid, off-the-wall black comedy that sits alone in its indie corner, and wouldn't be too upset if nobody else liked it as much as it likes itself.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1540133/

21 Jump Street (2012)

4/5

I didn't know this going in, but 21 Jump Street is a comic adaptation of an 80's police procedural TV show about cops who go undercover into high schools and colleges because of their youthful appearances. In this 2012 version, best friends Jenko (Tatum) and Schmidt (Hill) are sent into the undercover unit at 21 Jump Street, aka the Aroma of Christ Korean church, with the mission of infiltrating a drug ring that has popped up at a local high school. Jenko is excited to relive his glory days, but soon discovers that the status symbols and hierarchy that put him on top have completely reversed compared to 7 years prior. Now the environmentally-friendly vegans (Franco, Larson) are the cool kids, and Schmidt realizes he may finally get a second chance at high school popularity.

To put it simply, the movie is awesome. It is one of the funniest I've seen recently, on par with the best of Judd Apatow (and in the same raunchy, irreverent style). It pokes fun of endless remakes, of the action comedy genre, and especially of itself. It spends no time on character development and no time on plot progression. Instead it spends 100% of the time on comedy, and it more than pays off in the jokes department. However, it doesn't try to make a point, and therefore it doesn't have the same potential as the best comedies in terms of staying power. But this movie is spectacularly funny, and I cannot recommend it enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232829/

Annie Hall (1977)

5/5

Woody Allen's Annie Hall is the quintessential indie romantic comedy. Much like Psycho, it set the stage for all the parodies and homages to come (When Harry Met Sally, 500 Days of Summer). And watching it 35 years later, it loses none of its humor or warmth. It is still as engaging and moving as the day it came out. The bevy of flattering imitations and cheap knock-offs to emerge from the bowels of Hollywood since have only made me more nostalgic for the original. Because none of the replicas have the same charm that made this a classic; none have the same inventive curiosity and ceaseless awe about love that peppers every scene.

The film's structure jumps back and forth in time, focusing on the emotions of relationships rather than the chronology. This has been attempted in romantic stories since time immemorial, but never have I felt it as keenly as in Annie Hall. We see their moments of happiness, vivaciously experience that pure exhilarating joy. We cringe at the anger and resentment that builds up as their relationship falls apart, comes back together, and continues to breed turmoil. We want them to be together, because we love both of them, but life isn't always so sweet. Sometimes it's bittersweet.

There is so much about the directing to love. I'm constantly amazed that Allen put so much creativity into this film; anybody lesser would have spaced it out over several movies to keep people coming back for more. Annie Hall is filled to the brim and delightfully overflowing with ingenuity and novelty. He breaks down common filmic conventions--like split screen, subtitles, and the fourth wall--then rearchitects them for his own purposes. He has so much to say, and doesn't care how he gets his point across, so he uses anything and everything film has to offer.

But what makes this movie so good is none of that. It is the people. In Alvy Singer, Woody Allen both created and perfected the neurotic Jewish New Yorker; Harry Burns and Jerry Seinfeld are nowhere near as compelling or fulfilling to watch. There is something about how wiry and wimpy he looks, how piercing his voice sounds when he whines, that manages just the right amount of pity and sympathy. And Annie Hall is played to perfection by Diane Keaton, as beautifully awkward and fiercely independent as can be. She is soft, tender, naive, mature, and strong, all in one breath. The characters are nothing special, except that they are human beings, and that makes them more special than the characters inhabiting most movies. This movie will always stay in my heart. It is the first and best independent romantic comedy.

IMDb link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075686/

One Day (2011)

2/5

One Day feel like a concept film, an experimental trial of style regardless of its impact on content. The movie starts with Emma (Hathaway) on July 15, mid-2000, then reverses back to July 15, 1998 and goes forward year by year until we catch up to the start of the film. The relevance of this day is obfuscated for no particular reason. It initially seems as if it commemorates the day she first meets Dex (Sturgess), as it follows their interactions on that day each year, but the true "secret" is revealed near the end. After that secret is revealed, it goes even further back to uncover even more unseen scenes.

And that is the real problem with the movie. It is mysterious for the sake of being mysterious. It does it to hide the story in the hopes of surprising you at the end, instead of doing it for any thematic benefit. You watch the first half of the film wondering why you're sitting there watching the film at all. This frustration is made worse by the fact that there is no chemistry between the two leads. There is no electricity or excitement. The acting is competent, but there is nothing tying the two together through time and space. They are two independently adequate actors. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how good the technical aspects are (they are decent) because the movie fails to engage us with its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1563738/

Chronicle (2012)

4/5

Chronicle tells the story of three high school students who develop superpowers overnight. Andrew (DeHaan) is a shy loner who has never had any friends. He decides to start filming his life, presumably to document the verbal and physical abuse his alcoholic father (Kelly) dishes out. We see how his environment shapes his mentality, and how popularity and embarrassment can dramatically alter fickle adolescent emotions and thoughts. His cousin Matt (Russell) is interested in philosophy and girls. After witnessing the destructive potential of their powers, he institutes rules to govern their use. And the third is Steve (Jordan), the popular kid in school who wants to go into politics because he's good with faces. A good kid with a good heart, he would prefer to use their newfound talents to put on a playful magic show.

These characters are the essence of the story, because this is really a character-driven meditation on teen angst (despite the superpowers). Infused with the kind of puerile humor that would make funniest home videos, it is genuinely engaging and fascinating. How would three high schoolers actually respond to that kind of ability? It is astonishing how rapidly jokes can turn mean and pranks can turn sadistic. And this movie seems ready, almost anxious, to discuss the fragility of human emotion. Much like Irreversible, we see small moments in the events that lead up to the climax that make us think, what if? What if this one word, this one reaction, had been heard and felt?

The movie manages to be both contrived and eminently believable. It uses the "found footage" concept to great effect in offering up realism, but never really explains how it all got edited together (and with other sources spliced in). The experiments the kids do to test the limits of their power are clever and inventive, but the climactic finale is just a little too preposterous for me. I am only able to suspend my disbelief so far; beyond that I am taken out of the experience. I can see how silly I look sitting in the theater, watching a movie where a boy is wrapped head-to-toe in bandages, yelling at the top of his lungs with glass windows shattering all around him.

Overall, this is a great film. It is breathlessly-paced and powerfully-told. It has so much to say, but doesn't always use the right tools. I felt like it came out of the conception phase a little too early; I wanted it to cook a little more and mature a bit before they committed it to film. I wanted to see a classic fable of the teenage years that would stand the test of time. This does not do that, but it's an original, electrifying film nonetheless.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

The Artist (2011)

2/5

Michel Hazanavicius's The Artist is an interesting film. It is (almost entirely) a silent film, about the transition from silent film to talking moving pictures, similar to Singin' in the Rain. George Valentin (Dujardin) is the silent film star and Peppy Miller (Bejo) is the rising new talent. As Peppy continues her ascension to the top by embracing the future, Valentin inevitably loses his fame and fortune by his refusal to give in to what he sees as a passing fad. Valentin sees all of his wealth auctioned off and is eventually pushed to the brink of suicide.

The story is deeper than it seems at first. One could look at it with the lens of gender politics. It serves as an allegory for the emasculation of man, as well as the rise of the powerful woman and feminism as a whole. One could also look at it with the lens of revolution. It is about anything and everything in life that is affected by the unending onslaught of technological advances. We saw it with talking pictures, with color film, and perhaps we are seeing it now with 3D movies. But it is about any revolution, not just in movies and not just with technology. It is about men clinging to their past glory and failing to fully grasp the threat of change.

But just because a movie has a lot to say doesn't mean it's good. I came into the theater knowing nothing about the film, not even that it was silent, and I think that was a mistake. I felt increasingly claustrophobic in the theater, as if I was taking off in an airplane and my ears weren't popping. The pressure kept building up and building up in my head as I waited for someone to make a sound, but the oppressive silence continued. I understand why Hazanavicius chose to make it silent, and indeed there are two phenomenal scenes that derive their power from the silence (the nightmare sequence and the "BANG!" at the end), but I just couldn't take it.

I don't know what it was about this movie, because I love silent films that were made in that era, but I just could not tolerate this one. It already had the difficult task competing with Singin' in the Rain in content, and starting the movie off in silence drew comparisons to how The Wizard of Oz started off in monochrome. (Also, there is a scene where Peppy sticks her arm in the sleeve of a hanging jacket and pretends it is a man hugging her that I am sure was stolen for another movie, but I can't remember which, and I find that irritating for some reason.)

All in all, this is a movie that takes a chance by using silence, and does so to great effect, but which may easily alienate some viewers. I don't quite know how to explain my bad experience, but I am sure others will be better able to appreciate this film for what it is.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/

Water for Elephants (2011)

3/5

I had low expectations for Water for Elephants, but it surprised me with its competence and adequacy. The movie starts with an elderly Jacob (Holbrook) telling a circus manager about the "greatest disaster in circus history." The younger Jacob (Pattinson) is studying to be a veterinarian when debt forces him to join the circus, where he meets up with charming but sadistic owner August (Waltz) and his star performer and wife Marlena (Witherspoon). There is supposed to be an instant attraction between Jacob and Marlena, propelling the events to follow in motion, but there is absolutely no chemistry between the actors. Waltz does a spectacular job, but his character is almost identical to Col. Landa in Inglourious Basterds, which made it less interesting and less terrifying to watch here. The cinematography was great and the visual impact of the movie was strong, but the story as a whole was about as thin as the romance. It's an entertaining diversion, but ultimately offers very little beyond that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067583/

The Help (2011)

4/5

The Help is a surprisingly affecting tale of race relations in Jackson, Mississippi during the civil rights movement. It is the story of "the help," black women who work as nannies and maids to rich white Southern belles, as told by budding author Skeeter (Stone). She asks Aibileen (Davis) and Minny (Spencer) to tell her what it's really like to work as the help, despite the significant danger publishing such an account would pose to everyone who contributes. Aibileen describes what it's like working for Elizabeth (O'Reilly), an incompetent young mother who plans to have another daughter because the daughter she already has is unattractive. Minny describes being fired by Hilly (Howard), the quietly racist, fervently superior, self-appointed ringleader of the young women in town, for using the indoor toilet during a tornado instead of the outhouse.

The story is predictably emotional at times, treading exquisitely close to melodrama, while mixing in equal parts entertainment and humor. This movie is blessed to have a competent director and eagle-eyed editor, who understand the heart of the story and let it shine through any fluff. The script is sensational, brought to life by superb acting. Viola Davis does a phenomenal job; her expressive face and subtle movements (a shift in body weight, a hesitance in her response) are able to convey incredibly complex feelings. Bryce Dallas Howard gives a riveting performance that combines charm and slime to create a wholly unlikeable young matriarch. But the movie is about more than racism and more than events in the past: it is about parenting, about unexpected relationships, and about the courage and sacrifice required to do the right thing. This is a gripping film from beginning to end and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454029/

Man on a Ledge (2012)

4/5

Man on a Ledge is a thoroughly preposterous yet eminently entertaining edge-of-your-seat thriller. The man on the ledge is Nick Cassidy (Worthington), an NYPD officer who was framed for stealing a $40mil diamond from David Englander (Harris). Intent on proving his innocence, he walks out on the ledge to draw attention away from Englander's vault, where the supposedly stolen diamond remains. He requests a specific negotiator, Lydia Mercer (Banks), as his brother Joey (Bell) and Joey's girlfriend (Rodriguez) begin to break in to the vault so that they can reveal the truth.

As I said, preposterous. But easily one of the most suspenseful and engaging movies I've seen in a while. This is most likely entirely due to tight editing, which keeps the intensity high and maintains focus on propelling the story forward. Surprisingly, Bell and Rodriguez were the most humorous and human part of the film, and also the most exciting. Their banter kept the relatively hackneyed plot fresh and lively. Worthington and Banks, on the other hand, were fairly bland (despite obvious attempts to suggest complexity and deeper motivations). Everything is well-shot and well-acted, but the script, while clever initially, feels quite contrived. It just doesn't hold water, from simplistic dismantling of security systems to instantaneous assumptions of innocence. While it may be realistic, it simply doesn't ring true to a moviegoer's ear. To make matters worse, everything somehow ties up too neatly in the end while simultaneously being messy in the most unsatisfying way. All in all, however, this is an enjoyable way to spend an evening; just don't think too hard about it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568338/

Hugo (2011)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Hugo is pure magic. Its conception and creation were very clearly labors of love by exquisitely talented craftsmen. The story begins with a boy, Hugo (Butterfield), who lives in a train station. He is caught stealing gears from a toy shop owned by Papa Georges (Kingsley), who forces him to empty his pockets. Among the stolen goods is a notebook that was given to him by his late father (Law). The drawings in the notebook seem to bring back unwanted memories for Papa Georges, who threatens to burn it and report the boy to the station master (Baron Cohen). He follows Papa Georges home, pleading with his eyes, and waits outside the house until he sees Papa George's niece (Moretz). Hugo enlists her help and they soon find themselves on an adventure that grows beyond their wildest imagination.

I know the book on which this movie is based has a lot of illustrations, so I can't give Scorsese all the credit for its visual power, but boy does this movie pack a punch. The story is told in images, with snippets of silent film interspersed with inspiration from Hitchcock's Rear Window. And it is an emotional roller coaster, juxtaposing the kind of pure sorrow and exhilaration as only a child could experience. It combines complex characters with expressive acting to tremendous effect. The energetic pacing complements the classic storytelling structure, thanks in no small part to Thelma Schoonmaker's efficient editing. Even the 3D technology was well-done. I know that because it did not give me a headache. (Whether a 3D movie gives me a headache is really my only criterion now for how good the 3D is--Avatar is the only other movie to have good 3D by these standards.)

Not all is perfect in this movie, but its flaws are easily overlooked. I have no doubt that the special effects used in this movie will one day look as dated and comical as King Kong or The Birds. But for now, they're passable. Also, the side characters are somewhat poorly developed. There are hints at uniqueness and charm--and the atmosphere itself is already filled to the brim with wonder and awe--but the side characters never get fully fleshed-out. Jean-Pierre Jeunet would have perhaps been a better choice to breathe life into the subplots and side stories, as he did in Amélie and Delicatessen.

This film succeeds on all fronts: as entertainment, as art, and as heartfelt nostalgia for cinema. Go into the movie knowing nothing and you will be surprised and delighted. Go into the movie a second time and I am certain you will still be profoundly shaken. That is the mark of good storytelling, and that is the mark of phenomenal filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970179/