Prometheus (2012)

3/5

Ridley Scott's Alien quasi-prequel Prometheus is one of the most frustrating films I've seen recently. It has a lot of big ideas, thought-provoking dialogue, and terrifying science fiction coupled with unanswered questions and endless let downs. It is undeniably awe-filled but also incredibly unsatisfying. The movie starts with what I assume is the dawn of man in an infuriatingly ambiguous but visually stunning introduction. And it continues in much the same manner; every positive that the film contains is perfectly balanced by a negative. Crisp cinematography coupled with poor pacing; inspiring dialogue matched to flat acting; and stimulating thematics married to simplistic answers. At the end of the movie, I was left grasping at straws, remembering scenes of horror and moments of wonder and always wishing they gave me more than what they did. This is obviously required viewing for any fan of Ridley Scott or the Alien series, but it's only going to irritate everybody else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

The Odd Life of Timothy Green (2012)

3/5

The Odd Life of Timothy Green is a fairly benign family film. The plot follows Cindy (Garner) and Tim Green (Edgerton), a young infertile couple. The movie starts after another unsuccessful attempt at pregnancy. Distraught, they drive home barely talking to each other. To cheer themselves up, they allow themselves to dream up the perfect child. They write down the six characteristics they would see in their child, put the papers in a box, and bury the box in the yard. Magically, a ten-year-old boy named Timothy (Adams) sprouts out of the ground and into their lives.

All the technical aspects of the film, from acting to shooting to editing, are satisfactory enough not to stand out. The movie is honestly quite silly. But the plot is merely a device to allow the characters to learn about life, love, and parenting. Despite that, there are so many extraneous scenes to explain the plot instead of digging in to meatier thematics. It actually held a lot of potential with its simple metaphor, but the director chose to go for trite tropes rather than intellectually-stimulating concepts. Still, it's a saccharine story with attractive actors and colorful cinematography and is perfectly fine for afternoon filmgoing. It just isn't as good as it could be.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462769/

Life of Pi (2012)

4.9/5

The film adaptation of Yann Martel's Life of Pi is one of Ang Lee's best films, and probably my personal favorite. The film hews closely to the book, giving us a story wrapped within a story. We are introduced to Pi (Khan) as he prepares a meal for his guest, a young writer (Spall) who has come to hear about Pi's miraculous tale. After a younger Pi (Sharma) gets shipwrecked while traveling to America, he somehow survives on a lifeboat alone with a tiger named Richard Parker. The writer has been told that the story will make you believe in God, although he has his doubts. But the more Pi recounts, the more we are drawn into his most unbelievable and incredible story.

I found the first 30 minutes of exposition intriguing but not quite fascinating enough given its lack of plot. After the freighter sinks, however, we are completely immersed in the story. And we let the movie take over. The special effects are without equal. I honestly had no idea how any of the scenes were filmed, what was CGI and what was real. Except for two shots with noticeable letterboxing (once vertically and once horizontally), every frame was a beautiful image to enjoy. And the 3D was used to perfection. There is one scene, one brief moment, that brings to mind the joy and exhilaration at the heart of movies, ever since the first film by the Lumière brothers. Everyone in the audience jumped out of their seats.

Irfan Khan is an exquisite actor; his performance is undeniably tender and moving. The rest of the cast, however, was not as impressive. But Khan is the heart of the story, and his telling is what's most important. Since seeing this movie, I have spent many nights pondering its meaning. It encourages and invites discussion. It sticks with you. It provides an open canvas on which you can put your own feelings and beliefs. And it is the best movie of the year so far.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/

Lincoln (2012)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is a tremendous film. Although the biopic only details the last year or so of Lincoln's life and presidency, it focuses on his most important contribution to the United States: the passage of the amendment that prohibits slavery. There is little of the Civil War, and there is lots of oration and debate. Luckily for me, I prefer thoughtful parables and eloquent monologues to simple-minding fighting, and that is exactly what this movie provides. Oh, and it brings with it plenty of sly witticisms and clever jokes.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the titular character, although Day-Lewis completely disappears within Lincoln. Watching the 2.5 hour movie, I never once felt I was seeing Day-Lewis on screen. I only saw Lincoln. That is perhaps the greatest commendation I can give to an actor. Sally Field is immensely believable as Lincoln's wife; her presence allows us an unexpected and sharply penetrating look into Lincoln's personal life, including its love, its turmoil, and its troubles. Tommy Lee Jones gives an equally remarkable performance as Thaddeus Stevens, one of the biggest proponents for the end of slavery and the equality of every man and woman.

The movie is, unfortunately, relatively light on story. The dialogue could also feel preachy from time to time. There are actually quite a few loose ends and irrelevant side plots that crop up. Quite frankly, I don't understand the purpose of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, or why such a well-known actor was chosen to portray him. And James Spader and his men seem to stick around well past their utility and relevance. Overall, though, the movie is equal parts iconic and inspirational. It's a historical drama with the right amount of modern sensibilities peppered throughout its joyously old-timey vernacular.

IMDb link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Headhunters (2011)

4/5

Headhunters is a film based on the book of the same name by Jo Nesbø. To review the movie, I must first describe the book. The book is full of twists and turns. It is written in such a way that surprises and delights with every chapter. Even the premise of the book is only revealed after the first chapter (an interview with a potential applicant). And once you discover the premise while reading the second chapter, you want to go back and re-evaluate that first chapter for its double meanings and hidden subtext. The premise of the movie is not only revealed in the description for the film, it is used as an action-y setting for the opening credits. So now, even before we get to that interview in the first scene, we know what is up and the scene loses its cleverness and mystery. This is to say nothing of the biggest curve ball of the book--the big reveal at the end--which is announced much earlier on in the book and merits no less than a pause for the movie-going audience.

All things considered, the movie is a relatively faithful adaptation, in that specific events happen in the same way and order that they did in the book. But it loses the charm and brilliance of the writing. Still, the film is enjoyable and engaging and one that I highly recommend. More than anything, however, I recommend reading the book. The twists are absolutely to die for; you can't put it down until the jaw-dropping finale. Writing this review for the movie just makes me want to read the book again--that's how good it is.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

Breaking Dawn: Part 2 (2012)

3/5

Unfortunately, the final piece of this five part saga was significantly better than I hoped and anticipated. I say unfortunately because it would be much easier to just malign the whole series and dismiss it as a silly tween's simple-minded fantasy. But this movie is better than all the previous ones. For one reason and one reason alone. There is an epic fight sequence at the finale. And instead of being a pastiche of piss-poor special effects you might find in original SyFy movies like Sharktopus (as I initially expected), it turned out to be a well-coordinated, well-shot, surprisingly visceral and white-knuckle experience. Seriously, the action was better than some blockbuster superhero movies I've seen recently (i.e., The Dark Knight Rises).

Now, don't confuse my meaning. I am not suggesting that the movie is good. It's not. Everything before the battle sequence is about what I expected from the previous four films. The majority of that first hour could probably have been condensed into a 3-minute montage. There is barely any plot advancement or character development (although I guess that's not something to be expected from this series). It felt like the ending of The Lord of the Rings, a collection of thirteen disparate loose ends that the movie was working on tying up in standalone scenes instead of integrating them into a broader context.

That is to say nothing of the story itself, which is simply laughable. It turns out that vampires are actually X-Men with sharp teeth, because they all seem to have special mutant powers. And apparently the only way to kill a vampire is by ripping off its head and setting it on fire. Who knew? (Who knew also that that kind of stuff was PG-13?) Also, inexplicably, they decided to use a CGI baby in a number of scenes instead of a real baby. Not for the baby to do anything special--just to be a baby. But I guess that's the whole Twilight series: a bizarre, out-of-body experience that is totally unnecessary and bordering on offensive.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1673434/

Flame & Citron (2008)

3/5

Flame & Citron is a Danish film about the Danish resistance movement against the Nazis in WWII. The film itself is well-made, with crisp cinematography and expert use of lighting. The acting is phenomenal and emotionally complex. It brings to the fore some fascinating thematics on honor and murder and family and country. Unfortunately, subpar editing fills the film with myriad unnecessary scenes and makes it feel overlong. Maybe I'm just not interested in the subject matter, but I found myself a little bored throughout. Unless you enjoy WWII movies, I cannot find too many great things about this movie to make me recommend it. I also cannot find too many terrible things about it either, so take that for what it's worth. It's strictly middle of the road as far as I'm concerned. 

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0920458/

Argo (2012)

4/5

Ben Affleck's Argo recreates the Iran hostage crisis of 1979/1980 with remarkable visual accuracy. After protestors overtake the US Embassy in Iran, 6 would-be hostages escape out a back entrance and hide in the Canadian ambassador's house. Meanwhile the US government is planning a daring "exfiltration" operation led by Tony Mendez (Affleck). Mendez creates a fake movie called Argo, gets Hollywood effects expert John Chambers (Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) to back the ruse, and flies into Iran with fake passports for the fake film crew. As this is going on, the Iranian military within the US Embassy are piecing together shredded documents that contain pictures of the missing employees.

The movie is well-made in terms of its cinematic technique, and Goodman and Arkin deliver knockout performances, but the movie as a whole just doesn't have a clear focus. It starts as a thrilling historical drama, with tense intimate situations and riveting political narratives. But when it turns to the Hollywood scenes, it becomes almost farcical in its tongue-in-cheek joking. It's quite funny, but the humor doesn't seem to fit. The two parts never quite match up, as if they don't belong in the same movie. Argo had no unifying mood to carry us through both halves of the film, and we are left with a jarring disconnect during each transition. Still, the movie is entertaining and exciting, and it's one of those rare movies that allows us a fascinating glimpse into an important piece of history through its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/

Looper (2012)

4/5

Rian Johnson's Looper is a smart, slick film. It takes place in a future where time travel and telekinesis co-exist, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is offensively stratospheric, and where "loopers" kill people from the future and incinerate their bodies. Much like Children of Men, Looper gives us a believable, richly-textured, and incredibly-detailed world while simultaneously advancing an expertly-paced thriller plot. Both the setting and the story are complex and tapestried, both surprise you time and again, and both keep your neurons firing non-stop. The plot is intelligent and fresh, interesting but not too cerebral. It is a marvel of imagination and storytelling. But for me it's missing something.

Except for the Drive-level ultra-violence and over-the-top blood, it's a movie that checks all the right boxes, and yet somehow it doesn't excite me as much as it should. The acting is on-point, the script is well-written, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the directing is pristine. Every individual element is impressive on its own, but they don't cohere into something that truly thrills me. No matter how much I enjoyed the film on an intellectual level, I simply couldn't engage with it on an emotional one. I can't wait to rewatch this movie in case I find myself in the latter camp, but I'm doubtful I'd make the crossover. I can see this movie being very special for many people; as of now it's just not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Lady Vengeance (2005)

2/5

Chan-wook Park's Lady Vengeance is his third and final film about vengeance. I don't know why he has fixated on vengeance, nor have I ever found his trilogy to be especially provocative or necessary. The films are mostly just disturbing and horrific without much value or entertainment. What I do appreciate in this film that I didn't get in the previous ones is a rather unique thematic twist as we approach the finale. Park doesn't make the movie a question of personal revenge, from some fictional character who was wronged, but a communal one. We are the community; what would we do, being reminded of our violent past after we've moved on? Take justice into our own hands or let old wounds heal?  But after the initial spark of that promising thought fades away, Lady Vengeance becomes just another bloody fantasy once again and I become disappointed by Chan-wook Park once again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451094/