Hitchcock (2012)

3/5

Hitchcock tells the story of the titular director's decision to make Psycho, and the personal and professional challenges that came alongside it. As a whole, the movie is entertaining fare. But I think the problem is that the movie doesn't know its audience. Is it for Hitchcock fans? Psycho fans? movie fans? Who knows? It provides a teeny glimpse into the great director's life, but not nearly enough to satisfy. In fact, I would venture to say that the movie is more about Mrs. Hitchcock than about Mr. Hitchcock (and Mirren absolutely shines in her role). That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I decided to rent the movie, so I was left with a perfectly fine movie that I wasn't expecting and didn't hate. If you decide to watch it, just know what you're getting into and you'll probably be able to enjoy it more.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0975645/

This Is 40 (2012)

3/5

Judd Apatow's This Is 40 is the coyly self-proclaimed "sort-of sequel" to Knocked Up. Except the two main characters of that movie can't seem to find the time to even make a cameo here (despite its 135 minute runtime). Instead we get to see the unhappily-married life of Pete (Rudd) and Debbie (Mann) as they approach middle age.

The movie wasn't bad so much as it was overlong. I know it wasn't as long as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it certainly felt that way. It had a meandering plot that rotated around both funny and unfunny subplots instead of having a real story arc to propel it forward. The humor it contained was surprisingly topical and observational, kind of like an updated version of Seinfeld for married life, but not as timeless and not as hilarious. It was just kind of there. It was clearly a project that Judd Apatow wanted to do more than one audiences wanted to see.

What makes the movie even more frustrating is that the story starts to spin out of control and--instead of tying up loose ends, or even attempting to--it just ends in a musical rainbow of blah. What? Does Apatow think people don't need resolution any more? We're okay with movies just stopping when the writers don't have any good ideas anymore? Honestly, I left the movie about the same as when I came in, except with a lower credit balance and a half-eaten bucket of popcorn. Trust the "mixed" reviews: this movie is mediocre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758830/

Rust and Bone (2012)

2/5

Jacques Audiard's Rust and Bone is an overwhelmingly punishing film. The movie is filled with relentless sadness. It's not so much a love story as it is a character study. Two, in fact. We are introduced to Ali (Schoenaerts), an unemployed father who makes money participating in street fights, and Stéphanie (Cotillard), a whale trainer who loses her legs after a freak accident. They begin an uneasy friendship that progresses to an unhealthy relationship. The duo are hit time and time again by pain, hardship, and bad luck. It seems to never end. And love does not conquer all, if there is any to be found in this movie.

Cotillard, as always, plays her role to perfection, eliciting subtleties and complexities that could not have been written in any script. The range she is capable of in her face alone seems limitless. She puts Schoenaerts to shame, making him about as forgettable as his character. Thanks to its tremendous performances, the movie strikes deep. Far too deep. I hated it when I saw people make the wrong decisions, when they acted selfish or hurtful, when they got what was coming to them. It all seemed too human and honest and genuine.

I don't say this lightly, because I am a huge fan of Audiard's other works (The Beat That My Heart Skipped, A Prophet), but Rust and Bone was a disappointing and unwelcome film. Not because it's a bad movie, but because it is too effective. It devastated me. It's hard to articulate how I felt at the end of the 2 hours: exhausted, frustrated, with just a tinge of hope to make sure nobody commits suicide after watching it. It's not a pick-me-up so much as it is a put-me-down. And you will be depressed for some time after watching it. If this does not seem like your type of movie, then avoid it. If this does, then let me know and I can recommend some good psychiatrists to go with it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2053425/

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

4/5

Disney's Wreck-It Ralph was a surprisingly entertaining movie. The story follows Wreck-It Ralph (Reilly), the bad guy in a video game named after its hero, Fix-It Felix (McBrayer). Disgruntled and tired of being the villain, going home to a bed of bricks, he goes on a quest to win a medal in the hopes of being liked. He accidentally finds himself in a candy-coated racing game called Sugar Rush, where he meets a "glitch" named Vanellope (Silverman), who wants nothing more than to race in the big leagues. But she needs his medal to enter the race.

Now that we have all that plot out of the way, let's get to the good stuff. The movie is charming and sweet, but not too saccharine that it hurts. Although the movie is predictable in many ways, it still manages to surprise and delight along the way, thanks to its bevy of side characters and inventive plotting. And all the video game references are just icing on the cake, filling the movie with multiple aha! moments that leave you with a smile on your face. I honestly have nothing really bad to say about this movie. It's a fun way to spend an afternoon reminiscing about all those afternoons you spent playing video games as a kid. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772341/

Django Unchained (2012)

4/5

Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is an unforgettable film. The plot, which follows the recently-freed slave Django (Foxx) and his bounty hunter partner Dr. Schultz (Waltz), propels itself forward at an almost unstoppable pace. It contains so much forward momentum from simplistic plot devices that, when a sharp turn near the end is revealed, it forces you to stop and catch your breath. The whole heartbeat of the movie skips. And you sit there re-evaluating what exactly it is that you just watched.

I initially left the movie filled with disgust and revulsion. I found it terrifying in every sense of the word: to witness the way that people act, how they treat other human beings, when they feel as if there are no consequences for their actions. Tarantino lays bare the darkest qualities of mankind, and does so in such an entertaining way that we become partners in the filth. How devious of him.

But the more I thought about it, the more compelling I found it. That primary emotional response of horror is intentional; DiCaprio performs a difficult role seemingly effortlessly. He is more charmingly evil than Waltz was in Tarantino's previous Inglourious Basterds, which I never would have thought possible before this movie. He is simply spellbinding.

But what is the point of the movie? Perhaps Tarantino is using his lens to reflect on modern society. Or perhaps it's just an exploitation film about a bygone era. Does there have to be a point? People said the same thing about Pulp Fiction. Is it superficial style or is there something hidden deeper within? I still don't know the answer, to both films. But I believe that, with any movie, you get out what you put in. And the more I think about Django Unchained, the more I am discovering, both about the film and about myself.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853728/

Hope Springs (2012)

2/5

Hope Springs follows an aging married couple (Jones, Streep) who have spent 30+ years together, coexisting with frictionless perfection. But in so doing, they have lost whatever romance they once had. The movie never explains (to my satisfaction anyway) why they lost that intimacy, nor does it explore Streep's motivation for wanting it back. Regardless, they seek out the help of Dr. Feld (Carell) and his week-long intensive couples counseling. The movie is billed as a romantic comedy (I think), but it's more a series of awkward encounters that did little more than gross me out.

I mean, I will admit it had the occasional saccharine moment and life lesson strewn about, but these pleasantries were just surrounded by uncomfortable situation after uncomfortable situation. I can't look back on this movie with anything but disgust. It is made for a specific age group and I believe it can only truly be appreciated by that age group. (Imagine, if you will, a kids movie where characters eat their own boogers; kids might find it hilarious, but it's just a disturbing image for everyone else.)

I realized very early on that I am much too young to be watching Hope Springs. But I kept watching until the grisly end. That's the problem with my obsessive-compulsive personality: finishing things that don't need to be finished. This movie may very well be a good movie for people who emerged from their midlife crises 2 decades ago, but I am certainly not its target audience. Unless you're about to become a Medicare beneficiary, I would not recommend you see this film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535438/

Brave (2012)

4/5

Pixar's Brave follows the coming-of-age of Scottish Princess Merida (Macdonald). Merida, like Jasmine before her, doesn't want to be a princess. She would rather live free in the woods with her bow and arrow like Katniss, but her mother (Thompson) wants her to be a proper princess. Frustrated by the seemingly endless etiquette training and suitor shopping, she runs off into the woods and makes a short-sighted wish that turns out to have terrible consequences. She must learn to fully appreciate her mother before her rash decision can be reversed.

What made the movie so disappointing is that I was expecting an unforgettable Pixar treasure and instead I got a run-of-the-mill Disney princess movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just had some pretty high expectations that were not met. Brave has more than its fair share of clever jokes and creative moments that elevate it past typical cartoons, but it doesn't have the same level of spit and shine that I've come to expect from Pixar's storytelling. In fact, I would say that it was fairly comparable to Disney's recent Tangled, which I enjoyed immensely. Brave is a terrific film. Just know what to expect when you pop the disc in.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin is a rousing adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones, but even more playful and fun. It follows the titular character Tintin (Bell) and his dog Snowy as they investigate clues on a transcontinental journey involving pirates and shipwrecks and hidden treasure. The plotline itself is not particularly groundbreaking or inventive, but it serves the movie well and pushes the story forward at a rapid pace. What really makes this movie such a treasure to watch is its charming characters. Their innocent naivete combined with their clever puzzle-solving and thirst for answers give them unending sympathy no matter what mistakes they make. I can see why the comics were so popular.

The motion capture is a little bit of a double-edged sword. It places the film's characters directly in the uncanny valley, which may put off a lot of viewers. However, it enables Spielberg to take the chase and action scenes to stunning new heights, to truly thrill and excite. It delights and rewards those able to suspend their disbelief. And delighted I was. Just thinking about this movie puts a smile on my face. It was a pleasure to watch and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983193/

Anna Karenina (2012)

3/5

Joe Wright's Anna Karenina is a stunning reinterpretation of the Tolstoy novel. No, I haven't read the book, but I imagine it doesn't all take place within a theater. And I'll bet money that it doesn't contain some of the most gorgeous, luscious cinematography ever laid to film. So for that, I must give Joe Wright credit, as he has once again constructed a visual masterpiece. But unfortunately that is where the accolades must end.

I really didn't think there was much here. It's not deep, it's not profound. It's not even a love story. It's basically a story of a selfish person with no self-control in a society whose rules are not so different from our own. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but I imagine it's not as famous as it is unless it contained a little more depth than what I was able to extract here. The acting, the story, and the pacing all failed to impress me (although getting such a behemoth of a book down to 130 minutes is an achievement in itself). While I was able to enjoy the beautiful set pieces and costumes, the astounding cinematography, and the clever directing, that is not enough to carry this movie to the great heights it hopes to achieve. For that, I guess I'll have to read the book.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781769/

Skyfall (2012)

3/5

Skyfall, the 23rd Bond film since its creation 50 years ago, is certainly the most beautiful Bond film I've ever seen. And it's a prototypical Bond movie in many ways--filled with dry wit, exotic locales, and evil villains--but it's set in the new "hero as human" era of superhero movies that started with The Dark Knight. I'm certainly not an expert in the franchise, but my experience has always been of James Bond as a suave, debonair, practically invincible spy. Ever since the refresh with Casino Royale, we've seen him tortured and shot and just about beaten to death. This new bastardization of Bond is of an action hero who relies on brute force instead of gadgets, luck instead of planning. The 007 franchise has turned into a predictable summer blockbuster with a little star power and name recognition thrown in, but it's lost what made it special.

On top of all that, the movie itself is pretty mediocre, even with Sam Mendes at the helm. I will give it credit for having phenomenal cinematography (thanks to the incomparable Roger Deakins) and set pieces. But Mendes did not do enough to make it special again. Q and his gadgets came back, but in the most piddling, imbecilic way possible. The pacing suffered from an extra 30 minutes of explosions tacked on at the end. The plot is absolutely laughable. Granted, the plots have always been laughable, but that was part of their charm. Now they're preposterous in a realistic world instead of a dream world, which makes the inconsistencies and plot holes all the more embarrassing.

This is a plea to the producers: Stop this nonsense. Bond is not an action series; it's a spy series. Stop turning it into every other movie and bring it back to its roots. Update it without destroying it. Bond is more than what we're seeing here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/