The Son of No One (2011)

2/5

The Son of No One is a middling and uninspired character study of a rookie cop with a dark past and a ridiculous mustache. Tatum plays Officer White to utter mediocrity. He is unlikable, unsympathetic, and bland. All the other characters are even less appealing. The story is straightforward to the point of mind-numbing simplicity. Dito Montiel's directing is remarkable only because he manages to stretch out a 30-minute short story into a feature-length film by filling it with long pauses and shots of people deep in thought. The one thing I commend Montiel for is achieving a phenomenally dark atmosphere and tense mood throughout. It kept me on the edge of my seat, although I felt foolish for doing so after discovering the big picture. The mood, while well-done, placed an unnecessary heaviness on the film and made it altogether too dreary and depressing. I would avoid this hodgepodge of mediocrity unless you're a huge Channing Tatum fan (and even then you'll probably be disappointed by his silly facial hair and flat acting).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535612/

Now You See Me (2013)

4/5

Now You See Me is a deliciously devious con/heist movie with an engaging cast of characters and compelling story. A group of four magicians (Eisenberg, Harrelson, Fisher, Franco) are brought together by a mysterious stranger to perform a series of grand illusions, with the ultimate goal of Robin Hood-esque bank-robbing. A local cop (Ruffalo) and Interpol officer (Laurent) chase after them, wondering the whole time what their true motives are. And what their final act will be.

What makes this movie so fun is the sense of wonder you get watching the actors perform. The movie is not so much about magic as it is about deception, manipulation, and subverting expectations. You don't really concern yourself with how the illusions were performed--instead you find yourself focusing on the misdirection and the acting. Eisenberg delivers arrogance to perfection (only to be outdone by Freeman's know-it-all cockiness). Franco endears with his youthful charm and innocence, making him the most sympathetic character in the whole movie.

Now You See Me is riveting from beginning to end, thanks to a well-crafted story and well-paced editing. But the film ultimately fails in the finale. The big reveal at the end is terribly unsatisfying. Quite frankly, the twist just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yes, it is possible for everything to be explained as it was, but it is fantastically absurd and illogical. It feels as if it were written in an effort to confuse and surprise the audience, not in an effort to be true to the world it creates. But, strangely enough, none of that changes my enjoyment of the film. It is still eminently watchable and utterly delightful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1670345/

Men In Black 3 (2012)

4/5

Men In Black 3 is the sequel that nobody asked for and that everybody was surprised by. It offers an origin story for both leads that brings complexity and depth to the characters, making them more authentic and infinitely more heartwarming. You wouldn't expect that from a simple sci-fi action comedy--and you wouldn't expect for it to be done so expertly--but it gives us all that on top of everything else that makes the series so watchable. Past all the superfluous and silly special effects, past all the precisely-delivered one-liners, past all the action and excitement, the movie leaves an indelible mark in your memory because it plucks the heartstrings so powerfully. Honestly, seeing that finale just made my heart drop a little. How can you not feel something when you discover what turned Josh Brolin into Tommy Lee Jones? That small, perfect moment at the end is what makes Men In Black 3 the best of the series. And what makes me want to see it again and again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1409024/

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

2/5

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a fairly tame 3D adventure flick for kids. The movie is a sequel because it takes place after another movie and has the same main character, but it actually requires no knowledge of the previous film to enjoy it. (Or not enjoy it, if you want to be snarky.) The problems start with the story, which is outright silly. The problems continue with special effects that already look outdated, combined with an incessant use of 3D objects coming out of the screen at you. The story follows a self-proclaimed "Vernian," someone who believes that all of Jules Verne's novels describe real places. The titular island, which houses tiny elephants and gigantic bees, is actually a day away from submerging and becoming Atlantis, which provides the perfect impetus to turn this scientific exploration into an action adventure. The story elements, from the budding romance to the stepfather-son bonding, all felt like checkboxes that producers filled out in an attempt to sell more tickets. The movie's saving grace was Dwayne Johnson, who was able to provide both believable action and comic relief. He is the only reason to see this movie. He is able to add a star to just about any movie just by being in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397514/

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

4/5

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a phenomenally thrilling summer blockbuster and not much more. This time, the intrepid crew of the USS Enterprise finds themselves thrust unwittingly into the midst of a budding intergalactic war that could end with Earth's destruction. The villain is a genetically-engineered super-human (Cumberbatch) who has nothing but vengeance on his mind. Taking place a short time after the first one, the characters have not grown or matured at all since we last saw them. They are as familiar and simplistic as they were previously, with flat personalities and predictable motivations.

But the movie is better than its predecessor thanks to a more engaging story and more exciting action. The plot is nothing to write home about, but it propels the characters forward with nigh unstoppable velocity. The cinematography is fraught with the same ubiquitous lens flares that plagued the previous film. The real surprise--for me, at least--is Cumberbatch. He is charming but devious, cunning but friendly, repulsive but inviting. He makes the movie stand out, and I can't wait to see him in more stuff (Sherlock is next on my long list of TV shows to watch).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/

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/