The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

4/5

I have trouble reviewing movies I grew up watching, especially ones that have the cachet of Spielberg and the nostalgia of youth behind it. The Lost World is one such example. It is a remarkable but imperfect piece of filmmaking, yet all its flaws are ignored when remembering it 15 years later. Not quite the breathtaking, innovative escapism that Jurassic Park was, this sequel somehow manages to be both more mundane and more extravagant. Industrial Light & Magic's CGI here is astounding, even by today's standards. But all the special effects are front and center, with a spotlight shining down, instead of simply existing as a tool in the storyteller's arsenal. Though the plotting is as richly intricate and textured as the first one was, it puts too much emphasis on the spectacle of the dinosaurs. It makes the Tyrannosaurus Rex the protagonist, without humanizing it enough to make it feel like King Kong for a new generation. Like the 2005 King Kong remake, it centers on special effects instead of story, action instead of characters, and that is where it misses out on its full potential. The Lost World loses the awe that Jurassic Park had. The thrills excite, the jokes lighten the mood, and the movie reaches its inevitably satisfying conclusion, but not nearly as well as the first one did.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119567/

World War Z (2013)

3/5

World War Z aims to give a realistic telling of the human fight for survival against a zombie epidemic, led by A-list celebrity and veteran actor Brad Pitt. It is reportedly based on a book of the same name, but its entire third act was completely rewritten for the movie. The action is quite thrilling--brimming with intensity and excitement--and the alternate universe they created feels wholly immersive, but I'm afraid that's where the positives end. There is no real character development to speak of and the acting is as flat as asystole. (Side note: Google just gave me a red underline for asystole, which means that Google is an ortho resident.) The rewritten final act feels decidedly empty and unsatisfying, although the book's version might have felt even emptier from what I've read online. All in all, World War Z is a mediocre action flick that somehow manages to feel a little more down to earth than the obscene spectacles of summer blockbusters while still failing to elicit more than gut reactions to action scenes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/

Prisoners (2013)

4/5

Prisoners is a viscerally intense and provocative morality tale about the lengths people will go to save the ones they love. The story is a difficult one to stomach: Keller Dover (Jackman) has his daughter stolen from him on Thanksgiving Day. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) initially suspects teenager Alex Jones (Dano), but quickly dismisses him after discovering he has the IQ of a 10-year-old child. Dover is convinced Jones is involved, however, and imprisons him in an abandoned building where he tortures him for information.

The acting is absolutely phenomenal. Jackman gives an emotionally searing performance, straight from the heart. Although his portrayal did at times seem to border on the melodramatic and overwrought, he walked that line expertly. Gyllenhaal is every bit his equal, although less explosive and incendiary. The problem with both characters (and, in fact, with almost every character) is that they don't feel unique at all. From the angry dad who takes matters into his own hands to the mother who shuts out the rest of the world to the driven detective who makes promises he can't keep, the interpersonal dynamic presented in this movie feels completely unoriginal and cliched. We've seen it before in The Lovely Bones and AMC's The Killing. That, or there is only one way families respond to tragedies involving their children.

But the movie grabs you, asphyxiates you. It has scenes of intense power and breathless anticipation. It emanates an aura of tension, an atmosphere of mystery. It's incredibly eerie. It's a promising start for director Villeneuve--he gives David Fincher a run for his money in the genre of dark, intelligent, moody psychological thrillers--and I hope he continues down this road in the future. I will definitely be watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392214/

Gravity (2013)

4.9/5

Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity is a visually mesmerizing and intensely satisfying film. It is, at its heart, a survival tale. Sandra Bullock plays a medical engineer lost in space, fighting for her life in thrilling, edge-of-your-seat action scenes that will leave you gasping for air. But add on to that a character study of an isolated woman, floating alone in the wide expanse of space. The movie gives us time to ruminate, reminisce, remember; it gives us space to think about mankind's history and achievements, man's hubris and arrogance. But add on to that the technical achievements of filming outer space in zero gravity. The effects are so complex they seem to defy explanation, so seamless they feel real. You don't even feel like you're in a theater; you're just floating in space, watching what happens next.

Bullock gives an indelible performance: her fear, her frustration, her courage, her failures all feel so achingly true. She keeps this story of space grounded in humanity. We feel for her. We want her to live, so every small setback feels epic, every new obstacle feels impossible. Despite my praise for the acting, the real star of the show is the cinematography. It is awe-inspiring and stunning. I saw Gravity in a regular theater, but I'm beginning to think that was a mistake. Gravity is the kind of movie that was envisioned and created for the kind of immersive theater experience that can only be appreciated in IMAX 3D. I can't wait to see it again--the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/

The Great Gatsby (2013)

3/5

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby somehow manages to be both a tepid and titillating reinterpretation of the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic. In the most banal ways it seems to copy the book verbatim, with Tobey Maguire basically reading Fitzgerald's elegant prose in an unnecessary and belabored voice-over. At 2.5 hours runtime, the film's editing is incredibly mis-managed thanks to an overlong first half filled with pedestrian introductions and explanations reminiscent of lazy storytelling.

And yet something about the anachronistic music and Leonardo DiCaprio's enigmatic charisma manages to pull you in and excite you. It becomes filled with verve and vivacity. The acting by DiCaprio and Mulligan is particularly compelling. Their characters, and the magnetic attraction between the two, are the heart and soul of the film. But as good as they are, the rest of the cast fails to impress. And while Baz Luhrmann can do incredible things with music, he seems unable to direct the rest of the movie with equivalent panache.

Films made out of books must be adapted, not simply migrated to the silver screen. Luhrmann should have tried harder to pin down the spirit of the book--that je ne sais quoi that made generations consume it so voraciously--and communicate that same elusive vitality to the movie. Instead he has taken some of the words to the cinema, but has left the heart on the page.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343092/

You're Next (2011)

3/5

You're Next is a fairly standard slasher movie with a somewhat clever premise. A dysfunctional family plans a reunion in an isolated vacation home in the woods when a group of psychotic murderers start picking them off one by one. But the family soon realizes that it wasn't a random act of violence; they were being watched and tracked for days. The "clever premise" is the twist at the end, the explanation of what's happening, but that's about the only novel part of the movie. The rest is predictable and expected gory filmmaking with a badass heroine. All in all, a decent flick if you're a fan of the horror genre, but nothing that will sway horror-haters.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853739/

Drinking Buddies (2013)

3/5

Drinking Buddies is a fairly standard indie romantic dramedy with quirky characters and a mildly unique perspective. The plot follows two brewery co-workers, Luke (Johnson) and Kate (Wilde), who start to develop feelings for the other person, despite both being in relationships. On a camping trip with the two couples, Luke's partner (Kendrick) and Kate's partner (Livingston) share a kiss. How Luke and Kate react, how they involve themselves in the other person's life, and how alcohol affects their decisions is what the movie focuses on.

Whereas most Hollywood romances tend to be intentionally escapist, this movie grounds itself firmly in reality. All four leads deliver well-crafted, nuanced performances. It is who they are, not the situations they find themselves in, that gives the movie its voice. The characters are not perfect, and their decisions often frustrate us, but their charm and humor win us over. The character development is so warmly authentic that it is hard to stay mad at them.

But the movie as a whole, whether it's because of the worn-out, too-familiar storyline or the plodding progression, was not particularly compelling. The ending is not what I was expecting or hoping for, but perhaps that is the point of the movie and the reason for its title. Like its characters, the movie has its ups and downs, but ends up squarely in the middle of the pack.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265398/

The Hangover Part II (2011)

3/5

The Hangover Part II has been much maligned for being exactly the same as the first one. And yes, the plot structure is almost identical. But even after the novelty of the mystery framework wears off, it's just as eminently watchable. The movie remains hilarious because it delivers memorable characters in ridiculous, over-the-top scenarios. It was funny the first time and it's still funny the second time. As far as raunchy wedding comedies go, I thought Bridesmaids was a better movie overall, but this series loves to go to places you never imagined, way over the lines you were hoping it wouldn't cross, and it does so in an inviting, charismatic way. I can't wait to watch the third one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411697/

Natural Born Killers (1994)

3/5

Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers is a frenetic film, filled with so much energy and bombast it practically leaps off the screen and slaps you in the face. The movie follows Mickey (Harrelson) and Mallory (Lewis), two lovers who go on a mass murdering rampage, and the media that glorifies it. In the wake of recent school shootings and suicides publicized on Twitter, it feels even more timely than ever. People will always want their 15 minutes of fame, no matter how they get there.

The movie is visceral--it shouts loud and it hits hard--but somehow manages to be less graphic than more modern movies. It is violent, though, in every sense of the word: an offensive assault on our senses and sensibilities. Its aggressive pacing involves us in the story, exhilarating us and titillating us without giving us any room to breathe and process what we see. And we become awe-struck by the images of violence on the screen. Is that not precisely the kind of voyeurism we are supposed to condemn?

But despite what he has to say, Stone uses a sledgehammer to pound his point home. To say it lacks subtlety is to say that an elephant is larger than a mosquito. It blasts its message nonstop, using anything and everything from random video projections in the background of scenes to story elements like Downey Jr's sensationalist television series. It leaves nothing to the imagination, and our imagination is stronger and more horrific than anything Stone has to say.

Tarantino came up with the story, and I can tell that if he directed this it would have been a masterpiece. But Stone's version is messy and chaotic, unvarnished and unfocused. I'm glad I saw the movie just so I can say for sure that I don't need to see any more Oliver Stone films. Not that this is a bad film; it's just not my style. There's nothing deeper here than what Stone shows you. But Natural Born Killers does spark the conversation, and that's definitely worth something.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110632/

Finding Nemo (2003)

4/5

Finding Nemo is another home run for Pixar, filled with expectedly charming anthropomorphic ocean creatures, superb writing, and exciting action. A family film about a clownfish named Marlin (Brooks) searching for his son Nemo (Gould) in the Great Barrier Reef, it has memorable characters and funny situations that will delight and surprise you. And despite what I say in the next paragraph, it is a fantastic movie that would be hard not to recommend to just about anyone. But it didn't light a fire in me.

The problem with the movie is that it lacks a propulsive premise. It has a cohesive, all-encompassing arc with effective character development and plot progression, but it feels too episodic. This would have been better served as a miniseries or television show. Every step on Marlin's journey is a random aside, a small comedic sidestep, none of which contribute much to the overall narrative. Some games have minigames that add to your enjoyment of the primary game; Finding Nemo feels like it has nothing but minigames. Because of that, we as viewers are lost in the same expansive ocean, pulled forward unaware. In certain movies this can be exciting and enthralling; in this one it merely serves to frustrate. And though it seems like I'm complaining, would anybody have objected to seeing these characters reprise their roles weekly on the Disney Channel, becoming ever more complex, fascinating, and endearing?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266543/