Invictus (2009)

3/5

Clint Eastwood's Invictus is a simple sports movie that was poorly advertised as a political biopic of Nelson Mandela. The film attempts to straddle multiple genres, and it actually does so quite well, but the problem is that none of the component parts are very fleshed out or satisfying. For example, Nelson Mandela is painted as a man who is filled to the brim with provocative quotes on life, but you never really figure out his motivations or reasonings. Matt Damon's character makes the observation that after being imprisoned for so long, he walked out ready to forgive those who put him in prison. He doesn't understand why, and neither do we. We never truly discover what makes him so perfect. Not only that, but hinting at a failed marriage is not enough to make him "complex." It seemed like Eastwood was more checking off the "imperfect" box than actually making Mandela realistic. The same shortcomings could be said of the rugby aspect. Invictus is an exciting sports movie, but it was not truly inspirational as it was very adamantly trying to be.

The technical aspects were also a mixed bag. For example, the acting was spectacular but the characters were incompetently written. Most of the cinematography and editing was adequate, but the final few minutes featured horrendous slo-mo that was so obviously overdone that it made me cringe. For every pro, there's a comparable con. The movie is not a great movie, but it also isn't a bad movie. It's just somewhere in the middle. So watch it if you feel like you've been waiting for this movie, but otherwise I'd say pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1057500/

Gomorrah (2008)

2/5

After first learning about Gomorrah, seeing the trailer and stills and hearing about the festival awards it won, I was super excited to see it. The film not only failed to live up to my expectations, but it also confused and bored me. The plot of Gomorrah allegedly focuses on a crime syndicate in Italy called the Camorra, although there is no way of knowing that until you read about it in the end credits. There are approximately three or four different story lines--all featuring very similar-looking Italian men--that neither relate nor converge. One deals with illegally dumping toxic waste, another with imitation designer clothing, and another with stealing guns.

The cinematography was a mix between amateur faux-artistic and documentary shakiness that offended and nauseated me. Additionally, it felt very video-esque. The editing between the multiple story lines seemed arbitrary based only on length of time given to each story instead of mood, pace, or progression. It gave it a jilted and perplexing experience that was less than the sum of its parts. The dialogue and acting were uninspired and unrealistic. However, there were two fantastic scenes that stick in my head. Both of them are murder attempts and both derive their power from the speed and suddenness by which they occur. These scenes, and the concept behind some of the repulsive criminal actions being committed, may stick in your head. But otherwise I found very little merit in this film. Avoid it if you can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/

Avatar (2009)

4/5

The plot of James Cameron's Avatar follows a wheelchair-bound ex-Marine named Jake Sully (Worthington) as he makes his way to the planet Pandora, which is inhabited by the humanoid alien race of Na'vi and is filled to the brim with precious minerals. He is sent there to control an avatar--a genetically crafted Na'vi body--through a scientific program run by Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) whose mission is to understand the aliens' world and culture. However, they aren't the only humans on Pandora. A mining expedition is attempting to extract as much of the precious minerals as they can from Pandora and have recruited military personnel to protect them from the "hostile" Na'vi.

The world is filled with small differences that appear to be minor details but manage to significantly differentiate it from Earth. For example, on the tips of the lengthy Na'vi hair are tentacles that allow them to connect to other animals (and in fact to the planet itself). No, it's not "realistic," but it is believable. There exist no inconsistencies that take you out of the experience and remind you that this is just a movie. While the dialogue isn't particularly impressive, the writing paints the planet in such a way as to make it true to itself and completely immersive. However, Avatar is by no means perfect. The story is extremely conventional--think of it as a sci-fi version of the anti-imperialist Pocahontas story--and therefore quite predictable. Still, there are a few unexpected surprises to the plot and the action is absolutely spectacular. It progresses at a flawless pace and is breathtaking and exciting.

Avatar is a compelling argument for the 3D action film. I was never a huge believer in 3D, since it seemed gimmicky and could easily give you a headache (especially in a film that lasts 2 hours and 45 minutes, as this one does), but Avatar was made to be seen in 3D. And it shows. Every single shot of every single action scene--of which there are many--is enhanced by the depth of the environment and the movement across the planes of action. I heard that James Cameron invented a large part of the 3D technology that's been used in other movies as he was developing this film; I believe it. Simply put, Cameron knows what he's doing with 3D. If you were interested in seeing a 3D movie, this is the one to watch. Just make sure you see it in IMAX 3D, because I only saw it in regular 3D and now I have to see it again. I just have to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Sex and the City (2008)

3/5

Sex and the City tells the story of four NY friends and their trials and tribulations with love. Carrie (Parker) is going out with Mr. Big (Noth) and, after finding the perfect apartment to live in together, they decide to get engaged (in an extremely awkward, business-like exchange). However, on the day of their wedding, he gets cold feet and cannot manage to get out of the car and join her down the aisle. As you can imagine, she becomes quite distraught and never wants to speak with him again. The rest of the movie focuses on bringing her spirits up and enjoying time with her best friends Samantha (Cattrall), Miranda (Nixon), and Charlotte (Davis) as they live their extravagant lifestyles filled with expensive shoes, purses, and jewelry.

All the technical aspects of the movie are competent. As for the story, it's fairly predictable but entertaining throughout, even for guys. There is also a fair amount of nudity and sex, which I was not expecting (even though I should have been, considering it was HBO). The writing does a good job of letting you enjoy the movie even if you haven't seen the series. The characters are likable enough, although their seemingly excessive wealth may make you unreceptive to their plight. All in all it was a funny movie with the requisite amount of conflict and resolution to keep you engaged for its 2.5 hour runtime. (And I'm told the fashion is pretty impressive as well.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000774/

Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009)

3/5

I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.

Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.

(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/

Sholay (1975)

4/5

Ramesh Sippy's famous Sholay is quite possibly the most watched movie of all time, considering it had a 10-year theatrical run in a country with 1+ billion people. After seeing it last night, I can see why! The movie has an engaging story, exquisite writing, likable characters, and wonderful performances. It appeals to almost all tastes, effortlessly mixing elements of drama and comedy, action and romance. Told in the style of a spaghetti Western, the plot follows an ex-sheriff (Kumar) who hires two courageous thieves (Dharmendra and Bachchan) to capture the bandit (Khan) responsible for killing his family. It unfolds over 3 hours fluidly, revealing bits and pieces of each character's history and motivations with precise pacing. Some of the jokes were gimmicky, some of the action was absurd, and some of the romance was cheesy, but it doesn't really matter because you will become so engrossed in the story, so invested in the characters, that after a while you just won't care about any of that stuff anymore.

There seemed to be some problem with the DVD release (at least I hope) because the colors in this film were noticeably faded. The camerawork was creative but unpolished (again, it may just be a poor DVD transfer). While the subtitled translation was adequate, a lot of nuance, subtlety, and double meaning was lost on me. I would absolutely love for Criterion to pick this up, digitally remaster it, and professionally subtitle it, because then I think more Westerners could appreciate this movie for the gem that it is. Even if it forever remains on a DVD with subpar quality, the movie is an absolutely delightful treat and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073707/

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

3/5

Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox is an entertaining way to spend 80 minutes of your life, but it's not especially provocative or particularly mind-blowing. The plot follows a fox (Clooney) and his wife (Streep) as they buy a house in a tree that overlooks three mean farmers' local businesses. Being a wild animal, he steals chickens from Boggis, turkeys from Bunce, and cider from Bean. The farmers try to dig the fox out of his hole, but as their digging becomes more and more widespread, other animals in the area become victims too. With the animals against him and the humans getting ever closer, it seems as if the fox family is out of options. But being a clever beast, the fantastic Mr. Fox concocts a plan to keep their land out of the humans' grasps.

The animation is breathtaking and refreshing. It is beautiful and awe-inspiring. But while the movie holds a lot of visual appeal, the story and dialogue fail to really elevate the movie past its quirky, unique animation style. The humor is dry and definitely not to everyone's tastes. Everything is spoken matter-of-factly--meaning there are no punchlines--that it could easily turn people off of the movie (even though I personally found it hilarious). It definitely feels more like a Roald Dahl adaptation than a movie from Wes Anderson's head, which may make you want to see the movie or may make you want to reconsider. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really have much of a point. It's a very simplistic tale about animals fighting against humans. What you see is what you get; there is no subtle underlying meaning or great moral underpinning. All in all, the movie is filled with clever moments and aesthetic flair, but the whole package is nothing to get too excited over.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/

The Holiday (2006)

4/5

Nancy Meyers's The Holiday is a remarkably tender and touching movie that covers the entire gamut of human emotion. The plot follows Amanda (Diaz) in Hollywood, CA and Iris (Winslet) in Surrey, England as they switch houses for the holidays after having their hearts broken by their boyfriends. Amanda meets Iris's good-looking brother, Graham (Law), and they begin a physical relationship knowing they won't see each other again once the holidays are over. Iris befriends the elderly scriptwriter Arthur (Wallach) and the young and goofy musician Miles (Black) to help her get past her emotionally draining ex. It seems fairly easy to predict what happens next, but the movie paces the emotions so perfectly that you are completely taken in by the story.

The script is tremendous. From the opening voice-over to the final feel-good shot, the script manages to manipulate your heart to feel happiness and sadness within seconds of each other, much in the same vein as Casablanca. Meyers directs the vibrant script into something more than just filmed words. The editing is amazing, effortlessly integrating the two stories and transitioning the scenes visually. She uses music brilliantly to enhance the emotions without forcing unwanted ones on the viewer. The acting is terrific, making the strong characters that much more vivid. Kate Winslet is as good as always, but here all the other leads turn in extremely powerful, empathic performances that just make your heart fill up. Despite some imperfections, this movie is absolutely wonderful. Even if you don't like chick flicks, all it takes to fall in love with this movie is a desire for a good story. Because this movie delivers that in spades.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457939/

The Family Stone (2005)

3/5

The Family Stone is a bit of an awkward family drama/romantic comedy combination. The plot follows Everett (Mulroney) as he comes back home for Christmas to introduce his new girlfriend Meredith (Parker) to his family and to ask his mother (Keaton) for the family wedding ring so he can propose to her. His youngest sister Amy (McAdams) already hates her for reasons that are unknown to me--and presumably everyone else watching the movie--and plays mean tricks on her so the rest of the family will share in her distaste. Everett's brother Ben (Wilson) feels bad for her and tries comforting her, but she feels so harassed that she invites her sister Julie (Danes) to join her. When Everett picks Julie up from the bus station, he falls head over heels for her. There are a few more family members and plot points that I'll let you discover firsthand if you choose to watch this, but that's the basic framework.

Despite the few comedic moments in the trailer, I didn't find the movie as a whole to be very funny. It also wasn't very uplifting or feel-good. A lot of what happened just seemed outright mean and/or depressing. Throughout the movie I felt like it was all a big inside joke that I didn't get, but in the end all was explained satisfactorily with subtle hints instead of over-the-top verbalizations. And the final shot was terrifically bittersweet. All the technical aspects were competent, but nothing truly impressed me. All in all, see the movie if you liked the trailer or the actors, but I don't think this movie is the one to change your mind about the genre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356680/

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

2/5

The Men Who Stare at Goats is a disappointing "comedy" about the US Army's attempt to engineer psychic spies and the adventures of one journalist (Ewan MacGregor) as he tries to cover the story. It was advertised as being based on a true story, but that statement rings false. It's either an inside joke or an outright lie. The plot is so preposterous that it is impossible to suspend your disbelief.

The characters are shallow, unoriginal caricatures of people we've seen a million times before. The acting is only mediocre, even from some of my favorite actors (Kevin Spacey, George Clooney). It's probably not their fault and instead the fault of the terrible writing. The jokes are few and far between. When they do pop up, they fall flat about 25% of the time (and that's a lot for a movie that pauses for expected laughter). Coming out of the movie, I thought it was decent. Sitting down to write this review made me think about it more. And that only made it less and less appealing. Don't waste your time with this movie. Just watch the trailer and pretend the movie is as good as that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234548/