My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010)

2/5

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend is a romantic comedy about two men, Ethan (Gorham) and Troy (Landes), who are both in love with one woman (Milano). Ethan is a struggling writer, a nice guy who loves kids and cheesy dates. Troy is a successful ad executive, a less desperate nice guy who can shower her with attention and fancy gifts. The movie ends with an unexpected twist, which I won't reveal if by the slightest off-chance you're interested in seeing this movie, but that's about all it has going for it. The writing and acting are atrocious. Everything feels written and staged; nothing feels genuine. Which is also why there's no chemistry between any of the leads. And there are a lot of random events and bizarre scenarios that are never really explained. Also, the character Ethan looks a LOT like Ethan Hawke, only gawkier and uglier, and it kept distracting me. Also, the technical aspects are blah. We stopped watching halfway through, after which point I decided I would have been happy to never revisit it. I'm happy it didn't end as crappy as it began, but I wouldn't watch it again just for that twist ending.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1447793/

Buried (2010)

1/5

Buried stars Ryan Reynolds as a man in a box. That box is a coffin in the middle of Iraq. It is billed as a horror movie, but it is closer to an angry political statement that uses violence and gore to make you squeamish instead of making a point. It is set in a locale that screams politics, but ultimately the movie has nothing to say. There is no value in this movie as entertainment, art, or discussion.

For some unknown reason, this film has been getting good reviews. The worst part is that people are complimenting the technical aspects like cinematography, lighting, editing, etc. Not only were they subpar, they actually hindered the experience. Half of the movie is pitch black. I know that every aspiring director thinks hearing audio on a black screen is brilliant, but it isn't. Not in a theater when you can see everyone's heads in front of you and not on a DVD at home when you can see out a window or down a hall. Your eyes just drift to whatever is happening elsewhere and you end up ignoring the movie. The lighting--when there is any--is either uninteresting or just plain irritating. The cinematography is cramped, which I guess is a good thing because that's what they were going for, but not in a skilled way. It's just bland, like they stuck a camera in a box with a man in a box. And for some reason, people have been praising Ryan Reynolds's performance. He was adequate. He sufficiently portrayed a boring character in a unique situation.

But even bad directing and bad decision-making doesn't necessarily mean a movie deserves 1 star. So why does this one? Because it is offensive in every way. It is not a horror movie. The best ones change the way you look at the world and the worst ones at least get your sympathetics going. This just activates your area postrema like Audition. It is not a political movie because it does not have a point to make. It is merely a depraved movie. People give controversial or taboo movies the benefit of the doubt, and we assume they have a message to bring to light, but just putting it in a certain time and place does not give a meaningless movie a message.

In general, I'm not the biggest fan of one-man shows. I didn't like Castaway, which at least had some wit and charm to go with the pain. This one had bad directing, annoying cinematography, and inflammatory subject matter to go with the pain. And painful it was. Stay very far away.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462758/

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

4/5

The Adjustment Bureau is a sort of sci-fi romance that is compelling on an emotional level and fascinating on an intellectual level. The plot follows David Norris (Damon) and Elise Sellas (Blunt) and their relationship after a chance meeting in a men's room after Norris loses his bid for senate seat. They keep running into each other and they feel a deep connection with each other as if they were meant to be together. Norris is watched by a man in a suit and fedora (Mackie) who is part of the adjustment bureau, a group of individuals whose sole purpose is to ensure that everything in our lives go according to a certain plan. Unfortunately, this plan does not include Norris and Sellas together. And so the adjustment bureau keeps trying to pull them apart while the two of them fight to be with each other.

Technically, the movie had both good and bad components that added up to something mediocre. The writing is intriguing as far as the concept is concerned, and it can generate a healthy discussion of fate vs. free will, but there are also some very obvious weak points. Some people disliked the ending for being too cheesy, but I didn't mind it so much on an initial viewing. The dialogue was especially poor, however, and everything that came out of the mouths of the people in the adjustment bureau was stale and stilted. Their acting was equally forgettable. On the other hand, Damon and Blunt were incredible. The entire premise of the movie hinges on the chemistry between the two leads--the fact that you believe that they are destined for each other--and they pull it off. They were not only believable, but also genuine, tender, and sympathetic. It would be impossible to believe they weren't in love. While the technical aspects were somewhat of a mixed bag, the emotional impact elevated this movie well above average and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/

Beastly (2011)

1/5

Beastly isn't just a bad movie--it's an atrocious movie. It's worse than Twilight. The plot is loosely based on Beauty and the Beast, but takes place in a modern-day preppy New York high school. The updated setting requires some modifications to the story, and the writer decided to use all those opportunities to make it as terrible as possible. The movie takes the clichéd cocky, image-obsessed rich boy (Pettyfer) and pairs him up with the clichéd smart, hard-working loner (Hudgens). A witch (Olson) puts a spell on him to make him ugly and he has one year to find someone to love him. His dad (Krause) abandons him in a hermit home with a nanny (Hamilton) and a blind tutor (Patrick Harris) that have no purpose other than to give him trite advice.

Everything about this movie is offensively bad. The plot just doesn't make any sense. At all. It is literally impossible to suspend your disbelief for this movie. And it stacks on more plot holes and hackneyed "twists" to an already fragile foundation that make you throw your hands up in the air in exasperation. (The entire situation that forced them together is perhaps the most preposterous and aggravating part of the whole movie.) The third-grade writing combines with the weak acting to create a spectacle, and I don't mean that in a good way. It's more of a train wreck that has you rubbernecking as you pass by. It is really mind-blowing that something could be this bad. My best guess is that the dialogue is what a pre-teen imagines might sound cool and witty but is ultimately shallow and meaningless. Not only that, but the tone is inconsistent and the pacing is more painful than stop and go traffic. Is it trying to be funny, romantic, scary, emotional? Who knows? Certainly not the director.

Unfortunately, it's not all bad. And I hate saying this in my review, because that might give people some sliver of hope. But in all honesty, there are about 2 or 3 funny parts where I may have smiled and 2 or 3 lines that stood out and were probably put in by an editor or producer who was much more intelligent than the writer. That being said, avoid this movie at all costs. I don't care if you are a fan of any of the actors in this movie, it is just not worth it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152398/

The King's Speech (2010)

4/5

The King's Speech is about a king (Firth) with a stuttering problem who must give a stirring, patriotic speech to his citizens as Britain enters WWII. His wife (Bonham Carter) enlists the help of a peculiar linguistics coach (Rush) as a last resort. As far as plot goes, that's about all there is to it. Although it's a simple story, it is exquisitely told. With perfectly composed shots, precisely metered pacing, and superb acting, the film rises above its straightforward writing. Colin Firth is magnificent in his role, bringing sympathy without pity to a nuanced, intricate character. He manages to be both intelligent and tender, manages to instill both strength and levity. Bonham Carter and Rush do fantastic jobs in supporting roles to make the whole thing an acting powerhouse. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't stand out quite like the acting does. It's perfectly competent technically, but all you'll remember when you think back on the movie is how good the acting is. And it is really good.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

4/5

The Girl Who Played With Fire centers around journalist Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and computer hacker Salander (Rapace). When Salander is suspected in a triple murder, Blomkvist attempts to get to the bottom of it. And that's about it for the plot. The Girl Who Played With Fire is, like almost all sequels, not nearly as good as the first one. Part of it is the writing (this being the middle of a trilogy) and part of it is the directing (this being a different director). The movie as a whole just doesn't seem as tight or as meaningful. The cinematography feels video-esque and the atmosphere less moody. Unnecessary scenes are retained and almost emphasized. Despite that, it's still a good movie. There were tense moments where the lives of people you cared about hung in the balance. There was fascinating depth added to Salander's originally superficial character. But overall, it feels as if there just wasn't as much care put into it or as much detail paid attention to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216487/

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

4/5

The Kids Are All Right is an indie slice-of-life movie about a lesbian couple--Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore)--whose children (Wasikowska, Hutcherson) decide they want to meet their sperm donor dad (Ruffalo). When they do, he instantly connects to the daughter while the son remains somewhat distant. Eventually he falls in both the kids' favor and they invite him over to meet their parents. Things get a little bit more confusing when Jules starts having sex with him.

As far as the acting goes, Annette Bening is phenomenal in a role that is understated and subtle. There are few flashes of anger, but you can tell her mood precisely by the smallest facial movements. She plays to perfection the entire life of a woman we only get to spend a few hours with, and we see the mistakes of her past and her thoughts of the future. She puts on display so much more than what is written in the script. As far as the script goes, it's good but not great. My big problem with it is the ending. It feels as if they were just shallowly writing everything off, or giving us a wry wink and nod and saying, "We know this movie isn't real and it doesn't matter what happens in the end." Either way, it really didn't satisfy me. I didn't feel any closure whatsoever. On the opposite end, the best thing about the script was its humor (far funnier than some other indie films like Margot at the Wedding).

With a title like The Kids Are All Right, it's begging for immature movie reviewers clamoring that the movie is just all right. But luckily I think it's more than that; it's entertaining, it's moving, it's funny. And it has some fantastic acting. I just wish it had an ending to match.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/

No Strings Attached (2011)

2/5

No Strings Attached is a "romantic comedy" about two friends attempting to be friends with benefits (or actually friends with only one benefit, namely sexual intercourse). I put romantic comedy in quotes because you would be hard-pressed to find any romance in this film and the comedic elements fall flat about as frequently as they succeed. Natalie Portman plays a weird girl who is uncomfortable with intimacy; throughout the entire film we never get a sense of why she is the way she is. Ashton Kutcher plays the same character he has played for the past 10 years in romantic comedies, and there was nothing new or unique about it the first time we saw it. As for the plot, it progresses predictably into disaster when one party wants more than just sex. Whatever will they do.

Movies like No Strings Attached really frustrate me. It's not the quality of the movie that I find irritating, but the fact that it has so much potential that it chooses to throw away on cheap jokes and superficial meaning. Natalie Portman is incredible in this movie; she gives her character as much depth and warmth as possible, but the character is just written so shallowly that her talent is wasted. Half of the jokes are hilarious, but the other half you could practically hear crickets chirp in the theater. It was painful how bad they were and I actually felt embarrassed for the movie. The relationship between the two main characters is absent until the ending (maybe I'm just being naive, but I thought you had to be friends before you could be friends with benefits). The movie itself is okay, and there are plenty of laughs (more than any Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller comedy that I've seen), but it just feels like a half a movie. I can't recommend it in good conscience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411238/

New York, I Love You (2009)

2/5

Unlike its predecessor Paris, je t'aime, New York, I Love You is a terrible movie. It is a terrible, terrible movie. It is a collection of short films that reveal characters who become intertwined with other characters in New York City. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that if you just watched it. It would appear to an innocent bystander to be a random smattering of ludicrous events that are pretentiously written, acted, and directed that give the illusion of lofty meaning and artistic flair. It is filled with empty stories based off of shallow ideas. However, amongst the 11 short films, there were two (2) good segments. The first starred Bradley Cooper and Drea De Matteo as two strangers who spent a night together that became more than a one-night stand; it is about the fears and doubts they have about what it meant for them and for the other person as they barrel through the city to meet again. It has a tremendously powerful ending. The second starred Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an old married couple who head out on their 63rd anniversary to Coney Island, where they had their first date. They exchange playful banter, as unique and genuine as a real-world couple who might have lived in each other's companies longer than they have lived alone, who love and hate everything about the other person. It reminded me of No Country for Old Men in the best possible way. Still, those two gems in this giant pile of poop aren't quite valuable enough to recommend wading through it all. Ick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808399/

Tangled (2010)

4/5

Disney's Tangled is a return to the fairytale genre they seemed to have singlehandedly created way back in 1937 with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The plot follows Rapunzel (Moore) as a young princess who was stolen by the aging Mother Gothel (Murphy) and placed in a hidden tower for the magical healing power of her hair. She dreams of what the outside world is like and one day her wish comes true when she gets rescued by a thief named Flynn Rider (Levi). Flynn is being chased by royal guards, and one particular royal horse named Maximus, who is quite possibly the most hilarious and memorable character in the entire movie, even though he never speaks a word. Disney knows good entertainment, and this movie continues in its tradition by producing this fantastic story with spectacular visuals.

I really loved the animation: it had a distinct style (unlike Beauty and the Beast) that I absolutely adored. It was painterly and beautiful and smooth and luminous and just about perfect. Except for one thing. The eyes really bugged me, because they were huge and outlined with like three million tiny eyelashes. So bizarre. I had smaller qualms with the movie as well. The narration was 100% unnecessary (the intro and ending would have been far more poignant had they tried it silently like in Up). The acting, the music, and the dialogue failed to impress me, although they never detracted from the rest of its greatness. What frustrated me the most about this movie was that it was so close to being something special. It was so close to being more than just another enjoyable flick, but unfortunately that's all I found it to be.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398286/