Breaking Dawn: Part 2 (2012)

3/5

Unfortunately, the final piece of this five part saga was significantly better than I hoped and anticipated. I say unfortunately because it would be much easier to just malign the whole series and dismiss it as a silly tween's simple-minded fantasy. But this movie is better than all the previous ones. For one reason and one reason alone. There is an epic fight sequence at the finale. And instead of being a pastiche of piss-poor special effects you might find in original SyFy movies like Sharktopus (as I initially expected), it turned out to be a well-coordinated, well-shot, surprisingly visceral and white-knuckle experience. Seriously, the action was better than some blockbuster superhero movies I've seen recently (i.e., The Dark Knight Rises).

Now, don't confuse my meaning. I am not suggesting that the movie is good. It's not. Everything before the battle sequence is about what I expected from the previous four films. The majority of that first hour could probably have been condensed into a 3-minute montage. There is barely any plot advancement or character development (although I guess that's not something to be expected from this series). It felt like the ending of The Lord of the Rings, a collection of thirteen disparate loose ends that the movie was working on tying up in standalone scenes instead of integrating them into a broader context.

That is to say nothing of the story itself, which is simply laughable. It turns out that vampires are actually X-Men with sharp teeth, because they all seem to have special mutant powers. And apparently the only way to kill a vampire is by ripping off its head and setting it on fire. Who knew? (Who knew also that that kind of stuff was PG-13?) Also, inexplicably, they decided to use a CGI baby in a number of scenes instead of a real baby. Not for the baby to do anything special--just to be a baby. But I guess that's the whole Twilight series: a bizarre, out-of-body experience that is totally unnecessary and bordering on offensive.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1673434/

Flame & Citron (2008)

3/5

Flame & Citron is a Danish film about the Danish resistance movement against the Nazis in WWII. The film itself is well-made, with crisp cinematography and expert use of lighting. The acting is phenomenal and emotionally complex. It brings to the fore some fascinating thematics on honor and murder and family and country. Unfortunately, subpar editing fills the film with myriad unnecessary scenes and makes it feel overlong. Maybe I'm just not interested in the subject matter, but I found myself a little bored throughout. Unless you enjoy WWII movies, I cannot find too many great things about this movie to make me recommend it. I also cannot find too many terrible things about it either, so take that for what it's worth. It's strictly middle of the road as far as I'm concerned. 

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0920458/

Argo (2012)

4/5

Ben Affleck's Argo recreates the Iran hostage crisis of 1979/1980 with remarkable visual accuracy. After protestors overtake the US Embassy in Iran, 6 would-be hostages escape out a back entrance and hide in the Canadian ambassador's house. Meanwhile the US government is planning a daring "exfiltration" operation led by Tony Mendez (Affleck). Mendez creates a fake movie called Argo, gets Hollywood effects expert John Chambers (Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) to back the ruse, and flies into Iran with fake passports for the fake film crew. As this is going on, the Iranian military within the US Embassy are piecing together shredded documents that contain pictures of the missing employees.

The movie is well-made in terms of its cinematic technique, and Goodman and Arkin deliver knockout performances, but the movie as a whole just doesn't have a clear focus. It starts as a thrilling historical drama, with tense intimate situations and riveting political narratives. But when it turns to the Hollywood scenes, it becomes almost farcical in its tongue-in-cheek joking. It's quite funny, but the humor doesn't seem to fit. The two parts never quite match up, as if they don't belong in the same movie. Argo had no unifying mood to carry us through both halves of the film, and we are left with a jarring disconnect during each transition. Still, the movie is entertaining and exciting, and it's one of those rare movies that allows us a fascinating glimpse into an important piece of history through its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/

Looper (2012)

4/5

Rian Johnson's Looper is a smart, slick film. It takes place in a future where time travel and telekinesis co-exist, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is offensively stratospheric, and where "loopers" kill people from the future and incinerate their bodies. Much like Children of Men, Looper gives us a believable, richly-textured, and incredibly-detailed world while simultaneously advancing an expertly-paced thriller plot. Both the setting and the story are complex and tapestried, both surprise you time and again, and both keep your neurons firing non-stop. The plot is intelligent and fresh, interesting but not too cerebral. It is a marvel of imagination and storytelling. But for me it's missing something.

Except for the Drive-level ultra-violence and over-the-top blood, it's a movie that checks all the right boxes, and yet somehow it doesn't excite me as much as it should. The acting is on-point, the script is well-written, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the directing is pristine. Every individual element is impressive on its own, but they don't cohere into something that truly thrills me. No matter how much I enjoyed the film on an intellectual level, I simply couldn't engage with it on an emotional one. I can't wait to rewatch this movie in case I find myself in the latter camp, but I'm doubtful I'd make the crossover. I can see this movie being very special for many people; as of now it's just not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Lady Vengeance (2005)

2/5

Chan-wook Park's Lady Vengeance is his third and final film about vengeance. I don't know why he has fixated on vengeance, nor have I ever found his trilogy to be especially provocative or necessary. The films are mostly just disturbing and horrific without much value or entertainment. What I do appreciate in this film that I didn't get in the previous ones is a rather unique thematic twist as we approach the finale. Park doesn't make the movie a question of personal revenge, from some fictional character who was wronged, but a communal one. We are the community; what would we do, being reminded of our violent past after we've moved on? Take justice into our own hands or let old wounds heal?  But after the initial spark of that promising thought fades away, Lady Vengeance becomes just another bloody fantasy once again and I become disappointed by Chan-wook Park once again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451094/

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

1/5

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a traumatic, searing film. It is brutal and unsparing. It delivers hit after unfortunate hit, for our story's protagonists and for our own sense of hope and joy. The movie is bleak and dreary, violent and sadistic. It manages to be viscerally intense without being visually graphic. It hits you with ideas and horrors that you wish you will never imagine again. It reminded me of I Stand Alone, but without much to say, kind of like Audition. It is haunting, to be sure, but not in a meaningful way. I abhor violence in movies for violence's sake. It is an assault on my eyes and my mind, so it should serve some function or be overcome by an equal and opposite force. That is not the case with this movie, and so I am left a victim of the film.

I was not particularly impressed with the cinematography. The director is trying too hard to be artistic and has forgotten that movies are supposed to flow. The acting, which for all I know might be categorically stellar in a vacuum, is absolutely ridiculous in the context of the events that take place in this film. I have no real-world comparison by which I can judge their performances. Also, not that I really cared, but there are some pretty gigantic plot holes that are simply not addressed (ones that are crucial to the progression of the story). All in all, I have no idea to whom I might recommend this film. I feel like doing so would make me a masochist.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310775/

Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011)

3/5

Jiro Dreams of Sushi is a documentary about one of the best sushi chefs in the world. His name is Jiro Ono, and he's been making sushi for almost 80 years. The movie is not about the sushi, although there are enough sumptuous shots of the cuisine to make your mouth water. It is not about the fish market or his rice dealer, although they provide a surprisingly exciting backstory. It is a character study. It is an examination of an 85-year-old man who tasks himself daily with innovating and improving his technique. He comes from a time and place where a man is what he does, where your work is your life. But the movie fails to reach deeper, fails to keep digging into what makes this man who he is, fails to ask why? one more iteration. It is a sketch instead of a portrait. It satisfies itself with showing you a beautiful shot of sushi, instead of attempting to give you the experience of a real one in your mouth. And that is its fatal flaw.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772925/

Celeste and Jesse Forever (2012)

4.9/5

Celeste and Jesse Forever turned out to be an unexpected treasure that sticks with you long after the credits close. Although I describe it as a treasure, the movie is about as far from a Disney "happily ever after" as you can get. In fact, it starts precisely after most rom coms would end, six years after best friends Celeste (Jones) and Jesse (Samberg) have married, and six months into their separation and impending divorce. It depicts a depressing, sobering take on relationships that don't work out, no matter how much we might want them to. It manages to charm and delight the audience while simultaneously tearing apart our heart. It flits between those two extremes like an expert Wes Anderson film, and I hate it for being so effective.

The title is misleading, because the movie is not about Celeste and Jesse, but about Celeste. It is a character study, and Rashida Jones gives a phenomenal performance. We see the whole breakup through her lens, and we see how much she hurts. We don't see how hard it is for Jesse; we only see snippets of him, snapshots in time. And it doesn't matter whether he's happy or sad, because whenever he comes back into Celeste's life is another crack in her armor, another arrow in her shield.

Much like a film noir, we know how it will end as soon as it starts. That doesn't make it predictable, but fatalistic. It is a torture, as we get ever closer to the final movement we know is coming but hoping never gets here. The chemistry between the two leads makes it that much more painful to watch. There is one scene I do not think I can ever forget, which is acted and filmed to heart-wrenching perfection. The two of them are sitting together on a couch, about to kiss, fighting their desires to do what is right and honorable, fighting what is good and true because of circumstance, fighting and fighting and--whether they succeed or fail--ending up with nothing. The whole movie is encapsulated by that one scene.

After all I said, you would think this movie was a weepy downer drama. It's not. It's a surprisingly fun romp, filled with levity and jokes galore, but it cannot gloss over its bleak undertone. And it manages to end with just the right amount of hope and light amidst the darkness. The movie is an exceptional one, despite some forgivable flaws, and one I highly recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1405365/

Empire Records (1995)

3/5

Empire Records is the kind of classic 90's movie that could never be made now. It acts silly for the sake of silliness, turns mature on a dime, then swerves back to insane. It doesn't fit a genre except the time period in which it was made. There are no words to describe this movie; just know that it is an experience. The story revolves around a young cadre of employees in a local record store about to be bought out by Music Town, the non-infringement version of Tower Records, on the illustrious Rex Manning Day. There is one surprisingly tender moment in this film, when Joe (LaPaglia) tells Deb (Tunney) that she's doing a good job, amidst the utter chaos and non sequitur that comprises the rest of the film. I'm not typically a fan of such haphazard storytelling, but this movie brings back such fond memories of the kind of movies I grew up with that I cannot ignore it. This movie is something else, that's for sure, but it contains a charm and fire you will remember, even if you aren't one of its cult followers.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112950/

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is a middling experience from conception to execution. The plot is absolutely ridiculous, starring a bad guy with a more preposterously complicated and ludicrously conceived plan than a James Bond villain. The web is littered with countless reviews describing the innumerable plot holes in this film; my favorite is the "prison" that has no guards whatsoever and has an open hatch where everyone is allowed to attempt escape. (Luckily, this prison also apparently neighbors Gotham City!) In the bad science department, I think it actually one-ups Batman Begins, with its notion that someone's broken vertebrae can be realigned as if it were a shoulder dislocation (you know, because there's no spinal cord running through the "out of place" vertebrae that might be irreparably damaged). Also, our protagonist is absent for about half the film, during which time it turns into a WWII Nazi Germany movie.

And that's just the storyline. The technical aspects of the movie fared no better. Similar to the first one, the action is unintelligible thanks to close-ups, quick cuts, and poor lighting. The intro sequence is, quite honestly, unnecessary garbage. The acting is its own form of mess, except for Caine--who truly blew me away with a performance that should have been reserved for a far better film--and Hathaway. Despite the remarkable failure of the individual cinematic elements, The Dark Knight Rises kept me glued to my seat. Nolan is able to achieve an indescribable anticipation and a palpable excitement, an aura of cool. Unfortunately, it lacks any substantive backing to that nebulous quality, which would surely disappear if I were to see the movie again. Honestly, I cannot recommend this film. Despite all the hype and popularity, it is destined to become a cult classic, loved by a few and forgotten by everyone else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/