Thor: The Dark World (2013)

2/5

Thor 2 is just as bad as Thor 1, but mired in even more CGI nonsense than its predecessor. The characters are boring, the plot is boring, and even the action is boring. It's like watching a bad video game. I really have nothing more to say about this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981115/

Big Hero 6 (2014)

4/5

Big Hero 6 is a wonderfully enjoyable animated film by Disney. Much of the film centers around the relationship between Hiro (Potter), a young technophile and "bot fighter," and his older brother Tadachi (Henney), an engineering student at a futuristic tech institute. Tadachi has created a health-focused robot called Baymax (Adsit), but Hiro is less than impressed at the huggable marshmallow of a machine. After a catastrophe at the institute's tech fair, Hiro must join up with a band of misfit superheroes to protect the city from a nefarious villain.

The same production company behind Frozen makes essentially its action-oriented counterpart, focusing on brotherly love in the context of a superhero world instead of a princess fairytale. It features similar themes and predictable plot points, but the repetition surprisingly does nothing to take away from the overall experience. Disney films are never really about shocking audiences with plot twists but about wowing them with stellar storytelling and magical details. Big Hero 6 delights--it's adorable, exciting, and fun--and is another big win for Disney.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2245084/

Chef (2014)

4/5

Jon Favreau's Chef is a surprisingly affecting movie. It tells the story of an acclaimed chef (Favreau) who is unable to make the creative dishes he wants to because his boss (Hoffman) prefers "crowdpleasers." His ex-wife (Vergara) wants him to start up a food truck because it will allow him the freedom to be innovative and adventurous, but he dismisses the idea. After a fiasco with a food critic (Platt) spreads like wildfire on social media, he finds himself out of options.

I'll be honest, most of the movie is fairly mediocre. Straightforward story, predictable plot, forgettable photography. Like all food porn, this movie will make your mouth water. But it's also emotion porn, a real tearjerker and heart-warmer that will make you go awwww. The acting shines. From rather basic characterizations emerge real people in real situations, radiating a life on screen that is rarely seen in the commoditized Hollywood machine. I'm smart enough to know I'm being manipulated by the story, but I still enjoyed every minute of it. The movie hits all the right notes, combining hilarity and heart, and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2883512/

Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

Thor (2011)

2/5

Marvel's Thor is a surprisingly silly movie compared to the company's earth-centric counterparts: the Captain America and Iron Man franchises. Focusing on the inhabitants of an entirely fictitious world called Asgard, it naturally spends a good 30 minutes on definition and exposition. It's boring, bland storytelling, full of made-up methods of transportation like horse-riding across rainbow roads and being slingshot out of gyroscopic planetariums.

My biggest problem is that I find all the characters unlikeable, including the eminently pleasant Natalie Portman. Although he gains a little depth by the end of the film, Thor is essentially a loud-mouthed, arrogant, English-accented buffoon with an idiotic smile. (And, as a side note, how come all the Asgardians speak English?) Portman plays a physicist who enjoys hipster clothes and gets easily distracted by cut male figures. Happily, the movie has some gripping action scenes that pull you in and keep your eyes glued to the screen. But besides their visual appeal, they aren't particularly compelling aspects to the film. Some are outright ridiculous, like a muddy wrestle in the rain.

But Thor is not a particularly good movie. And certainly not a movie good enough to take the Marvel name and stand with the rest of them. To be honest, I only watched this movie so that I could see the second Thor movie so that I could be prepared for the second Avengers movie. I wish I had just never watched it. The best thing about my decision to watch this movie is that I won't feel bad deleting it from the DVR and recording something better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/

Begin Again (2013)

4/5

John Carney's Begin Again is a touching musical drama. Keira Knightley plays a songwriter who discovers her boyfriend, celebrity singer Dave Kohl (Levine), has cheated on her. Alone in New York, she meets up with an old friend (Corden) and they sing at an open mic night. The simple, unvarnished ballad she delivers grabs the attention of a music producer (Ruffalo) who was just fired from the studio he founded. They form an unlikely partnership and work together on a bold idea for a new album, in which every song is recorded live in the streets of New York.

If it sounds familiar, it's because it's written and directed by the same person who made Once: John Carney. The songs are tender and soulful, well-made and heartfelt. With indie filmmaking and an indie spirit, the movie as a whole absolutely delights. The big problem is that Begin Again feels so much like Carney's previous musical. That doesn't make it bad, just tired and old. The only reason I like this more than Once is that it takes place in New York and is targeted more toward American sensibilities. But redoing the same type of story filled with the same type of songs for a different time and place isn't enough. I want to see new stuff from this brilliant musical director. I want to know what else he's capable of.

The acting was fantastic. Knightley delivers another stellar performance, filled with small looks and movements that carry enormous weight to them. Her singing voice isn't bad either. Adam Levine is like her opposite, with awesome singing but mediocre acting. The rest of the cast is fantastic, somehow bringing a vivacity to the movie that gives it an instant nostalgia, like you're watching a once-in-a-lifetime event unfold before your very eyes. I think that's Carney's strongest aspect as a director, creating an urgency to his movies and compelling you to watch them. I can't wait for his next one; I just hope he brings more to the table that we haven't seen before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1980929/

Men, Women & Children (2014)

5/5

Jason Reitman's latest film is an utterly absorbing, thought-provoking film. It is a movie about kids growing up and couples growing apart, about technology and communication, and about interaction and isolation. An ensemble drama, it follows several threads: a husband (Sandler) and wife (DeWitt) who start cheating on each other, a mother (Garner) who safeguards her daughter (Dever) from the dangers of the Internet, another mother (Greer) who seems to do the opposite, and a high schooler (Elgort) who gives up football for online gaming.

The topic of technology leading to isolation has been done before (the aptly-titled Disconnect tackles the issue exceptionally well). But Men, Women & Children is not about technology. It is about coming of age in modern society. And it teaches us all about that in devastating, funny, touching ways. The title tells you the focus of the film; it is about the individuals that make up society, not the technology. Each story feels heartfelt and true, rich with subtext and hidden meaning. The performances are subtle, with big names playing small roles. Despite restrained acting, the movie does occasionally veer into melodrama. But on the whole, it reflects life accurately in both tone and color.

People will talk about this movie for its depiction of technology, because everything is replicated with precision. The UI is spot-on, whether we're looking at Facebook on a computer or a text message on an iPhone. Even the sounds of notifications ring true to our 21st century ear. But Reitman takes it one step further. The way he shows technology is itself a comment on technology. Screens pop up and overlay the action with every bowed head. They may sit in the background, but they never go away. As audience members, we find our eyes drawn to the neighbors' Twitter feed instead of the protagonists' actions. Is this how we live now, looking down everytime we feel a buzz when something else is going on right in front of our very eyes?

The big problem with being so pixel-perfect is that it securely sets Men, Women & Children in this time and place. User interfaces and interaction metaphors change at an ultrafast pace, which may date this movie just 6 months from now. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think I'll have a very different perspective watching this movie 20 years from now. Not just because the change in technology will make this movie look and feel old, but because life will have happened to me. I will start to recognize the nuance in characters' motivations; I will be hit harder by the mistakes they make and touched more profoundly by the affection they show. And that's what this movie gets so right. That's why I can't wait to watch this movie again: 20 years from now and hopefully many times in between.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3179568/

John Wick (2014)

2/5

John Wick is a pretty silly movie. The conceit of the film is that a well-known assassin named John Wick (Reeves) retires from the killing business for a woman (Moynahan) who ends up dying of an unknown chronic disease. When a seemingly random crime takes away the final gift from his late wife, Wick returns to his violent past on a quest for vengeance.

The movie has a few unique aspects, but is otherwise drab and uninspired. What's cool? The video game-like action and the snippets of comedy. It didn't feel like other shoot-em-up action flicks; it felt like a shoot-em-up action game. And it never takes itself too seriously, throwing in hilarious jokes at its own expense. Sometimes it feels overly silly, but it works more often than I would have expected. What's poor? Everything else. The movie starts in media res for no other reason than that it's commonplace now. It adds nothing to the excitement or the plot; if anything it flattens and compresses the story's progression. The script is full of cliched one-liners delivered with surprising blandness coming from the somewhat well-respected actors. There is no build-up to an explosive finale. It just continues from one random action scene to the next, with perhaps the coolest one being the first one. All in all, I cannot recommend this film to even the most diehard of Keanu Reeves fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666/

Gone Girl (2014)

4/5

David Fincher's adaptation of Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl is extremely faithful to the source material. The novel is a disturbing, chilling story of twisted love and cunning revenge and Fincher brings it to the screen expertly. Nick Dunne (Affleck) discovers his wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing on the morning of their fifth anniversary under suspicious circumstances. Although their relationship started with unquestioning affection, it deteriorated over the years to a hateful place when the movie begins. And as the police investigation progresses, Nick is suspected of being her murderer. With a script that is very intelligent in what it retains and what it excises, the story has plenty of twists and turns to surprise and shock.

The casting is spot-on. Ben Affleck plays Nick to perfection, exuding calm aloofness at inopportune times or cool charm when it counts. He is able to be loved then hated then admired then disdained. He is as complex as you could imagine him to be, and then some. Rosamund Pike steals the show as her persona is gradually revealed over the course of the film. I don't want to ruin any of the surprise, but you will be absolutely stunned by this performance. She is a revelation.

Fincher's directing is as smooth and atmospheric as ever. Cinematography is moody and brooding; editing is tense but pensive. Everything works together to present a polished, pristine version of incomprehensible acts of evil and villainy. Even the way the on screen text is displayed, from the way the intro credits seem to disappear just a half-second too quickly to the way the dates fade in as the story progresses, works to unsettle you.

But despite how well-made it is, both as an adaptation of a book and a film in its own right, the story is just too exhausting, too excruciating to watch more than once. It deflates you and disgusts you. The poignant points are all cynical ones and the movie seems to deliver a message without hope. It is worth watching once, but take in as much as you can when you do because I can't imagine many people will take much pleasure in rewatching it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/

Blended (2014)

4/5

What bizarro universe have I entered where I suddenly find chick flicks to be genuinely good? Blended is another recent unexpected delight, a satisfying romantic comedy filled with humor and heart. It follows two single parents (Sandler, Barrymore) who unexpectedly fall in love during a trip to Africa focused on "blending" non-traditional families. It adds in parenting challenges and family values to a tired and predictable formula, but for some reason that does the trick. Blended is an absolutely wonderful experience.

To be honest, I pretty much hate all Adam Sandler movies without exception. Blended is the rule-breaker (just like Stranger Than Fiction was for Will Ferrell). This is not a Sandler "vehicle," and because of that he is fantastic in this movie as a regular dad struggling to raise three girls. Drew Barrymore is her same lovable self, which can certainly feel old and boring if you're not a fan, but it works for me. I love the film's perspective: kids come first 100% of the time. For some reason it really resonated with me, as I'm sure it will for a large number of its intended viewers. The movie has some great comedic one-liners (although it also has a good number of cringe-worthy moments that fall flat on their face) with a strong emotional tug. No, it's not particularly well-shot or tightly-edited, but it has a solid story and solid performances and that makes for solid entertainment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086772/