The Help (2011)

4/5

The Help is a surprisingly affecting tale of race relations in Jackson, Mississippi during the civil rights movement. It is the story of "the help," black women who work as nannies and maids to rich white Southern belles, as told by budding author Skeeter (Stone). She asks Aibileen (Davis) and Minny (Spencer) to tell her what it's really like to work as the help, despite the significant danger publishing such an account would pose to everyone who contributes. Aibileen describes what it's like working for Elizabeth (O'Reilly), an incompetent young mother who plans to have another daughter because the daughter she already has is unattractive. Minny describes being fired by Hilly (Howard), the quietly racist, fervently superior, self-appointed ringleader of the young women in town, for using the indoor toilet during a tornado instead of the outhouse.

The story is predictably emotional at times, treading exquisitely close to melodrama, while mixing in equal parts entertainment and humor. This movie is blessed to have a competent director and eagle-eyed editor, who understand the heart of the story and let it shine through any fluff. The script is sensational, brought to life by superb acting. Viola Davis does a phenomenal job; her expressive face and subtle movements (a shift in body weight, a hesitance in her response) are able to convey incredibly complex feelings. Bryce Dallas Howard gives a riveting performance that combines charm and slime to create a wholly unlikeable young matriarch. But the movie is about more than racism and more than events in the past: it is about parenting, about unexpected relationships, and about the courage and sacrifice required to do the right thing. This is a gripping film from beginning to end and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454029/

Man on a Ledge (2012)

4/5

Man on a Ledge is a thoroughly preposterous yet eminently entertaining edge-of-your-seat thriller. The man on the ledge is Nick Cassidy (Worthington), an NYPD officer who was framed for stealing a $40mil diamond from David Englander (Harris). Intent on proving his innocence, he walks out on the ledge to draw attention away from Englander's vault, where the supposedly stolen diamond remains. He requests a specific negotiator, Lydia Mercer (Banks), as his brother Joey (Bell) and Joey's girlfriend (Rodriguez) begin to break in to the vault so that they can reveal the truth.

As I said, preposterous. But easily one of the most suspenseful and engaging movies I've seen in a while. This is most likely entirely due to tight editing, which keeps the intensity high and maintains focus on propelling the story forward. Surprisingly, Bell and Rodriguez were the most humorous and human part of the film, and also the most exciting. Their banter kept the relatively hackneyed plot fresh and lively. Worthington and Banks, on the other hand, were fairly bland (despite obvious attempts to suggest complexity and deeper motivations). Everything is well-shot and well-acted, but the script, while clever initially, feels quite contrived. It just doesn't hold water, from simplistic dismantling of security systems to instantaneous assumptions of innocence. While it may be realistic, it simply doesn't ring true to a moviegoer's ear. To make matters worse, everything somehow ties up too neatly in the end while simultaneously being messy in the most unsatisfying way. All in all, however, this is an enjoyable way to spend an evening; just don't think too hard about it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568338/

Hugo (2011)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Hugo is pure magic. Its conception and creation were very clearly labors of love by exquisitely talented craftsmen. The story begins with a boy, Hugo (Butterfield), who lives in a train station. He is caught stealing gears from a toy shop owned by Papa Georges (Kingsley), who forces him to empty his pockets. Among the stolen goods is a notebook that was given to him by his late father (Law). The drawings in the notebook seem to bring back unwanted memories for Papa Georges, who threatens to burn it and report the boy to the station master (Baron Cohen). He follows Papa Georges home, pleading with his eyes, and waits outside the house until he sees Papa George's niece (Moretz). Hugo enlists her help and they soon find themselves on an adventure that grows beyond their wildest imagination.

I know the book on which this movie is based has a lot of illustrations, so I can't give Scorsese all the credit for its visual power, but boy does this movie pack a punch. The story is told in images, with snippets of silent film interspersed with inspiration from Hitchcock's Rear Window. And it is an emotional roller coaster, juxtaposing the kind of pure sorrow and exhilaration as only a child could experience. It combines complex characters with expressive acting to tremendous effect. The energetic pacing complements the classic storytelling structure, thanks in no small part to Thelma Schoonmaker's efficient editing. Even the 3D technology was well-done. I know that because it did not give me a headache. (Whether a 3D movie gives me a headache is really my only criterion now for how good the 3D is--Avatar is the only other movie to have good 3D by these standards.)

Not all is perfect in this movie, but its flaws are easily overlooked. I have no doubt that the special effects used in this movie will one day look as dated and comical as King Kong or The Birds. But for now, they're passable. Also, the side characters are somewhat poorly developed. There are hints at uniqueness and charm--and the atmosphere itself is already filled to the brim with wonder and awe--but the side characters never get fully fleshed-out. Jean-Pierre Jeunet would have perhaps been a better choice to breathe life into the subplots and side stories, as he did in Amélie and Delicatessen.

This film succeeds on all fronts: as entertainment, as art, and as heartfelt nostalgia for cinema. Go into the movie knowing nothing and you will be surprised and delighted. Go into the movie a second time and I am certain you will still be profoundly shaken. That is the mark of good storytelling, and that is the mark of phenomenal filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970179/

Viridiana (1961)

1/5

Buñuel's Viridiana is poorly-made nonsense. Nun-to-be Viridiana (Pinal) is invited back to her uncle's mansion before she takes her vows before God. There, she discovers that her uncle (Rey) wants to marry her, and he enlists the aid of his maid (Lozano) to force her to stay with him. Things don't go as planned and the rest of the movie diverges from acceptable storytelling and just kind of bumbles around into chaos. The film is not really about the story at all, so I won't bother telling you any more of the plot. Suffice it to say, it's incomprehensible (in purpose) and more than a bit frustrating.

Nothing feels believable, including any supposed satire. The writing is poor. The filmmaking is poor. This is essentially a student film, complete with above-average actors made to perform stilted and staged dialogue by a pretentious director who thinks he knows better than everyone else. Buñuel's tunnel vision disdain for the church (and apparently kindness in general) borders on offensive. But more insulting than the content itself is Buñuel's use of overt imagery and obvious symbolism, because nobody could have figured out his genius strokes without having him graciously dumb it down for all us idiot audience members. If I wanted to watch a feel-bad movie where well-intentioned people are made to pay for their beneficence, I would have watched the equally terrible Au Hasard Balthazar and walked out halfway through. But who does? Avoid this movie unless you like being sledgehammered in the face with negative sentiment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055601/

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

3/5

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is standard summer blockbuster fare that, like Sherlock Holmes, came out 5 months too late. The plot follows IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) on a mission to stop a madman (Nyqvist) from starting a nuclear war. It's a movie trope we're all too familiar with, and the only thing this particular movie brings to the table is lots and lots of exciting action (and little else). It's not so much that there are plot holes, it's more that the filmmakers just didn't care about the plot. Nor did they care about the acting, as Paula Patton is clearly just a pretty face and nothing more.

Ah, but the action. The stunts on the Burj Khalifa are truly breathtaking and the chase through the sandstorm is inventive and thrilling. The climax in the motorized parking garage is truly edge-of-your-seat entertainment. But unfortunately that's about it. If you're the type of person who enjoys this kind of action and doesn't mind the nonsensical, unbelievable plot, then you will clearly enjoy it. If you were excited by the enormous number of positive reviews and thought this movie might be somehow different from every other action movie you've seen before, start rethinking. This is nothing more than a simple action movie, but at least it's a decent one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

4/5

David Fincher's remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is as terrifying, gripping, and disturbing as the Swedish version. When I first heard Fincher was doing the American remake, I was ecstatic. The content and atmosphere was classic Fincher, and the extended 8-minute trailer was riveting. To say my expectations were high was an understatement: they were nigh unattainable. And, lo and behold, the movie failed to meet them.

Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that this is so similar to the Swedish version. I typically favor American remakes (such as The Departed) as they inherently bring uniquely American cultural and social viewpoints that we can better relate to, independent of the quality of the directing or the cinematic techniques. But here, I just didn't get that. It felt overly faithful to the Swedish film, to the point of zealotry, and there was very little that was new or different.

The changes that Fincher did make were fairly minimal, but had enormous impact. I was a little bit more confused by the Vanger family tree this time around (although you would think it would be less confusing having already seen it and having it in English this go around). The beginning felt extended while the ending felt rushed. And the minor variation in the ending had huge implications for Lisbeth's character that I just can't shake. I have no idea how the novel ended, but I feel that Fincher's ending broke down the entire essence and persona of the titular character. She feels like a completely different Lisbeth.

Don't get me wrong. This is an absolutely engrossing movie, made with directorial precision and technical finesse. Beautiful cinematography, phenomenal music, and stellar acting. Rooney Mara more than holds her ground against the powerhouse that was Noomi Rapace. Perhaps I just set my sights too high, and perhaps I am being much too critical of the film, but I feel like the Swedish version speaks to me more. It has its imperfections, as does this American version, but the Swedish version is the one I think of whenever I think of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/

Horrible Bosses (2011)

4/5

Horrible Bosses follows three friends who decide to kill their bosses. Nick (Bateman) has been working late nights and weekends for 8 years to earn a promotion to VP of Sales, only to have the CEO (Spacey) take on the position himself. After an unfortunate event, Kurt (Sudeikis) finds himself under the rule of his old boss's son (Farrell), a cokehead and all-around dick. Newly-engaged Dale (Day) is being sexually harassed by his sociopathic boss (Aniston). When things become too unbearable, they decide their bosses would be better off dead and bumble around in search of a hitman. They end up with Jamie Foxx, who has a hilarious moniker that I will let you discover for yourself when you watch the movie.

As far as comedies go, there is nothing particularly new or unique about this one. However, it is a solid film, filled with raunchy humor and efficient pacing. The jokes come fast and furious, delivered with precise comic timing from lovable characters. Charlie Day pretty much plays himself, which I can't get enough of, and the other two are in their usual good form. The movie breaks no new ground, and (save for one shocking death) is fairly predictable throughout, but does what it sets out to do admirably well. I laughed my way through this movie and enjoyed every moment of it; what more can I say?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1499658/

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows (2011)

4/5

Guy Ritchie's sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, is an entertaining action flick that fails to engage the audience in the same way that the original did. The plot centers around Professor Moriarty (Harris), who has been planting bombs in government buildings to incite fear and anarchy. Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Law) must figure out his plan and stop him before he starts a world war. The plot itself doesn't matter, however, because this is just a summer blockbuster that was released 5 months too late. Ritchie (or his screenwriter) has eliminated the complex, flawed characters from the first film and instead replaced them with hero archetypes without any unique characteristics. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his creations are nowhere to be found in this film. Just Guy Ritchie and his eye for cool.

This is a solid action movie, exciting and enthralling, dripping with slick humor and slicker style, but there's no substance. Just like the popcorn you eat while watching, nothing on the screen satisfies. It's just empty calories that never seem to fill you up. But this is some of the best popcorn I've had this year.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/

New Year's Eve (2011)

2/5

New Year's Eve is the bland, uninspired follow-up to Garry Marshall's mediocre Valentine's Day. There is no story to speak of. There are instead about a dozen trite, overused blueprints of ideas that are empty and meaningless. They are all instead vehicles for the two dozen stars to be themselves on camera and try to make money without doing any acting whatsoever. The movie over-relies on archetypes, movie tropes, and celebrity status. Lea Michele sings. Jon Bon Jovi sings. Robert De Niro plays a gruff old guy with regret. And Sofia Vergara plays a sexy lady with an accent. It's the same thing we've seen over and over again. (And Sofia Vergara was significantly funnier on Conan than in this movie.)

The best thing about this movie is the Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer storyline. It had cutesy charm, much more than I expected. But even their portion of the movie lacked motivation and backstory. The other thing I liked about it is a line Josh Duhamel says (although he is in fact just quoting his dead father, and it seems to come out of nowhere): "What would you do today if you knew you wouldn't fail? Now go out and do it." Despite all the ridiculous star power in this movie, it holds no power and deserves only two stars. Avoid.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598822/

We Bought A Zoo (2011)

3/5

Cameron Crowe's We Bought A Zoo is an upbeat, sugar-coated movie about a family that is falling apart after a recent death. Similar to The Descendants in plot, Crowe's film takes the more saccharine, family-friendly approach. Benjamin Mee (Damon) buys a new house that doubles as a zoo for his 7-year-old daughter Rosie (Jones), after being forced to move because of his son's poor behavior in school. As part of the contract for buying the property, he reopens the zoo and invests heavily, both financially and emotionally, in the animals and zookeepers (Johansson).

The problem with this film is that it's more of a performance than a realistic portrayal. Even though it was based on a true story, it feels less believable than The Descendants. This is not a fault of the acting, which is absolutely superb. The problem is the script, which bludgeons "take-home point" after "take-home point" instead of focusing on the people. It has a number of subplots that feel both unnecessary and strained. When it tries to wrap up all its various storylines into neat little packages by the end of the film, it just feels like it has more endings than The Lord of the Rings. The movie is enjoyable and entertaining--it's not a bad movie by any means--but I just wish it spent more time exploring the motivations and reactions of the characters instead of the intricacies of running a zoo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389137/