Reviews

He's Just Not That Into You is an intriguing example of how a not-so-great movie could wind up being #1 at the box office. The trailer makes it look like a decent chick flick focusing mostly on its likable cast of familiar faces. Before the movie was released, actually, a hilarious video emerged on YouTube with three of the movie's leading men, Bradley Cooper, Kevin Connolly, and Justin Long acting out a list of 10 girlie movie clichés that won't be in the movie. I have to hand it to the promotion team behind this film. Those advertisers were geniuses. They managed to get people interested so that way even if critics slammed the movie, at least they make some money in the process.

The funny thing is, this movie needed those chick flick clichés. Desperately. Without the clichés, the whole thing comes off rather depressing. Movies are meant to be a way to take one's mind off the stresses of daily life. What He's Just Not That Into You does is try heroically to be a movie of substance when it just, well, isn't. It plunges the viewer into over two hours of people just standing around and talking about all the problems in their life. Sure, relationships have their pitfalls, but while focusing on the bad aspects of them all along, it makes the inevitable happy ending feel like dry swallowing a pill. If the filmmakers hadn't spent the first three-quarters of the movie trying to impress the idea of the "anti-chick flick" then the final act where everything sort of slides into place (remarkably chick-flick-like) wouldn't feel so backwards.

The main inhibitor throughout was the adorable Ginnifer Goodwin forcing the "cute, ditzy girl" act down people's throats as the principle character Gigi. Seriously, did the she lose a bet or something? She was great in 2005's Walk the Line, and now, for some reason, she's reduced to playing the love child of Elle Woods and Cher Horowitz. I suppose, to her credit, she was just trying her best with the source material. The screenwriters, it seems, wrote her character in circles. Just when she seemed to be losing her half-witted bowl-of-sugar sweetness and was close to behaving like an actual human being, she'd go right back to her old ways and make some other catastrophically bad decision. It was so hard to believe that any guy could possibly be "into her" that the amount of dates she goes on are simply ridiculous. Any person who is that incredibly out of touch with reality would, conceivably, have so many issues relating to the opposite sex that they would never date.

As for the legions of other characters that bog down the heavy laden storyline, there are just so damn MANY of them that it's impossible for anyone to truly develop outside of superficial qualities. I would've liked to see far more of Drew Barrymore who's presence in heavily clichéd chick flicks has usually left me contented, and much less of the criminally overrated Scarlet Johanssen who manages to look even more like a Marilyn Monroe pop-art piece and less like a living, breathing person in every movie she stars in. Justin Long and Kevin Connolly, both blessed with boyish charm, don't get enough screen time to make any kind of impression. Jennifer Connelly's Jeanine is the most dull character in an already boring script (every time the poor girl was on screen I wanted to open a vein), and Bradley Cooper, typecast once again as the selfish, unprincipled guy is convincing enough, but, once again, the script is so flat that even his comedic chops can't lift it off the ground.

Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston play the token married couple struggling with opposite ideas of commitment. For the life of me, I can't remember their characters names and that's my biggest problem with them. By the time their troubles come to fruition, nobody cares too much anymore. Admittedly, I enjoyed their subplot more than any of the other ones because it was genuinely sweet and seemed the least hackneyed of the other plot lines Basically, there's just one (or two…or three…or four) too many characters to possibly invest in all of them. The movie also seems to flip back and forth between drama and comedy, which gives the viewer no time to get into a mindset. The filmmakers did a terrible job of utilizing some of the natural charms and comedic ability of several of the actors (namely, Barrymore, Long, Connolly, and Aniston), which left all of them looking out of place.

My grade: C+

Any movie that's over two and a half hours long is going to be difficult to form an opinion on because there's so much material to consider. In other movies where characters might undergo changes in the course of two weeks or even just an evening, the characters in this movie go through an entire lifetime of trials and tribulations and it has to be compressed into less than three hours. Naturally, this was a complicated film to tackle, and I have to say, director David Fincher managed to pull so much complex material together into a tidy fantasy. Benjamin Button is the story of the title character, Benjamin, who is born under "unusual circumstances." Born as a sickly, old man, Ben ages backwards and gets younger on the outside as he advances in years. His "childhood" is his old age and his brittle bones and frail external appearances isolate him from the rest of the world. Right from the beginning, it seems the wisdom of adulthood and eventual mental depletion will come hand in hand with the outward appearance of a child. It's something never before seen on film, and it's fascinating to watch Benjamin's life progress, ultimately, backwards.

The cinematography itself is gorgeous. The different time periods are presented in such a squeaky-clean manner that the worst actors in the world could be put in front of the camera and the movie would still be beautiful. The thing that makes this story so special is its message and its honest, sincere performances. The acting, which is humble yet moving, makes the movie not only superficially attractive, but also emotionally deep.

The recognizable Brad Pitt everyone knows doesn't appear until over halfway through the film, but his acting has matured so much since his early cinematic adventures that it's hard to believe it's him hobbling around in the beginning. The reason Pitt probably wasn't acknowledged so much for his excellent portrayal is that the character of Benjamin isn't so much a scenery chewer as he is a mild-mannered, regular guy who's trying to make his way in the world. Benjamin is relatively soft-spoken, but Pitt's performance manages to command attention.

Cate Blanchett, in my opinion, was criminally ignored this past award season. Blanchett has proved herself an actor with incredible versatility having played such historical characters as Queen Elizabeth I (Elizabeth) and even Bob Dylan (I'm Not There). As Benjamin's love interest, Daisy, she dances her way through the film with grace and poise. I'd go so far as to call her performance perfect. The character of Daisy is written as someone who's so remarkably beautiful and sweet that it's hard to believe she's real. I can't imagine anyone playing that part as well as Blanchett did. She's unreal in her surface qualities, but she still makes it possible for the audience to grow attached to Daisy.

The message of Benjamin Button is clear: a lifetime of struggle is worth it if one can obtain true love and just a few moments of bliss. Although Benjamin's life is extraordinary and beyond any of most of our reach, the underlying theme of appreciating life (no matter what the circumstances) is something that audiences will be able to grasp. The movie may leave some a bit depressed and forlorn about the inevitable demise of its two main characters (the final act is not without its heart-wrenching moments) but the purpose of the film is more than just its characters, it's the message that each person should take away from it. Fincher takes on a heavy subject matter and makes it accessible to the average person while simultaneously raising the bar in epic storytelling.

My grade: A-

Revolutionary Road is probably most known for its long awaited reunion of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. The duo last met in 1997 on a doomed cruise ocean liner in the phenomenally famous blockbuster Titanic. Ironically enough, in 2008, the sinking ship in this situation is their marriage. Through a series of violent arguments and morally questionable behavior, Frank and April Wheeler play the exact opposites of Jack and Rose. Instead of being driven mad with affection for each other, they are stuck in an unhappy relationship being driven mad by all the restrictions that their stagnant lifestyle imposes on them.

Trapped in the confines of 1950s suburbia, the Wheelers are living with their children in a quiet little house on a quiet little street. April stays at home and Frank goes to the office. Every day, though, things progress more and more into disillusion as the two start to wonder where their hopes and dreams went. Their lives have been restricted to boundaries of their seemingly picture-perfect life, but on the inside, the strains of commitment and ennui have weakened their relationship significantly. The film is somewhat of a mockery of how we are all forced to hide our problems and put on the old dog-and-pony show to make us look nice on the outside, while behind closed doors there are struggles no one can imagine. Things start looking up for the Wheelers when April suggests that they move to Paris and finally do what they've always wanted to do. An unexpected pregnancy, though, prevents them from going and so begins a slow, downward spiral that's painful but fascinating to watch.

The performances of Kate and Leo are arguably the strongest of each of their careers. There's, objectively, nothing to criticize about them. So much pain and emotion flies between them that just watching the Wheelers exchange words is exhausting. Even though their characters are constantly hurling insults at each other, there's still an innate chemistry between them that makes them mesmerizing to watch on screen. DiCaprio's performance all but brought tears to my eyes as the husband who tries his very best to support his family, but is fed up with his mind-numbing job. His tense relationship with his counterpart only makes him all the more stressed and genuinely confused about how to fix the situation. April seems like more of the free spirit and although Frank cares for her, their values are starkly different. One particular scene that especially moved me was after a particularly bad episode with April, he comes downstairs to find her calmly cooking breakfast as though nothing even happened the night before. In response to April slinging an "I hate you" at him the previous night, he just looks at her and asks—something to the effect of—"you don't hate me, right?" It's just a few, simple words, but they succeed in being the most poignant words spoken throughout the whole movie. It's great acting, and DiCaprio does not disappoint.

Kate Winslet has never been under appreciated as an actor, and rightfully so. Every movie she's in, romantic, dramatic, funny, what have you, she always plays the part. She has mind-blowing versatility, and Revolutionary Road is no exception. April would be easy to make into the villain. After all, she's upstaging her family in pursuit of a pipe dream, she has unrealistic expectations of her husband, and she's overzealous (arguably, to a fault) when it comes to the chase of said dreams. Winslet, though, is able to make a sympathetic plight for April. Although a severely flawed character, she's still humanized and relatable. Not to mention, she's a powerhouse screen presence and she's so tapped in emotionally to her part that it's riveting.

The general consensus among critics and audiences is the not-so-cheery ending. One can't help knowing that something bad is coming considering the gloomy tone of the whole storyline, but thanks to DiCaprio and Winslet, the depressing plot is still watchable. Mostly due to the actors, Revolutionary Road may not have been a hit during awards season (whoever is responsible for DiCaprio not earning an Oscar nomination should be locked up), but I was glad I saw it. The directing (by Winslet's husband, Sam Mendes) is precise enough to allow the actors to do what they do best and the source material (the novel by Richard Yates) is nothing to sneeze at. Hopefully, Kate and Leo will reunite in the near future to deliver the same gripping performances as this one.

My grade: B+

The Secret Life of Bees, based on the novel by Sue Monk Kidd, tells the story of a young Southern girl named Lily (Dakota Fanning) who, when going on the run from her abusive father (Paul Bettany) with her housekeeper Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson), stumbles into the lives of three extraordinary African-American women—August, May, and June Boatwright (Queen Latifah, Sophie Okonedo, and Alicia Keys, respectively) who take her in. Coincidentally, a picture of a black Madonna that Lily finds amongst her late mother's belongings happens to be the same picture that is on a jar of honey that Lily sees in town when she first takes off. The honey jar comes from the Boatwrights who are beekeepers. Lily decides that, in addition to finding a safe place to stay, she may be closer to finding out more about her mother.

The Secret Life of Bees has a natural charm to it even when the story gets a bit muddled and drawn out. The actors, even the lesser talented ones, have so much charisma and likability, that they make the movie very undemanding on the viewer. Considering the heavy subject matter addressed (racism, depression, child abuse) the characters have a way of easing the tension and making what could be a very depressing movie light-hearted and sweet. The relationship that develops between Lily and the Boatwrights is genuine and doesn't look at all forced.

The Boatwright sisters are at the heart of this movie. Queen Latifah gives such a motherly performance, I felt like I could just curl up and have her read me bedtime stories. The only word I can think of to describe what she brought to the screen is warmth. Alicia Keys, on the other hand, has a more difficult job. As August's sister, June, in first meeting her, she comes across as, well, cold. Her relationship with Lily develops very slowly so her character has to go through a personality change without looking too contrived. Sophie Okonedo gives the best performance, technically, as the overly sentimental and socially inept May; although because of her unique circumstances, she is, ironically, the hardest character to relate to.

Dakota Fanning has officially given back her child-actor card in my opinion. It's easy to make fun of her "adult trapped in a kids body" mannerisms (see: Saturday Night Live: "The Dakota Fanning Show") but now that she's gotten older, instead of coming off as trying to grow up too fast, she's moved on to playing "wise beyond her years" characters. As Lily, her character isn't written as anything remarkable, but Fanning is very meticulous in her acting skills. She manages to hold her own even in the most emotionally charged scenes and doesn't make it look like she's trying too hard. It's a perfect choice for making the transition between child star and actor, because it's not a dark role, but it's serious enough to not be dismissed as a syrupy chick-flick. Paul Bettany is award worthy as Lily's violent, misguided father, T-Ray. With the snap of a finger, he can make the change between aggressiveness and sentimentality. Towards the beginning of the film where his words and actions towards his daughter mostly border on sadism, he makes the viewers loathe him deeply. When the audience learns the back-story behind his behavior, though, all of a sudden he's pathetic and everyone pities him. Jennifer Hudson proves that her 2006 Oscar for Dreamgirls was not a fluke. She keeps up with the acting vets quite effortlessly. What I've noticed about Hudson's acting is that every time she plays a character, the audience seems to learn more about her as an actual person rather than a screen actor. In Dreamgirls she's spunky and feisty, and in Bees she's affectionate but strong-willed. The Secret Life of Bees is a truly enjoyable movie. I know it sounds cheesy, but I laughed and I cried. The source material the filmmakers had to work with is great and it makes for a very inspirational film about staying the course, finding love in life, and helping others. It takes the viewer back to another era in our country when repression was common, but so was determination and courage. It reminds us all of the power of films in their ability to look at the past through the eyes of someone who was there and recount both the good and bad times of history.

My grade: B+

Doubt could easily be dismissed as an Oscar-bait movie. An argument could be made that people are just distracted by the star-studded cast. This movie, however, is a testimony to how a performance driven film can be powerful, have substance, and hold its own against other, more exciting plot lines and visual effects. I've come to admire a movie that can stick to the script with no frills and Doubt surprised me in that it kept my attention all the way through with nothing but excellent character acting and a mystery.

Sr. Aloysius (Meryl Streep) plays a hard-tact nun with a strict obedience policy. When she learns from Sr. James (Amy Adams) about a possible odd occurrence between the parish priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and the school's first black student, Donald Miller, Sr. Aloysius embarks on a crusade to prove Father Flynn's guilt. She has almost no proof whatsoever, but she has fervor and total conviction and she's convinced herself that nothing will stand in her way of doing the right thing. Flynn, the church's new, young priest has a substantial argument to confirm that he is completely blameless for any suspicions. Each side has a convincing stance…but is he guilty or isn't he? The sparks fly from the confrontations that happen between the two powerhouses of Streep and Hoffman. Their characters are so easy to make into villains but each portrays such strong convictions toward the greater good that it is near impossible to decide which is wrong. Streep is an absolute force of nature. Her portrayal of Aloysius is one of unchecked authority. In order to play a woman who nobody would dare question (lest they have a death wish), you must be believable, and Streep is purely authentic. Hoffman, too, blew me away. I can't imagine a more difficult person to portray, but he managed to pull off one of the most original performances I've ever seen.

In such an emotionally charged film, there also needs to be a strong protagonist. In this case, that role belongs to Sr. James, played in all her sweet, naïve glory by Adams.

The point in the movie in which the story fully rounds itself out is the confrontation between Sr. Aloysius and Mrs. Miller (Viola Davis). With a mere 12 minutes of screen time, Davis expels an incredible flood of emotion with careful restraint. Her performance is heart wrenching and beautiful at the same time.

I've noticed that some critics complain that the story lacks a big conclusion considering the heavy subject matter, but I think the final confrontation between Aloysius and Flynn is something of a grand finale. It tells you and I, as viewers, that we're pretty much never going to know who is blameworthy. Both of them will not budge and the story comes to a screeching halt. Ending the movie the way they did end it was a brave choice. They didn't simply hand us the answer to the main question, they allow us to figure it out for ourselves.

My grade: A-

In my opinion, if you're going to review a film, you have to understand what message the director is trying to convey. In Oliver Stone's biopic, W., Stone could be suggesting a number of things. What I gleaned from watching this movie was that apparently we should all feel sorry for Dubya. He's just a simple man who was manipulated by one too many bad guys (I'm looking at you, Cheney) into turning a bad situation worse.

It's difficult to take an objective standpoint when watching a political film, especially one that's bold enough to take a controversial stab at a sitting president. Everyone has a political bias, whether they like it or not, including filmmakers. There's a clear, untapped bias in the making of this movie, which is a left-wing slant on what really transpires behind the scenes of right-wing politics. I expected a portrayal of a childlike man-boy who stumbled into the most powerful position in the free world and that's exactly what I got.

For some reason, I think that Stone thinks he can get away with throwing together sloppily a bunch of flashbacks amidst war-room scenes and call it a movie. Obviously the subject is controversial, the man is controversial, and the liberalism that goes into making a movie about a Republican is controversial. Controversy, however, is the only thing W. seems to have going in its favor. The pacing is too slow, the acting is too theatrical, and the script is full of clichés and clunky, awkward dialogue.

Josh Brolin who plays "W" himself makes a valiant effort to carry the movie but alas, the character is just too tough to portray convincingly. Like it or not, George W. Bush is more of a caricature than a human being in the media. By no means am I attacking the man himself, I'm just saying that it's tough to give life to a man that the world already knows so well for having certain superficial qualities. Getting the accent and the squinting to look realistic isn't enough to make me want to sit through two hours of political jargon and family squabbles. Thandie Newton's Condoleeza Rice is unintentionally funny—it's more of an SNL parody than anything else. The only person who seems interested in being taken seriously in this movie is Elizabeth Banks who gives the already very classy Laura Bush genuine warmth and authenticity. Richard Dreyfuss frankly seemed to be having a blast playing Dick Cheney (a man who apparently does nothing but lurk in the shadows) but, once again, his performance lacks a certain depth. For such great actors like Brolin and Dreyfuss, I'm saddened to see a performance reduced to simply mannerisms and qualities we've seen a hundred times before.

All in all, people will be interested in seeing this movie because of the controversial subject matter, but most will be left disappointed. The movie never quite hits a middle ground between satire and seriousness, which leaves the viewer left confused and empty-handed.

My grade: D

First of all, let me start off by saying that I had never sat through an entire movie in 3D before, and it was kind of fun. Of course, I was swatting at things for the first ten minutes, but after I got used to it, it was an enjoyable experience. DreamWorks made a dynamite decision by choosing to release their latest installment in 3D, because although there were some decent laughs, the movie mostly relied on visual effects to keep the viewer interested.

Monsters begins with the protagonist, Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), on the day of her wedding to her pompous, weatherman fiancé Derek (Paul Rudd). Right before the ceremony, a freak accident involving a massive falling object (evidently carrying a substance called "quantonium") pummels Susan into the ground. The quantonium has a bizarre effect on Susan, making her grow 50 feet tall and inexplicably turning her hair white. Understandably frightened to death by the giant woman, the government tranquilizes her and she awakens to find herself in a secure bunker. There, she meets an array of other creatures, appropriately called monsters, and befriends them. First, there's B.O.B, a blue, goop-like substance (Seth Rogen), whose handicap of not having a brain actually makes him more adorable than anything else. Then there's Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), a brainy yet mad scientist whose own crazy experiments led to his transformation into bug form. Will Arnett voices a half-fish/half-lizard hybrid named Link that has a curious obsession with weight lifting. Then, topping it all off, there's Insectasaurus, a massive caterpillar-like creature who, sadly, cannot talk.

When an alien probe lands on Earth, the President (the incomparable Stephen Colbert) and his advisors decide to release the monsters in order to take on whatever has just invaded American soil. The creature aboard the probe, a slimy, tentacled Martian named Gallaxar (voiced by Rainn Wilson, who's so clearly having a blast), has come to Earth to obtain the quantonium in order to create a clone army of himself to take over the universe. In exchange for defeating the outer-space invader, the monsters will get their freedom.

Although it had its fair share of laughs, one of the problems I had with Monsters was that the humor was very topical, but about a year too late. Colbert's President was humorous and well intended, but his general incompetence thwarted him at every turn. Mostly, his advisors just used any opportunity to manipulate him. Does that sound like anyone you know? Maybe a certain president that just left office? What I'm saying is, topical humor is fine, but when it's not relevant anymore, it just becomes stale. Another issue I had was that (and I've noticed this in a couple other DreamWorks movies) the reliance on big name stars to do voice work makes the filmmakers a bit more lax on character development. Admittedly, a primary reason I even wanted to see this movie was that I'm a fan of Seth Rogen and Stephen Colbert, so I wanted to hear them. Most of the voices used in this movie are recognizable because of how popular the actor is, not because there's anything particularly distinctive about them. I remember hearing a joke at the Oscars this year in which Jack Black quipped that he'll do a DreamWorks film (he recently voiced the title character in Kung Fu Panda) only to see the prize go to Pixar come awards season. Well, Mr. Black, DreamWorks movies are usually just as impeccably animated as Pixar but all the big name actors in the world won't captivate audiences if there's no creativity. In the last few years, DreamWorks has come out with, among others, Shrek (1, 2, and 3), Horton Hears a Who!, Bolt, and Kung Fu Panda. The first Shrek is a bad example because that wound up being one of the most original and funny animated movies I've ever seen, but when you compare the latter three with Pixar's most recent installments of Cars, Ratatouille, and WALL-E, there aren't nearly as many big names in the credits, but they also have three things DreamWorks doesn't have—Academy Awards. I think the creative team at DreamWorks needs to kick it up a notch if they're going to have a shot at their first Best Animated Feature Film award since Shrek. That means no more sequels (I'm looking at you Madagascar 2 and Shrek the Third). Also, try and hire some less popular but more talented voice actors. Rogen and Colbert can stay, though, because they make me laugh. To wrap up, Monsters vs. Aliens was captivating in 3D, but lacked finesse in the storytelling. The monsters (Dr. Cockroach, B.O.B, and Link) provided for most of the humor, but it wasn't quite enough to make it stick out in my mind as a truly hilarious movie. As I was leaving the theater with a friend of mine, she pretty much summed it up for me. "That was cute," she said. "I'm glad I saw that." Need I say more?

My grade: B-