Review: The Fatal Encounter

105. The Fatal Encounter
A bonus film, one I didn't include in last week's preview, as I did not realize it was showing. Apparently it only received a very limited U.S. release in 25 theatres or so.

It can be a very fine line between a film being luxuriously paced (good) and it being slowly paced (bad). This film fell on the wrong side of that line. It's the second time this year I have nodded off during a movie in theatres. I was fine for what was probably the last two thirds, but the first third had me really struggling to stay awake.

The film chronicles the 24 hours leading up to an assassination attempt on the Korean King. The film's major problem is that it spreads itself too thin. In an attempt to tell the story from the perspectives of several characters, it jumps back and forth between storylines frequently. This makes it hard for any individual storyline to build up momentum.

I'm not going to comment much more on the film since I did miss some of it, but I will say that it was extremely predictable, even when it tried not to be. There were some twists near the end that, in spite of missing some of the early exposition, I could see coming from a mile away. The film had its moments. Some of the battle scenes were well done and accompanied by a decent score, but they came too little too late. A merciless editor who could have trimmed the extensive fat of the film might have been able to make it a more watchable, if still unremarkable film.

May 30 Weekly Preview

This is a pretty slow week, with only two major releases, and no new smaller films opening. The "classics" offering for the week is "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I don't know if I'll end up going to it--it depends what my schedule looks like on the days it is showing. I really like the film, but I saw it when it was a part of the "classics series" last year, and therefore don't feel as much of a need to get to it this time.

A Million Ways to Die in the West- A comedy. I've heard some not-so-great things about it, saying that it goes on too long and beats some jokes to death. My guess is that I'll find it somewhat funny, but think it could've been better.

Maleficent- I've seen a few trailers, but they still don't give a clear idea of the approach the film is taking to its retelling or "reimagining" of the Disney Sleeping Beauty story. That might be a good thing, since learning the approach while watching the film could add to the sense of discovery. I'll predict that it will be reasonably good, but that's just a shot it the dark. I really don't know what to expect.

Review: Blended

104. Blended
As I predicted, this movie got trashed by the critics. As I also predicted, I personally enjoyed it, but I did not predict that I would enjoy it as much as I did.

It's not much use for me to spend time defending the film's humor. Comedy is such a subjective genre--something either makes you laugh or it doesn't. You can engage in extensive critique in an effort to determine why you did or didn't laugh during a particular film, but that's really not necessary. All that really matters is: did you laugh? In this movie I did. Quite a bit. Not all of its jokes were exceedingly clever, but it frequently managed to set up situations with comedic potential and mined them for all the humor it could. Even most of the jokes that didn't work so well bordered on being stereotypical bad "Dad" jokes. Smirking and shaking your head at their (deliberate?) lameness made for entertainment in itself.

The film does have a few problems. The set-up takes a little too long. I was expecting the main plot to get started sooner, but the film was a bit overindulgent in giving itself too many scenes to set up the characters. Many of the scenes were funny, though, which makes me more inclined to give them a break. If something makes me laugh, I'll give it a lot of leeway. The film's other problem is that some of the child characters are too annoying. The three girls of Sandler's character are fine, but both the boys of Barrymore's character are really annoying, especially the older one, and especially at the beginning of the film. Characters can be written so that they are both annoying and funny, but in this case the characters were only annoying. They got better as the film went on (the younger one in particular), but the older kid never truly clicked. I don't know if it was the actor's fault or the director's (perhaps a bit of both), but while every other character attempted at least a bit of nuance, he always went with the most obvious over the top line readings and reaction shots.

These few problems aside, I really enjoyed the film. It follows a formula, but it doesn't try to pretend otherwise. There are enough funny scenes with just enough heart thrown in to make for a pleasant movie experience. Granted, there's probably not much more here than you'll find on a decent sitcom, but like a decent sitcom, it was a lot of fun. For the average moviegoer, this is probably one to wait until it shows up on cable, but it should be a fun watch once it does.

Review: The Immigrant

103. The Immigrant
In my preview for the week, I predicted that this film might be good, though not necessarily enjoyable. Unfortunately, I was only right about the second part. The film isn't terrible, and I never quite suffered from unbearable boredom while watching it, but it never got all that interesting, or anywhere near what I would consider "good".

The scenic design and set decoration are both very good, establishing the early 1920s time period well. It often felt like the film was deliberately attempting to evoke the flashback portions of "The Godfather Part II". It may have taken it a bit too far with the desaturated sepia hues, but overall it sold the time period well.

If only the world created through this design could have been populated with more realistic characters. On its surface the plot should come across as quite dramatic, but to me it often rang hollow. It follows Marion Cotillard's character, who arrives at Ellis Island as an immigrant and finds a not so benevolent benefactor in Joaquin Phoenix, who ushers her into a life of prostitution in exchange for his help in getting her and her sister into the country. Jeremy Renner shows up later as Phoenix's cousin, and a love triangle forms between the three. My major problem is that many of the actions the characters took during the film felt scripted--they didn't seem to come from any logical place. I don't think this is the actors' fault. They often seem to be giving everything they have in service of an underwritten script. Phoenix gets the worst of it, as his character undergoes what feels like a very forced transformation near the end of the film. He sells it as best he can, but it never rang true to me.

There's little in the film that is patently offensive in its badness. It just seems too set on telling a specific story that was rigidly thought out before being written. No allowances seem to have been made during the writing to let the script change from its original vision, making it feel like it's contorting itself to fit a preordained structure. It feels artificial.

Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past

102. X-Men: Days of Future Past
This was a good, entertaining superhero film, but there was nothing that made it stand head and shoulders above other films in the genre.

In my prediction before seeing the film, I said that its combination of multiple casts and time periods could either make it seem pretentious or elevate it above other superhero films, depending on how well it was pulled off. It ended up doing neither. The characters from the future send Wolverine's (Hugh Jackman) consciousness back into his younger body in an attempt to avert their dark future. The film is primarily set in the "past" time period, with most of future scenes feeling largely irrelevant once they've served their purpose of setting up the story. By the very end, they are actually completely irrelevant, as the characters are trying to maintain Wolverine's connection to the past even once he has done everything important he's going to do in that time period.

Like many films that deal with time travel and have thought out the intricacies of the concept, this was a fun film. It never got much past that, though. The characters and their interactions were believable enough, but they rarely did anything particularly unexpected, and their motivations were often skin deep. It seems to have been left up to the actors to take the competent if thin writing and use their skill to imbue their characters with emotional heft. Some fared better than others. I don't expect great character work in a superhero film, and my criticisms are more aimed at some excessive praise I've seen the film get than at any true deficiency in the film itself. The action scenes are well done. The final sequence drags a little bit, but not too badly. It is much more to the point than the protracted finale of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", but not quite as well contained as the end of "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". I can forgive this, since it's understandable they would have a few more characters they'd have to follow, given the plurality implicit in the title.

Overall, this is a typical summer blockbuster. I recommend it if you want a fun time at the movies. It's better than a lot of superhero films, but it's also not a must see.

Review: Back to the Future

101. Back to the Future
I knew I would enjoy seeing this in theatres, since I've already seen the movie a few times in the past. As I predicted, I don't have much to say about it other than that.

When I saw "Spartacus" last week, it was a movie I had not seen for a very long time, and I felt there were things I had to say about it that were worth discussion--how it was the product of a bygone era, and how the parts of the film related to that served to make it a more impressive viewing experience. I hadn't seen "Back to the Future" for several years, but I believe it had been more recent than "Spartacus". It's a lot of fun with clever writing and humorous moments, but it's been out for almost thirty years. There's no particular aspect of the film that I feel I could add anything to the conversation by discussing in depth.

Instead of digging into why I enjoyed it, I'll just say that I enjoyed it and leave it at that. My Dad went to see it with me, and had a good time as well. He said that this may have been his first time seeing it since the 1980s. I think that's often the best way to enjoy classic comedies. Long breaks between viewings allow you to recall the general plot, but be surprised and delighted by the jokes all over again.

Review: Chef

100. Chef
As I'd predicted, I enjoyed this film. It didn't have as many of the problems that I'd feared. The very ending might have gone a bit too far in an effort for a happy ending and come off as a bit too on the nose, but in other ways the film managed to avoid falling into cliché.

One concern I had going into the film was that it might be too blatantly based on Jon Favreau's experience working on "Iron Man 2" and the way he felt treated by the Marvel Studios brass. While there are obvious comparisons that can be inferred by watching this film, it also manages to stand on its own to the extent that I likely would not have been aware of the connections had I not been looking for them. The story follows Favreau's character, a chef, who gets a bad review for making the kind of food the owner of his restaurant wants him to make instead of new, more creatively fulfilling recipes that he wants to cook. If the film is indeed a metaphor for Hollywood, it works, making the larger theme not about either food or movies, but art in general. It also makes it interesting when you can view a film as its own thing, but also in a meta way. Much like Favreau's character goes back to his roots by opening up a food truck where he cooks what he wants, Favreau himself is doing a similar thing, making this smaller movie instead of another blockbuster.

Near the end of the film, there was one part I particularly liked. Much of the movie dealt with the main character growing closer to his son. I was waiting for the moment when events would conspire to put him in a situation where he dramatically let his son down, undoing all of that growth, only for him to then make a grand gesture or sacrifice to make everything better again. The film doesn't avoid the idea of this cliché entirely, but it does handle it in a much more subtle and realistic manner. I wasn't forced to roll my eyes at the screenplay's machinations, since everything felt tonally consistent and was portrayed in a low key way.

Whether this film ends up being particularly memorable remains to be seen. My guess is that in a month or so, if asked about it, I'll probably shrug and say that it was pretty good. It has some nice moments of comedy, and the character relationships are well drawn. The characters themselves, however, are often a little more than archetypes, but not a whole lot more. This makes them easily identifiable and relatable to an audience, but also, long term, makes them harder to distinguish from similar characters in other films. It makes for an entertaining time, but maybe not a memorable one.

Review: Fed up

99. Fed Up
The title of this "film" accurately describes how I felt about it only a few minutes in. It is dangerous and irresponsible, more concerned with furthering a liberal political agenda than taking a genuine look at the issues it tries to raise.

The "film's" first issue of business is to fully dismiss the concept of personal responsibility when it comes to health and fitness. They have so-called experts flat-out saying that the idea of eating less and exercising more to lose weight is ridiculous. What do they suggest, I wonder? Eating more and exercising less?

They act as if every point they make is some groundbreaking discovery they have made. Some foods are healthier than others? Too much sugar can be bad for you? Wow. I had no idea.

Predictably, it all leads up to an attempt to vilify food companies for trying to sell their products. They are compared to cigarette manufacturers and all but given sinister handlebar moustaches to twirl. One of the interview subjects involved in this pile on is, unsurprisingly, the self-righteous and self-appointed King of Nanny State proponents, Michael Bloomberg.

At the end of the "film", a list is provided of all the corporations and individuals who declined to be interviewed in an obvious attempt to shame them. I think they were wise not to grant interviews to filmmakers with such a transparent agenda. One of the few people with a differing viewpoint who did allow himself to be interviewed got screwed over by editing. When he's asked a question, the filmmakers delight in showing him spend a few seconds trying to find the words to answer it with. Quite tellingly, they cut away before his actual answer. Why, I wonder? Did he make a point they found themselves unable to refute? I'm sure that some of the other interview subjects who were well behaved and toed the party line stumbled over their words once or twice, too, but those moments were conveniently left on the cutting room floor.

This blatantly manipulative, foolish hatchet job has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. From the questionable statistics to Katie Couric's condescending voiceover that sounds like she's talking to a two-year-old (say goodbye to any journalistic integrity you had left, by the way), it is absolutely terrible from start to finish. Using my Movie Pass, I got to see it for free, so the money for the ticket didn't come out of my pocket, but from the Pass. Still, I sincerely regret that my buying a ticket resulted in the filmmakers getting a single cent in profits.

As soon as it was over, I went to the Amish market next door and bought a cookies and cream donut just to spite them.

May 23 Weekly Preview

There are five films opening in local theatres today, and another film from the "classics series" that will be showing this Sunday and Wednesday. It's possible I won't get to all six films this week, but I'll try (I'd hoped to squeeze in a midnight showing tonight, but the Orioles game my Dad and I went to lasted 13 innings, putting an end to that idea). The films of this week, in no particular order, will be:

Chef- One of three smaller films opening at a theatre that tends to show some of the more limited release artistic films. I've heard this film is in some ways a metaphor for how Jon Favreau believes he was treated by Marvel Studios after the first "Iron Man" film came out. That might be a problem if his motivations as a filmmaker become too transparent. I anticipate liking the film, but fear it may have a few moments that are too heavy-handed and will detract a bit from the experience.

X-Men: Days of Future Past- The year's latest superhero film, but not the last. The X-Men films so far have been a mixed bag ("The Wolverine" is the only one aside from this I have yet to see). I think this film will be fun and have some good action set pieces. Their plan to feature a story utilizing both the cast from the original movies and the prequel "X Men: First Class" is ambitious. If done right, it could elevate the film beyond typical superhero fare. If not done right, it could make the film feel a bit pretentious in its overreach.

Fed-Up- The second of the three limited releases. A documentary about food. From the little research I've done into it, it appears to be about the fast food industry and whether the dietary guidelines people have been taught are valid. I have no way of predicting what I'll think of it.

The Immigrant- The third limited release. I don't know much about it, other than that it appears to be a serious drama. The kind of movie that, if you got the DVD from Netflix, might sit around for a while before you were in a mood to watch it. It will probably be a good film, though perhaps not particularly enjoyable. I'll try to get myself to anticipate it being boring to give it the benefit of lowered expectations.

Blended- The latest Adam Sandler comedy, a genre I'm not very familiar with. I predict that the critics will trash it, but that I'll enjoy myself, even if it's not objectively very good, or something that I'll remember well in a few days time.

Back to the Future- This weeks "classics" offering. I've already seen the film and enjoyed it, so I don't have much to say as far as my prediction, and I probably won't have much to say in my actual write-up.

Caught Up!

With yesterday's post, I have finally caught up with my movie reviews. Every film I've seen in theatres this year has been reviewed here.

Much like I've been doing recently, I plan to keep the focus of this blog on my movie reviews, and not spend as much time on my goals/other endeavors. I will probably occasionally post other things, but I anticipate them all having an entertainment related theme, like the times I've posted about "Hannibal" the television show (season finale this Friday!).

Now that I've caught up, I hope that my reviews can be more timely, going up as soon as possible after the film in question is released. I'm also thinking about trying to do a preview post each week where I list the films I'm planning to see, and maybe say a word or two about my expectations going into them. We'll see if I actually get around to doing that...

Review: Belle

98. Belle
I went into this film with some trepidation. Knowing that it dealt with matters of race in late 1700s England, I feared two hours of moral grandstanding about the evils of racism and slavery that would come across more as a sermon than a film. Fortunately, the film took a surprisingly nuanced approach to its subject matter and fully committed itself to telling a compelling story, only dipping its toe very slightly into moralistic grandiosity near the end.

The film follows a half-black girl, Dido (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), who is sent to live with her aristocratic Uncle and Aunt. Her unique station in life is explored as she grows up alongside her cousin, and both seek to find their place in the world, with much of the attention being given to finding matches in marriage. While the film, unavoidably, deals greatly with the way Dido is treated because of her mixed race heritage, it wisely does not limit itself to this, electing instead to take a wider look at social discrimination in general. We see several cases of discrimination based on money--the first born males tend to inherit most or all of the family wealth, leaving their siblings with far worse prospects when it comes to arranging a marriage. We see discrimination based on social class, as Dido's Uncle rejects a potential suitor for her because the man is the son of a vicar and thus beneath her station. At one point, her status as an illegitimate daughter is brought up as cause for social embarrassment as well, the implication being that it is as if not more of a social inconvenience than her race.

Instead of wallowing in the unfairness of the situation and filling the film with long monologues about how terrible all of these discriminations are, we instead get to see the characters try to overcome them. This is far more entertaining, moving, and memorable than the alternative. The film's foremost intent is to tell a story, not to put forward some sociopolitical agenda. It only veered from this ever so slightly near the end, and in that case it is more the musical cues I take issue with than the portrayal of the on-screen events themselves. In a triumphant moment for the characters, I felt that the music swelled just a little too much. The moment worked without it, but in reaching to manipulate an extra bit of emotion through the music, the filmmakers tipped their hand just a bit. As a general rule for background music, it's doing its job if it doesn't call attention to itself. Here, it did call attention to itself, and thus away from the scene.

That single moment aside, "Belle" is a fantastic costume drama. It features a thorough exploration of its subject, and managed to frame this exploration within the confines of a compelling story.

Review: Spartacus

97. Spartacus
The latest in the "classic films" series, and the longest film I've seen with my Movie Pass thus far, "Spartacus" is a great film that fills every minute of its three hour plus runtime with thrills and excitement. It is a shining example of the Old Hollywood Epic, a genre of films I fear we may never see again.

From the moment the film starts, it prepares you for a classic experience. The opening notes of bombastic music over the title card "Overture" is something we almost never see anymore, but the music really helped ease me into the film and it sets the tone nicely. I was surprised throughout the film by how much heavy lifting the music and subtle character moments were allowed to do. For a film about gladiators and rebellion, there were several scenes with minimal or no dialogue, especially early on. The actors (especially Kirk Douglas as Spartacus who, naturally, got the most attention) were given numerous opportunities to convey their characters emotions and desires through wordless scenes of discrete facial movements, and they took full advantage of these opportunities. Most of the early courtship between Spartacus and Varinia (Jean Simmons) is done this way. It makes for some nice character progression for Spartacus. As the film goes on and he begins leading the slave rebellion, his character is literally finding the voice he often lacked in earlier scenes.

The larger scenes, from one-on-one gladiatorial combat to full scale battles, are handled just as effectively as the quieter moments. There is something impressive about watching a film like this and knowing that everything you see happening was done for real. That's a feeling that, in todays age of computer generated effects, we may never get again. Spartacus's fight in the gladiator ring isn't nearly as fancy as some of today's elaborately choreographed fights, but it has much more weight to it as a result. Instead of relying on fancy camera angles and frequent cutting to ratchet up the pace, "Spartacus" lets us see the two men go at it with both their lives on the line. Even having seen the movie before and knowing what would happen, I still found much more tension in this scene than in most of today's fight scenes. Today, those scenes are too often about the choreography and trying to impress the audience with how fancy it can get, but here the emphasis was on the characters who were doing the fighting, making the stakes tangible and the scene exciting. The large scale scenes of battle and even just of Spartacus's army at camp are also incredibly impressive. They stand out today because of the sheer epic nature of the filmmaking. There are frequently hundreds, probably even thousands of people on screen at once. These aren't computer generated armies either, they're literally thousands of real people, each one costumed, armed, and sometimes charging into battle. This also helps to ground the film in a sense of reality, making it easy to connect with the epic story being told and with the characters involved.

The true brilliance of this film is how it balances small scale and large scale scenes flawlessly, knowing the right time and the right way to feature each. The film has a large number of important characters, and each one is given plenty of time to develop so that they don't feel like artificial constructs when it is time for them to fill their crucial roles in the story. There is literally nothing bad I can think of to say about this film. It certainly deserves its distinction as a classic.

One of my cats, Spartacus

Review: Million Dollar Arm

96. Million Dollar Arm
It should be pretty easy, even without seeing this movie, to tell whether or not it is for you. It fits comfortably into the Inspirational Disney Sports Movie genre, in some cases for better, in others for worse.

The story follows sports agent J.B. Bernstein (Jon Hamm) who, in a last ditch effort to save his agency from going under, attempts to find the first Major League Baseball player from India. After going to India and holding a competition to find his two prospects, he brings them back to Los Angeles, where their training begins. The film does not shy away from any opportunity to tug at the audience's heartstrings. Sometimes it works. Other moments are so transparent you can almost see the filmmakers working behind the scenes, trying to wring out every last ounce of tension or emotion they can.

The moments with Hamm's character work better than any others in the film. He is given the most to work with by the script, and does a good job portraying the archetype of the selfish yet ultimately likable man who learns how to be a better person. Yes, his character arc is cliched, and you know where it is going from the moment the film begins, but he plays it well. The deeper moments involving his character feel earned and are effective. The Indian characters don't fare quite as well. They have their moments, but the film goes back and forth a bit too much between treating them as real characters and targets of amusement. I understand the film's need to explore the "fish out of water" concept, but they take things a bit too over the top once or twice, making it harder to connect when they try to involve these characters in the bigger emotional moments. It doesn't torpedo the film by any means, and many of those moments still work, but some of them could have been a bit more effective.

If you've seen any of Disney's past sports films "based on a true story", you know about what to expect here. This film wasn't quite as good as some others in its genre, but it checks all the right boxes and does manage to satisfy.

Review: Godzilla

95. Godzilla
A decent popcorn flick that entertained me, but left me feeling hollow in regards to the human storyline it presented, "Godzilla" is the current representative of the "giant creatures fight each other in iconic locations" genre, at least until Transformers 4 comes out next month.

The large scale action scenes in the film are well done, which is truly no surprise. There would be no point to making a film like this if you weren't going to come through in that regard. The enormous size of the creatures (particularly Mr. Zilla) is well established, most effectively in shots that show just a small part of them, like a foot, next to large man-made objects. The skyscrapers unlucky enough to become collateral damage crumple as if they were made of tissue paper.

These brutal fights are a visual feast and the highlights of the film, but they could have carried more weight had they been placed in the context of a more accessible human story. As I see it, there were two ways to make the film's main storyline a better viewing experience. The first would have been to develop stronger characters. While the film has a very good cast, and each member of that cast acquits themselves well considering what they're given, most of the roles are written very thinly (and the few that are better written often end up getting the least screen time). The main plot thread follows Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Lieutenant with the Navy, as he tries to get home to his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and child in San Francisco before Godzilla and his Monster Frenemies arrive in the city. It was hard for me as an audience member to feel much tension in this set-up, as Taylor-Johnson and Olsen barely got to share a single scene together before the plot got rolling, leaving them without adequate time to establish a relationship to care about. The basic concept of a man trying to save his family is easily understandable, but works so much better if it is more than just a nebulous idea--we need to see what the protagonist has before we can worry about him losing it. The other way they could have made the storyline more accessible would have been to give the film a lighter tone. The film goes with the approach a lot of films have taken ever since "Batman Begins"--darker and grittier. Some elements of the film (the under-written characters among them) clash with this tone. For example, Brody's journey from Japan to San Francisco involves several stops along the way, each of them coincidentally involving an appearance by Godzilla or one of the other monsters. This is necessary to get more giant monster scenes into the film, but the coincidences become too much for a film going for "dark and gritty". In a film that took itself a little less seriously, I'd be quicker to shrug my shoulders and let them get away with it.

With the effective monster scenes, this film accomplishes what it needed to in order to be considered a success. It overreached too much in attempted to tell a serious-themed story alongside these scenes, but I'll give them points for trying. A couple script rewrites could have helped tie things together and develop certain characters more, and might have resulted in the film living up to its ambitions.

Review: Fading Gigolo

94. Fading Gigolo
"Fading Gigolo" is a surprisingly gentle and restrained film compared to what one might expect from its premise. It follows two friends, played by Woody Allen and John Turturro (who also wrote and directed). Allen's character gets Turturro's to prostitute himself out as a kind of one time thing, but when they see how lucrative the situation is (and considering the middling financial states of them both), they cement a more permanent pimp/gigolo partnership.

I'm honestly not sure if the film is good or not. I think a second viewing might be needed to determine that, but while I enjoyed it well enough, I'm not exactly eager to go back for a second helping. The film certainly has a lot of faith that it knows who its characters are. It doesn't feel the need to overplay potentially dramatic moments, instead allowing the characters to react to the events in a more subtle manner. There are many instances where what would be a big argument or impassioned plea in most other movies is avoided when the characters just don't seem interested in taking things that far. This is probably more realistic than what is typically seen on film. I don't know if it was better in this case, but at least it was refreshingly different.

Much of the film deals with Jewish social politics, which I'll confess I am no expert in. I was able to grasp the generalities of what was going on, but some of the finer details eluded me. When Allen's character is hauled before some kind of Jewish court near the end of the film, I wasn't even sure of the legality involved--he is basically grabbed off the street and brought to the place. I don't think it was entirely legal, but knowing little about the related customs, I truly had no idea.

I think this is probably a film that tries a few interesting things, but falls a bit short of being truly good. Perhaps a second viewing would prove me wrong, but that probably won't happen anytime soon.

Review: Moms Night Out

93. Moms Night Out
Near the end of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (warning: 63 year old spoilers incoming) Klaatu, the alien emissary, is shot and killed, but is returned to his spaceship by his trusty robot friend Gort, and brought back to life. Klaatu is asked if Gort "has the power of life and death." He responds: "No. That power is reserved to the Almighty Spirit. This technique, in some cases, can restore life for a limited time." The line feels out of place, and it should. The original intention of the screenwriters was for Gort to bring Klaatu back to life no strings attached, but the film production codes of the day decided that the power to do that should be reserved for God. I did not know this when I first saw the film, but the line stuck out like a sore thumb anyway, and I was not surprised to learn the story behind it.

"Moms Night Out" has more than one moment like this. Overall, I really enjoyed the film, and was quite surprised to find myself doing so. My only complaint is that, mostly towards the end, it started to get overly preachy in ways that, like the line in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", stood out glaringly and pulled me out of the film. The most egregious example is when one character answers another's question with a speech (largely unrelated to said question) that boils down to "Jesus loves you." It comes out of nowhere and drags the film to a screeching halt. I have no problem with films that have strong religious content ("Philomena" was one of my top two Best Picture choices last year), but in order to work, that content has to fit into the film organically. Here it just didn't. It felt out of place, distracting, and shoehorned into the film.

That aside, I really was shocked how much I enjoyed this film. For all the attention that "Neighbors" is getting right now for its raunchy humor, for me there were actually more laughs to be found here. The film starts out with a great sense of energy propelling it forward. It's central story is simple, yet effective. A group of exhausted mothers go on a night out (Hey! Just like the title!) and leave their husbands in charge of the kids. On both sides, everything that can go wrong does, and soon all the characters are zipping back and forth across town, their journeys full of near misses with each other and humorous misunderstandings. The film manages to keep up an extremely brisk pace, one I was surprised to see that it managed to maintain. I kept expecting it to drop off or start getting stale at any moment, but, aside from the aforementioned moments of preachiness, it never did. Many of the films jokes are set up well, yet still manage to be surprising. It's rare for me to actually laugh out loud extensively when viewing a film in the theaters, but I did so more than once.

As much as I disliked the film's need to shoot itself in the foot with some glaringly out of place promotions of religion, they were worth sitting through to get to the rest of the quality entertainment it had to offer. It was a very good family film--rated PG, but still often hilarious.

Review: Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return

92. Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return
I am more than capable of recognizing films intended for a young audience as genuinely incredible achievements if they deserve the distinction. Even when it causes others to roll their eyes and discount my opinions (often when they haven't seen the film in question), I will stick to my guns. I truly believe that "High School Musical 3: Senior Year" should have won the Oscar for Best Picture and no one can convince me otherwise. I make note of this to make it clear that when I say "Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return" doesn't measure up, it's not from my inability to appreciate a film aimed at younger audiences.

The film is inoffensive, yet uninspiring. It feels, at best, like a pilot for an animated television show, just with better animation. From the very beginning it lacks the sense of fun or energy needed to pull me into a film. Usually musical numbers would be an opportunity to inject that energy, but not here. I'm writing this barely twelve hours after seeing the film and I honestly can't remember a single lyric or set of notes from any of the film's songs. It doesn't help that their placement feels arbitrary. There is rarely any buildup to a new musical number--they just start out of the blue. In the aforementioned "High School Musical 3", every single song had me tapping my toes, and many got me to almost start singing along. During most of the songs in this film, I was consciously aware that my toes were not tapping. If anything they were more rooted to the floor than before.

The story itself is nothing to get worked up over, either. Dorothy returns to Oz (hence the title) to help defeat a new villain. I could be more specific, but there's really no point. That's exactly what the film is (with more detail, of course), and it never becomes anything more or takes off in any surprising directions.

The cast's voice work is fine. I especially enjoyed Hugh Dancy's work, but I am largely biased in his favor due to the sublime performance he turns in every week on "Hannibal". There were a couple clever lines, but they weren't frequent enough to get a good flow going.

Overall, the film slides perfectly into the category of mediocrity. It's not bad, but it's by no means good. It just sits there, not doing anything to drive anyone away, but not doing anything to draw them in, either. It's one of those cases where if it actually were bad, the entertainment value might have been higher.

Review: Locke

91. Locke
I wouldn't go quite so far as the call "Locke" a riveting film, but it is very interesting, and I was never bored watching it--a significant accomplishment given the limits the film places on itself.

The film, with a short 85 minute runtime, is not quite set in real time, but its pretty close. It takes place as the lead character, Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) drives from Birmingham to London. On the way, he has several conversations on the phone as both the reasons for his trip to London and the mere act of making the journey cause his personal and professional lives to implode. Hardy is the only actor to speak on camera; the other characters appear by voiceover only.

The fun of the film is watching an actor keep the story moving forward with no one to rely on but himself. Without a great central performance, I'd have checked out of the film in the first ten minutes. Hardy delivers a strong portrayal that allows him to show tremendous range. His character is put through the emotional ringer during the course of his drive and the increasing tension shows in his performance. Not just in the expected, predictable ways, either (his temper getting shorter, for example). As his situation becomes more stressful, he also reacts more strongly to the small victories he wins. These moments of stronger emotion, both positive and negative, are even more special because he is generally very restrained, even trying to be the voice of calm when those he is speaking to get worked up.

I almost feel I do this film a disservice in my opening by saying that it is not quite "riveting". By some standards it may be, but I tend to have a very high bar a film must reach before I'll use that word to describe it (I doubt more than five films in the average year would qualify, and that's being generous). There are certainly moments in the film that were riveting--moments that I was thinking "Dude! Answer the phone!" as I wondered what the caller had to say this time. Riveting or not, it is certainly a film well worth seeing. It manages to make the intricate details of cement pouring actually sound interesting, and off the top of my head, that is something no other film has ever accomplished.

Review: Neighbors

90. Neighbors
I often don't feel there's much that can be said critically about comedies. You can analyze them all you want, but it ultimately boils down to whether or not you personally found them funny. And to what degree. I personally enjoy comedy the most when the it is not the film's primary genre, but is a part of a larger canvas. My favorite example of this is the scenes between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". The film isn't a comedy, but many of their scenes together are hilarious.

"Neighbors" was okay for me. I enjoyed myself and chuckled frequently, but rarely experienced a full laugh out loud moment. Maybe the film could have used a stronger structural foundation. Maybe there was no character to really "root" for to get me involved in the story. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood. For whatever reason, while I like the film, I was expecting a little more and never truly connected with it. It had its share of good jokes and visual gags, but those are typically even funnier when they exist within a film full of characters and events that you care about. I was especially detached from the events taking place in the film's climax.

I don't mean for my comments to sound as negative as they do. As I said, I did enjoy the film. It was a good comedy and way to kill some time. There was just something holding it back from being truly hilarious.

Review: Walking With the Enemy

89. Walking With the Enemy
It is much better for a movie to have a bad beginning and a good ending than it is the inverse. A film that is good for most of its runtime only to fall apart in the last twenty minutes leaves its audience with a bad taste that ruins the entire experience and, in most cases makes it a legitimately "bad" movie. "Walking With the Enemy" doesn't fall into this trap. Unfortunately, it cannot simply be described as having a bed beginning followed by a good ending, either. While the ending is largely impressive and cinematic, both the beginning and middle of the film leave a lot to be desired. While the quality climax is enough (barely) to rescue the film from being flat out bad, it cannot fully redeem what is for most of its runtime a poorly made film.

Most of this film would have elicited eye-rolling even had it been a television movie, which is what it often felt like. From the very beginning I felt that there was something off about the camerawork. The cinematography was very stiff and seemed perfunctory--as if the cameras were set up merely to capture the action on screen with little thought given to the artistic composition of any shot. The film also featured frequent fades to black between scenes which, while expected in a television movie that needs to make room for commercials, felt very out of place in a movie theatre. There seemed to be an aversion to showing much of anything in the way of blood as well, which also made the film feel like an overly sanitized television production. I don't need excessive gore, but the film was too obvious in shying away from showing anything. Most times characters were shot, there was no blood at all. When there was, it was so minimal that it had the appearance of a dab of red paint applied with a brush (maybe it was). To be so timid is a disservice to the film's subject matter (it concerns Jews in Hungary trying to stay alive during WWII). There are a few scenes throughout the film that manage to be harrowing and raise the stake even without much blood, but they are the exception and are somewhat jarring compared to the soft tone the film frequently (inadvertently?) takes.

Near the very end, the film suddenly gets good. The climax consists of several scenes in and around a battle sequence that is actually well shot. I wonder if they blew the film's entire budget on these scenes and didn't have anything left to do anything of note with the rest of the film. Sadly, while a good sequence (especially when compared to the rest of the film), it is not nearly enough to make viewing the film worthwhile. It's like if someone recommended I watch a television show that was terrible for its first two seasons, then had a pretty good season three. If I'm going to sit through a lot of garbage, the payoff had better be extraordinary. That's not the case here.

Review: Anaamika

88. Anaamika
Easily the most "Western" of the three Indian films I've seen so far this year, "Anaamika" does not feature any fourth-wall shattering musical numbers, but it still had enough stylistic flourishes to set it apart from the type of cinema I'm used to seeing.

The film had a good pace and didn't have any moments where it felt like it was running long. It follows the title character, an Indian immigrant to America, who returns to India to track down her missing husband, who she believes is in danger. The film begins with a terrorist attack, the relevance of which does not become evident until the second half of the film. Anaamika comes into contact with many people, some more helpful to her than others, as she seeks to unravel the mystery behind her husband's disappearance. The story takes quite a few twists along the way, none of them groundbreaking or entirely surprising, but it was enough to maintain my interest throughout.

Like others I've seen, this was a foreign film that probably benefitted from having stylistic elements that I am not used to seeing and am thus more easily entertained and amused by. The primary instance in this film was the use of its musical score. While there were no outright musical numbers like in the other Indian films I've seen, the score was very bombastic. Oftentimes when a character would say a particularly dramatic line or a surprising turn of events would take place, the music would flare up like in a parody of a soap opera (dun-dun-DUN). While this would have seemed ridiculous in most American made films striving for drama, I was able to overlook and even enjoy it here. The plot on its own was nothing that would be out of place or exceptional in American cinema, so it helped that the film managed to stand out in other ways.

The other most notable aspect of the film for me has nothing to do with the filmmaking itself, but with its presentation. Any time a character would be smoking or drinking, a small anti-smoking or anti-alcohol logo would appear in the lower left portion of the screen. Short anti-smoking commercials also played both before the film and during its intermission (all the Indian films I've seen have had intermissions despite their normal length--I'm told that they do actually take a break in India, but at the screenings I've been to they go straight into the second part). These logos didn't bother me as much as they should have. They would have really made me mad in a regular film, but in this case I viewed them as a cultural curiosity. I've done some research since and found that these warnings are required for all films shown in India. Some films like "Blue Jasmine" and "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" were never even released in India since Woody Allen and David Fincher refused to allow the warnings into their films. Not that I blame them.

"Anaamika" isn't a great film, but it is competently made, and aspects of its foreign production were still fresh enough to me to elevate it a bit.

Review: The Railway Man

87. The Railway Man
This is a good film, verging on very good, that is only held back from greatness by the transparency of its efforts to make the events of the true story it depicts more cinematic. There is nothing wrong with altering a real life story to make a more compelling film (in fact, it is what a screenwriter should do), but a few moments here just felt off.

Colin Firth plays Eric Lomax, a former WWII soldier who, decades after the war, is still suffering from memories of the horrors and indignities he suffered as a prisoner of the Japanese. Early in the film, he meets, briefly courts, and marries Nicole Kidman's character, Patti, in the first of the film's deviations from reality. The material the actors are given is good and they do a good job selling it, bringing a sense of realism to the budding relationship. The awkwardness of Firth's borderline antisocial character is especially well done. It just seems to all happen a little too quickly and, sure enough, when I got home and did some research I found that what was a three year courtship in reality was condensed into an indeterminate, yet clearly very short, length of time for the film. I understand that the filmmakers were in a hurry to get to bulk of the film, and this wasn't a major problem, but it did feel a little jarring. A short montage or anything else that would have shown the passage of time would have been a welcome addition. I've also discovered that the film ignores the fact that Lomax was already married when me Patti and that he left his wife for her, but that was probably best left out.

As the film goes on, Kidman discovers the strange and sometimes violent tendencies that Firth carries, resulting from his experience as a prisoner. She is able to get most of the story from Finlay Stellan Skarsgard), a friend of and formerly a fellow prisoner with Firth's character. At this point the film jumps back and forth between the modern day story and flashbacks from the war. I was impressed at how well the flashbacks were integrated into the story. Oftentimes films that feature large sections of both present day and flashback storylines feel disconnected. Each storyline loses whatever forward momentum it had every time the other story comes to the fore. That didn't happen here. Sending Kidman's character on a mission of discovery helped. It connected the stories by allowing the flashbacks to not just be sources of exposition for the audience, but to be providing her with the answers she was seeking. Efforts are also made to tie specific moments from the flashbacks to Firth's actions and mindset in the present. It's always tricky telling two different stories at once--the goal is to make them feel like one, and this film accomplishes that, weaving the threads together expertly.

The climax of the film is when Firth learns that Takashi Nagase (Hiroyuki Sanada), his primary tormenter from the prison camp, is still alive. After wrestling with the decision, Firth goes to Japan to confront and, presumably, to kill him. This is the second time the film hurts itself by deviating from the actual events. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that their confrontation is quite a bit more dramatic than it was in real life. A little too dramatic, to the point that it pulled me out of the film a bit. I was never in doubt about what Firth's character would ultimately do, so the extra manufactured drama felt like just that--manufactured. To be fair, I went into the film aware that it deviated from reality during the confrontation (my Dad felt the need to spoil it for me), but I think it would have felt over the top anyway.

Once the film gets past the added moments of drama, its actual ending is very good. The themes of anger and forgiveness echo powerfully, and the emotional outpouring by Sanada is truly moving. I would have preferred it if the film could have been, if not more faithful to reality, at least more subtle in it alterations. In a story like this, a sense of realism is very important. The film usually has this, but by losing it a couple times, however briefly, it forces itself to settle for the distinction of "good", not "classic".

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

86. The Amazing Spider-Man 2
There are several disparate plot threads running throughout "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". They rarely connect as much as they should to form a cohesive narrative, but even if the film isn't always moving in the same direction, it is always moving somewhere, providing solid entertainment and feeling shorter than its runtime of around 140 minutes. It feels a good deal more energetic than its immediate predecessor, which suffered from retelling the same origin story filmgoers had seen only a decade before.

The two worlds of the story could have been connected more effectively. The story sequences that followed Peter Parker's problems (his on/off relationship with Gwen Stacy, rekindling his childhood friendship with Harry Osbourne, and searching for the truth about his parents' fate) were often only tangentially related to the "Spider-Man" sequences (fighting various super villains). The best way to connect the superhero and alter ego segments in a film like this is to make the villain a kind of metaphor for what the hero is struggling with. This wasn't really done here.

Fortunately, the various aspects of the story stand up reasonably well on their own. The primary relationships are believable and well-written. Peter and Gwen play the break up, then make up game a few too many times, but the chemistry between them is palpable, making it almost worth it. Peter's friendship with Harry (the storyline that has the strongest connections to the "Spider-Man" parts of the film) gets less screen time than it should, but is economical with what time it does get. The semi-awkward nature of their reintroduction gives way quickly to a sense of comfort and playfulness, creating a genuine impression of a long-lost friendship rediscovered. A few developments in this plot thread feel a bit rushed because of the minimal time it is given. Taking out one of Peter and Gwen's breakups and replacing it with a few more scenes between Peter and Harry might have helped both storylines.

There's nothing particularly profound to be said about the three villains Spider-Man fights throughout the film. They are handled competently but exist primarily not to help further the film's themes or story, but to provide the film with its action set pieces. In this regard, they do their job admirably. I was especially pleased that the film's climax (mostly) kept itself from getting too broad in scope. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" lost a bit of steam in its climax, which cross cut between several characters, each doing their part to bring down the villain's plan. The climax of "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is, apart from a few cutaways, Spider-Man fighting the bad guys. This simplicity helped keep the climax from feeling bloated. Even when the first villain is defeated and the second immediately shows up to continue the fight, it didn't feel like the film was pushing it.

While the film had a few problems, it also had enough going for it that my enjoyment was not lessened. While a few tweaks might have elevated it even higher, it is still first-class entertainment.

Review: From the Rough

85. From the Rough
Apparently this movie received its earliest screenings back in 2011, but did not get a full theatrical release until now. It should have just been released straight to DVD or cable, because it is not at all worthy of theatrical exhibition, and it's very disappointing that this was one of the last movies Michael Clarke Duncan ever made.

The script was riddled with blatant clichés and unlikeable characters. It was difficult to find a character to get behind, and even more difficult not to roll my eyes at the dull, predictable situations the film put them through. The characters are given backstories that are often overly melodramatic and designed to make them clash with each other as much as possible. There is no subtlety here--the screenwriting machinations are obvious and distracting. In an effort to service every character a little, the film fails to give adequate time to most of them, making there stories seem even more thinly drawn and artificial. This was a relatively low budget film. One of the ways for a low budget film to stand out is to have a really good script, with writing that can make up for the lack of production values in other areas. "From the Rough" has a script that could not have been turned into something good even with a much larger budget. A few more drafts to improve the screenplay wouldn't have cost very much. As is, the film was doomed the second it went into production with this script.

Don't see it.

Review: Under The Skin

84. Under The Skin
I almost didn't see this film in theatres. It's only gotten a limited release so far, and I saw it on one of the last days it was playing at the only theatre near me that has shown it. I wasn't expecting to like the film, and thought about not seeing it. But I'm glad I did. It's one of my favorite films that I've seen this year, and can be truly classified as an "experience".

I'm not sure if I should even try to summarize the film's plot. I read a brief summary before I saw the film, which was probably a good idea, since there is very little exposition or explanation as to what is going on. The film follows Scarlett Johansson, as an alien taking the form of a human, as she travels through Scotland sexually tempting men, presumably so they can be harvested for some reason or other. It doesn't get much more complex than that, which is fine, since plot is not the film's primary concern.

I didn't always know what was going on in the film, but didn't find that to be a problem. I was able to accept that everything I saw made sense within the world of the film. I've found that if (in movie or television) something is thrown in just for the sake of being strange or confusing, I will have a visceral reaction against it. If, on the other hand, I get the sense that the filmmakers know the purpose and meaning behind strange and confusing events, I can roll with it, even if I don't understand it. That's the sense I got here.

The film is riveting from beginning to end. It starts with a series of strange sounds and visuals. It takes a long time for everything to come into focus and for the audience to realize what they're seeing. The sense of curiosity this brought with it grabbed me the second the film started. The first several minutes of the film have no dialogue whatsoever, and the rest of the film uses it sparingly, but the visuals are so striking and provocative that there is never a dull moment.

It's also refreshing to see a film where the main character undergoes an emotional transformation, but it isn't spelled out for you. So much is left up to interpretation. You're not going to get scenes of Johansson's character explaining how she's feeling or what she wants. Instead, you just get to see the actions that she takes and infer from them what you will. The film trusts its audience to be smart.

I look forward to seeing this film again when it is released on DVD, or sooner if another theatre near me picks it up. I've seen a lot of good movies so far this year, but very few have stood out as so breathtakingly original and unique as this one.

Review: The Other Woman

83. The Other Woman
While this movie had a few funny moments, it never graduated beyond its basic concept, and the humor was not consistent enough to make it worthwhile.

The basic concept is not a bad one (though it's not the all time greatest logline, either). It's about a wife and the mistresses of a man who discover his infidelities and team up to get revenge. But that's all you get. The film never develops this premise beyond its basest potential, instead opting for a series of juvenile pranks and sub-par slapstick in a feeble attempt to generate laughs. Not only does it have nothing to offer that hasn't been seen many times before--it has nothing to offer that hasn't been done much better many times before.

Beyond its disinterest in delivering anything greater than the most basic plotline, the film's other major weakness is that it doesn't make the philandering husband a dislikeable enough character. He's not likeable, mind you, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau does play a good cad, but he's not given much to work with. Yes, the film establishes that he's cheating on all of these women and defrauding his employers to boot, but he doesn't come across as particularly nasty while doing these things. They should have shown him taking sadistic glee in his actions (it's a comedy, so I don't need subtlety). Without taking extra steps to make him a particularly loathsome character, the torture he is subjected to feels out of proportion to his crimes. There should be a sense of satisfaction in watching him suffer, but there's not.

This was basically a "trailer-ready" movie. It had enough plot and comedic scenes to fill a two minute trailer, but not nearly enough of either for a feature length film.

Review: The Quiet Ones

82. The Quiet Ones
"The Quiet Ones" was interesting enough while I was watching it, but there was nothing in it compelling enough to create a lasting impression.

The film follows a professor and his assistants as they treat a young woman seemingly possessed by another entity. The professor seeks to prove that her condition and all of the supernatural phenomena related to it have a psychological cause, and that she can be cured through psychiatry. It should come as no surprise, this being a horror film, that he's wrong, yet he clings to his belief even as the supernatural events become more and more perilous.

There was enough "discovery" in the storyline to keep me interested, as one of the assistants gradually uncovers knowledge of the girl's past. This results in a few cases where the "real" reason for her troubles is explained, only to be nullified by the next bit of information he discovered. It was a nice way to keep the plot moving forward, but it doesn't quite build to enough of a crescendo. Typically, the film alternates between each new discovery and a sequence where the entity possessing the girl acts out, often endangering both her and the researchers. While these episodes do become more extreme as the film goes on, they do not quite feel like they're building towards an ending. There's no sense of inevitability going into the final sequence--no feeling that the end is nigh. The only reason it's the final sequence is that the "spirit" decides not to break off its attack, while on previous occasions it did. There's no real reason given as to why.

The very end of the film is okay, but not the truly unsettling climax the filmmakers likely intended. It wasn't unsatisfying per se, but I was much closer to shrugging my shoulders than feeling any sense of dread.

Review: Brick Mansions

81. Brick Mansions
The perfect example of escapist entertainment, "Brick Mansions" doesn't aspire to be anything more than a fun way to kill some time. Its story is simple, yet serviceable, an excuse for several well crafted action sequences ranging from parkour chases, to car chases, to gun fights.

The plot is almost elegant in its simplicity, as it follows a cop who is forced to team up with a criminal to disarm a bomb in a walled off, crime-ridden section of Detroit (the title location). It sounds like a poor man's version of "Escape From New York", and maybe it is to a degree, but it also manages to deliver where it counts. The film establishes the backstories and motivations of its characters, but doesn't spend any more time doing so than necessary. While other films might overemphasize certain aspects of their characters for the sake of drama, "Brick Mansions" is content to give the audience just enough storytelling to justify the action. They nailed the ratio perfectly.

The film does have one twist in the plot near the end that was a clever, pleasant surprise, even if it wasn't groundbreaking. I appreciated it, particularly since I had been starting to feel that, if the film ended the way it seemed to be going, it wouldn't be fully satisfying. The twist was the perfect capper to what was already a fun movie. This should end up being the kind of film that will make for a great way to spend a quiet Saturday afternoon when it ends up on cable.

Review: Dom Hemingway

80. Dom Hemingway
I kind of liked this film, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about it after my initial viewing.

The film follows the title character following his release from prison as he tries to collect a fortune he believes he's owed, get back into the safe-cracking business, and repair his relationship with his daughter. The film winds its way through these various stories at a leisurely pace, and they rarely connect with one another. This is a deliberate move by the filmmakers, who are seeking to make a 'slice of life' film rather than commit to a single cohesive narrative. Sections of the film are even separated from one another, each given its own subtitle against a blank screen. Normally aimless films like this aren't my cup of tea, but I found that "Dom Hemingway" had a bit more aim than most. Although the various plots were often tackled one at a time, there were hints given as to what was to come, giving the film at least the appearance of direction.

There are some tonal inconsistencies at play, and I'm not sure if they work. At first glance, they shouldn't. Some elements early in the film are quite over the top, in stark contrast to some of the later, character driven scenes between Dom and his daughter. It was a little jarring, but not as much as might be expected. I really think I would need to see the film a second time to judge. I think there  might be something about the film I couldn't fully "get" in just one viewing, and I wonder if a second might make its shifts in tone and wandering storyline congeal enough to reveal a deeper artistic intent. I won't get around to seeing it again for quite a while, but eventually I may. Some humorous scenes and Jude Law's performance (a lot of range is required to pull of the changes in tone) should make an eventual second viewing worthwhile.

Review: 2 States

79. 2 States
The second film from India I have seen this year, "2 States" is a mostly good film that runs a bit too long by the end, but does a decent job of making its subject matter (foreign to me) accessible. The first third of the film deals with a couple who meets at University, falls in love, and decides to get married. The rest of the film chronicles the struggle they face in convincing their parents to let the marriage take place--an issue complicated by the two different social groups to which they belong. I'm not overly familiar with the social hierarchy of India, but even without that intimate knowledge, the film made the story easy to understand.

The film walks the line between romantic-comedy and drama, the former being more prevalent in the film's first part. There is still a decent bit of comedy to be found in the film's second part, but the energy of the earlier scenes is sometimes harder to find. A lot of time is spent with the couple trying to convince their parents to let them wed. It's a dramatic and effective storyline, but there's so much of it that the film seems to be going in circles at points (its two and a half hour runtime could have been shortened by at least ten to fifteen minutes). The drawn out nature of the narrative is at its most obvious once the girl's parents have agreed to the marriage and the couple immediately jets off to convince the boy's parents. It feels like the film has been reset, only to repeat the same story it just told with a few different variables thrown in. A more judicious editor could have kept up the pace.

Even when the film dragged, it was still fun to watch. The leading actors have strong chemistry. Arjun Kapoor manages to keep his character charming for the most part, though he can't overcome a few of the more dramatic clichés the script makes him deal with (the low point is when it resorts to the old "talking about someone when you don't know they're standing right behind you" trick). Alia Bhatt is an especially strong, bright presence in the film, turning in a more comedic performance than the one she gave in "Highway", but still exceling at dramatic moments when the film required it.

I was also entertained by the numerous musical sequences throughout the film. I still haven't seen much in the was of Asian cinema, so it is still a novelty to me. I find it hilarious that most Indian films, regardless of their genre, are also musicals to an extent. All of the song and dance numbers were fun and funny. The ones in the film's second part helped inject a boost of energy into the film, offering a break whenever the storytelling was getting too repetitive.

All in all, this was a good, entertaining film that captured comedic and dramatic moments well. Had it been cut down in length and sped up in pace, it could have been even better.