3 stars (out of 4)
Released 2012
The harrowing true tale of the survival of one family caught in the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, this film goes beyond the typical disaster movie by posing interesting questions about the meaning of courage. There were some really inspired moments in this film, just not enough of them to vault beyond 3 stars.
3 stars (out of 4)
Released 2001
A thought-provoking, original story that nevertheless ends up asking more questions than its twist ending is able to actually answer.
3.25 stars (out of 4)
Released 2012
I can’t write about this movie without revealing major spoilers, so be forewarned.
This movie didn’t go where I expected it to go, and the direction it took is not entirely satisfying but did make me think.
It starts out as a survival story about a six-year-old girl, just abandoned by her alcoholic father in an isolated and impoverished community on an island outside of the levees that keep the rest of civilization dry and safe. The film is intentionally opaque about whether this is meant to be modern times, outside of New Orleans, circa Katrina, or whether this is meant to be a post-apocalyptic time in the near future (I guessed the latter, at first). They show how this community has developed its own culture which values toughness and celebrates what little they have, and how the little girl has internalized those lessons.
At this point, it is hinted that they would be captured and put into camps if they ever dared to venture behind the levees, so they are essentially trapped in the flooded wilderness. It was harrowing to watch the girl try to fend for herself, and even when her father returns, they continue to suffer as another hurricane batters and floods their island. I kept hoping for some happy ending that would see the girl finally safe and well-cared for, despite the fact that things looked like they were going from bad to worse.
Then, they are visited by rescue workers who bring them and their neighbours, against their will, to a refugee camp where they are given food, clothing, medicine, and schooling. But they (with their neighbours) plot an escape back to their island. Huh?
Up to this point, at particularly lonely times, the girl would heartbreakingly cry out for her mother, who abandoned her as a baby. So, after returning to their bleak makeshift home and finding out that her father is dying of an unspecified disease, she sets out on a raft, and somewhat miraculously finds someone who seems to be her mother. This woman even offers to let her stay with her. But she chooses to go back the island. Huh?
The ending was a bit of a non-ending, actually, in that the girl simply continues to struggle on, just as she did in the beginning of the movie, but now, she has chosen this path.
So basically, this movie ends up being a chronicle of one alternative lifestyle, where people choose poverty and danger when safety and resources are close at hand. I feel that using the term “alternative” is already being generous, because what reasonable person would choose this? Not to mention the ethics of choosing it for your child. I could see that the filmmaker was trying to frame the ending as a celebration of embracing the life you already have. I just wasn’t entirely convinced, and started to feel less and less sorry for these people as the movie went on. And that’s kind of the point of the movie too: this little girl doesn’t want your pity.
3 stars (out of 4)
Released 2012
A coming-of-age story about an awkward high school freshman (just released from a mental hospital) who is taken under the wings of a pair of fun-loving but troubled seniors.
Realistic characters and good acting distinguish this film from other high school movies, although it does explore familiar themes. I thought the director/writer did a tasteful job of not sensationalizing the main character’s mental illness.
2.5 stars (out of 4)
Released 2012
This is a generally competent romantic comedy/drama but lack of chemistry between the leads and a somewhat random ballroom dance subplot prevented the film from being great.
I say random, because I couldn’t see why Jennifer Lawrence’s acid-tongued character would also be obsessed with amateur ballroom dancing, other than the fact that it gave the main characters a reason to keep meeting for practice.
There were some funny moments involving Robert DeNiro as the superstitious football-fan dad, but in general I think this film is highly over-rated.
3.5 stars
(released 2012)
It’s wonderful to see another beloved Tolkien novel brought to life on the screen under the thoughtful direction of Peter Jackson. This film is visually, aurally, and tonally continuous with the Lord of the Rings series, although the material tends to be lighter than LOTR (which is consistent with the source material).
Martin Freeman is spot-on as Bilbo Baggins – in fact it’s hard to imagine a better casting choice. Andy Serkis’ Gollum is simply perfection and the rendering of the “Riddle game” sequence is just like the book come to life (and I mean that in the best way, not that it was just a word-for-word re-creation of the novel).
The concerns about Jackson’s decision to stretch the series out to make a trilogy appear to be unfounded, based on the pacing of this first episode. Material added in to flesh out the dwarves’ history and to dramatize some of Gandalf’s manoeuvring are entirely appropriate. Jackson and his writing team have consistently made good choices about adapting the books to the screen, both in terms of what to edit out and what to add in for better movie-story-telling.
A couple of relatively minor complaints: I saw this film in 3D and 48 frames per second (the way Jackson wants it to be seen) and it definitely was a detriment to the movie-going experience, especially during the indoor scenes. The lighting seemed artificial and I was acutely aware of camera movements. The 3D effect made the characters who were in close-up look like they were standing in front of a flat background. I definitely recommend seeing this in 2D and traditional 24 frames per second.
Also, I was a little disappointed that they did not introduce more new theme songs – I think they only added one new Lonely Mountain theme (which basically replaces the Fellowship theme) and recycled the Shire theme and the Rivendell theme. I know they wanted to establish continuity with the LOTR films, but I thought hearing so much of the same music was off-putting.
3 stars
(released 2012)
Skyfall is a solid entry in the Bond canon with an interesting baddie (Javier Bardem – wow, that guy can act!) and a welcome focus on Judi Dench’s M. There were some nice bits of humour, which helped to flesh out the relationship between Bond and M. The last act, involving a shoot-out in an abandoned mansion, seemed a little under-developed (they would really go hide out somewhere and bring no weapons with them?), and I was hoping they would reveal a little more backstory into Bond’s origins. Still, overall, an entertaining, exciting action flick.
3 stars
Actually, I agree with all the facts in Joanna’s review: yes, this is a very talky film that looks a lot like a stage play. I had to concentrate really hard to understand the political maneuvering that was going on, and I still didn’t figure out what were the priorities of some of the different stakeholders.
But still, I like documentaries and I liked learning about the politics behind the Civil War and the anti-slavery movement. After watching the movie I spent a lot of time on Wikipedia reading more on the subject.
I also appreciated that the movie was able to flesh out the family dynamics between Lincoln and his wife and between Lincoln and his oldest son with just a few very precise scenes.
So yeah, I agree with Take 1 in all the particulars, but I just enjoyed this film more than Joanna because it was more up my alley.
3 stars (maybe 3.25 stars?)
(released 2011)
George Clooney stars as a man dealing with the imminent death of his wife, trying to reconnect with his two young daughters and make peace with the the shortcomings of his marriage.
Featuring a thoughtful script which slowly reveals the true (and somewhat surprising) natures of each of the main characters, the film starts off with a refreshingly unsentimental depiction of a family dealing with loss, but by the end, earns its emotional final scene.
I think this film deserves to be called “inspired” (which would earn it 3.5 stars) but on the other hand, I don’t think it’s amazing or inventive enough that I would want to re-watch it (which means it only rates 3 stars). Maybe I will have to start using an intermediate 3.25 star rating after all.
2.5 stars (out of 4)
Released 2011
After seeing how having children has strained the marriages of their friends, platonic friends Julie and Jason decide to have a baby together first and then continue looking for their respective future spouses after.
The first half of the movie was quite amusing with witty banter between the likable leads, but the second half degenerated into predictable rom-com territory.
