The End of the Tour (2015)

It's been a year since my last review. I tried to continue writing during school, but we all know how that goes. I haven't been able to pick it back up on winter break either. But here I am to give it another try.

The End of the Tour portrays the five-day-long interaction between magazine reporter David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and renowned author David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel). Wallace has just gained fame from his groundbreaking novel Infinite Jest and Lipsky follows him on his book tour to interview him. But it's not like the typical magazine interview we think about. They build an actual relationship over these few days. And as human relationships work, they encounter some conflicts as well.

That's pretty much it, just the two of them talking and smoking. Smoking a lot. Apparently both of them were heavy smokers. I recall a humorous line, "Brothers of the lung." This is the kind of movie I enjoy the most. Plain and real. No fancy plot twists, fake movie dialogue, excessive computer graphics. Just some good old dialogue. Another excellent example of this would be the Before Trilogy, which I have reviewed in the past.

Their conversation is riveting. It's mainly about Wallace's life and his novel, but there's also them getting to know each other ("Do you like ice cream?"). At parts it's very philosophical but it never gets boring. Boy, could I watch them talk for a week. That's attributable to good writing but convincing acting is required as well, and both Segel and Eisenberg play their parts masterfully.

One thing about Eisenberg - I must admit I am kind of his fanboy. Ever since The Social Network, he has never let me down. He even manages to make mediocre movies enjoyable. (Now You See Me - yes, it's a guilty pleasure of mine.) What is surprising about him is that he's got a very memorable voice and these characteristic expressions, so you'd think he wouldn't be able to pull off a wide range of characters. But he has proven otherwise, from nerdy genius Mark Zuckerberg to slick magician J. Daniel Atlas.

They get into this argument, and you can kind of predict it developing even from the opening scenes. Yes, it is about girls. What else would two guys argue about. At its early stages I thought it was irrelevant and unnecessary, but as it develops it becomes much more significant than that. Don't get me wrong, women are important - but Wallace and Lipsky's argument goes to a deeper level through this initial friction and becomes much more interesting than simple girl problems.

The ending is perfect. It leaves you unsatisfied, partly because you want to listen to more of their dialogue and partly because it's not a happy ending. It's a very 'real' ending. It leaves you thinking.

What's powerful about this movie is that I actually decided to read Infinite Jest. It's a dense, 1000-page-long book - and I'm not much of a reader at all. But Wallace's character had some original, thought-provoking ideas that made me seek the book out. I even went through the trouble of ordering it from abroad as bookstores in Korea don't seem to have it.

9.0/10 - Watch it, especially if you're tired of summer blockbusters and want something that feels authentic.

Antman (2015) - Reviewed

As Marvel expands its popular Marvel Cinematic Universe with every movie released since Iron Man (2008), it seems necessary to keep up with every new superhero movie to be able to watch the next one. A few months ago, Marvel released Avengers: Age of Ultron, introducing some new heroes to the universe. Most recently it brought to us a completely fresh superhero that most people probably haven't heard of: Ant-Man.

Ant-Man is directed by Peyton Reed and stars Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, or Ant-Man. Other cast members include Michael Douglas as Dr. Hank Pym, Evangeline Lilly as his daughter, and Corey Stoll, an ambitious scientist who tries to get his hands on Pym’s technology. Scott Lang is a thief and vigilante who robs the rich to give to the poor. At the beginning of the movie, he is released from prison and lives with his ex-cellmates. Due to his records, he cannot get a proper job and thus cannot take care of his daughter. He has sworn not to go back to his criminal ways, but desperate situations drive him to do ‘one last job.’ But little did he know that his decision would lead him to cross paths with Dr. Pym and to eventually become Ant-Man.

Before going in the cool, dark theater, I had heard rumors about the newly released superhero movie. Friends informed me about the great humor and interesting superpowers and even my professor recommended the entire class to watch it. I myself had no prior knowledge about this new hero – I hadn't read the comic books or viewed the trailer. With no idea what to expect and only rumors floating in my head, I hoped for an interesting, innovative movie – however, Ant-Man didn't meet these hopes.

It seems as if Marvel has gotten movie making down to a formula by this point. After countless successful movies, including Guardians of the Galaxy (which was not expected to be successful but turned out to be the highest grossing movie of 2014 in the U.S.), it may make sense that the studios do not want to stray far from the formula. Indeed, Ant-Man has also returned twice its budget and is still being screened worldwide. But this does not excuse the fact that the storyline is typical and predictable. Character development and relationships throughout the movie also follow many other hackneyed superhero movies. The villain is also not well-realized – the audience can understand why he has a grudge against Dr. Pym but his motives for such violence seem unnatural and forced. However, since these are quite common problems with movies of this genre, let us move on to the more crucial problems.

Ant-Man’s superpower is the ability to change sizes freely, from regular human size to ant size and vice versa. He can also control various ants - and while this may seem useless, it is actually very useful since ants are everywhere (I would even go on to say that it could be more useful than his first power if used correctly). He can not only fight well but also escape easily from tight situations and use ants as distractions and transportation. 

An essential aspect of any action movie (superhero movies contain lots of action) is for the audience to feel seriously worried about the hero’s safety. Without this, the audience is just left to watch great CGI. Indeed, Ant-Man’s powers make him very powerful and agile and yes, in the end the hero will triumph over the villain, but during the action sequences it is important to induce a sense of concern. If the hero is powerful and agile like Ant-Man, the script should contain appropriate parts in which his weaknesses seem to overwhelm his strengths. However, there were no such parts and I never felt worried for his safety. One way this could have been achieved, which other movies use often, is through malfunctioning technology (I expected it to happen at least once during the movie but I was wrong). 

Another related problem is my belief that his powers were not used to their full potential. If he had truly mastered them, he should have been able to avoid any type of damage by shrinking and growing at an incredibly fast rate. The ants could have been used more often, more effectively. Overall, the action scenes could have been much more fascinating and awesome. Lastly, thee is a huge problem in the the climax (without spoiling details) - the hero makes a sacrifice, and without explanation he is returned to safety. While this magical revival is common in Marvel movies, the writers still give some kind of explanation as to how it happened. In Ant-Man, they didn't even bother to explain how it happened.

Ant-Man does have its strengths. The humor is appropriately inserted and does not distract from the important scenes. The acting was quite good (although I was a little shocked by Michael Douglas' poor acting in the beginning). You can't miss the Stan Lee and don't leave too early because you'll miss the after-credits scene and the after- after-credits scene. And of course, it was entertaining. But these are characteristics of many of Marvel's other movies, and other movies did it better. To sum it up, Ant-Man definitely could have been better.

7.0/10 - an average superhero movie.

The Social Network (2010) - Reviewed

The Social Network is directed by David Fincher and stars Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook. Sadly, many know it as just the "Facebook movie," deeming it as a boring documentary about a successful computer programmer. I would have thought so too had I not known who the director was. However, having experienced the mastery and finesse of Fincher, I knew this movie was going to be more than a dull biography. 

It begins with Zuckerberg before his huge success, at a local bar with his girlfriend. The few minutes of their interaction gives a great first impression of Mark as a human being. His attractive girlfriend tries to carry out a conversation with him, he only talks what interests him and doesn't listen, his words are offensively honest, and you wonder why she is still dating him - at which point she breaks up with him. The next scene shows Mark on his way to his room with background music and names of people involved with the movie (actors, producers, etc. - you know, the opening credits) appearing on the sides, but it also sets the tone of the entire movie very well. Fast-paced shots of Mark running around and the cold Boston background foreshadows the ensuing captivating but blue atmosphere. And here you realize that this isn't the documentary you've been expecting, but rather a much more complex, film-like story that will keep you attentive for the next two hours. 

Before this review starts, I have to point out that the accuracy of the script plays no part in the review. (Zuckerberg said that the portrayal of his character is too impersonal and that he found the movie "hurtful.") This review is solely based on the quality of the movie itself.

The seemingly ordinary story of the creation and development of Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg decides to quit school one day to create an ingenious website that will revolutionize social media and change the way we interact and think, and he becomes the youngest billionaire. Happy ending, right? Like the poster says ("You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies"), this movie will focus more on the ugly sides of the story. By introducing two lawsuits, one with Eduardo Saverin and one with the Winklevoss twins, the story unfolds to show us  just the important parts but melts together to form a coherent storyline.  Instead of a linear story with no interruptions, it cuts back and forth between the main story and the lawsuits. Usually, this would be a recipe for an incoherent story that the audience cannot follow, but Fincher and his crew crafted this so excellently that it not only flows smoothly, but it actually works as a way to keep the viewers attention for the entire runtime.

Mark's character, whether an accurate depiction or not, is great. A nerdy programmer with poor social skills, yet at the same time so charismatic and witty, is difficult to come alive on screen. Eduardo's superiority in both looks and finances, coupled with the odd submissiveness toward Mark, is also fascinating. Sean Parker's character is more common, but still fits in aptly. The characterization of these people is also done very well. Instead of resorting to direct characterization, Fincher brings them to us indirectly through their conversations and actions. The fact that they stick in our minds so definitively proves that they are great characters. Watching them interact in Aaron Sorkin's beautifully written story is worth whatever a movie ticket costs at your hometown. (Yes, I know it was released five years ago.)

The actors that portrayed the characters did a phenomenal job to assist the great writing. There is no need to mention Jesse Eisenberg as Mark - we all knew the character would fit him and that he would do great. But still, it would be a dishonor not to mention that his discrete mannerisms and consistent tone made him a believable Mark. Andrew Garfield also played a great Eduardo, especially in the emotional parts. I had no idea that the Winklevoss twins were played by the same actor, Armie Hammer, and even Justin Timberlake played a great charismatic asshole, Sean Parker.

As I've mentioned before, the story isn't just about the development of Facebook - it's much more complex. There are two hidden motives behind Mark's actions that aren't very evident in the story: girls and finals clubs (These aren't spoilers since they are mentioned from the beginning). Girls start the whole story with "Facemash," while finals clubs impact Mark's relationships with a certain individual. These two seemingly minor factors play an adequate role in the story - they aren't too significant but still discretely influence Mark's choices.

Overall, The Social Network successfully turns what might seem like an ordinary story into two hours of thrilling character interaction and fluent storytelling.

10/10 -  Definitely worth your time. (Please refrain from calling it the "Facebook movie.")

World War Z (2013) - Reviewed

World War Z is 2013's big summer blockbuster starring Brad Pitt. You know how it goes - in a big U.S. city, everything is fine until one day, an unknown infection spreads and turns people into maniacal biters. Gerry Lane (Pitt), a retired UN investigator, is asked to find the source of the disease and if possible, a way to thwart its spread. To do this, he has to leave his family behind and travel to various places on the globe.

Let's begin with what I liked about this movie, because there's not much. Zombie movies rely on the suspense, the fear that our main character might get injured, and there were some good intense scenes. The fact that the zombies weren't just dead creatures walking around (like in The Walking Dead) but actually aggressive, fast runners added to that. And of course, Brad Pitt is a convincing actor that fits into roles like these well (even if it is the generic Brad Pitt character).

Where to start... the plot. To put it simply, the story is boring and cliched. If you've read any article about this movie, you'll know that it went through countless rewrites by practically everyone in Hollywood. That's probably the reason why it's so bland and out-of-focus. Pretty much, this is the story: Gerry flies somewhere, shit goes wrong because, you know, something has to happen - he's the main character! Then he goes somewhere else, and guess what, shit goes wrong there too. The plot holes are pretty amazing as well. From beginning to end, it's filled with conveniences for the main character. Of course, in any movie, the main character will be luckier than everyone else and he/she will survive harsh, even seemingly-impossible circumstances. But there's a limit to that. There was a part of the movie when I just continuously shook my head. (I'll explain it in the spoiler-alerted section.)

To give you a feeling of the quality of the writing without spoiling anything important, here are some problems in the first 15 minutes. Gerry and his family are stuck in traffic and people in the streets are starting to panic and run. Then suddenly, a huge truck accelerates through the traffic jam, smashing everything in its way and killing a police officer who was right next to Gerry's car. The camera shows his two little girls in the car, and they're just - panting. Panting? Wouldn't they be screaming or crying if they just saw a person killed right next to them? This wouldn't bother me as much if in the next scene, the girl hadn't started screaming when they're driving fine on the road.

The truck that smashes through everything is driven by a zombie - but why would the zombie be pressing the accelerator? Every other zombie in the movie seemed to be chasing people. Just another way for our characters to escape the traffic jam. So they're driving along fine until an ambulance crashes into them. It seemed like a fatal accident (especially if they weren't wearing seat belts - oh wait, the girls weren't) - if not, then there at least should have been some major bleeding and broken bones. But no, Gerry and his family are perfectly fine. A kind citizen decides to abandon his perfectly fine RV with a gun inside, and our characters exit the chaos safely.

Hopefully, that gave you an idea of World War Z's quality. Now, as for the characters, there is absolutely no development or meaningful interactions between them. This movie primarily features Brad Pitt, and he's the usual bad-ass, smart, handsome man and nothing more. The fact that he has a wife and kids is supposed to makes us care for him more, but that connection is so weakly portrayed that he might as well be single. In fact, that would have been better.

To add one last remark in the spoiler-free section, the ending was incredibly anticlimactic and disappointing. The next part contains spoilers so just scroll down to view my rating if you haven't seen the movie yet.

---

Analyzing the beginning wasn't enough for me because there are more important scenes that I have greater problems with. First, the plane scene. Gerry and his partner get on the plane, they're at high altitude, and of course, there's a zombie on the plane. Why would the zombie wait silently in the bathroom the entire takeoff, wait till they can't land, and then come out and attack? They obviously aren't that smart, judging from the entire of the movie. So the entire back of the plane gets infected and slowly Gerry realizes that at this rate, everyone's going to get infected. So he decides to blow up a hole in the plane with a grenade. What was he thinking? 'Since we're all gonna die, I'll just kill everyone instead!' So the plane crashes and (this is where I shook my head) of course, the only two survivors are Gerry and his partner. And the plane crashed at walking distance from where they were headed to anyways. How convenient.

The crux of the movie, the point where Gerry figures out the mystery behind the zombies, is scene where he observes a massive wave of zombies simply running past a child. He figures out, from that, that zombies ignore terminally ill people since they aren't healthy hosts to the virus. So say that was the case. But why would the zombies run past the kid? Shouldn't they simply trample over him since he's in the way? The wave was huge, and every zombie avoided him, as if they saw him through the crowd and consciously avoided him. Okay - even if the do avoid the sick, there should have been at least one zombie in that huge crowd that didn't see him and ran into him. If there was a concrete pillar in place of that kid, they would have ran into it - I mean, they seem to like bumping into walls and obstacles in any other scene. Anyways, my point is that that scene shouldn't have happened like it happened, which would have prevented (or at least delayed) Gerry from figuring out the key fact.

There, I'm done ranting about World War Z (although the ending does invite another paragraph or two). If you wanna watch a similar(?) apocalypse-type movie that actually does it right, watch District 9. There's a good movie for you.

6.0/10

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) - Reviewed

Fantastic Mr. Fox features Mr. Fox and his family - wife, son and nephew - along with some of his other animal friends as they live their quaint lives. But one day, Mr. Fox decides to give into his beast-like instincts and his mischief gets the entire animal community in danger. As their human neighbors, Boggis, Bunce and Bean - some of the nastiest farmers in the area - threaten their lives, they have to work together to overcome and beat their enemies.

Okay, so you're a fan of Disney/Pixar and all the classic stories they've brought us over the years; or, you love the different atmosphere that Hayao Miyazaki's masterpieces provide. But behind Aladdin, Toy Story or Howl's Moving Castle, there is this hidden gem brought to us by Wes Anderson.

If you've seen a Wes Anderson film before (his most recent and famous one being Grand Budapest Hotel), you'll understand when I say that his style is quite unique. The characters have a quirky side, the story is a bit absurd, and not everything goes as you'd expect. Now, this could mean good or bad. I'll be honest, I didn't really enjoy Moonrise Kingdom... it didn't quite work for me. But for Fantastic Mr. Fox (and Grand Budapest Hotel), his style worked perfectly.

The animation isn't the clean-crisp CGI animation you're used to but rather a claymation-like(?), stop-motion picture, but it somehow makes it more likable. The premise is very easy - animals fighting against humans, and from here, you know that the plot isn't going to be the most realistic. As I've said, Anderson's stories are a little ridiculous and maybe even silly, and you can see how that works so well with this movie. You may argue that the story is too simple or childish, but I think it embraces that and uses it to its advantage to create a marvelous story. The voice acting, the music, ... they're all great.

I've skipped analysis of other aspects to examine its biggest strength: characters. I can state without a doubt that of all the movies I've seen, Fantastic Mr. Fox has one of the best characters. They really make the movie fantastic. Mr. Fox's dominant personality and battle with his instincts, Mrs. Fox's quiet yet strict ways, Ash's constant jealousy and grumpy mood, Kristofferson's peaceful charm and meditations, Rat's flirty meanness, ... The list could go on. Even the main villains are not all the same boring character. They each have their own story, diet, and personality. Of course, the interaction among them is almost flawless as well, being genuine but also humorous at a lot of times.

However, there is another layer to these characters. What makes this movie stand out from the rest is that they have subtle traits and (maybe not so subtle) habits, which really sell them as more than just animals (or humans) on a screen. The most obvious one is Mr. Fox's whistle-snap repertoire (which is honestly pretty contagious) and he does it very often in the movie. Other ones include Ash's ears fluttering when he's mad, the hand motions that always accompany the phrase "just... different," the way Mr. Fox eats his pancakes like a true animal, Kylie's zoning out, or "what the cuss!". None of these details are really 'necessary' to the story, but they make the characters all the more believable.

There are countless other marvelous tidbits that I didn't mention here - you'll just have to experience it yourself! If you've been judging this movie as merely a children's source of enjoyment, you'll be surprised to discover one of the most unique, memorable animated movies of all time. (But if you have seen it and didn't enjoy it, that's okay - I guess Wes Anderson is not for everyone.)

10/10 - A truly fantastic movie.

"Boggis, Bunce, and Bean,
One fat, one short, one lean,
Those horrible crooks,
So different in looks,
Were nonetheless equally mean."

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) - Reviewed

Wreck-It Ralph is one of my favorite animated movies - probably second on the list. Now, there are the classics that everyone praises: Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Up... All of these I've seen as a kid and do exist in my list of great animated movies. But I watched Wreck-It Ralph in high school when I began to understand films more and enjoyed the heck out of it - and that's why it's so high up on my list.

Wreck-It Ralph is about Ralph, the bad guy in an arcade game called 'Fix-it Felix'. Ralph is sick of being the bad guy all the time, for which he gets no credit, and decides to go earn his honor and admiration by winning a medal in another game, Hero's Duty. He gets his precious medal, but through a series of accidents, ends up in a different game called 'Sugar Rush' and loses his medal to a little girl, Vanellope. Ralph's search for his medal turns into an adventure in which he meets new friends, learns about the arcade's past, and rediscovers his identity as a 'bad guy'.

Before anything, we have to look at Wreck-It Ralph's setting. In an arcade full of games connected by a power-strip, the game's characters "come to life" when the arcade is closed (kind of like how the toys in Toy Story come to life when people aren't watching). They can visit each other's games by going through Game Central Station (the power-strip) and are free to interact, but if they die outside of their own game, they will not regenerate. This ingenious idea is combined with short appearances of our childhood games' characters - Pac-Man, Sonic, Bowser and even Q*bert - to create a solid foundation for an amazing movie.

The movie's theme is one we can all relate to - a mistreated character desiring acceptance. If you've experienced a form of bullying or ostracizing, you'll be able to connect. And even if you haven't, I'm sure you feel uncomfortable when someone is getting treated unfairly. We can see that Ralph is such a character and we feel bad for him. So on top of all that, when Vanellope takes his medal, we get frustrated at her - and this is why some viewers may dislike her at first - but her character is further developed and later we understand her actions.

The two main characters are fantastic. They are similar in many ways, but also quite different. Watching their relationship evolve throughout the movie, not just uphill the whole time but with slumps, makes it possible for us to believe in and get attached to them more. In fact, we get so attached to them that the movie reaches a genuinely emotional level that you would not expect from it. Supporting characters include Sgt. Calhoun, a strong female character (a rarity in animated movies) from Hero's Duty, and the goody-two-shoes Felix, the good guy in Ralph's game. These two and their interaction are more comedic (as apparent from their polar characteristics) but are also essential to the overall movie. From Calhoun's incomprehensible analogies to Felix's "dynamite gal," these two are very entertaining to watch.

About the story - when watching an animated movie, I tend to value qualities such as originality, characters, and relatability more important than the storyline. But I've been getting tired of movies that sacrifice a good story for other factors (Big Hero 6, Inside Out...). The reason I like Wreck-It Ralph so much is that it doesn't have to make that sacrifice. In fact, it's story might be a little complicated compared to other children's movies (which is why I think teenagers and adults will like it more than kids). From Cy-bugs to glitches and game-jumping... it's a great story.

The humor ranges from simple bathroom-jokes ("Hero's doody") to very clever ones ("You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you?"). Also, there are so many clever word-plays that they incorporated with the entire candy-themed land and sugary characters. Bonus points go for the Oreo song, deviled-dogs, and the fact that the policemen were donuts.

Overall, Wreck-It Ralph has all the essentials of a great movie. It did miss a catchy soundtrack that gets stuck in your head for months, but I'm glad it didn't depend on music to make it memorable. If I had a problem with it though, it would be the ending, at the climax of the movie. It seemed too convenient - to spoil nothing I won't say what - but you'll see what I mean.

9.5/10

Midnight in Paris (2011) - Reviewed

Midnight in Paris is directed by Woody Allen and stars Owen Wilson as Gil, an american writer dissatisfied with his current line of work (writing movie scripts that he is assigned). On vacation, he visits Paris with his fiance and her parents and slowly falls in love with it. He gets the thought of moving there to do what he really want to - write novels, but in order to do so, he must give up his whole career in the states. Although Gil is ready to make that sacrifice, his wife Inez definitely isn't, and it's clear that her values do not match his. As they tour around Paris, Gil decides to take a nighttime walk on his own instead of accompanying his wife to a party, and he discovers the hidden mysteries of the city.

To begin with, this review will contain spoilers. However, even if you haven't seen it yet, I think it would be okay to read on - here's why. Midnight in Paris isn't about the plot points or specific happenings in the story. With other movies (such as Memento or Fight Club), giving away specifics would ruin the entire viewing experience. But for Allen's film, the main substance is its charming tone, and "spoiling" details will not alter that. 

Now, about the tone - the movie isn't meant to be taken all too seriously, but neither is it a pure comedy. The nicely balanced, light mood allows all audiences to appreciate it. Gil's time travels at night show us the beauty and glory of the past through amusing depictions of famous writers and artists. Watching on screen the people we've studied in textbooks is definitely a unique experience. Both the interactions among artists and their interactions with Gil show, in a believable manner, what it would have been like to meet them. I especially enjoyed Hemingway and Dali, but more notable was Gertrude Stein, whom I could truly believe in as a character. 

In addition, Allen knits in a lesson to be learned from the story. Usually for a movie of this style, adding a lesson would be harmful as it detracts from the mood. However, Midnight in Paris does a nice job of incorporating this small message.

On the other hand, the movie itself isn't too special or relatable. I wouldn't be surprised if artists or people in a similar situation to Gil would really appreciate this movie, but for most people, it's someone else's story. There simply isn't much to connect with. Even the lesson in the story can only be empathized by a few. The result is: you watch it once, get impressed by the characters of the past, and forget about this movie.

Midnight in Paris isn't a bad movie, but it doesn't stand out either. Again, I would understand if some people really like it. But for me, it's just - okay.

8.0/10 - an okay score.