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.

Inside Out (2015) - Reviewed

Inside Out is the latest Pixar movie and it's brought to us by the creators of the beloved Up. The story features Riley growing up through her childhood and adolescence, and the emotions that exist in her head during these times. There are five 'emotions' - joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear - and they basically 'control' Riley's feelings from inside her head. We are introduced to how it works through her childhood events as she builds sweet memories that define her as a person. But as she gets older, her thoughts and feelings become more complicated and this leads to some trouble among the 'emotions' inside her head.

I'm sure that by now, you have all watched the trailer and gotten a grasp of the concept of Inside Out. This idea of emotions interacting in your head may have been done before, but nonetheless it was still fresh for me. Watching the five players interact was intriguing and amusing. The whole system was really cool - how memories are stored and some serve as core memories that build 'islands', which represent the most important values of a person.

The beginning of the movie was excellent. While Riley's childhood is a normal one, it was presented in a genuine manner that allows us to connect and empathize. There was a good balance between scenes in and out of her head to build Riley as a character. Her interaction and experiences with her parents were also well portrayed. Then, when the problem starts to unravel inside her head, joy and sadness's journey through Riley's head begins.

The strongest point of this movie in my opinion is its creative portrayals of different things in your head. There are minor ones that are just a play on words, with the most frequently used one being the 'train of thought'. Others include actual parts of our brain or thoughts. They enter the 'abstract thought factory' and experience the process of abstraction, which I really enjoyed. The subconscious was also well-realized, but I wish it was developed further. Probably my favorite of all portrayals was dream productions. I loved how it was similar to shooting movie with a script and actors, and the addition of a filter that makes dreams crazy like the usually are. Other details I enjoyed include the basic layout of long-term memory storage (the endless rows of memory balls) and little characters like Bing-Bong and the memory-janitors that live in this space. Oh, and you can't forget the gum-advertisement song.

That being said, there were some weak portrayals as well. Overall, it did seem like an over-simplification of complex phenomena in the brain. I know, it's a children's movie... But I still have to point it out. For example, the fact that there are only five emotions or just a few islands was a bit distracting. When joy and sadness are missing, the movie makes it seem like Riley cannot feel happiness at all (which is understandable) but then she also shouldn't be feeling sad - and I'm pretty sure she was sad a lot.

Inside Out's story was alright. Since the trailer shows the dinner table conversation and each of the family member's 'emotions' interactions (a great scene), I expected the whole story to focus on more people than just Riley and her 'emotions'. It would have been great to see a continuation of that. In fact, I really enjoyed the scenes during the credits that showed inside the heads of different people/animals. Instead, they chose to focus on one character, which isn't necessary a bad choice. However, the journey in the head was a bland one, with two characters who don't get along but later learn to appreciate each other, the sacrificial helper, and the convenient wrap-up. I knew they were going to return safely, so I eventually got a little tired of following through their journey and it did feel a tad drawn out.

The movie had good humor and consistent laughs with play-on-words and funny situations. I feel bad for the majority of the Koreans who were watching it with me because most of the humor couldn't be translated appropriately. (Thus I often found myself chuckling alone in the big theater.) The adequate amount of humor allowed Inside Out to be much more enjoyable. Overall, it was a creative work with many relatable themes but lacked a corresponding original story. However, it did leave me thinking about the 'emotions' and 'islands' that are dominant in my own head.

8.0/10

A final note: As soon as the credits rolled, I was ready to give this an 8.5 or 9.0. This was a few days ago. Now, looking back at the movie, I realize that it's not as high as I thought. What changed? - the following can happen with a lot of movies, especially with movies that I go to watch because of its amazing reviews and ratings. (Inside Out currently has an 8.7/10 on IMDb and 98% on Rotten Tomatoes.) What happens is - as I'm watching, I tend to focus on its strengths and overlook some weaknesses to align it with my expectations. Leaving the theaters, I usually overrate it. But after a few days of contemplation, the hype surrounding the movie wears off and I'm left with a more objective point of view. Thus my final score it an 8.0.

Before Sunrise (1995), Before Sunset (2004), Before Midnight (2013) - Reviewed

The Before Trilogy (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight) is directed by Richard Linklater who brought to us Boyhood, one of the most memorable film of 2014. In these series, he worked with Ethan Hawke (as he did in Boyhood) and Julie Delpy, and we pretty much just watch the interaction between them for the entire three movies. You might think, 'how do you make three whole movies about the same two people? This is probably a boring series about a corny love story'. But when you watch the first 30 minutes of Before Sunrise, you'll change you mind completely.

Before Sunrise begins with Jesse (Hawke), an American, and Celine (Delpy), a French, on a train in Europe. They begin conversing and soon enough they feel a connection to each other. When the train stops at Jesse's station, he spontaneously asks Celine to get off with him, to which she eventually agrees. As they explore the city of Vienna together, their feelings for each other grow stronger. But they know the moment will not last long, as Jesse has to board a plane to the U.S. the next morning.

Before Sunset takes place some time later when they meet in Europe again. I won't even give an introduction for this one, because even from the beginning, I was pleasantly surprised by the setting of the second movie in the trilogy. Before Midnight is years after it's precursor. For the same reasons, I won't introduce this one, but let me tell you that this one is more serious in tone and adds an essential element that brings the series to an amazing close.

When most of today's romance movies are plagued with the same plot, cheesy dialogue, and fake romance, I was hesitant to watch Before Sunrise. But soon enough, I fell in love with it and made my way onto the second and third. Probably the strongest characteristic of these movies is that they feel very genuine. The way the characters talk and interact, it doesn't seem like the usual "movie-dialogue" and there are no forced jokes that are thrown in for laughs. On top of that, the characters are very interesting. They share similarities but also differences, they have their unique views on issues, and when they converse, these traits and preferences subtly but truly come out. This is the result of an excellent script, direction, and acting (man, are they good actors) and it allows for three very captivating movies to be made about just two people.

The series doesn't rely on a complicated plot to keep the audiences attention. The plot is extremely simple, but it makes you want to get to know the characters more. In each movie, they have to face an unfortunate circumstance - for example in Before Sunrise, Jesse has to leave the next morning but they don't want to be separated. To watch the two deal with these problems together gives you something to look forward to - it adds an element of mystery. The endings of each movie are especially notable. They are very appropriate - it doesn't tie up the story completely (except for the last one) or give everything away. It's not a sugar-sweet ending that most romance movies have, but it's also not an extremely emotional, sad one. Then, to watch how Linklater continues the story in his second, and then third, movies is marvelous. You expect the sequels to be at certain settings (as I mentioned above), but they aren't. In the beginning you may desire what you expected, but you'll soon realize that the setting that Linklater chose is actually a much better choice.

The Before Trilogy paints a genuine picture of romance - and not just the lovey-dovey part, but also some of its ugly sides. This well-directed, wonderfully-acted movie reminded me what love is like and I'm certain it will for you too.

Before Sunrise - 9.0/10

Before Sunset - 8.5/10

Before Midnight - 9.0/10

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - Reviewed

On first sight, you may think this is another cliched horror movie about college students who go to a cabin in the woods and bad things start to happen. If you've seen the trailer, you will probably assume that it's a bit smarter than that - the bad things are actually being controlled by mean scientists behind a screen. But you will never expect what you're about to see in The Cabin in the Woods.

Five college students take a vacation to an isolated shack, the ideal location for horror events. The characters are you're normal stereotypes: the athlete, the stoner, the good girl, the naughty girl, and the brains. Great, you know what's gonna happen - the athlete and the good girl will survive, then he will sacrifice himself to save her, and she might or might not end up dying. End of story, you don't need to watch this movie. Well... No. The movie actually starts in the facility as we listen to the scientists' conversations. You won't quite get it at first, but it soon enough focuses on our main characters and you'll temporarily forget the odd beginning. The story progresses as you'd expect. Night comes and they slowly discover that the cabin is a little spooky. Bad things/monsters/people (I won't tell you which one) appear and attack. Once again, you think you have this movie figured out. But just continue watching and realize how wrong you were.

I am not a big fan of horror movies; in fact, I rarely watch them. But I decided to give this one a try, and I didn't regret it at all. Now, when I usually review a movie, I talk about its essential qualities - plot, characters, originality, direction, acting, and so on - and out of these, I usually emphasize the what the movie was going for. For example, I gave Big Hero 6 a low score because an animated film should be original and I thought it wasn't. On the other hand, Mad Max: Fury Road got a pretty high score because, while it's plot wasn't amazing, its focus was the action and it did a fantastic job. 

For The Cabin in the Woods, I could talk about these qualities, but they are not the point. The point of this movie is that it's a metaphor - it deconstructs the horror genre accurately and it's a perfect balance between satirical and scary scenes. And to be honest, I hadn't fully understood the meaning behind this movie when I was watching it. At some parts I thought, 'Aha! I see what they are doing'. But at others, I was utterly confused (with my confusion reaching its peak at the ending). Then later, when I researched and read about it in more detail, I began to appreciate the deeper aspects of the movie. I could try to explain these myself, but it just would be a lesser version of the explanations already existent online. Here are two links you should follow (view after watching):

1. http://thenickelscreen.com/2012/04/18/the-cabin-in-the-woods-explained-its-a-giant-metaphor/
2. http://www.avclub.com/article/almost-every-horror-reference-cabin-woods-explaine-211254

However, since this is my review, I will briefly talk about the difference qualities of The Cabin in the Woods. The plot is essentially divided into three parts. Each part will be an unexpected curve for the audience; they each contain different but appropriate tones that fit the director's intentions. The characters are, as mentioned above, stereotypical. If this was any other movie, I would have railed against them vigorously. But since the point is to satirize every other movie that uses these characters (and there are countless examples), these characters are excellent choices. Direction and action are both good. Originality? No need to talk about it.

If you are easily scared, don't worry - it's not very scary, just grow some balls and watch it. If you think most horror movies are unoriginal and stale, you'll probably find this one fresh and amusing. Then, visit the links above to find out what you missed while watching. I think you'll be surprised.

8.5/10 - It was an 7.5 the moment I finished watching it, a 8.0 once I did some research, and a 8.5 once I figured out the ending.

Thoughts on the ending [Spoilers Ahead]

So you didn't like the ending. Here's what I think: The links above explain that the ancients represent us, the audience. In the movie, the ancients are appeased when the sacrifices are properly made, but when they aren't the ancients rise. Correspondingly, when watching a horror movie, the general audience expects a certain plot and horror devices (it is almost formulaic). When it breaks from the trend, the audience is disappointed/infuriated and gives it negative reviews. Thus (and this is the brilliant part), when someone watches this movie and leaves the theater angry about the weird ending that they didn't expect or understand, that's exactly the phenomenon that the movie is satirizing. They "rose" from their calm state and "destroyed" (criticized/hated) The Cabin in the Woods.

The Guest (2014) - Reviewed

The Guest is a very good title for this movie. It says nothing about it, leaving you clueless about the strange story you about to watch.

The Guest starts with a behind-shot of a man running and all of a sudden the words "The Guest" appear in purple with a dramatic chord - then a close-up of a scarecrow with a Halloween-pumpkin head accompanied by another dramatic chord. What a way to start a movie. Obviously there is something eerie about this, but what happens next is pretty normal, so you forget about the beginning. 

A soldier named David visits a family, claiming he was a friend of their son who died in battle. After a series of conversations, they invite him to stay there longer, to which he gladly agrees. It's a very typical family - an average housewife, a less-than-successful dad with mild drinking problems, the angsty teenage girl with a druggie boyfriend, and the smart nerdy middle-schooler who gets bullied. During the first few days of  his stay, he befriends every one of them and seems to help them with their problems. The most apparent one is with Luke, where David goes and beats the shit out of the bullies. (The way he does it is also pretty cool - not the standard 'grown-up teaching menaces a lesson' beating, but actual, physical damage.) However, in all he does, there is still something uncanny about it. This is emphasized at the end of every scene, which shows him staring creepily into the camera. Obviously, there is some overt foreshadowing in this movie, and soon enough the bad things start to unravel.

When watching through the first part of the movie (which I described above), it was tricky to tell whether David was being creepy on purpose or because he was an awkward actor. (His creepiness wasn't as obvious in the first scenes, so I got confused.) Later I realized he was supposed to be like that (I still don't like the weird smirk he puts on every five seconds). Later as he helps the family, the audience gets to like him. He beats up bullies as mentioned above, he is able to support the parents through some stressful times, and he even goes with the daughter to a house party, in which he parties it up. We notice that he isn't afraid to use violence against threats, making him charismatic. However there is always something that makes the audience uncomfortable. He could handle situations with less violence and there is always something unnatural about him.

Another unusual aspect that bothered me till the end is the family. The movie's characters are mainly David and the family members, and I can see the makers tried hard to make it a standard family (by including the boring characters used in every movie). The fault doesn't necessarily lie in the banality of the characters - it lies in the fact that despite them being so normal, they still seem so unnatural. From the way they interact with each other, I can say the script needed some touches and the acting is not stellar. For example, David notices the bruises on Luke's face the moment he sees him, but the parents have been clueless the entire time. In fact, there is very little parents-children interaction in this movie. 

The dad is an enigma because of several reasons, but not the enigma that you try to solve - the enigma you just can't understand because it's simply impossible. His attitude towards David changes suddenly from suspicious to affectionate for no reason. In later parts of the movie, he acts as if he has cared for his daughter all along. And every other line that comes out of his mouth is, "I need a drink" - just get your drink, alright, no need to declare it every other sentence.

Contrary to the supporting characters, the movie's strong point is the main character. David is an interesting character who develops throughout the movie. I've talked about his creepiness but also his charisma, and these two characteristic are recipes for a great villain. From beginning till end, the movie tricks us into thinking we know what the character is up to, but right then, it pulls out some weird card that confuses us again. To sum it up, David becomes less and less likable and increasingly frightening, but not completely despicable because you actually kind of liked him at first. A minor thought - the casting for his role could have been better.

The first half of the movie is pretty good - as I said, you don't know what to expect next because David keeps on changing and you enjoy getting to know the family members and how David interacts with them to build friendships. A lot of people say the second half is where the movie falls apart. I don't think it does so completely, but it definitely decreases in quality. When things start to get fishy and the daughter notices, she decides to investigate upon him and finds out some startling information. As we figure out David's identity, the movie has to start giving explanations. I won't spoil the details, but the explanations are just... boring. Lame. Overused. Also from the second half, the movie jumps into the genre of action, which is also one of its weaknesses. I understand David is supposed to be a well-trained soldier (and some other things, as you watch the movie) that make him an excellent fighter, but there is no way he could have lived through all that he did. I know in many movies the main character lives through incredible circumstances, but they do a good job of making it believable using appropriate direction and cinematography. In The Guest, they filmed the action scenes poorly, and I was just shaking my head through some of them. Finally, I have no clue what they were doing with the ending. It was unnecessary and just... ugh.

I know I've used the words 'weird', 'unnatural' and 'strange' often, but these are words that accurately describe The Guest. For what it was trying to be it did a decent job. I enjoyed the first half, which maintained the thrill of 'what's about to come next?' and the second half, despite some of its weaknesses, was satisfactory. I have one last question - are all high school Halloween mazes that well made? That maze was some high quality stuff.

7.5/10 - Enjoyable. I can't see too many people enjoying it though.

Whiplash (2014) - Reviewed

If we've talked recently, you've probably heard me talk about this movie at least several times - I've praised its amazing characters, the addicting soundtrack (which my roommates have had to listen to endlessly), and just everything about it. Well, I'm here to do it again.

Whiplash features Andrew, a jazz drummer at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory, and Terence Fletcher, his maniacal instructor. Andrew aspires to become 'one of the greats' of jazz and practices insanely to get into Fletcher's band. When he invites Andrew into his band, the best one in Shaffer, Andrew is happy to have finally been recognized. But Fletcher's teaching methods aren't orthodox - he believes in pushing students beyond their limits and does this by inflicting physical pain and verbal abuse. As Andrew continues to desire acceptance by Fletcher, his goals become an obsession, which slowly drives him insane.

According to IMDb, Whiplash's genre is drama and music - if you ask me, I'll tell you it's a thriller. When I first stumbled upon Whiplash, I honestly didn't expect much. I hadn't seen too many memorable music-themed movies, and I didn't think this would be any different. Boy, how wrong I was. When the movie ended and the credits rolled, I wanted the movie to keep going for another two hours because the 100 minute run-time was too good.

Whiplash is set in the U.S., but there is almost nothing that ties it to a specific place or time. Andrew could be a student in any setting, along with the other characters. Anyone can relate and empathize with this timeless and place-less story. Although they do mention Fordham University, football, and the NFL, they are insignificant and do not detract from the emotional connection. Along with the story being relatable, it is also very ordinary. What do I mean by this? In many movies these days, the world within the movie seems different from the real world. An obvious example would be Transformers, a world in which giant alien robots that can turn into vehicles exist. But this is the case even in non- Sci-fi movies. In Gone Girl, there is still something that makes me think, 'most likely, this cannot happen in real life'. But for Whiplash, I believe that this could happen. I know from friends who study music that there are very harsh, terrifying teachers out there. I know some extremely ambitious students, not just in the musical world, who will do anything - anything - to achieve their dreams. I consider Whiplash to be an epitomes of a good movie: it doesn't have fancy special effects or a spectacular cast, but it can take an ordinary situation, mix in some interesting characters, and produce the best movie of its year.

Let's talk about the characters. In the beginning, I didn't think that Andrew, the main character, is very unique. We've all seen an ambitious but unconfident college student without many friends. On the other hand, Fletcher was an original piece of work from the start. He is neither the mean, despicable coach who bullies his students for fun nor the caring, saint-like mentor that turns the life of a troubled kid around. He is obviously extremely mean (I could talk about his badass insults, but that's a whole other topic), but there is also a meaningful motive behind his actions which he mentions throughout the movie. Because of this strange dichotomy, we cannot make up our minds about him, hating him one moment and admiring him the other. Back to Andrew - he doesn't stay the boring character that he is. Through his interaction with Fletcher, he continues to change - but it's not necessarily for the better. As Fletcher continues to torture him, he simultaneously motivates him, turning him more and more crazy. His insanity spreads to other aspects of his life, as we see in the dinner-table talk scene and the way he breaks up with his girlfriend (which, by the way, is not a spoiler because it's in the trailer). I cannot say that this movie has the best characters I've seen (that award is still kept by The Fantastic Mr. Fox) - but I can definitely say that it has one my favorite character interactions.

The plot itself is very simple and concise. A majority of the scenes focus on the two's relationship. The other scenes add character and insight into Andrew. There are no elaborate plot sequences or plot twists (which seem to be a trend these days), but I have heard people say that Whiplash has the best ending to a movie they have ever seen. I've also heard from others that they felt it was too sudden - they were expecting more but it just ended. I relate with the latter more, although I don't necessarily deem the ending as bad: a movie makes me crave two more hours is a pretty damn good movie. Whichever side you're on, the 100 minutes will fly past without you knowing.

I rarely talk about this aspect of a movie (mainly because I don't know much about it) but I want to praise the music in Whiplash. You might be thinking, 'it's a music movie - the music has to be good'. Well, it's really, really good. I've never been a fan of jazz - not that I didn't like it, I hadn't the opportunity to listen to it much. This movie not only showed me amazing filmmaking, but also introduced me to a previously-unknown beautiful genre of music. Ever since my first viewing, I've turned on the soundtrack at least once a day. I can't get it out of my head, and I don't want it to leave. Due to Whiplash, I'm trying to get more familiar with jazz, and I even have a growing desire to learn drums. If you don't watch too many movies but want to hear some good music, watch Whiplash. 

If you look closely at the poster, you can see many quotes from various sources. Every one of them is true. Oh, here's a fun fact. Whiplash was filmed in 19 days and edited in a month; most movies take years to its final product, and they aren't half as good as this one. To the director and writer of this fantastic movie: Damien Chazelle, I will be expecting many more great works from you.

10/10 - favorite movie of 2014.

Boyhood (2014) - Reviewed

The biggest film gimmick of the 21st century - but it worked. Boyhood walks through the youth and adolescent years of Mason Evans Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) from age six to eighteen. He goes through what every child has to while growing up - schoolwork and friends, problems with parents, moving and meeting unfamiliar people, relationships and breakups - just think about your adolescence. But he also experiences more hardship than the average kid, which adds some spice to the storyline. Through Mason's 12 years of both good and bad times, we enter a time capsule that allows us to reminisce on our own childhood.

When I had heard of this movie, what stuck in my head was, 'it was made over 12 years'. Surely I'm not the only one who was impressed by this fact. Not only is the length of time itself a surprise, but the risks of this journey are incalculable. Let's say any of the actors chose to walk out on the movie - that's the entire project from start again. However, they managed to get through it without noticeable difficulties. And not only is that praiseworthy - the actors in the movie did something for which they will be remembered for a long time. Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke star as the parents of Mason, and they do a tremendous job at it. For that period of time, staying in character is not easy - but to evolve as the character goes through its experiences is a task on another level.

I actually did not go to watch this in theaters when it came out, even though I had heard that "it's really good!" and was intrigued by the lengthy time of its making. To be honest, the reason I didn't go was the length of its making. I assumed that some people watched this movie with the 12-years-gimmick hype and overrated it, when in fact it is mediocre. I did not want to go through another Gravity: [Digression] I was excited to watch Gravity because everyone was telling me how amazing it was. They said that the special effects feel so real that no child will ever want to become an astronaut after watching it. Then I went to watch it - I was so bored I fell asleep during one of the supposedly-intense space scenes. Anyways, what I realized is that some people had overrated it simply due to the special effects, which I admit were good. 

Back to Boyhood - months after it came out on theaters, I watched it on my computer and realized that this was not the same case as Gravity. The movie was "really good!" and didn't feel boring for the entire three-hour runtime. And the more I thought about it, the more shocking this fact was - let me tell you why. The way they filmed this movie was by shooting a few scenes a year and later combining it as a whole. Through a period of 12 years, a movie can begin to lose its focus, and editing that much footage can be daunting. However, the fact that they managed to produce an end-product that not only flows coherently but also completely absorbs the viewer is incredible.

As of now, some time has passed since my viewing of Boyhood, and the effect of the gimmick has worn off. I've come to realize something important. Imagine if, instead of 12 years, this movie took one year to make, with the child actors in each scene being different people. I highly doubt it would have gotten as much attention. The script itself is extremely ordinary - the characters are, more or less, quite common; the storyline is very basic. The only character I found unique was college-student Mason as he develops his own worldview. Considering this, it's surprising that I wasn't bored throughout the movie - but I think I know the reason. As I was watching, I knew that all the characters were played by the same actors throughout the entire movie. This got me curious as to how the cute children will grow up to become young adults. It's not necessarily the characters that left me intrigued. It's more the actors themselves - how their looks will change as they age. So the reason I wasn't bored cannot be attributed to the movie itself.

Finally, Boyhood is enjoyable to watch - once. When I was done watching, I felt the satisfaction I receive when a good movie is over, but I can say that I will never feel the desire to watch it again. This says something, because when I really like a movie, I want to watch it again and again until I get tired of it - and then watch it once more. It's like when you're listening to music and a song gets stuck in your head. You just have to listen to it until its out of your system. The day I watched Boyhood I also watched Whiplash and their difference is that the latter is stuck in my thoughts and will be for a long time. If you can enjoy Boyhood more than once, that's great - I admire you. But I can't.

8.5/10 - If you haven't seen it yet, you should.

Birdman (2014) - Reviewed

As I happen to live in a place where superhero movies aren't terribly popular (a.k.a. South Korea), it's a huge shame that Birdman didn't get many views in theaters. But wait, Birdman isn't a superhero movie! Sadly that's what many people here thought. And those who did watch it sat down on their seats expecting another Ironman or Batman. What they got was two hours of complex, meaningful scenes (should I say one scene?) that explores deep, unknown parts of the film industry and the psychology of celebrities. But before we go into that, let me introduce the movie.

Birdman, or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, follows the happenings of Riggan Thompson, a once-popular actor of the Birdman series who is now much forgotten. Riggan tries to gain back his popularity and acclaim through a Broadway play, which he himself directed, wrote, and stars in. However, not everything goes as he wants - in fact, the condition of his play only becomes more disastrous. Through Riggan's struggle to turn his life around, we get a deeper look at his relationships with coworkers, familial issues, and most importantly, his psychological well-being.

Watching the trailer to this movie did not at all prepare me for a movie like this. I thought it would be a somewhat-ordinary movie which has a great cast and an entertaining storyline. And while it is an extremely well-cast and entertaining, it's definitely not ordinary. If we want to talk about the technical things first, the sort of gimmicks that makes the common audience go 'wow', Birdman is made to look like it's taken in one shot. This is a physically difficult task both for the actors and the editors, and it's definitely a brave accomplishment. It's no surprise that it took Best Cinematography. Also, almost the entirety of the soundtrack is just drums. Another notable fact.

The cast was great without a doubt. Michael Keaton plays Riggan, which is an excellent choice. Keaton is similar to his character in that, a few decades ago, he was Batman in Tim Burton's series. Since then Keaton has been sort of forgotten. (To prove this point, even I didn't know who he was until this movie.) Keaton can empathize with Riggan, and he did an excellent job in his role. Edward Norton is Mike Shiner, a huge asshole with amazing acting and artistic skills. Both despicable and likable, Mike is portrayed by Norton with precise, skillful acting. (I start to question whether J.K Simmons deserved the Best Supporting Actor Award.) Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, and others were good too.

To delve deeper into the film- did I mention that Birdman is extremely complex and meaningful? It's difficult to choose where to start explaining this. Let's look at the main character first. Riggan is bombarded with problems - his play ruined beyond repair, relationships with other actors are crumbling apart, and every encounter with his daughter ends up in a fight. In other words, his life is not too hot - and it's starting to affect his mental health. Riggan has a desire to become known and admired again. And in his mind, there are two ways he can go about it. He can revive himself through a distinguished piece of art, which is why he sacrifices so much on his play. On the opposing side is the voice that tells him to achieve fame through the old Birdman movies again. We can assume that the two choices contrast in that the first is 'actual' art made by a 'real' artist, while the second is 'just a franchise' to make money and become a celebrity. When his play starts to fail, the latter voice becomes bigger and bigger and slowly drives him crazy. Throughout the movie, there are numerous scenes where his psychological battle heightens, and we can feel this very intensely.

Other characters also convey depth. We can tell what each character symbolizes, some more clearly that others. Mike is a natural actor - and even beyond that, he is an artist. But since he is so preoccupied with that, it's difficult for him to live in the real world. He easily antagonizes people but doesn't really care - all he cares about is art and its truthfulness. Mike represents the true artists in the film industry who don't get along with others very well and can sometimes be unrealistic about their ambitions. The theater critic in this movie, Tabitha, is a reflection of critics in the real world. Other supporting characters show briefly but accurately their respective symbols - the various types of people in the film and entertainment industry.

Not only is Birdman an enlightening view on the world of cinema, but it's also an honest portrayal of relationships between people. Preoccupied father and juvenile delinquent daughter - this relationship is seen through Riggan and Sam just a few times, but its so real. At a certain point, Sam shouts an essay of hurtful words at Riggan but none of it seems exaggerated. It feels like an truthful outburst that she has been keeping inside her for a long time. Divorced man and woman; neglectful husband and jealous wife; coworkers that don't get along because they have differing views - these are all shown accurately in this movie.

I want to emphasize again that this is extremely intricate and enlightening, but due to that, confusing. It's definitely not something for the common movie-goer. So be prepared.

9.5/10 - The reason it's not a ten is that it can sometimes feel long. The one-take style can make the movie seem even longer for those who don't really like artistic films.