The Vow

Wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be...

The Vow is about a married couple that make it through a bad car accident, however, Rachel McAdam's character (the wife) experiences partial memory loss.  She can't remember her own husband.  As you can imagine, this would be just devastating for the husband, played by Channing Tatum.  Instead of dwelling on the bad, he sees it as an opportunity to make his wife fall in love with him all over again.  Does it work?

Well, the romantic in all of us would certainly hope so, but don't hold your breath.

So, I'm conflicted.  This film does not satisfy the romance genre as I would hope, because the ending is somewhat unconventional.  How do I explain without giving the ending away?  The resolution of the film is based on choice.  Usually, when you watch a romance, it is all about how the woman cannot live without the man or vice versa, therefore, lack of choice.  However, in this film, it's about how the woman takes her time and makes a choice.  This film takes a more individualistic approach to love, rather than all or nothing.  It takes its time with the circumstances.  You might say it is in fact more realistic in regards to love, than most films.  Because of this, I respect it.

Now, here's the problem.  For the same reason I respect the film, I also felt dissatisfied with it.  The ending was a let down, because there was no grand gesture. The ending, the conclusion, was just too simple.  It didn't match up.  It is almost as if the film rejected itself and tried to turn in to something else, just at the very end.  The ending was unfulfilled. You'll see what I mean if you go and see this film.   

Okay, so if I haven't confused you enough, let's move on to the technicalities of the film.  The acting from Channing Tatum wasn't completely horrible, but it wasn't anything to rave about either.  I didn't really care for him.  Every time he talks I want to yell at him, "Open your mouth! Relax your jaw!"  He's always mumbling his lines, and it pisses me off.
Rachel McAdams bothered me only during the cheesy (in love) scenes, because to me she played her character so cheesy that it came off as overacting.  I don't like when I have to be reminded that someone is trying to play a part.  With Rachel, I felt that way the most when she was acting in love.  I felt that way the least when she was confused and lost.  It seems she's better with drama.

As for the flow of the film, it was decent, nothing major to complain about.  Nothing else really stood out to me as bad or good - it all seemed passable otherwise.

I give this film 5.8/10.  I definitely won't remember it in a month's time.  P.S. I Love You is still the reigning champion for me.

This Means War

 

If Chris Pine and Tom Hardy were not present in this film, it would have been completely pointless and a waist of time - but that's just my opinion.  Not that I have anything against Reese Witherspoon... it's just... look at them!  (picture above)

Okay, now that I sidestepped the obvious, we can get back to the film's synopsis.  This Means War is about two CIA agents, who just happen to be partners, that find out they are dating the same girl.  Competition heats up when they decide to win over her affections, without letting her in on the fact that they know she's dating both of them.  This film stars Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy and Chelsea Handler.

We all can understand the obvious appeal.  A great cast, a romantic trio, and a comedian to make you laugh all the way through.  Sounds like a perfect mix?  Well, it's not.

Despite the fact that each of these actors are good at what they do, for some reason, the putting together of the film doesn't allow that talent to shine.  I blame the producers, the writers, and the director.  Honestly, what were they thinking?  It's almost as if they relied so much on the reputations of the actors to sell their movie, that they didn't bother to make it much of a movie.  The plot was not creative or unique to me, despite the fact they were CIA agents and not just normal men.  The humor was forgettable.  I didn't feel the impact of the storyline.  I didn't feel the intensity of the situation.  It felt rushed all the way through, like they were doing one scene, just so that they could get to the next one.  Chris Pine tries to salvage this oversight, but his efforts weren't enough to prevent this train wreck of a film.  And Tom hardy, really?  I expected so much more from you.  To go from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, to this?

Basically, my problem surrounds the putting together of the film - the editing.  The scene to scene transitions, the plot development, the convenient ending.  It just felt like the least amount of effort was put in from everyone, even at times, the actors.  I know they are capable of better, that's what bothers me the most.

I don't know what else to say.  Major disappointment.  Other than Chris Pine and at times Tom Hardy, this film was weak.  I give this film 5.6/10.  Get your shit together guys!              

Chronicle

 

This film started out strong and then slowly descended into unbelievable territory.

Chronicle follows the life of a neglected and abused teenager named Andrew, who lives as a social outcast at school. He begins recording his life with a video camera, isolating himself even more from the rest of the world.  Things change when he, his cousin Matt, and his cousin's friend Steven, come in contact with unknown matter.  They each develop telekinetic powers that allow them to do things they never could have imagined. This film stars Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, and Alex Russel.

My favourite aspect of this film is that the audience is always viewing it through the perspective of the camera the character is holding.  The film plays with this perspective, hopping it around as characters take the camera from one another.  I thought this was very unique and interesting, however, if your sensitive to movement, it can make you a little nauseous.  It reminded me of The Blair Witch Project.

The acting in this film was really well done and realistic. I really have no negative comments about the acting.

I do, however, have negative comments about the plot.  Near the end of the film - the climax - was when my respect for the plot flew out the window.  Events became too hectic, too fast, too irrational and too extreme.  It reminded me I was only watching a movie, taking me out of that world and putting me firmly back into the theatre seat.  This ruined the whole film for me.

Because this film held strong 3/4 of the way through, I give it 7.6/10 for attempting something different, something original, among the interchangeable films we've been watching so far this year.

Man on a Ledge

 

No, they did not put much thought into the title of this film...  

Man on a Ledge follows the life of an escaped convict, as he tries to prove himself innocent for his supposed crime - being accused of stealing a $40 million dollar diamond.  This film stars Sam Worthington, Elizabeth Banks, Jamie Bell, Genesis Rodriguez and Ed Harris.

Whenever I tell someone I saw the film Man on a Ledge, they always ask me, "So, did he jump off the ledge?"  Well, I'm here to tell you... it's not exactly worth the watch to find out.  It's a good thing this film has more plot dynamic than you might have originally anticipated.  Not bad for a movie with a title like Man on a Ledge. 

Anyways, everything about this film was decent - not amazing, not impressive, but consistently entertaining.  Elizabeth Banks' acting bothered me, however.  She was not convincing as a negotiator, with something to prove to her male superiors.  She came off just as lazy as the people who gave the film its title.  She portrayed the character with little enthusiasm or attitude, and came off unimaginative and dull.  There was no feeling of determination when she spoke her lines, which would have been one of the most important things to convey about her character.  To sum her up: a disappointment.

As for all the other actors, their characters were not exactly deep, but they kept me interested in what was going on... which says something.  They did their jobs, more or less.

I do have to point out Ed Harris, who in my opinion was the star of the film.  He did a great job with his small, but important role.  I finally felt reminded of what real acting is.  It wasn't just make-believe for Ed Harris, but a matter of completely giving himself over to the character.  A complete abandonment of self.  I give him a thumbs up for making some portion of this film have purpose.

Now, this is not a film I would see again.  Once was enough for me, and I don't think it will leave a lasting impression.  So, here is my advice to those of you not sure what to see this weekend.  Man on a Ledge is a light thriller that will be fleeting with its effect on you, if it has any effect on you.  I give this film 6.7/10. It's just okay. It's no Phone Booth.