Maleficent [Dir. by Robert Stromberg]

Angelina Jolie Struts Her Stuff in Robert Stromberg’s Directorial Debut Maleficent, a Visually Enticing but Overly Simplistic and All-Around Unoriginal Reconstruction of the Disney Classic Sleeping Beauty

There is one word that can be used to sufficiently describe Robert Stromberg’s directorial efforts in his debut Maleficent, and that word is amateurish. He starts off with a spin on a classic childhood movie that places the focus on the original supposed antagonist – a concept that is both clever and somewhat uninspired (refer to Wicked and more recently, Oz the Great and Powerful). He then employs a plot so painfully simple and straightforward, it even manages to make 97 minutes feel like a stretch. He tosses in some straight-from-the-source dialogue and a few awkwardly fitting characters – Maleficent’s crow, who also doubles as her eternally indebted shape-shifting cohort; an irrelevant generic Prince Charming who occupies roughly five minutes of screen time; and the three pixies who more closely resemble the klutzy comical witches of Hocus Pocus than their original counterparts. Finally, he blends everything together, applies a fantastical, Alice In Wonderland-esque visual aesthetic filter, and slaps the Disney logo on top to create an expensive blockbuster that never feels even remotely unique. The only aspect of this movie that stands out ­­(and makes you wonder whose movie this truly is) is the riveting, spot on performance from Angelina Jolie.

Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) and her partner in crime Diaval (Sam Riley)

There is no doubt that Jolie’s performance – heck, even her presence – enhances Maleficent. However, I would take it one step further and argue that, without Jolie, Maleficent would be nothing (sorry, Stromberg). Maleficent works for Jolie in two ways. Firstly, it serves as a safe and reliable investment for an executive producer who also happens to be the lead actress. I concede that Maleficent isn’t a flat-out bomb; it would really take a lot to screw up such a straightforward and tasty (if not fresh) film. Jolie hopped onto this venture with the assurance that it would not scar her reputation in the financial world of film. Secondly, Maleficent works as a steadfast vehicle for a prominent actress who hasn’t flaunted her fabulous lips and cheekbones on the big screen for almost four years. This title role allows her to slip back into theaters without having to devote herself to a heavy and overly involving dramatic role, while at the same time not scarring her reputation in the acting world of film. Simply put, Jolie is a beautiful genius, and while Maleficent surely isn’t her “best” work, it does what it needs to without shedding any blood.

King Henry’s army approaching The Moors to wage war against Maleficent’s fairy kingdom

While Maleficent fails to succeed on many fronts, it is necessary to discuss one of the largest aspects the film miraculously manages to get just right. Maleficent looks just as glorious as it should – and I am referring to both the film and its powerful protagonist. It is actually not too much of a surprise to find that Stromberg gets the visual effects right. Before Maleficent, Stromberg worked in the visual effects departments of such films as Pan’s Labyrinth, The Golden Compass, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, as well as a production designer for Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and Oz the Great and Powerful. In Maleficent, Stromberg achieves clean equilibriums in his visual aesthetic between dark and light, somber and wonderful, and dynamic and static. He expresses emotion best not through dialogue and acting, but through color and atmosphere, a laudable feat for a man who worked so long in the visual department. Maleficent the fairy also represents the epitome of bringing fiction to life through exceptional production design and costume and makeup. In the film, Jolie is never masked or dressed up to be someone else. Instead, her accessories enhance her being and elevate her persona into the most intimidating fairy I’ve seen on the big screen in quite some time. In fantasy film, little is more important that ensuring that the larger-than-life characters still resemble reality and humanity, and Maleficent pulls this off flawlessly.

Aurora (Elle Fanning) just moments away from pricking her finger on the needle of a spinning wheel

In the end, Maleficent will undoubtedly appeal to its target audience, as well as garner Jolie some new (probably younger) fans. It will also make Jolie a mountain of money. So while Maleficent may not be a cinematic success (on almost all levels), it does effectively serve its two main purposes; it allows Stromberg to take more control of his artistic vision via his own film, and it acts as a sufficient vehicle for Angelina Jolie to show her gorgeous face on the big screen after almost four years.

FINAL SCORE: 2½ out of 5 stars  (raw score: 52.5, between “OK” and “a decent watch”)

Maleficent was released by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures on May 30, 2014

Godzilla [Dir. by Gareth Edwards]

Despite Its Overly Straightforward Plot, Predictable Dialogue, and Questionable Performances, Its Approach towards the Primary Goal of Sensory Stimulation Places Gareth Edwards’ Summer Action Flick Godzilla in a League of Its Own

In a decade where every summer, theaters are overstuffed with bland, gratuitously dynamic, virtually indistinguishable blockbusters with “groundbreaking” visual effects (are they really?), you might think that Godzilla is an entirely unnecessary reboot. And in some ways, it is. However, as the clichéd proverb goes, “Never judge a book by its cover.” Conceptually, Godzilla is just another big-budget, disaster-porn summer action flick. But practically, Godzilla proves that, with the right directorial vision and computer techniques, purely visceral large screen entertainment may almost be a poetic language of its own genre. Almost.

Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) losing his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche)

It is safe to say that the first half of Gareth Edwards’ reboot is too brutal for redemption. A disappointingly contrived performance from Bryan Cranston and an ambiguous, unsatisfying subplot introduction from Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins start the film off with a peculiarly sour taste. Furthermore, cheap and predictable dialogue not only devaluates the main characters, but leaves us impatiently awaiting the on-screen arrival of our gargantuan reptilian hero. Clearly, human interaction and character development is not Edwards’ strong suit. This awkward approach towards the more character-driven aspects of the film is unsurprising, since it is expected from most contemporary action flicks. What hurts more, though, is that during its first half, Godzilla shows glimpses of potentially smart writing that just never fully pan out. To some, this almost outside-the-box writing will be enough to trudge through the first half. To others (i.e. me), it’ll simply make that hour more difficult to watch.

Aircrafts exploding in a domino effect outside an airport

The real joy, however, comes from the second hour. Edwards puts his animating crew to the test, producing ridiculously engaging action scenes that hit the fine border between organic and inorganic catastrophe and monster head butting. The sets are populated with disposable bystanders, precarious structures, and obstructive buildings that are ripe for decimation. And sure, although someone makes the occasional successful effort to save an innocent child (or school bus of children) from total annihilation, Edwards recognizes that humans are just pawns in the stimulating chess match that is taking place on screen. Those scenes are exciting, but what we really want to watch (and what Edwards sets us up to anticipate) is the kings and queens duke it out – Godzilla vs. prehistoric thirty-story flying Alien-esque radioactive parasites. The film’s action scenes are somewhat elegant in their nature. Tension wires snap and whip around as a parasite awakens and escapes its stronghold in a dynamic and organic manner that surpasses the clunky, robotic Rock’em Sock’em scenes in the Transformers series. Godzilla knocks over a stationed plane and passengers ogle in terror from an airport as aircrafts slowly fall into each other and explode in a mesmerizing domino sequence. It all comes across like a crudely destructive CGI ballet. And if you can’t enjoy Edwards’ eye for visual entropy, then you don’t know how to appreciate the magic of contemporary digital filmmaking.

Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his team diving out of a plane

Sound also plays a major factor in creating the exhilarating rush that makes this movie so distinctive from similar blockbusters. In an interesting but successful move, Alexandre Desplat (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The King’s Speech, The Tree of Life) was hired to compose the original soundtrack. His pieces add a traditional but vivacious atmosphere to the primarily visual action scenes, grounding them more to classic action cinema. The Kubrick-esque inclusion of György Ligeti’s micropolyphonic music in the aerial drop scene also proves to be a curious but more than satisfying decision. The sound mixing is very high quality, coupling with the over-the-top visuals to achieve an ultimate over-the-top feel. In the end, Godzilla equally overwhelms and underwhelms its audience but still proves to be a more than capable summer action flick that you won’t feel 100% guilty for watching. Let’s hope the rest of the season’s action movies follow suit.

FINAL SCORE: 3½ out of 5 stars (raw score: 67.5, between “a decent watch” and “pretty good”)

Godzilla was released by Warner Bros. Pictures on May 16, 2014

Under the Skin [Dir. by Jonathan Glazer]

Director Jonathan Glazer and Lead Actress Scarlett Johansson Bemuse, Enrapture, and Sweep Viewers off Their Feet with the Groundbreaking Minimalist Sci-Fi Suspense Art Film Under the Skin

Viewers should enter the theaters knowing this one thing about Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin – there is simply nothing else out there that can compare. Much like a Guillermo del Toro film, it mystifies with its dark beauty. And much like a Stanley Kubrick film, it captivates with its quiet tension. However, Under the Skin feels like neither a work of del Toro or Kubrick. Glazer has created a masterpiece of its own style, one that eludes classification, comparison, and standard practice of observation. It is the most innovative and ingenious film since, possibly, Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, and the stunning performance by lead actress Scarlett Johansson is a breath of fresh air, both in the mainstream film world and in her career, which has been overrun by fast-paced action and superhero blockbusters.

An alien seductress (Scarlett Johansson) driving around in Scotland

Safe to say, Under the Skin won’t go down in the books for its screenplay. Despite being well written, this film gathers most of its strength from its aura. Glazer has a keen eye for a unique visual aesthetic, and he develops his vision through elegant shots of mechanical symmetry, inauspicious environments, and fabricated organic movement. He employs people, places, and actions that feel wrong for no particular reason to create an imbalanced atmosphere that, though apparently static, is always emotionally dynamic, heightening the perpetual suspense the viewer experiences throughout the film. Glazer puts a limited effort into how he organizes every scene, allowing for Johansson’s natural persona to bleed through her structured actions and conversations. Thus, the two work together and in sync to create one of the most iconic extraterrestrial characters and female antiheroes in recent film history. If there’s one thing to take away from this film, it’s that Glazer is one of the most promising filmmakers of our age, and he’s just beginning to tap his potential.

An alien motorcyclist monitoring the protagonist

Soundtrack also plays an invaluable role in creating the unforgettable memory that Under the Skin casts. Composed by Mica Levi, the music in this film will become, like with such films as Harry Potter, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Psycho, non-dissociable with its memory. Like many of the best films, Under the Skin is not purely a visual experience, and its music proves to be a perfectly matched and irreplaceable component. Consisting primarily of long dissonant violin chords and lonesome, resonant percussion, the soundtrack comes across like a faux-horror film bred with a melancholy new age track. When coupled with the slow, eerie visuals, the ultimate result is akin to a romantic suspenseful tragedy. Simply put, the soundtrack is in a league of its own.

The protagonist seducing a man with facial neurofibromatosis disfigurement

Films with mostly singular casts are always an incredible feat to pull off and a rewarding treat to experience – when the right actor is in place (recall most recently, All Is Lost, Gravity, Locke). Scarlett Johansson proves to be a perfect fit for Under the Skin for plenty of reasons. Over the years, Johansson has become an icon of sexuality in American film (if Don Jon doesn’t confirm that, I don’t know what does). Thus, it is culturally fitting that she plays an alien predator who uses her sexuality as bait. If anything, it also reflects the heavily visuo-sexual culture that American film has helped foster in Western society, and the threats that it poses on both its victims and its perpetrators. Johansson also manages to balance her expressions between eerie, flirtatious, and curious without ever compromising her character or coming across as contrived. She effortlessly transitions from confident predator to innocent human in a heartbeat. Her performance is nothing short of impeccable and seamlessly natural.

One of the protagonist’s victims, submerged in an unknown digestive fluid

There are very few minor flaws in Glazer’s film, and they come from the storyline and the pacing. The story in retrospect is very sound. However, in the moment some scenes may seem redundant or strangely arbitrary. Similarly, the pacing may seem offbeat and awkwardly slow at times, and although the slower scenes are intended for reflection, some viewers may find them unnecessary. However, these flaws never come close to spoiling the film, because in retrospect, the pacing and the subjectively superfluous scenes never obstruct one’s memory of the distinctive experience of watching it. Glazer has created an undeniably sensational piece of art. And Under the Skin is this year’s Upstream Color; many will overlook it, but those who have the great fortune of experiencing it will never forget it.

FINAL SCORE: 4½ out of 5 stars (raw score: 87.5, between “great” and “almost perfect”)

Under the Skin was released by A24 Films on April 4, 2014

Nymphomaniac: Vol. I [Dir. by Lars von Trier]

The First Installment of Lars von Trier’s Two-Part Mature Drama, despite Paling in Comparison to His Previous Works, Cogently Approaches Its Controversial Subject with Deft Directing, Visual Poetry, Engaging Performances, and Occasionally Flawed but Thoughtful Writing.

DISCLAIMER: This article discusses a mature, NC-17 film and contains pictures of nudity and sexual content that may be NSFW. Reader discretion is advised. 

Noah [Dir. by Darren Aronofsky]

Darren Aronofsky’s Biblical Epic Mesmerizes Audiences with a Visionary and Unexpected Screenplay, Spectacular Cinematography and Editing, and Superb Acting by a Watertight Cast

As far as biblical epics go, they don’t get much better than Noah. And to a great extent, Noah isn’t even a biblical epic. It’s more of a vividly realized action period piece – only the period is an apocalyptic deluge centuries after the birth of mankind. The biblical elements pertain solely to the inner mechanisms of the characters; the audience is only supposed to come in knowing the basics of Abrahamic religion (Adam and Eve, original sin, God is ruler, Noah built an ark). Basically, Noah isn’t The Passion of the Christ, and Russell Crowe isn’t Mel Gibson. Director Darren Aronofsky uses the biblical story as an inspiration, a rough sketch to redraw with creative license and paint over with poetic dialogue, breathtaking imagery and near-flawless acting. With Noah, Aronofsky reaffirms he is an artist, and not simply a storyteller (as if Black Swan didn’t already do that).

Noah (Russell Crowe)

The film starts off a little clumsily, taking time before finding its footing. The introduction is slow, unexciting and heavily narrative-driven. However, at the twenty-something minute mark, Aronofsky introduces his variation of a “fallen angel” – ramshackle Transformer-esque gargantuan rock beings that live in quarantined wastelands. This moment is where your head will perk up, because Aronofsky isn’t afraid to remodel the biblical story to accommodate to modern trends in visual culture. He isn’t creating a documentary, after all. He is directing his idea of a contemporary creative visualization of Noah’s journey. The movie then progresses with more force in each consecutive scene, employing Aronofsky’s fine eye for set pieces and choreographed movements. Each plot point is charged with incontrovertible energy and metaphorically significant poetry (as one would imagine the biblical story was to readers in 400 B.C.), induced by raw acting, transcendent writing and CGI used correctly. All this continues until the halfway point of the film, where all the animals and Noah’s family have boarded the ark (and defeated the invading makeshift peasantry army, but I don’t recall that being in the Bible).

Aronofsky’s depiction of the story of Cain and Abel

The second half of the film experiences a dramatic shift in tone from action-based to character-centered. Aronofsky takes this chance to explore the darker, antihero aspects of the biblically impeccable Noah, questioning the intrinsic nature of sin and free will and what it truly means to be “free of sin.” Manipulating terrifying familial conflicts, Aronofsky constructs a surprisingly clever story. I can’t help but notice, though, that too often, he will follow up ambiguous dialogue and plot points with inspirational imagery, such as rapid-fire montages of time progression outside the ark and glistening horizons atop endless oceans. However, stronger scenes with powerful acting and head-on conflict adequately wipe away the more ambiguous scenes from memory.

Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) with her child

The casting for Noah is perfect, with the entire cast delivering commanding roles. Although Russell Crowe cements a new image of the biblical Noah for our generation and sweetheart Emma Watson effectively jerks a few tears from the audience, the true majesty comes from Jennifer Connelly, who provides the most raw and grounded performance in the entire film. She smiles while suffering and uses subtle expressions and longing movements to establish a painfully real character. If you have just over two hours to spare this weekend, make a point to catch this year’s first true blockbuster. Aronofsky makes the most of his time, never letting his guard down and rarely slipping in momentum. Unless you are a staunchly conservative theist, you will surely enjoy Noah.

FINAL SCORE: 4 out of 5 stars  (raw score: 80, “great”)

Noah was released by Paramount Pictures on March 28, 2014

Mr. Peabody & Sherman [Dir. by Rob Minkoff]

Mr. Peabody & Sherman Fails to Succeed as Either an Educative Experience, an Enjoyable Comedy, or an Impressive Story with a Thoughtful Premise

I’m sorry, but did I just pay $14 to watch a crappy rip-off of 2007’s Meet The Robinsons? Rob Minkoff’s latest family-friendly 3-D animated film, Mr. Peabody & Sherman, provides ample entertainment, but never feels creative or original. Minkoff simply proves he can effectively stitch together elements of past successful animated films to create a somewhat coherent product. The younger members of the audience won’t mind in the least, but those with an always-active mind will spend the entire hour and a half searching for a glimpse of freshness in a mundane field of the same-old.

Mr. Peabody driving Sherman to school

First off, Mr. Peabody broke one of the cardinal rules of modern filmmaking: if you are going to play with time, you better know what you are doing. Evidently, Minkoff uses time travel only to exploit the entertaining and over-caricaturized eras of popular history, and neither to properly educate nor create a functional storyline. If you’re a stickler for factual accuracy, please don’t go to this film. Writer Craig Wright collects random tidbits from fifth grade history textbooks and blows then so far out of proportion, actual history has become unrecognizable. An example of this is where Marie Antoinette is depicted singularly as a radical aristocrat with an eating disorder, simply because of the famous expression, “Let them eat cake” (which we all know by now she never uttered). Basically, if you’re taking a child to this film with the hopes that he’ll learn more about history, you’ll be greatly disappointed.

Sherman showing Penny the “Wabac”

In addition to a basic knowledge of history, subtlety is not one of Minkoff’s strong suits either. I can’t blame him for following a formula for an animated film – I mean, it is Dreamworks after all. However, he doesn’t simply follow the formula; he beats you over the head with it. From the ridiculously persistent antagonist, to the preposterously fast character transformations, to the multiple fake-deaths and the contrived sentimentalities that ensue, Mr. Peabody’s commonplace recipe shines strongly through the superfluous fluff that layers the film.

Mr. Peabody fooling around in Da Vinci’s studio

If you were planning to see Mr. Peabody to laugh with your child for an hour and a half, I’d ask you to reconsider. The jokes are cheap, old, and flatter than then characters that articulate them. I must’ve laughed four times during the film. If you were planning to see Mr. Peabody to educate your child, like I mentioned before, strongly reconsider. If you were planning to see Mr. Peabody with high expectations to be entertained with an enjoyable and thoughtful story, I’d ask you to either lower your standards or reconsider. Basically, if you wanted to go see Mr. Peabody for any reason this weekend, I implore you to reconsider.

FINAL SCORE: 1½ out of 5 stars (raw score: 32.5, between “somewhat disappointing” and “pretty bad”)

Mr. Peabody & Sherman was released by Dreamworks Animation SKG on March 7, 2014

The Grand Budapest Hotel [Dir. by Wes Anderson]

Wes Anderson’s Hilarious Comedy-Drama Dazzles with a Brilliant Screenplay, Commanding Performances by Ralph Fiennes and a Solid Supporting Cast, and Signature ‘Wes Anderson’ Mise-en-Scène

If at any point you ever doubted director/writer Wes Anderson’s visual poetic skill, The Grand Budapest Hotel should slap some sense right back into you. Anderson’s newest film is as absurdist as it is serious, as artistic as it is comical, and as real as it is unreal. Instead of using the illusion of film to emulate realistic circumstances, Anderson uses reality to write poetry and turn it into something of a fantasy, a stylish nursery rhyme for adults. His efforts are beyond respectable – even beyond laudable – and although it’s early to say, I doubt any comedy this year will usurp Anderson’s throne.

 

M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) questioning the new lobby boy, Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori)

Some may argue that Anderson’s cinematographic style – ridiculously symmetric frames, angular pans, and a severely limited color palate, for starters – has become more of a shtick by now, a self-mockery of sorts. However, The Grand Budapest retorts that Anderson is not banking on these techniques to carry his film. Rather, they have become the backdrop to his stage, his hour-and-thirty-minute signature all over the film. Looking beyond that, the viewer discovers how much Anderson has truly matured in his narrative, writing, and directing skills. Behind the Anderson façade is a truly significant and beautifully crafted film, rife with guiltless humor, dramatic progression, and plenty of gasp-inducing moments (some from sheer admiration, and some from severed fingers).

Assassin Jopling (Willem Dafoe) holding back Dmitri (Adrien Brody) as he yells at M. Gustave while Serge X. (Mathieu Amalric) observes

With The Grand Budapest, Anderson is not looking to write a film; he wants to tell a story. Principally evident in the multilayered frame narrative, he wants the audience to feel like they’re being told a story passed down along generations, re-imagined in fanciful colors and whimsical set pieces. The structure and timing of the storyline is absolutely flawless – the film never skips a beat. Neither over-edited nor under-edited, the story expresses capricious originality while maintaining gravity and poise. Like many of Anderson’s films, the writing is laced with subtle sociopolitical themes – however, with the turmoil of war and aristocratic corruption running concurrently with the plot, these themes tend to remain in the foreground of the narrative. Which isn’t a problem, because instead of detracting from the film’s hilarity, they instead add to its reputation.

M. Gustave and Zero sneaking back into the Grand Budapest Hotel

The Grand Budapest is gifted with a strong cast, lead by an impeccable performance from Ralph Fiennes. You would not have instantly pictured Fiennes as the ideal actor to play M. Gustave, the charming, fruity, and unashamedly frank concierge of the legendary Grand Budapest Hotel. However, once you see him in his prime, you can’t imagine anyone else better suited for the role. Just about everyone in the Anderson ensemble makes an appearance, Tony Revolori makes a stellar big-screen debut as the wide-eyed lobby boy/companion to M. Gustave, and Willem Dafoe plays an uproariously threatening and stylishly scary assassin, just to name some standouts. Anderson proves, for the umpteenth time, he is just as great a director as he is a writer, orchestrating many of the action/chase scenes with skillful awareness and a definite vision. Barney Pilling and Anderson work together to produce arguably the most appropriate editing I’ve ever seen in an Anderson film. The quick, sharp, and angular cuts sustain the storytelling vibe while preventing the boisterous colors and set pieces from becoming a strain on the eyes. In summary, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a powerfully designed, painstakingly acute, drop-dead fashionable, and laudably jocular comedy-drama that represents Wes Anderson’s skill set in his prime. We can only hope that he continues to create films that shine with such ingenuity and technical finesse.

FINAL SCORE: 5 out of 5 stars  (raw score: 95, between “almost perfect” and “perfect”)

The Grand Budapest Hotel was released by Fox Searchlight Pictures on March 7, 2014

Non-Stop [Dir. by Jaume Collet-Serra]

Liam Neeson and a Strong Supporting Cast Provide Entertaining Performances to the Rhythm of a Sloppily Written Screenplay in Jaume Collet-Serra’s Latest Action-Mystery

It’s the off-season action flick we have all been waiting for. It has Liam Neeson, a strong supporting cast, a dangerous and suspenseful premise, and is set 40,000 feet in the air. So what went wrong? It was not entirely the fault of director Jaume Collet-Serra, who also handled the 2011 Liam Neeson/Diane Kruger blockbuster Unknown. Rather, the blame for Non-Stop’s shortcomings goes to its inexperienced and blundering writers. By barely stringing together what may be the most convoluted action plot in recent years, the greater tension in Non-Stop comes from whether or not the writers can express an idea in its entirety or send it crashing to the ground in a ball of fire and smoke.

Air Marshal Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) communicating with the film’s mystery antagonist

The concept itself isn’t horrible to begin with. A less cerebral, fast paced, sky high Murder on the Orient Express where the protagonist has to fight both external and internal problems to save the remaining passengers on board – not an awful start. And the film gets off on the right footing, establishing the more deep and personal side of Neeson’s character before jumping into the plot. Metallic and lugubrious blues comprise most of the color palate, while symmetry and organization dominates the cinematography, establishing a somewhat unique mise en scène for a Hollywood action film. There is nothing truly intricate or memorable about the film’s editing. Safe to say, the invisible edits went by without a second glance. However, I would have liked it if Collet-Serra had thrown in some more creativity with the shots; for example, a long, continuous shot could have broken the monotony that some of the action scenes faced.

Bill Marks warning flight attendant Nancy (Michelle Dockery) of the dangerous circumstances

The acting in Non-Stop was surprisingly decent (save for some awkwardly casted antagonists). Sure, Liam Neeson delivered basically the same performance he does in all of his films. But he was able to meet our expectations with conviction and ease. Julianne Moore’s character, although introduced a little awkwardly, came across as natural and comfortably likeable (someone well needed in an ensemble of alcoholic mopeys and manic passengers). A strong supporting cast, including “Downton Abbey” sweetheart Michelle Dockery, helps carry this film. Unfortunately, like the plane in the film, not even their efforts can stop the film from going down near the end of its journey.

Bill Marks shooting while the plane tosses him backwards

Go ahead and watch Non-Stop. But in order to make the experience enjoyable, try not to think about it as its progresses. That doesn’t necessarily mean, “Shut your brain off.” In order to enjoy the mystery and cleverness of the first half, you’ll have to keep your brain on just enough to not be tripped up by Non-Stop’s technical flaws. But beware: the film’s attempts to be gripping and suspenseful will seriously backfire once it fails to maintain its cleverness in the second half.

FINAL SCORE: 3 out of 5 stars (raw score: 57.5, between “OK” and “a decent watch”)

Non-Stop was released by Universal Pictures on February 28, 2014

The Monuments Men [Dir. by George Clooney]

George Clooney Creates an Interesting Action Biopic that Approaches its Subject Matter with Warmth, Lightheartedness, and More-Than-Decent Performances by a Strong Cast.

A group of men who are tasked with recovering stolen art during WWII? A movie with that premise can only be so engaging. However, in The Monuments Men, George Clooney hits mostly high notes in his retelling of a surprisingly exciting and unconventional WWII mission. He combines a simple, straightforward narrative with a distinctly old-timey milieu to weave together an upbeat and wholly enjoyable experience, akin to a nattily arranged appetizer – barely scrapes the surface of content and value, but delivers its however vapid screenplay with a trademark George Clooney smirk.

Frank Stokes (George Clooney) discussing his plans to establish the “monuments men”

The screenplay is a double-edged sword in The Monuments Men. While it smartly and earnestly approaches a textbook-style recounting of a did-you-know factoid from WWII, it’s sometimes just as boring to watch as the premise suggests. The morsels of action are small, fleeting, and somewhat dispensable, but they succeed in providing sufficient depth to the development of the characters (when Damon’s character accidentally steps on a land mine, the ensuing five minutes offer valuable highlights about the personalities of the “monuments men”). The sprinkled humor rarely fails, but never really makes enough of a statement to be memorable, either. Thankfully, a coating of nostalgic cinema charm and a definitive direction save this somewhat imbalanced screenplay.

Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett) discovering art theft

The Monuments Men’s silver lining is its characters; they are all likable and good-humored. At first, Clooney makes a safe attempt when it comes to character development, but he is too timid to delve deep until the second half of the film. The brotherly chemistry between Bill Murray and Bob Balaban is sincere and witty. Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett also play off each other pleasantly. And Hugh Bonneville constructs a passionate and memorable character that is sure to steal your heart. However, George Clooney’s character comes across as aloof and self-entitled throwing an awkward wrench in the brotherhood he attempts to establish between these “monuments men.” We all know Clooney is a better actor than director. But in this film, his character feels more like a flat, cardboard George Clooney life-size cutout than anything.

James Granger (Matt Damon), Donald Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), and Frank Stokes boarding an aircraft

Is The Monuments Men a bad film? Not at all. It’s highly improbable that you’ll hear its name at the Oscars, but its welcoming atmosphere and intelligent appreciation of the real-life events as well as the value of classic art will make for a pleasant Sunday at the theatres. It maintains a lighthearted mood all throughout. You’ll come away feeling like something important really did happen, but you’ll be at a safe enough distance to not have to worry yourself over it, kind of like reading a dramatic, amateurishly written biography.

FINAL SCORE: 3½ out of 5 stars (raw score: 67.5, between “a decent watch” and “pretty good”)

The Monuments Men was released by Columbia Pictures on February 7, 2014