Reviews

This is a complicated film to evaluate:

The first 90% of the film is an absolutely brilliant character-driven thriller set in the claustrophobic confines of an emergency bunker and was as sharply acted as a cerebral Broadway play. The tense, complex plot included the ever fluctuating question of Howard's sanity, in stellar performance by John Goodman; the chemistry between the 3 actors is top-notch as their characters' relationships shift and deteriorate; and then the suspenseful, violent semi-finale was ultra compelling. But then there's the controversial final ending:

I agree with other reviews that the sudden alien attack is extremely disjointed, but altogether, I actually think it kind of works. First of all, it turned out that Howard _was_telling the truth, and the world as they knew it was no longer safe. And yet, given how things unfolded in the bunker, it raises the core philosophical theme of the movie: What is worse, the monsters that attack us, or the monsters in ourselves?

Secondly, this also worked as a sequel--the first film was about the initial invasion of the Godzilla-like creature and similar monsters, while this movie was about the full blown invasion.

Also, I actually think the Cloverfield films are refreshingly realistic depictions of what what would happen in such a disaster: Will Smith doesn't zoom in with a fighter jet to save the day, and The Rock won't march us to safety as he punches out everything in his path. As both Cloverfield films depict, people will freak out, turn on each other, make incredibly stupid decisions, but somehow a few survive to fight another day. And each movie shows a distinct perspective: the first Cloverfield movie could be taken as a broad depiction of how the disaster sweeps through millions in the cities, while this second film is an intimate portrait of how people in isolation deal with the same/similar disaster.

Overall, I highly recommend this as a strong stand-alone film, as well as the clear standout of the Cloverfield series.

This meandering little film is centered around one of those fleeting little romantic dramas that often occur in our 20s and 30s: Luke and Kate work together at Chicago brewery--they constantly flirt and banter, but never quite cross that line and have significant others they're seriously involved with. They take a page from the Book of Bad Ideas and decide to go on a double-date weekend getaway. Minor disaster ensues that makes the couples to reconsider why they're together, and somewhat forces Luke and Kate to confront their feelings for each other.

But this summary actually makes the movie sound more coherent than it plays out: I just learned on here on IMDb that the acting involves a lot of improv, and it shows both good and bad ways. On one hand, the scenes feel very naturalistic: it feels like you've been dropped into these people's lives, and see them realistically grapple how to grow up in emotionally (or not). On the other hand, some of the interactions don't quite sync, perhaps because the actors were playing off the cuff--when my friends and I watched it, we didn't think that Luke and Jill interacted like people who had just started dating, rather than a long-term couple. There were one too many slow and dull transitions that made the movie seem a lot longer than the 90 minutes, and ultimately, the two main characters were just plain annoying and shallow.

In short, I felt like it was attempting to be a Robert Altman film, but didn't quite meet the mark. Altman films set the standard for a undefined plot structure with overlapping dialogue, and no matter how different of a world it's set in--whether in conservative Nashville, upper-class Britain, haute couture fashion, or war torn Korea--there's always some type of subtle higher stakes that cuts across all characters and keeps me engaged.

In contrast, "Drinking Buddies" seemed rather small and insular: I never was convinced why I should care about these drunken hipsters, their "will they won't they" situation, and I'm still mystified at how these two emotionally immature people got paired up with two mature, focused people who were actually doing something with their lives.

If there's any depth to this movie, it might be by accident: The characters and their lifestyles are set squarely in the hipster world of Chicago's North and Northwest Side, and the characters' insularity from the vibrant, multi-cultural Chicago community says volumes. We see Kate buzz into her boyfriend's glass-fronted condo building surrounded by chain link fences and abandoned sidewalks; the hipster bar they frequent has a cultivated atmosphere of a neighborhood dive, but not a single cutomer looks like they've known a hard day in their life; and we never see a character use the El or CTA bus to get around (another aspect that's hard to believe), but rather they drive their cars or in the case of Kate, her custom-made bike. So the movie does say something about the gentrification happening in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, and many other cities that once had rich, diverse neighborhoods that made up the essence of the cities' characters. The utter insularity and obliviousness in all of the characters' attitudes as they stumble from dive bar to beer tasting to trendy coffeeshop is a telling reflection of how once-great cities like Chicago are turning into economically homogenous clustered neighborhoods of privilege that ignore the surrounding, struggling communities and cultures that make up the heart of the city life.

If you're in the mood for a ordinary 1980s romance-drama, then this movie will probably fit the ticket. Set in the rough streets of a working-class immigrant neighborhood in Hoboken, New Jersey, it follows the story of Dean Costello and his family. Dean is a small-time hood who works as the muscle for a local gambling kingpin, spending his nights beating up indebted gamblers with his partner Manny. He and his wife are also struggling to raise their young autistic son, Shane, and they finally take him to a New York doctor for tests. The doctor says there's nothing they can do for Shane, but a pretty and idealistic doctoral student and researcher named Stevie believes differently.

Stevie convinces Dean's wife to let her do home visits with Shane, but after a month, the wife becomes resentful and tells Stevie to go back across the river for good. But not long afterward, Dean discovers his wife in bed with his rival, and when he kicks her out, she leaves him with Shane. Dean persuades Stevie to come back and work with Shane, and the three of them begin a whole new life.

Together Dean and Stevie make progress with Shane, and Dean quickly realizes that he has to make a choice: Continue with his increasingly violent and dangerous work on the wrong side of the law, or get a real job and try to provide a stable life for Shane.

This is your standard drama with some romance, some violent action, and the requisite suspenseful and tearful moments, but it's unique in how it looks at the trials of raising an autistic child. Not an overlooked Oscar contender, but if you come across it on a Sunday afternoon, don't change the channel.