Don McKay

Drew's Thoughts:
This film is sort of a mix of A History of Violence and A Serious Man. Unfortunately, the quality is much closer to the former.
The film is earnest to the point of being hokey, which in turn gives it an unintended feeling of phoniness. A perfect example is the big twist, which I honestly think the film maker believes is clever, which is so dumb because it feels unearned. The twist consists of a vital piece of character background being revealed which is left out solely so it can be the twist. Had it been revealed at the beginning, there literally would not have been a movie as the entire plot is predicated on the audience not knowing this single piece of information. That's sloppy, flaccid writing.
The acting isn't great and the supposed existential angst is not felt by the audience at all. I've seen worse films, but I couldn't help wondering why this film exists and who thought it worthy of funding.

Chloe

Drew's Thoughts:
Atom Egoyan's sexual thriller starring Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried was alright. It's got a good performance by Moore, who manages to a make a less-than-compelling character, well, compelling. It's not up there in her top 5 performances or anything but it goes to show just what a talented actor she really is. There are a number of scenes where the much younger, less experienced Seyfried just can't match Moore's poise and power, and it's usually most evident when Seyfried has the lines and Moore is doing nothing at all. I can't blame Seyfried too much though, it's tough to hold your own against Julianne.
The film follows Moore who is obsessed with the idea that her husband Neeson is having an affair and hires Seyfried to test his susceptibility to seduction. From there things get awkward and strange as Seyfried recounts explicit details of sexcapades with Neeson and the two women gradually become closer.
There's a lot of flaws in the film that I don't really feel like getting into (Colleen may get into them, though her disappointment mostly stemmed from "not enough lesbianism") but I'll give credit where it's due. After the first few minutes I told Colleen "I don't think I'm gonna like this" but I watched the whole film without checking the clock. Chloe may be underdeveloped but at least it's well paced.

Micmacs

Drew's Thoughts:
Jean-Pierre Jeunet has more or less made a career of out-Gilliaming Terry Gilliam and his newest film Micmacs is another example of this. The inventive anti-gun/war/violence tale begins with a boy's father killed by weapons by a particular weapons manufacturer and fast forwards to the boy now grown up witnessing a shooting outside the video store where he works and gets a stray bullet, made by another Parisian weapons manufacturer, lodged in his brain which makes him go a little crazy sometimes.
The film is pure fantasy drawing on the vast history of movies to tell its story (without actually ripping off anything a la Tarantino.) Bogart and Bacall make cameos, an old Max Steiner score is used occasionally, there are hints of Chaplin's tramp (and other silent-era comedy,) westerns, capers, and, of course, desert combat films. The main character falls into a colorful gang of misfits who live beneath a junkyard (oh yeah, I forgot to mention Freaks) and eventually devises a plan and enlists their help to get back at both weapons manufacturers.
The film is briskly paced, with great art direction and cinematography. Dominique Pinon, the pug-faced Jeunet regular, provides a hilarious performance though unfortunately his part is quite small.
While Micmacs is inventive, it doesn't wield the emotional heft of Jeunet's finest hour Amelie. It's fun, well-made and doesn't get too heavy-handed with its message, yet the film still feels as though it might be a little too light to really stick in my memory. Only time will be the test. That said, it may be my second favorite of Jeunet's ouvre.
And no, I still don't get why this is called "Micmacs."