Every Movie Has a Lesson!

MOVIE REVIEW: The Hangover Part III

2013-05-23T23:12:00.001-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

THE HANGOVER PART III-- 3 STARS

On this website, many of the do's and don't's of movie sequels have been tossed back and forth whether we're talking about Kung Fu Panda 2, Iron Man 2 or 3, Cars 2, Toy Story 3, or the recent Star Trek Into Darkness. Some get it right and develop a noteworthy and stable franchise. Others do not and kill the buzz and joy that the original had. For many moviegoers, that was The Hangover Part II two years ago. It took all of the fresh originality of the original and sullied it with repetitive gags.

In that review in 2011, I attempted to give The Hangover Part II some credit to one method of sequel making, stating the "if ain't broke, don't fix it" methodology. Where most successful sequels choose to build and push their story and characters forward from the first film, much like I talked at great length about last week with Star Trek Into Darkness, the second film didn't go that route. It was like The Hangover writer-director Todd Phillips and Warner Bros. Pictures stopped at the light bulb idea step of "give the people what they want."

They knew the formula of The Hangover sold tickets to the tune of becoming (then) the second highest grossing R-rated film in history with over $277 million and a surprise Golden Globe winner for Best Musical or Comedy. It was fresh, fun, and perfectly shocking. For The Hangover Part II, the team pretty much repeated the exact same story structure of the first movie and just changed the settings to Thailand. Phillips and studio execs got what they want because The Hangover Part II nearly matched the domestic grosses of the first (over $254 million) and surpassed the original worldwide with $581 million overseas, far out-earning its reasonably modest $80 million budget. They laughed all the way to the bank while we were left with a great deal of disappointment and dissatisfaction. For me, I still laughed and had a good time, though The Hangover Part II has not aged well in two short years.

The hype this time around for the third, and reportedly final, chapter has definitely cooled from the 2011 buzz for the first sequel. Part II was that disappointing. The actors and filmmakers involved all promised a story that breaks the cookie-cutter employed in Part II. The problem is all we see in the marketing is a return to Las Vegas and more Zach Galifianakis jokes. While Sin City is ripe for more great times and Alan is the linchpin for most of the franchise's comedy, that doesn't exactly promise newly blazed trails.

The first film was kind of Bradley Cooper's movie. His Phil was our alpha male lead to get the "Wolfpack" out of jams. The second one was definitely Ed Helm's chapter as Stu, where the overarching dilemma surrounds his wedding and insecurity. For The Hangover Part III, this becomes Alan's story. His path is the leading stream through the trees. Alan has been off his meds for six months and is terrorizing his parents at home. When his "life partner" father (Jeffrey Tambor) dies, he's left alone and worse than before. His trusty brother-in-law Doug (Justin Bartha) arranges the group back together to give Alan an intervention and an escorted trip to an Arizona mental retreat.

Their scenic "bro-ad" trip is interrupted by a moving van filled with masked men that run their car off the road and kidnap them. The lead perpetrator is "Black" Doug (Mike Epps) from the first film. His boss, drug lord fat cat Marshall (John Goodman), has an unsettled beef over stolen gold bars with new international fugitive Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who has dramatically escaped from Bangkok prison. Since Alan is one of Chow's only contacts, Marshall takes "White" Doug as collateral and blackmails the Wolfpack to find and capture Chow. That's the track that takes us to the peak of the dropping and looping roller coaster. With a trip to Tijuana, a home invasion heist, murdered gangsters, and double-crosses aplenty, all roads inevitably lead them back to Las Vegas to finish the challenge and bury a few hatchets.

Well, it took a second try, but The Hangover Part III actually attempted the rule of a good sequel by expanding the story and raising the stakes. Because this is the finale, there are still plenty of nods and connections to the first two films, but Todd Phillips did attempt some new shenanigans. The trouble is I'm not sure if it was a direction that worked.

By ditching the rehashing-flashback structure from the first two films and bringing in elements and hues of road movies, parenting dramas, and even violent crime thrillers, the result is certainly different than repeating the first movie again like a cookie-cutter. However, it's a bit too far and too extreme. I will call this movie better than the second one, but not by much because of the jarring transformation of tone and humor. It wants to be bold, but it all doesn't work or fit together. A great deal of that lovable fun of the classic first is long gone.

Buyer beware, this third film is a colossal dose of Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong. If you don't like Zach's humor or watch Community too much to wish Ken would snap out of his bad accent (or if you ladies were counting on Bradley Cooper's dreaming blue eyes), the movie will have the opposite effect and wear thin for you in a hurry. Waiting for Galifianakis to finish his off-kilter comedy bits to extend already-completed narrative scenes gets tedious, even in a movie under two hours. Since becoming a comedy star after the first movie, I find his bit over-exposed and stale after repeating it in just about every movie (Due Date, The Campaign, etc.). He even drags down a brilliant cameo from Melissa McCarthy, who's nearly untouchable with her appeal. Zach's stuff either works for you or it doesn't.

Is The Hangover Part III dumb, strange, and weird? Yes, most certainly. Will you still laugh? I don't know about you, but I still did. After all, that was the point. This film isn't trying to be an Oscar contender and it still entertained me plenty. I, for one, can handle it and still find joy. It earned my money's worth, but it's not must-see. The Hangover Part III is good enough to end the train derailment from Part II, but still has no hope to match the classic and enduring freshness and hilarious energy of the original. I'm glad it's over.

LESSON #1: FINDING HEALTHY FRIENDSHIPS-- While I could spend another 600-something words just giving you endless Jackass 3D-style life lessons numbering in the 20's of what NOT to do from The Hangover Part III, like drive a giraffe under a low overpass or trust the tensile strength of a rope made out of tied bed sheets, I'll actually hone the lessons down to somewhat legit takeaways. Even after all of the crap Alan has put these guys through, these four guys are each dependent on each other and support each other's well-being at the end of the day. With the goal of getting Alan some help, he needs healthy friendships from Doug, Stu, and Phil, even if it's built on colossal mistakes. More on those will come later.

LESSON #2: THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUP LOYALTY-- Having healthy friendships is a great start. The glue that likely brought those friendships together and continues to protect them is loyalty. Once again, no matter the circumstances, mistakes, or frustrations, a true Wolfpack of friends maintain group loyalty. They are true to each other and back each other's play. Without it, the healthy friendship crumbles and those positive relationships go out a casino window.

LESSON #3: OLD MISTAKES HAVE A HABIT OF RETURNING WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT THEM-- Rightfully so, our Wolfpack remains haunted by their prior misadventures in Las Vegas and Bangkok. While those trials and tribulations may have brought them together as shared, character-building experiences, they were hard pills to swallow and the regret and curse of them continues to follow them around. It's their Vegas past that brings the evil Marshall to them and unpredictable Chow back into their lives. It goes to show that old mistakes, while forgiven, are never forgotten and that revisiting them can be a painful experience.

COLUMN UPDATE: Facts and history of the Cannes Film Festival

2013-05-20T08:57:00.001-05:00

(Image: slckismet.blogspot.com)

(updated for 2013)

HOW DO YOU SAY "CANNES" CORRECTLY?
If you are a casual follower of the movie industry, there's a good chance that you've probably heard of, but don't know much about, the Cannes International Film Festival. You probably have seen the fashion report on E! and a few red carpet interviews on Entertainment Tonight or Extra. First off, you've got to say it right to sound cinephile-cool. "Cannes" pronounced "CAN" and not "CANS" (Thanks, Wikipedia). That will help right off the bat.

After that, I'm presenting this article on the facts and history of the prestigious Cannes Film Festival to help the unfamiliar and uninformed movie fan sound like one of the 1% of cinema aficionados. This year's Cannes Film Festival runs from May 15-26 and will be its 66th competition and is hosted by French actress Audrey Tautou (Amelie). Read on to see what all of the fuss is about and earn some cool points.

WHAT IS THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL?
Began in 1946, the "Festival de Cannes" has become the most prestigious and publicized film festival in the world. The festival is invitation-only and not open to public, generating an annual red carpet gathering and paparazzi frenzy surrounding the famous attendees who make up a who's who of the film industry, from major stars to the top directing talent. It is an important venue for international filmmakers to not only compete for noteworthy awards, but showcase and market their work for purchase and wider release from deep-pocketed film distributors. Due to the decadent Cannes, France setting and the invitation-only nature of the event, the festival generates enormous media attention and exposure.

The films that are part of the festival are organized into various sections called "programmes." Movies are shown either "in" or "out" of competition and garner the title as "Official Selection," a badge of honor you've likely seen on a movie poster, a trailer, or a DVD cover. Those invitation-only movies "In Competition" (limited to only 20-25 films) are competing for awards while those screened "Out of Competition" are there for the marketing and media attention. For example, at last year's Cannes Film Festival, box office giants and well-known movies like Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, Lawless, and Killing Them Softly (linked with my reviews) were shown "Out of Competition," while future Oscar contenders and winners, like Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour (the eventual festival winner), and Rust and Bone, were featured "In Competition." In addition to the competition feature films, other works are shown in Special Screenings, Short Film competitions, a "Cinefondation" of film school works, and culturally-important selections making up the "Un Certain Regard" category.

All of the films are screened a famous movie houses in and around Cannes and are judged by a pre-appointed international juries, made up of a wide range of respected and highly-regarded artists, performers, and filmmakers. Being chosen is considered a great honor, Last year's international competition jury included notaries like Ewan McGregor and The Descendants and Sideways director Alexander Payne. This year you've got Academy Award winners Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee, and Nicole Kidman. Additional juries are also created for the short film, film school, and cultural categories.

Those juries hold sole responsibility for choosing award winners. The top prize and highest honor is the Palme d'Or. Second place receives the Grand Prix and the third best feature film receives the Jury Prize. All of those awards are given to the winning film's director. Other major awards are given to Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Short Film. Additional minor awards are given to student films, young talent, innovative works, and best first feature.

WHY IS THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL IMPORTANT?
Though it's cardinally important for the European filmmakers, it is quite the "feather in the hat," so to speak, for American works to be screened, both "in" or "out" of competition as Official Selections of the Cannes Film Festival. That attention, respect, and exposure grows more if they go on to win awards. Even though the competition is dominated by European works that you've never heard of, there are plenty of winners that you have heard of.

NOTABLE PALME D'OR WINNERS
The Lost Weekend (1946)-- Directed by Billy Wilder, it is only one of two films ever to win both the Palm D'Or and later the Academy Award for Best Picture. (IMDB)
The Third Man (1949)-- Directed by Carol Reed and ranking #57 on the AFI's "100 Years... 100 Movies" list. (IMDB)
Marty (1955)-- Directed by Delbert Mann, it is only one of two films ever to win both the Palm D'Or and later the Academy Award for Best Picture. (IMDB)
La Dolce Vita (1960)-- Directed by Frederic Fellini, it was voted the 6th greatest film of all-time by Entertainment Weekly magazine. (IMDB)
M*A*S*H (1970)-- Directed by Robert Altman and inspiration for the popular and long-running TV series. (IMDB)
The Conversation (1974)-- Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, it lost to Coppola's own The Godfather" Part II at the Oscars. (IMDB)
Taxi Driver (1976)-- Directed by Martin Scorsese and ranking #52 on the AFI's "100 Years... 100 Movies" list. (IMDB)
Apocalypse Now (1979)-- Also directed by Francis Ford Coppola, the only American (and one of only six directors total) to win the Palm d'Or twice, it ranks as #28 on the AFI's "100 Years... 100 movies" list. (IMDB)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)-- Directed by Steven Soderbergh (the Ocean's 11 series, Out of Sight, Contagion, Haywire), his breakout work. (IMDB)
Wild at Heart (1990)-- Directed by David Lynch of Twin Peaks fame. (IMDB)
Barton Fink (1991)-- Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, No Country for Old Men, True Grit). The brothers are the only three time winners of the Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival. (IMDB).
The Piano (1993)-- Directed by Jane Campion, it went on to win three Oscars that year (Best Actress for Holly Hunter, Best Supporting Actress for Anna Paquin, and Best Original Screenplay for Campion). (IMDB)
Pulp Fiction (1994)-- Directed by Quinton Tarantuno and probably the most commercially famous movie on this list. (IMDB)
The Pianist (2002)-- Directed by Roman Polanski and starring Best Actor Oscar winner Adrien Brody. (IMDB)
Farenheit 9/11 (2004)-- Documentary directed by Michael Moore, it went on to become the highest grossing documentary of all-time and an Oscar winner. (IMDB)
The Tree of Life (2011)-- Directed by Terrance Malick (The Thin Red Line) and starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, it was nominated for three Oscars last year, including Best Picture. I also lambasted it in my own review two years ago. (IMDB) (full review)
Amour (2012)-- Directed by Michael Heneke, this went on to be nominated for five Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actress, and winning the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. (IMDB)

NOTABLE BEST ACTOR WINNERS FROM CANNES
* = won the Oscar later that year for the same role
Edward G. Robinson, Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy, Paul Newman, Orson Welles, Jack Nicholson, Jon Voight (*), Jack Lemmon (twice), William Hurt (*), Forest Whitaker, James Spader, John Turturro, Tim Robbins, Jonathan Pryce, Sean Penn, Tommy Lee Jones, Benicio Del Toro, Christoph Waltz (*), Javier Bardem, and Jean Dujardin (*)

NOTABLE BEST ACTRESS WINNERS FROM CANNES
* = won the Oscar later that year for the same role
Bette Davis (*), Sophia Loren, Katharine Hepburn, Anne Bancroft, Vanessa Redgrave, Joanne Woodward, Sally Field (*), Helen Mirren (twice), Cher, Barbara Hershey (twice), Meryl Streep, Holly Hunter (*), Bjork, Penelope Cruz, Juliette Binoche, and Kirsten Dunst

Once again, the momentum from exposure at the Cannes Film Festival held in May can resonate and catapult a movie or performance to the top of awards buzz long before the typical Oscar race begins at the end of the year. Of the twenty films in competition last year, three of them, including two eventual Best Picture nominees, Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild, went on to be nominated for Academy Awards. That number might grow if a Cannes movie from last year, Mud, starring Matthew McConaughey and finally playing in U.S. theaters now, can get nominated for the next year. Simply put, this is where the buzz starts.

As frivolously "elitist" as it may appear and likely is, the Cannes International Film Festival bears incredible importance on the given year's landscape of artistic cinema. It is very much worth keeping an eye on. Soon, another article will follow this one, charting the features and attractions debuting at this year's Cannes Film Festival. Also, later, stay tuned for announced winners from the competition. Enjoy the movies and glamour this month, or, as the French would say: "profitez des film et du glamour!"

MOVIE REVIEW: Star Trek Into Darkness

2013-05-16T01:15:00.001-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS-- 5 STARS

Where many try, few succeed when it comes to commendable movie sequels. It doesn't take a movie genius to recall that the list of failed sequels largely outnumbers the list of superior efforts. Good sequels have certain fulfilled traits.

A good sequel should improve upon the first chapter, not bring it down with been-there-done-that repetition. With The Godfather Part II, the lore and importance of the first film was amplified and made greater. One cannot say the same about The Hangover Part II or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen which dialed up more of the same shtick from their first efforts with little gain.

A good sequel should raise the technical and creative bar from the first film. Take Terminator 2: Judgment Day or Aliens. Those second movies following successful first hits had banked enough credibility, anticipation, and money for filmmakers to step up their efforts and bring a little more panache and wow factor. A sequel should step up a movie's class, but that's just the aesthetics. More is needed than that.

The final and most daunting challenge of a good sequel is to extend the story and bolster the core that you started. The establishing origin story is out of the way and there is a wide open range for a continuing the journey. We've seen plenty of sequels improve the looks on the outside, but not the engine on the inside. Just look at the two frenetic carnivals director Joel Schumacher brought to Batman that blew up the dark vibe that Tim Burton started. It was so damaged it took a Christopher Nolan reboot trilogy to save it. To be even more specific, a good sequel has the challenge and duty to raise the stakes and increase the peril.

The tried and true formula for success among the greatest movie sequels, including Toy Story 3, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Dark Knight, is to take your shiny new heroes and characters and bring them to their lowest state after they experienced their first successes. When your sworn enemy either arranges your seemingly imminent death, turns out to be your father, or kills your hometown soul mate, the proper challenge has been brought forth for your hero or heroes to overcome the worst of the worst.

Pull that all off and you've got a good sequel. One level higher, is the rare good sequel that ends up becoming superior to even the original. That said, go ahead and add Star Trek Into Darkness to that extremely short list of rare and superior sequels. To throw additional gasoline on all of that rhetoric on sequels, remember that we are talking about a Star Trek sequel to a rebooted Star Trek franchise that replaced a beloved and iconic cast of characters with virtual unknowns and drastically rewrote canonical history with the 2009 blockbuster entry from director J.J. Abrams. What were the odds of that progression creating a superior sequel?

Much like gauging last year's brilliant Skyfall, itself part of a modernization reboot started by Casino Royale, against all of the older James Bond interpretations, the strengthened and wholly perfect impression given after watching Star Trek Into Darkness is remarkable. After years of nostalgic Trekkies living in the past, tugging on the sleeves of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and later Patrick Stewart, and hanging on to a parade of semi-weak/semi-strong television spin-offs, this new franchise film reboot started four years ago has catapulted itself to become the new standard bearer for the franchise after just two films. As much as it probably already upsets the die-hard fans, this J.J. Abrams path and universe has now superseded all previous Star Trek incarnations. Star Trek Into Darkness is that damn good, folks, and that big of a game-changer.

Unlike the internet, this review will do its absolute best to remain spoiler-free. Stay off of Wikipedia and IMDB, folks. There's too much fun to be had when you don't know what's coming. For those of you lucky enough to see the first nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness during an extended IMAX-only prologue presented before The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last December, we jump right into action with the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise attempting to neutralize a volcano on a foreign planet that threatens to wipe out a local indigenous race of primitive humanoids. Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and his pal Dr. "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban) draw the people to safety while Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto), guided by Lieutenant Sulu (John Cho) and communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), perilously saves the day from inside the volcano.

In breaking a few rules, most especially the Prime Directive, to ensure that mission's success, Kirk is demoted from the captain's chair of the Enterprise by Admiral Christopher Pike (cool customer Bruce Greenwood), the ship's former captain, and Spock is transferred to another ship. Those demotions and plans are put on hold when a deadly terrorist from within the ranks of Starfleet, a man by the name of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), orchestrates seemingly dastardly attacks against key defenseless targets. Harrison knew right where to hit Starfleet and it has the powers-that-be, lead by head Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller, yes, that Peter Weller from Robocop), in a scramble to stop him.

From evidence uncovered by Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott (Simon Pegg), Admiral Marcus finds out that Harrison has escaped across the Neutral Zone to the Klingon home planet of Kronos. With Starfleet steeply at odds with the Klingons, pursuing Harrison directly would likely provoke an all-out war between the two powerhouses, something that wouldn't bode well for anyone. Admiral Marcus deems Harrison the greater immediate threat who must answer for his barbaric crimes and sends the Enterprise led by the newly-reinstated Kirk after him with mission to kill rather than apprehend him, using experimental long-range photon torpedoes maintained by a newly appointed science officer (Alice Eve). These are the dominoes and chess pieces that get the roller coaster of Star Trek Into Darkness really going.

This stellar returning cast has firmly affixed their hearts and souls to these roles. They own them now. While plenty of people still love the old 1960's originals (and you're completely allowed to do so), these exceptionally talented men and women have taken over where icons left off with gusto and reckless abandon for playing it safe or by the numbers. Each core member gets their moments, sometimes multiple, to flesh out and reinforce the new trail they are blazing. Not that it's hard to sort or rank really, but Star Trek Into Darkness is easily Chris Pine's best film to date. His charm and poise fit the brash leader role perfectly. Pine is the movie's balls while Zachary Quinto, with all of the restrained Vulcan emotions, emerges as its heart. Their aggressive and decidedly different take on the friendship/bromance/competition between the great Kirk and Spock characters is arguably better than any lightning Shatner and Nimoy ever caught in a bottle.

Just as with all great mythological stories, "a hero is only as good as his villain" and boy did Benedict Cumberbatch answer the bell. Oozing a cauldron of buried fury and intensity, Cumberbatch redefines the term "formidable." Where Eric Bana's Romulan Nero blustered and wore his anger on his sleeve in the first movie, Harrison's motivations here are deeper and darker. For many movie audiences, this might be your first encounter with the outstanding Benedict Cumberbatch. Remember the name because he's got quite the year lined up with four more high profile roles after this one, including three Academy Award contenders (12 Years a Slave, August: Osage County, The Fifth Estate) and one more headlining villain part in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Learn more reasons to love him here.

Director and franchise torch holder J.J. Abrams continues to outdo himself with every directorial effort. Even if all of those ridiculous lens flares annoy the film snob deep down inside, you have to agree that the man has a nose for action and eye for spectacle. He pairs those two senses with an uncanny ability to inject heart into it all. Four years of further technical advancements in visual effects and 3D filmmaking since the 2009 reboot make that evidently clear with stunning action sequences throughout this sequel. Set to Michael Giacchino's returning and redefining musical score, Star Trek Into Darkness is exceptionally paced and heavy on high quality story development.

While some plot points are predictable and a few key nods were stolen from other Star Trek lore, the kudos for that effort go to Abrams's three-man team of go-to screenwriters, Lost's steward Damon Lindelof and the hit-making duo of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. They are the minds responsible for accepting and succeeding in that daunting final challenge of extending the story and bolstering the core necessary for a good sequel. One of their key improvements from the first film is the increase in humor. The knee-slappers, mostly stemming from the brash Pine interacting with his many straight-laced fellow officers or the mere presence of everything connected to Simon Pegg, are as numerous as the plot twists. While these three writers might be standing on the shoulders of others, their work is superior enough to earn them their own credit for making it work in reboot fashion.

In the end, this isn't just a good sequel. It's a great sequel. Right when you think one story angle can't get more exciting, a new ingredient or wrinkle is thrown in to make the tension and enjoyment that much greater. With a breathless sense of action that builds cliffhanger on top of cliffhanger, Star Trek Into Darkness fires on all cylinders to deliver arguably one of the best summer blockbusters we've ever seen. As I alerted my Facebook followers, this movie makes Iron Man 3, no slouch in its own right for raucous entertainment, look like The English Patient. Your jaw will drop from sheer amazement on many occasions. Your heart will skip a few beats in moments of jubilation and you will find yourself frozen to your seat and facial expression from compelling peril. You won't be checking your watch and you won't be able to get the smile off of your face.

LESSON #1: THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A SHIP CAPTAIN-- In the first movie, Captain Pike tried to mold the young Kirk into a suitable officer worthy of command, but many of his lessons didn't take. As we'll discuss more in Lesson #2, Kirk's inability to stick to orders and rash decision-making has steered him to trouble. A good and responsible ship captain puts the crew and the mission first. As Spock so perfectly says, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." It's Kirk's duty to preserve the souls under his command, all while being composed of the necessary honor and sacrifice to "go down with the ship." In cheating death and breaking the rules, Kirk still has a great deal to learn. The arc continues in this sequel.

LESSON #2: THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN PURE DUMB LUCK AND INATE TALENT-- Where does Kirk earn his worthiness? He earns it and demonstrates it through dumb luck and inate talent. While plenty of great leaders have one or the other, Kirk has both. He's best when working on the edge and is steered by his sharp wit and quick thinking. They serve him well, but those tendencies can (and will) lead to mistakes, possibly grave ones for greater good and the mission.

LESSON #3: THE MORAL CHOICE VERSUS THE LOGICAL CHOICE-- The outstanding dichotomy of the Kirk and Spock collaborative friendship and co-leadership is the pissing contest between the moral choice and the logical one. As we all know, Spock is a man of logic. He makes the safe call, the most assured one, and doesn't let emotions cloud his judgment. Kirk is driven by his gut and fortitude. He will take risks when pushed to make a moral choice over the logical one. That clash is the root of their mutual respect and acts as the balanced mixture that makes them a great team of leaders.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Great Gatsby

2013-05-10T02:57:00.001-05:00

(Image: broccolicity.com)

THE GREAT GATSBY-- 4 STARS

Since this would-be Christmas-moved-to-summer blockbuster film is based on one of the most highly revered novels in the history of American literature, let's get the inflammatory and prerequisite "book is better than the movie" rant and debate over with, right off the bat, on this 2013 take of The Great Gatsby. Directed by Aussie filmmaker Baz Luhrmann, known for his opulent and sometimes maddening resume of Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge, and Australia, the film will be endlessly scrutinized by many eyes. As usual (and frequently repeated on this website), the book will always be better than the movie. There is very little debate (However, for a fun "I prefer the movie to the book" story, check out Nina Metz's piece from the May 9th edition of the Chicago Tribune). They are entirely different mediums. Take them as separate entities and judge them as different art forms. No matter the movie, you should prepare before you even take the first bite of popcorn for the inevitable disappointment.

A book or novel has nearly unlimited time, depth, and space to add endless details, meanderings, nuances, and themes whether your story is an allegory about the decline of 1920's American decadence, wizards in magical England, or wussy vampires that sparkle. Movies, because of their running time limits (even those that pull off trilogies like Peter Jackson's takes on J.R.R. Tolkien's works), will always have to condense, refine, and whittle down what works and doesn't work from a cinematic standpoint. All you can hope for from the movie adaptation is two things: entertainment and spirit.

First, if a movie adaptation is entertaining, much can be forgiven and glossed over. Secondly, and more importantly, if the movie adaptation can, despite all of its flaws and revisions, capture the spirit and essence of the original work, it will win accord and success from even some of the most dedicated purists. Having both of those qualities still won't stop thousands of English majors, book aficionados, school teachers, and college professors from possibly pulling their hair out watching this version of The Great Gatsby. Once again, it is inevitable. Let's begin to sort the slippery slope.

Either through actually reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel in school or cheating through CliffNotes or SparkNotes, you know this classic plot. Aspiring and wide-eyed bonds salesman, failed writer, Yale graduate, and World War I veteran Nick Carraway (played by the somehow never-aging 37-year-old Tobey Maguire) has left the Midwest to come to the Big Apple. He rents a small house in the fictional Long Island village of West Egg. His second cousin Daisy (the whimsical Academy Award nominee Carey Mulligan) lives across the bay in East Egg, trapped in a loveless marriage to her "old money" broad-shouldered brutish husband Tom Buchanan (Zero Dark Thirty and Warrior star Joel Edgerton), a Yale classmate of Nick. They soon introduce Carraway to Jordan Baker (Australian newcomer Elizabeth Debicki), a gossiping high society golf pro, who finds his non-money charm fetching. Around the same time, Nick understands Daisy's loveless sentiment when he learns Tom is seeing another woman on the side, the desperate Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher of Wedding Crashers), wife of a simple-minded mechanic George Wilson (Zero Dark Thirty's Jason Clarke) who together reside in the raw industrial wasteland known as the "Valley of Ashes" halfway on the road between the city and Long Island.

Nick, in his little bungalow, just happens to live next to the grand mansion estate of a mysterious millionaire by the name of Jay Gatsby (Academy Award nominee Leonardo DiCaprio). He's the elusive host of the most extravagant and decadent parties of New York's richest and highest society. While few people see him and even fewer know how he amassed his fortune, possibly through shady dealings with a notorious Jewish gangster by the name of Meyer Wolfsheim (Indian film legend Amitabh Bachchan), Gatsby's name is whispered in all levels of good and bad popularity and gossip. When the millionaire himself meets his new neighbor Nick, Jay takes the "old sport" under his wing of friendship and trust. Gatsby confides his true personality, his back story, and the reason for his wealth to Nick, one that involves a deep longing for Daisy Buchanan, his the "one-that-got-away" from five years ago between the war and now. The ensuing and volatile love triangle and chess match of pining, passion, lavish wealth, jealousy, greed, and revenge spin Fitzgerald's classic story to many twists and turns before the story is complete.

From a performance standpoint, Luhrmann could not have found a more talented young cast to embody these classic roles. Leonardo DiCaprio is perfectly cast as the dashing Jay Gatsby. This is the first time in a long time (likely since the first half of The Aviator) that DiCaprio has embraced his full "movie star" potential in glamorous role he truly suited for. Normally, he is hiding in flawed and introverted characters, even in blockbusters. This is the fully blossomed dreamboat that folks have been waiting for since Titanic and he makes it look effortless. For those movie viewers who are used to the 1974 adaptation starring Robert Redford (it's on Netflix Streaming if you want some pre-game homework), DiCaprio instills a personality and passion that puts Redford's one-move arsenal of just his smile to shame. In the words of Saturday Night Live's fake Nicolas Cage (Andy Samberg), "that's high praise" and not an easy victory to claim over a heartthrob legend like Redford. This performance won't win him his overdue Oscar, but it might be a nice companion piece on his resume to go with his starring role in Martin Scorsese's latest, The Wolf of Wall Street, coming later in the year. While Tobey Maguire is ever-present as the eager narrator (although trapped in a terrible framing device of Nick recounting the sordid affair in therapy years later), this is Leo's show and he doesn't disappoint.

Carey Mulligan is bewitchingly luminous as the object of his affection and is far more convincing than anything single second of Mia Farrow's screen time from 1974. Her and DiCaprio's chemistry together is extremely palpable. Time seems to stand still when they are together and the cues of the signature Lana Del Rey ballad "Young and Beautiful" sneak into Craig Armstrong's underlying instrumental score. To slow down the pace is a hard feat to pull off in a Baz Luhrmann movie where the average shot length is, by my informal estimation, about four seconds. Joel Edgerton equally asserts himself as an upgrade to any prior interpretation of Tom Buchanan. His coiled intensity shines through in every focused scowl, cigar puff, and raised eyebrow. He goes beyond the unfair Snidely Whiplash characterizations that others bestow on this "bad guy" role. While many other names are around (Jason Clarke, Isla Fisher, etc.), the strength of this film's performances come from our competitive love triangle of DiCaprio, Mulligan, and Edgerton.

Stepping back into looking at the challenge to bringing The Great Gatsby to the silver screen, the main ingredient that still fuels this senseless "book is better than the movie" debate is differing artistic representations mixed with different mediums. The movie director and screenwriter bring a different lens to their creative process than a book author. Directors think in camera angles and pacing, not chapters and prose. The interpretations are always going to be undoubtedly different, just by definition of the different mediums of film and novel. Baz Luhrmann is not F. Scott Fitzgerald, period. He couldn't consult the author who's been dead for almost 73 years. That's like trying to hire Jesus to be a technical adviser on the History Channel's The Bible. Good luck with that. Nevertheless, every reader of the novel is going to have a different impression of this film adaptation from Luhrmann.

Some faithful readers will enjoy the kinetic injection of razzle-dazzle employed by Luhrmann and deem it as putting the roar in the "Roaring 20's." Others who are not fooled by the gloss are going to feel that Fitzgerald's central theme about the downfall of decadence, not the celebration of it, is weakened to some extent. The movies's spirit then becomes more questioned than its merit. Some will highly enjoy the glamorous favoritism towards the Gatsby character that Luhrmann leans to with his stellar DiCaprio muse. Others will miss the enigmatic mystery the character possessed all the way until his final moments on the page and his resonance afterwards. For a story as well-read and celebrated as The Great Gatsby, where you, the audience, side on these teetering scales and the many other creative differences from the novel will very likely shape your like or dislike of the movie.

All of that debate is judging it as a book adaptation. When you step back and judge it as a movie, more balancing acts of love and hate come to the forefront. While the period detail is nothing short of marvelous in every conceivable way, there are people who will call out the CGI puppeteer strings that made much of it implausibly possible. Luhrmann's signature darting-and-dancing camera style and hyper-editing has always generated a love-and-hate reaction dating back to his Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge successes. It's either the coolest and most creative thing in the world or the most scatterbrained nonsense this side of Michael Bay. The same can be echoed for the use of 3D to put all of that on the screen for an extra surcharge. Finally, folks that are fond of the stellar music of the actual 1920's (think Midnight in Paris with triple the possibilities) will long for a genuine taste of that era and hate this movie's bold modern mixes. Others will call this inventive hip-hop/rap-flavored version of the Jazz Age, courtesy of music producer Jay-Z, incredibly creative and make this soundtrack the "must-have" album of the summer. Still again, the direction you lean on these cinematic balancing acts will shape your like or dislike for the film.

What are this writer's final answers to all of those balancing acts? Well, as an adaptation of the book, The Great Gatsby has some clear flaws in this translation. As always, the book is better than the movie. That aforementioned framing device for Nick is awful and the necessary Jordan, Myrtle, and George characters are reduced to sideline performers. That said, I believe the spirit of the novel's theme is still there. While the celebration of the flashy spectacle is still the overwhelming center stage of Luhrmann's production, enough loss, longing, love, and defeat makes it into the final piece to Fitzgerald's themes.

As a movie, I don't think another director working in Hollywood could have provided the sheer volume of vibrant beauty and pristine detail that Baz Luhrmann has here. Baz's own wife, two-time Academy Award winning costume designer and production designer Catherine Martin, created the "look" of the film that is utterly spectacular on all levels. Her set design and costumes, highlighted by the excellent cinematography and visual effects, are jaw-droppingly flawless. Despite my fears of a Moulin Rouge repeat of head-spinning camera work and a nails-on-the-chalkboard white noise mix of incoherent sound and music, I felt that Luhrmann actually restrained himself in some places from his usual temptation to crank the dial to 11. While still way over-cut and over-edited, his introverted scenes match the impact of his extroverted ones. Not all of the hip-hop infusion works. Some of it is really out of place and distracting, but that energy doesn't derail the movie's tone. I found the use of 3D not obtrusive at all and fitting to some of Luhrmann's huge visual high notes.

When all is examined together, The Great Gatsby is an unlikely triumph that I sure didn't see coming. The awkward business decision to move the film from an Oscar-friendly Christmas 2012 release date to this 2013 summer release will be a bit of a box office challenge squeezed between Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness. It likely sacrificed awards for dollars. As it turns out, the trailers far oversell the noise level that actually occurs. The film's cool and soothing central romance really won me over and I think it will win all of you over too. My initial skepticism level was very high, and not all from the usual book-to-movie debate. It's not often that a movie proves me wrong. The Great Gatsby sure did.

LESSON #1: THE AMERICAN DREAM OF THE 1920'S-- F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, written during the "Roaring 20's" in 1925, has remained a time capsule and microcosm example of the American Dream of that now-historical time period. Before the stock market crash and the Great Depression, the American Dream was to be somebody and to attain wealth. Symbols of status like automobiles and the latest fashion became the some of the goals as the balance of wealth was shifting from "old money" to first generation "new" fortunes and self-made men. That path of the American Dream comes with consequences. See Lesson #2.

LESSON #2: THE TRAPPINGS OF A WEALTHY LIFESTYLE-- On the surface, you would think wealthy people, living without limits when it comes to attaining anything they want, would have more freedom than any common man or woman next to them. Think again. There are trappings to a wealthy lifestyle from the 1920's that still match today's day and age. The wealthy can't step backwards and simplify things once you reach a certain level of status. "Old money" can't runaway to a little country getaway and a Rolls-Royce owner can't go back and buy a Hyundai. The wealthy are also trapped by an ever-present watchful scrutiny and gossip that none of the rest of us have. Today, they are endlessly pursued by paparazzi. Because of their higher status, they are unjustly held to a higher moral standard as well. That's where cheating, infidelity, and divorce muddy the waters more when they happen with the wealthy.

LESSON #3: THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF SELF-REINVENTION-- This lesson piggy-backs from Lessons #1 and #2. In seeking the self-made man route of the American Dream during the 1920's and discovering the trappings of wealth, the success or failure of one's self-reinvention is at risk. If the self-made man can maintain his success, no matter the shady legality of the methods taken to get there, then he has changed his stars forever. If that man can't attain everything he wants or if his past sins or dealings can't be quelled, the self-reinvention will implode to the point where all that is remembered afterwards are the flaws and failures, not the successes.

LESSON #4: THE EXTENT ONE WILL GO FOR A LOST LOVE-- Speaking of reinvention, I'd say a penniless guy from the Dust Bowl who survives a war, falls for a girl, precedes to save every news clipping, letter and photo of her in scrapbooks during the five years necessary to amass a grand enough, and possibly illegally-attained, fortune to buy the mansion directly across the water from his long-lost love capable of facilitating hugely expensive parties with fireworks, booze, and music every weekend, just for the off chance "she" walks back into his life is quite an extent one man will go for a lost love.

LESSON #5: THE ABILITY OR INABILITY TO REPEAT THE PAST-- One of Fitzgerald and Gatsby's classic quotes of "why of course you can" when Nick tells him that he "can't repeat the past" is a perfect debate and lesson from both the book and the movie. I would venture to guess that this is a 50/50 debate for society. I predict that half of all people wholly believe in the various ideas relating to history repeating itself, the past coming back to haunt us, second chances, making amends, or even the notion of reincarnation. The other half follow the mantras of what's done is done, time waits for no one, not turning back the hands of time, and how you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. Nick and Gatsby give us both sides of the debate.

MOVIE REVIEW: Iron Man 3

2013-05-03T21:57:00.001-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

IRON MAN 3-- 4 STARS

Before I get going with breaking down and hyping up the opening blockbuster headliner for the Summer of 2013, this marks a bit of a reflective anniversary of sorts for this "Every Movie Has a Lesson" website. It was three years ago that I started this thing as a way to "flex my creative muscle" at the urging of my peers. The first published movie review on the webpage? Iron Man 2. To see my rookie fledgling work from 2010, check out that full review. 195 review later, happy three years and counting, everyone, and thank you very much for reading and following all this time! Here's to another three years and more!

So, getting back to business, with the red carpet arrival of Iron Man 3, the words of Tony Stark from Iron Man 2 feel appropriate. "It's good to be back." While The Avengers (my full review) could have been a miniature Iron Man 3, we all know that Tony Stark doesn't play well with others. He, as well as his embodiment Robert Downey, Jr., are in their rightful places hogging the spotlight all on their own. With a huge $195 million foreign debut last weekend, Iron Man 3 is poised to possibly show The Avengers just who runs the show. While it will take time to stack the bills and tally the receipts, Iron Man 3 is already a big success for completing this trilogy with gusto and flair to still keep us guessing and entertained.

Iron Man 3 is the first cinematic roller coaster ride back into the post-Avengers Marvel Universe and the launching point of the much-ballyhooed "Phase 2" trajectory towards The Avengers 2 in 2015. We all know there's a big purple alien titan waiting for a showdown. As we discussed a year ago, Marvel Films did a miraculous and unprescendented job from 2008 to 2012 with the blueprint to combine five solo movies and origin stories together into the huge team-up. Now, it's sequel time. In that regard, the Iron Man franchise is already a leg up on his buddies with this third film.

After starting as a grounded-in-plausible-reality superhero in 2008's Iron Man and 2010's Iron Man 2, Tony Stark (the always electric Downey, Jr.) now lives in a world reeling from the knowledge that aliens, gods, and outside threats exist after the thwarted Chitauri invasion of The Avengers. That heavy knowledge and those high-pressure experiences will rattle a man and it's done just that to Tony Stark.

Ever since those events in New York, our quick-witted billionaire playboy philanthropist genius has been afflicted by insomnia, rough dreams, and panic attacks. With his squeeze Pepper Potts (co-headliner Gwyneth Paltrow, with a lot more to do this time around) reluctantly by his side, he keeps himself busy the best way he knows how: building and creating. Fearing an inevitable return threat, Tony has built over 40 new Iron Man armor variations in his immense Malibu workshop, each remotely autonomous if necessary. His latest "piece de resistance" is a khaki-looking armor (sorry, it looks more Dockers than 2 Chains, folks) that deploys on its own and follows sensors injected into Tony's arm. It's become a bit of a maddening obsession to say the least.

We also quickly learn, through a hilarious 1999 flashback that opens the movie, that one of Tony's ex-flings, Maya Henson (an underused Rebecca Hall of The Town) has developed experimental DNA-based regenerative treatment named "Extremis." Tony declines to back up her research while wooing her at a dazzling millennium New Year's Eve party. At the same event, he gives a stronger dismissive rebuke to one Aldrich Killian (the always good Guy Pearce), a crippled scientist looking for a financial backer/partner for his nerdy Advanced Idea Mechanics. Naturally, both will come into play later.

Back in the present day, the latest threat to American safety comes in the form of an extreme foreign terrorist named the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) and his deadly string of seemingly untraceable bombings around the world. When the Mandarin turns his cross-hairs on the U.S. with a violent public bombing of the famous TCL Chinese Theater in Hollywood that puts Stark's bodyguard Happy Hogan (franchise director turned cameo supreme Jon Favreau) in the hospital, the President (William Sadler) puts the nation on high alert. The former War Machine, piloted by Stark friend Colonel James Rhodes (the returning Don Cheadle), has been re-branded as the Iron Patriot and tasked with finding the Mandarin. With his buddy in a coma, Stark publicly calls out the Mandarin for a showdown. The Mandarin's connected minions, led by James Badge Dale, promptly respond by assaulting and destroying Tony's Malibu mansion with he and Pepper still in it.

Pepper is spared, but Tony is feared dead, though he too escapes into seclusion to repair and reload. It's in this wide middle portion that the plot takes quite a few turns for the wacky. Iron Man 3 writer/director Shane Black, who's previously worked with Downey on the very non-superhero Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, begins to throw a lot of ingredients into the cauldron and things becomes as darting and schizophrenic as its main character to a certain degree. However muddled the soup gets, all of it is charismatic fun. While Downey has played this role three times before, he's really given a great deal of leeway to explore and take over the dance floor with his own shenanigans. This is Tony's show before it's Iron Man's show. While some of the wackiness never lets up and carries into the course of our villainous conflict, the humor is always bubbling up to the surface. Iron Man 3 is, without a doubt, the most comedic of the Marvel superhero films.

That affable effect helps mask many of the really preposterous events and flaws and keeps the whole Iron Man 3 effort extremely likeable and entertaining. Like every fantasy film and superhero flick, the required grain of salt will vary in size and bitterness for every viewer's tolerance level. Die-hard fans of the comic book series and the "Extremis" storyline are probably not going to like this movie's revisionist tangents and non-canon treatment of the Mandarin. For those eight fanboys that, vaguely, in some form or another, embody the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, sitting in a theater of 300 other people that are uninformed and don't care, I feel sorry for you for about 30 seconds. Join the mob and be entertained for 130 minutes. Let it go. No comic book movie has ever matched the book and it's not going to start here.

With The Avengers included as an extra entry in the journey, we've come to the trilogy point for Iron Man and Tony Stark. Even though the end credits (stay to the very end of course) present the James Bond line of "Tony Stark will return," if the current press junket rumors become true and this indeed becomes the end of solo adventures for Downey as Shellhead, Iron Man 3 shapes a feasible ending that fits this endearing character. When it's all said and done, Iron Man 4 or not, the combined efforts of directors Jon Favreau and Shane Black, Marvel Films overseer and producer Kevin Feige, and their resurrected and glamorous star Robert Downey, Jr. will be celebrated for a long time. The first film was the springboard for this whole Marvel movement and this latest film is the starting point for "Phase 2" which will continue with Thor: The Dark World this November, Captain America: The Winter Soldier next April, with The Avengers 2 targeted for 2015. Either way, Tony Stark will stay the trailblazer.

LESSON #1: HAVE A HOBBY-- Tony Stark's hobby is tinkering and building cool things ranging from garden section weapons from Home Depot (you'll see) to sophisticated suits of armor that defend mankind. What's yours? Everyone needs an outlet or place to flex their creative muscle. This blogging and writing is mine.

LESSON #2: ALWAYS HAVE BACKUP-- Here's the easy cliche lesson that comes from a narcissist with connections. While Lesson #3 after this will go into Tony's habits a little more and Lesson #4 will take a shot at the big picture, you get the whiffle ball lesson of "always have backup." It must be nice to have a billionaire's bank account, an armored serviceman friend with the President's ear, and 40-something extra "changes of clothes" for any spill, stain, or occasion.

LESSON #3: THE NATURE OF A "FIXER"-- Let's dig a little deeper into Tony's hobby and habits. Like many of us men, Tony is a "fixer" in life. End results matter more than the process. Beyond just his technical and scientific skill, he is reactionary, not precautionary. Tony's narrow focus and selfishness causes him to miss potential problems and mistakes before they happen, both as the hero Iron Man and the doting lover of Pepper Potts. When the reactionary type tries to learn from one of those mistakes with the first effort and ounce of prevention and structure, they tend to overdo it, putting them back in "fixer" mode. Making 40+ suits of just-in-case armor is overdoing it. Buying lavish apology gifts as a billionaire is overdoing it. He gets by on talent, resourcefulness, and quick-thinking ingenuity when he could spare a little of that to be wiser instead of just smarter.

LESSON #4: THE HEIGHTENED PANIC OF THREATS THAT COMES AFTER THE INITIAL THREAT OR TRAUMA-- Whether it's anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, or plain-old panic, the ever-calculating Tony still can't entirely wrap his head around the trauma that was the alien invasion of The Avengers. It was then, in one destructive afternoon, that the world Tony lives in went from normal to a place where the unbelievable became believable and the unheard of made deafening noise. Think of the parallels to incidents like Columbine or September 11th. The first incident is always jarring and ferociously memorable. All we can do is react. After that, the rabbit ears go up and it re-tunes our radars to be aware and cognizant of the possibilities if what we witnessed or experienced could ever happen again. Sometimes then, the panic or anxiety of the NEXT threat, even if it's smaller in scale, can hit as hard, if not harder than the first one, because we have seen the ramifications and fear what could be coming.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Place Beyond the Pines

2013-04-28T23:38:00.000-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES-- 5 STARS

Plenty of movie snobs will say that "they don't make movies like they used to." They will call today's movies "over-produced" and "under-performed." Like every ranter who really knows the old days, they are always right. Few movies today don't employ some kind of digital touch-up, whether it's big-time effects, total CGI characters, or beefing up the matte backgrounds of simple places for added scope. Along the same lines, few actors and actresses today come from any traditional training like the generation before them. Most are pretty faces plucked from magazines, runways, or the internet. Times have changed from the raw, meditative opuses that made up the famed "New Hollywood" movement of the 1970's that was kicked off by 1967's Bonnie and Clyde.

Filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Sidney Lumet, Terrance Malick, Woody Allen, Philip Kaufman, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdanovich, Michael Cimino, Norman Jewison, Brian De Palma, John Boorman, and a young Steven Spielberg bucked the old 1950's standards of perky mainstream movie entertainment to deliver challenging, adult-themed, and character-driven films that changed the landscape and broke down boundaries. Few of those listed filmmakers are still working regularly and some are no longer within us at all (Altman, Kubrick, Lumet).

Some, like Scorsese and Spielberg, have changed with the times and embraced the modern technologies to still tell their stories today that please the masses. Forgiving critics will call Spielberg and Scorsese "evolved" while harsher ones will label them as "sellouts." Most, like Malick and Allen in particular who are still working regularly, seemed to have never left that era and have always kept on making movies in old style. They get labeled either "throwback" (Allen) or "lost in the past" (Malick). For a great many movie traditionalists, their "New Hollywood" movement was the greatest era in film history and few younger filmmakers since have come close to that kind of raw, creative, and character-driven cinema akin to that era.

Enter Derek Cianfrance, whose last film, the difficult and sharply poignant Blue Valentine (my full review) from 2010, could have fit right into that "New Hollywood" era of forty years ago. That film breathed a palpable, raw, domestic emotion surrounding a failing marriage (Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams) intertwined with the flashbacks of their lovely courtship that few over-produced movies today get right. Building off that solid start, reuniting with Gosling, and bringing his storytelling to an ever larger scale than before, Cianfrance's latest film, The Place Beyond the Pines, is nothing short of a modern masterpiece. Brimming with more of that palpable emotion and wrought with ever-increasing tension, tragedy, triumph, and importance, The Place Beyond the Pines is the first great film of 2013 and better than just about every movie this critic reviewed in 2012.

This exquisite film is a triptych of three very different chapters. The first section covers "Handsome" Luke Glanton (a mesmerizing Gosling), introduced in a showy single-take tracking shot as a tattooed and cigarette-breathing motorcycle stuntman for a traveling carnival in the mid-1990's. With his traveling rebel lifestyle (the red James Dean-ish show jacket hits the right note), Luke is probably the kind of guy with a "girl in every port" but little real love in his life to live for. When his act returns to the sleazy hamlet of Schenectady, New York (which loosely translates into the film's title from the Mohawk Native American dialect), one of his past flings, the lovely Romina (Eva Mendes, now Gosling's real-life squeeze), reveals that he has fathered her child, a son named Jason.

This news acts as a kick of morality to the transient and volatile Luke Glanton. He quits the carnival to stay in Schenectady and attempts to be an honest providing father to Romina and the boy, despite her already having a steady man (Mahershala Ali from Predators and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) taking care of her. When ends don't meet financially, Luke gets enticed by a former crook-turned-local-mechanic named Robin (Australian chameleon actor Ben Mendelsohn, who's everywhere lately with The Dark Knight Rises and Killing Them Softly) to try robbing a bank. Taking Luke under his wing, Robin encourages him to use his motorcycle skills and coolness under pressure to make speedy and successful getaways.

When Luke becomes this dashing criminal, the storytelling baton is passed to Avery Cross, played by Academy Award nominee Bradley Cooper, for the film's second chapter. Avery is a rookie cop on the Schenectady police force, a law school graduate, and the son of a judge who becomes a hero pursuing Glanton. He too is a new father of a son, A.J., together with his worried wife Jennifer (Bridesmaids's Rose Byrne). After becoming a hero, Avery can't shake the experience and his own renewed morality to confront the corruption within the Schenectady Police Department, embodied by Ray Liotta and his not-so-savory peers. This quest climbs Avery up the heroic ladder more while adding political clout with the local district attorney (Bruce Greenwood).

The third chapter is the wildcard of The Place Behind the Pines. When one narrative door closes, another one opens fifteen years later to showcase both Luke and Avery's grown sons as teenagers who cross paths in high school. A.J. (newcomer Emory Cohen) has become a silver spoon wannabe bully. Jason (the outstanding Dane DeHaan of Chronicle, Lawless, Lincoln, and the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man sequel) has grown into a shy, direction-less loner. The impact their respective fathers had (or did not have) on their different lives is what ties the film together and gives it depth beyond most other father/son morality plays. To say more would jeopardize the impact of the experience and spoil a few twists and turns.

While he's only a little bit in "hey girl" charm mode, Ryan Gosling absolutely nails the necessary melodramatic edge between sanity and insanity for this kind of character. He convincingly spans the range from the repentant sense of responsibility as a new father to the daredevil adrenaline rush of his criminal side. This role as Luke is worlds more tangible than his overrated tough guy from Drive. While it's sometimes easy to grow tired of Gosling's mumbly minimally-emotive Brando-esque act, it works in spades in The Place Beyond the Pines. Eva Mendes is better playing understated in this film than she's ever been with all her glamour in other box office flicks. While Cooper doesn't get to fly off his own handle here as the "white hat" compared to his Oscar-nominated work in Silver Linings Playbook, his steady presence and equal moral challenges act as a perfect foil to Gosling's bandit. Lastly, newcomer Dane DeHaan continues to comport himself like a real talent. He gets far too many unfair Leonardo DiCaprio comparisons based on his youthful look, but the kid has an incredible approach-ability and range of his own. As was previously-discussed on this website, DeHaan is a breakout star waiting in the wings.

Similar to the great films of that "New Hollywood" movement, The Place Beyond the Pines has a minimalistic bare-bones tone, but an intentional direction of realism and intimacy. It has elements of melodramas, crime sagas, westerns, and film noir, but never settles or focuses on just one path. Our characters live lives of emotion and conversation, not diatribes and scripted monologues echoing some fake bigger picture in mind. No costume is too flashy to take away from any character. No small-town setting comes across like a Hollywood backlot creation. No soundtrack choice or musical score cue overwhelms a scene like a bad TV montage (take seemingly every episode of Grey's Anatomy and the insufferable episode-finishing voiceover/montage set to an alt-rock ballad).

Predominantly composed by former alternative rock frontman Mike Patton of Faith No More with a brief ethereal splash of old-school Ennio Morricone's "Ninna Nanna Per Adulteri" and Bon Iver covering the end credits, there's another layer of poetry and allusion just in the music. The camera work of up-and-coming British cinematographer Sean Bobbitt effortlessly flows from the kinetic handheld heist scenes to the speed of keeping up with the chases and the right reactionary angle for the moments of introspection. For lack of a better description, the "polish" of a movie like this is to look unpolished. Each stylistic choice evokes the grounded realism and intimacy that separates a film like this from being a Lifetime movie on the low end or an overproduced star vehicle on the other end.

Much like the balanced flashback nature of Blue Valentine, Cianfrance's boldness to take on a story with this unique three-part framework is sheer brilliance. While it clocks in a nearly two-and-a-half hours, the portions fit together and are chiseled into streamlined sculptures. In different hands, The Place Beyond the Pines would meander with disconnect and uneven favoritism or be taken too far into poetic wandering for a third hour. Under Cianfrance, each chapter carries an undeniable weight, importance, build-up, and impact. While there are common father-and-son themes that span across all three chapters (see the lessons below), each piece presents it in a different enough way to never feel repetitive or overbearing. If Derek Cianfrance's screenplay, created with partners Ben Coccio and Darius Marder, is not up for Oscar this coming year, more than just bank robbery is taking place.

When each part is combined together, the ambition pays off to create an engrossing scope of flawed Americana among the strong connective threads. The Place Beyond the Pines is a movie of dramatic strength that sticks with you after the credits roll. Think of The Deer Hunter with an editor and a greater sense of personal message. Derek Cianfrance could probably teach his "New Hollywood" predecessors (like the endlessly meandering Terrance Malick) a thing or two about honing poetry combined with substance in efficient filmmaking and storytelling. The grand success of The Place Beyond the Pines is highly worthy of notice and appreciation by any audiences. If we didn't pay attention to this talent at work before, we certainly will now.

LESSON #1: FATHERS AND SONS SHARING TRAITS-- There are multitudes of life lessons all over the domestic drama scenarios embedded in The Place Beyond the Pines, but this section of the review will narrow the lessons to three spoiler-free topics, just as the film was divided into three acts. Care will be taken not to reveal too much. Sorting through the tangents, more than anything else, The Place Beyond the Pines is a powerful, multi-layered discourse on fathers and sons. We all know the school of thought that plays the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" card when it comes to fathers and sons. From the cosmically accidental to the in-the-flesh similarities, sons are often doomed or blessed to share the same traits as their fathers. Much is on display between the very different, but not-so-different Luke and Avery.

LESSON #2: FATHERS AND SONS SHARING SINS-- Kind of like the balance of an evening news telecast, bad news grabs more interest than good news. By that same rationale and continuing from Lesson #1, the dooms will always get more attention than the blessings. Sons will always hear more about the sins and negatives they share with their fathers over the good things. One of the overarching questions laid out before us for our edification in The Place Beyond the Pines is whether or not fathers and sons can share the same sins. Is a son cursed by who or what their father was? Is one upbringing better than another? This story tugs at that difficult morality.

LESSON #3: FATHERS AND SONS SHARING FATES-- Traits are natural and correctable. Sins can be avoided and forgiven. However, it is an entirely deeper issue if fathers and sons are found to share the same fate. Fate and destiny are sometimes sealed things that cannot be avoided. Above traits and sins, fates are infinitely more difficult to avoid. There are definitely a few points in The Place Beyond the Pines where we see sealed fates and changed fates come to the forefronts of our characters. These three father-son dynamics and lessons go way beyond the whole "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" idiom. Far greater and far deeper connections are at work in this film.

COLUMN: 2013 Summer Movie Preview- Part 1

2013-04-28T11:39:00.002-05:00

(Image: movies.yahoo.com)

Finally! We have braved the dismally slow winter box office season and have had enough of the teases of the spring season. It's finally time for the "heart of the order" and the big hitters of 2013's slate of movies. Here is the first part and first half of my full "2013 Summer Movie Preview" for "Every Movie Has a Lesson" covering the months of May and June. This year, I've split this preview up into two parts, each with two sections of their own. First, I cover the blockbusters that line themselves up week-after-week. They are the ones you've undoubtedly heard of and are hotly anticipating. Then, I offer a bonus section at the end of the little independent movies of counter-programming that are hiding like "diamonds in the rough" among the tentpoles and sluggers. Together, they make up the always exciting summer movie season. Enjoy!

A BLOCKBUSTER EVERY WEEK

MAY 3
Iron Man 3-- You have to be living under a rock not to hear all about this one. Starring the incorrigible and handsomely paid Robert Downey, Jr, Iron Man 3 aims to start Marvel's "Phase 2" following the huge Avengers culminating conclave from last summer and turn another corner with the Tony Stark character. New director Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) brings out a new interpretation of Iron Man's biggest comic adversary, the Mandarin, a terrorist portrayed by professional movie villain Sir Ben Kingsley. This will kick summer off with a bang. (trailer)

MAY 10
The Great Gatsby-- This might be the most maligned would-be summer blockbuster in this first half because it doesn't look the part and is pushing its nose into dangerous rival territory. Unlike Oblivion which moved earlier from summer to spring and Jack the Giant Slayer and G.I. Joe: Retaliation which delayed from last summer to a quieter spring, Baz Luhrmann's spectacle of spectacles had the cajones to move ahead from an awards-friendly Christmas 2012 release, spruce itself to a 3D level, and land in the thick of the summer dog fight in a weekend between Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness. That either shows how confident Warner Bros. is that they have a potential hit on their hands or how crazy the prospect is of all. Bringing Luhrmann's trademark energy and a wild soundtrack of modern artists twisting the Jazz Age themes, Leonardio DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, and Carrie Mulligan lead the cast of everyone's favorite high school American novel to the big screen. We shall see if this glitzy drama can play with the superheroes and action stars.  (trailer)

MAY 17
Star Trek Into Darkness-- Next to that rock with Iron Man 3 on top of it is one with J.J. Abram's eagerly-awaited sequel to his 2009 franchise reboot of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Promising raised stakes of special effects and peril across the board, including a villain (Benedict Cumberbatch) that everyone is already talking about, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, and Simon Pegg return to their stations for an epic showdown. In the old franchise, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of series. Can this one reach that level and not flounder as a peak? We haven't even gotten to Memorial Day weekend in this preview and things are already huge.  (trailer)

MAY 24
Fast and Furious 6-- After some bad spin-offs Universal Pictures struck gold bringing the various casts of the Fast and Furious franchise back together in 2009 (Fast and Furious) and 2011 (Fast Five). The last go-around of Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and Jordana Brewster brought in franchise booster Dwayne Johnson and experienced its biggest success, surpassing $209 million at the U.S. box office. With the originals, supporting cast favorites like Tyrese Gibson and Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, and new additions of Luke Evan and Gina Carano in the fold, Fast and Furious 6 shouldn't disappoint the action junkies and will pave the way for an unprecedented seventh movie next July. The added intrigue of the return of long-thought-dead original character Leddy, play Michelle Rodriguez, is your head-turner from a story standpoint. (trailer)

The Hangover Part III-- It seems like all great series need to make it to trilogy status to justify their greatness. Few argue that 2009's The Hangover wasn't a comedy classic for the ages. That acclaim cooled quite a bit with the carbon copy Part II in 2011. Writer-director Todd Phillips and our Wolfpack (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, and Ken Jeong) are back in Las Vegas to put a definitive ending to the series (or so they say) with John Goodman as the bad guy giving chase. (trailer)

Epic-- Beating Disney/Pixar to the front of the summer animation pecking order, 20th Century Fox and their Ice Age shepherd Chris Wedge bring a loose adaptation of James Joyce's The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs. Featuring the star-studded voice cast of Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Christoph Waltz, Jason Sudeikis, Colin Farrell, Aziz Ansari, Beyonce Knowles, Pitbull, Chris O'Dowd, and Steven Tyler, Epic wants to strike while the iron is hot before Monsters University and 900 pounds of marketing and brand recognition kill its chances like a frost on tree. (trailer)

MAY 31
Now You See Me-- Promising magic and illusions that better be better than The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, director Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk, Clash of the Titans, The Transporter) brings Now You See Me to a plum May opening. A super-team of Las Vegas performers, led by Jesse Eisenberg, pull off a daring bank heist on a millionaire mark (Michael Caine) as stage act that might be too good of an illusion. That brings Mark Ruffalo and Morgan Freeman on their trail. (trailer)

After Earth-- What they are telling you about this movie is that it takes place in a distant future where Will Smith is a military warrior training his arrogant and distant son, played by Smith's own son Jaden. When their ship crashes on a temperamental planet filled with teeming wildlife, we learn that they are, in fact, on Earth and survival relies on the son overcoming fear. What they aren't telling you After Earth, a fact that has "kiss of death" ramifications, is that it is written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. All of us want the M. Night that made The Sixth Sense and Signs, but that man is gone, having producing the horrible trio of Lady in the Water, The Happening, and The Last Airbender in the last seven years. That old Shyamalan we loved is dead. They couldn't write his name small enough on the poster. I know After Earth looks cool, but buyer beware. Also, After Earth fearing Superman moved back from June 7th to here.  (trailer)

JUNE 7
The Internship-- I'm pretty sure this is a lame vehicle for it, but many comedy fans have long wanted to bring our Wedding Crashers of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson back together. After eight year away, you get your wish with The Internship. The two 40-something man-childs play outmatched unemployed salesmen (let go by John Goodman) trying to crack into Google with an internship competition against the brightest youths of the present.  (trailer)

JUNE 14
Man of Steel-- The third and final rock that would be impossible to live under would be for this huge reboot of the original comic book superhero Superman. Celebrating his 75th birthday this year, Man of Steel throws out all the old Christopher Reeve/Gene Hackman/Marlon Brando history for a brand new modern origin story with today's top-notch special effects. The Dark Knight trilogy czar Christopher Nolan has personally overseen this project with Watchmen and 300 director Zack Snyder at the helm and British actor Henry Cavill as the blue-eyed caped hero. Joined by Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, and Russell Crowe, the epic scale of this undertaking is making waves already. While Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness are popular sequels with big name recognition, nothing this summer promises to be bigger than this. Watch out! (trailer)

This is the End-- Funny people James Franco, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogan, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Jay Baruchel, Michael Cera, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, Paul Rudd, Jason Segal, and Kevin Hart join the eye candy of Emma Watson and Rihanna to play spoofs of themselves in this wacky R-rated global apocalypse action/comedy that takes out Hollywood and leaves these guys to fend for themselves and each other. (red band trailer)

JUNE 21
Monsters University-- Parents, pack your minivans! Here is the annual Disney/Pixar effort that every kid in the country has been likely tugging on your sleeve to see since the trailer debuted on Wreck-It Ralph las November. In Pixar's first-ever prequel, Monsters University, we are reunited with scare artists Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and James P. Sullivan (John Goodman, who's everywhere this summer) are taken back to the college years where they met and became friends. Expect plenty of fun and plenty of Pixar heart. I would imagine the shirt-tugging for this isn't all that annoying. (trailer)

World War Z-- On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, the zombie-obsessed crowd out there gets their wish granted with a big-time Hollywood blockbuster. Based on Max Brooks's wildly popular novel, Brad Pitt plays a United Nations worker trying to solve a worldwide zombie pandemic while protecting his family. The Super Bowl spot impressed many and the trailers have done their job to tease enough without revealing too much. We've definitely never seen zombies done on this scale. It's going to have a bit of a tough go following Superman at the box office. (trailer)

JUNE 28
The Heat-- Originally set for an April release, the growing popularity of Melissa McCarthy got this action comedy team-up with Sandra Bullock moved forward to a flashy summer release. Reuniting with her Bridesmaid director Paul Feig, McCarthy is banking on a second 2013 comedy hit after this past winter's Identity Thief. I'll put money down on this one out-earning The Internship.  (trailer)

White House Down-- No, this isn't a remake of Olympus Has Fallen... sort of. With an extremely similar White-House-under-attack plot with just one-superstud-man-who-can-save-the-President, the similarities are a pretty good joke. While Olympus Has Fallen went the gravitas route with Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart, and Morgan Freeman, White House Down is going for the larger-than-life route with blockbuster director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012) at the helm and flashy stars Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx in front of the camera. Will this go the way of Deep Impact versus Armageddon from 1998?  (trailer)

THE LITTLE MOVIES IN-BETWEEN
As aforementioned, mixed in-between the blockbusters every summer are a batch of lesser-known and independent movies looking for an audience as a dose of counter-programming to the superheroes, science fiction, and special effects. Sure enough every summer, there's a least one indie "little engine that could" which turns heads and becomes a surprise success and sometimes even an Oscar contender by year's end. Past movies like this include Moonrise Kingdom (my full review), Midnight in Paris (my full review), The Kids Are All Right (my full review), and Little Miss Sunshine. My pick of this first batch to do just that is Before Midnight. Read on and find that little movie you can brag about seeing before everyone else at work!

The Iceman-- Man of Steel star Michael Shannon plays prolific real-life mob hitman from the 60's-80's that killed over 100 people. Ray Liotta and Chris Evans are in on the heavy disco-era facial hair.  (May 3) (trailer)
Aftershock-- Far from a blockbuster, horror master Eli Roth brings another one of his patented bloodbaths to the big screen, with earthquakes as a catalyst. (May 10) (trailer)
Frances Ha-- Indie filmmaker Noal Baumbach (Greenberg, The Squid and the Whale) has a character piece about an aspiring dancer (Greta Gerwig) in the middle of career crisis and changing roomates. (May 17) (trailer)
Before Midnight-- In the most unlikely of long-distance film trilogies, the hopeless romantics and star-crossed lovers of Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are back together, this time married with children on vacation, in this third Richard Linklater chapter following 1995's Before Sunrise and 2004's Before Sunset. This outstanding film was a runaway success at the Sundance Film Festival and looks to really have possible Oscar potential. This one is my pick for the breakout indie hit of the summer. (May 24) (trailer)
The Kings of Summer-- While TV stars Nick Offerman and Alison Brie are the name talents on the poster, the three unknown teens that decide to runaway to a forest hideaway to live off the land are the real stars of this sharp-looking coming-of-age story. (May 31) (trailer)
The Purge-- In a unique domestic thriller following up Sinister, Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey play parents that exist in an America that allows an annual 12-hour "purge" that allows lawless crime for one night a year to curb rising prison populations, with the belief that people get their violence out of their system during these periods. Trippy idea!  (May 31) (trailer)
The East-- Ellen Page is a contract worker looking in infiltrate a domestic anarchist group but falls for the leader in the process. (May 31) (trailer)
Much Ado About Nothing-- Avengers director Joss Whedon, who most people forget was a character-driven writer he was before blockbuster director, takes on a modern time-set adaptation of Shakespeare's memorable play of hook-ups, lust, and deceit, with some ensemble friends of his including Clark Gregg and Nathan Fillion. (June 7) (trailer)
The Bling Ring-- Former Harry Potter star Emma Watson leads a pack of celebrity-obsessed teenagers that track star movements in order to rob their homes. Go Hermoine! (June 21) (trailer)
Byzantium-- Interview with a Vampire Director Neil Jordan returns to vampire drama with a mother-daughter vampire union (Gemma Arterton and Saoirse Roman) that form a deadly agreement over the ages. Think character-driven drama more than Twilight sparkle. (June 28) (trailer)

COMING SOON: PART 2 COVERING THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST!

CHECKLIST: 2012 Summer Movie Calendar

2013-04-28T10:35:00.000-05:00

Before we get to the weighty full preview, here is the bare-bones master calendar and checklist for the summer of 2013 movie season. Feel free to print this and stick it on the fridge at home. As always, look before you leap because release dates shift and change all of the time. Just ask G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

MAY 3
Iron Man 3
The Iceman

MAY 10
The Great Gatsby
Aftershock

MAY 17
Star Trek Into Darkness
Frances Ha

MAY 24
Fast and Furious 6
The Hangover Part III
Epic
Before Midnight

MAY 31
After Earth
Now You See Me
The Kings of Summer
The Purge
The East

JUNE 7
The Internship
Much Ado About Nothing

JUNE 14
Man of Steel
This is the End
The Bling Ring

JUNE 21
Monsters University
World War Z

JUNE 28
The Heat
White House Down
Byzantium

JULY 5
The Lone Ranger
Despicable Me 2
The Way, Way Back

JULY 12
Pacific Rim
Grown Ups 2

JULY 19
Red 2
R.I.P.D.
The Conjuring
Turbo

JULY 26
The Wolverine
Blue Jasmine
Fruitvale

AUGUST 2
300: Rise of an Empire
2 Guns
The Smurfs 2
The Spectacular Now

AUGUST 9
Elysium
Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
Planes
We're the Millers

AUGUST 16
Kick-Ass 2
The To Do List
Paranoia
Ain't Them Bodies Saints

AUGUST 23
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
The World's End
The Grandmasters

AUGUST 30
One Direction: This is Us
Getaway
Closed Circuit

MOVIE REVIEW: Oblivion

2013-04-19T12:20:00.003-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

OBLIVION-- 4 STARS

Film genres have their boom years and their bust years. Every genre has a big hit here and a big hit there every year, but, every now and then, a single year will have multiple watershed films that transcend and extend the genre. In the realm of science fiction, the years of 1968 (2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes), 1977 (Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars), and 1997 (Gattaca, Contact, The Fifth Element, Men in Black, and Starship Troopers) really stand out historically as years were multiple films made a significant impact to the genre and not just the box office. Time will tell, but we may have just had one go by in 2011 (Source Code, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Another Earth, Melancholia, Paul, Real Steel, X-Men: First Class, and, to a lesser degree, Transformers: Dark of the Moon).

In this critics opinion, the very best year for science fiction in film history was easily 1982, boasting E.T. the Extra Terrestrial, Blade Runner (vintage review), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Tron, and The Thing. All have gone on to be considered classics, groundbreakers, and trendsetters in their own right. Once we finish 2013, there's a good chance this year might join that group and maybe even rival 1982.

The ambitious (on paper anyways) science fiction slate coming in 2013 includes Star Trek Into Darkness, Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Vin Diesel returning to Riddick, Will Smith and Jaden Smith in After Earth, the March flop The Host, the indie flick Upside Down, Neill Blomkamp's District 9 follow-up Elysium, Alfonso Cuaran's Children of Men follow-up Gravity, the summer slugfest Pacific Rim, the zombie blockbuster World War Z, and the hotly anticipated novel adaptations of Ender's Game and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. "Loaded" is an understatement and one more of those headliners is out this weekend.

The first really legitimate film that gets this year of science fiction started is Oblivion. From the producers of Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Joseph Kosinski, the kinetic director of Tron: Legacy (a movie I loved, my full review), Tom Cruise returns to science fiction for the first time in eight years since 2005's Spielberg juggernaut War of the Worlds. Oblivion, against recent trend, actually moved its release date earlier from a summer release this July to late April, while some of its peers like Jack the Giant Slayer and G.I. Joe: Retribution experienced nearly year-long delays to be here in the spring of 2013. Filled with amazing post-apocalyptic spectacle, dazzling action sequences, and a heady story of twists and turns, the challenge of Oblivion is whether or not you, as the audience, can allow the strong visuals to make up for the weak narrative.

This film will not go down as a 1982-level classic and borrows too many elements from other movies including The Matrix, Planet of the Apes, WALL-E, Tarkovsky and Soderbergh's takes on Solaris, Duncan Jones's under-seen Moon, and even a little Dark City (vintage review), but Oblivion still has an unmistakable and impressive draw to it. Like all good science fiction, this film stays serious, asks big questions, and takes us to forgivably implausible places. That third element might sound like a knock, but that implausible creativity is what sets science fiction apart from other genres. Science fiction is where the unbelievable comes to life. That's this genre's "grain of salt."

For those who think they know all the twists of this film thanks to the supposedly-telling trailers (one, two, and three), you will be pleasantly surprised at the developments. There are some decent curveballs ahead in the journey, some mildly predictable and others very unanticipated. Still, a little too much is already out there, so the following will be spoiler-free.

Based on Kosinski's own graphic novel pitch with screenplay polish from William Monahan (The Departed), newcomer Karl Gajdusek, and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3), our setting for Oblivion is Earth in the year 2077. A thwarted alien invasion sixty years earlier in 2017 has decimated the planet and destroyed the moon. The nuclear fallout of the conflict did its fair share of the damage to make the planet uninhabitable, but the loss of the moon's gravity threw the planet's equilibrium into chaos leading to massive earthquakes and tsunamis that destroyed the rest. While the people of Earth won the war, they have been evacuated to Saturn's moon Titan, leaving one immense orbiting space station, the Tet, to regulate the farming of energy to support Titan.

Cruise plays Jack Harper, aka Tech 49, an adventurous technician who's been stationed on the planet with his by-the-book communications officer and significant other Victoria (Andrea Riseborough of W.E.). Monitored from the Tet by their commander Sally (Academy Award winner Melissa Leo), they are commissioned with drone repair and maintenance to protect the automated defense system tasked to stamp out the remaining alien resistance known as "Scavs," and protect the Titan energy extraction. After several years on the job and a mandatory memory wipe, Jack and Victoria are only two weeks away from their end date to join the rest of Earth's survivors on Titan.

While Victoria is anxious to leave, Jack's time working on the surface has endeared him to the empty humanity and civilization that remains. He has set aside his own little WALL-E lake house hideaway filled with mementos off the grid away from the decimation and also Victoria's knowledge. Adding to that nostalgia, Jack cannot shake recurring dreams and visions he has of himself living in New York before the war and with a mystery woman (Olga Kurylenko) that he can't remember.

When Jack rescues that very woman, astronaut Julia Rusakova, who arrives from a crashing 60-year-old space shuttle in cryo-sleep, from the violent drones he repairs, his emotions and duty become conflicted. Soon after, he is apprehended by an armed human resistance on the surface, led by Morgan Freeman's Malcolm Beach and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau's second-in-command, that may or may not have the answers to Jack's conflict and the nature of the true enemy at work.

As aforementioned, Oblivion, from a plot and plot twist standpoint, stands on the shoulders of other science-fiction films of recent memory and takes its dear sweet time to show its cards and play its hand. Clearly with four dominating heads at work (Kosinski, Monahan, Gajdusek, and Arndt), there were "too many cooks in the kitchen." When you step back, its story is very thin and wet-pasta-flimsy, but the execution is what saves the picture. While most science fiction movies can't carry a decent love story at its core, Oblivion succeeds with a rather touching Solaris-like connection between Jack and Julia that grows nicely. Cruise is an absolutely solid lead, both in action and in drama situations. As always, and its petty to still have to mention, please separate the man of Tom Cruise from the performer. He's still one of the best actors working today. Kurylenko just has to look good (originally that was supposed to be Jessica Chastain, but Zero Dark Thirty filled her schedule, picture that), but it's Riseborough that weaves a few tangled web strands of her own seduction and devotion that contrast well to rest of the love triangle.

Oblivion is an example where the visuals and aesthetics save a weak story. Recent Oscar-winning cinematographer Claudio Miranda (Life of Pi) photographs "apocalypse porn" from the desolate, yet striking Icelandic landscapes and vistas that are doubling as a washed-out Eastern United States. Not a shot is muddled or out of place, between the raw nature and the impressive futuristic production design. The movie breathes with those lonely visuals and pulses with a sublime electronic/orchestration mash-up score from French band M83. It's Vangelis-Blade Runner epic in tone. Like Kosinski's outstanding and inventive use of an orchestra-backed Daft Punk score from Tron: Legacy, the future of movie soundtracks takes another bold step forward. Altogether, Oblivion is a handsome package that can't be denied. Come to the film for the visuals and hang around for enough surprises and developments to make you feel better about the IMAX ticket price. Once again, it's not a sure-fire classic, but it's just the start to a promising 2013 for science fiction.

LESSON #1: WHEN THE EFFECTIVE BECOMES INEFFECTIVE-- The ongoing expectation from Sally's homebase for Jack and Victoria is whether or not they are an effective team. By effective, she means following orders and working together. If Jack puts aside his feelings and just rides out his two remaining weeks on the job, he won't make the waves and take the risks that challenge the team's orders and effectiveness. Like all moral dilemmas against protocol and orders, sometimes the heart wins and takes over.

LESSON #2: THE INSTINCTUAL DRAW OF ONE'S HOME-- Victoria is laser-focused on getting away from Earth and joining the others on Titan. She doesn't risk anything towards that goal. She won't embrace the surface or even take a gift of a flower from Jack for fear of contamination and leftover toxins from war. Jack is the complete opposite. Earth is still home and he is drawn to it. He feels the music, the books, the breeze, and the memories. Some of that is good, old-fashioned animal connection to one's habitat and home.

LESSON #3: THE DREAMS AND VISIONS THAT STICK WITH US TO THE CORE-- No prescribed memory wipe from the bosses can shake Jack's pre-war visions of New York and a fixation on a woman that he doesn't remember, but deeply loves. Whether the dreams and visions we have mean anything or not (enjoy the dream theory books and blogs), we all can relate to having such unforgettable flashes that we can't shake. We all have unforgettable dreams and imagery, some good, some bad, some real, some fantasy, that stick with us for life.

MOVIE REVIEW: 42

2013-04-17T12:48:00.001-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

42-- 4 STARS

In certain genres of movies, there are forgivable offenses, so to speak, of treatment compared to result. A superhero movie is allowed to ditch the rainbow spandex of the comic book page and give the movie versions of the heroes plausible costumes that don't look ridiculous in public. Horror movies are allowed for dramatic suspense to have blade-wielding killers that walk be inexplicably able to keep up with their future victims that run for their lives. On a simpler level, kids movies are allowed to have fart jokes and bad sidekicks voiced by boisterous comedians that were nowhere near actual characters created in the original fairy tales. Each of those, for their respective genres, are acceptable liberties that are par for the course of suspending logic to allow for forgivable entertainment. After all, like we always say: "it's just a movie." For the genre of sports films, especially those touting "based on a true story" before the credits start, such as Brian Helgeland's new release, 42, about Hall of Fame baseball trailblazer Jackie Robinson, there are three forgivable offenses you, as the viewer, have to get over:

Forgive shrinking the volume to condense a long story
Forgive the required, almost forced, optimism and inspiration to gloss over the ugly parts
Forgive the pick-and-choose route of revising history for dramatic purposes

Let's talk about those throughout this review. First, filmmakers are allowed to truncate the volume of a subject in a sports movie. One man's life and impact cannot fit into a single movie. Writers and directors are allowed to condense for the "greatest hits" account or origin story. 42 only tells the story of about a single year in Robinson's life.

Virtually unknown Chadwick Boseman plays Robinson, who we meet in his mid-20's as a Negro League standout for the Kansas City Monarchs. Motivated by winning (better talent equals victories) and money (the untapped black fanbase who will pay to come to the ballpark), Brooklyn Dodgers head executive Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) has made the conscientious decision to bring a black man into the game of baseball and seeks out Jackie Robinson, against the advice of his advisers. He invites him to New York to see what kind of man he is and if he can take what is likely going to be a hailstorm of pressure and badgering as a person of color in a white man's game. They measure each other up and, with Branch's protection and endorsement, Robinson is signed for the Montreal Royals, the Dodgers minor league affiliate for the 1946 season and joins both clubs for spring training in Florida.

Branch sends Wendell Smith (fellow newcomer Andre Holland from TV's 1600 Penn), an African-American sportswriter for the Pittsburgh Courier, to guide Jackie, document his story, and steer him away from trouble. Robinson marries his long-time girlfriend Rachel (Nicole Beharie from Shame) and she too joins him in Florida. Sure enough, many of the more racist Dodger players and coaches fear the coming storm that Robinson represents. Some stand silent, seeing the winning talent, while others refuse to play with him. The crowds and opponents are even worse. Once Robinson pays his dues in Montreal, he is called up to the Brooklyn Dodgers for the 1947 season and makes his MLB debut on April 15th going hit-less at the plate, but walking, stealing bases, and scoring a run.

With the new era upon them, the Dodgers and their fans slowly embrace their new teammate, the importance of the man, and the shifting importance that he symbolizes. Robinson's accomplishments are too numerous to be given justice in just two hours. Like the whole "book is better than the movie" argument, real life is the same way. There are far more details in the real life and biography than in the movie. Get over it. Mark down one forgivable offense.

The second forgivable offense covers how people want sports movies that move and inspire them. Movie audiences are just like sports audiences. They want escapes with crescendos, not downers that are too brow-beating, theological, and/or negative. Even if a bad story needs to be told, someone still has to come out looking squeaky clean and some of not-so-savory details are going to get glossed over or omitted. Call it the "Shoeless" Joe Jackson treatment from Eight Men Out (and, to a more mythical degree, Field of Dreams). No one is a perfect person. Even heroes have their flaws, but you can't show too many. In fact, we tend deride movies (Take Green Lantern or even a whiny Luke Skywalker, among many others) that overplay the "reluctant hero" card.

If you watch 42 and find the racism and bigotry ugly, multiply it and imagine the real thing without family-friendly film ratings. If your blood boils, the film and its interpretation worked. If you wonder when our hero will crack, but root for him to not crack, then the film again did its job. The movie has several great scenes that play with that tension and Boseman and Ford do a fantastic job reacting to them. There's one really great moment with a random boy in the crowd who begins echoing his loud father, but changes his racist tune upon seeing Jackie's struggles. Sympathy was the clear goal, but the change was subtly effective.

In order to craft the 42 story into an entertaining movie people will see, much had to be softened. This isn't supposed to be The Passion of the Christ on the ball diamond This is a baseball movie and a sports movie about an American legend. There's enough racism to feel its palpable effect on our hero, but not enough to send you running to the hills in shock and awe. That's the way people want their sports movies. Chalk up a second forgivable offense.

The third forgivable offense is a by-product of the first one. Condensing to a single story shaves out much of the bigger picture. For a movie, history is going to get revised into something tighter, quicker, and more fluid for dramatic and cinematic purposes. You're not going to see every single game of that 1947 season and every single racial epithet that was thrown at Jackie Robinson. You're going to get the "greatest hits" edited into a coherent picture. Boseman's performance, as a newcomer shouldering the image of a legend, is very good. The fact that he's not a star really helps you envision him as the real deal. Had Jackie been played by Don Cheadle or any other name actor, the effect would be far less successful. Ford is very good as well, but doesn't make any waves either as Branch Rickey, in a coarse, cigar-chopping mentor role that Paul Newman would have played if he was still alive. Calling for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination is a bit premature, but it's nice to see him not chasing people in an action movie for a change. Nice little sidebar highlights come from Christopher Meloni as the fiery manager Leo Durocher, Lucas Black as fellow future Hall of Famer Pee Wee Reese, and John C. McGinley as radio broadcaster Red Barber.

For those that do their homework, you will learn that the events depicted in 42 are just the tip of the iceberg for Robinson historically breaking boundaries in Major League Baseball. There's a tidy, prerequisite, post-finale epilogue of facts to let you see where your movie characters ended up, but even that isn't the whole story. You're not going to see the parallel battle of bigotry faced by Jewish ballplayer Hank Greenberg (though he gets his name dropped) during the same time or learn that Larry Doby, the American League's first black player, followed Jackie just three months later in the same season with the Cleveland Indians and faced equal hate and far less press coverage. You're not going to know that Branch Rickey later drafted Roberto Clemente with the intention of doing the same for Hispanic players. It's like how everyone remembers Neil Armstrong, but forget about Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins. Much like the first forgivable offense, there isn't room for everything. There's your third forgivable offense.

With those three large disclaimers defined, it all depends on what kind of viewer you are. Can you forgive the obvious for entertainment's sake or do those offenses stand out as flaws, forsaken risks, or missed opportunities at something bigger, deeper, or greater? Estimates (and box office receipts) say that most are the first kind of person, including this very critic.

42 completely stands as a respectful, heroic, and fascinating movie that matches the respectful, heroic, and fascinating man himself. Yes, it has its forgivable offenses of oversimplification, sunny optimism, Disney-like gloss, and convenient revision, but the film succeeds in its primary goal to inspire the viewer. The head-to-toe period detail of costumes, sets, and props to pull off old-school baseball is utterly flawless. That packaging and the fine performances help embolden the message and time capsule of this legendary story. One can only hope that a good movie like 42 can springboard people into learning more after leaving the theater. The film deserves credit for bringing this story to the screen and not completely diluting it. Sure, it could have taken a few more risks, but 42 is a film that deserves to be judged more for what it accomplished than what it didn't. Be forgiving and let yourself be inspired.

LESSON #1: BREAKING BARRIERS AND UNWRITTEN RULES-- If you didn't know, baseball was (and still is) filled with "unwritten" rules. They are commonly comprised of not-so-nice general understandings and repercussions meant to control what's theirs in the game. Some, like this master list, are on the field, while others are little more shady. Writing them down would make everyone as a whole look just as crazy and petty as the rules themselves. Jackie and Branch broke through those rules and dared to challenge them.

LESSON #2: THE MAKINGS OF HERO BY EXAMPLE-- To continue, exacting that change would not have worked if Jackie wasn't a good player or a strong enough person. Rules aren't changed by guys sitting on the end of the bench. They aren't changed by lovable characters we keep around for token fun. They are changed by winners who seize the opportunity. Just ask Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. Their competitiveness was their example to lead by. Success was the greatest medicine to grease that wheel of change. For Jackie to succeed with the trappings and obstacles he did and as stoically as he did was nothing short of heroic.

LESSON #3: HAVING THE GUTS NOT TO FIGHT BACK-- Those first two lessons lead to the penultimate quote from the movie and its trailers. You can't break rules and barriers, create change, and become a hero while doing so without guts. Branch Rickey was right. The guts not to fight back, to turn the other cheek, while occupying a harder road, was the greater need than combating every threat or slur. But letting his success and example speak louder than his mouth or fists, Jackie first earned sympathy and later the respect and admiration he was due. That route is a more endearing one than a combative one.

MOVIE REVIEW: Olympus Has Fallen

2013-04-14T01:56:00.002-05:00

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN-- 3 STARS

The wild White House terrorism invasion scheme of Olympus Has Fallen is the kind of movie that Independence Day and 2012 director Roland Emmerich would make. Oh wait. He did. It's just not done yet. Emmerich's similarly-themed White House Down with Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum opens June 28th while Olympus Has Fallen gets the first crack at stealing your money. If history serves me right, and it usually does on this subject, the last two prominent times there were dueling projects (2012 with double Snow White featuers Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman and 1998 with the double comet/asteroids of Deep Impact and Armageddon), the second movie made the bigger box office. Until June gets here, Olympus Has Fallen draws first blood, buckets of it.

Directed by Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay disciple Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Shooter, Children of the Sun, King Arthur), Olympus Has Fallen dials up a spring picnic of R-rated thrills and summer-level action a month before the big summer season really gets things underway. Drawing upon plenty of better movies (Die Hard, Under Siege, Air Force One) from a generation ago, this film will satiate the macho "man card" redemption needs for all of those married men and boyfriends that got stuck watching Admission recently or were pinned down to see Safe Haven and missed A Good Day to Die Hard. Simply put, this a "guy's movie" and an assertive one.

300's Gerard Butler begins his journey of action atonement from making six horribly weak or under-seen movies (Movie 43, Playing for Keeps, Chasing Mavericks, Coriolanus, Machine Gun Preacher, and The Bounty Hunter) since his 2009 one-two fanboy punch of Gamer and Law Abiding Citizen. Here he plays disgraced former Secret Service agent Mike Banning. A Camp David family tragedy that went down on his watch of President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart), his First Lady (Ashley Judd), and their son (Finley Jacobsen) led Mike to be removed from the Secret Service for a desk job at the Treasury Department, a bag of regret issues, and a distant wife (Radha Mitchell). He misses the front-line excitement and gets to reminisce occasionally with his old Secret Service partners (Cole Hauser and Dylan McDermott) and old boss Lynne Jacobs (Angela Bassett).

All his issues get pushed aside when the D.C. Mall and the White House come under aerial attack from a rouge and heavily-armed C-130 Hercules, breaking through counter-measures, during a crucial visit of South Korean dignitaries hoping for increased U.S. support against their northern rivals (sound familiar?). In an absolutely thrilling action sequence (better than anything in G.I. Joe: Retaliation or A Good Day to Die Hard), the attack escalates out of nowhere into a full-on ground offensive on the White House lawn. Bullets fly and cops, agents, and bystanders alike are diced up by gunfire.

While the President, his staff, the Secretary of Defense (Oscar winner Melissa Leo), and the visiting South Koreans make it to an underground safety bunker deep underneath the White House, the surface team of Secret Service is soundly defeated, but not before Johnny-on-the-spot Mike makes it through the fray and gets into his old stomping grounds. As it turns out, the South Korean security team had a North Korean terrorist named Kang (Rick Yune) in their ranks and traitorous inside help to take President Asher captive in his own bunker. Controlling the inside and the outside, Kang puts pressure on the powers-that-be, including the Speaker of the House and acting President Allan Trumbill (Oscar winner Morgan Freeman, naturally), Jacobs and trigger-happy Army General Edward Clegg (Robert Forster) to pull U.S. forces from the Korean peninsula or face nuclear defense shutdown.

Making it behind enemy lines and knowing the White House like the back of his hand (security codes, secret passageways, and all), Mike is perfectly placed to do a little damage, find the President's missing son, and save the day. That's where the "Die Hard-in-the-White-House" scenarios kick into gear. Mike confronts the terrorists one-by-one, thinning their ranks and dispatching them in bloody and painful deaths, as the "wild card" acting as Trumbill and company's recon to figuring out how to retrieve the President and stop Kang. Gee, I wonder who wins.

Olympus Has Fallen is entirely predictable, yet wholly entertaining in bringing the carnage. It does what it's supposed to do, which is kick ass, and doesn't veer into the usual action movie pitfalls of comedic sidekicks (and endless list from Rob Schneider to Anthony Anderson) or melodramatic forced romance (Speed anyone?). However, the full menu of action movie cliches is still ordered for dinner. You get the appetizers of a redemptive hero with something to prove and a President with some convenient extra balls served first. Next comes the entrees of puffed-up and force-fed patriotism, bad pre-kill one-liners, cocky profanity comebacks, and 24-esque yelled dialogue and technical jargon. Your dessert cliche is a threatening on-screen doomsday countdown and the final bout fight over the one gun in the room.

We've seen these dishes before, but they've never been served in a place like the White House. The novelty to throw down these action cliches and pull out all the R-rated stops, without PG-13 softening, in the country's most famous home office earns Olympus Has Fallen style points and a tipped hat. The ambition to use this setting makes the predictable entertaining. It will be very interesting to see where Roland Emmerich takes White House Down in June. Olympus Has Fallen has certainly stolen some of its buzz by dropping early in spring. It's got more bite than G.I. Joe: Retaliation and more machismo than the daddy issues of A Good Day to Die Hard. For at least a few weeks until either Oblivion or Iron Man 3 arrive, Olympus Has Fallen gets to be called the best action movie so far this year.

LESSON #1: WHETHER IT'S TERRORISM OR COUNTER-TERRORISM, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A PROFESSIONAL WITH INSIDE KNOW-HOW-- If you're going to invade the White House or take hostage the President of the United States, you're going to need a traitor on the inside who can infiltrate to the highest level. The same goes for getting the best odds on a rescue mission. You're going to need a guy who knows the inside. Former Secret Service agent Mike is the ideal inside man. How convenient is it that none of the White House security codes (which give Mike surveillance access, weaponry, and the President's own secure cell phone to the Pentagon) have been changed in the 18 months since he left the job? That sounds a little irresponsible, Secret Service, but I digress.

LESSON #2: THE RULES OF THE GAME CALLED "F - - K OFF"-- Nevermind about digressing. Gerard Butler and the movie's screenwriters already did that for us when the taunt of the game named "F--k Off' is the best tough-guy comeback line our hero can come up with. He clearly never picked up on John McClane's Die Hard wit as a younger man.

LESSON #3: NEVER TRUST THE KOREANS-- Hooray! In the words of Team America: World Police, "America, f--k yeah!" You can never have enough swollen fake patriotism of American dominance in the form of cinema! There's no way the North Koreans will see this film, right? There's no way they could take this arrogance the wrong way and be pissed enough to paint a bullseye on our country, right?. Oh wait...

LESSON #4: TOUGH F - - KERS VERSUS TOUGH F - - KERS-- In case you haven't noticed from Lesson #2 or otherwise, folks cuss a lot in this movie. Mike Banning is a self-proclaimed tough f--ker. By his words, it's going to take one tough f--ker to beat another tough f--ker. His wisdom and logic know no bounds.

MOVIE REVIEW: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

2013-04-07T18:40:00.000-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION-- 2 STARS

G.I. Joe: Retaliation had quite the odd journey to arriving this spring to theaters. After 2009's G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra only made $150 million of its reported $175 million budget back at the domestic box office (though it doubled that total overseas, padding the bottom line), most industry insiders felt that Paramount Pictures wasn't going to sink that kind of money into another Hasbro movie not named Transformers. To much surprise, they stuck with the plan to make a sequel and re-signed star Channing Tatum and brought in Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson for some extra muscle.

Last year, the $130 million budgeted G.I. Joe: Retaliation was finished and dead-set on a flashy summer release on June 29th, getting a head start on the Fourth of July weekend at the box office. Expensive Super Bowl ads were paid for, a smashing teaser trailer with a sweet "Seven Nation Army" cover was making the rounds, and the all-important toys and other marketing tie-ins were already prominently out on department store shelves. Inexplicably in late May, Paramount Pictures pulled the film from release, yanked the merchandise out of stores, and delayed it until March 2013.

While the studio claimed they wanted that time to convert the final product to profit-friendly 3D, everyone else read into that move that Paramount had a lemon on its hands and didn't know how to cushion the disaster, especially after watching Universal Pictures sink itself with Battleship earlier that summer and Disney lose a lot of money on John Carter that spring. An off-peak time like spring is normally where expensive duds that aren't good enough for summer end up landing. The very same thing happened at almost the exact same timing with Jack the Giant Slayer, which moved from Summer 2012 to Spring 2013, and look how that turned out.

Furthermore, once Magic Mike took off last June, rumors circulated that the studio wanted more red-hot Channing Tatum, whose Duke character from the original wasn't supposed to stick around long. It didn't take long for G.I. Joe: Retaliation to come across looking like an absolute industry joke. With all that transpired, all that indecision might have actually been the best thing for the movie. Spring is an easier time to make money at the box office than the summer. The movie had a longer stretch to sell itself, work out the bugs, fix its appeal, and ultimately distance itself from any competition (no, Olympus Has Fallen does not count as competition). After a big $40+ million opening weekend atop the box office, the franchise just bought itself new life and a third movie. First, before we look at the future, let's talk about this one.

Thanks to a snappy prologue, we learn that, since of the events of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra when Destro (sorry, no returning Christopher Eccleston) and Cobra Commander (sorry, no returning Joseph Gordon-Levitt either) were apprehended, "Duke" (Tatum) has ascended to lead the elite G.I. Joe team with "Roadblock" (Johnson) as his trusty second-in-command. Their latest threat is to neutralize is a stolen nuclear warhead in Pakistan after their president is assassinated. On their team are "Flint " (bit player D.J. Cotrona), "Lady Jaye" (TV star Adrianne Palicki), a platoon of trained grunts and the elusive operative "Snake Eyes" (a returning Ray Park, playing everybody's favorite character).

The trouble is, if you care to remember from G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, the evil master of disguise Zartan (professional movie villain Arnold Vosloo) is impersonating the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce), who is stuck as a prisoner in a hidden bunker at the Presidential retreat home. Exploiting his Presidential power, Zartan orders a counterstrike on the Joes, wiping out their ranks, and brands them as national enemies instead of heroes. The warhead is lost and the Pakistan assassination is pinned on Snake Eyes. He conveniently replaces G.I. Joe with Cobra operatives as the nation's top defense force. With a high approval rating, the public thinks nothing of it and he platforms for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

At the same time, "Storm Shadow" (a returning Byung-hun Lee, somehow surviving his fate from the first movie) and "Firefly" (Ray Stevenson) spring Cobra Commander from his secret prison to complete the rest of Cobra's insidious plan, a satellite-based weapons system named Zeus, whose gravity based projectiles make nuclear weapons look like bottle rockets. With plans to control America's allies and enemies, there is little to stop the crooked Cobra President. The few Joes remaining make it back to the states and enlist the help of the program's originator, General Joseph Colton (Bruce Willis), to retaliate against Cobra, expose the President, and clear their names. Gee, I wonder who wins.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is one of those movies where you just need to turn your brain off and enjoy the fun. The first film four years ago, directed by The Mummy franchise man Stephen Sommers, aimed for the over-the-top flair of the G.I. Joe cartoon we children of the 80's grew up on. With its Iron Man-ish super-suits, energy weapons, horrible Marlon Wayans humor, monologue-driven villains, and wild battle sequences on land and under the water, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra clearly sailed over its mark in many people's opinions, especially when compared against the grounded and realistic takes on heroes like Iron Man and The Dark Knight that came out the year before. Those that could sucker themselves enjoyed the fireworks.

Though it wasn't going to take much, this second film actually turns the cartoon flair down a notch or two. The plot is still a preposterous and contrived mess of implausibility, but, remember, you were supposed to turn your brain off. The combat scenes and action sequences aren't quite as wacky (bullets instead of lasers), but the special effects and stunts still impress. You won't be looking at your watch because director Jon M. Chu (two Step Up movies and Justin Bieber: Never Say Never) knows the music video he's trying to shoot and keeps the shiny objects coming. The presence of the no-nonsense Dwayne Johnson, set on Smackdown mode, is a colossal upgrade over two more hours of Marlon Wayans humor that we could have been stuck with. It's his vehicle and franchise now.

Where the missteps are this time around are with everyone else around Johnson's lead. If you couldn't read between the lines of the plot description above, you don't get very much Channing Tatum, which will clearly disappoint the ladies. Even with his post-Magic Mike beefed up part, he is missed when he's gone. The brief scenes with him and Johnson are easily the best of the movie and the producers are missing out on what could have been a great duo going forward to drive this franchise.

Virtual no-names D.J. Cotrona and Adrianne Palicki are pretty, but flat wall posters and expressionless action figures that don't bring much to the supporting cast. To think Palicki could have been your new TV Wonder Woman a year ago is baffling. Sure, the former Friday Night Lights star can fill fatigues or evening wear, but she has zero personality. Somebody go call Gina Carano and end the debate. Cotrona is worse. The dialogue-less Ray Park as the silent Snake Eyes acted better than that cut of meat. Also, the villains are nowhere near the fun of the first film. Only Walton Goggin's sleazy prison warden moves the dastardly fun needle before he's dispatched. Lastly, there's a downright weird cameo role for rapper/filmmaker the RZA as "Blind Master" that's jarringly bad and only serves to ramble history and introduce a side character (Storm Shadow's hot chick cousin "Jinx") for Snake Eyes to work with.

Finally, it is assumed that the presence of Bruce Willis in G.I. Joe: Retaliation was to add a little "gravitas" to the puppet show, but it doesn't come across that way. His extended cameo feels like the action movie equivalent to Christopher Walken spicing up the supporting cast of a comedy. Neither can lead the show anymore, but both can still put on their signature act and we all love their quirk and presence. Willis's contract for this flick must have had a minimum quota of smirks and whispered lines of menace, because that's all that comes through.

As fun as it is, G.I. Joe: Retaliation isn't breaking any new ground, but, again, it doesn't have to. While it's less out-there than the first film, it still delivers enough cool action to entertain. It was better than A Good Day to Die Hard in this critic's opinion. It's not a movie you'll brag about at the workplace water cooler on Monday, but it's one you'll catch yourself still sitting down to watch again on basic cable for the next several years. It's not dazzling enough to reach a cult status or guilty pleasure level, but if they keep bringing out the big guns, we are likely to keep coming back.

LESSON #1: THE ESCALATING NATURE OF RETALIATION-- In watching the preposterous heights of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, the number of ridiculous lessons nearly match the number of explosions. I'll try to get lofty with the first lesson by using the movie's title with a purpose. "Retaliation" might as well be the movie military's word for "one-upmanship." This movie is, essentially, a 90-minute penis-measuring contest between the Joes and Cobra. Who can bring the bigger gun and who can do the most damage? Eventually, you're going to have to run out of ways to top yourselves, right?

LESSON #2: THE IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD CODENAME-- Come on! This is a G.I. Joe movie! You have to have a cool codename. If you don't, you are no better than a sacrificial "red shirt" from Star Trek. For example, I feel bad for Joseph Mazzelo, the little boy from Jurassic Park 20 years ago (which is, coincidentally, stealing money from you with a 3D re-release in theaters now). In a double-take small part, his codename is "Mouse." Yeah, that's not going to cut it. That's not going to strike fear into the troops and terrorists of Cobra or get the girl. By the way, what the hell is a "Storm Shadow" anyway?

LESSON #3: KNOW A GUY WITH A HOME ARSENAL-- You know, if you are a group of three good guy soldiers, terrifically out-numbered against hundreds of impostor Cobra agents protecting the most watched and guarded man on the planet, all you need is one screw-loose general with an obscene home arsenal of every weapon imaginable stashed in every drawer and cupboard as if it came installed that way from IKEA or Crate and Barrel. Guess who looks like Bruce Willis and is not going to like any gun control laws? That would be retired General Joe Colton.

LESSON #4: IT'S A MOVIE LAW OF SCIENCE THAT THE MOST ELABORATE POSSIBLE PRISON IS DOOMED TO FAIL WITH SECURITY-- In a fun extended cameo, Justified's Walton Goggins has a scenery-chewing part as this prison warden of a colossal waste of tax dollars, electricity, and scientific staff to hold just two prisoners in some strange water-bound suspended animation. Just as bad as Demolition Man or other bloated action movies, the fancier the prison the more likely it is to fail. It's a movie rule.

LESSON #5: REBOUNDING FROM A LOSS-- Our sturdy Joes take quite a defeat early on that busts up their ranks. It's not about how you lost. It's about how you get back up and fight again. While Dwayne Johnson channels more of an Apollo Creed vibe than a Rocky Balboa feel, you still get the idea. Hey, speaking of Dwayne...

LESSON #6: CAN SOMEBODY GET "THE ROCK" SOME AIR-CONDITIONING ON THE SET?-- Alright, Rock, we get it. You put your time in at the gym. You're ripped to shreds and can tear every single one us in half. The constant wardrobe of "SMedium" Under Armor shirts suits you. Your chiseled Herculean features and stunning tattoos are boldly on display in both natural and artificial light. Do we need the stripper layer of sweat and glisten? I bet he's got a guy on his staff that just spritzes him between takes. Either that or Dwayne Johnson has a clinical difficulty in maintaining his body temperature. It's funny and distracting.

LESSON #7: DO YOU WANT YOUR PRETEND MOVIE TO LOOK, POLITICALLY, LIKE IT'S NOT PRETENDING? THROW IN A FAMILIAR PUNDIT OR TALKING HEAD. THAT WILL WORK FOR SURE...-- With popular political commentator, the "Ragin' Cajun" James Carville (notching his fifth film appearance on his resume), on the payroll to deliver a cameo and a few lines, G.I. Joe: Retaliation continues the sad blockbuster trend of bringing in real-life figures to further unbelievable plots. Whether it's Senator Patrick Leahy in The Dark Knight or (worst of all) Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin souring his own history in Transformers: Dark of the Moon, it's baffling to watch blockbusters pander like this.

EDITORIAL: Everyone has a Roger Ebert story and here's mine

2013-04-04T16:57:00.002-05:00

(Image: www.tvweek.com)

As the waves of breaking news have swept social media today, I'm sure you've heard by now that famed and revered film critic, journalist, and writer Roger Ebert has passed away at the age of 70. He was preceded in death by his longtime partner-and-sometimes-opponent Gene Siskel in 1999. Together, the two of them redefined how we critique and talk about movies. While both of those gentlemen achieved a national following, they will always be associated with Chicago, my current home city. As a kid growing up in the Chicagoland area, the effect and influence of Gene and Roger were inescapable if you were a movie fan.

From the dueling journalistic reviews, Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times and Siskel in the Chicago Tribune, to their classic shared television program Siskel and Ebert At the Movies, a movie nerd like me hung on their every word. Reading and admiring their work, both of them were a big reason for wanting to be a movie critic in high school, even one that pales in comparison. Though I grew up to be a school teacher instead (I knew at the turn of the century that there wasn't going to be future or career in print journalism), the movie nerd never died and continued to Ebert's work after Siskel's passing. I never attempted to emulate either of their styles. No one could. I just wanted to follow their lead and I strive to with every article I write.

As the title of this editorial suggests, everyone around Chicago probably has a Roger Ebert story. Many folks have crossed his path at theaters and numerous events in over 40 years on the beat. His annual film festival, Ebertfest, in Champaign, Illinois is a grand gathering I've never had the chance to attend. I'm pretty sure it won't lose its luster after his passing for the love of movies is strong in too many people. Even if you weren't a Chicagoan, there's a good chance you've read one of his reviews in one of hundreds of newpapers around the world that shared his work. I guaranteed that, if you have read one, it either inspired your mutual agreement on film's merit or lack thereof or set you off in your own vehement disagreement. That's what made him great. The Pulitzer Prize winner had the balls to share his opinion, good or bad, and rarely compromise.

Here's my Roger Ebert story. In just beginning to write for Examiner.com as the "Frankfort Film Examiner" back in late 2010, I was approached with the opportunity to attend an exclusive critic's screening of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in 3D. I had never been to such a thing and, as a lowly blog writer, you would have thought I won the lottery. For my fellow country music fans, I was like that guy with "Toes" music video from the Zac Brown Band with grandiose visions of riches after winning a $50 lottery ticket. I was having red carpet dreams of making the big time in being able to go to an actual advance screening like the real critics do. My review would actually come out ahead of time instead of after it was released. Shit, my girlfriend (later my future fiance, wife, and mother of my child) and I even made t-shirts with my website character logo on them for the occasion. I was stoked!

I was teaching at the time in Bolingbrook and got out of school quick to make the arduous rush hour communte up I-55 from work to the South Loop of downtown Chicago where my future wife worked and free parking existed. From there we took public transportation to the AMC River East 21 theater. I know it's just another movie theater, but I had never seen a real city theater with the escalators and all. I was that country kid in hog heaven. The problem was that we were running late and the movie was about to begin.

I scurried to the checkpoint outside the roped-off auditorium where I actually had to check-in any electronic devices. I'm sure that's common anti-piracy measures now, but I still felt that exclusive. My girlfriend said to go ahead and make the beginning of the movie. I quietly walked in during the opening credits and it was dark. My eyes didn't adjust (anyone else been there at a movie theater?) and I slid into the first two open seats I could find in the dark and got into pay-attention-movie-critic mode.

My girlfriend eventually make it in, found the open seat next to me, and tugged my sleeve. She mentioned that she met a lady in the lobby who was Roger Ebert's wife. That meant he was watching this movie too. The nerd pulse rate went up and, during a slow beginning part of the movie, I became that rubbernecker looking around for the white-haired silhouette and guise that I would likely recognize. Where would he be?

Low and behold, HE'S IN THE VERY SEAT NEXT TO MY LEFT, sharing an armrest. I'm sitting next to Roger Ebert watching a movie. In my head, I was now in "holy shit" mode.

He watched the movie implicitly, took no notes, and made few fidgets. When the credits hit and the lights were still down, he left his seat and excused himself quickly and silently before anyone else. For those who've seen the man in his last few years, I'm sure you know that he couldn't talk without assistance. I wasn't going to ask him what he thought of the movie. Like everyone else his age, the guy probably had to pee. I know my future wife sure did.

After I collected my girlfriend and things, we perused through the lobby and back down the escalators to leave. Roger was, like any regular guy, stopped to validate his parking at a payment kiosk. We shared a glance and a simple nod. I wasn't going to bother him for a giddy handshake or an autograph. I'm not that kind of guy and we each went home.

I know that story, for obvious reasons of his health, doesn't have any conversation or cool back-and-forth reparte. For me, I didn't need it. Sharing his presence and a nod was cool enough for me. To watch a movie at the same time was a cool enough equivalent to playing catch with your hero as a baseball or football fan. If anything I wish I could have met him before his health robbed him of his speaking. Had he could, I have this vision of a guy holding court after that movie ends instead of meekly going his own way to avoid the crowd. Even after meeting him, the Roger Ebert I will choose to remember is the one exchanging volleys with Siskel on that television balcony from their show.

I'll take my little Roger Ebert story and lift a glass to him today. Journalism and not just Hollywood has lost a great and a guiding light today. To think a man in his condition could still write with the vigor of over 200 reviews a year up until his death, in addition to his blog, books, and columns, endlessly impresses me. It helps me appreciate that my fingers move with as much a voice as my mouth and that losing one of them doesn't take that voice away.

As for final thoughts, I'd like to share some of his own written voice. He wrote a fascinating piece in September 2011 about facing the prospect of death. As a broken Catholic who constantly questions the idea of faith and the big "what if's," I appreciated his clarity, his candor, and share a bit of his uncertainty. Like a person reading multiple movie reviews of the same movie, if you read nothing else today about the single subject of Roger Ebert, make it this and put the other criticism and tributes aside. It's powerful and prophetic stuff. Once again, I tip my hat and thank the man. I wouldn't be here without him, even if he doesn't know it.

"I Do No Fear Death" by Roger Ebert: http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

MOVIE REVIEW: Oz the Great and Powerful

2013-03-14T21:27:00.002-05:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL-- 2 STARS

My personal build-up to the blockbuster Oz the Great and Powerful has been long gestating and evolving on this website. I'm going to warn you right now. I'm going to be hard on it. Just about a year ago, I wrote an editorial on the most desired and long-awaited sequels in Hollywood. While discussing with Casablanca how some perfect movie classics should never be remade, rebooted, or get a sequel, I named-dropped The Wizard of Oz in that same conversation. Like Casablanca, I felt that The Wizard of Oz is a time capsule classic that can't be matched. Sure, it's incredibly dated and today's computerized special effects would likely do wonders to the Land of Oz, but it's relevance can't be topped.

Along the same lines, I wrote a dedicated "New Year's Resolution for Hollywood" (one of 20) in my opening 2013 editorial centered on Oz the Great and Powerful. In that section of the article, written right after the film's first trailer debuted, I shamed director Sam Raimi and Walt Disney Pictures for not being creative enough to hide their warped desire to reboot The Wizard of Oz, with a thinly-veiled prequel. I stated there wasn't "enough sepia and song to match Judy Garland and company." I felt they were tarnishing an "untouchable" classic.

Lastly, while reviewing Jack and the Giant Slayer last week (my full review), I waxed and ranted poetically at my overall disdain on this whole Hollywood trend of beefing up fairy tales into stories and big movies that they are not meant to be. I did so while equally sharing my surprising enjoyment with watching Jack the Giant Slayer. I ended that review hoping for lightning to strike twice in two consecutive weeks with the Oz the Great and Powerful and strong early review buoyed that hope. Sadly, my optimism wasn't rewarded and I learned a new thing about fairy tale movies that I missed (more on that in just a bit).

Not to turn into Bill Maher, but I've got a "new rule," one I pretty much echo every year in those mocking New Year's resolutions I write. When it comes to modernizing the world of a beloved old classic, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Sure, with highly creative 3D photography and dynamic computer-generated imagery Hollywood can do and create just about anything. They can package and sell it to the masses and make boatloads of revenue and merchandising. However, that doesn't mean they should.

Maybe I'm being harsh and as picky as the Comic Book Salesman on The Simpsons (or a good friend of mine nicknamed Schmoo who is the real-life incarnate of that character), but I found that Oz the Great and Powerful to be a beautiful mess of a movie. It spared no expense to throw so many dumb things together than I learned one new thing that most of these modern fairy tale movies lack that I didn't realize or discuss last week with Jack the Giant Slayer. That element is CHARM. There is little or no amount of tangible charm in Sam Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful.

Charm, the one unifying element that I missed last week and learned this week, is what makes us love and suspend disbelief for a fairy tale. It's what seduces us the first time to believing the unbelievable and fantastical. Charm is what also brings us back, time and time again and any age or repeat viewing, for continued enjoyment of the greatest of written or cinematic fairy tales. When Judy Garland began to sing in The Wizard of Oz or when that door opened from sepia Kansas to colorful Oz, we were hooked by charm. When E.T. bonded with Elliot and shared adventures, we were hooked again. I could go all day giving out further examples of charm from the many classics of Disney and Pixar. The best and greatest fairy tales have charm that the pretenders don't.

The $200 million budgeted blockbuster-in-waiting gives us the origin story of the man who will become the "Wizard of Oz." Culling from a few stories by L. Frank Baum without stepping on Wizard of Oz copyright with Warner Brothers, James Franco (re-teaming with Raimi after their Spider-Man trilogy) plays small-time con artist turned small-time magician Oscar Diggs. Opening in the black-and-white and small-screen ratio homage that is 1905 Kansas, Diggs plays the character of "Oz, the Great and Powerful" for a traveling circus, where he greedily bags coins and unsuspecting women wherever he goes. His only friend is his belittled assistant Frank (Scrubs's Zach Braff). Losing his one decent old flame, Annie (played briefly by Michelle Williams), to engagement and flirting with the circus strongman's wife, Oscar makes a speedy getaway via hot air balloon, only to get caught in an enormous tornado on the prairie.

That tornado and Diggs's plea to clean up his act takes him to land of Oz, revealed to us in a widescreen switch of brilliant colorization. Crashing in this foreign realm, he is discovered by the curious and affectionate witch Theodora (Mila Kunis) who believes Oscar to be the answer to a long-held prophecy of a wizard that will come and rid the kingdom of the evil Wicked Witch and become king. Upon demonstrating a trick to two and saving a kind flying monkey named Finley (voiced by Braff), she falls in love with his grifter smile and leads him to the riches of the Emerald City. There, Oscar meets Theodora's skeptical sister Evanora (Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz) who doesn't quite see his potential within the prophecy. Spoiled by the chance to become filthy rich and wanting to fade his scent of deceit with the two sisters, Oscar talks his way into pledging to defeat the wicked witch and become king.

This quests sends Oscar and Finley on their merry way down the Yellow Brick Road to the Dark Forest to seek out and destroy the Wicked Witch's wand, the source of her power. Along the way, Oscar picks up another companion in the form of a China Girl (Ramona and Beezus's Joey King, who we met in a wheelchair back in Kansas), a living porcelain doll that Oscar repairs from injury after her town (yes, "Chinatown") is attacked by the Wicked Witch's army of "Winkies" and flying baboons. Clearly in over his head, Oscar and his gang are soon rescued by Glinda the Good Witch (Williams again), who takes them to her neck of the woods full of munchkins, tinkers, and "quadlings" to coach Oscar up.

Jealousy among the sisters Evanora and Theodora with Glinda in the picture and Oscar's wavering dishonest affection bring about the full emergence of the true Wicked Witch. One way or another and without being a real wizard, Oscar has to learn to put aside his greed and selfishness and live up to his promises and potential. Only he can make the people believe they can be saved.

If that sounds like a wandering mess, know that Oz the Great and Powerful is exactly that, and I didn't even scratch the surface of the full story scope. Still, I called it a beautiful mess and that much is true. A great deal of money went into the look of this movie. The visual effects, cinematography, makeup, costumes, and production design are off the charts and pop in 3D. Disney got their money's worth in production value. From a technical standpoint, this some of the best 3D imagery this side of Ang Lee's Life of Pi (my full review) and Martin Scorsese's Hugo (my full review) The movie looks amazing and that will get you in the door, but that's where my compliments end.

The hugely awesome visuals are also a crutch for the movie. The final product is bloated and overblown with disconnected set pieces. It is as if the filmmakers are showing off saying "hey, look what we can make" and then saying over and over for the next hour and a half. The movie's need to blow the doors off visually drain the energy from any semblance of a charming story. We get to the point where we are over-distracted by the bells and whistles and forget to care about engaging in the story.

The casting sure doesn't help. James Franco, to me, is completely unconvincing as a either a con man or a redemptive man of smarts meant to save the day. Just like Franco's bad medieval display in Your Highness (my full review), Keanu Reeves 25 years ago in Dangerous Liasons, or seeing Mac-schilling hipster Justin Long in a period piece like Robert Redford's The Conspirator two years ago, no matter how much turn-of-the-century dressing of dialogue or costuming you put on Franco, his sleepy California slacker delivery and Pineapple Express tone emerges every time. Some modern or current actors just can't and shouldn't do period pieces. Franco is one of them. He just doesn't fit the charming (there's that word again) magician type, even playing a fake one. I would have rather seen professional smooth operator and Sam Raimi's favorite muse Bruce Campbell (who, in fact, has a cameo to spot deep in the movie) play this part twenty years ago. Even him now in his 50's, stealing scenes on Burn Notice every summer, is better than anything James Franco pretends to be.

Mila Kunis is no better. On the heels of likeable and perfectly-cast performances of her talent and appeal in Friends with Benefits (my full review), Black Swan (my full review), and even Ted (my full review), I thought her That 70's Show curse (one she shares with Topher Grace and Ashton Kutcher's bad casting choices) was gone and behind her. I thought she was done ruining every movie she's in (Book of Eli, Extract, and more) with that Jackie and Meg Griffin voice, ditziness, and blathering. I was mistaken. Like Franco, she can't look or play a period piece and can't take her role where it needs to go. Together, the two of them are a fraction of the fun they were in extended cameos together back in Date Night.

In a slight improvement, Michelle Williams looks the part, but is just so distressingly plain as Glinda the Good Witch. I'm not saying that a 2013 Glinda the Good Witch has to be the queen spunk and cheer to a Amy Adams/Giselle level from Enchanted, but she needs to display a pulse and a personality. She needs be better than a slightly cleaned-up version of the depressing beauty Williams has been playing repeatedly for the last 5-8 years in Brokeback Mountain, Shutter Island, Blue Valentine (my full review), My Week with Marilyn (my full review), and Take This Waltz (my full review). It's like she has to be coached to smile, when she's supposed to be the queen of generating smiles in others.

The only performers fit for their parts are Rachel Weisz, Zach Braff, and a few of the connecting pieces. Weisz is absolutely perfect as the slithering witch with an agenda for jealousy and revenge. She nails what she has to do, but even she can't elevate Kunis. Braff plays affable to perfection and deserved a bigger role than he got (and, by extension, deserves more leading man roles in Hollywood movies since departing television). I'm guessing Game of Thrones Emmy winner Peter Dinklage scoffed at the script (I would to), which meant the casting director went to the next go-to Hollywood "angry elf" Bad Santa's Tony Cox. The same goes for longtime family movie sage Bill Cobbs (Night at the Museum). Dick Van Dyke or Bob Newhart must have been busy.

The final flawed aspect of Oz the Great and Powerful that kills its chance to develop memorable charm is its tone. I'm not saying a 2013 jaunt to the land of Oz has to have endless song-and-dance numbers reminiscent of the 1939 classic or merry midgets coming from all directions. In fact, in one moment where the characters do spring into song, Oscar quickly shoots them down. What I mean is that, for all the big budget style employed to make everything look beautiful, the overall film is too heavy with its roller coaster desire. Too many big set pieces and too high a sound mix, combining every effect in the book while Danny Elfman's wild rumpus score gives chase, bog everything down from letting any gentle moment of charm and wonder manifest and breathe.

While it's not overtly creepy or quirky and shrewd enough to stay PG (something Jack the Giant Slayer missed doing last week), Sam Raimi might as well be Tim Burton Lite, borrowing much of the Alice and Wonderland Disney template. He does what he's told by hitting the familiar spots, glossing up little nostalgic nods, but then blows the doors off of everything else. The big box office opening for Oz the Great and Powerful has netted it a sequel and the next logical target, within a movie or two, is Dorothy and the storyline for The Wizard of Oz we all know and love. I'm grimacing already.

LESSON #1: LIES ARE THE STEPPING STONES TO GREATNESS-- Normally fairy tale movies outline fairly simplistic, common, repetitive, and easy-to-follow life lessons. This first one actually stabbed a little deeper than I was expecting. Oscar's livelihood is based on deceitful lying and trickery. The movie spins a little play on those lies to develop the character of Oscar before the end of the show. We see that if you either tell a lie enough times or believe the lie more and more over time that it just might come true. Oscar just might talk himself into, instead of out of, being the king and wizard everyone thinks he is.

LESSON #2: WHEN PRETENDING EVOLVES INTO CONFIDENCE-- This lesson is another way of looking at Lesson #1 in terms of actions instead of words. Like many shady and reluctant cinematic scoundrels and heroes before him, Oscar pretends to be something he is not and adamantly refuses the monikers, labels, and potential that everyone else sees. However, over time, all that pretending and success rubs off on him and leads to growing confidence, conscience, and character building. While Oscar's rise to glory isn't quite as cool and dramatic as Han Solo, for example, we see that shift and change.

LESSON #3: HOW FAR ONE GOES TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE-- The prophecy of both incoming greatness and pre-existing fear is sunk in heavily in the land of Oz. People are impressionable enough to believe the smallest thing. So, whether it's Oscar's traveling circus theatricality, his shenanigans on a bigger stage in Oz, or, contrastly, the influence and control of the various witches, we see the short and long lengths influential people will go to make the masses believe. You can either call it faith or you can call it gullibility. It just depends on what side of the fence you are on.

MOVIE REVIEW: Jack the Giant Slayer

2013-03-07T10:54:00.002-06:00

(Image: www.ew.com)

JACK THE GIANT SLAYER-- 3 STARS

I'll be honest as a movie critic with at least some form of discerning taste and scruples. I haven't given any effort at all to this recent wave of fairy tales turned into buffed-up movies or genres they are not. They all look ridiculous. They look like pretenders and the movie versions of rich white kids that try to dress up all swag and tough. I skip them without much thought.

I didn't care to see Red Riding Hood attempt an element of horror or Beastly look like a CW show a few years back. I had no desire in the world to choose between the two competing Snow White flicks from last year, Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman. One had Nathan Lane and one had Kristen Stewart and their previews told the whole story. That was all it took to keep me away. Even here in 2013, with this current trend continuing, I had no driving interest in Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. With each one, I kept asking "what's next?" and pictured the lovey-dovey Vikings of the CapitalOne credit card commercials getting their own romantic comedy.

It's not that I can't get into a classic story getting a twist or two for fun. I love a good mash-up. It's that the titles I mentioned just went so over-the-top to make you want to care that they over-hyped themselves. They tried too hard to be different. That and I'm still a reader like everyone else. Once the ugly reviews came in for every single one of them (11% for Red Riding Hood, 20% for Beastly, 50% for Mirror Mirror, 48% for Snow White and the Huntsman, and 15% for Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, via Rotten Tomatoes) from the majority critical opinion, their deals were sealed and my ticket money went elsewhere. I won't even throw a Redbox buck at most of those.

However, I was recently sold on the idea of giving Jack the Giant Slayer a chance and I can honestly say that I'm glad I did. Instead of trying too hard to blaze a different trail or modify the legend as extremely as those aforementioned movies, director Bryan Singer (of X-Men and The Usual Suspects fame) stuck to the core story ideals and delivered a very grand and fun adventure. While it borrows from plenty of other better movies that came before it, Jack the Giant Slayer is one buffed-up fairy tale movie that works.

What makes Jack and the Giant Slayer work where the other super-sized fairy tale movies have failed is sticking to the story roots. Essentially, all of these movies take a 10 minute bedtime story and rewrite history. None of them are pure retellings. Most stray way too far to either modernize, darken, or modify the fantasy elements that made them classic fairy tales with modern gags, references, and devices. Jack the Giant Slayer embraces its bedtime story roots, uses it as a backstory, and, before the credits roll at the end, throws a fun nod at real English history.

While Jack the Giant Slayer raises its fairy tale setting to a big cinematic scale, the narrative course is a familiar one. You've seen in before in other movies. A young boy is raised on bedtime stories of long-ago adventure and giants in the kingdom of Cloister, where a great former king was able to defeat and control the giants with a magical crown and secure the only remaining magic beans that reach their world.

Unfortunately, the young boy is soon orphaned and grows up into a strapping young man named Jack (Warm Bodies star/heartthrob Nicholas Hoult and graduate of the Tom Cruise School of Always-Agape Expression) with all of the potential in the world and nowhere to go, stuck at home on his uncle's farm (Luke Skywalker anyone?). One day, while venturing into town, the noble Jack defends the honor of a young woman, who just happens to be Princess Isabelle (newcomer Eleanor Tomlinson), daughter to the highly respected King Brahmwell (Ian McShane, flexing all possible gravitas), and catches her eye. Naturally, like all movie princesses, she longs to shed her royal image and marry for love, rather than being betrothed to the older Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci, not hiding any future villainy), one of the king's advisers.

Jack also gets mixed up with a monk on the run from one of the Roderick's thugs (Ewen Bremner, this time without his usual speech impediment). The doomed monk bequeaths to Jack a nondescript pouch of beans with instructions of delivering them to the monastery for a reward and the one warning of "don't get them wet." Roderick, as we learn, is in possession of that ancient magical crown and wants to usurp the king.

Later that night, Princess Isabelle puts on a commoner disguise and escapes the city to find some adventure on her own. Caught in the rain, she ends up seeking refuge from the weather at, sure enough, Jack's farm. Awkward romantic pondering leads to one of those beans getting wet and a giant beanstalk sprouting from underneath the farmhouse. It takes Isabelle and the house right up with it toward the night sky with Jack unable to hold on.

The appearance of the beanstalk evokes the old kingdom's ominous legends of the giants living about them. Fear grips the kingdom, especially with the missing princess, and the army is mobilized to the scenes. King Brahmwell arranges a team of his elite guard, led by Elmont (Ewan McGregor, paying forward the veteran molder-of-men role Liam Neeson did for him) and his right hand man Crawe (Eddie Marsan), Lord Roderick, and the volunteering Jack who feels responsible for the princess's predicament, despite a fear of heights. Together, they climb the beanstalk and find a forested realm of giants above the clouds and the captured princess.

The grotesque giants are led by the two-headed Fallon (where Bill Nighy does most of the talking, work he's used to doing from his Pirates of the Caribbean Davey Jones days) and they have long sought revenge against the humans below that separated their worlds. Now, with the beanstalk path and a little Isabelle collateral, they are poised to invade. With a few predictable curveballs along the way, our movie crescendos into the inevitable clash, rescue, and hero birth we expect and happily see coming.

Like I said earlier, we've seen these story elements before in other fairy tales and movies. We've seen the commoner fall for royalty and vice versa. We've seen Ewan McGregor play the dashing hero. We've seen Stanley Tucci play the lecherous villain. We've seen Ian McShane embolden himself as a stalwart leader. We've seen Bill Nighy play a speechifying CGI heavy and adversary. While much has been done before, the delivery of it all is very well done and the predictability leaves your mind very quickly. No one is winning any Oscars here for performance, but Hoult and McGregor are highly likeable heroes and McShane is always good.

You don't come to Jack the Giant Slayer for the familiar story roots. You come for the spectacle and the movie spared no expense. With a budget of nearly $200 million and a release delay from last summer to this spring for 3D conversion, you can tell the special effects teams and Warner Brothers were hard at work, as was director Bryan Singer. He skipped returning to his X-Men franchise two years ago to do Jack the Giant Slayer and the final product was worth his time. The CGI giants emote and look amazing, right down to the snot and skin pores. There's a surprisingly large amount of solid set design going on to create big castles, beanstalks, and battlefields. It's not all CGI code and green screen and that really helps create a rich story setting with less inherent fakery. There are some big-time action set pieces that keep the peril and pace coming. Singer's longtime personal film editor John Ottman pulls his usual double duty composing a big soaring musical score fit for the adventurous occasion. I'll admit that I was impressed. Since I play the educator on this website, buyer beware, this film is still a human-munching PG-13, so it's not as family friendly as advertised.

Jack the Giant Slayer does just enough new things with the classic fairy tale source material to be a step up without tail-spinning into overproduced confection and cheese. I think they could have toned a few things down to earn a PG rating and make a killing with the family crowd, but a PG-13 rating hasn't stopped parents before, so a little extra bite works for the rest of us. That and last year's expensive flop and similarly measured John Carter (a movie I was on the minority side for really enjoying) proved that a PG rating is no box office guarantee and still acts as Budweiser water to content.

While it's no fine wine or instant classic, Bryan Singer and his team demonstrated better than the other steroid-enhanced fairy tale movies that the most important thing with this kind of retelling is to not tear up the roots. Jack the Giant Slayer's embrace of its bedtime story nature and that is its greatest strength. It should be a guide for future fairy tale enhancements to stick to the core ideals that made it great and to mold your spectacle around it, not above it. This success here with Jack the Giant Slayer might just give me some hope for Sam Raimi's upcoming high-profile Wizard of Oz prequel Oz, the Great and Powerful coming just a week later. I won't get ramped up again. That's another rant for another review.

LESSON #1: SAVE THE PRINCESS, IMPRESS A KING, EARN HIS RESPECT, AND YOU JUST MIGHT GET THE GIRL-- As aforementioned, Jack the Giant Slayer doesn't throw anyone for any loop with new emotional heft or unpredictability. Like Aladdin without the genie or the lamp, Jack pines for Princess Eleanor, who is out of his class and league. Still, Jack gets his chance to follow that lesson order and get the girl. The key step in there is earning respect. Plenty of people can save the damsel in distress, but few can keep their humble and noble character along the way.

LESSON #2: DON'T F - - K WITH GIANTS-- They are bigger than you, stronger than you, and enjoy the taste of humans. You shoot little arrows that cross a football field and hit like a sliver on something triple your size. They throw entire trees that are on fire a country mile. Batten down the hatches or run for the damn hills! If you're going to take them on, make sure you have a magic crown that overcomes them with obedience and brings them to their knees.

LESSON #3: RUNNING AWAY FROM ONE THING IS THE SAME AS RUNNING TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE-- For the last lesson, I will twist a repeated mantra from our movie characters. It's classic optimist-versus-pessimist with optimism always coming out on top. The princess is running away from her royal responsibilities, but meets the humble Jack that informs her that maybe she's not running from something, but towards something else. That simple logic rings true with most of life's big choices. When we avoid one thing, another thing, good or bad, will present itself. Time is always moving and our life is along for that ride. We can hear all the guidance available for that ride, but only one person can do the steering.

EXTRA: Share a little Iron Man and Batman buzz

2013-03-05T15:56:00.004-06:00

With the recent buzz of Christian Bale possibly coming back to role of Bruce Wayne/Batman for a Justice League superhero team-up in Dark Knight trilogy director Christopher Nolan's guiding hands of stewardship and the stellar third and final full-length trailer for Iron Man 3 just released online today, I figured we could have a little fun with their billionaire comparisons. While we still have to play the "wait-and-see" game for Christian Bale, moviegoers will get their Robert Downey, Jr. fix with Iron Man 3 coming to theaters on May 3rd. For all of those DC versus Marvel fans, the Disney-backed Marvel brings out Iron Man 3, The Wolverine, and Thor: A Dark World all this year. Sadly, DC fans only get Man of Steel, but that promises to be the granddaddy of them all bringing back the granddaddy of all superheroes.

Let's get back to the billionaires and forget about Kansas-bred aliens. A fan of my site from ThinkMax Marketing, representing Homeowner's Insurance, sent me this fun infographic recently breaking down the real-world statistics it would take to become either Iron Man or Batman. For your edification and enjoyment, take a look at the longshot logistics of these to heroic superstars:

Created by HomeownersInsurance.com

COLUMN: 2013 Spring Movie Preview

2013-02-28T17:12:00.001-06:00

(Image: www.reelz.com)

When the snow melts and the calender gets to March, business finally starts to pick up in Hollywood. The abysmal winter movie season (and this one sure lived up to the adjective) is over and so is awards season from the year before. The public, along with the weather, can focus on bigger, newer, and brighter movies. The lineup for the Spring of 2013 is shaping up that way. Still, we're a season away from the real main event that is the summer movie season of blockbusters. Some of these movies are not good enough to compete during the summer, but are still better than the winter muck. Think of it as the summer's undercard. Here is my full Spring 2013 Movie Preview from "Every Movie Has a Lesson." Enjoy!

MARCH 1

Jack the Giant Slayer-- Occupying the fateful John Carter slot (and label) from last year is Bryan Singer's long-gestating adventure film that pumps up the "Jack and the Beanstalk" fairy tale into its own muscle-bound movie, much like the 2012 trend of "Snow White" getting flashy renditions. Warm Bodies's Nicholas Hoult plays your new Jack. Naturally there's a princess (newcomer Eleanor Tomlinson), a mentor/soldier type (Ewan McGregor), a king (Ian McShane), a connected evil-doer (Stanley Tucci), and giants all over the place. This movie, like G.I. Joe later on this preview, was delayed from a prominent Summer 2012 releases due to additional marketing and improved special effects. We'll see if it pays off or acts like an albatross. Like John Carter, this one is hoping to score a crossover family audience and is paying a pretty penny (budget estimates approach $200 million) to try. (trailer)

Stoker-- Developed from the debut screenplay written by Prison Break star Wentworth Miller, renowed South Korean director Park Chan-wook (Oldboy) makes his American debut with this creepy psychological thriller and Gothic mystery. Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman headlines as a twisted mother who hates on her troubled daughter (Alice in Wonderland's Mia Wasikowska) after her father's death. While her smooth uncle (Watchmen's Matthew Goode) moves in to take her father's place, the daughter learns the uncle's true nature. (trailer)

21 and Over-- The Hangover screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore make their directorial debut with, what else, a crazy "one wild night" story about a college kid, his friends, and his hi-jinks and debauchery-filled 21st birthday. We've seen this type of thing before, so don't expect much new broken ground. (trailer)

The Last Exorcism Part II-- Doesn't the title alone inspire the notion that a Part II shouldn't happen. Like all movie seasons, there's always a horror movie or two. This sequel gets the returning Ashley Bell and splatter czar Eli Roth's bankrolling. Good luck, folks. (trailer)

Phantom-- In what will likely look like a TV movie on the big screen, Academy Award winner Ed Harris, David Duchovny, and William Fichtner team up for a submarine movie that supposedly cloaks its intentions with secrecy. Somebody tell the marketing department that, because no one has heard of this movie and the people involved. It's new title: "Straight to DVD." (trailer)

MARCH 8

Oz the Great and Powerful-- Spider-Man and Evil Dead hit-maker Sam Raimi takes on a prequel story for the classic Wizard of Oz, attempting to tell the back story of the Oscar Diggs(James Franco), the wizard who will become "Oz," and the friends and foes he makes and meets in foreign magical world. Raimi has Disney's backing (to the tune of a $200 million budget) and brings together a trio of top-notch actresses (Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis) to play the witches we've been expecting. Disney wants a repeat box office performance to Alice in Wonderland's $1 billion+ worldwide take. To me, The Wizard of Oz cannot and shouldn't be matched, making this a tougher sell. (trailer)

Dead Man Down-- Somehow, WWE Studios (yes, that WWE) got Danish director Niels Arden Oplev from the original The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo to make his American debut re-teaming with Noomi Rapace for Dead Man Down. The thriller is about an assault victim (Rapace) angling to get revenge from the crime bosses responsible by blackmailing a mob enforcer (Colin Farrell) to turn on his boss (Terrance Howard). We'll just have to see how that recipe turns out. WWE fans, watch for Wade Barrett in a supporting role. (trailer)

Emperor-- Debuted in limited release, Academy Award winner Tommy Lee Jones takes on the role of the legendary General Douglas McArthur in a flashy political mystery taking place in Japan on the heels of their surrender of World War II. He and another general (played by Matthew Fox) are there to assess the Japanese emperor's involvement in starting the war, while the country is on the verge of post-war collapse. (trailer)

MARCH 15

The Call-- Speaking of WWE Studios, they've got two films in a row this spring. Academy Award winner Halle Berry plays a 911 operator who gets involved with a teenager's (little Oscar nominee Abigail Breslin, now 16) kidnapping. Once again, WWE has a coup of a director, nabbing The Machinist director Brad Anderson for this kinetic thriller. Wrestling fans, watch for David Otunga in this one. Beware, the trailer gives the whole thing away, and I mean the WHOLE thing.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone-- Emmy-winning 30 Rock director Don Scardino step up to movies and scores a dynamite comedy cast of Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi, Alan Arkin, Olivia Wilde, and Jim Carrey in a ham-fest of dueling magicians written by Bones's John Francis "Sweets" Daley and the co-writer of Horrible Bosses. Carell and Buscemi are an aging Sigfried and Roy-like duo of tans and hairstyles that have been aged and overshadowed by the headline-making feats of a Criss Angel/David Blaine-like Jim Carrey character. Arkin plays the old school inspiration of Carell as he seeks to get his stardom back. (trailer)

Upside Down-- Likely opening in limited release, this high-concept science fiction film involves two twin Earth-like planets set incredibly close to each other, but maintain their own unique gravity. This figurative separation of worlds denies a romance between Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst on opposite ends of gravity and social standing. It's a trailer that has to be seen to believed. It can either be amazingly original or amazingly absurd. It's got me curious. (trailer)

MARCH 22

Olympus Has Fallen-- Training Day director Antoine Fuqua aims to top Air Force One with a hugely action-packed terrorism thriller. North Korean terrorist (Rick Yune) has captured the White House and the President of the United States (Aaron Eckhart). This scrambles the politicians, including the Speaker of the House and acting President (Morgan Freeman, nice touch) and Secretary of Defense (Oscar winner Melissa Leo), into action to rescue the President and retake the White House. That means relying on a dismissed Secret Service agent (Gerard Butler) who knows the place better than anyone to lead the mission. What? Steven Seagal wasn't available? (trailer)

Admission-- Little Fockers and American Pie director Chris Weitz puts together to the two most adorable comedians possible of their gender, Tiny Fey and Paul Rudd, into a movie together. Fey plays a straight-laced Princeton admissions officer on a recruiting visit to an alternative high school who begins to pull strings for a son (one that may or not be her own that she gave up for adoption years ago) of an ex-beau of hers played by Rudd. Naturally, the likeability factor (and also the predictability) is through the roof for Admission. Buyer beware, like The Call, the trailer gives the ENTIRE movie away in two minutes.

The Croods-- Aiming to be this spring's family hit on the scale of The Lorax from last year, the Dreamworks Animation team behind How to Train Your Dragon give us a Stone Age caveman family led by patriarch Nicolas Cage that embarks on a migratory adventure to reunite with his oldest daughter (Emma Stone) who prefers outdoors over caves and a nomad love interest (Ryan Reynolds). This sure ain't The Flintstones. (trailer)

Spring Breakers-- With the presence of former Disney Channel muses Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens and ABC Family starlet Ashley Gordon, this comedy/drama is likely being marketed to kids and teenagers with its college fun and bikini-clad babes. The real film is a R-rated envelope-pusher about female thieves who score money for a Florida spring break trip, but get pinched on drug charges. They are bailed out and then controlled by a dangerous local thug (James Franco in cornrows, tats, and grills) and are now in over their heads. This isn't the spring break movie you think it is. These girls will not be the princesses you think they are. For some, it's likely a welcome image departure. (red band trailer)

The Sapphires-- Opening in limited release, this little Australian movie about four Aboriginal girls who become a glitzy sing quartet during the late 1960's and 70's has been drawing solid reviews since its debut at the Toronto Film Festival. Starring Bridesmaids's Chris O'Dowd and a bevy of unknowns, keep an eye on this feel-good charmer. (trailer)

Love and Honor-- Also in limited release, if Nicholas Sparks wrote a book that turned into a movie during the time of the Vietnam war, it might look like this. The Help's Chris Lowell and brother of Thor, Liam Hemsworth of The Last Song and The Hunger Games, star as a pair of Vietnam soliders who get a rare leave to go home, find romance (in the form of former Disney Channel star Aimee Teegarden and Warm Bodies's Theresa Palmer), and are now tempted to stay home and desert going back overseas. (trailer)

MARCH 29

G.I. Joe: Retaliation-- We've come to our second Summer of 2012 bump. G.I. Joe: Retaliation was poised to open opposite Ted last summer but was pulled mere weeks before its release and rescheduled to now. Marketing was in full swing and toys were already on the shelves. The studio cited 3D conversion and boost of international marketing. The press (myself included) thinks that the huge 2012 popularity of Channing Tatum demanded re-shoots to not kill off his returning Duke character. Nevertheless, here comes Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), General Joe (Bruce Willis), Flint (newcomer D.J. Cotrona), Lady Jaye (TV's Friday Night Lights's Adrianne Palicki), and the returning grudge match of brothers between Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and Storm Shadow (Lee Byung-hun). As you may remember from the first (and who doesn't), the U.S President (Jonathan Pryce) has been replaced with a disguised Zartan (The Mummy's Arnold Vosloo) with the firepower to control the world with only the Joes in his way. (trailer)

The Place Beyond the Pines-- If you want an early-year Oscar candidate for 2014, this is the one to keep an eye on. Blue Valentine director Derek Cianfrance directs this crime drama about a motorcycle stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) pitted against a dedicated cop (Bradley Cooper) after the stuntman turns to bank robbery to support his family. This one has got sizzle and some promising drama. This movie might top my wish list for the whole season. Don't miss the trailer!

The Host-- Stephenie Meyer's other non-Twilight novel is a science-fiction yarn about aliens that have inhabited the bodies (hence the name) of most of the planet's people. In true Twilight fashion, we get a forbidden romance between two enemy sides, a host (Atonement Oscar nominee Saoirse Ronan) and a free human (Red Riding Hood's Max Irons). This is surprisingly fluffy teeny-bobber territory for director Andrew Niccol, who's usual science fiction writing in Gattaca, In Time, and The Truman Show is normally above this level. (trailer)

Tyler Perry's Temptation-- Hollywood mogul Tyler Perry continues his own popular brand by bringing another one of his stage plays, Temptation: The Confessions of a Marriage Counselor, into another star-studded film adaptation. Former child star Jurnee Smollett-Bell plays the counselor in question who becomes embroiled in a steamy affair with a womanizing client (Robbie Jones) when her marriage at home (with Lance Gross) lacks excitement. For headlines' sake, Kim Kardashian, Brandy Norwood, and Vanessa Williams give the settings some glamor. As always, Tyler's got a built-in audience that's ready for something new. (trailer)

Welcome to the Punch-- From executive producer Ridley Scott comes a limited release film starring James McAvoy, Mark Strong, and Oblivion's Andrea Risebourough about a noted criminal (Strong) who returns to London to spring his son from protective hospital custody and tangle with the detective (McAvoy)
who's been chasing him for years. (trailer)

Great Expectations-- Also opening overseas and in limited release in director Mike Newell's (Four Weddings and a Funera, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) take on the classic Dickens novel. Every generation seems to have its take on this often-told movie. This one brings together War Horse's Jeremy Irvine, along with Harry Potter alums Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, and Jane Eyre's Holliday Grainger to fill out the familiar roles. Attention all English teachers! Make a field trip! (trailer)

APRIL 5

Evil Dead-- Classic director Sam Raimi and star Bruce Campbell are shepherding the authorized production of this modern remake to their cult classic. First-time director Fede Alvarez was handpicked by Raimi and a cast of unknowns hope to do the original justice when five friends at a remote cabin discover the Book of the Dead and unknowingly summon violent demons that possess each on of them. Oscar-winning screenwriter Diablo Cody (Juno) was brought in to jazz up the script, but early word has this movie bordering NC-17 level violence. That ought to please the fans. (trailer)

Trance-- This is Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire director Danny Boyle's first film since his harrowing 127 Hours. Without much marketing to go off of, this film surrounds an art auctioneer, played by James McAvoy, who gets mixed up with gang element and seeks the help of hypnotherapist after a daring failed heist. For a director known back in the day for Trainspotting, seeing Boyle take on the idea of hypnotherapy ought to be a wild trip. This co-stars Vincent Cassell and Rosario Dawson. (trailer)

The Company You Keep-- The ageless Robert Redford directs and stars in a journalistic thriller. He plays an aged, reformed, yet wanted militant protester whose cover identity is discovered by an eager young journalist (Shia LeBouf) looking to make a name for himself, but doesn't see the ramifications. Redford rarely doesn't deliver and brings a big cast with him (Julie Christie, Sam Elliot, Richard Jenkins, Terrance Howard, Anna Kendrick, Brit Marling, Stanley Tucci, Nick Nolte, Chris Cooper, and Susan Sarandon). With that pedigree, I hope this gets a larger-than-limited release. (trailer)

Jurassic Park 3D-- Here's another classic blockbuster celebrating an anniversary (its 20th) by getting converted to 3D and attempting to steal your money to see it on the big screen again. Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures is clearly taking a page from the Disney and George Lucas playbooks with this nonsense. (trailer)

APRIL 12

42-- Coinciding nicely with the opening of the baseball season, Oscar-winning superstar screenwriter (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River, Salt, Green Zone) and sometimes director (Payback) Brian Helgeland aims to tell the biographical story of baseball legend Jackie Robinson (played by virtual newcomer Chadwick Boseman) and his plight in historically breaking of the color barrier in Major League Baseball. Harrison Ford brings his headlining name and gravitas to play Hall of Fame executive Branch Rickey, the man who signs Jackie to the Brooklyn Dodgers and stewards his early career. (trailer)

To the Wonder-- Opening almost assuredly in limited release is the latest art film from revered-yet-despised director Terrance Malick (The Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line). The readers of this website know my absolute disdain for Malick's meandering and pointless poetry from The Tree of Life (my full and hilarious review). This time around, Malick at least hired an editor than turned in a movie under two hours. That's a miracle in itself, but it left out entire scenes and entire characters played by the likes of Jessica Chastain, Rachel Weisz, and Michael Sheen. We'll see if that's addition by subtraction. Kidding aside, newly annointed two-time Oscar winner Ben Affleck leads the way as an American man who rekindles a hometown romance (Rachel McAdams) after his marriage to an European woman (Olga Kurylenko) fails, with a mysterious priest (Oscar winner Javier Bardem) in the mix. How that's the plot from the wandering trailer, I sure don't know. All I see is 800 different ways to show sunlit skies and people teaching each other arbitrarily to the voice of Bardem. Good luck, folks. (trailer)

APRIL 19

Oblivion-- Of all the movies coming out this season, this one seems to carry the clout of a true summer-level blockbuster. Oblivion, the latest sci-fi action piece from Tom Cruise adapted by Tron: Legacy director Joseph Kosinski from his own graphic novel, pulled the opposite trick of G.I. Joe: Retaliation and Jack the Giant Slayer by moving its release earlier from July 10 to here in April. Set in 2073 sixty years after an alien invasion decimates the planet, Cruise's character is a former Marine on drone repair duty recovering the remaining planetary resources when he discovers a human insurgency that has remained on the planet. This looks solid! (trailer)

Scary Movie 5-- If you can believe it, it's been seven long years since Scary Movie 4. Now, for the fifth edition, the show must go on without its core stars Anna Faris and Regina Hall. Writer-producer David Zucker (Airplane, Ghost) brought in director Malcolm D. Lee (Soul Men, Undercover Brother, Roll Bounce) to bring a little youth to the franchise. The main threads for parody and spoof appear to be Paranormal Activity and Black Swan, with a little Hunger Games, Madea, and Inception thrown in for good measure. (trailer)

Stuck in Love-- Rookie writer/director Josh Boone delivers a little independent dramedy (previously titled Writers) about a successful author (played by Oscar nominee Greg Kinnear) and the complicated relationships he was with his wife (Oscar winner Jennifer Connelly), his mistress (Kristen Bell), his free-spirited college-age daughter (Mirror Mirror's Lily Collins), her new squeeze (The Perks of Being a Wallflower's Logan Lerman), and his loser high school son (Admission's Nat Wolff). Nice little cast! (trailer)

APRIL 26

Pain and Gain-- Director Michael Bay returns to the silver screen with supposedly a goal for "smaller" films than his bloated Transformers franchise. This $20 million-budgeted Mark Wahlberg/Dwayne Johnson bodybuilding heist comedy based on true Miami events is the result. Even for $20 million instead of $200 million, I'm pretty sure this is still going to be a Michael Bay style-fest of his usual cheese. Just look at the poster and the trailer. Gaudy American flag symbolism? Check. Slow-mo character establishing shots? Check. Gratuitous hot chicks? Check. Cops? Check. An Oscar nominee (Ed Harris) slumming it as a villain

The Big Wedding-- The Big Wedding is another long-delayed film that changed its title once already (from just The Wedding). This comedy surrounds an older divorced couple played by Robert De Niro and Diane Keaton, that pretend to still be married in order to not upset the ultra-conservative/religious family in attendance for the big day. This charade of keeping up false appearances disrupt's De Niro's current squeeze (Susan Sarandon), their other grown kids (Katherine Heigl and Topher Grace), and even the officiating priest (Robin Williams). This big ensemble also includes Amanda Seyfried and Ben Barnes as betrothed couple taking the plunge. The trailer does have some charming moments and this is shaping up to be the one solid romantic comedy/date movie offering of the season. (trailer)

Mud-- Hot newcomer director Jeff Nichols follows up his indie hit Take Shelter with this coming-of-age drama/adventure. Matthew McConaughey plays a prophetical murderer hiding out on a rural Mississippi island where he befriends two young boys and enthralls them with stories of being on the run and trying to get home to a lost lover (Reese Witherspoon). This one's been earning rave reviews, especially for McConaughey, on the independent circuit and at the Cannes Film Festival last year. It might be worth a look. (trailer)

The Reluctant Fundamentalist-- Opening in limited release, famed Indian director Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding, Mississippi Masala) directs this political thriller about a successful Wall Street man who faces Pro-Pakistan disdain and upheaval immediately after the events of 9/11. Keifer Sutherland, Liev Schrieber, Kate Hudson, and newcomer Riz Ahmed lead the cast. (trailer)

The Numbers Station-- Finally, in another limited release, John Cusack plays an veteran CIA black ops agent that is charged with protecting a valuable code operator (Malin Akerman) after a surprise attack at her station. This little movie has been trying to gain traction On-Demand and online before getting a look theatrically. (trailer)

There, you have it! That's your full slate of movies for the month of March and April. The sooner these two months get done, the sooner summer gets here with all of its excitement. I hope you find some winners this spring!

CHECKLIST: 2013 Spring Movie Calendar

2013-02-28T17:12:00.000-06:00

2013 SPRING MOVIE CALENDAR AND CHECKLIST

For a handy, bare bones, and easy-to-chart list of this season's big screen offerings, here's an easy calendar and checklist for the 2012 spring movie season. A full preview column is coming soon! As always, release dates change and shift all the time (just ask G.I. Joe: Retaliation). Keep an eye on your websites.

MARCH 1
Jack the Giant Slayer
Stoker
21 and Over
The Last Exorcism Part II
Phantom

MARCH 8
Oz the Great and Powerful
Dead Man Down
Emperor

MARCH 15
The Call
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Upside Down

MARCH 22
Olympus Has Fallen
Admission
The Croods
Spring Breakers
The Sapphires
Love and Honor

MARCH 29
G.I. Joe: Retaliation
The Place Beyond the Pines
The Host
Tyler Perry's Temptation
Welcome to the Punch

APRIL 5
Evil Dead
Trance
The Company You Keep
Jurassic Park 3D

APRIL 12
42
To the Wonder

APRIL 19
Oblivion
Scary Movie 5
Stuck in Love

APRIL 26
Pain and Gain
The Big Wedding
Mud
The Reluctant Fundamentalist
The Numbers Station

MOVIE REVIEW: Side Effects

2013-02-27T11:20:00.001-06:00

(Image: www.imdb.com)

SIDE EFFECTS-- 4 STARS

What can I say but "paranoia sells." Movies over the years have found glorious ways of making something benign or statistically safe appear menacing and scary. Look was Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho did for motels and shower. Look was Steven Spielberg's Jaws did for sharks and swimming at the beach. Look what Chucky did for dolls (well, maybe not that one so much).  When a story is done right and hits the right chord, a good filmmaker can make even ice cream look like the spawn of Satan.

With Side Effects, the latest (and rumored final, more on that later) directorial effort from esteemed filmmaker Steven Soderbergh, the director evokes that magic emotion by finding tension and suspense in an unexpected place for the second time. About a year-and-a-half ago, Soderbergh scored a modest hit with the star-studded Contagion (my full review), preying on our country's hypochondriac fears of flus and viruses with a nice little pot-boiler of a movie. His trigger is much more subtle with Side Effects. He targets the implications of depression and the prescription drug industry. You may not be shivering now, but you might before the movie is over. Don't jump too far ahead of me. Side Effects is not a horror movie. Don't be too spooked. It would be put on the "psychological drama" shelf at the video store. For one thing, it is definitely the polar opposite of his last film, Magic Mike, but that's what makes Steven Soderbergh so good. He's rarely the same director twice.

The movie chillingly opens with what clearly appears to be a murder scene, illustrated with visual clues that you will need later, before introducing us to Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, who you know as the Lisbeth Salander from David Fincher's take on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. She's a fragile young NYC wife who's been stuck at home and a lifeless job while awaiting her husband Martin's (Channing Tatum, in his third consecutive spin with Soderbergh after Haywire and Magic Mike) release from a four-year prison sentence for the white collar crime of insider trading. Both she and Martin thought being back together would be jubilant, but their sparks are awkward and Emily can't shake her depression from him being away so long.

In a foggy trance of sorts, Emily leaves work and drives her car head-on into a parking garage wall in an apparent suicide attempt. More than just a cry for help, the state issues her case to psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Contagion's Jude Law), who examined her in the hospital after the accident. In their sessions and encounters that follow, Dr. Banks begins to peel back layers to the onion that is Emily and her apparent long history with depression, anxiety, and mental illness. He even digs deep enough to interview her previous psychiatrist, Dr. Victoria Siebert (Oscar winner Catherine Zeta-Jones), and learns even more.

Swayed by profitable side studies at work, he puts Emily on an experimental drug named Ablixa. It appears to work from an emotional standpoint for Emily, but she develops a habit of sleepwalking as a side effect. It's the mystery of the drug and those side effects that lead to the murder scene we were introduced to at the start of the film. I'll stop with the details right here and say that it's a cuss-out-loud of a twist when it happens and who it happens to. It's also just the tip of the iceberg. The entire second half of the film deals with the tangled and dangerous spider web of fallout and ramifications that stem from the crime scene. Let me just say that it definitely grabs your attention from here on out.

I may be aiming too high with this praise, but I really think Side Effects is the kind of movie famed director Alfred Hitchcock would make if he were alive and working in this era. It has that level of twisted nerve and ripe subject matter. While never delving into horror levels with its narrative, as I assured you at the beginning, the build-up and suffocation of Side Effects is subtle and the ever-growing paranoia of the situation, between the murder and the ensuing court cases and investigations, is akin to some of Hitch's best work. Screenwriter and frequent Soderbergh collaborator Scott Z. Burns (The Informant!, Contagion, The Bourne Ultimatum, and soon Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) delivered a knockout of a story. Its final denouement of revealed secrets might reach a little far for plausibility, but I will still call it extremely effective and better than the ending stamp Soderbergh gave us in Contagion.

One strong component that makes this Hitchcock effect of Side Effects possible is the acting. In different hands, these characters could have tails-pinned towards absurdity and wild stupidity. With more neurotic over-the-top performers, this could have gotten really to a Fatal Attraction or Basic Instinct level of parody. This is a more dangerous and less emotive display of mental illness when compared to something like Silver Linings Playbook. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence couldn't play these parts. Instead, the spooky and reserved Rooney Mara never lets you fully behind the curtain of her eyes and never acts like a raving lunatic, which is the normal pitfall for this kind of role. You could argue that it's a little too similar to Lisbeth Salander, but it works. Beyond her, this is really Jude Law's movie. After the crime, he takes over the movie's point-of-view and pace. His surprise and reaction becomes our surprise and reaction. Neither performance is Oscar-worthy, by any means, but they are effective to keep the movie's tone on the Hitchcock-like track.

Side Effects, like Contagion before it, won't make shock value headlines or get repeat business at the box office. However, it will do the same for pill bottles and drug commercials that Contagion did for sneezing and handshakes. The movie successfully plants that magical paranoia and suspicion that follows you out of the theater. It's a true slow boiler and pre-Psycho Hitchcock in terms of flair.  Side Effects is an outstanding little episode and addition to Soderbergh's resume. It's the first really good film of 2013 and, chances are, it will make my halfway and year-end lists before the calendar changes again.

Rumor has it that the director, who just turned 50 last month, is contemplating retirement from making films, citing the endeavor to find a new medium and new challenges. I hope that's not the case. Between the pulpy fun of Out of Sight, Haywire, Magic Mike, and the Ocean's 11 trilogy to the audacious brass balls of The Limey, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Contagion, and Side Effects, he's easily one of the best directors of his generation. If it's true, I will certainly miss him.

LESSON #1: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF DEPRESSION-- I don't think I can name a more maligned ailment or illness in this world than depression. You have a mountain of real examples and cases of its power and potency and an equal mountain of people and policies that dismiss it entirely. Depression comes in so many forms, degrees, and manifestations that there is no one lightning rod cure for it. Some drugs really help folks, while, for others, they take something away from them.  The same can be said for counseling and psychiatric care. We get a great look this slippery slope of peaks and valleys in Side Effects.

LESSON #2: THE SEVERITY OF SIDE EFFECTS TO PHARMACEUTICALS AND MAN-MADE PRODUCTS-- Like I alluded to with the comparison between Side Effects and Soderbergh's other film Contagion, this movie will make you a little paranoid and fearful of prescription drugs and pills the way Contagion did with sneezes and viruses. People need to know that modern medicine has become a billion dollar business and a science of risks, interests, and liabilities. Doctors and hospitals are salesmen sometimes more than they are caretakers. Know what you are putting in your body. While some drugs and pharmaceuticals have life-saving benefits, the side effects can be troubling. We all joke and laugh when we watch a Cialis or Viagra commercial and the announcer reading off side effects, but some are really serious. Buyer beware.

LESSON #3: PAST BEHAVIOR IS THE BEST PREDICTOR OF FUTURE BEHAVIOR-- This is the quote of the movie, and gets dropped as comeuppance twice. This is deeper than just saying "history repeats itself" or "insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting the same results." The line delves into the human and therapeutic side of treatment for mental illness. There's a reason psychiatrists and psychologists delve so deep and detailed into a patient's history. They know that 90% of things were triggered by either a clear or gradual event or root. Identifying those catalysts can help predict future reactions and responses. Because some of those ailments come to people at a young age, they only know that and accept their flawed condition as their level of "normal" operating capacity. Correcting someone out of that norm is very difficult.

EDITORIAL: 14 films to keep an eye on for the 2014 Oscars

2013-02-25T16:47:00.000-06:00

(Image: goldderby.com)

In a new editorial project to follow up this past weekend's 85th Academy Awards, I wanted to look deep into the crystal ball and see if I could earmark some movies coming here this year in 2013 that could shape up to be Oscar contenders for the 86th Academy Awards happening in 2014. Even if it seems like a long way away, I think it's never too early to pretend to be a smart predictor and psychic. Hopefully, around December or this time next year, I can say that "I knew back then" that such-and-such movie was the real deal. We all love to say "I told you so." Here's my chance.

Don't get me wrong, these are just guesses based on the resumes and pedigree involved for some of 2013's high profile releases. Plenty of movies over the years look dynamite on paper and sure-fire awards contenders yet fall flat when they finally come out. Just look at the kryptonite Zero Dark Thirty just became after being the buzz of every year-end 2012 list. It went home with a single Oscar win, a tie for Sound Mixing. At the same time, plenty of unknown movies, like Beasts of the Southern Wild, come out of the woodwork of nowhere to become Academy darlings.

So, I present fourteen 2013 movies (in no particular order and including one tie) to keep an eye on for next year's Oscars. In most cases, these movies are so new and under-the-radar that they don't even have posters, trailer, or even set photos to show. Enjoy!

TEN MOVIES TO WATCH FOR IN 2013 FOR NEXT YEAR'S OSCARS

1. The Monuments Men-- George Clooney teased his latest work on the red carpet and, chances are, that's the first you've heard of it (unless you are a faithful reader of my website where this made my list for one of my most anticipated movies of the year). Starring and directing, something that has netted him Oscar nominations in the past with The Ides of March and Good Night and Good Luck, Clooney leads a cast that includes Daniel Craig, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, and Cate Blanchett. The plot revolves around a crew of art curators who race to save priceless works from the Nazi occupation. Grand secret history and thriller elements just gave Ben Affleck (and Clooney as a producer) and Oscar for Argo. This one is shaping up on paper to have a similar recipe and an even better cast.

2. The Wolf of Wall Street-- Anytime you talk Oscars, you have to include Martin Scorsese, one of the greatest filmmakers walking the planet. His newest feature takes us back to decadent success of the 80's and the world of stock brokers, profits, and scandals. He is joined by his latest long-time muse Leonardo DiCaprio and a cast that boasts Matthew McConaughey, Jonah Hill, Jean Dujardin, Jon Favreau, Kyle Chandler, and The Walking Dead's Jon Bernthal. Four of the last five Scorsese pictures have been nominated for Best Picture, with The Departed winning it all. You've got to think this one is an early lock for multiple nominations.

3. The Place Beyond the Pines-- Blue Valentine writer/director Derek Cianfrance is a rising star filmmaker who looks like he's raising his game with The Place Beyond the Pines. Starring Oscar nominees Bradley Cooper and Ryan Gosling, we get a duel between a cop (Cooper) and a bank robber (Gosling) with more than a few morals and emotions in the way. Both actors are on a hot streak and are possible for a Best Actor/Best Supporting Actor 1-2 punch of star power. The advance reviews are superb and The Place Beyond the Pines drops to theaters March 20. (trailer)

4. Grace of Monaco-- After heaping three picks heavy on male casting, let's highlight some notable women with two selections. Two historical icons of beauty, fashion, and popularity are getting movie treatments this year. First, Oscar winner Nicole Kidman fills the shoes of Grace Kelly in a drama covering her years with Monaco's Prince Rainier III, played by Tim Roth. Kidman knows how to turn heads and get Oscar nominations. Notorious Oscar pusher Harvey Weinstein already bought the movie and is planning its Osar push now. Playing a legend like that, I'm betting, Kidman earns herself a seat at the table.

5. Diana-- The same goes for recent Oscar nominee Naomi Watts of The Impossible. She takes on the even more popular Princess Diana in Diana, covering the final two years of her life. Watts might make it two years in a row in the Best Actress race. She's a respected actress taking on a big-time role.

6. Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom-- The director of The Other Boleyn Girl and the screenwriter of Gladiator and Les Miserables seek to tell the biography of Nelson Mandela. Thor's Idris Elba and Skyfall's Naomie Harris star as Nelson and Winnie Mandela. If done right, this could parallel a track similar to the heartfelt and politcally-inspiring Hotel Rwanda to Oscar nominations. If Clint Eastwood can make Invictus about rugby and get Morgan Freeman nominated, then a true biography has to have a good chance.

7. (TIE) Fruitvale and Before Midnight-- Every year, inevitably, there are always a few movies from the independent-skewing, yet extremely popular, Sundance Film Festival that catch on with a wider audience to become "little engines that could" for potential Oscar glory (just like The Sessions, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Winter's Bone, and Precious). Here is a tie of two movie names to remember for 2013. Fruitvale won the Grand Jury Prize for drama and the Audience Award at this past January's gathering. It highlights a virtually unknown cast (other than The Help Oscar winner Octavia Spencer) and the true story of a young Oakland man wrongly killed by police. The second film is Before Midnight, the highly anticipated third go-around with the Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy lovers we've watched before in 1995's Before Sunrise and 2004's Before Sunset. Both received rave reviews in Utah in January and look to make their marks for others to see. Between the Sundance Film Festival and the annual Cannes Film Festival happening every May in the south of France, a few Oscar contenders are always created. While it's too early for Cannes, Fruitvale and Before Midnight are your Sundance-born Oscar hopefuls.

8. August: Osage County-- Remember this mouthful of a name: BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH. You may not know him now, but you will after this year. Movie fans have heard about him for years, sneaking into big movies like War Horse, and TV fans know his leading man talent from BBC's Sherlock modernization. Like Channing Tatum last year, this man will be everywhere, both high and low. For box office clout, he's the lead villain in both Star Trek Into Darkness and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. With smaller movies, he's got THREE more high-profile leads that scream Oscar potential. The first is the movie adaptation of the popular play August: Osage County, a domestic story about a missing alcoholic father that combines Cumberbatch with an ensemble cast composed of Oscar winners Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Chris Cooper, and also Ewan McGregor, Abigail Breslin, Juliette Lewis, and Dermot Mulroney.

9. The Fifth Estate-- Second, Cumberbatch is playing WikiLeaks headline maker Julian Assange for director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Kinsey, Gods and Monsters) in The Fifth Estate. Cumberbatch is spraying to all fields like Jessica Chastain putting out six award-worthy performances in the last two years. He doesn't have to do much to top Saturday Night Live's Bill Hader's Julian Assange impression. Mark his name down! Condon's presence also brings some Oscar street cred.

10. Twelve Years as a Slave-- No, this isn't the prequel to Django Unchained, quite the contrary. This one promises to be a more gritty and dramatic take on slavery during the 1800's. Up-and-coming writer/director Steve McQueen (not that one) re-teams with his Shame star Michael Fassbender with a roster than includes co-leads Brad Pitt and Benedict Cumberbatch (AGAIN!). Rounding out the roster, Twelve Years as a Slave also includes Beasts of the Southern Wild Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis and her co-star Dwight Henry, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Argo's Scott McNairy, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sarah Paulson, and even Saturday Night Live's Taran Killam. That's enough to turn my head and Shame was very underrated two years ago.

11. Saving Mr. Banks-- Lately, there's always one "behind-the-scenes" Hollywood homage story to make the Oscars. Argo was this past year and My Week with Marilyn and The Artist were the year before that. For 2013, I'm putting my money on Saving Mr. Banks. Directed by The Blindside's John Lee Hancock, Saving Mr. Banks is about the writer of Mary Poppins (played by the esteemed Emma Thompson) coming from London to Hollywood to oversee the making of her novel into a movie by Walt Disney himself (played by two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks). Co-starring Paul Giamatti and Colin Farrell, this film has the Oscar resume everyone loves. Hanks is Hollywood royalty playing a beloved industry figure. Expect a big push for this one.

12. Malavita-- With a title you can't really read into at first, what if I told you that Robert De Niro was returning to a mob movie? Would that get your attention? What if fellow 2013 Best Supporting Actor nominee Tommy Lee Jones joined him? Would that do it? I thought so. De Niro, Jones, and also Michelle Pfieffer (also returning to a mob film) play parts of a modern crime family that are relocated to France for witness protection. Could De Niro or Jones make it back to Oscar again? I think it's possible here in Luc Besson's (The Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional) interesting sounding film, especially as a departure from his usual uninteresting recent tendencies (another Transporter movie).

13. The Great Gatsby-- Last, but certainly not least of the individual films, is likely the one glitzy 2013 movie that you've probably already been hearing about for possible future Oscar impact. Visionary Australian director Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge!, Australia) brings all of his modern tricks, yet classic styling to one of the most revered and popular American novels of the last century. We've seen F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby turned into a movie before (1974's Robert Redford vehicle), but it sure didn't look like this. Luhrmann looks to blow your eyelids off with visual panache and sensory overload, led by Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, and Joel Edgerton. His The Great Gatsby was poised for a Christmas 2012 release where it would have just competed against this past weekend's contenders. However, it was bumped to a flashy summer 2013 release (May 10, just a week after the blockbuster Iron Man 3) for 3D conversion and a bigger marketing push. Is this an over-bloated blockbuster or a serious big-time Hollywood spectacle worthy of Oscar like so many spectacles before it? At minimum, I expect a boatload of design and technical Oscar possibilities, as well as Leonardo possibly competing against himself (Wolf of Wall Street) for yet another Oscar nomination to make up for his Django Unchained snub. (trailer)

14. The enormous field of genre and science fiction offerings-- For the last entry into these advance Oscar predictions, 2013 is shaping up to be an extremely packed year for genre films and science fiction blockbusters that will compete in the visual, artistic, and technical categories. It's coming from all directions. You've got comic books (Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, The Wolverine, Thor: A Dark World, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, World War Z), franchises (Star Trek Into Darkness, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Ender's Game, Oz The Great and Powerful), and an absolutely huge field of original science fiction (Pacific Rim, Gravity, Oblivion, After Earth, Elysium, The Host). Two of those movies, Elysium from the director of District 9 starring Matt Damon and Jody Foster and Gravity from the director of Children of Men and George Clooney and Sandra Bullock have the pedigree to be legit Oscar contenders outside of the genre label. With all of these movies out there on the table, there are only so many nominations for Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, and more. Additionally, the fancy-pants Oscar dramas inevitably steal a few of those technical slots (look at Hugo last year and Life of Pi this year) from the blockbusters. There are too many huge movies for few slots. Someone is going home empty-handed, much like Prometheus this past year.

EDITORIAL: Final Awards Tracker and Oscar Reactions

2013-02-25T13:08:00.000-06:00

(Image: gossipcop.com)

Another year and another awards season are in the books. As always, I enjoy seeing what movies end up showered with praise and which ones were not. Last night's exceeding long Oscar show results from the 85th Academy Awards are in and the final scores on my "2012 Awards Tracker" are updated below.

For the second year in a row, I've found a real value to tracking who and what has won what from the build-up of the smaller awards all the way up to last night's final winners. I find that the "tea leaves" and trends really shine through for a great many categories. That said, Oscar still bucked a few trends and tossed a few favorites aside in their winners.

Here are my final tallies and personal reactions from last night's winners and losers from the categories that have had prior awards. A few categories (mostly the minor film stuff like Live Action Short and Animated Short), didn't have award data to track, so they didn't make the analysis. I'm happy my dartboard guesses landed on those winners from the obscure categories!

As for my own official predictions and prognosticating (seen here), I correctly guessed 19 of the 24 winners. That's an improvement from my 17 of 24 from last year. I'll gladly take it. In 2014, I hope to crack 20. Thanks to all who followed the awards season, my Oscar prediction articles, and all of my reviews. Enjoy the 2013 movie slate and I'll definitely do this again next year!

Bold = Oscar winner

BEST PICTURE

Reaction: Ever since Argo won at the Golden Globes and Ben Affleck was snubbed by the Oscar nominations announced that same December week, the momentum for his third directorial effort never stopped. I didn't have much doubt that Argo would win. It joins Oscar history as rare case where the Best Picture winner didn't have its director nominated for Best Director. The last film to achieve that was Driving Miss Daisy and it's only happened two other times in 85 years. This is a solid and statement win for Ben Affleck. He now owns more Oscars than Matt Damon after sharing that stage 15 years ago for Good Will Hunting. Also, Argo made producer George Clooney a two-time Oscar winner.
13- Argo (FFCC, HFCS, NFCS, OFCC, Online, PFCS, SD, STL, CC, Globe, PGA, BAFTA, Oscar)

10- Zero Dark Thirty (NY, NBR, DC, AAFCA, AWFJ, BOS, AUS, CHI, NYFCO, UFCA)

4- Amour (Cannes, LA, NSFC, London)
3- Silver Linings Playbook (DFCS, Satellite, Spirit)
2- Lincoln (DFW, NT)

2- The Master (SF, KC)

1- Life of Pi (LV)

BEST DIRECTOR

Reaction: Ang Lee should thank his lucky stars that the two names ahead of him on this Awards Tracker weren't there. While he did a masterful job with Life of Pi, he would have had the bronze medal podium spot if Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow were in on the race. Affleck likely would have won, setting him up with the likes of Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood, and Mel Gibson and double-duty Oscar winners on the same film. Still, go ahead and give the proper kudos to Ang Lee. He is so good at whatever genre he tackles. I'm glad he beat Steven Spielberg last night.

11- Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty (NY, NBR, DC, AWFJ, BOS, CHI, DFW, NEV, NYFCO, PFCS, SF)

10- Ben Affleck, Argo (FFCC, HFCS, NEV, OFCC, SD, STL, CC, Globe, DGA, BAFTA)

4- Ang Lee, Life of Pi (LV, London, KC, Oscar)
3- Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master (AUS, LA, Online)
3- David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook (DFCS, Satellite, Spirit)

1- Michael Haneke, Amour (NSFC)

1- Steven Spielberg, Lincoln (NT)

1- Wes Anderson, Moonrise Kingdom (UFCA)

BEST ACTOR

Reaction: This was one of the few no-doubters of the night. With this win, Daniel Day-Lewis becomes the only man in Oscar history to win three Best Actor awards. Under ten actors/actresses at all have even three total Oscars. He has three lead winners. At a soon-to-be 56 years old, he's got time and the talent to tie and pass Katharine Hepburn's Oscar record of four acting wins. Say what you will about Lincoln overall, his performance was head-and-shoulders above the other nominees. Sorry, Joaquin, Bradley, Hugh, and Denzel. You all didn't have a chance.

23- Daniel Day Lewis, Lincoln (NY, DC, AWFJ, BOS, CHI, DFW, DFCS, FFCC, HFCS, LV, NYFCO, OFCC, Online, PFCS, SD, STL, NT, NFCS, CC, Globe, KC, BAFTA, Oscar)

5- Joaquin Phoenix, The Master (AUS, LA, SF, UFCA, London)

2- Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook (NBR, Satellite)
2- John Hawkes, The Sessions (NEV, Spirit)
1- Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables (Globe)

BEST ACTRESS

Reaction: Though the Awards Tracker data suggest that the leading contender won, Best Actress was one of the big mysteries of the night. Much recent sentiment was skewing to honoring Emannuelle Riva for Amour. Jessica Chastain, who I thought deserved the award, was a victim of the frozen post-release buzz for Zero Dark Thirty. Hollywood loves a young and bright star, and few are hotter right now than Jennifer Lawrence. While Silver Linings Playbook wasn't "her" film, per se, she will be the lightning rod people remember.

14- Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook (AUS, DFCS, HFCS, LV, LA, NEV, Satellite, UFCA. NT, Globe, KC, SAG, Spirit, Oscar)
12- Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty (NBR, DC, AWFJ, CHI, DFW, FFCC, OFCC, Online, PFCS, STL, CC, Globe)
7- Emannuelle Riva, Amour (BOS, LA, NYFCO, SF, NFCS, London, BAFTA)

1- Michelle Williams, Take This Waltz (SD)

1- Helen Hunt, The Sessions (NFCS)

1- Rachel Weisz, The Deep Blue Sea (NY)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Reaction: The first award of the night gave the evening one of the biggest surprises. Christoph Waltz's hot streak knows no end. Two Tarantino movies, two nominations, two Oscars! From his upset win at the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs, he reels in the Oscar in the most decorated field of nominees every assembled (all men were previous Oscar winners, De Niro was multiple). Hollywood truly love him. If I were him, I wouldn't make a film with anyone else but Quentin Tarantino. I hope, in losing, that this wasn't Tommy Lee Jones's last bite at the apple. He's too good not to come back. I thought his nice change-of-pace in Hope Springs might have tipped the scale his way last night.

10- Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master (DC, AWFJ, CHI, FFCC, OFCC, Online, PFCS, CC, London, KC)
8- Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln (DFW, HFCS, LV, NEV, NYFCO, SF, NT, SAG)

6- Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained (AUS, SD, STL, Globe, BAFTA, Oscar)

3- Matthew McConaughey, Bernie and Magic Mike  (NY, NFCS, Spirit)
2- Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild  (LA, UFCA)
1- Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook  (DFCS)

1- Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained (NBR)

1- Ezra Miller, The Perks of Being a Wallflower (BOS)

1- Javier Bardem, Skyfall (Satellite)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Reaction: Like Daniel Day-Lewis's win, this one too was a forgone conclusion. This was Anne Hathaway's moment and the right role for her to show her talents. Hollywood and the Academy voters always seem to anoint the next young ingenue in this category. All it took was one great song on close-up in Les Miserables and she had us all. Hate her fake flattery or shock (as I do) or not, she deserved this one. We'll see how she capitalizes this win for her upcoming career in the coming years.

20- Anne Hathway, Les Miserables (DC, AWFJ, AUS, FFCC, HFCS, LV, NYFCO, OFCC, Online, PFCS, Satellite, UFCA, NT, CC, Globe, London, KC, SAG, BAFTA, Oscar)

4- Sally Field, Lincoln (NY, DFW, BOS, NEV)

3- Amy Adams, The Master (CHI, LA, NFCS)

3- Helen Hunt, The Sessions (SF, STL, Spirit)

2- Ann Dowd, Compliance (NBR, STL)

1- Emma Watson, The Perks of Being a Wallflower (SD)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Reaction: Welcome back, Quentin Tarantino. It had been a long time since 1995's Pulp Fiction for the boy-genius to win an Oscar from him peers. Like Waltz, he's been riding the upset momentum since his surprise Golden Globe win (in a combined category versus adapted screenplays as well). This win buys him some more carte blanche to make his kind of movies and buys Hollywood another 15 years before giving him another Oscar. For the conservatives out there, this has to be the most profanity-laden script to ever win an Oscar. If not Django Unchained, then The Departed a few years back can give it a run for its money.

8- Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty (AWFJ, CHI, DFW, NYFCO, SF, Satellite, STL, WGA)

6- Rian Johnson, Looper (NBR, DC, AUS, FFCC, LV, UFCA)

4- Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained  (CC, Globe, BAFTA, Oscar)
2- Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola, Moonrise Kingdom  (Online, PFCS)
2- Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master  (SD, KC)
1- Michael Haneke, Amour  (London)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Reaction: While the trends show this one to be close, the Argo momentum was bringing Chris Terrio along for the ride. People loved the movie's story and, as you heard in his acceptance speech last night, this was an Affleck-esque first-time screenwriter beating a field of seasoned veterans. This is quite a win and Tony Kushner will have to go his trophy case and admire his Tony Awards.

10- Chris Terrio, Argo (AWFJ, AUS, FFCC, LA, Online, PFCS, SD, KC, WGA, Oscar
8- Tony Kushner, Lincoln (NY, BOS, CHI, HFCS, SF, STL, NFCS, CC)
6- David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook (NBR, DC, DFCS, STL, BAFTA, Spirit)

1- Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower (UFCA)

1- David Magee, Life of Pi (Satellite)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Reaction: A good Facebook movie friend of mine, "The Sleepy Skunk," called this win a case of Pixar still being the "prettiest girl at the dance." A great many people (myself included) felt that Brave was definitely not on the Oscar-winning level of the other recent Pixar greats. My money was on Wreck-It Ralph, but we all should have seen this coming with the Golden Globe and BAFTA win to set up the Oscar. I should have taken the Skunk's advice and changed my vote.

8- ParaNorman (DC, AWFJ, CHI, DFW, LV, Online, SD, SF)

8- Wreck-It Ralph (NBR, AUS, HFCS, OFCC, PFCS, NT, CC, PGA)

6- Frankenweenie (NY, BOS, FFCC, LA, NEV, KC)
3- Brave (Globe, BAFTA, Oscar)

1- Rise of the Guardians (Satellite)

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Reaction: With documentaries getting more box office attention and wide release attention, the most popular and honored one of the bunch won. I have yet to see it, but I hear it's pretty darn good. Still, as I learned following Twitter last night, this is a category where everyone has an impassioned vote for someone else.

10- Searching for Sugarman (NBR, AWFJ, DFW, OFCC, STL, CC, PGA, BAFTA, WGA, Oscar)
4- The Imposter (AUS, HFCS, London, KC)

3- The Invisible War (CHI, SD, Spirit)
2- The Central Park Five (NY, NYFCO)

2- The Gatekeepers (LA, NSFC)

1- seven other documentaries (FFCC, BOS, DFCS, Online, SF, Satellite, UFCA)

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Reaction: Another shoe-in and another no-doubter. With Amour even getting attention with nominations for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Picture, this win was its easiest one and turned out to be the token bouquet thrown its way. Once again, the really high-end film snobs will tell you it should have swept the awards. The Artist got lucky last year. Lightning wasn't striking twice.

17- Amour- (NY, NBR, DC, AWFJ, BOS, CHI, DFW, LV, NYFCO, OFCC, SF, CC, Globe, KC, BAFTA, Spirit, Oscar)

5- The Intouchables- (FFCC, PFCS, Satellite, STL, NT)

4- Holy Motors- (AUS, HFCS, LA, Online)
1- four other films (London, Satellite, SD, UFCA)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Reaction: This is where Life of Pi made its money and its mark. In sweeping three artistic/technical awards and Best Director, Ang Lee's film wins the newspaper headline of the film winning the most Oscars with four (over Argo's three) on the night. This was one it really impressed. I love Roger Deakins and his Skyfall work, but the always-nominated-but-never-winning cinematographer will have to try again.

14- Cloudio Miranda, Life of Pi (DC, AWFJ, DFW, LV, NFCS, NYFCO, PFCS, SD, SF, Satellite, NT, CC, BAFTA, Oscar)

6- Roger Deakins, Skyfall (FFCC, HFCS, LA, Online, STL, UFCA)

4- Mihai Malaimare, Jr., The Master (BOS, AUS, CHI, NSFC)

1- Greg Fraser, Zero Dark Thirty (NY)
1- Ben Richardson, Beasts of the Southern Wild (Spirit)

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

Reaction: This was a category of minor artistic upset. Lincoln had never been thought a contender in this category and snuck a win out. Voters must have really liked the recreating Capitol and White House interiors.

3- Moonrise Kingdom (CHI, PFCS, SF)

3- Anna Karenina  (FFCC, CC, ADG)
2- Cloud Atlas  (DC, SD)
2- Les Miserables  (NEV, BAFTA)
1- Lincoln  (Oscar)
1- five other films  (ADG, Satellite, LA, LV)

BEST FILM EDITING

Reaction: The historical trend continues. Over 2/3's of the time, the film that wins Best Editing goes on to win Best Picture. It's a prognosticator's dream indicator.

6- Zero Dark Thirty (AWFJ, BOS, CHI, LV, LA, CC)

5- Argo (PFCS, SD, SF, BAFTA, ACE, Oscar)

2- Silver Linings Playbook (Satellite, ACE)

1- Cloud Atlas (Online)

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Reaction: Surprise! The costume drama won costume design. Yawn...

5- Anna Karenina (LV, PFCS, CC, BAFTA, Oscar

1- A Royal Affair (Satellite)

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

Reaction: The Twitter-verse said Hugh Jackman, Helena Bonham Carter, and Sacha Baron Cohen's mangy trio of hair creations won this one. I would have to agree!
2- Les Miserables (BAFTA, Oscar)
1- Cloud Atlas (CC)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Reaction: Normally, this is where a blockbuster sneaks an Oscar win. Not so fast with the technically-sound Life of Pi. With the entire world it creates being a visual effect, the poetry in motion all movie deserved this Oscar.

8- Life of Pi (FFCC, LV, NEV, PFCS, STL, CC, BAFTA, Oscar)

1- Flight (Satellite)

BEST SOUND EDITING AND MIXING

Reaction: Not too many minor awards give out trophies for technical sound categories. If they do, they just call it "Best Sound" with no specifics. For the Awards Tracker, I combined the Oscar categories of Sound Editing and Sound Mixing together for the counts. For Sound Mixing, Les Miserables live on-set singing amidst the rest of the film won it an Oscar. For Sound Editing, we witnessed a rare Oscar tie between Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty. Kathryn Bigelow's film is lucky to sneak in. Sadly, this Sound Editing tie was the movie's only Oscar win of the night. It would have been completely shut-out without it.

3- Les Miserables (Satellite, BAFTA, CAS, Oscar)
1- Skyfall (Oscar)
1- Zero Dark Thirty (Oscar)

BEST MUSICAL SCORE

Reaction: This one was going Life of Pi's way. As the second most nominated film, this category was one of its strong suits. Mychael Danna put together a lovely score. I think this category got more attention for the potentional nominees that weren't there (The Master, Cloud Atlas, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and The Dark Knight Rises) over who did actually make it.

3- Jonny Greenwood, The Master (DC, CHI, SD)

3- Mychael Danna, Life of Pi (LV, Globe, Oscar)
2- Thomas Newman, Skyfall (PFCS, BAFTA)
2- Dan Romer and Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild (AWFJ, LA)

2- Reinhold Hall, Johnny Klimek, and Tom Twyker, Cloud Atlas (AUS, HFCA)

2- Alexandre Desplat, Moonrise Kingdom (BOS, STL)
1- two other films (CC, Satellite)

1- Alexandre Desplat, Argo (Satellite)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Reaction: In an anniversary Oscar ceremony that celebrated movie musicals with top-notch tribute performances from Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Hudson, the cast of Les Miserables, and even Shirley Bassey saluting 50 years of James Bond, it was Adele that brought down the house with her smashing success of "Skyfall." Even with the popularity of Les Miserables as a true movie musical of the highest order, there was little chance Adele and Skyfall would lose.
5- "Skyfall" (by Adele)- Skyfall (HFCS, LV, PFCS, CC, Globe)

1- "Suddenly" (music by Claude-Michel Schonberg)- Les Miserables (Satellite)

ACRONYM KEY FOR AWARD GROUPS (with page links):

African-American Film Critics Association (AAFCA), ACE Eddie Awards (ACE), Art Directors Guild (ADG), Austin Film Critics Association (AUS), Alliance of Women Film Journalists (AWFJ), British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA), Boston Society of Film Critics (BOS), Cannes Film Festival (Cannes), Cinema Audio Society (CAS), Broadcast Film Critics Association/Critic's Choice (CC), Chicago Film Critics Association (CHI), Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Associaion (DC), Detroit Film Critics Society (DFCS), Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association (DFW), Florida Film Critics Circle (FFCC), Houston Film Critics Society (HFCS), Hollywood Foreign Press Association/Golden Globe Awards (Globe), Kansas City Film Critics Circle (KC), Los Angeles Film Critics Association (LA), London Film Critics Circle (London), Las Vegas Film Critics Society (LV), National Board of Review (NBR), Nevada Film Critics Society (NEV), National Society of Film Critics (NSFC), North Texas Film Critics Association (NT), New York Film Critics Circle (NY), New York Film Critics Online (NYFCO), Oklahoma Film Critics Circle (OFCC), Online Film Critics Society (Online), Academy of Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences/AMPAS (Oscar), Phoenix Film Critics Society (PFCS), Screen Actors Guild Awards (SAG), San Diego Film Critics Society (SD), San Francisco Film Critics Circle (SF), International Press Academy (Satellite), Independent Spirit Awards (Spirit), St. Louis Gateway Film Critics (STL), Utah Film Critics Association (UFCA), Writers Guild of America (WGA)

CHECKLIST: My full and official 2013 Oscar predictions

2013-02-22T08:56:00.000-06:00

(Background image: kentonmagazine.com)

UPDATING RESULTS LIVE!

After a series of seven articles breaking down and researching the nominees, trends, snubs, surprises, and favorites from every award category, here is my finalized checklist of my 2013 Oscar predictions for the 85th Academy Awards. The final winners will be named and trophies will be given out on February 24th on ABC with Seth McFarlane starring as the evening's host. Remember, these are my predictions of who and what I think is going to win, not who or what I actually want to win. My personal votes would very different. However, I'm here to show my smarts. As your go-to "movie guy," I'm just trying to live up to my reputation. I'm here to beat the other experts and help you win your Oscar poll at work. Last year, I was correct on 17 of 21 categories and I want to beat that score. So, after compiling my picks from the editorials, here are my final Oscar predictions in every category:

BEST PICTURE: Argo
BEST DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg for Lincoln
BEST ACTOR: Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln
BEST ACTRESS: Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Quentin Tarantino for Django Unchained
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Chris Terrio for Argo
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Wreck-It Ralph
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Amour
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Life of Pi
BEST ORIGINAL SONG: "Skyfall" by Adele from Skyfall
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN: Anna Karenina
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Life of Pi
BEST COSTUME DESIGN: Anna Karenina
BEST FILM EDITING: Argo
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING: Les Miserables
BEST SOUND EDITING: Skyfall (TIE)
BEST SOUND MIXING: Les Miserables
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: Life of Pi
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: Searching for Sugarman
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT: Open Heart
BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM: Paperman
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM: Curfew

FINAL SCORE = 19 of 24 (79%)

There you go! If you want to try my picks in your Oscar pool, be my guest. Once again, if you need a little reason and analysis, please read the previous "Oscar Predictions 2013" articles for the individual categories. If you need a little data to back them up, check out my ongoing "2012 Awards Tracker" page. Thanks for reading and I'll see you on February 24th when I update how well I did. In terms of predictions, I hope I'm right. In terms of wins in some categories, I hope I'm wrong and my many personal favorites beat some of these predictions. Enjoy Oscar night, everyone!

OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2013: The race for Best Picture

2013-02-21T14:13:00.004-06:00

(Image: pop-break.com)

This is the final of seven prediction and analysis articles for the Oscars being given out at the upcoming 85th Academy Awards on February 24th, hosted by Seth McFarlane (full site). Here's my write-up and breakdown of the hotly contested race for Best Picture.

Nine films are nominated, but only one will hear their name called for the final award of Hollywood's biggest night. After this, the final article in the thread will be a simple finalized checklist of all of my total predictions from this editorial series. Call it a scorecard of accountability and expertise that you can hold me to when Oscar night arrives on the 24th.

Like last year, I offer the categories of snubs and happy nominations to go along with a choice of "who should win" and "who will win." For this final award, we'll add a first cut to the breakdown.  This season, I've been doing my due diligence by tracking what movies and people have won the precursor and lead-up awards to the Oscars on my "2012 Awards Tracker" page.

For a full breakdown of earlier 2012-2013 award results, please check that page and tab. Enjoy and good luck with your Oscar pool! Stick with me and I will win it for you. I've got that level of confidence.

THE ACADEMY AWARD FOR BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR

THE NOMINEES (in alphabetical order): Amour, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

AWARDS TRACKER: 12- Argo, 10- Zero Dark Thirty, 4- Amour, 2- Lincoln, 2- Silver Linings Playbook, 2- The Master, 1- Life of Pi

Who was snubbed?: With the Best Picture nominee field being expanded from 5 to anything up to 10 about a decade ago, you can argue that plenty of these nine nominees don't need to be here. I'll talk about that in the next "happy to be there" and "first cut" section. In the meantime, if the Academy is going to nominate up to ten films, nine this year, did they get the right ones? I argue that they didn't. I admire that Beasts of the Southern Wild is an independent triumph and that Amour is a stellar foreign film, but I can't put those two films over outstanding Hollywood films like Flight, Moonrise Kingdom, and even Skyfall. Those three superstars deserved to be here and would get my vote. The rumor was that this nominee expansion was meant to bring more familiar titles and attract more TV viewership of the show. Picking a few token obscure movies is nice with the new space to do so, but it's defeating the rumored purpose.

Happy to be there: AKA- "The First Cut": As you can tell by my way of thinking, I'm one of those movie people that didn't have anything wrong with just five strict nominees. It's like the NCAA basketball tournament. Whether it's 5 teams, 10 teams, or 64 teams, #6, #11, and #65 will always complain about being left out. Too big of a field and you water down the category's importance, especially with it being the biggest award of the night. Therefore, let's take these nine nominees with a "first cut" and bring it down to the five that should be here. First off, the easiest cuts are Beasts of the Southern Wild and Amour. The nominations are their reward and they are the surprise nominees. That's two. We need two more.

No offense to the size and scope of its achievement, but Les Miserables is a musical and musicals aren't commonly considered Best Picture frontrunners. Chicago in 2003 appears to be the exception, but it was the leader of a terrifically weak field (The Pianist, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Hours, Gangs of New York). Les Miserables does not have that level of momentum. Finally, one more has to go. I'll turn to the Awards Tracker data and say that Django Unchained needs to be the final first cut. It's a well-written movie and the frontrunner for Best Original Screenplay, but Quentin Tarantino's film has not won a single Best Picture award over the other nominees. The stats keep it out of the final dance.

The True Finalists: If there was a traditional field of five, it would be: Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook

Who Should Win:  I've wavered on my rankings and my personal "10 Best of 2012," but I'm sticking with my original #1 movie. If I had a vote, Zero Dark Thirty would be the Best Picture of the year. As we've talked about in the other prediction articles, Kathryn Bigelow's film has lost a lot of buzz and momentum. The film is almost seen as too serious and too dramatic compared to the lightness and uplifting efforts of the other nominees. I still find Zero Dark Thirty to be the most important movie of the year and the one that will matter the most years down the road. I think the movie deserves this top award. That's me picking with my head. If I was picking with my heart, the movie from 2012 that charmed my pants off was Silver Linings Playbook. I fell for David O. Russell's messy and fun love story and emotional family drama. I know it's a Weinstein-created machine of awards attention-getting, but I loved the movie's dynamic and stellar acting. Neither film is going to win.

Who Will Win: I've dropped enough clues in my other editorials to let you know that Argo is the leader of the moment and the film that will take the top prize. Renowned critic Roger Ebert said it best in his predictions that it's the best "movie" of the bunch, maybe not the best "film." I agree with that and don't have a problem seeing it win at all. Argo was my #3 movie from my top 10 (right behind Zero Dark Thirty and Silver Linings Playbook, both of which made my cases for "should win").   It's a film that's very worthy of the trophy. Combining timely and topical American history, dramatized movie suspense, and a dash of Hollywood business homage, Argo has all the recipe ingredients that votes like and remember. The voters also seem completely on-board to reward Ben Affleck for being slighted for Best Director. Argo has been the leader of the race since winning the Golden Globe and has not looked back.

Spielberg has earned plenty of respect for Lincoln, the nomination leader with 12, but it's Daniel Day-Lewis's movie and far from his Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List levels of brilliance. Life of Pi has the second most Oscar nominations gets its kudos for creativity, but will have to settle for technical and artistic wins. This will be Argo's night, giving producers Ben Affleck and George Clooney their second career Oscar wins. Affleck won for Best Screenplay back in the day for Good Will Hunting and Clooney is a Best Supporting Actor winner from Syriana. Even without Spielberg winning, Hollywood royalty like Affleck and Clooney will still give the final Oscar moment star power. That ought to be a boost from the balloon-emptying French foreignness of The Artist's win last year.

FINAL FOLLOW-UP: My full checklist of Oscar predictions!

OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2013: The male acting categories

2013-02-20T06:56:00.000-06:00

(Image: pop-break.com)

This is the sixth of seven prediction and analysis articles for the Oscars being given out at the upcoming 85th Academy Awards on February 24th, hosted by Seth McFarlane (full site). This quick article follows the male actiing categories of Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Like the last article of the female acting races, the two men's field are laying out the same way, with one lock and one wide-open dogfight of past winners duking it out for their second (or third) career statue.

Like last year, I offer the categories of snubs and happy nominations to go along with a choice of "who should win" and "who will win." This season, I've been doing my due diligence by tracking what movies and people have won the precursor and lead-up awards to the Oscars on my "2012 Awards Tracker" page. For a full breakdown of earlier 2012-2013 award results, please check that page and tab. Enjoy and good luck with your Oscar pool!

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

The nominees: Alan Arkin- Argo, Robert De Niro- Silver Linings Playbook, Philip Seymour Hoffman- The Master, Tommy Lee Jones- Lincoln, Christoph Waltz- Django Unchained

AWARDS TRACKER (number of earlier award wins): 10- Hoffman, 8- Jones, 5- Waltz, 2- Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild, 2- Matthew McConaughey, Bernie and Magic Mike, 1- De Niro, 1- Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained, 1- Ezra Miller, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, 1- Javier Bardem, Skyfall

Who was snubbed: This was a busy category! Django Unchained alone had three Oscar-worthy supporting performances, but only one (Waltz) made it. Leonardo DiCaprio really spread his wings to portray an excellent villain and Samuel L. Jackson stole every scene he was in, even the ones shared with Waltz and DiCaprio. Still, the right actor from Tarantino's film one the nomination. Waltz is the pulse of tht movie, maybe even more so than Jamie Foxx's lead. If you ask the ladies or the National Board of Review, they will say Matthew McConaughey deserved a spot. John Goodman was as good as Arkin in Argo and even better in Flight. My personal vote would be for Ezra Miller's riotous performance for The Perks of Being a Wallflower. However, much like the five nominees for Best Supporting Actress, the right five are here. It's hard to find one guy to bump for a flyer, especially when every single one of the five nominees are prior Academy Award winners.

Happy to be there: That said, Little Miss Sunshine Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner Alan Arkin is the least of the five nominees and fits the label of happy to be there. His nomination is a sign of respect for Argo, but still a resume nomination completing that aforementioned nomination field where all five nominees are previous Oscar winners. In terms of actual emotions of happiness, Robert De Niro has to be happy to be back on the Oscar stage. His nomination for the patriarch role of Silver Linings Playbook is the actor's first Academy Award nomination in 21 years (since 1992's Cape Fear). Welcome back, Bobby D!

Who should win: How do you weed out and choose from a field of five Oscar winners for one award? Even I can't really settle on who should win this award. After Best Actress, this is the second closest acting award race of the night. This is a three-way race. Hoffman and Jones have the volume, but Waltz won the coveted Golden Globe and the recent BAFTA. To cast my personal vote and break that three-way race, I will step away from Hoffman, Jones, and Waltz and name Robert De Niro as my pick for "should." The man actually cried in a movie, getting me to cry right there with him. None of the other nominees hit me like that. He won't win, but, boy, what a moment it would be if he did. His respect level is through the roof, even after this long absence from Oscar nominations. If his name were called, expect the same triumphant reaction that Streep received last year at her age. It's a nice dream, but it won't happen.

Who will win: This is the category where, traditionally, the old wily veterans win over the younger nominees. Look at James Coburn, Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman, and even Christopher Plummer last year. Christoph Waltz just won three years ago for Inglourious Basterds and will be back again. Robert De Niro has two Oscars on his shelf and has a lifetime achievement award waiting for him someday. Capote winner Hoffman is the pup of these five Oscar winners and will continue his stellar career. This is shaping up, in many ways, to be one of the "last bites at the apple" for Lincoln's Tommy Lee Jones after winning years ago for The Fugitive and several nominations since. I think the respect for him matches that of his fellow nominees and he had the best speechifying performance of the group. I will put Jones, who won the SAG award from his peers, over Hoffman and the surging Waltz. I think Waltz remains his closest competition. This will be a close one!

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

The nominees: Bradley Cooper- Silver Linings Playbook, Daniel Day-Lewis- Lincoln, Hugh Jackman- Les Misérables, Joaquin Phoenix- The Master, Denzel Washington- Flight

AWARDS TRACKER (number of earlier award wins): 22- Lewis, 5- Phoenix, 2- Cooper, 1- Jackman, 1- John Hawkes, The Sessions

Who was snubbed: This is a rock solid list of the best male performances of the past year, but there's only room for five. Even though The Sessions has a lower profile than the five movies represented by the above nominees, John Hawkes's humorous and touching performance as a polio iron lung patient seeking sex was astounding on so many levels. He wholeheartedly deserves a nomination. Like the other snubs we've been talking about in the acting categories, the hard part becomes who could you cut to make room. In my opinion, the weakest performance on the list is Joaquin Phoenix's, but it's by the eyelash of wondering how much of his character's wildness and weirdness was him and what was "acting."

Happy to be there: Not that his nomination is weak, but I think Hugh Jackman has the be the "happy to be there" guy of this category. He raised his talent level from comic book movies to "the" lead of musical leads. Those who know his Broadway career knew he could sing, but he brought a ton of heart to Jean Valjean for Les Miserables. For the happiness part, musicals just don't win in this category anymore, especially not as a first-time nominee among this other powerhouses. I guess from a statistical standpoint from the Awards Tracker, that Denzel Washington should feel lucky too, but there's nothing not Oscar-worthy about his performance in Flight. If that movie came out last just about any other year, we wouldn't be having this conversation of "happy to be there." We would be talking about a sure-fire win...

Who should win: ...and, by that rationale, he's my pick for who "should" win. To me, Denzel Washington can do no wrong and he brought an outstanding level of fragile darkness to Whip Whitaker in Flight. Bradley Cooper was just fine in Silver Linings Playbook and his role there that will bring him up to the A-list. I already told you my doubts for Phoenix and my compliments for Jackman. Denzel is still the kind. In my eyes, he's the best actor in the business. The problem is that I'm in the minority end of that opinion. To the big-wig critics and everyone else who's hoity-toity with their pinky extended and nose in the air...

Who will win: ...Lincoln's Daniel Day-Lewis is the greatest actor walking the earth. He has cleanly swept just about every possible Best Actor award for his portrayal of our 16th President. Anything other than a landslide win would likely go down as one of the biggest Oscar upsets in history. That's not going to happen. He's got this one locked. When he wins, he will rewrite history. No actor EVER has won three Best Actor Oscars. Right now, Lewis is on a list of double winners that include Jack Nicholson, Sean Penn, Spencer Tracy, Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, Marlon Brando, Gary Cooper, Dustin Hoffman, and Fredric March. That's rarefied air already. With a third Oscar win, he will join Walter Brennan and Jack Nicholson as the only actors with three Oscars of any kind (lead or supporting) and be just one more away from tying Katharine Hepburn (4 wins) as the most decorated actor/actress in Academy history. Even though Lewis only makes a movie every few years, you've got to think, at 55, Lincoln is far from his swan song. We may get to a point someday where he gets to five and passes everyone.

NEXT UP AND FINALLY: The race for Best Picture!

OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2013: The female acting categories

2013-02-19T18:26:00.003-06:00

(Image: pop-break.com)

This is the fifth of seven prediction and analysis articles for the Oscars being given out at the upcoming 85th Academy Awards on February 24th, hosted by Seth McFarlane (full site). This quick article follows the female acting categories of Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. One race is shoe-in lock and runaway victory, while the other is wipe open and filled with history and intrigue.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

The nominees: Amy Adams- The Master, Sally Field- Lincoln, Anne Hathaway- Les Misérables, Helen Hunt- The Sessions, Jacki Weaver- Silver Linings Playbook

AWARDS TRACKER (number of earlier award wins): 19- Hathaway, 4- Field, 3- Adams, 2- Hunt, 2- Ann Dowd, Compliance, 1- Emma Watson, The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Who was snubbed: Personally, I think the right five women and the right five performances are here. Each of them were excellent, unique, and extremely worthy to be among the final nominees. I might go to bat a little for Emma Watson for The Perks of Being a Wallflower, but she was still just the third best performance in that movie after Ezra Miller and Logan Lerman. She was good and gave a great grown-up performance after a decade on Harry Potter, but it wasn't strong enough to bump any of the finalists. With octogenarian Emannuelle Riva earning a place in the Best Actress race over her countryman Marion Cotillard, there's an older audience that gives a lot of respect for Maggie Smith's supporting turn in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I can understand that sentiment, but, again, not enough to bump any of these five. The same goes for SAG nominee and Oscar winner Helen Mirren for Hitchcock.

Happy to be there: While the right five are certainly here, Jacki Weaver is probably the biggest surprise when it comes to data and the prior award winners. Unlike her four fellow nominees who have all won some form of a Best Supporting Actress award this year, Weaver has not. Just as her Silver Linings Playbook characters say about her, she's the glue that holds a crazy family together. This is a great honor for her and I'm glad she made the cut.

Who should win and will win: This one is a no-doubter for both the "should" and "will" statements. Just look at the landslide 19 award wins from the Awards Tracker. Les Miserables's Anne Hathaway knocked the ball out of the ballpark and is one of he surest wins of the night. Sure, Oscar voters are probably only seeing her one showstopping "I Dreamed a Dream" number, but, honestly, that's all it took. That's the living definition of a nailing a big moment in the movies. Helen Hunt was daring and good, but has been better. Weaver is happy to be there and Adams is becoming a bit of a Meryl Streep. This is her fourth Oscar nomination in her stellar young career. She will win (and probably multiple) someday, but The Master isn't the role to do it right now. Hathaway, in her second career Oscar nomination, is young and popular in a category where the "It Girl" tends to always win over the veterans. This is her moment and this her spot. If Hollywood wants to send a message and buck the youth trend and avoid a little bit of Hathaway's Taylor-Swift-like shocked award acceptance fakery, their best hope is Sally Field, an old favorite who had a career comeback year between Lincoln for the critics and The Amazing Spider-Man for the masses. Field is a deep longshot. This is a Hathaway certainty.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

The nominees: Jessica Chastain- Zero Dark Thirty, Jennifer Lawrence- Silver Linings Playbook, Emmanuelle Riva- Amour, Quvenzhané Wallis- Beasts of the Southern Wild, Naomi Watts- The Impossible

AWARDS TRACKER (number of earlier award wins): 12- Chastain, 12- Lawrence, 7- Riva, 1- Michelle Williams, Take This Waltz, 1- Helen Hunt, The Sessions, 1- Rachel Weisz, The Deep Blue Sea

Who was snubbed: The surprise inclusions of both the youngest ever and oldest ever Best Actress nominees sure shuffled the deck of discards. You can make a lot of cases of Best Actress nominees in another deep year of candidates. Three-time Oscar nominee Michelle Williams could have easily had her fourth nomination for Take This Waltz, a challenging bi-polar part before Silver Linings Playbook made it cool. Even though it was a little-seen performance, Rachel Weisz, a prior Oscar winner for The Constant Gardener, could have made the field for The Deep Blue Sea and her suicidal wartime London Blitzkrieg lover. The annual Meryl Streep performance was in Hope Springs, which was good, but not to the Oscar caliber of her other recent performances. If I had a vote, my snub was Marion Cotillard in the foreign language film Rust and Bone, where she plays a slowly revitalizing amputee victim. She was stupendous in that role and deserved to be here.

Happy to be there: As I kind of already hinted at, the youngest ever nominee and the oldest ever nominee in this category should be astounded by their respective accomplishments alone. Throw in Naomi Watts too, but the real names are Wallis and Riva. Quvenzhane Wallis stole many hearts in Beasts of the Southern Wild. The camera (and probably Seth McFarlane's jokes) will find her often and she should savor every minute. To be mentioned and nominated on this stage and scale is really something for a rookie her age and a movie this small and independent. The statement has been made. Much of the same can be said for Riva. A longtime favorite in France, her appearance here too is a big deal. If the two young frontrunners (see next segment) duking it out split their own votes, Riva could pull the shocker and she would get one of the biggest standing ovations of absolute respect you'll ever see. Like everything about Amour, her acclaim and performance is gaining traction. Even if she should be "happy to be there," she's the biggest dark horse threat.

Who should win: As you can see from the Awards Tracker data, this is a neck-and-neck race between two extremely talented young performers with bright futures. Both Jessica Chastain (in drama) and Jennifer Lawrence (for musical/comedy) can boast Golden Globe Best Actress trophies, but only one can win. When it comes to who should win, I think Jessica Chastain put forth one of the most powerful and strong female performances in years with Zero Dark Thirty. She gets my vote. Without her character's determination and lens for the story, Zero Dark Thirty is an aimless history lesson. She represents the strongest voice in the year's most important film. This is the kind of strong female role Streep did in her youth. With Chastain's outstanding resume (The Help, Take Shelter, Tree of Life, Lawless, Coriolanus, and more) over the last two years, she has earned this respect and deserves this award. But, you know what, she's not going to win. Like everywhere else I've talked about this, the buzz has cooled too quickly on Zero Dark Thirty. If she doesn't win, here's the biggest shocker of what that means. If my predictions hold true of Zero Dark Thirty losing the original screenplay Oscar to Django Unchained and Chastain loses here in Best Actress, when you combine those losses with Bigelow's snub at Best Director and its fading chances at Best Picture, there's an overwhelming scenario where Zero Dark Thirty would be completely SHUT OUT from winning ANY Oscars. I sure wouldn't have believed that back in December. I think it's going to happen.

Who will win: I guarantee you this race, maybe above all of the others, is going to the wire. I think Jessica Chastain, and all of the female strength and resolve she and her role stand for, will get beat by the more kinetic and emotive performance given by Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook. I think Lawrence's recent SAG award win over Chastain, voted by her acting peers, is the tiebreaker for prediction and prognostication. Her vibrancy in Silver Linings Playbook sticks with you in a flashier way than Chastain's sharpness. I just re-watched Silver Linings Playbook recently after seeing it the first time back during it's initial November 2012 limited release. In a movie that's really an ensemble showcase with great performances in every corner (fellow Oscar nominees Cooper, De Niro, and Weaver), I realized that, even though Bradley Cooper is the lead and voice, Lawrence is the movie's spark. When she's gets more and more involved, the movie's excitement grows with her. She doesn't have the resume that Chastain does (The Hunger Games is a box office feather in her hat, but not a critical one), but I really think this, like Hathaway, is Lawrence's youthful night of discovery and statement. With Silver Linings Playbook having a nominee in every male and female acting category, they have to win one of them. This is their best shot.

NEXT UP: The male acting categories!