The Movie Watch

Wilder's Top 10 of '11

2012-02-13T14:54:00.000-08:00

Hey internet. Time for my annual round up of, in my opinion, the ten best movies of the year. Jose did the same thing, so you can check his out here. So here's my ten favorites. Keep in mind, I didn't see The Artist, Shame, or A Seperation. This year's list was especially hard, because nothing I saw was truly as amazing as most of last year's nominees.

10) Captain America: The First Avenger

Read my review here.

9) Crazy, Stupid, Love.

Read my review here.

8) The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Read Jose's review here.

7) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Read Jose's review here.

6) Super 8

Read my review here.

5) Drive

Read Jose's review here.

4) Midnight in Paris

Read my review here.

3) 50/50

Read Jose's review here.

2) Another Earth

Read Jose's review here.

And...

1) The Descendants

Read my review here.

See ya at the Oscars.

Review: CHRONICLE

2012-02-07T11:50:00.000-08:00

Anyone who has ever bullied another kid in school should be forced to watch Chronicle. It's easily the best "found footage" movie so far. Chronicle took everything that was good about Cloverfield, Quarantine, The Blair Witch Project, and others and kept it, all the while eliminating and fixing the things that were wrong with those films. Chronicle is a very good movie.

I won't talk much about the plot. The less you know, the better. Chronicle's trailer does a good job of mildly misleading you. Basically, Chronicle is the story of how the troubled Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan) and two of his friends (Alex Russell and Michael B. Jordan) find some sort of mysterious glowing rock. We should all know by know - don't touch it. Before long, the three have developed extreme telekinesis.

The screenplay by Max Landis (son of John Landis) is astonishingly well-written. All the characters we meet feel real, and talk like people talk. It shouldn't even have to be said why that's a good thing, but these days, it seems to be rare. The authentic feel of the dialogue and characters play into the single biggest success of Chronicle - it feels real. It's so crucial that a movie shot handy-cam style feel real. This is where Cloverfield failed. The main other component to this authenticity is the performance of your main actors. While Cloverfield did have that, it just didn't match the level that Chronicle reaches.

Our main actors do a phenomenal job of convincing you that they're real people that you might actually know. DeHaan especially. While Russell and Jordan (Bummer that he'll have to use his middle initial for the rest of his career) give strong performances, it's DeHaan who blows everything out of the water. He has that quality of someone you've actually met before, someone who you've felt sorry for. He's kind of an older Joel Courtney (Super 8), where we can feel his emotions as strong as he feels them. Chronicle plays to his fall as a tragic hero, and we are with him every step of his fall.

This is Josh Trank's feature film debut. In Chronicle, he's created a phenomenal origin story of a hero and a villain that legitimately feels fresh. Trank, who also co-wrote the story with Landis, has proven that he's a filmmaker with a true vision and spirit. I eagerly await his next project, be it handy-cam or not.

Remember the guy that brought the shotgun to work and killed his boss and coworkers? Good thing that guy didn't have superpowers.

Review: THE GREY

2012-02-02T16:39:00.000-08:00

The urge to stay alive is a peculiar one. Thousands of people kill themselves every day and millions more want to kill themselves to varying degrees of sincerity when the line at the grocery store moves too slow or when a former love announces on Facebook that they’re getting married to a drug dealer on April 20th. Hypothetical? Yes. Philosophical? Indeed. Depressing? You bet your meaty ass. Surviving is not enough; one needs a reason to live. Liam Neeson's latest romp in a string of ultra-masculine, brutal, inwardly driven films, is “The Grey” and never has a search for purpose come up so empty.

Neeson, to his credit, rages gravitas and does his best to teach the others how to act and survive. But with so few resources and so many survival-movie cliches, any hope to improve either condition is kept at a minimal. Really, I think the film’s virtues start and begin with Neeson being a vastly improved action hero over the Brickface Brothers: Sam Worthington and Channing Tatum.

I suppose some comparisons can be drawn between “The Grey” and “Deliverance,” but few work to the advantage of the former. For instance, while both wolves and hillbillies hunt the protagonists, the wolves do not rape anybody, preferring instead to just mercifully kill stragglers and the wounded. In between the attacks, the men of “The Grey” huddle around a couple of campfires and try their damnedest to make the audience give two farts by promising that off-screen female characters like them.

In what will remain one of this year’s worst red herrings, Liam Neeson tells the others/audience that simply running from the wolves would be suicidal and so they must improvise weaponry and hunt the wolves as they are being hunted. With 7 wolves vs. 7 of my friends, God knows I’d take my chances fighting over running (assuming one of my friends is Neeson). As already regretted, this battle does not come to pass and we are all subjected to an individual Armageddon. In short, Liam Neeson punches no wolves and PETA’s condemnation of the film is infuriatingly unfounded.

With less reason to live than any other character, it seems paradoxical that the Neeson character would so much as keep breathing after the first inconvenience, but such a paradox is the human condition. We want control. If we can’t have control in our life, we want it with our death. No force of nature, human error or gang-banger wolves are going to tell us to die. We decide went to go out and being told otherwise is the last, if not only, reason to live. This isn’t a movie about redemption or survival; it’s a movie about final acceptance.

"I don't even want to survive a whole movie anymore."

And so at its core, “The Grey” is a deeply angry and spiteful movie. Most of the characters work on an oil refinery, indirectly draining the Earth of beauty, stability and resources. Neeson, though, employs a more direct route: professionally executing wolves. These characters openly do nothing to improve the planet they live on and when the planet seeks a reckoning, they retaliate with even more desecration. It seems unfortunate that humans are on Earth at all, as we’d clearly be better fit to deal with the empty landscape of Mars—atmosphere aside.

Fortunately, the film refrains from diving into extended monologues on the human spirit or other Hollywood gargle but no less than five peaceful flashbacks to “a simpler time” eventually become refreshingly redundant. The terrain itself is a knee-deep hindrance rather than the full-fledged antagonist of the superior, 2010 film, “The Way Back.” Equally, the Alaskan forest seems uniform and even repetitive when juxtaposed with the North Asian taiga. Again unlike “The Way Back,” the characters do not have enough time to starve and have shaky (at best) reason to travel in their chosen direction. Disorientation is never admitted, though, so only the astute observer will understand just how meandering, aimless and doomed the snow bound trek really is.

Real insight is abandoned, like so many backpacks apparently filled with irrelevant supplies. That Neeson and the others abandon a perfectly visible crash site in favor of slugging through miles of ill-prepared, discombobulating situations is the first of many leaps of faith in an otherwise atheistic film. Before the halfway point, it becomes all too clear that the group cannot accomplish the difficult and that they aren’t so much fighting to survive as they are fighting to be miserable just a little bit longer. There is no guilt, regret, blame, democracy, vengeance or hope. There is just being alive. Rarely has life been so demoralizing.

There’s a quote in the 1977 rom-com, “Annie Hall” that goes: “Well, that's essentially how I feel about life: full of loneliness and misery and suffering and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly.” And it’s to my own disappointment that Woody Allen was not among the cast in “The Grey.”

The master of stoicism, Liam Neeson guides us to a resolution that is acceptable but hardly worth running to. Like the first character to die on-screen, we must be coaxed into accepting the inevitable. It seems impossible that we paid ten dollars to reach this point, but Neeson drills us with his pair of ol’ icy blues to the point that fighting his reassurances is more exhausting than drifting off with thoughts of a better time.

Wilder's Oscar Blurbs

2012-01-30T23:35:00.000-08:00

Hello the internet!

I know you've all waited on bended knee to hear what I have to say about this year's Oscar noms, so I'll get right to it. Bold will indicate what I want to win, and italics will indicate what I think is going to win. I'll write some stuff about films I think either did or did not deserve to be in the category too. It's important to note that I haven't even seen "The Artist", but regardless, I expect it to destroy urrybody.

BEST PICTURE
"The Artist"
"The Descendants"
"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close"
"Hugo"
"Midnight in Paris"
"The Help"
"Moneyball"
"War Horse"
"The Tree of Life"

("Super 8", "50/50", "Harry Potter", "Drive" should have been in the mix here. "Hugo" was a nutsack. "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" was a waste of my life. I only made it through 15 minutes of "War Horse" before I punched my DVD player in the face and turned it off.)

BEST ACTOR
Demian Bichir, "A Better Life"
George Clooney, "The Descendants"
Jean Dujardin, "The Artist"
Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
Brad Pitt, "Moneyball"

(JGL not being nominated for "50/50" is a crime. And what with the one-two punch from RyGos that was "Drive" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love", I'm shocked he's not getting recognized.)

BEST ACTRESS
Glenn Close, "Albert Nobbs"
Viola Davis, "The Help"
Rooney Mara, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady"
Michelle Williams, "My Week With Marilyn"

(Charlize Theron deserves to be nominated for "Young Adult". I'm actually shocked that she's not.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh, "My Week With Marilyn"
Jonah Hill, "Moneyball"
Nick Nolte, "Warrior"
Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"
Max Von Sydow, "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close"

(I would have liked to see Patton Oswalt nominated here too.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo, "The Artist"
Jessica Chastain, "The Help"
Melissa McCarthy, "Bridesmaids"
Janet McTeer, "Albert Nobbs"
Octavia Spencer, "The Help"

(It's so awesome to me that Melissa McCarthy got nominated. She deserves the shit out of it. I haven't seen "The Help" so I don't know which one of them will win, but it'll be one.)

BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"
Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"

(I didn't love "Tintin", but it's absurd that Spielberg isn't nominated for it. David Fincher and JJ Abrams are also missing here.)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
JC Chandor, "Margin Call"
Asghar Farhadi, "A Separation"
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, "Bridesmaids"

(Goddamn, I'd love to see a comedy win this.)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxton, Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
John Logan, "Hugo"
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon, "The Ides of March"
Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian, "Moneyball"
Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughn, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
"A Cat In Paris"
"Chico & Rita"
"Kung Fu Panda 2"
"Puss in Boots"
"Rango"

(Step one, he's the champion of the fandango. Step two, I didn't see "Panda".)

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Bullhead (Belgium)
Footnote (Israel)
In Darkness (Poland)
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
A Separation (Iran)

(Um...)

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
"The Adventures of Tintin," John Williams
"The Artist," Ludovic Bource
"Hugo," Howard Shore
"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," Alberto Iglesias
"War Horse," John Williams

(I refuse to pick one I want to win. The only ones I've heard were BS. John Williams is just nominated for being John Williams. Where's "Super 8"? That was the best score of the year, and that's final.)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Man or Muppet," The Muppets; Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
"Real in Rio," Rio; Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown, Lyric by Siedah Garrett

(I'll tell you this - I'll have a heart attack if "The Muppets" doesn't win. I'd also say that 'Life's a Happy Song' is a much better choice for Oscar contention than 'Man or Muppet', but whatever.)

ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
"The Artist"
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
"Hugo"
"Midnight in Paris"
"War Horse"

ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
"The Artist"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"The Tree of Life"
"War Horse"

(Again, I didn't watch all of "War Horse", but you're dealing with Janusz for that one. Also, "THE ARTIST" IS IN BLACK AND WHITE.)

ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
"Anonymous"
"The Artist"
"Hugo"
"Jane Eyre"
"W.E."

(Don't give a shit.)

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
"Hell and Back Again"
"If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front"
"Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory"
"Pina"
"Undefeated"

(I didn't see any of these, nor have I heard of them. Sooooo.)

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
"The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement?"
"God Is the Bigger Elvis"
"Incident in New Baghdad"
"Saving Face"
"The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom"

(Same deal here.)

ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
"The Artist"
"The Descendants"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"Moneyball"

(I'll always want Fincher to win editing, because he rocks it. But I can see "Moneyball" stealing this one.)

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
"Albert Nobbs"
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
"The Iron Lady"

(GRIPHOOK, DAWG.)

BEST ANIMATED SHORT
Dimanche/Sunday
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
La Luna
A Morning Stroll
Wild Life

(Haven't seen it yet, but you're dealing with Pixar here.)

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
"Pentecost"
"Raju"
"The Shore"
"Time Freak"
"Tuba Atlantic"

(Uhh)

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
"Drive"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"
"War Horse"

(Brilliant, "Drive" got something.)

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"Moneyball"
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"
"War Horse"

(No thoughts here.)

ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
"Hugo"
"Real Steel"
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes"
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

So. That's that. We'll see what happens.

Review: RED TAILS

2012-01-26T16:16:00.000-08:00

A prominent executive producer publicly stated that financing and distributing the WWII-fighter pilot movie “Red Tails” was hindered primarily by movie studios’ racism. Or, to be more specific, the major movie studios feared that the rest of the world was too racist to go see a big-budget war movie starring a predominately black cast. Following through on the pessimism, 20th Century Fox dumped the movie in late January, when ticket numbers reach annual lows rivaled only by the month of September. This is a conversation worth having.

With the film starring Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding, Jr, are we going to get some Oscar-caliber acting?

Nope. But Howard will chew on some scenery and Gooding will chew on his pipe in a distracting caricature of Black Douglas MacArthur. Also, both are given a smaller font than one George Lucas.

Wait. George Lucas? The Star Wars guy?

Lucas has an executive producer credit. Which is the same credit he had in “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” However, it’s also the same credit he had in “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and “Howard the Duck.” In short, “Red Tails” can not be chalked up as yet another Lucas tragedy but his finger prints are there.

Fake-looking, colorful CGI backgrounds?

Bingo.

This is a historical movie, right? How’s the history?

This is a war movie and as historically accurate as any war movie. The facts are there, but the characters were created by precedents and focus groups. In WWII, the U.S. military was racially segregated and movies like “Captain America” throw the audience out of a story by forcibly demonstrating otherwise. There was no unit that had the genetic makeup of a 1940s-version Power Ranger team.

So what, this is like “Saving Black Private Ryan”?

The worst irony may be that while studios won’t support all-black cast movies (for rather dubious reasons), they also require racial diversity. To be historically accurate, “Saving Private Ryan” couldn’t have black characters. But then again, the film’s platoon had Vin Diesel…though I’m not sure if he counts. However, since he was the first character to die in that film, I suppose he was meant to be at least a stand-in for diversity incarnate.

But there was a Tuskegee Airmen fighter group?

Yeah, of course. And this film doesn’t bother to stray too much from historical accuracy to be a sequel to “Soul Plane.”

Thank God. I hate Tom Arnold.

Unfortunately, the Tom Arnold-character is this time played Bryan “Breaking Bad” Cranston. For painfully dull reasons, the character articulates the driest Southern accent and every other white, superior officer character joins along.

Okay, forget about “Soul Plane,” I can think of one other cinematic black pilot.

Will Smith in “Independence Day”? Yeah. But his blackness is offset by his clearly black, sidekick, best friend character played by Harry Connick, Jr. And don’t worry, it’s okay for me to say that--as I have several white friends.

Wow, strayed a bit from “Red Tails,” there.

Al Sharpton, renowned for his cinematic clarity and expertise, called “Red Tails” one of the best movies he’s ever seen. This should not act as a deterrent to white audiences though. The movie is meant for easy consumption; cheap entertainment with a slight sense of self-importance. Aerial action scenes occupy more screen time than reflections on racism. Furthermore, the inevitable discussions on race only range between bland and stereotypical, with nothing coming within a mile of the venom or mean-spirited nature of a Spike Lee joint.

How is this even remotely a movie review?

The movie itself is regrettably secondary to people’s pre-conceptions of the movie. The movie offers absolutely nothing new in terms of cinema iconography. And regrettably so. The movie has to be discussed entirely in terms of racism because ultimately the movie is just a collection of war-movie stereotypes. Beautiful European girl named Sophia. Comically religious guy. The "kid” character. Stoic, straight-laced leader. Hot shot renegade. Dumb explosions. Pointlessly evil German. Racist befriending a black guy. Insurmountable odds overcome. More dumb explosions. Jive-talking mechanic. Unnamed characters taking the place of narrators in the middle of a fight-scene in case blind people are watching the film. Characters overcoming language barriers. The alcoholic. The musician. Uncanny predictions of the future. Ending title cards listing the numerical medals and causalities. The real-life war veteran in the audience who gives the film a solitary standing ovation during the ending credits.

Wow. Sounds like every war movie ever.

And to think, if the movie had only been filmed entirely in black and white we could have been talking about the virtues of archival footage. Or perhaps government-controlled media or the evolution of cinematic realism. Instead we are subjected to regurgitated banalities and aimless patriotism.

Is this movie ending or extending racism?

Ending, easily. While offering something new in the world of cinema would have been preferable, we can at least come together as a society to denounce weak storytelling techniques. It’s almost as if the filmmakers wanted to demonstrate to the audiences that not only were black pilots as courageous as whites in a pre-Truman world, but that they, seventy years later, can create a movie as devoid of originality as any production team of white millionaires.

Was there a black guy in “Flyboys?”

If you thought of that movie before this point, I pity you. Aerial warfare in movies is sweet, but mostly just in theory. Few movies about pilots are even watchable. God knows “Stealth” wasn’t.

I don’t think I’ll see “Red Tails”…

Don’t like black and white stories, huh? Then you might be interested in this new movie coming out, starring Liam Neeson called “The Grey.”

Oh come on!

Nailed it!

Review: 2011 A YEAR IN REVIEW & THE TOP TEN AND A HALF

2012-01-24T06:17:00.000-08:00

2011 is one of the best, and oddest film years in recent memory. On one hand, while there were numerous great films year round, none of them particularly sticks out the way something like Slumdog Millionaire, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Inception, Toy Story 3, all did in the last few years. In terms of big movies it was actually a very poor year; there was a record number of sequels, threequels, fourthquels, fifthquels and prequels; 27 in total, not including remakes. There was even an octoquel. But besides that said eighth Harry Potter Film that we waited a decade for none were memorable, and at least two were essentially a remake of the previous installment (Hangover 2 and Transformers 3).

And yet at the same time there was a major breakthrough in independent filmmaking. For the past few years online movie watching, particularly Netflix, has brought the realization that the market for such films is huge; it is just not as big as the market for Avatar. Nevertheless Indie films can use a limited release as a form of promotion, and earn their money back, off theaters. Either on iTunes, Redbox, Netflix, DVD sales, whatever. And thus the public’s legal accessibility to such films has greatly increased.

It has been an interesting year; and to top it off it might be the first time that a silent movie takes Best Picture, since the first Academy Awards were held. Anyways, here is our Top Ten and a half for 2011, presented in no particular order besides alphabetical:

The Artist – There is little more that can be said about this film; it has received sufficient praise from audiences, critics, and the Golden Globes. The praise is well deserved, and there is something to be said about a silent film being this successful today. Read the full review here.

Crazy, Stupid, Love – Perhaps the first romantic dramedy out there, Crazy, Stupid, Love takes a well known genre and then spins it off by showing that being in love, and loving someone is not the something. A cynic would point out that the first isn’t a smart place to be in. The film falls somewhere in the middle in that debate, but maintains a very amiable level of freshness from beginning to end. Read our review here.

The Descendants – I hate George Clooney. I love George Clooney in The Descendants. Like in Syriana this is the rare film where George Clooney doesn’t play George Clooney and actually shows off his talents. There is a Best Adapted Screenplay award in here, and perhaps one for Clooney. Read our review here.

Exporting Raymond – The true story of how Every Loves Raymond, was exported as Everybody Loves Kostya. Today it has become the norm for movies and shows to earn a Hollywood remake. But the practice also goes the other way around; several American TV shows earn a second go by being remade for foreign markets. When Phil Rosenthal, the exec-producer of Every Loves Raymond, was sent to Russia to help adapt his show, he foresaw the comedic potential of his experiences. And he exploits them in this documentary with singular passion. Read our review here.

Hanna – I had a hard time deciding between Hanna or Drive being on this list. Both are exceptional films, and both deal with silent protagonists with only one goal in mind. Hanna ultimately won out thanks to Saorisie Ronanan’s acting. It is a much more human story, about a girl who has never known another human besides her psychotic father. That she became a silent killer is only circumstantial and feels somewhat less gimmicky. Read our review here.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2 – The half film that is better than many full films I’ve seen this year. It was a worthy conclusion to a franchise that defined a decade. It has had countless of imitators, but it is unlikely it will ever be matched. If it weren’t for The Artist I would place my bets on HP7P2 taking the statuette this year, as unlikely as that sounds not to recognize it as a landmark film would be a mistake. Read our review here.

Hugo – Scorsese’s most personal film, turned out to be a family friendly film instead of a gritty gangster psycho-thriller. What a surprise. Hugo, like The Artist, is nothing more than a love letter to cinema itself. But while The Artist relies on it also being silent movie, Hugo took the other direction and employed the latest technology available in cinema (that still uses real people and not stiff mo-cap) to create the story of how the magic of cinema enchanted people for the first time. Read our review here.

Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen has made about 50 movies in his lifetime, and while they tend to vary in quality he always has something to say. He has a vision to deliver and like the protagonist in Midnight in Paris, it is very likely Woody Allen is still a dreamer. You probably have seen it or had the plot spoiled by now; if this is not the case, stop this instant and Netflix the movie now! You’ll be in for a treat. Read our review here.

The Skin I Live In – Like Allen, Almodovar is a tested master of cinema. And he is at the top of his craft. The Skin I Live In is a twisted, dark comedy horror-story, about a mad scientist and his obsession. It is not very different from a mad-scientist B-movie, and it will make you squirm. Yet, it is so different from every other movie you’ve likely seen before. Form its offbeat structure, to its unlikable protagonist, to the numerous red herrings through out the film. Read our review here.

Super 8 – I love to see a movie were kids in it are smart and intuitive. Where they break the rules of the adult world, because sometimes that is the only way to fix what is wrong with the world. Sadly now most of Hollywood thinks of kids as not much more than giddy consumers. Read our review here.

Young Adult – Like several Jason Reitman films Young Adult is nothing more than a relatable human story. He once again teams up with former-stripper Diablo Cody, the writer of Juno, and tells the story of a young adult writer who also happens to be a young adult herself. It is interesting when a movie with such an unlikable character ends up being such a likable movie. Read our review here.

Anyways, I highly recommend these ten and a half films; many which we had also praised in our Spring, Summer, and Fall/Winter reviews. However, there were many other great movies out this year. To summarize the year here are the films we gave 5 or 4 stars this year that we haven’t mentioned above (once again in alphabetical order):

All of them highly enjoyable movies, although very different of the most part.

Review: THE TROLL HUNTER

2012-01-23T17:09:00.000-08:00

The Troll Hunter (aka Trolljegeren) is, for lack of a better expression, one interesting monster. On one hand it is just another B-level mockumentary ala Blair Witch Project, or Cloverfield. Allegedly edited from found footage rolled by a group of teenagers tracking a troll hunter. But it is also a damn good monster movie, and a decent drama about survival in the Norwegian backwoods. This can be mostly attributed to the fact that, unlike most horror-muckumentaires, The Troll Hunter has a decent in-story cameraman. So, even though the genre still requires tremendous amounts of queasy-cam, we actually get to see quite a good amount of troll shots. I for one greatly appreciated this.

The movie opens with a group of students tracking a man whom they believe is poaching bears. Like many giddy students concerned for the environment, endangered species, they decide to go out and film a documentary about poaching in Norway. The crew consists of Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), the director; Johanna (Johanna Mørck), his sound girl; and the cinematographer, Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen). The bear-poaching suspect is Hans (Otto Jespersen). Soon enough they realize that Hans is not a poacher, but a government employee, whose job is to hunt and keep the trolls away from the public. How exactly has the government been able to keep the trolls a secret is a mystery; especially when one of them makes a midget out of King Kong.

The mockumentary look gives us a few good shots of the trolls, and also explains why most actions scenes are incomplete; you can’t shoot a film while running from a troll. I suspect this saved the filmmakers quite a bit of money; and for the first time I found this tool useful. We are also, slowly, through interviews with a veterinarian and Hans lectured on the nature of trolls. Some explanations, such as their aversion to UV light, sound logical. But the movie also allows itself some magic, and skips over the explanation of why trolls only like the taste of Christians. Somehow The Troll Hunter finds a balance between the two.

Somehow The Troll Hunter manages to find a balance between lots of stuff. Between being funny, and quite often very serious; between having a ridiculous monster, such as a troll, and somehow making it scary enough; between having bad special effects, but good design and cinematography, capable of hiding them; between having flat protagonists but actually making you care that if something happens to them the film is left unfinished. As I said, The Troll Hunter is an interesting monster in and of itself.

Fans of monster movies, you know who you are. This film is meant for you.

Finally, because I could not find were else to mention this, this film has one of the best endings I’ve seen recently. Just one final shot; that I guarantee will make the whole thing so much more enjoyable. But you have to wait for the end.

Review: UNDERWORLD AWAKENING

2012-01-23T12:47:00.000-08:00

I couldn’t care less about the battle between vampires and werewolves in popular culture; to be honest I don’t quite understand why they would ever be at such odds against each other. Luckily, I guess, the Underworld franchise doesn’t care too much to explain either. In the first movie, the Lycans (as the werewolves are known in this universe) created a hybrid were-zombie-wolf-fang-boy who we are told fell in love with the vampiress Serena (Kate Beckinsale). Three movies later, the humans have gained the upper hand in this battle and capture Serena and the hybrid. All this happens in a “previously on…” style recap. And the rest of the movie, involving Serena’s escape from the humans and the werewolves, feels like a very bad TV episode on the SyFy Channel or a prolonged cut scene in a video game.

So incomplete was this movie that you almost feel cheated out of your time by the end. I guess that the idea is to always leave the story incomplete in order to churn out more sequels without much effort. The film’s target audience is not one that would demand deep story telling and rounded characters; and I wasn’t expecting that going in. I do enjoy a fun B-movie every now and then (including the first two installments of this franchise), but Underworld Awakening just dumbs it down a step two low.

I am not even sure on how I should continue with this review; there is nothing worth mentioning about Kate Beckinsale’s acting, or anyone else’s, or the stale dialogue present in the whole film. I would like to ask where do all the vampires get their fashion sense? Does one develop a fetish for leather and shiny spandex the moment one gets bitten? Or is Serena’s getup a passing fad?

Review: LIFE IN A DAY

2012-01-22T16:22:00.000-08:00

Perhaps “The Artist” was doomed by the high hopes handed down to me. Perhaps it was the hope that a non-traditional film would walk off with the grand prize on Oscar Night. Could this be the first, again mostly, silent film to be nominated for Best Picture in the last 80 years? The foreign-language “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was a note-worthy nomination. As was “Beauty and Beast.” Perhaps now we’ve reached a time to nominate a truly extraordinary film this year. A film unique not just in genre but in content and context, scope and intimacy. I want to argue the best film of 2011 was not the remake of “Footloose” (close one, I know) but was actually the documentary “Life in a Day.”

“Life in a Day” demonstrated what I had only hypothesized years ago, that the most realistic film would have to be a two-hour long montage of all humanity. While on a visceral level I might enjoy many, many others, I’d be fine with this one film being presented to our future alien overlords when they ask to understand mankind in under two hours.

Yes, there is some structure to it. And yes, some people included clearly present themselves in a controlled way. But that is us all the same. Putting on makeup or pretending is just another form of authenticity. Are people gross, sure. And yes, we kill animals, steal and occasionally trample one another for no discernable purpose. But coming to grips with reality is our own responsibility; it’s no filmmakers’ responsibility to shield us from ourselves.

Beautifully shot in every variation of beauty that can be described, I could not have felt bored for two minutes in the entirety of the piece. “Life in a Day” does not challenge in the audience in any confrontational tone that seems to coat the dreariest of indie films. Instead, the audience can just watch and be awed by the culmination of humanity’s own understanding. Granted, the film does not contain the grandeur of the Great Pyramids nor does it contain the everlasting mysteries of other, physical, art. However, I think this simple documentary, reaching to the farthest ends we, as all civilization can reach, means more to more people (viewers or not) than any other traditional piece of art or entertainment.

“Life in a Day” does not require viewers to better understand their own lives during and after; but if new questions and appreciation are not stirred from within, then I fear all hope is lost. Admittedly, this quasi-religious association with humanity—and by some extension, the film about humanity—is entirely my own and should not act as a deterrent to the scientists, misanthropes and devilishly good-looking people who read my reviews. “Life in a Day” is simply a cinematic Rorschach test. See what you will, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

As is, “Life in a Day” is a tough sell and the inaudible “The Artist” has a safe, generational gimmick for middlebrow moviegoers. There is a chance for the Academy, and America, to acknowledge and applaud a unique, entertaining and vivid film in the dark days of February, but I can’t help but think we’ll all be looking in the wrong direction.

The Golden Globe's Three Firsts

2012-01-20T12:29:00.000-08:00

It is almost a week past since the Golden Globes, and that means the Oscar nominations will be announced this weekend. And the final countdown towards the end of award season will begin. It also means, good movies will start getting re-released and whole bunch of blog (including us) will begin posting predictions, commenting, and arguing about the likely winners. And comment, complain, and accuse the Academy of bias afterwards. With so much fuss around them it is almost relaxing to watch the Golden Globes, a shorter, more relaxing, and somewhat more entertaining ceremony.

The winners at the Globes will also end up being favorites at the Oscars, despite the fact that there will likely also be (as there is every year) a much-heated debate over which award show is fairer. All the members of the Academy decide the Oscars through a vote; this might be more democratic but it is also highly political. Meanwhile the Hollywood Foreign Press, a committee of 93 bribable journalists, decides who shall receive the Golden Globes. Nevertheless, they are also hosted by Ricky Gervais so they are quite a bit more entertaining, and shocking. Even after being toned down this year.

Anyways, there wasn’t much surprise in the winners this year. The highest one being that Al Pacino, was not even nominated for “Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series, or Motion Picture Made for TV” for his work in You Don’t Know Jack. However there were a few “firsts” in the Best Movie Categories. The Artist has become the first black & white, as well as the first silent movie to earn the Motion Picture Comedy Award, and The Adventures of Tintin became the first non-Pixar film to earn Animated Film. The Artist in particular has been placed in the fast track to win Best Picture at the Oscars. If it does, it will be the first silent film since the first awards, when Wings won, to receive the award.

You can check our reviews for The Artist, and The Adventures Tintin as well as Wilder's review for The Descendants (winner of Motion Picture Drama).

Review: WE BOUGHT A ZOO

2012-01-19T20:58:00.000-08:00

We Bought A Zoo claims to have been based on a true story; I double-checked the facts on Wikipedia (now that it is back online) and it seems to be true. Now that I think about it, it has to be true. Had this film not been “based on a true story”, it would have remained in development hell. The premise is so preposterously naïve that no Hollywood screenwriter could have come up with it, and no Hollywood producer would have backed it had it been an original idea. After all what type of character would ever buy a zoo on a whim?

Anyways, there really was a Benjamin Mee, who bought a Zoo back in 2006 and worked on it with his family in order to reopen it in 2007. But the movie has altered the facts a bit to include the necessary love story. But once again according to Wikipedia “In the movie, the zoo is called Rosemoor Wildlife Park and situated in California instead of Dartmoor Zoological Park in England, but the story remains the same”.

If you need me to elaborate further, Benjamin (Matt Damon) buys the zoo in an effort to move past his wife’s death and reconnect with his children, Dylan and Rosie (Colin Ford, Maggie Elizabeth Jones). Money is not as big an issue as you would expect, Benjamin has a small inheritance, and his former wife made sure he was financially sound before her death. So off he goes in an adventure, and ends up meeting Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), a lovely zookeeper who looks like Scarlett Johansson. Coincidentaly Kelly also has a niece Lily (Elle Fanning), so Ben’s kid also gets a love story.

By now you have probably realized that this movie isn’t particularly groundbreaking. Cameron Crowe has made some of my favorite films, Almost Famous, Vanilla Sky. We Bought A Zoo, lacks their heart; this is one of those cases, and there are plenty, where formula would have better been left on the shelf. The is nothing particularly wrong with the film; the acting is great, Cameron Crowe knows his way around the craft, and the story is engaging enough. But somehow I felt that the set up should have more juice to squeeze out than an average family film.

There aren’t even enough animal human scenes. Most of the animals are just there on the background providing the setting. A few get names but they don’t make memorable characters.

Ad Classics: TARSEM SINGH, JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF WRONG, COSMOPOLITAN LAS VEGAS

2012-01-19T16:34:00.000-08:00

Tarsem might have produced history’s most boring film with the Immortals, but it stands that visually; he is one of the boldest directors out there. Best remembered by his trippy visuals in The Cell, or the gorgeous use of geography in The Fall, Tarsem uses a much more whimsical aesthetic in this commercial than what is generally seen on his films. Perhaps this is what we can expect from his upcoming Snow White adaptation Mirror, Mirror.

Not surpassingly this campaign raised plenty of eyebrows, when it was first aired during the season finale of Mad Men. Criticisms went as far as critiquing that the ad promoted the mistreatment of animals; baby animals that is. But like any good piece of fiction, and advertising, getting people talking is exactly what it intended. For me the ad works. And it is a great example of Tarsem’s visual extravaganza. I hope you agree; here it is:

Review: TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

2012-01-13T19:56:00.001-08:00

The next James Bond movie is in the works and movie audiences will likely be treated to the more familiar beats of the franchise than the last two films offered. Gritty reboots have run their course and the movie industry has begun to reestablish escapism proper. Fortunately, as in the 1990s, enough films will pride themselves on political intrigue and power acting—ala "The Stockholm Affair"—as to keep audiences moderately involved while gushing up and slurping down gummy worms. One such newly released mood-heavy movie is, the playfully titled, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.”

Shot almost entirely with long-range lenses to give a not-so subliminal effect of voyeurism, the film also showcases actors looking out windows and other expected, though not entirely condemnable, traits of the stock drama. There is no real love, action, comedy, tragedy or grandeur in the film, but there is plenty of reflection. And still more characters looking out windows. Alfred Hitchcock once said, “drama is life with the boring parts cut out.” “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” apparently disagrees, feeling complete confidence in following the mundane, trivial and ridiculous nuances of life.

On some other side of the spy flick-dichotomy, not even a month ago, “Ghost Protocol,” fell back on several action movie cliches previously highlighted by “Team America: World Police.” This doesn’t have anything to do with “Tinker Tailor,” directly, but rather I just wanted it to be said.

“TTSS” (still with me?) is a pessimistic film reflecting on the Cold War era, but I suppose the only other option is to be an absurd comedy. The Cold War made as little sense as any war and was fought as enthusiastically and incompetently as any war before or since. Chief among these egregious regrets would be how the intelligence agencies—British in this particular film’s case—perpetually ran circles around themselves, surviving only by feeding on trumped up paranoia. For decades, politicians on all sides happily obliged the intelligence communities and their bloated budgets because war is good for the establishment and fake war is even better.

Exhibit 2: Jim Gordon (also Gary Oldman) only has a job when Gotham thinks Batman is a problem.

Hey Oldman, you get a leading role for losing your mustache;

you get awards for losing your eyebrows!

As the scenes fade into one another, the layers stack up and the plot becomes a bowl of spaghetti. At a particular turning point, Smiley (Oldman) interrogates one of the possible traitors and brings the man to tears. The deceptions upon deceptions reach a breaking point when every side is giving the other side all of the information to learn the secrets of one another. It’s unfortunate the parties of the Cold War didn’t just print monthly newsletters and send copies to one another. Instead, Oldman just watches his colleague collapse into an emotional fetal position, not far removed from Dean Pelton, crying about how he just can’t say no to anybody’s conspiracy opportunity.

Despite a perplexing ending montage, the film itself doesn’t offer or force any overt summary on its characters or story. Things happen and being a spy is a job with self-imposed levels of stress. I’m not one to say any movie “went over my head,” but I can’t mock anybody who would voice such a sentiment after seeing “Tinker.”

Also, let’s talk some Writing 201 (sophomore year stuff, really). A twist doesn’t work if you force the audience to guess the ending. Crime movies drive me nuts when they start off, “one of these characters is the real killer” and then try having a twist. Invariably, the twist was predicted at some point by every conscious audience member and so no ending can really be a surprise. To a story, the best twists come when the audience doesn’t know there is going to be a twist at all. The plot, the story, the characters all have to be more than just the dots that connect to a pre-conceived ending.

A second element of a twist is understanding that the audience knows certain basic movie rules. For instance, if someone is a big actor, they get a big role. These rules can be broken to powerful effect, but they exist all the same and should be accounted for.

Continuing, the power of the twist is directly related to the number of clues left behind in the movie. If Bruce Willis found out in “The Sixth Sense” that he was really the little boy’s father, that ending would have sucked. There were no clues leading to that point and so “the twist” would have been random, nonsensical or even a cheat (looking at you “Ocean’s 12”!).

Perhaps any point I make regarding story structure is muted when a blog post that gets a few hundred (mostly accidental) views is placed in the shadow of a best-selling novel and award-winning screenplay.

As is, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” only contains fun and intrigue in few and far between portions.

Ad Classics: RIDLEY SCOTT, "1984" MACINTOSH

2012-01-10T12:55:00.000-08:00

We started posting these “ad classics” under the philosophy that a commercial is a movie told in thirty seconds (sometimes up to two minutes). And because today many movies, like Transformers or New Year’s, are so overwhelmed by product placement that they have essentially become two-hour ads. We have chosen to revive the ‘ad classics’ positing to collect a few more samples of good storytelling, even if they are for commercial ends.

Ridley Scott is perhaps one of the greatest filmmakers working today. Right after working on Blade Runner, Scott was commissioned by Apple Computers to create the Super Bowl Spot for the release of the first Macintosh. At the time computers were regarded as objects from an Orwellian dystopia by most people. This was because the personal computer had not yet come into existence; the Macintosh was going to change that.

Apple has always been known for great advertising. They gave us The Misfits Poem and Justin Long with their campaign “I Am A Mac”. This is the ad that started it all. The ad cost nearly 1 million dollars, an amount previously unheard of in advertising. Not only was it a marketing success (the ad was re-broadcasted in every subsequent talk show, generating millions in free advertising) but it also shows why we are all so excited for Ridley Scott return to Sci Fi with Prometheus. Enjoy:

The top image is from a "remastered" version where an iPod was added to the runner. George Lucas is not the only person who goes back to re-tweak masterpieces.

Review: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

2012-01-08T11:45:00.000-08:00

I knew what was coming. I saw the Swedish film when it first came out. And read the book afterwards. Yet nothing could have prepared me for the visceral intensity that David Fincher’s take on the story of Lisbeth Salander (Ronney Mara) holds. Stieg Larsson’s story is already a gripping thriller that needs no further advertising. This is the story of a girl with a terrible past, who is proudly isolated and dangerously angry; the first installment doesn’t dwell too deep into the back-story, but it lays out a twisted series of murders where the broken heroine begins to heal.

A good story needs a great character to carry it through, and that is exactly what makes the Millennium Trilogy so appealing. Salander is like no other popular heroine out there. She is thin, practically starving, broken, essentially psychotic, isolated, but more importantly fearsomely intelligent. Movies need more characters like her. And Rooney Mara, like Noomi Rapace in the original 2009 Swedish film, plays the character with an implosive intensity few actors are capable of.

The story has her teaming up with Mikeal Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a man she had originally investigated, to solve the murder of Harriet Vagner, the niece of an elderly millionaire (Christopher Plummer), who’s family has more than one skeleton hiding in their closet. The mystery, like and Agatha Christie novel, has a limited number of suspects. The murder occurred in an island, cut off from civilization, during a family reuinion. If Harriet was murdered, it had to be done by one of the family members. Problem is no one in the family is talking to each other. Let alone Blomkvist or that girl with the tattoo. Everyone is a suspect.

Thrillers as well conceived as this are hard to come by, so it is no mystery that the story has been told in two films, less than two years apart. Because of this it is impossible not to compare. Is this better than its Swedish counterpart? I am going to be political and say that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is good proof that a good story can be retold in different ways and still be effective. This is not a better film than its predecessor, nor is it worse. It is an equal.

David Fincher is a master craftsman, and the film hits you in the gut more often and more cleverly than the Swedish version did. Yet the Swedish version had an earnestly to it this one lacks. My guess is that it takes a Swedish filmmaker to accurately portray how isolating a Swedish winter can become. This film goes for a visceral effect, while its predecessor was somewhat more emotional.

I like them both. But this film might be much friendlier to an American audience, accustomed to loud films, and a visceral effect. Nevertheless I warn: this is not a film for the faint of heart.

Review: SHERLOCK HOLMES: GAME OF SHADOWS

2012-01-03T16:57:00.000-08:00

The first installment of these Victorian-super-secret-agent Sherlock Holmes re-imaging had a plot impossible to understand. This second installment fixes that problem by having a plot you don’t really need to understand; there is a clear villain whom Sherlock needs to confront. Everything else is frivolous set dressing, and action sequences done in slow motion. It is fun, but it isn’t the inquisitive thriller you would expect from a movie based of the adventures of an inquisitive detective. Like its predecessor this is simply a modern action movie, not very different from Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol, done in costume; in MI: 4 we saw Tom Cruise dangling off the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building today; in Holmes 2 we get to see Robert Downey Jr, dangling off a train over what is an impossibly tall bridge.

Despite the improvements, Game of Shadows retains several of the inconveniences that affected the first film. For the most part it is loud and hard to follow. Many action films now a day suffers from these ailments, but the dim lighting in Game of Shadows seems to worsen their effects. Thankfully it was not in 3D.

There is also the matter of Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) as a protagonist; he stays a step ahead of every character in the film, and two ahead of the audience. Most thrillers are supposed to stay a step ahead of the audience, but usually the main character unfolds the plot’s contrivances alongside the audience. Here, Holmes acts, shoots, and chases the bad guys, for several minutes, and the film stops for a few more minutes so Holmes can explain his actions, to the audience. In full honesty, it is hard to care for a character, when you don’t understand why he acts the way he does from the very beginning.

But as I stated earlier Game of Shadows, has a plot you don’t really need to follow in order to enjoy. In short, the bad guy, Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), has bought several weapons manufacturing companies and he plans on getting rich by starting WWI a few decades early. Holmes, for no apparent reason other than being a good sport, enlists his trusted sidekick, Watson (Jude Law), to stop the evil Professor. We know Moriarty is evil, because Holmes calls him “the Napoleon of Crime”, because he kills Rachel McAdams, and because we know Moriarty is a bad guy from popular culture. However other than that there is no apparent reason to believe that this guy is actually evil until the last twenty minutes of the movie.

And once we know he is evil; Holmes opts to play a game of chess with him. Quite unexpected as most third acts in action movies unfold over a series of loud explosions and not a chess game.

I haven’t really spoiled the ending, but merely stated that the hero will confront the villain at the end. If you didn’t see that one coming, the Sherlock Holmes will likely surprise you. Perhaps even enthrall you. Otherwise it is a mildly entertaining action flick, with very dim photography, elaborate costume design, and some quirky acting. As I said fun, but nowhere near as smart as its protagonist.

Review: FALL/WINTER 2011

2012-01-01T19:57:00.000-08:00

So once again it is January and usually we end up writing a top-ten column like every other movie blog out there. However, this year I’ve been writing a top-five column for every season of the year (you can check the spring and summer column here and here). So I guess it is time to review this years Fall/Winter season. I am grouping the fall/winter into a single column for a few reasons: firstly, because the Spring and Summer seasons were each four months long, so the third season should also be four months, and secondly because the Holiday/winter/Award season is usually only attributed to the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas, and it would be insane to cram a whole season of movie watching into one month. Thus we have the fall/winter season of 2011 here.

The fall/winter season, tends to be an odd blend of the Spring and Summer season, for the most part the Fall, like Spring, is filled with the movies that studios and distributors could not figure out when else to premiere; these are generally “Indy” movies. While winter, like summer, is a high grossing season, so all the studios churn out a second round of blockbusters. However the fall/winter season will always have the Award season casting a shadow over its premiers, so generally studios try a little harder; generally, not always, because ironically fall/winter is also the season of the cheesiest Halloween movies and corniest Christmas movies.

Sadly I missed a few movies this season, and I know that quite a few of them probably belong here (The Muppets, Moneyball, Tin Tin, are probably it). But as I stated in my last two season reviews, these is not the strictest top-five, but a list of good movies I’d recommend and probably will watch, or have watched, again.

Drive – An elegant, and practically silent, thriller directed by Nicholas Winding about The Driver (Ryan Gosling) and his lovely neighbor (Carrey Mulligan). This film was crafted with surgical precision, and it delivers not only a thrilling ride, but also the only realistic car chase in film since the 1960s. It is essentially a Clint Eastwood western on wheels.

Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil – Halloween is the time of really, really, really bad horror movies. If you happen to be a B-movie fan I guess this is a good thing. I enjoy a good B-movie, but would likely never place it in a list like this. Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil is both a good B-movie, and a good post-ironic parody of all the good and bad B-movies. Although it premiered, a few years ago in Comic-con, and this summer on video-on-demand, I am placing it here because it did enjoy a very, very, very, limited release this October. This is the perfect movie to enjoy with a fun crowd and a few drinks, a truly social movie.

The Skin I Live In – Another homage to the horror B-movies of classic drive-ins. But unlike Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil, this is not a parody but a very serious attempt to make a very serious mad-scientist movie. They say that Stanley Kubrick always wanted to direct a porn film. The Skin I Live In perhaps answers the question, “What would happen if a movie like this was made by a great director?” And to be frank, I love the answer. This is Almodovar at the top of his form. The Skin I Live in borrows the best from every one of his movies and churns it into a truly horrific masterpiece.

Hugo – This is nothing short of Martin Scorsese love letter to filmmaking. And what a lovely letter did Marty craft. Scorsese is, perhaps, the greatest director working today. And the only director, as far as I have seen, that seems to know how to direct 3D. The 3D in Hugo is not a gimmick; it is not subtle; it is not overwhelming; it is simply necessary to explore the thematic and visual elements this movie pursuits. Was it a surprise that Scorsese was able to use 3D? Not really, end of the day it is just a filmmaking tool, and a good director should know how to use it. (I didn’t see Tin Tin, but I suspect Spielberg is probably one of the few who know how).

The Artist – Most people today cannot fathom seeing a movie in black and white. A silent movie? “Hell, no!” is the usual answer. But in many ways that is what makes Michael Hazanavicius’ film so great, it knows its audience isn’t quite down to watch a silent movie. So it plays with them, to great effect. And delivers what is likely the most entertaining movie of the year; short, sweet, candid, and honest. Not a single summer blockbuster can boast any of these qualities. Not that I have anything against summer blockbusters. Had the artist come out in 1929, it would have been a summer blockbuster; it would have been a science fiction thriller about the advent of sound on film. Now, imagine that.

Review: THE DESCENDANTS

2011-12-26T23:13:00.002-08:00

This is my favorite of all of George Clooney's characters. In The Descendants, Clooney is not awesome. He is not a badass. He doesn't have a charming smile (mostly because I don't think he smiles once in this movie). In The Descendants, George Clooney plays a character. And for The Descendants, he deserves an Oscar.

I haven't seen The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or The Artist yet, so as of now I'll say The Descendants is the best movie of the year. It's an extremely simple and moving story. Why the best of the year? Because I cared about these characters. A lot of movies have forgotten how important that is.

Matt King (George Clooney)'s wife has been in a boating accident. She's in a coma, and she's not going to get out of it. The Descendants is the story of his struggle to raise his two daughters and maybe prove to himself that he's worth something. The movie takes place in Oahu and Kauai, which is insanely refreshing. The Descendants explores the idea that maybe Hawaii isn't paradise. I've read that Alexander Payne (The excellent Sideways) has made a movie that is incredibly well-recieved by Hawaiians. Many responses have indicated that Payne has painted an incredibly accurate picture of what life in Hawaii is like.

The Descendants is extremely well-written. Based upon the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, Payne worked with two unlikely writers - Nate Faxon and Jim Rash, two oddball comedy actors. However, their screenplay is moving and beautiful. There are great moments of dialogue and even greater moments of emotion. I'd imagine there's a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination for this one.

My favorite aspect of The Descendants is the music. Gorgeous, calming Hawaiian music plays for most of the movie. I noticed reading the credits that there is no original music written for this movie, similar to how Scorsese handled Shutter Island. I love this. It's an authentic tale from a beautiful and almost mystical land. Traditional tunes and melodies guide us through a well-told story.

Movies don't need to be about 100-foot transforming robots that can somehow hide in teenagers' backyards, or even little boys with Asperger's Syndrome running around New York City bothering people. Sometimes all you need is a story about a person. Because a story about transforming robots or messed up little kid is interesting and possibly heartbreaking, but a story about a guy having a tough time in life is relatable. The Descendants just wants us to care about the characters we're watching - and we do. Mahalo for that.

Review: THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN

2011-12-26T23:13:00.001-08:00

Steven Spielberg was born to direct animation. He's easily one of the most cinematically creative people of all time, and The Adventures of Tintin is mind-blowing showcase of what movies would look like if Spielberg was not limited to the restrictions of live-action. The Adventures of Tintin is, if nothing else, Steven Spielberg without limits.

The Adventures of Tintin is not perfect but it's so much fun that I don't care much. This movie might be one of the most well-directed movies I've ever seen. I certainly cast my vote for Spielberg when it comes Oscar time. Every single action sequence is jaw-dropping and more fun than you'd ever imagine. The big chase scene is so flawless that you actually feel like you're on a ride at Universal Studios. The Adventures of Tintin might have some of the best action ever. It's no surprise this movie is so much fun - it's a collaboration between three of our generation's greatest storytellers; Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Edgar Wright.

If I were to refer to the visuals in Tintin, as "breathtaking", it would be an understatement. The scenery looks real. The movement is flawless. The lip-syncing is perfect. The lighting and textures are outstanding. Tintin finds its way somewhere between the world of motion-capture and animation, and whatever that middle ground is is absolutely beautiful. I daresay Spielberg's newest achievement might be among the most visually pleasing movies I've ever seen.

Motion-capture cannot work without talented actors. The Adventures of Tintin brings an outstanding cast together. Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig, Mackenzie Crook, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost all shine. However, it's Daniel Craig that I'm most impressed with. He plays Sakharine in such detail that he completely changes his voice. I would never have guessed it was Craig if I hadn't known. This is what animation needs. Actors who are willing to play the character. Serkis, no newbie to motion-capture, almost tops his performance as Sméagol with his portrayal of Haddock. An extremely powerhouse performance from a well-cast bunch.

Despite perfection piled upon perfection piled upon perfection, I cannot bring myself to give The Adventures of Tintin a perfect 5. The story isn't strong enough. It's riddled with plotholes, and random moments where suspension of disbelief just isn't enough. There are moments - Haddock's speech about failure - that shine as great pieces of writing but there's too many issues to ignore. Most of all - why does Tintin care so much about the events that unfold? Yes he's a reporter, but what Tintin goes through is far above and beyond the call of duty. Tintin suffers from the worst thing that can happen to a character - he has no arc. He learns nothing, and he doesn't grow. This is a rookie mistake by some of our generation's most praised writers, Edgar Wright, Steven Moffat and Joe Cornish. It's a harsh detriment to an otherwise flawless film.

The Adventures of Tintin is absolutely worth seeing. It's the most creative and most exciting action I've seen in a long time. The Adventures of Tintin is blockbuster magic from the director that invented blockbusters back when it didn't matter if sharks looked fake. If he could do it with a shark that looked fake, it's no surprise what he's done with visuals that look real.

Review: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

2011-12-25T23:09:00.000-08:00

The first thing I will point out in my comments about the newest installment of the Mission: Impossible franchise is that the above image is not green-screened. Tom Cruise really did this.

SO THAT'S COOL I GUESS.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is easily the best installment of the franchise and I find it hard to believe any upcoming sequels will top it. Brad Bird - one of my all-time favorite filmmakers - has revived a franchise I would have considered dead with an excellent action movie that I would never have expected to enjoy as much as I did.

The thing about Brad Bird is that he makes good movies. Stepping out of the animation world into his first attempt at live-action, the three features he directed before this (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille) stand in my favorite animated movies of all time. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is an excellent action movie with well-developed characters and its emotion in the right place. Bird leads a talented and likable cast to a revival of the Mission: Impossible franchise.

The plot is extremely complicated, so I won't bother with it. Essentially, Ethan Hunt is back for more, and the stakes are raised as any good sequel knows to do. There are moments here when you can truly tell that Brad Bird comes from a background of animation (watch as Miraj Grbic's character falls out of one van and is pulled into another), and the movie is more fun because of it.

The thing with a Mission: Impossible movie is that I wasn't ready to judge the emotion or the strength of the characters at all. When I expect Mission: Impossible, I expect beautiful women, fun gadgets, and good action. Bird's newest installment has more emotion, more beautiful women, better gadgets and better action than any previous film. The rest of the aspects of the movie are handled adequately as well. Michael Giacchino - collaborating with Bird for the third time - lays down an outstanding score full of Lalo Schifrin's memorable theme. I don't think I've ever heard Giacchino screw up. This guy might be one of the all-time greats. Cruise does well, though a bit too serious at moments, and the rest of his cast shine as well. Paula Patton, while insanely gorgeous, manages to be taken seriously as a female agent and not just eye candy. Jeremy Renner does an excellent job as well, but it's Simon Pegg who shines the brightest here. Glad to see him out of the van and into the action.

I mentioned that the sequence in the image above was completely real. This is true. This is the type of thing that not only blows my mind in terms of the guts it must have taken Cruise to perform it but also in terms of courage to move beyond special effects. Christopher Nolan has stated that he likes to do as much as he can in camera as possible, and Bird seems to understand the importance of that. Movies are meant to draw you in. Special effects are an incredible way to enhance visuals, but when you rely on them, movies lose their magic. In completely unrelated news, Avatar 2 is slated for a 2014 release.

I didn't see the second Mission: Impossible, but I don't particularly care. The first one isn't great, and the third one is even worse. My only negative comments about this movie lie in the last 2 minutes. It's awkward and strange. However, Brad Bird has managed to take a franchise that was the definition of washed up and bring it back to life. I can't wait to see his next live-action project. With three of the best animated movies ever and one incredibly solid action movie under his belt, it seems that for Bird there's no filmmaking mission that he would even consider impossible.

Review: EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE

2011-12-24T23:50:00.000-08:00

I knew a guy with much more intense Asperger's Syndrome than the hero of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and he was nowhere near as mean-spirited and horrible as this kid. The guy I knew was one of the most genuine people I ever met. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close uses this character in a failing experiment for the two hours that it runs. This is a movie that wants us to feel much more than we are given.

It's not a bad film. But I imagine it will be undeservedly nominated for best picture, and I hope that it doesn't. It's very well made and pretty to look at, but the story is basic and I just don't care. I suspect critics other than myself will praise it for being "dark" and "moody" and maybe even heartbreaking, but to me it's just not enough. I wanted more, especially for its length. Director Stephen Daldry put together a film that is visually interesting, but in the end I just didn't care.

The strangest thing here is that it's penned by Eric Roth, who has virtually done no wrong. His screenplay is well constructed, but the story isn't anywhere near as captivating as it could be. I haven't read Jonathan Safran Foer's novel of the same name but I've read about it and people say it's nowhere near the strength of his other works. It's strange that a movie was even crafted for a book that people seemed to not care about, but it was. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is not a bad movie, but it's not one I'll desire to see again or hope for Oscar nods for.

Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) loses his father (Tom Hanks) in 9/11. He has Asperger's Syndrome and because of this he does not handle the news well. His mother, (Sandra Bullock) struggles with raising Oskar as he obsesses over his father's death. He one day finds a key that was seemingly meant for him amongst his father's things. The rest of the story unfolds as a pseudo-scavenger hunt for one final message from his father.

Tom Hanks is charming of course, but his screen time probably adds up to under 10 minutes. Sandra Bullock deserves a lot of credit for saying a lot with her character without actually speaking. I always seem to forget that Sandra Bullock is actually an incredible actress. To me, she provided the most interesting aspects. I wonder if she truly loves Oskar towards the beginning of the film. But it's Max von Sydow who steals the show, and he doesn't even speak the entire film. His performance is outstanding and if Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close deserves any sort of award, it's for Sydow's performance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I usually can't stand child actors. Thomas Horn is no exception. He has moments where I find him decent, but for the most part I didn't enjoy his performance at all. I don't want to sound mean - he's just not good. He's extremely young, but in this day and age I don't think that excuse should fly anymore. If he's not good, find someone who is. I praised Joel Courtney's performance in my review of this summer's Super 8, so I know it's possible to hire talented child actors. Horn, apparently the winner of some sort of teen Jeopardy, didn't cut it for me. It seems as though he's trying to prove to the world he's a young Brando instead of really playing the character. Just because you can summon tears doesn't mean you can act. I'll always consider Matt Damon's performance in The Good Shepherd as one of the best performances I've ever seen, and he speaks at a monotone the entire movie. Acting means playing characters, not showcasing your "skill".

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close may be worth seeing if you crave 9/11 stories. Daldry and cinematographer Chris Menges do a good job of making the movie visually interesting and the performances (with the exception of the main character) are good, but it's just a big whatever. What I say to this movie is whatever. It's too long and it's too in-your-face. This movie is incredibly close, but not nearly loud enough.

Review: YOUNG ADULT

2011-12-23T00:26:00.000-08:00

I like Jason Reitman's movies because he tell stories about people. He has never opted to tell great war stories or period pieces, but instead paints a picture of a quirky individual. This is refreshing, interesting, and relatable every single time. Young Adult is no exception. Reitman, once again collaborating with former stripper/Academy Award-winning screenwriter Diablo Cody, has pumped out another hit to stand alongside Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up in the Air.

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is a young adult writer - excuse me, author - as well as a young adult herself. She drinks too much, sleeps late, guzzles diet coke, and sleeps around. When she learns that her high-school sweetheart Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) is having a baby, she decides to visit their hometown of Mercury, Minnesota in order to break up his marriage and get back together with him.

As you can tell, Diablo Cody has given us the least likable character of the year.

This is okay though, because she's just too much fun to hate entirely. Especially when contrasted with overly-nice Buddy Slade, whose name makes him sounds like some sort of secret agent dog. While home she strikes up a friendship with Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt) who seems to fall in line with the loads of people who recognize her from high school but are completely non-existent in Mavis' mind. Because, truly, the only thing that exists in Mavis' mind is Mavis.

Without question, Theron deserves Oscar consideration for her performance. I hated her character a lot, and this only proves how well she played her. Theron is one of those actresses that seems to constantly play different characters. I've never seen her fail. She so effortlessly fits into Gary's shoes that I forgot I was looking at Charlize Theron. Watch as she fidgets and moves. This is what acting means. While it's Theron who destroys the acting in Young Adult, serious honorable mention must be given to Patton Oswalt, who really does an outstanding job. He's light and jolly on the outside but Oswalt gives us a great view of just what's going on in his character's head throughout. In the end, it's Oswalt's character we feel for the most. The man seems to endlessly impress me.

Cody's script is well paced and careful, as always. Anyone who wants to flee from her patented "Cody Dialogue" can relax because it's very moderate here. It's often too much for me, but I can't help but smile when I see her personality and style slip into the dialogue in Young Adult. What Hollywood needs is more people like Cody - people with true vision and approach.

If I were to criticize one thing, I'd say the romance that develops here feels forced and unnecessary. I'd much prefer it didn't happen. I wonder what the movie would have been like without it. Sometimes when movies dare to surpass a romance, like Quantom of Solace or the recent Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, it's that much better.

If you like Jason Reitman, see Young Adult. It's another interesting character study, not devoid of Reitman's shooting and editing style, that fits right along with his other hits. Cody and Reitman seem to have a good thing going in their collaborations. I hope they stay working together, a couple of young adults themselves.

Review: THE MUPPETS

2011-12-23T00:23:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, movies are just done right. Everything about this movie is done right. The casting is right. The music is right. The story is right, and the heart is right. The Muppets is just right.

Jason Segel deserves a lot of credit. Not only is he a charming lead, but his screenplay was treated with the care and the attention it deserved. Clearly a Muppet superfan, he knew just what the movie needed, and he made it happen. Every single Muppet is treated like a real character, and no more than 20 minutes into the movie we forget we're watching puppets and start to buy them all as real characters. This is quite an accomplishment, and the movie soars because of it.

I steadily admit that most of the reason The Muppets was so enjoyable to me is because Muppets have a special place in my heart. When I was little, my world brightened every single time I heard that it was time to start the music and light the lights. Even Jason Segel's nod to the Muppets in Forgetting Sarah Marshall gave me that warm special feeling that Kermit and Fozzie always had for me. My point here is that if you don't have that special place in your heart that Muppet fans like myself have, this movie will most likely not make you feel as good as I felt when I left the theater.

But if it does, you're in for a treat. The story is simple; Gary (Segel), his girlfriend Mary (a delightful Amy Adams) and his Muppet brother Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) travel to Los Angeles to see world famous Muppet Studios. However upon their arrival, they meet a downtrodden Kermit (veteran Steve Whitmire) who explains that the old gang has fallen apart. It's not long after that they learn that evil business tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is planning to tear down Muppet Studios for the oil underneath. Walter in his ever-enthusiastic love for the Muppets convinces Kermit that this theater is worth fighting for, and it's not long before the old gang is teaming up for one more show.

A lot of the creative energy in The Muppets comes from director James Bobin and songwriter Bret McKenzie, both of the New Zealand comedy sensation Flight of the Conchords. The Muppets, a full-blown musical, gains a lot of its momentum from the original songs it gives us, mostly written by McKenzie. "Life's a Happy Song", which is the first and last song of the movie almost certainly deserves Oscar consideration, as well as McKenzie's "Man or Muppet". The combination of these fresh new songs, including an old-school sing-a-long rap performed by an exciting new Chris Cooper, and the old Muppets hits we've grown to love make for a wonderful score that practically begs us to buy the soundtrack. With Oscar season coming up, I'd really like McKenzie to be recognized.

While there's no shortage of laughs here, there's also no shortage of heart. Segel and his old pal Nicholas Stoller give great attention to the development and arc of most of our main characters, including Muppets. Segel and Stoller have once again proven that no matter how ridiculous or strange a character may be, they are always the most important part of a movie. The Muppets brings just the right amount of emotion to life.

I'd be doing the movie an injustice if I didn't note that I haven't enjoyed a movie in a very long time as much as I enjoyed The Muppets. Very simply, if you love the Muppets, see The Muppets . If not, you may not understand just what makes this movie so special, and seeing other people relive their memories might make you green with envy.

And as a wise frog once said, it's not easy being green.

The Dark Knight Rises: An Ominous Disappointment

2011-12-21T00:01:00.000-08:00

Here: TDKR trailer

Okay. I’m saying it now. We got some problems.

Years ago, as a big fan of “Batman Begins,” I had to stem my excitement for “The Dark Knight.” I had to keep my expectations low, even though after the teaser and trailer, I knew that TDK was going to be something special. It was actually exhausting to not get carried away. And afterwards? I wanted no more sequels. I felt Nolan’s Batman had run its phenomenal course and that the two films balanced each other just fine. Adding a third film would be gratuitous or, at best, an imbalance. This was like Terminator, not Star Wars. Two can be better than three.

Now we have a trailer, and now I feel like I have some ammunition I’m not excited to unload.

As the trailer sets up, the opening of TDKR will parallel its predecessor with a wanton act of destruction. In this case, blowing up a football field (Bane’s back story has something against groundskeepers apparently). We’ll come back to this, but I just wanted to mark an additional point that TDKR may be a response to TDK, rather than a complete movie unto itself.

One of at least two, masked beautiful women is at Bruce Wayne’s place. She's there using her sultry voice to read from discarded Occupy Wall Street protest signs. Revolution for poor people! Who does Batman stand with? As seen in the two previous films, Batman is much quicker/able/willing to save rich people before the poor (cops and impersonators are killed, rich campaign donators are saved, etc). Additionally, most of the criminals he punches are poor. Regardless, explosions are a more fun form of protesting than achieving a consensus with jazz fingers.

Criminals breaking out of prison with machine guns? Kind of a weak and easy pool to pull from for Nolan. The obvious filmmaking advantages are:
1) Implies murderous intent, even though 2/3 of those criminals were likely incarcerated for simple drug possession.
2) Unites criminals, even though race, age, income and charges notoriously segregate prisons.
3) Plays into fears that prisons need more security, even though studies link increased freedom with good behavior.
4) Making the bad guys look similar de-humanizes them, which makes them easier to hate.

Really, a terrorist would have more luck (and indeed have had more luck) drawing supporters from disenfranchised, over-educated, young people and pre-armed, under-educated, small-town reactionaries. Unfortunately both of these groups (and not inmates) buy movie tickets and so it’s best not to call them the most likely to be corralled by a madman.

The field collapsing was a so-so visual but with Hines Ward turning around in the end zone, the shot played like a sick joke. Ha, ha, ha! He thought he had just scored a touchdown but now those players are dead. Wait, what? And he dropped the ball…because he’s shocked--in the world of comedy, that's a button. Frankly, I don’t know why Nolan just didn’t go all out and have Hines Ward dance in the end zone for twenty seconds before turning around. Also, Hines Ward hasn’t outrun a defender in eight years, which makes the shot doubly confounding in its details and intentions.

“When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die.” Stock villain line. No personality, no emotion or individuality. Though Batman probably will die.

Anne Hathaway has a hat! But where’s Morgan Freeman?

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is opening a door! And likely walking into a tee-off of becoming a new Gotham vigilante.

But where is Morgan Freeman? The guy won an Oscar, people! Come on!

Batman fighting Bane in the daylight: interesting? Not if it’s just a fight scene. What’s the tone of the movie? What’s the ideology or concept? Bane’s strong; good for him. Bane has a winter jacket stolen from a Scottish soccer fan; okay, whatever. None of this feels right to me.

And then the freakin’—obligatory—money shot: some flying contraption behind the Bat-tank . Lame. Not a fan at all. On a whole, I also didn’t care for the music throughout. Compared to TDK, Inception or even The Prestige, this trailer just did not strike me viscerally, it didn’t freeze my blood or in any other way rivet me like previous Nolan outings.

The Dark Knight Rises doesn’t need to be the best movie ever, but I think a lot of details are adding up to the truly unspeakable…a disappointment.

Ad Classics: SIMON MCQOID LONG LIVE PLAY, PLAYSTATION 3

2011-12-20T21:46:00.000-08:00

The most interesting part about the latest Playstation advertising campaign was that the original ad said absolutely nothing besides "join the gathering". However, the pay off in the longer version released a few months afterwards had a great insight to the stories found in videogames; it is YOU the player who is the hero of the story. And the characters here celebrate that exactly. We wish the film industry would celebrate its audience in the same manner.

The ad itself is incredibly effective piece of storytelling. So far we have been posing ads by great filmmakers. This ad was done by a new-comer, but like every story it has to come from somewhere. Enjoy: