2012 was a very interesting year for film and television. It was an election year, which tends to give every walk of life an added sensitivity and slant, inciting hyperbolic debate. And film is certainly not exempt from that.
I am going to attempt to go in the opposite direction. Though I know you all hate that and would rather a quick yes-or-no, thumbs up-or-thumbs down. Too bad for you.
Every year I talk a little bit about moving further away from the – column “A” is good, column “B” is bad style of critique, and get a little deeper into discussing what works and what doesn’t in each film. I’ve said it before, no film is perfect and even the worst films have redeeming qualities. 2012 is the perfect year to double down on that basic idea, as no other year in recent history cements that argument more so than the one we just witnessed. 2012 was a huge year in film. I won’t use “great”, though there were hints of greatness, because “huge” sums up well both the scale and scope of the films released, as well as the box office numbers. It is also a year filled with films that just miss greatness, and a year where there is no clear masterpiece to define the 365 days it happened to land within. There were a lot of disappointing films, especially when you factor in expectation and anticipation. There were also a small handful of films that were pleasant surprises.
Because of the sheer number, I will be omitting a lot of films that were no doubt important to some people, and for that I apologize. When I first started writing these reviews, they were meant to be quick musings on the films I saw over the past 12 months, but once I started ranking and comparing them, I felt like I needed to see as much as possible in order to have any context. What I’ve come to realize is that every year there are a lot of films you never hear of. Some real dogs, made by very capable hands, but which never really come together and get buried by the promotion of a sure bet. And I, as much as I try not to let other reviews taint my experience, am guilty of trimming the fat where I can and letting myself be swayed by early word-of-mouth. If, a year ago, you had told me that Fernando Meirelles would make a film starting Rachel Weisz and Anthony Hopkins, and that I would not see it in the theater, I would have laughed in your face. But if you heard anything at all about 360, it wasn’t a glowing recommendation. Unfortunately, a lot of films fell through the cracks this year. Films like Hyde Park on the Hudson, Seven Psychopaths, This is Forty, Wrong, The Oranges, and Dark Shadows (oh how the mighty Burton and Depp have fallen). I plan on seeing a few films over the next couple weeks like Rust and Bone and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel as well as a handful of others, so check back in, I may have updated the list. Also, some of these reviews will (try to) be shorter than in years past, but if you feel I missed a chance to say something important, please let me know. The discussion this evokes is the reason I write this every year.
There are also a lot of films every year that probably don’t deserved to be reviewed because they are exactly what you thought they would be. And there are also handfuls that may have surprised you a little or were better than expected, but still not worth trying to take the time to say something thoughtful about or compare them to art. Some people might think it’s wrong that I take the time to so thoroughly examine The Dark Knight Rises, but barely give a sentence to other comic book inspired films like -
The Amazing Spider-man: fixed the faults of Sam Rami’s series for the OCD Peter Parker fans out there, but otherwise a completely unnecessary reboot, even if I do love the casting and potential for a future storyline (Amazing Spider-man #’s 121 and 122 are two of my favorite comics of all time and bring back a warm memory of childhood #geekpoints)
Or The Avengers: Joss Whedon made a terrible film more-than-watchable while having to piece together several bad films worth of characters and making no attempt to rationalize a world where they all coexist. Pretty remarkable achievement, but thinking this film is anything more than a very guilty pleasure is a punch on your fanboy card (Oh, and for the sequel, could we please have Captain America suck less? Thanks).
Sorry, but the films I am taking the time to review are either film as art, or ones that are mistaken as such.
Just like in the last few years, once you peel back enough of these films, themes can be perceived that define the current trends. This year, I saw a conscious push for bigger, headier, expansive and ambitious films - most of which flew a little too close to the sun and suffered for their exciding reach.
As always, the films are in a rough and loose order from weakest or most disappointing to the best this year had to offer. And take this as a warning: I don’t do plot or story breakdowns, and shy away from specific twists and turns, but I do discuss films as a whole, including some points that could be taken as spoilers.
And, as always, thank you for reading and please drop me a line to let me know your thoughts.
On to the discussion:
Killing Them Softly:
A big swing and an even bigger miss, Killing Them Softly is one of, if not the most disappointing films of the year as I was very excited to see how Andrew Dominick followed up his 2007 near-masterpiece The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Unfortunately, this film is quickly crushed under the weight of Dominick’s own ambitions.
He set out to make the crime-drama version of Unforgiven - a very noble goal and one that, if achieved, would have been spectacular. Unforgiven was the anti-Western, and focused on the ugly reality while still showing us where and how the clichés and stereotypes were formed. Killing Them Softly attempts to expose the ugly, messy side of crime and how we lie to ourselves with glorified and stylized violence. Hence the oxymoronic title. It strives to be the anti-Scorsese or the anti-Tarantino, and goes so far as to use a very obvious, a little too on-the-nose soundtrack to contrast the ironic music from films like Goodfellas and Reservoir Dogs (Johnny Cash’s When the Man Comes Around when we first meet Pitt’s character, and Velvet Underground’s Heroine when two main characters are shooting up, just for a couple examples). And this is a theme that he both beats to death at times and also manages to let slip away at others, falling for the same traps as previous directors.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the main character, a horribly miss-cast Brad Pitt. I know that Dominick was attempting in this casting, on top of just working with the star of his previous film. But it didn’t work. He wanted Pitt’s character to lull the audience into thinking he was the cool protagonist and really a nice guy at heart. But the reveal isn’t enough of a jump to cement the premise. Yes, we get that he is a bad guy by the end, but they don’t make him nearly bad enough to un-do all the cool slow-motion shots of him smoking cigarettes in a leather jacket.
The decision to place this film during the 2008 election was an interesting one, that I also think just misses. I know the director is trying to use politics as another example of saying one thing and meaning/doing another and the lies we tell ourselves, but it seems forced and is way overdone throughout the film. The original novel takes place in the 70’s, and the film may have benefited from a more distant setting.
There was some good to come out of this film though. Some of the scenes had that Soprano’s level realism to them, which has been sorely missed for the last five years. And, speaking of The Soprano’s, James Gandolfini gives one of my favorite performances of the year. How nobody is talking about this amazes me, as he might be my top choice for Best Supporting actor. He is absolutely amazing.
Killing Them Softly attempts something very worth while, but muddies the point with its own slick, stylish direction. It is certainly not all bad, but in the end, it is a very cynical, down film that leaves you without a clear message. Hopefully this is just a minor setback for a director that has shown a lot of promise.
The Impossible:
When the movie ended, the desired effect was to have the audience shed a tear for how fragile we all are and be in awe of the human spirit. But when I stood up, all I felt was anger.
First off, let’s talk about what The Impossible is. It is a disaster movie, not unlike any sci-fi asteroid or volcano movie, where the purpose is to put the viewer into a horrible situation so that subconsciously you question how you might react in similar circumstances. Hollywood has a long, rich history of such films from The Towering Inferno to Armageddon. And The Impossible, when looked at in this context, is a wild ride filled with tense action. In fact, the scene of the Tsunami hitting the resort (only a few short minutes into the film!) is one of the most riveting, mind-blowing scenes of the year. It is an enormous, spectacular sequence, where the effects never take you out of the film.
But, this was a very real disaster, and that is where the ethics of this film become something more than just a fun trip to the movies. In some ways, the fact that this was based on a true story saves the film from harsher criticism, particularly concerning the all-Caucasian cast. Had this been pure Hollywood fantasy, it would have been a slap in the face to the fourteen countries hit hardest and the nearly quarter of a million people that were killed. As it stands, it is not much better.
The film starts off with some very quick scenes immersing you into the beautiful scenery of South-East Asia, but there is a looming darkness, not just because you know what is coming, but because of some cliché foreshadowing that only adds to the xenophobic theme throughout. I couldn’t help thinking of the travel agency from The Truman Show, and could picture a potential poster on their wall: Visit Thailand - Where a tidal-wave will kill your family!
The tsunami, seen from the point of view of a well-off British family and the many western faces they encounter as they step over the bodies of the faceless natives, is a little hard to stomach. The United States and most of western Europe are not so homogeneous that we can only empathize with white people with two-point-five little blonde haired children. Obviously, the makers of this film felt differently. But where the film crossed the line, in my opinion, was the dramatic message of hope and faith, which apparently only applied to this one family. Sorry 230,000 Asian dead, either you weren’t praying hard enough or it was to the wrong God.
Once all the action has died down, the film delves into one emotionally manipulative cliché after another. The family has broken up into three groups, searching for each other but fearing the worst, but eventually all converging at the same hospital, where they precede to just-miss each other like something out of a bad sitcom. The first time this trick is used, I knew they had to throw one in there and I let it slide. The second time they narrowly avoided each other, even though at this point the audience is sure that fate would magically bring them together even though they are all walking through a giant Where’s Waldo spread, I rolled my eyes. After the fourth or fifth time, I was so far past thinking of this as a real event, that when the emotional climax of the film finally takes place, I was hoping for another wave to come crashing in.
Again, the effects and scenery throughout this film were a huge accomplishment, and Naomi Watts does give a great performance, so this film is not a complete waste of time. But by the end, I was more than a little disturbed by what this film says about our culture, and why it even exists. Here in the U.S., we debate the use of 9/11 imagery in films and television as being insensitive and emotionally exploitative. This disaster is even fresher in our minds and tragically ended the lives of 100 times the amount of people.
Maybe, if you see the film, you might come away feeling differently. Like Zero Dark Thirty, I think the best thing about this film will be the debate and discussion it creates.
The Master:
The most frustrating film this year and, even in a year where Quentin Tarantino had a film come out, the film that strips the most credibility from all film criticism. If you walked out of the Master and felt you need to see it again because you don’t understand how some critics can think it’s a masterpiece and that you must have missed something – Don’t. There was nothing to miss. This film is as on-the-nose as they come. In fact, the premise and flimsy idea the film is built on is shoved down your throat from start to finish. But, Paul Thomas Andersons loyal followers are starting to reach a Michael Haneke level of pretentiousness.
This film had a very sharp, dated look and feel about it that seemed to transport you to the time and place of its setting which, along with the cast and crew involved, had me expecting genius. There Will Be Blood, Anderson’s best film to date, is one of the best period pieces of the last 20 years so to have high expectations for his follow up makes perfect sense. And, as I sat watching this film, I kept expecting greatness to all of a sudden happen.
It never did.
In fact, the simple premise of Joaquin Phoenix’s subversive character being a dog to Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Master seemed to be all there was to the film - a flimsy metaphor that they beat to death for a few hours, mistakenly seeing this as some Orwellian commentary on the people that assume the role of all religious and spiritual leaders in our society.
The acting was, at times, enough to hold my interest, as Anderson is one of the best directors working today when it comes to coaxing great performances out of his cast. Hoffman was good as always, but only got to shine in a couple short scenes when his character’s integrity is challenged and he doles out convincing reactionary anger. Amy Adams is also very good as the woman behind the curtain, but it is Phoenix’s film, start to finish. And, while his overly physical performance is charismatic for the first few minutes, it is grating and maddening after a few hours. The fact that none of these characters change or have any story arc, make them all painfully boring by the end of the film.
I will not be surprised at all if this film is praised across the board for its beautiful scenery and photography. It had a great look to it, and is deserving of any accolades it receives. But anything else it is praised for is an illusion. Somebody who wanted so badly for this film to be great, seeing something that sadly isn’t there.
And I didn’t even mention the damn birds chirping…
Cloud Atlas:
For me to jump into specific examples or scenes within Cloud Atlas, for those who haven’t seen it, would be useless. You would have as easy a time understanding as if it was written in Sanskrit. And, this review would be an hour’s read on the short end.
Before I start to complain about this film - what I consider to be a miss by the Wachowski’s - I want to say, I’m glad this film exists. There is a lot I love and appreciate about this film, especially concerning the concept, moral and originality. But it is the execution that weighs this film down and is the reason it fails.
I have no problem with and even enjoyed the structure, which bounces around from storyline to storyline and century to century at a breakneck pace like you’ve never seen before. The film is a three hour mosaic, with bits and pieces of individual stories that share a few faces and themes, which come together through the moral and statement they make. And that statement is a very worthwhile one to take three hours to tell.
The film proposes that conservative thinking and an adherence to a perceived way that things are (the status quo) - is a form of slavery. Shackles we place on ourselves and others, and that only progressive change (often through martyrdom) can set us free. This is shown through 6 stories that share a theme of actual, perceived and/or psychological bondage, as well as paring two people (either romantically or as a friendship) that the time and place do not approve of. Where the message gets a little muddy though, is the inclusion of reincarnation and destiny, which can certainly be perceived as just another form of shackle. If you pay close attention though, you will see and hear that our crimes and kindnesses decide how we are reincarnated, but most of the characters just keep acting out the same choices they made in their previous life.
This is a huge, expansive film. The ambition behind it is something to be admired. But, whether it be the budget, time constraints, lack of direction or just miscommunication, the execution of this big collage was clearly too much to take on. The acting borders on ridiculous at times, which is understandable because each actor had to juggle multiple characters all the while covered with terrible prosthetics and make-up. I can’t stress enough; even people that love and defend this film will have to admit, the make-up, design, costumes and effects were so laughably bad it makes it hard to take this film too seriously. Half the cast looked like burn victims.
Rubbery masks aside, the other thing that made it hard to root for or feel any attachment to these characters were both the multiple storylines and the reincarnation theme. Each threatening scene or death had absolutely no suspense or urgency behind it, especially when you know how they are going to come back to life.
So, as clever and unique as this film is, and as well as it is edited together, there is absolutely no way to disregard the bizarre and phony look it had throughout. And, speaking of that editing, as well as it was seamed together the film is exhausting after three hours, particularly because it is a solid two before any semblance of a plot or theme is discovered. As much as one might benefit from multiple viewings, considering the scale and all of the moving parts, because of the glaring blemishes I don’t think I will ever subject myself to this film again.
Amour:
I respect the patient style of filmmaking that Michael Haneke incorporates into his films, ignoring the waning attention spans of younger demographics. But, using this style to film weak, non-dramatic and even boring subject matter is not enough to keep my interest. And, while Amour might be one of the better films under his belt, I can’t say it is anything special and furthers my perception of Haneke as someone propped up by pretentious hacks. Maybe it’s my own attention span that has been sharpened too aggressively over the years, but I see his films as bad fiction with little to say.
Amour is filled with dialogue heavy scenes, shot from a static camera placed as though you were an observer of the conversation or a fly on the wall. The camera remains still as people come and go from the room, complete with awkward silences and realistic use of language. This has become the standard for a Michael Haneke film, so it is not avant garde or anything specific to the subject or story. It is less a style than an egotistical reference to himself as the director, but if the language and dialogue had any poetry or punch - if this was a subject that could hold its own as a play - it would have an interesting effect. Here, the subject is impersonal and weak, so the combination of the two make the film drag on forever. And that patient style of filmmaking, letting each scene end with a contemplative pause, just throws water on the already extinguished flames.
I’m being somewhat hard on the story, about an eighty year old couple, enjoying their golden years, whose life is thrown into turmoil by the sudden call of old-age. It defines love as duty and commitment. But dedication, a worthwhile sentiment, is drowned out at times by a need to focus only on the uncomfortable and unavoidable looming death. It would have made a dark but sweet, clever short-film if it had been a half-hour or forty minutes. But stretching it to over two hours really required some subplot or additional drama that just wasn’t there.
What worked in the film was both lead performances, with Jean-Louis Trintignat using subtlety to express great drama and Emmanuelle Riva physically transforming to really sell the premise. Also, showing this couples life, briefly outside their Parisian apartment at the beginning then never showing outside again was really effective and required some very inventive angles so that the film never became redundant. The effect was a maze-like quality that fit the growing fear and dementia of its occupants. The photography was beautiful as well, with wonderful focus on the light within these walls. And the ending, while it would have been just as effective an hour beforehand, was very cute and clever and has a lot to do with why this film has been praised so much outside of Haneke’s religious following.
I think what a lot of people are seeing in this film is an oversimplification that they are confusing for art. It stands in contrast to the over edited, loud music-video style that a lot of filmmakers have adopted over the last two decades, but that in itself is not enough to make this a successful film. And some of those long pauses allow the audience to contemplate and intellectualize and create some deeper meaning to what they are watching on screen.
I think Haneke is fascinated by banal, everyday imagery. But film is not just photography, nor is it a play or a prose or narrative novel. Good films have aspects of all those things within. Amour was a bit of a one-trick-pony that barely held my interest. And Michael Haneke continues to frustrate me, as I see his films as nothing more than film-school pretentious blank canvases for allowing self-important critics to project their thoughts.
Prometheus:
Let me give you some context before I start talking about Prometheus. Ridley Scott is one of five directors to have two films that fall amongst my top 25 films of all time (Kubrick, Malick, Scorsese and Coppala for those keeping score at home). And they are both science fiction films, a genre he has not returned to in nearly thirty years. So, to say that my expectations were high is like saying the ocean is big and wet.
So right now, you are expecting me to dump on this film like everyone else has for the last 8 months and explain how disappointed I was. Well, I was disappointed, but I also enjoyed the film. Was it another Bladerunner or on par with Alien? Nowhere even close enough to sniff that level of awesome. There is a lot that went very wrong with Prometheus, and I’m not going to pretend there wasn’t, but I still enjoyed the ride. Michael Fassbender doing his best Roy Batty impersonation was fantastic, and I am a huge Noomi Rapace fan. And, if you disregard the overuse of freaky CGI alien life forms, Prometheus is a gorgeous film to look at.
But, those freaky giant CGI monsters did make it hard to take too seriously. In fact, the biggest disservice they did was to detract from a suspenseful scene that could have rivaled the famous dinner scene from Alien. The limited use of H.R. Giger’s alien, as well as Spielberg’s famous antagonist in Jaws, kept us interested and had a Hitchcockian element of suspense, which this film just ignored in favor of computer generated squirming tentacles and giant pale bald men.
I’ve done a little research and hit some message boards where people are discussing the deeper meaning and literary references within Prometheus, and I usually love that type of thing. But, I only think that discussion is worth having as an added bonus to a successful film, and I don not consider this film to fall into that category. But if you do, go ahead and look into it, as some of the theories and explanations certainly will add to the experience.
Here’s to hoping Ridley has one more Sci-Fi masterpiece left in him, and that we don’t have to wait another 30 years to find out.
Safety Not Guaranteed:
One night, sometime down the road, I’m going to wake up and realize whether or not I like this film. Because, as of right now, I can’t say one way or another. I do know that I wanted to like it, but after seeing it, I want to hate it but can’t. Let me see if I can explain:
On one hand, Safety Not Guaranteed is an interesting allegory about relationships. It is about “fixing” the regrets and mistakes of the past in order to find someone to “travel through time with”. Not the most high minded or hidden meaning, but this aspect they handle extremely well throughout the film and is obviously a very personal point the writer was attempting to make. Sure, this all breaks down in order for the film to climax in a fun way that spoon-feeds the audience what they most want to see, but for the first ¾ of the film, this really works.
On the other hand, this is a film that thinks it is much more clever than it really is, and caves in on itself with an obvious and easy finale. The hipster irony that defines this film is so tangible that the film actually has a few self-aware moments that address this attitude. Thankfully, because as much as I like Aubrey Plaza, she seems to be stuck on permanent eye-roll.
Plaza and Jake Johnson are both great in this film, and make me want to end up on the “like” side of the board, but there is so much that bothered me and that is impossible to ignore. The two romantic parings in the film are dark and sad, and you don’t quite know who to root for, as both the main characters are learning to like people they were laughing at and making fun of (the larger story/romance attempts a The Taming of the Shrew type plot that never quite works). And, as the film moves on and the time-travel subplot looms on the horizon, I was expecting twists and turns that never arrived. Were we going to realize that things changed throughout the film because they had been altered in the past? Were we going to have our faith built up, only to realize that this strange man who we had been laughing at for the last hour plus really was just a sad, lonely, socially inept person crying out for help? That would have been a gutsy, moral ending. Or, are they just going to give you a cheesy special effect and the coupling the audience thinks they want? All I can say is “Poochie died on the way back to his home planet”.
All that, and part of me still enjoyed this film. The quirky story and dialogue, the inappropriate humor, and Aubrey Plaza’s cute indifferences really did it for me.
When the day finally comes and I can wrap my head around why I can’t seem to hate this film, I will let you know.
The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey:
I am a big fan of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are certainly not perfect, but they are a faithful, sincere adaptation of a fantastic story, and are beautiful to look at. And, say what you will about the first part of The Hobbit, it is a return to this universe, and for that alone it is worth the price of admission. But, it’s that “first part” aspect that brings this film down and keeps it from being on par with Jackson’s first foray into Middle Earth.
The three books that made up the Lord of the Rings trilogy are very long, and filled with important events and histories that define the overall story. And for that reason I never minded the 3 plus hours runtime of each film. In fact, I preferred the extended cuts that were released on DVD. But The Hobbit is J.R.R. Tolkein’s shortest book, so the decision to drag it out to a similar length seems motivated by greed and narcissism (and, based on Jackson’s films outside of Tolkein’s universe, that narcissism is completely unwarranted). The attempt to make 1/3rd of The Hobbit as epic in scope as each book of The Lord of the Rings is an insult to both stories. And, the film suffers from being overly long and poorly paced because of this choice. I thought the previous trilogy suffered from not being coherent films by themselves, even being adapted from separate books, so here it is a disaster. The Hobbit should have been one very long film, or two films separated only by a few months, similar to the last installment of the Harry Potter franchise (A ploy I hated in concept, but feel worked very well in the end). Unfortunately, I doubt the next two installments will sway me to feel any different.
All that said, I was thrilled to see Ian McKellen don the grey robe and hat once again, Andy Serkis crawling around and somehow being even creepier as Gollum and Martin Freeman made a fantastic Bilbo. The film is filled with great foreshadowing and callbacks to the previous trilogy, which, as a fan, made the experience even more enjoyable. I will, without question, be excited for and enjoy the next two films in this series, even knowing the faults they will surely have. If you are a fan as well, I’m sure you will too. But I do not see these films receiving the same praise and acknowledgement as the previous three.
Flight:
More of an After-School Special than a film on substance abuse or addiction, Flight is a likable movie that will probably do a lot of good for people in need of the same wake-up call portrayed in this film. Of course, their lives will be a little less on the nose than a pilots downward spiral in both his social and professional life.
There is a lot to enjoy within Flight, Robert Zemeckis’s first live action film since 2000’s Cast Away (he must own stock in a train company, because he does not want you getting on an airplane!). The suspense and action, mostly in the beginning of the film, is very tense and well done, and while you don’t expect the lead actor to die that early, it still manages to evoke some deep fear. The message throughout is an extremely worthwhile one, and any levity or clever dialogue never disrupts that constant conscience, letting you know this is to be taken seriously. There is also a very pleasant surprise for any My Name Is Earl fans out there, right at the begining. But the best thing in Flight is easily Denzel Washington. This is by far his best performance since Training Day, and you believe in ever crazy, self-destructive decision he makes.
What didn’t work was the cookie-cutter predictability and obvious preaching that defines the film. From the unsubtle, on-the-nose soundtrack (even though I love those songs and it was a neat trick to have all the music actually playing on a device, whether it be an Ipod or a car radio), to the over use of Christian symbolism. If Zemeckis had attempted a more personal, believable story instead of handing out a cliché filled pamphlet on contrition, this could have been something great. And while I thought the focus on the crushing guilt that comes with substance abuse was fantastic, the circumstances and story, filled with one obvious metaphor after another, was hard to take as anything but an insult to our intelligence.
Flight is a film that should be shown to people caught after driving drunk or arrested for any violation regarding an illegal substance. In that sense, it will do some good and truly have worth. But, as a film, it is just too damn obvious and force-fed to be seen as anything but a public service announcement.
Django Unchained:
I should like Quentin Tarantino films. They seem to be made specifically for people like me - with their constant homage and references to film history. Here is a film buff, making films for other film buffs to geek out on. But I don’t, and the reason is that I take seriously the attributes that make a film great, and to just have a collage of cool film throwbacks does not make a great film. Oh, and I’ve said it a thousand times, stylized violence and gore is the quickest way to pull me out of a film and the world it attempts to create. This isn’t a particular problem with Django Unchained, because it never really attempts to immerse you in the first place. Instead, Tarantino just throws everything but the Kitchen Sink at you and the result is a film that is at times homage (sometimes verging on parody) and at times a violent mess in tribute to his own ego. Basically He took Roots, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and every Leone film ever, then through them all in a blender.
Ok, rant over. Now that I got that off my chest, let me try to talk about what worked well in this film. Just to give you a sense of where I’m at on this particular picture, my own feelings towards the director and the praises sung in his name aside, Django Unchained is probably my favorite of Tarantino’s films since Kill Bill part 1 (though, with the quality he has put out since then, this isn’t saying much). Maybe since Pulp Fiction. I know I say I hate this term to describe a film, but it was very entertaining. It certainly would have benefited from some subtlety, especially in the acting department (with one great exception), but it managed to make some dark subject matter enjoyable. Some of the obvious homage scenes mentioned above really worked too, particularly the Ennio Morricone-inhanced opening and a musical montage in the middle of the film that is ripped directly from Butch and Sundance. Some though, did not work so well. I’m not sure if winter in the, what looked like the Canadian Rockies, was supposed to be a reference to Spain and Italy doubling as Montana and the American west as it did in Leone’s Spaghetti Westerns, but it was an odd addition that, while the scenery was great, had me scratching my head.
The acting was over the top as usual, but some very talented actors were able to make it work. Leonardo DiCaprio was enjoyable in every scene he was in and almost manages to steal the film from the two leads. But, my favorite part of this film, by far, is Kerry Washington. Some actors are so charismatic that even in small roles they can make you sit up straight and pay attention a little closer whenever they are on screen. She was fantastic. I wish they used her more.
If I’m completely honest, I will say there was a point in this film, around the 2 hour mark, where I was completely engaged and really loving what I was seeing. There was a genuinely dramatic and tense scene that should have ended the film, but then unfortunately devolves into a violent, ugly and adolescent scene of Jamie Fox shooting people in slow motion while Rap music plays (complete with dialogue strait from the film within the music!) and bags of fake blood burst with disgusting, wet sound effects, which ruined anything good that came before. The film limps on for another 45 minutes of unnecessary ego stroking, and never gets back to what nearly made it (almost) great.
Part of me thinks my problem is not with Tarantino, or his films, but with the fans and critics reaction to them. He sets out to make bad movies, often in the image of bad but enjoyable guilty pleasures he watched growing up. So, in that sense, more power to him. But his films keep getting these great reviews and are mistaken for art, which is an indictment of film criticism and which I’m sure he probably finds hilarious. I will say, Tarantino sets out to make bad, popcorn movies, and at that he is a resounding success.
Not Fade Away:
I purposefully went into Not Fade Away knowing as little as possible, and had no expectations besides David Chase’s involvement. And while I enjoyed the film and the experience, this film is nowhere near the genius Chase displayed with The Soprano’s.
We get hints and glimpses at that dark and satirical family dynamic that Chase cut his teeth on, and they are some of the best scenes in the film, but ultimately this is a very personal yet obvious coming of age story that is uneven at best. Filled to the brim with cliché after cliché, those experiences that everyone has been through and knows are coming still manage to seem overly personal and specific to Chase’s upbringing, and lacking in any real drama.
The performances in the film are very hit-and-miss. I’ll focus here on the good: James Gandolfini and John Magaro play off of each other well, and really sell the concept of the old ways being at constant war with the new and young. Jack Huston continues to be a chameleon of an actor and Bella Heathcote is far more than just a(n unbelievably) pretty face.
Not Fade Away tries to capture the magic of Rock and Roll, blues and music in general when you discover it as a teenager. But instead of playing this sincere, the narrative walks the line between satire and romanticism, and while we understand why each character wears their tastes in bands to define them, we also can sit back in judgment, knowing the lessons that are sure to be around the corner.
Where the film ends up is L.A. in the sixties, an island of misfit toys filled with people who thought they were too big and original for their hometowns, who now realize they are just star-fuckers and cheap carbon-copies of the musicians they try and emulate. Where this gets really on-the-nose is a scene that ends the film with a very Henry Hill/Goodfellas moment of breaking the fourth wall. Between No Direction Home and Shine a Light, not to mention the abundance of gangster films, I wonder if Chase was acknowledging his man-crush on Scorsese, or if this was just a serendipitous moment of pure, Meta irony.
I liked Not Fade Away. The music was fantastic, it had a smart sense of humor and it captured the myth of sixties counter-culture, if not the reality. But I wish David Chase had went in one direction and owned it, whether it be sincerely honoring the effect that Rock and Roll has on us at that age, or just make it a pure parody, satirizing the dumb, self-important mistakes we all seem unable to avoid. Instead, he tries to juggle one-too-many fireworks, and gets burned in the process of showing off.
Zero Dark Thirty:
Let me say right off the bat that I hate that this film exists. There is zero need for this film, and all it accomplishes is to muddy the truth of what really transpired and manages to say absolutely nothing. It is not art, in any sense of the word. I guess it is entertainment, which just feels wrong, considering the subject and how close we are to it. It takes no moral stance, and seems more like a cowardly attempt to rush out the defining film about a very popular moment in very recent history. And, this opinion is not one I went in with, so don’t say I didn’t give Katherine Bigelow a fighting chance. I went in with an open mind, and was left a little disappointed (an unfortunate reoccurring theme this year). Here is my attempt to look past that and critique the X’s and O’s…
The Good – Jessica Chastain is one of the most consistently great actresses working today. Her range is seemingly limitless. In fact, just about all the acting was superb, even if some of the characters were very weak. On the technical side, the film is shot very well, utilizing a lot of wide helicopter shots and also intimate scenes of interrogation, which gave the film a very fitting, militaristic feel. The decision to have the raid scene, which is a good half-hour long, play out with no score/music worked beautifully, making every creak and crack extremely dramatic, and had we not known the outcome going in, this scene would have been extremely suspenseful. Still, it was masterfully executed. The pacing of the film was good and helped conceal some of the weaker points of the script and story, particularly adding some suspense to scenes where we already know what is about to happen.
The Bad – We already know what is going to happen, so to attempt to make a suspenseful thriller with this information is a fool’s errand. All the scenes of melodramatic arguing aren’t going to change that. In fact, the attempts at keeping this film in that genre often backfire and pull the viewer right out of the narrative (one hallway scene where two actors are screaming at each other for no reason got some inappropriate laughs from the crowd). The film uses almost 3 hours to say absolutely nothing except that CIA and Navy Seals are badass and handle their sunglasses like David Caruso on CSI. The first two hours is an attempt to justify torture and show that it has results, even though reality says different, and the last 45 minutes is a cool Navy Seal raid that everyone already knows the ending to (a reoccurring detractor throughout this film, sorry if I sound like a broken record). Also, there is a slight push in this film to show the main character’s faith that the events that happen to her throughout the manhunt for Bin Laden have been happening for a spiritual reason, and that dictates the choices she makes. This helps explain her resiliency and sets her at odds with some of her superiors. If that is true, I'm terrified, because this is the CIA we're talking about, and I want to believe that they deal in facts and evidence. But it probably gets the audience in Kansas right in the heartstrings and it reinforces the American/Western ideal of - Our God can beat up their God.
Let me beat you to the punch on the rebuttal - You’re going to say this film doesn’t make a statement or take a stance because it posses a question (in the form of the last line in the film, which was great). Normally, I love that type of structure of storytelling. Here, I thought it was a copout - a device put into the last few frames to make the previous few hours resonate without really pertaining to them in any way. I think that line was brilliant as it pertained to Maya and her passion for seeing this journey through to the end, but not as an ethical question posed for the audience. You may disagree.
If you were one of the many people who loved The Hurt Locker, then this film shouldn’t disappoint because it is clearly the same writer and director, warts and all. If nothing else, I will enjoy the heated debate this film will incite. Zero Dark Thirty is going to be an extremely polarizing film. Some people are going to be pulled in and love it, and some people are going to see it as pointless, flag-waving propaganda. In the end, my feeling walking out was that this film took nearly 3 (very long) hours to say almost nothing.
On The Road:
I think this film caught a lot of people off guard. It is another road picture by the people that brought you The Motorcycle Diaries, a film that certainly has a core group of followers and fans, so it was a little surprising how much press this film received (besides the tabloid buzz about the Twilight girl’s nudity), and how few people even knew this film was coming. The point is obviously to sell tickets and build a big audience, but this lack of press worked well in one aspect for On the Road – the Beat fan boys never had a chance to organize their outrage. That result meant that people like me were able to see this film unspoiled and without the inevitable backlash that comes with adapting material that is iconic and beloved.
Personally, I never loved Jack Kerouac’s oft-banned, semi-autobiographical journey of self discovery as much as his many college-aged disciples seemed to have over the last 6 decades. There were aspects I enjoyed, like his unflinching honesty, but the story was always lacking compared to the genius of the prose. But, I always agreed with his many fans, that this was a book that would never benefit from being adapted to screen. At best, it would be boiled down to simple story, unable to capture what made it so unique.
We were not all wrong, and we were not all right.
The film stands alone as a coherent, almost documentary like look at coming of age and the realization that what we sometimes admire in adolescence is a hindrance in the real world. Where I always saw Neil Cassidy’s alter-ego as an idolization of youth at the age of pushing boundaries and finding the edges in life - here Moriarty is played as a bi-polar slave to rash emotion. Someone at the start you want to emulate, but by the end of the film, that you pity and thank heaven that you are nothing like. And Sal, Kerouac’s proxy, watches and comes to that realization, but he is seemingly just as, if not more interested in Moriarty as a character after this conclusion - much like someone filming a lion take down an antelope, never attempting to intercede or disrupt the integrity of nature.
Some of the director’s risks and visuals don’t pay off. The camaraderie of men in that time and at that age is played out as several scenes of semi-clothed embraces that boarder on the homoerotic, which I don’t believe was the director’s intent, even sub-textually. And the collage style editing, chopping scenes abruptly and starting others with little or no exposition was not able to emulate the prose, if that was even the intent.
The acting is very good in this film, particularly Garrett Hedlund, who plays Dean. Kristen Stewart is very good as Marylou, and her character is given a very prominent role in the film, making Marylou a bit of a muse for Sal.
The look and feel of On the Road was everything I was hoping for, transporting you to the place, time and mentality of the novel. There are a lot of good things to say about this film, but ultimately it falls under the crushing weight of the source material. It is a film that suffers from a lack of plot or story, and is ultimately just a decent visual to be pared with, and for fans of, the novel, though they are the ones that will most likely hate and resent it the most.
Lincoln:
Easily the biggest surprise of the year, for me anyway, has been the consistent critical praise of Spielberg’s latest (mess of a) film. I remember a lot of critics slamming Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut, just after the director’s death, so no one should ever be considered above or out of the reach of film criticism. Especially Spielberg, who, in my opinion, has delivered more infield pop-outs than he has home-runs in the last couple decades. The surprise comes, not because it is a weak film or is bad storytelling (it suffers from both of those faults), but because it is so obvious where and how things went wrong.
First off, this film has no business promoting itself as a biopic of Abraham Lincoln. He is featured relatively prominently in the first act (you might actually consider him a main character!), is invisible in the second act, both physically and story wise, and then is forced back into the film for a dragged out third act that has next to nothing to do with the rest of the film. Had this film been titled The Thirteenth Amendment and ended 15 minutes before it did, it would have been a much more coherent film. The cause of this problem is very obviously the screenplay. Apparently, the script handed in was something like 400 pages long, which they had to trim down closer to 120. What was left after the chainsaw was taken to it resembled nothing of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s A Team of Rivals, which was supposedly the source material. Again, a film this year attempted to tell a story that was too big and had expansive story and character arcs that could barely be contained within a handful of hours. Too bad, because I think Lincoln could have made a great HBO miniseries. I hate to fault a film based on its own ambitions, but this one suffers so much because of them that I feel I need to point them out.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some good and even great points. Daniel Day Lewis is always fantastic, and his soft-spoken, simple Lincoln is very good and has the charismatic aspect we have come to expect from every character he portrays (though I was constantly pulled out of the reality of the film by Spielberg’s attempts to make him look tall. He looked like he was standing on an egg crate). The subtle, manipulative political genius comes out in this performance, and really defines the film. The theatricality of 19th century congress was fantastic and, like Lincolns voice and demeanor, feels like it is probably close to the truth. Sally Field is great and creates a bit of an antagonist role, because the real opposition would have been too difficult to flesh out in the time allowed. But the scene stealer here, and by far the best part of Lincoln, is Tommy Lee Jones. Part of me wants to keep piling on this film, if for no other reason than to contrast the undeserved praise, but Tommy Lee Jones is something special. His journey and character arch is as important as the titular character’s, and had they not attempted to bring things back around to a Lincoln biopic, he could almost be considered a lead role. His was one of my favorite performances of the year.
Also great was the score by John Williams, which should surprise no one. Every year I see a pattern where my favorite films are the ones which have the strongest score and music (easily the most underappreciated aspect of film). It is mostly true this year as well, with Lincoln being the one large exception. The music is fittingly iconic for such a great historical figure, but the film itself never reaches the levels of greatness to which the score promises.
Spielberg continues to be very hit-and-miss, and has not made a truly great film now in almost 20 years. I won’t say he is on a downward turn, as I enjoyed last year’s War Horse, but as time goes by I am less and less confident that his films will be worth the price of admission. Even his trusted cinematographer Janusz Kaminski who is one of the best and most consistent DP’s in the business, seems to have taken a step backwards with this film, as the stylish light and color that looked so great in the trailer got old real fast during dialogue heavy scenes and congressional debates.
I’m not sure if Lincoln is skating by on Spielberg’s reputation or if maybe there is a quality aspect to this film that I simply missed in my first viewing. But for now I am assuming the former. While it is a very good film, ignoriing expectation, it is far from the great historical film it aspires to be.
Skyfall:
Sam Mendes’s take on 007 is the best in years. Maybe since Connery. Daniel Craig continues to be a fresh take on Bond, his supporting cast is fantastic and there is no sign of winking at the camera or the abundance of camp that plagued this franchise for decades. Oh, and Roger Deakins continues to amaze behind the camera. So if you are wondering why this Bond film, part of a series that hasn’t been taken seriously for years, is receiving so much praise, look no further than the people involved in making it.
Skyfall is good, and nothing I can say will take away from that. It is a hell of an achievement and a big step in the right direction. But it is far from great, and hardly deserves a shot at Best Picture no matter what they say in the mother country. At times it still tries to make Bond into something he has never been and capitalize on the success of the Jason Bourne films, but at least this one is slightly less derivative than the last two. In fact, this film managed to inject some of the charm that has been missing from the Daniel Craig era. Back was the tux and the martini. And they were a welcome sight for anyone with a nostalgic soft spot for Thunderball, Goldfinger, Dr. No and the likes.
The other stamp this MGM franchise has had on it is one of pure fantasy for suburban, middle-class, white fathers. And here, they pander to their base. I joked after leaving the theater that I hope the cable description is something like: Middle-aged, suburban power fantasy about a man fighting back against a vaguely bi-sexual computer nerd using grizzled old-fanshionedness and misogyny.
Xenophobia and Technophobia aside, there were some other weak spots throughout this film, but overall it was very enjoyable, and I hope it is a sign of what to expect from this franchise in the future. They certainly left the door open to continue on this way. And the rumors of Christopher Nolan helming a future installment certainly will keep buzz at its current high.
Looper:
Looper is a film I enjoyed, thought long and hard about afterward (the mark of any great film), but also managed to feel a little let down by. And let me say right off the bat, anyone and everyone comparing this film to Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys needs to stop right there.
The logistics of time travel make for great fiction. Anywhere where the writers and creators can make up their own laws of science and physics can allow the human imagination to really show off. I could write this review as a stream of consciousness, rambling about divergent streams versus a continuous loop, discussing string theory and hypothetical tachyon particles, but instead I will try and keep it focused on what makes a good movie. And Looper was just that, a good movie.
Joseph Gordon Levitt was fun to watch, attempting to play a young Bruce Willis with the help of a slightly overzealous make-up department, and Emily Blunt was great in her role as a scared, protective mother. The rest of the cast, aside from Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis, is not given much to work with or flesh out but still manage to keep this film from being camp, a line it treads very carefully.
Where the film disappoints, for me anyway, is the inclusion of the weak telekinesis subplot, whose only purpose is to make the antagonist threatening and explain the hypothetical future without having to delve into politics or real character development. Basically, the boy had Akira-superpowers because they were running short on time. As it is, the film is broken up into two very different plots, if they were able to make an ethical argument (like going back in time to kill Hitler) it would have brought the film back together nicely considering the moral shortcomings of the main characters. Another film this year that suffers from being overly ambitious when trying to fit massive peg into a two-hour hole.
Looper, if coming out of left field, would have been a pleasant surprise for me. But it didn’t, so the other reason I felt it didn’t meet my expectations was Rian Johnson. Looper is, for me anyway, his least effective film so far. Not a detractor by any means, considering his other films and how great they are. Still well worth seeing, and its only fault lies in what could have been. Maybe in some other time-line this was the perfect film some people are claiming it to be.
Cabin in the Woods:
For all the people shaking there heads in disbelief, let me explain. This film was Mutant Enemy throwing a bone to their many fans foaming at the mouth for more of that magic formula of self-aware-horror/comedy that they have perfected so well. That dark, gallows humor that is almost too clever to enjoy as a guilty pleasure, filled with tangible allegories that sometime break right through the surface. And, as one of those drooling, zombified fans, I say: Three cheers for Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard! This was such a return to what made Whedon famous that I would not be at all surprised to find out this story was a rejected episode, or even potential season long story arch, for his (genius) Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
But, fanboy wish-fulfillment aside, Cabin in the Woods is also a very fun movie that is filled with twists and turns and several moments of inappropriate humor. It manages to play into the archetype of every slasher flick, while developing an explanation of why those clichés exist. As the wonderful and underappreciated Amy Acker points out in the film, (paraphrasing) it’s not what nightmares are made of, it’s what makes nightmares. But it also manages to turn the tables on both the filmmakers and the audience, through obvious proxies, and shines a light on why films like this exist in the first place. I love the idea that this film came from guilt by the writers, who have profited and built careers on making such films and television. With all the discussion about violence in movies, videogames and television, and the role it plays in real life tragedies, this film should resonate deeply for everyone that understands it.
But, the flip side is you are also doling out a slap in the face to every horror fan, while simultaneously excepting their cash and promoting your film as an archetypal blood, boobs and horror movie. A scenario only a cynical snob like myself would enjoy so much.
Make no mistake, while I loved this film and had a blast watching it, it will be polarizing, and you may not feel the same. So, as much as I’m praising it, do not take this as a definite recommendation. The tone of the film balanced with suspense and horror is off-putting to some, and can diminish both the scary and the funny. If you want to judge it by those standards, yeah sure, there are some things to nitpick. But try to just appreciate the breaking of the fourth wall, and take in some of the late-night, purple haze induced logic the film stands on.
Or, you know, just enjoy the blood, boobs and horror.
Hitchcock:
If, like me, your first impression of this film was Anthony Hopkins in a fat suit with bad make-up, you probably never took the time to see Hitchcock. But I spent so much time studying Alfred Hitchcock and Psycho in particular in college, I couldn’t let this one pass by without forming an opinion. And that opinion is: This is a film meant for admirers of the famed director and people that know his work well. In other words, only a handful of people under 50 so you can understand the limited budget and box office receipts. But, I happen to be one of those admirers, and very much appreciate a film so geared towards me.
Now, is this a biopic, scratching beneath the surface of what we know about the man? Absolutely not. This is a comedy that takes every tabloid scandal and rumor about the man and plays it out for its macabre, voyeuristic and melodramatic appeal. Hitchcock would have loved it. Now, while they are lampooning the man and the myth of who he was, he does not come off as a complete cartoon. Sacha Gervasi does go after some deep insight into the motivations behind Psycho and Hitchcock’s imprinting of himself onto each and all of his films (besides the famous cameos). While these are pure conjecture and mostly fictitious, they are a lot of fun to see play out.
He plays cat-and-mouse games with his wife Alma that start to get out of hand, and Hitchcock starts to steer his leading lady into a young, beautiful proxy for Alma that he can control. And that says something about the motivations behind most artists, a desire to control their surroundings. For Hitchcock, this was particularly true (and not just because they say so in this film), as his protagonists and leading ladies (famously known as Hitchcock’s blondes) were idealized versions of himself and young women he could mold and get to do what he wanted.
Here, they play Alfred as the archetypical dirty-old-man, but also get to show how he embraced his own hang-ups and, while fearful of his own dark urges (a clever sub-plot where he shares his dreams with Ed Gein, the motivation behind Norman Bates) made them the focus of his own films. And, what this film becomes is a commentary on great filmmakers - from the challenging ways to reinvent yourself without loosing your recognizable style, to the self-obsession (often coming from a deep self-loathing) that can drive a man to need to control his surroundings, even if it is only on film and not in reality.
Many of the subtle references will be lost on the greater audience, but for anyone that knows Psycho well, this was a joy to watch. There are two aspects that make Psycho a work of genius that has stood the test of time. The first is the pushing of the envelope and the shock value. Nothing like it had ever been done before, from themes of transvestitism, killing your lead halfway through the film, or even embracing clear horror as cinematic art. The other aspect, and the real reason it still holds up, is the genius editing and Bernard Herman’s wonderfully tense score, all done in post production. What Hitchcock does so well, even if it has no relation to the truth, is credit each aspect to one of the two partners collaborating to create this film, both Alfred and Alma. And, that marital relationship is the foundation of this film.
The performances were probably the biggest and most pleasant surprise in this film. Sure, the make-up and look of Hopkins is off and hard to swallow at first, but you move on and accept it after a few minutes. Helen Mirren is great as always, but some of the smaller supporting roles stole the show. Michael Wincott as Ed Gein chewed up every scene he was in and James D’Arcy’s spot-on imitation of Anthony Perkins was hilarious. Toni Collette and Lew Wasserman were great in their small roles, as were most of the rest of the supporting cast. But it was Scarlett Johansson’s absolutely perfect Janet Leigh that made this film such a fun ride. She really surprised me.
I think if they had gone for a more dramatic take and made this film more accessible to today’s audiences, Hitchcock would have been better received. But, it also wouldn’t have paid tribute to the great director in the clever and funny way that this film managed to do. It wasn’t perfect, and the budget clearly made it dialogue heavy and barely able to transport you to the period in which these events played out, but it is a nostalgic look back for anyone with a fond relationship to these films or to Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Personally, I was humming the theme song for days after seeing this very fun movie.
Moonrise Kingdom:
One of the goals for any artist should be to gain recognizability and Wes Anderson has definitely managed that. I love The Royal Tenenbaums, and thought it was a wholly original, heartfelt film that set the bar for Anderson’s career. Unfortunately, that originality has been diluted over the last few years with Anderson’s own far-too-derivative films. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou was Tenenbaums-lite, and Moonrise Kingdom almost suffers the same fate.
I say almost because this film is saved by being so sincere and heartfelt, and is arguably the most personal film of Wes Anderson’s, who is known for making very personal films. There is a child like sense of wonder and adventure that dominate this film, and make it a joy to watch. The two young leads at first come off as overly quirky and over-the-top, but develop into very complete and charismatic characters whom you unquestionably root for. And the rest of the great cast (with one exception) play it subtle enough and don’t try to chew the scenery, which allows these young actors to captivate you and more-than hold their own.
In fact, this sweet love story would easily find its way into a similar place as Tenenbaums for me if it weren’t for the self-aware, self-congratulatory direction. Like I said, it is always a goal for an artist to reach that level of recognizability, but here it seems narcissistic. The use of Jason Schwartzman, and his character, as well as the death of the small dog, were call backs to Anderson’s previous films that had no business here but to stroke his own ego. Too bad, because if you remove those and a handful of other glaring flaws, Moonrise Kingdom could have been something truly original.
The Intouchables:
This film, though it is more than a year old in its native France, was released in The USA this past year, so I feel it is worth reviewing. Though full of typical Hollywood clichés and predictability, The Intouchables also is full of uncomfortable interactions and prejudgments that make you question and ponder some important ideas.
When it comes to comedies, I like them dark and with an underlying point. Comedy, at its best, is drama in disguise, like medicine crushed up into something that tastes good. And that is why I don’t often review the slapstick or gross out comedies that have dominated the box-office over the last decade - They are often hilarious, but lack any coherent statement or story, and is entertainment for entertainments sake. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Even the people that panned this film, and there are quite a few of them, probably found themselves smiling and rooting for the characters involved. It is heartfelt and is full of depths and crests, highs and lows, which pull you into a compelling and very human story about a quadriplegic who forgoes the regular caregivers in favor of a young man from the Paris projects with enough of his own problems that he treats him without ceremony or sympathy.
The humanity of this film comes through because of two fantastic performances. Both François Cluzet and Omar Sy play off each other throughout the film and make an otherwise cliché story a much easier pill to swallow. This is their film, start to finish, and there is a reason they were so praised in France, with Omar Sy defeating Jean Dujardin (The Artist) at the César Awards, Frances answer to the Academy Awards.
While I very much enjoyed the film, it does straddle the line of typical Hollywood, feel-good schlock. I can’t dismiss this, or the many people who found it bordering on offensive or overly stereotypical. But, I came away feeling like this was a funny movie that had real heart and something important to say, which has become a bit of an oddity in modern filmmaking. See it for yourself and let me know what you think.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower:
10 minutes into this film and I was hating it. And I wanted to keep hating it, as I knew, deep down, that you can’t make a film from the emotional perspective of a teenager without it coming off as laughable to any adult. And, even though I knew this and kept trying to remind myself of this very obvious fact, Stephen Chbosky wore me down with complete sincerity and by the end had me thinking I was 17 again and the last (mumble-mumble) years were just a dream. He never flinches, and takes completely serious the highs and lows, the utter panic and the life-and-death perspective of teenage social interaction. And it works. Part My So-Called Life with more than a dash of Holden Caulfield, Perks is filled with clichés and predictable turns, but somehow they only managed to strengthen the film and sell the argument.
The sincerity is sold to you through 3 very strong performances and absolutely perfect casting. Logan Lerman and Emma Watson are the heart and soul of this film, and their relationship has a dark inevitability which drives the drama. But it is Ezra Miller’s flamboyant and lighthearted performance that balances the film and makes you root for these characters, and which makes the film come together as a whole.
Like I said, I did not want to like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, but came out of it shocked at how well and honestly it portrays the high school experience. Objectively, I could complain about a lot in this film, from the sub-story about the abusive aunt or the completely wasted plot-line involving the older sister. But emotionally, this film might be the best journey into the teenage mindset captured on film. For that reason, it deserves its place amongst the greats in this genre, putting Chbosky amongst John Hughes, Amy Heckerling and Cameron Crowe.
There are a lot of people I know who will never give this film a chance. The sad part is, a lot of those same people will have been in high school around the same time as the setting of the film, and in the end may be the audience this film would have the greatest affect on. They, like me, might think they are too mature or above this film. But, taking us to a different place and time, transporting us into a different mindset and challenging our ideas is what makes movies great, and here is a chance, for two hours, to relive a time you either saw as hell on earth or that you are nostalgic for. Either way, it is a worthwhile experience.
Silver Linings Playbook:
I am officially on the Jennifer Lawrence bandwagon. Granted, I have only scene her in a few films, but her performance in this film and in Winters Bone, as well as her popularity amongst younger viewers, has me convinced that she will be a huge movie star... if she continues to pick such great roles.
I like films like Silver Linings Playbook - films that are both funny and sweet, but with a deeper and darker context that can keep them interesting. Films like The Intouchables, In Bruges, Harold and Maude or The King of Hearts. Films like Angel Baby, a film from 1995 staring John Lynch about 2 schizophrenics that fall in love, which I am still raving about to anyone that will listen. And this film, Silver Linings Playbook, has some great points that put it into that category. It isn’t always safe and comfortable, like most romantic comedies, and at times forces you to question who you are rooting for.
Bradley Cooper is surprisingly good as Pat, the main character who is just being released from a mental institution following a court ordered stay instead of a prison term – the result of a brutal physical assault. He is severely Bi-polar/Manic and seemingly a danger to others. And the first half of the film is him constantly violating his restraining order and being increasingly delusional about winning back the affections of his off-screen wife (scary stuff that is not to be taken lightly, especially for anyone that has been on the wrong end of a similar situation). But what this film does so well is show things from Pat’s point of view, humanizing his mental issues and validating him as a person. The film takes the point of view that mental illness is a matter of degrees. Every character in the film suffers some handicap, whether it be OCD – played brilliantly by Robert DeNiro (The first time I have actually seen him “act” in this century), or post-traumatic stress – embodied in the very charismatic Jennifer Lawrence.
There were moments in this film where I felt the cliché Hollywood structure was doing a disservice to these sicknesses, and there were moments when I felt that these illnesses have never been played so sincere. The film is very uneven at times, and David O. Russell fumbles several moments where he was unable to take the risks that could have truly made this film something special. The football theme contrasting the dancing storyline was played safe; never wanting to insult the fan base of either culture. The film eventually devolves into typical Romantic-Comedy fodder, and ends without fulfilling the promise of the much more interesting first act. I saw the signs of things going bad in one particular scene involving a post football game meltdown by multiple characters, played to make Lawrence’s character more sympathetic, where every character is wearing their handicap on their sleeves and shouting and arguing, all the while Pat’s psychiatrist is in the room and says nothing. I’ll believe The Hobbit is a true story before I believe that scene.
I would still definitely recommend seeing Silver Linings Playbook, and not just to see Jennifer Lawrence make crazy look so good. It is a good film that probably could have been great. And while it ends up as a typical Rom-Com, it is not in the Katherine Heigl/Jennifer Aniston ballpark and it is certainly a cut above the rest of the genre.
Argo:
Of all the films I have written about for the last few years, the review I get the most complaints about is The Town, Ben Affleck’s previous directorial effort. I hold firm to that review, have seen the movie since and feel exactly the same about it as I felt when it came out. I will say this for Affleck though; Argo showed me that he will be remembered more as a director than he will as an actor - because Argo is very good, even if Affleck himself is not very good in it.
The plot, story and concept are fantastic. And the fact that if this was not a true story people would have scoffed at it, only adds to its appeal and shows how sometimes real life can be a lot stranger than fiction. This film walks a line between tense geo-political thriller and a sub-textual look at films role in politics that could have gone a very different way, bordering on the satirical. But, for the most part, Affleck plays it pretty straight and safe, opting more for a very humanizing look at the characters involved. The result plays out as a bit of a tribute to the real-life CIA agents, as well as the hostages and the courage it took to pull such a, for lack of a better word, stunt.
I enjoyed Argo very much. It was entertaining, engaging, well acted and masterfully directed. That said, I am a little surprised at how well received it has been, and the fact that it is considered, along with Lincoln, to be a frontrunner for Best picture. Given the choice between the two, Argo would be my pick in a heartbeat, but that isn’t exactly a glowing recommendation.
I guess, personally, I would have enjoyed a less safe portrayal of these same events. Delving into the satirical, while paying less homage to the heroes involved, could have been a much more interesting way to play it. I would have enjoyed a closer look at the fake movie itself, which was important enough to name the film after, and a closer look at the culture and time period that bread so many cheesy, low-budget Star Wars rip-offs. This plot point was severely overshadowed by the almost-heist movie composition the film takes on in the second and third acts.
Argo is a film that is very good, but for me, didn’t take the risks involved in creating something great. I do highly recommend seeing it for yourself, and I will be anxiously awaiting Ben Affleck’s next directorial outing.
To Rome with Love:
Woody Allen continues his tour of Europe, and like the rest of his films on this subject, this one doesn’t disappoint. Is it as good as Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona or (the wonderful) Midnight in Paris? No, probably not. But I loved it just the same. In fact, with the exception of Midnight in Paris, this one is a personal favorite in the group.
To Rome with Love is a true ensemble comedy with lots of moving parts, some of which boarder on the ridiculous, making this less of a straightforward narrative and more like some of his older films. Deconstructing Harry was the first one I thought of. The cast is deep and fantastic, with Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Roberto Benigni, Ellen Page, Allison Pill (a good fit for Allen’s films, following up her scene stealing role in MiP) and Woody Himself(!) being amongst the stand outs.
Some of the storylines were more interesting than others, though all of them are worthwhile. My two favorites were probably the ones given the most time in the film, being Alec Baldwin reliving the young and naïve choices he made in the past (a plot and characters that could have easily fleshed out an entire film) and a hilarious yarn about an opera singer that can only sing in the shower. As much as I loved Penelope Cruz, Ellen Page embodied the role of the girl you fall for, with a subtle performance I never saw coming. She was fantastic.
These films, taking Allen out of New York, are quickly becoming my favorites on his resume. Particularly his last two, Midnight in Paris and To Rome with Love, have a lightheartedness to them and have less confrontation and drama, making them a bit of a vacation themselves. Don’t get me wrong, Annie Hall and Manhattan are still classics, but capturing the myth of these cities through the eyes of a tourist is really working for him and I can’t wait to see where he goes next.
The Sessions:
I’ll be the first one to point out how blatant an attempt at Oscar bait this film looks to be. What with the disabled protagonist, biopic/based on a true story structure filled with intimate nakedness which shows the actors commitment to their art. If they could have fit in a British accent and somehow tied in WW2/The Holocaust, they could have just cancelled the Academy Awards this year. But, even though I usually find myself on the losing side of the argument against these obvious attempts at cheap drama and sentimentality, this one is done so well, and is so honest, subtle and self deprecating, for the first time I find myself championing the cause and pulling for widespread recognition. And, of course, for the first time, this type of film was completely ignored. Both by audiences, and by most of the major Award ceremonies. Sigh…
The Sessions is a great film. Just what you want from a film like this, where they take a tragic or dark subject and shine a light on it, showing a world that is accessible and human - filled with both humor and heartache. This is a film that shows both sex and religion in such a severely academic and humorless light that the context somehow satirizes both subjects, and they become hilarious. And it is a great, uncomfortable type of hilarious where you might not feel right laughing too hard. Speaking of inappropriate laughter - Warning! Do not attempt to watch this film in the company of anyone you wouldn’t feel comfortable watching, say… porn with. Seriously. The poster and trailer probably will lull some people into thinking this is a film they could share with their parents, or on a first date. It really, truly is not. Seriously.
The acting in this film is superb. One of the best ensembles of the year. I have been singing the praises of John Hawkes as an actor for years now, so it’s time for the rest of you to jump on the bandwagon. He plays the lead in this film with such a childlike wonder, but still with an extremely mature and dark sense of humor. Helen Hunt is fantastic as well, making her character sympathetic and human, while spending the majority of the film completely nude. And William H. Macy is so fantastic in his supporting role, with Hawkes and him playing off each other for the films funniest moments.
This is a great film, and is definitely the type of film that usually benefits from lots of Oscar buzz this time of year, but for some reason, this one is slipping through the cracks. I hope, if you are reading this, you will seek this film out and see it for yourself. While I am glad the Academy is conscious of the formula being abused, it is a shame that this film, it seems to me, is the one being made an example of.
Life of Pi:
Based on subject and medium, history tells me I should hate Ang Lee’s latest film. For years, I have ranted about the overuse of CGI to anyone that would listen, I am evangelical in my distain for religion, and my empathy for animals makes it hard for me to watch any film where they suffer (people, not so much). All that said, I loved this film from the opening to the closing credits.
As far as the CGI is concerned, a few of you might point out that I have poked fun at this type of film in the past, where they rely so heavily on cartoon like imagery that the film becomes a modern day Who Framed Roger Rabbit? But unlike Avatar or 300, here it has a purpose besides filling in the cracks in what can be achieved by traditional effects. Here, Ang Lee, even though he plays it very subtle and never pushes it too far, wants you to see the man behind the curtain. This reality is both a memory and a big-fish story - a fable where the actuality has been scratched out and painted over in lush color and bravura brush strokes.
And that is the whole point of the film.
Would you rather a beautiful, dramatic and magical tale about overcoming adversity and the bonds formed by mutual trauma - Or the grim reality, just because it is closer to the truth?
That is also where this film’s critics have drawn a line. People that believe in a literal interpretation of their faith see this film as an insult. While it makes the argument for religion and a belief in God (and not just any God, but every God), it marks religion as a series of fables, embellished, passed along and translated until they become something magical and inspiring of faith. The ultimate argument this film makes is that you should accept the existence of magic and God, simply because it beats the alternative.
I loved this film. The story of Pi and Richard Parker made for some of the most compelling cinema in recent memory. The analytical side of me faded away and I found myself more engrossed in this film than any other this season despite the voice in the back of my head that wanted so desperately to lambaste the sugary visuals. With most audiences having no such reservations about this type of film, I am shocked that Life of Pi is not a much bigger hit, both critically and financially.
This film has been stuck in my head, both visually and morally, since I saw it. When a film digs into you that much, it is a sign of greatness. This is a film that is destined to be iconic and that will be discussed, dissected and referenced for years to come.
The Dark Knight Rises:
You may want to go put on some tea or coffee, because we’re going to be here a while. I want you to know right now, while I love this film and it is easily my favorite film this year, I acknowledge that it is a deeply flawed picture, and from an artistic standpoint it has to be held accountable for each blemish when compared to the other great films of the year. And, not only does one need to look at this film on its own, one needs to look at it as the last act of a truly epic trilogy to understand its place and its importance.
And I will say right now, with no hesitation, that Christopher Nolan’s Bruce Wayne Trilogy is the greatest, most coherent trilogy in film history. I call it the Bruce Wayne Trilogy because that is what, when you stand back and look at it from a distance, I believe is the best way to describe it - a focus on the man and his journey to become a legend.
The Dark Knight Rises is a huge, epic and ambitious undertaking that is the result of the success of the previous two films. Where there was producer intrusion and distrust that showed in Batman Begins, from the Shumaker-esque neon Gotham and the forced “I’m Batman” line that would have no place in the world of the following two (Not to mention Katie Holmes), The Dark Knight let Christopher and Jonathan Nolan off the leash some and it paid off. They still managed to walk the line of action figure tie-ins, cartoon ethnic gangsters and blockbuster action mixed with real world drama and deep, ethical subtext. So when the third film came around, Warners knew their brand was in good hands and left the Nolans to work their magic and the result was a wild bronco that probably could have used some reigning in. Each story and character arc were large enough in scope to warrant their own film, and here they attempt to juggle far too many for under three hours. There is so much behind every scene, and so much they wanted to say with this film, with major influences from 19th century masterpieces by Victor Hugo and Charles Dickens (In fact, the parallels to A Tale of Two Cities were so great, they had to reference them within the film). Questions of class-warfare and a looming, big-brother style police-state make this a blend of Orwell and The Russian Masters, only with capes and cat-suits.
The result of all this is either two films or one five-to-six hour epic (or a season long story arc within a scripted hour-long – cough… hint, hint Warner Bros… cough) stuffed into a two-hour-and-forty-minute bag. Each monologue was given at a Hitchcockian pace, and the film was cropped so close, that some of the more interesting storylines were drowned out – for an example, Bruce’s sly smile when he gets up off the floor and is clearly smitten with Selina after she robs him and jumps out the window. Blink and you missed it. In fact, so many great moments in this film were smothered by the juggling of all the other moving parts, like the “He’s cut! The Russian is cut” moment in the final fight that should have been chill inducing but instead is collaged in with all the other action. I have spent the last few months hoping that there would be a massive, extended director’s cut of The Dark Knight Rises on Blu Ray, but still manage to respect the integrity of leaving the film as it was originally cut. Sometimes it is difficult to separate the film snob and the fanboy geek inside me.
So let’s look at this film objectively. Right off the bat, I believe the over-focus on the events of The Dark Knight, from the solemnly celebrated Harvey Dent Day to Bruce’s pining for his lost love Rachel, were a sentimental acknowledgement to both the success of the last film and the death of Heath Ledger. I understand the need for this, but feel it was overdone. And, the exposition to explain this was just the start of a trend that would hurt the rest of this film greatly. The dialogue, while moving the story along, lacks subtlety and subtext throughout the film and is probably the weakest aspect of The Dark Knight Rises. Even with the over-explaining (I think Nolan might have made a bet with someone that he could fit the term “excommunicated” into the film a half-dozen times and no one would call him out on it), the film jumps around and requires a suspension of disbelief that the previous film never needed. Part of this had to do with the much larger scale and scope to this film, combined with the time constraints. Speaking of scope, I felt the nuclear/fusion bomb plot was much more James Bond than Batman. And, as mentioned above, the pacing and blending of action, set to a ticking clock, drowns out the importance of each competing scene - a format that seemed so ambitious and engaging in Inception, but here comes up a little flat. Some of the characters within this film were either wasted time or just wrong for the role. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, while physically perfect for the role, seemed to be on a different page from the actors he was working alongside - they keep referring to him as angry or a “hothead”, but he plays it far too calm and smug (and the “Robin” line was terrible). Also, Marion Cotillard, while she may be my favorite actress of the last decade, and also, like Gordon-Levitt, had the perfect look for the character she plays, her performance was very uneven and hard to take considering the rapid weight and wardrobe changes due to her pregnancy.
What did work well in this film is much easier for me to acknowledge. Wally Pfister’s photography, aided by the use of IMAX cameras, is spectacular, and might be his best work yet. And Hans Zimmer amazes when it comes to the iconic score. As much as I loved the Herman-esque cat-string violins that signaled the Joker in The Dark Knight, the primal chanting in Bane’s theme and its contrast to the consistent Batman score is arguably the best piece within the trilogy. And Tom Hardy’s Bane lives up to the music, being the best movie villain since Ledger’s Joker. He is the dark negative, the soldier on the other side to Bruce’s one-man urban warfare. And where the Joker was terrifying through unpredictable chaos, Bane triggers fear through unflinching discipline and brute force. Anne Hathaway was brilliant, if underused as Selina. I would have loved to have seen her character treated more like Harvey Dent’s in The Dark Knight, where he shared the narrative source. Her arc certainly warranted that much attention, and I loved that she goes through a lot of the same twists and turns that Bruce has gone through since the first film, with the “A storm’s coming” line tying them together. But this film was Bruce’s film; start to finish, much like Batman Begins was. His arc was the biggest and needed the most time to get across. He starts the film in search of a good death to feed his own arrogance and complete his role of martyr/savior, but ends up not only finding a reason to fight and live, but to let go and search for a good life. And, the rest of this fantastic ensemble lived up to the standard they have set throughout, from Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine to the incredible Gary Oldman.
Now, let’s talk about what makes this film and this trilogy so special and what puts it on a whole other level. The sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious callbacks throughout all three films, with this film being the biggest offender, were done beautifully and weaved each film together with the next. From Alfred’s disapproval on finding Bruce’s bed empty, the dialogue following the tragedy in Bruce’s childhood paired with the loss of Rachel in The Dark Knight, The well in Batman Begins and the pit from which Bruce finally pulls himself out from in The Dark Knight Rises, to the lessons of Ra’s al Ghul’s “immortality” to John Blake making good on the promise of the first line in the first teaser for Batman Begins, showing us what it takes to make a legend (along with many, many others that somehow never come off as self aware or self congratulatory). And of the themes throughout, none are more important than the one expressed through the presence of Cillian Murphy’s Scarecrow in all three films: the adversary is always fear. I have heard of this trilogy referred to as “Post 9/11” Batman, or a reaction of the times and the War on Terror. And that is fair, but the aspect portrayed and focused on here has been an element of this American icon for seventy plus years. It’s just that the times we live in dictate its importance over previous incarnations tendency to focus on the happy-meal tie-ins and a younger demographic. In Batman Begins, it was about recognizing and suppressing fear, and how to turn it against the people that would frighten others. The Dark Knight is about fear of uncertainty and terror disrupting the status quo, turning order and fairness into chaos. And The Dark Knight Rises is about letting go of fear and respecting its place, value and purpose (Bruce needed fear of dying to make the climb). And all three films have villains who are cynical and expect the worst from people, using fear as a weapon to draw out the worst in society. The other prevalent theme throughout is that of nothing being black and white and finding the moral, political and ethical shades of grey (or, in the case of Harvey Dent, the inability to do so). Many characters walk this line throughout, From Selina’s entire arc to Bruce and Gordon’s lie about Dent running parallel to Alfred’s lie about Rachel, each character sees the fruition of the compromises made before. And they ultimately lead to an immensely satisfying resolution.
I will get to that ending in a moment. First, I want to polish my geek credentials some and help you understand my affection for this film. For me to not list this as my number one film this year is a stab in the back to my thirteen year old self. This is the film I have always wanted to see. This is the Batman I grew up on, influenced not only by classic high school literature, but the Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams 70’s Batman adventures that traveled the world outside of Gotham, featuring Talia and Ra’s. Knightfall, the storyline I read and loved at 12 years old that broke Batman and introduced Bane. The best of the Paul Dini and Bruce Timm Batman: The Animated Series I loved so much throughout Middle school. And, of course, from Bruce’s arc coming out of retirement and finding a reason to live, the two cops and the “You’re in for a show tonight” dialogue, to the climactic fight in the falling snow (and several other scenes), this film is the closest I will ever see to a live action The Dark Knight Returns, Frank Miller’s world changing story and for years my version of a security blanket. Know this: while I will admit the many flaws this film suffers, it is my favorite film in a very, very long while. And there is no one in the film industry I would rather shake hands with than Jonathan and Christopher Nolan for, twenty years late, giving a kid the films he dreamed about for so long. Ok, all the nerd has left my system. The reason I mention these things before talking about the ending is: The Nolans give Bruce Wayne an end that only a real fan would write and wish to see.
That ending. Here are some of my favorite endings to great films: A Clockwork Orange, The Usual Suspects, Chinatown, The Shawshank Redmeption and Dr Strangelove. The ending was so powerful that it is one of, if not the first thing you think of when you picture these films. And I would put the ending of The Dark Knight Rises right up there with the best of them. In fact, the standing ovation at the opening night midnight showing that followed this spectacular end is one of my favorite experiences going to the movies. Ever. And I think we have established that I go to the movies a lot. Unfortunately it would later be tarnished by the horrific events that were happening and about to happen in Aurora Colorado. If, for the last few minutes alone, The Dark Knight Rises deserves this spot and then some.
I could go on forever talking about the real and animatronics effects and their impact versus the conventional CGI and the unprecedented use of IMAX technology and a dozen other amazing aspects of this film and trilogy. But I have to stop somewhere and here seems as good a place as any.
I just hope that some of you out there experienced even a fraction of the joy and excitement that I did…
Les Misérables:
My assumption going in was that this film, an adaptation of a well known and popular musical which is itself an adaptation of a six-volume 19th century super-novel, was going to be derivative and monotonous, no matter how well it was filmed and acted. And while I’m not going to stand here with a straight face and tell you this was something wholly original, I will say that Tom Hooper made this subject matter seem fresh and cracking with life. In fact, I think Les Mis is probably the best film of the year (even if it isn’t my top choice) and, depending on your opinions of the stage production, might be the greatest Hollywood musical of all time.
The ambitions that crushed so many other films this year are what make this film so special. The decision to film in severe close-ups, to light and photograph the actors like a Mario Testino spread for Vogue, and to every-once-in-a-while pull back to a fish-eyed wide-angle shot was a huge risk that paid off big time. I felt like I was looking into Paris in a glass bottle, preserved through time. The other big risk was the decision to have the actors sing live in each take, and as anyone who has seen the film will attest to, this choice will forever change how musicals are done.
Given the ability to act, as opposed to singing into a microphone months later, the phenomenal cast deserves all the praise they have been receiving. Hugh Jackman deserves the Academy Award for Best Actor, and Anne Hathaway both deserves and will win her Oscar in a supporting role. One criticism I have heard about Hathaway’s role is that it is too short and does not impact the plot of the film. To that I say: Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream, shot in extended takes and intimate close-ups, will go down as one of the best single scenes in cinema history, period. Also, unlike a lot of critics, I enjoyed Russell Crowe’s performance and the decision to have Javert sing very even and consistent throughout was perfect, showing his character’s inability to change and grow in any way. Rounding out the cast, Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks were both phenomenal, and Amanda Seyfried, though she isn’t given much to do, plays Cosette as the object of desire that the play reduces her to. I thought both Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter added humor into the otherwise dark film, but were somewhat overused (and I know Master of the House is a big crowd pleaser, but that levity, right after the emotional crest of the film, I found a little jarring).
There are a lot of reasons people love this musical, from the social commentary of the original novel to the dramatic and emotional darkness that makes the glimmer of hope seem so much brighter. But the main reason is simply the music. You know the songs whether you realize it or not as they are a part of pop culture, and you will leave the theater humming with them stuck in your mind for days to come. Whether it is the big group numbers like At the End of the Day and One Day More, or the heartbreaking On My Own and I Dreamed a Dream, the music is what sticks with you and the reason Les Misérables is such a successful brand.
I have now seen the film twice, and actually liked it better the second time. The one criticism I had after the first viewing was that the constant singing and drama leaves you emotionally drained and exhausted after nearly three hours. But on my second viewing, I found it flew by as I was anticipating the next song.
Full disclosure: I am a huge fan of the source material - the musical, which I was less familiar with, and the Victor Hugo masterpiece. So, loving this film didn’t take a lot of arm-twisting. In good conscience, I cannot give this film the number one spot on my list thought, because while it is a very fresh take on the subject, it is far from original material. That said, I stand by this review, and Les Misérables is a fantastic film that everyone should see. I do feel that, after the major resurgence last decade, most people are a little sick of musicals and that may negatively affect the experience. But I hope people give this one a fair shot and are moved by this film as much as I was. Pardon me while I go up on my roof and wave the flag.
Do you hear the People sing…
Beasts of the Southern Wild:
A spectacular film. Beasts of the Southern Wild attempts to articulate some very abstract and heady ideas, all through the eyes of a very young child. And it sticks the landing perfectly.
Trying to explain the concept of dignity to a 6 year old child is an ambitious task, but using film to display an eventual understanding of that concept, I would have previously thought impossible. But Benh Zeitlin and an amazing performance by Quvenzhane Wallis proved me very wrong.
I am in awe of this film.
The narrative, through the eyes of this young child is so perfect, conveying the imprint we leave on our children and the way they take whatever we tell them to be an absolute, inarguable fact. The world that Hushpuppy knows and understands is simply the world shown to her by her alcoholic, fiercely independent but terminally sick father. And, in a child like way, she understands that he is trying to prepare her for a life like his.
Hushpuppy and her father live beyond the levies in an area that is scene as uninhabitable to those on safer ground. The film, though it is not the main objective, portrays the drama and conflict of those trying to help versus a more libertarian point of view. Politics and ethical arguments aside, this film is pure narrative, and even if you understand and agree with the antagonists role, when you see the father through Hushpuppy’s eyes - at first larger than life and sometimes terrifying, but then forced to receive medical treatment which reduces him to less of a giant and just an old man in a wheelchair with tubes up his nose - it is heartbreaking.
You, along with Hushpuppy, realize that the father is trying to prepare her for life as he knows and understands it. And her journey is about understanding personal responsibly and dignity through the lessons and hardships thrown at her throughout this film.
And it is all beautifully shown, capturing the magic of the world through unspoiled, innocent eyes. The look of this film is fantastic. Everything shot from the ground up, making everything seem larger and scarier than we know it to be. The 16mm film, along with the handheld aspect, gave the film a very personal, home movie feel that allowed you to feel close to the characters. The blending of fantasy and reality, a line a child can’t discern, is accepted without a second thought, and really defined the film for me.
Beasts of the Southern Wild reminded me at times of 2009’s Where the Wild Things Are, only taken out of pure fantasy and conveying much more mature concepts. I’m sure Maurice Sendak would have approved.
I can’t recommend this film enough. It is something completely original and magical. And it is a film I will watch and study and think about a lot as time goes by. I hope that this film resonates with others like it did with me, and that, like the film says, “In a million years, when kids go to school, they gonna know: Once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in The Bathtub.”
__________________________________
Well, there you go. Hopefully you see now what I meant by 2012 being huge, if not great. It was certainly filled with great moments in film, and was one of the better years in this young century.
As always, I’m sure most people will find something that they hate, disagree with or that they find insults them in some way. And, as always, bring it on, there is nothing I like more than arguing the merits of film.
Most years I take this time to make some statement about the shape and state of film and taste, but this year has already gone way long so I'll put aside the soapbox.
Ok. Time for my Oscar picks and predictions:
Best Picture
Should Win: Pick one, the field this year is pretty open. I would love to see Beasts of the Southern Wild, Life of Pi or Les Mis steal this, but I don't think it will happen.
Will Win: 50/50 for Argo and Lincoln. Right now I'm saying Argo because of the sympathy/guilt vote for Affleck not getting nominated.
Best Director
Should Win: Weird nominations in this category. I would pick Ang Lee or Behn Zeitlin out of the group, but I think Affleck and Hooper were robbed.
Will Win: Spielberg. Bet the farm
Best Actor
Should Win: Hugh Jackman. He owned that film start to finish, and it was an amazing performance. Still can not believe that John Hawkes was not nominated.
Will Win: Daniel Day Lewis. I am a huge fan, and he is the best actor of his generation. But, this year, Jackman was better.
Best Actress
Should Win: Either Jennifer Lawrence or Jessica Chastain would be a deserved win. They were both great.
Will Win: Chastain could win the sympathy vote based on Zero Dark Thirty's lack of nominations. But my money's on Lawrence.
Supporting Actor
Should Win: Again, weird nominations. Alan Arkin being nominated over William H. Macy and James Gandolfini (for Killing the Softly or Not Fade Away!) is a joke. Tommy Lee Jones was great though and probably deserves the win.
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones
Supporting Actress
Should Win: Anne Hathaway. I thought Helen Hunt was fantastic, but should have been nominated in a leading role.
Will Win: Anne Hathaway. Don't eff this up Academy....
Adapted Screenplay
Should Win: David Magee for Life of Pi
Will Win: Tony Kushner for Lincoln
Original Screenplay
Should Win: Weakest category by far. I thought Woody Allen at least deserved a nomination, but out of the films picked, I'll go with Wes Anderson and Roman Coppala for Moonrise Kingdom.
Will Win: Mark Boal for Zero Dark Thirty. Enjoy your bone.
Cinematography
Should Win: Should have been a race between Wally Pfister for The Dark Knight Rises and Danny Cohen for Les Mis. But, for the year's biggest travesty, neither was nominated. So, I'll pick Deakins for Skyfall just because too much of Life of Pi's beauty was in the effects.
Will Win: Claudio Miranda, Life of Pi. Enjoy your bone. If Kaminski steals this one for Lincoln, I'm taking my ball and going home.
Art Direction
Should Win: ): Eve Stewart and Anna Lynch-Robinson for Les Mis
Will Win:Rick Carter and Jim Erickson for Lincoln. If Lincoln is to get any wins, this and score are ones I could make a strong argument for.
Editing
Should Win: William Goldenberg deserves the award for either Argo or Zero Dark Thirty.But he might split the vote.
Will Win: I think he will still manage to win, and I will guess it is for Argo.
Original Score
Should Win: Hans Zimmer should win for The Dark Knight Rises, but is again disqualified by the bizarre rules. So I'll say John Williams for Lincoln.
Will Win: John Williams for Lincoln.
And again, I could go on to Make-up, costumes etc, but those are secondary in my opinion. And I really hate the Animated film category.
That's it for now. Thank you for reading, and please let me know what you think by leaving a comment.
Ryan Black
