2012: The Year in Film: "The Hobbit" Review

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy is quite simply one of the supreme achievements in the history of film.  He took an epic book series beloved by millions worldwide and made an equally momentous series of films that change enough to be unique while retaining what made the books so influential and popular in the first place.  The definitive directors' extended cuts of the first three films are unbelievably epic and quite possibly the greatest trilogy in the history of film.  (That's a discussion for another day...)  The final film absolutely deserved all of the love heaped on it by the academy back in 2004.  The popularity and quality of those films made the transition of Tolkien's earlier children's book featuring some of the same characters and a familiar world a near certainty and much of the last decade has been spent in sorting out the details.  First Guillermo Del Toro was attached, which offered intriguing possibilities as Del Toro is unquestionably a master at creating wonder and creatures.  Alas, Del Toro had to step aside due to delays and conflicts, but luckily the man behind the LOTR trilogy stepped in so we were promised a Hobbit that would feel very familiar and potentially (ultimately) a film series that would have a very cohesive feel.  So how is it?

Unlike the Lord of the Rings books, I've actually read the Hobbit (back in Jr. High and again this week) so I have a different perspective than I did going into those films.  With that being said, I was initially very, very concerned when Warner Bros. announced that the planned two-part Hobbit movies were to be expanded to a trilogy.  After all, the Hobbit is a 300 page novel written for middle and high school aged readers.. what could possibly be so expansive to justify 3 nearly 3 hour films, an identical treatment that the 1300 pages of Lord of the Rings received?  After seeing the film and re-reading the book I can say that the treatment is warranted.  The book is quite limited in scope, focused pretty exclusively on Bilbo, and quite a lot happens that's either off the page or simply glossed over because Bilbo is hungry or whatever.  So I stand corrected.

"The Hobbit" is a tale of an adventure.  A quite unexpected one at that.  If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films (and honestly, it's 2012, how are you not?), you're familiar with the world and many of the players.  Some 60 years prior to the events in Lord of the Rings Gandalf (he's gray, it's the past) recruits an unwitting Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's uncle..) on a quest with a band of Dwarves to retake their home, lost some century prior.  The road is long and hard and poses many challenges, but Bilbo enlists as the troop's "burglar" despite himself.  Along the way the group faces goblins and orcs and wargs and meets some familiar faces.  It's Tolkien.  Nothing's a straight line and the journey's half the fun.

The Good: Jackson doesn't miss a step.  The world and the settings and the shots all feel like a continuation of the earlier LOTR flicks, and this is a definite good thing.  It's good to be back in Middle Earth and he spends quite a bit of time relishing in the familiar sights and sounds of the Shire, Rivendell and the like.  Casting Martin Freeman was a tour de force.  Most familiar to me from the BBC's brilliant Sherlock and "Hot Fuzz" the experienced British actor captures the charm and reluctance of a much younger Bilbo Baggins perfectly.  Ian McKellan is, of course, great as Gandalf, and doesn't miss a step returning to the more jovial "gray" version of the character from the first film.  Richard Armitage as Thorin is a particular bright-spot.  Andy Serkis and Gollum... well, you already know, but it's simply a joy to watch.  Gollum has a depressing charm that makes a somewhat despicable character eminently watchable.  The casting and interaction of the characters on the whole was great.  This is a motley crew and Jackson doesn't do them any disservice by making them parallel the much more capable Fellowship from the LOTR films. These people are a band that is in far over their heads, quite relying on Gandalf and his knowledge and expertise to see them through and Jackson and the script use this quality as a source of humor repeatedly.  On the whole this film is much more light hearted than the LOTR films, as is befitting an adaptation of a children's novel.  The action sequences are often great.  The LOTR films feature some of the most impressive and effective epic action scenes in all of cinema, and the Hobbit proudly carries on that tradition.  Despite the long run-time, there isn't much that feels superfluous, and that's a credit to the filmmakers and the source material that so much can be fleshed out of a short novel.


The Bad: there isn't a whole lot of bad.  Most noticeable to me were two things: 1.) the opening scene tried too hard to tie directly in to LOTR and 2.) an over-reliance on CGI in this newer flick.  Jackson didn't go full George Lucas on us, but where the LOTR flicks used extras and make up for many of the effects, here there are many sequences, creatures and the like are fully CGI which can be distracting if you're familiar with the much more real-feeling LOTR films.  Also, not that the film is over-long, but this feels like it's an extended cut in and of itself.. not a problem for me, but if you aren't THAT into Tolkien's world, it could be tedious.  There's an extended scene with a non-Gandalf wizard in the forest that makes little sense except as set-up for something that's quite a ways off that feels utterly superfluous.  In addition, there are a number of falls/events/injuries where people/dwarves/hobbits fall literally hundreds of feet onto rocks without dying or suffering major wounds that rather annoyed me.  But these are minor qualms with a 3 hour movie and in no way cheapen the achievement.

On the whole, this is a worthwhile addition to the universe of the LOTR films.  Freeman, McKellan, Armitage and Gollum make it worth watching for the performances alone.  The film successfully (except for the opening scene/Frodo cameo) ties into LOTR without being heavy-handed about it, and enhances a universe we already know and love.  Consider the Star Wars prequels - this is no easy feat, although admittedly easier when you're dealing with a known and loved pre-existing property than when inventing a prequel from whole cloth - still, there's a lot that could have gone wrong here, and considering very little did?  Success.  Weaker, on the whole, than any of the LOTR films, but not exceedingly so, the Hobbit is visually masterful, very well acted, and overall a very good film.

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Flight" Review

Robert Zemeckis is a pretty damn acclaimed and esteemed director, if he has a tendency to be overly broad in ways that Spielberg wouldn't even have dreamed.  Still, when you cut your teeth doing things like the Back to the Future movies, Forrest Gump and Castaway before spending a decade revolutionizing stop-motion animation, your return to live action will be cause for attention.  Throw in the fact that Denzel Washington will be starring in an obvious awards bait performance... and Flight was a flick that I immediately took notice of from the time the first trailer hit the interwebs.  Denzel is an interesting case for me.. because on the one hand there's no doubt that he's a charming, charismatic and incredibly talented actor, but he also is pretty much always just Denzel.  He's always playing shades of the same character, which is why I can't remember a single one of his character's names right off, despite enjoying many of his movies.  He's either mad Denzel, or wise Denzel, or badass Denzel or Coach Denzel or drunk Denzel or insert an adjective here.  He's from the George Clooney school of acting, which is why I'll never argue that Denzel is a "great" actor, despite the fact that he probably is.  So how is Flight?  Let's check it out.

Flight features airline captain Whip Whitaker, a gifted pilot who also has some serious personal problems.  He's driven most of his friends and family away and spends his nights partying way too hard and his days in a drunken haze.  One fateful morning something causes the plane he's piloting on a hangover into a steep dive and he's forced to pull a rabbit out of his hat to save the lives of just about everyone on board.  He finds himself at the center of a media firestorm as the NTSB uncovers some troubling facts about that fateful flight.

The Good: Denzel turns in a tremendous performance.  Despite the fact that Whip doesn't have a lot of positive attributes, you can't help but root for the guy, even has he wallows farther and farther into a pit of addiction, self-despair and self-destruction.  He's incredibly charming and charismatic in a role that I'm not sure very many other actors could have pulled off.  The plot flows pretty smoothly and isn't what you'd expect either from the trailer or from a typical major motion picture featuring such A-list talent.   Bruce Greenwood and John Goodman also turn in strong supporting performances but make no mistake, this is the Denzel show. Don Cheadle turns in an effective and understanded performance as an attorney for the pilot's union as well.   If this wasn't such a strong year for movies in general and male leading performances in specific, I'd say Denzel had a really good shot at Best Actor.  It also gives a brutal, honest look at alcoholism that goes right up there with the great cinematic depictions of the disease like Leaving Las Vegas. 
The Bad: when it comes down to it, the flick is just too damn broad and on point to truly be effective. There are some questionable music choices, let's just say it isn't exactly original to play Velvet Underground while someone is shooting heroin. If someone is blasting rails and pounding entire bottles of liquor, playing The Rolling Stones is just way too safe of a move. Plus, the resolution is just too damn "Hallmark-ey" to be a great movie. Everyone knows that alcoholism and addiction are bad.. ideally there should be more to the theme of a memorable flick than that. And between Jenny in Forrest Gump and Nicole here, I think it's safe to say that Zemeckis has a junkie with a heart of gold in his past. In all, this is a solid, watchable, entertaining flick with an outstanding performance from a true A-lister at the top of his game at the center. Ultimately it's well worth watching but simply too broad, too simplistic and too paint-by-numbers to add anything "great" to movies. Well worth a watch, but ultimately short of greatness, or even being truly memorable. 7/10.

Mailbag V: Live Free or Mailbag Harder: Upton girl?

 B.K. Mila Kunis or Kate Upton...and we ain't talking marriage.

Let's be honest here, you can't REALLY go wrong with either choice here.  You're either going to end up with an incredibly beautiful woman... or an incredibly beautiful woman, so first let's celebrate your great fortune at living in a dreamworld.  Ok, now that that's out of the way, there are pro's and cons to each of these two goddesses.  Kate Upton, physically, is unbelievable.  BUT, I've heard interviews with her and she sounds like a complete and utter dolt.  She IS 20 years old, so I suppose that's not entirely her fault.. but she's an idiot.  Seems like a great time and undeniably beautiful, though.  Mila Kunis, on the other hand, is 29, was born in Ukraine, and seems like a talented, funny, charming gal in pretty much everything I've ever seen or read on her.  On the other hand, she DID date grown up zombie Macaulay Culkin for the better part of the decade, certainly a cause for concern.  With all that being said - considering that the question itself specified that we weren't talking who would be cooler to hang out with, I'm going with Kate Upton.  Sorry, Mila, I hope you don't hold it against me, but a simple google image search will solve this quandary for you...

D.O. Which was your favorite Police Academy and why?

After doing a little bit of research, I don't believe I've seen all of the Police Academy films.  I've seen "Mission to Moscow", but I have no recollection of "Assignment Miami Beach" or "City Under Siege", which are evidently Police Academy 5 and 6.  As such, my answer will be incomplete, but given that Police Academy 5 has a 3.8 on IMDB and PA 6 a 3.6, it doesn't sound like I'm missing a whole hell of a lot.  With that caveat, I'd have to say that the original Police Academy is the one I most enjoy.  It fits into the zany world of 80's comedies where these preposterous characters took on "the man" and came out on top in their own crazy way that seems to be the foundation of basically every comedy made from 1980-1990.  It's silly, it's stupid, it makes no sense, it falls smack in the middle of when Steve Guttenberg was somehow a movie star, but it's a fun time.  Police Academy 1 it is.

G.H. Which would you rather have between only being able to converse with others in song or get gushing nose bleeds every time you have sex?  Only you are singing.  No one else is involved, just  you.  And the nose bleeds start right before climax... you cannot plan or account for them in any way.

Dude, this is unarguably an awful choice.  How did you come up with this?  I think, unfortunately and tragically for that part of my life, I'll have to choose the nosebleeds during sex.  Obviously that would put a damper on your sex life, but conversing in song would put a damper on everything, including sex.  I feel like you could plan for the nosebleeds by stuffing up your nose pre-coitus... but being able to converse ONLY in song while the world goes on normally around you?  Might as well move to the woods now, weirdo, because everyone's going to hate you.  Nosebleeds during sex it is... maybe I'd join some chaste order of monks or something.

B.K. Who would you rather have as your QB at OSU, TP or Braxton? NFL need not apply. 

I'm going to have to go with Braxton.  Each player had pluses and minuses, but I think Braxton's combination of arm strength and elusiveness in the open field (he's a sophomore clap clap clap clap clap) gives him the edge.  Pryor was a great improvisational Quarterback capable of breaking tackles in the pocket and taking on tacklers in the open field.  However, he often was inaccurate with his throws and made some poor decisions.  Braxton is pretty good with the ball, but tends to hold onto the ball far too long trying to make every play into a big play rather than taking what the defense gives him.  Given Braxton's 2012 soph. season (better than anything Pryor put up) with a turd sandwich at WR, I'm going to take Brax.  Even if he over dramatizes any injuries by pretending to be dead before re-entering the game with no ill effects.

D.O. which boxer did it take you the longest to figure out the pattern for on Mike Tyson's Punchout?  

I always felt like Mr. Sandman was even harder than Tyson himself... mainly because he takes some work and patience to beat and you can't just pound away at him until he opens up the body.  Don't go for the knockout too early or Mr. Sandman will eff you up.

J.H. At what age can a man most easily recover or rebound from a hangover? He feels like all hell at age eighteen, and he feels quite similar around age thirty. But somewhere in between he could brush it off and abuse his body for days on end with seemingly zero consequences. I'm not really sure how to best frame this question, but I think you know what I'm talking about and I'd love to hear your thoughts

From thinking back over the foggy haze of a solid 12 year span of copious alcohol consumption, I think the answer is age 20-21.  At that age you've got several years of drinking experience in, but your body has likely not physically recoiled from the horrors you've inflicted on it by rejecting cheap liquors outright.  (If I even smell Lady Bligh, Korski or El Toro...)  Early on in your drinking career when you have no tolerance, it's not so much a hangover as it is still being drunk and not knowing how to adequately cope with such things.  By age 20, you've had a few years of college life, but your body is still durable and young enough to bounce back relatively unscathed from extended abuse.  This is the same age that you're able to go jog without stretching, play basketball for no reason and be able to walk the next day, and similarly inflict physical abuse on your body with an extremely short bounce-back time.  By the time you're in your mid-20's, your body has begun the downward spiral where regular life takes its toll, let alone heavy drinking, and it's just downhill from there.  I vote the 20ish month period from your 20th birthday until nearly your 22nd, the "Goldilocks Zone" of hangover avoidance where your body has adjusted well enough to the effects of alcohol but not yet begun its slow and inexorable decline.

AM: In the spirit of this excellent video from the 2011 Emmy's: 



What is your dream television character crossover?  What character, if introduced to a current or past show as the character they played on another show, would have the most awesome impact, either from a comedic or dramatic standpoint. 

For example, put Tom Havingford on Game of Thrones and he's likely beheaded in minutes.  Not effective.  Put Ron Swanson on LOST and a) he'd go all Rose and Bernard and go live alone in the jungle and b) he would spend half his time telling people how full of shit they were.  So kind of one note.  

So who is it?  Want to see Omar cross paths with Heisenberg?  Jerry Seinfeld on Homeland?  Pierce Hawthorne on the Cosby Show?  THE WORLD IS YOUR OYSTER, SIR.

I have done a lot of thinking on this over the last week or so while limping through this poor effort of a mailbag.  A LOT.  Like, significantly more than I've thought about actually important and meaningful things.  So know that my answer doesn't come from a flippant place.  My answer for which character I'd like to see interjected onto another show is Pilot Walter White onto Pilot LOST.  Here's why.  Walter White is a man of great determination, skill, ingenuity and fortitude, who also happens to be a self-obsessed, arrogant SOB. Aka, a great addition to the Season One LOST crew.  Imagine someone with Locke's determination but scientist skills.  (And not like Jack, either, where he's supposedly a skilled surgeon but is also an idiot)  He'd be able to greatly improve the life of the survivors - building a better radio, hacking Dharma tech, better explosives, medicines, a better raft, etc. - while also descending into his tyrannical, self-obsessed self as he became more and more confident and relied-upon by the other survivors.  Rather than Jack vs Locke, we'd have Jack vs. Locke vs. Walter, with Walter being the most competent, dangerous, brilliant and manipulative of the three.  Once the realities of the island and the Others sunk in, no one would be more brutally efficient and dangerous than Walter White.  What would be amazing is him charming the other survivors only to lead them into darkness by totally lacking Jack and Locke's moral compass.  So awesome.  MAKE THIS HAPPEN, LINDELOF.

2012: The Year in Film: "Skyfall" Review

So it's pretty fair to say that Daniel Craig has been a damn fine Bond. One of, if not THE best is the general consensus.  It certainly helps that the film series has aged beyond the silly sci fi gadget-obsessed nonsense of the latter Bronson films and into a gritty quasi-realism MUCH more befitting a post-9/11, post-Bourne film world.  "Casino Royale" is a real gem among Bond films and does an amazing job both establishing Craig as the new 007 and updating his world into a modern, believable post Cold War spyscape.  The Craig series was briefly derailed with a slight misstep with Quantum of Solace, which lacked a charismatic villain or an easily comprehend-able plot, both hallmarks of the Bond series, and along with a bankruptcy from MGM, left the Bond series in hiatus for a time.  In steps Sam Mendes, unarguably one of the finest filmmakers working today, to resurrect 007 just in time for the 50th Anniversary of the series.  Mendes might have directed some things you've heard of, having done movies called "American Beauty", "Road to Perdition" (in which Daniel Craig played a supporting role oddly enough), "Jarhead" and "Revolutionary Road".  So popular action is a serious departure for a filmmaker whose career to this point has consisted primarily of awards bait.

Skyfall opens with Bond on mission with another agent.  At this point he's the finest agent in all of MI6 and a close confident of director M (Judi Dench).  After a botched mission results in the presumed death of Bond and the scandalous release of the identities of undercover operatives of NATO intelligence services, M and MI6 in general find themselves up against the wall.  A revenge-obsessed former agent left for dead begins an all-out assault on M and MI6 as Bond struggles to get himself back to full strength.

The Good: First, as I said above, Craig is absolutely pitch-perfect as James Bond.  He brings a needed gravitas and physicality to the role while retaining the charm and humor that we've come to expect from 007. The supporting cast is great as well, with Javier Bardem being alternately frightening, charming and unhinged as a former MI6 agent obsessed with bringing down M, and Judi Dench slipping into the comfortable shoes of M without a hitch.  Newcomer Ralph Fiennes (low level HoB "boy status") assumes a role that will have him returning for other films is, as always, great.  Visually this film is spectacular.  There are a number of shots in Shanghai that are simply incredible... a battle in a glass high rise in particular.  Mendes brings an artist's eye that really brings a new element to what could have been a relatively straightforward action flick.  The plot, by and large, makes sense and is plausible, even despite employing the old Hollywood trope of being able to control everything via "hacker skills".  Casting Bond and MI6 as outgunned and outmanned was an interesting turn, and allowed Bond to really shine as an innovator and all-around badass.  Plus, this being the 50th anniversary of Bond, this one really referenced some classic Bond moments and scenes in a fun and deferential way.



The bad: Casino Royale was only 6 years ago, and it was presented as a Bond origin story.  In this flick, Bond is presented as old and getting towards washed up.  Is the operational effective life of an MI6 agent really only 6 years?  I know that Craig as an actor is getting older, in his mid 40's, but if that's the case, why present him as a new agent in Casino Royale?  Either way, that's seriously my only big criticism.

All in all this is a film that is visually thrilling, well crafted, well written, tremendously acted and an all-around good time at the movies.  Craig and Bardem really bring their A-games, and for my money, this is the best Bond flick of them all.  We really need to continue this trend of combining top flight directors with action scripts, Hollywood.

8.5/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Wreck it Ralph" Review

So we don't watch too many cartoons over here at HoB.  There are a number of reasons for this, not all of them related to me being a curmudgeon, but most of them related to a general corncob kid sensibility that fills the vast majority of your Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks fare.  I get that for children it's funny when a dog farts or whatever.. but for me, a somewhat adult, it's groan inducing.  It's become common among moviegoing young person types to praise Pixar above all others, but even Pixar movies oftentimes have a hard time rising above their ultimately kiddie sensibilities.  Think of the dogs in Up or the fatty humans in Wall-E if you don't believe me.  And yes, I understand that the movies are intended to be able to be enjoyed by children and adults alike.  I get it.  However, for me personally, if your movie is jam packed with kiddie goodness, I'm just not going to enjoy it.  I'm sorry, cartoons, it's not me, it's you.  I like movies where people say "fuck" and kill each other while speaking in suave witticisms the way nobody does.  It's my own little cross to bear.  So, with that disclaimer in mind, I was bribed to see "Wreck It Ralph" despite my warning my companion that I almost never like cartoons.  [Note: exception to be made for the Disney Robin Hood movie]  So let's check it out.

If I'm not mistaken this flick is Disney animation trying to be Pixar.  (Correct me if I'm wrong)  For the most part, they succeed in that ambition, and Wreck-It Ralph (despite being a preposterous title for anyone with a "that's what she said" juvenile sense of humor like me) employs one of the most original and fun premises of any movie over the past few years.  In the world of Wreck-It Ralph, video games within an arcade are populated by living characters with feelings, thoughts, ambitions and motivations all their own.  They go to work like any of us during business hours, but once the arcade shuts down, the characters are free to roam through the power cables into other games or common areas.  As long as all of the characters make it to their own game for the opening, all is well and no one is any wiser.  However, if they should be away from their game during business hours, the customers will complain of their absence and the game will be out of order.  Very clever stuff, and the flick wisely uses the concept to hit you with a barrage of classic video game characters and games in the early going.  Ralph is a (very) big, sweet guy whose "job" consists of destroying a building so that Fix It Felix can repair it.  As such, he's feared and detested by the fellow characters in his game, and finds himself wanting more from his life.  So Ralph decides he's going to make a change and get some of the star treatment that's been withheld from him all these years, and sets off from game to game to try to be a hero.

So how is it?

The Good: Ralph, especially, is a remarkably well-developed character.  He has flaws and thoughts and hopes and dreams, yet remains grounded within the game from which he came.  John C. Reilly could voice a lovable dope with a temper with his eyes closed, and Ralph really is a likable character.  The supporting characters are developed to a lesser extent, but they are all given moments to shine and the flick uses their roots as video game characters to humorous effect.  There are many homages to classic games, but more the style of games than anything, with characters moving and behaving in ways that any longtime video game will remember fondly.  The flick really does a good job of creating a rich and realistic universe where these characters all live and interact both within and apart from their games.  The plot is your typical "challenge, personal growth, triumph", but that's not necessarily a bad thing.



The Bad: I felt the flick really wasted a lot of the potential from its premise by focusing almost exclusively on characters and games made up for the movie.  I understand the challenges of using characters and properties owned by diverse companies and with potential film futures of their own, but after the first 20 minutes, it's like the flick forgot that these characters existed.  That could have been a lot of fun, but ultimately it sort of sizzles out.  Also, the film spends the last 2/3rds centered pretty exclusively in a Mario Kart style game called "Sugar Rush" that features children as characters and is candy-centric.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but to me it felt TOO kid centered.  Yes, I realize that it's a cartoon and geared for the 8-13 year old crowd, but this is my criticism and cartoons have successfully tread that line before.  When you make a movie about video games, you're making that flick recognizing that you're aggressively courting an older male demographic... and some of the choices here were TOO safe and TOO child centered for my tastes.  Just my criticism, y'all.  

In all, Wreck It Ralph is cute and quite a bit of fun.  It's got heart and features an incredibly likable protagonist.  However, it wastes quite a bit of the potential of its premise by featuring pretty exclusively on fictional (made up for the movie) games and game characters and ultimately is TOO kiddie to succeed in the way that some of the best animated flicks of the last decade have.  Watchable, and fun, but ultimately falls short.  Oh, by the way, the animated short at the beginning, Paperman?  So good.  So, so good.  Someone was cutting onions behind me, I think.

7/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Cloud Atlas" Review

My original goal was to finish the novel before seeing this film, but I unfortunately failed at said goal, as I fail at many goals, including but not limited to "reviewing movies within a reasonable time frame of seeing said movies". Sigh.  So I caught this one a few weeks back, and to be quite honest, my procrastination in bringing you this review has less to do with "being lazy" and more to do with "processing what the hell this movie is".  The acclaimed novel by David Mitchell was said to be un-film-able, as it features 6 distinct storylines only tangentially related and separated by time, space, characters, genre, style and language.  The sections span from the 1840s to the distant future and are only minimally related to each other.  For example, in one section a character is reading a diary/travel journal published by a character in an earlier section.  With this format, I was honestly more curious than anything else to how this movie could actually be executed.

In step the Wachowski Brothers, best known for creating the Matrix films and German director Tom Tykwer, probably best known for "Run Lola Run", to write and direct this adaptation.  This film has been a passion project of sorts for this crew, who managed to finance this flick outside of the studio system and make the most expensive independently financed film in the history of movies.  This film makes a lot of pretty daring and risky moves.  First, rather than keep the sections of the story separate and arranged by time and place, the film smashes the sections into short segments, jumping from one time and group of characters to another without much of what seems like rhyme or reason.  Second, they use the same actors to depict different characters in each different story, irregardless of ethnicity or gender.  Which can get confusing.  



Ultimately, this is a film that succeeds a lot more than it really has any business doing.  It's a honker at 2 hrs 45 minutes, and often confusingly and inexplicably shifts setting and tone abruptly.  Some settings and characters are significantly more effective than others, but the story in each of the sections develops somewhat simultaneously, building towards an emotionally effective and soaring crescendo of an ending.  Visually, this is an impressive film.  It looks amazing, and each section effectively differentiates itself from the others through color and cinematography.  Despite being 6 short films smashed together into one large film, there IS an overreaching narrative that really comes through in the last act. 

The acting is strong.  Tom Hanks, especially, shows everyone why he's such a highly regarded actor, as he hasn't given us much reminder of that as of late.  Jim Broadbent and Jim Sturgess are other highlights among the cast.  Some characters are more interesting and compelling than others, but considering what the cast was tasked with doing, the fact that this film makes ANY sense at all is a testament to the talent of everyone involved.  The directing is strong.  Each section retains a distinct feel despite being rather randomly (at times) smashed together with the others. 

This is a flick that's often confusing and will have you checking your watch more than once as you try and figure out exactly where the hell we are going with this.  The visuals, insane editing, strong directing and strong performances make it worth watching, but the first two hours of the film can be frustrating.  However, the last half hour of this flick is straight up great.  It's as good as anything else I've seen in the movies this year, and alone makes this flick one worth watching.  The conclusion is emotionally soaring and downright heart-rending as the story and theme all comes crashing down throughout the separate narratives.  This film isn't quite as good or deep as it would like to be, but it's ultimately a rewarding, powerful and worthwhile film experience.  Well worth a watch, if downright bizarre. 

8/10. 

2012: The Year in Film: "Lincoln" Review

I got lucky to catch a screening of this one Wednesday night.  Flicks don't come with a much better pedigree than this one. Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln in a film called "Lincoln" directed by Steven Spielberg? That's a damn exciting flick on paper.  And whatever you may think about latter day Spielberg (I happen think he's an overly sentimental, broad corncob who wastes visual brilliance and competence on being "popular", uncontroversial and safe) you can guarantee that this flick is going to feature a star-studded cast, look incredible, and be an all-around solid flick. That's never the concern with Spielberg. You're never going to get a complete turd. The question is, and has been since Schindler's List, is he going to be TOO safe. I.e., will Spielberg take the requisite chances to make something truly memorable and accomplished, or will he keep it in "Oprah's Book Club" territory and make something everyone likes, but no one truly loves?

 Based on the book "Team of Rivals" by Doris Goodwin (which I have sitting on my shelf, but haven't read, sorry not sorry) that focuses on Lincoln's unique cabinet (he pulled together political rivals and opponents to lead the country through the Civil War), this flick features on the last few months of Lincoln's life and in particular the passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery for all time.  In that way, the title is somewhat misleading.  This is NOT a biopic on Lincoln the man, the myth, the legend, but rather a snap shot of a very specific, challenging and defining period in his presidency.

We open in January 1965.  The Civil War is winding down as the Confederacy finds itself with its back against the wall.  Lincoln has won re-election and enjoys a broad popularity after the long, turbulent grind of the last few years.  Desperate to both finish the war and push through with his political goals, Lincoln faces the tough task of balancing the diverse characters in Washington and elsewhere, especially the legal abolition of slavery in the entirety of the United States.  We all know how this one turns out for old Abe and for the nation as a whole.



The Good: there may not be a better director today at visually representing period than Steven Spielberg.  Between this and "Amistad", Spielberg has an obsessive master's eye for visually representing and recreating the gritty, earthy tones of the 19th Century.  This flick looks like a visual museum and I'm sure it will assume a role in history classrooms nationwide for decades.  The lead performance is simply astounding.  Not that we expected anything different from Daniel Day Lewis, but his Lincoln is warm, incredibly charming and often funny, but often wears the weight of the world on his shoulders.  This is a man who's been dealt an incredibly burdensome hand by the world, and rather than shirk from his lot rises to the occasion the way few ever have.  Lincoln's reserve, determination, wisdom and brilliance are borne out on Lewis' weary face and body language.  Sally Field (who I was admittedly worried about) is strong as Mary Todd.  Tommy Lee Jones is great as Thaddeus Stevens and will likely win Best Supporting.  James Spader tries his damndest to steal this one and absolutely owns every scene he's in.  When this film is focusing on Lincoln interacting with people or political intrigue both inside and outside of the Capitol Building and the White House it's great.  A top-notch political filler chock to the brim with historical nuance.

The Bad: I can't shake the feeling that Daniel Day Lewis is wasted in a role and a movie like this.  While no doubt he's given us a tender and complex depiction of Lincoln that will be remembered for years, Lincoln just simply doesn't offer the fiery bombast of a Daniel Plainview or Bill Cutting that really brings out the madman in DDL.  Maybe that's more a personal complaint than anything else, it's just that our finest living actor acts so rarely, it's disappointing when he doesn't give us something legendary.  The film tries to do too much re: Lincoln.  It tries to give us biographical details like a biopic, but the view and timeline is so short that it's not able to successfully do this.  The biographical scenes, including many scenes with Mary Todd and Robert Todd feel forced and shoehorned in.  In addition, this flick offers little nuance of the opposition to the 13th Amendment.  Those standing in opposition are depicted as cowards or worse.  There are scenes when the film is simply too broad.  Scenes like soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address or soaring music with emotionally manipulative shots seem out of place in a film this honest.  Plus, the ending feels unnecessary and out of place.  An odd coda to what had to that point been a highly effective historical/political thriller.

In conclusion,  the film tries to do too much and falls short of its broad ambitions.  HOWEVER, it is extremely watchable, much funnier than you'd expect, and features a great historical story.  In addition, the star studded cast, top to bottom, is simply great.  Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, John Hawkes and David Straithern particularly more than hold their own with the esteemed Daniel Day Lewis.  This film is very, very good, and will be remembered as such, but unfortunately it falls short of true greatness.  If you have any interest in American history, great acting or politics at all, see this movie.

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Seven Psychopaths" Review

Only 9 days late on this one. Could be MUCH worse. Martin McDonagh is a critically acclaimed, Tony nominated and well respected Irish playright who made the move into film with 2008's absolutely brilliant and Oscar nominated "In Bruges". I can honestly say that In Bruges is one of my favorite recent films and established McDonagh as someone I'd be following for the rest of his career. Centered on two Irish hitmen who hide out in Bruges, Belgium after a hit gone horribly wrong, In Bruges is dark, it's twisted, it's sweet at moments, it's hilarious, and it's surprisingly introspective. Think old Guy Ritchie with more "heart" and without trying so damn hard to be "cool". With that being said, when I heard that he was finally following up In Bruges, my interest was piqued to say the least.

 Enter "Seven Psychopaths", which was not done ANY favors by the advertising. I seriously wonder who's in charge of the marketing for some of these flicks.. this one came off as a stylized "cool guy" action-er in the style of a Pulp Fiction or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. What we actually get is something that is KIND of that, but also much, much more and altogether different. We focus on Martin, (Colin Farrell) a screenwriter who's up against a deadline from the studio and hopelessly out of ideas. All he has for his next movie, that's due any day now, is a title: "Seven Psychopaths". His best friend and aspiring actor Billy (Sam Rockwell) who's at least slightly unhinged and also a part-time dog thief seeks to help Martin out of his alcoholic writer's block phase by any means necessary. Along the way, under the guise of research for this Seven Psychopaths project, we're introduced to a number of possibly or actual psychopathic characters, including bunny loving Zachariah (Tom Waits) and pacifist Hans (Christopher Walken), who is Billy's partner in dog kidnapping. After Billy and Hans take the wrong dog, Martin and friends find themselves in serious danger, and no where on the movie.

This flick is smart, it's violent, it's very, very meta, but above all it features great quirky actors with whip-smart dialogue being alternately disturbing and hilarious. Sam Rockwell, in particular, was born to play this role. He's charming as hell, moderately disturbing, hilarious, and just a few shades too far away from "normal" for anyone to be comfortable around him. He's the kind of guy who'd hang out with you all night and then murder your girlfriend as the result of an off-hand remark. Making a movie featuring dog thievery called "Seven Psychopaths" and leaving out Chris Walken and Woody Harrelson is most likely illegal, and those two crown princes of Hollywood spastic behavior certainly do not disappoint.
If I have a complaint, it's that the plot can be scattershot, but the film isn't trying to be a straightforward narrative exercise. If anything, it's a quasi-autobiographical meta look at writing films, featuring some strange personages in lieu of anyone who may be recognizable as a normal person. It's sometimes disturbing, it's often hilarious, it's surprisingly charming, and features some memorable characters in some great locales. The entire final act in Joshua Tree national park is surreal and masterfully shot.

 Come for Chris Walken, Sam Rockwell and Bonny, the cutest Shih Tzu ever (many hilarious uses of Shih Tzu by the cast, btw), stay for a boozy yet effective Colin Farrell, Tom Waits, Woody Harrelson and a story that will charm you while you're laughing your ass off. This is a fun flick that will no doubt be enjoyed in dorm rooms for years to come. A damn good time at the movies.

 8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Argo" Review.

I was lucky enough to catch a screening of this one a week before it hits theaters (it comes out Friday, October 12), and this flick has been one I've been excited for since I first saw the trailer. (Check the 2012 Movie Preview if you don't believe me.) Based on a "truth is stranger than fiction" style true story, (Best told in this Wired Story) during the Iran Hostage Crisis of '79-'80, where Iranian students and radicals stormed the American embassy during the Iranian revolution, taking 52 embassy workers hostage and holding them for 444 days. Well, the lesser known part of the story is that 6 embassy workers escaped during the storming of the embassy, simply walking out the front door and seeking refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador to Iran. As the Iranian forces desperately sought out any and all Americans still in Iran to punish and use as leverage against the American government that had long supported the brutal Shah, the CIA faced a race against time and a possible diplomatic and PR crisis.

This is a story that seems custom-made for the screen, as the CIA and other government agencies seek to formulate a plan, any plan, to get these still-hidden Americans out before they face capture and likely worse by an angry and violently anti-American Iranian regime.  CIA specialist Tony Mendez formulates a plan that seems utterly preposterous, but may be the only option - create a phony movie studio with legitimate Hollywood types and a false Star Wars rip-off, complete with a cast and a script, that's seeking to film in Iran, and all of the Americans can leave together as a Canadian film crew.  You can't make this stuff up.

With a premise like that, the primary job of the filmmaker is simply going to be to don't screw it up.  It's an amazing premise, but one that could easily descend into camp or worse simply by virtue of having to many moving parts.  You need to take your premise as serious as it actually was while still recognizing that yes, this was completely ridiculous.  The good news?  Director Ben Affleck (who is slowly but surely moving up the list of quality American filmmakers..) surely does not screw this one up.  This flick is part insider Hollywood comedy, part political thriller/race against time, but the two parts fit and make this amazing story worth telling into a legitimately great movie.

The Good:  The film moves back and forth from Hollywood to political intrigue seamlessly, and Affleck never once lets the plot get away from him.  Everything is designed to ratchet the tension to higher and higher levels, so that by the final escape attempt, you're literally on the edge of your seat.  This flick is hilarious at times (Alan Arkin and John Goodman, especially, chew up scenery and really knock their Hollywood insider roles out of the park) and almost unbearably tense at times (I think I bit off all of my fingernails during the last 45 minutes) but it seamlessly comes together into one greater whole.  The performances are more than adequate (personally, I'd have loved to have seen more of Bryan Cranston), but this flick is about pacing, about atmosphere, and about scenery.  Everything is meticulously re-created, a series of pictures during the credits will show you just HOW MUCH everyone and everything looks exactly like it was, and that labor pays huge dividends as this is a flick that looks great and is one of the more effectively entertaining adult flicks I've seen in years.  This is the kind of movie that Spielberg has been trying to make for 20 years and just can't make anymore because he's too damn sentimental.  When you're able to be THAT tense and THAT suspenseful, despite the fact that EVERYONE knows that none of the embassy staff were killed in the Iran Hostage Crisis (or, I hope they do), you're doing something right.  And this flick is doing a lot right.

 

The bad: I don't know if it's Affleck's performance or the screenplay's treatment of him, but Tony Mendez as a character could have really benefited from some meatier development.  This guy is an American hero, and the flick mainly uses him to ferry about from plot point to plot point.  He's given some anguished scenes and a small family sub-plot, but one of the greatest agents in the history of the CIA (Jimmy Carter's words) could have benefited from a more charismatic performance and meatier development.  All of the characters, in general, are slightly under-developed.  Now, I get that this is a political thriller and escape movie at its root, so character is secondary to the plot and suspense, but we don't care as much about some of these people as we should.  Note: I'm nit-picking at this point.  This is one of the best movies of the year.

In all, this is an incredibly well-done flick.  Affleck is one of the finest American filmmakers working today (he's currently 3-3 as a director, with "Gone Baby Gone" and "The Town" already both winning wide acclaim), and I for one can't wait to see him continue to grow as a director.  This is total awards bait, and although it might not win a lot at the Oscars (this year's slate will be STACKED), it will certainly be nominated, and rightfully so.  This is a great film.  One of the better and more watchable films I've seen in quite some time.  The final act is near perfection.

9/10.

2012: The Year in Film "Looper" Review

Rian Johnson is one of the more intriguing and exciting young American filmmakers working today. His two previous flicks, "Brick" (a smart, stylized updating of the classic Noir tale in a modern American high school - and vastly underrated) and "The Brothers Bloom" (a fun, occasionally hilarious caper) are both new twists/perspectives on classic and often tired genres, and show an imagination and eye for both story and filmmaking that make Mr. Johnson's career one well worth following. Oh, and there's the fact that he's directed two of the stronger episodes of "Breaking Bad", season three's "Fly" (a serious achievement in directing) and season five's "51". Now comes feature flick number three, "Looper".

 In the not-so-distant future, time travel has been invented but is highly illegal due to the potential timeline effects and as a result is used exclusively by the world's largest criminal organizations to eliminate people in the past, as murder is all but impossible in 2072. In the film's present, 2042, assassins called "Loopers" are employed to handle the job of eliminating these targets. This film's vision of the future seems to indicate that the next 30 years will not be kind to the US of A or the greater world. Homelessness is rampant, vagrants roam the streets, and a violent lawlessness has taken over the major cities. Loopers arrive at a set time and place, kill the hooded individual as he or she arrives, take their payment from the person of their victim, dispose of the body, and go about their day. It's a pretty clean and efficient system, largely untraceable... the only issue is the loopers themselves. At some point, the future organizations will "close the loop", by sending the future self of the assassin through time, the assassin will unbeknownst to himself, kill his future self, take his resulting large payday, and enjoy the next 30 years of his life.  Loopers enjoy a pretty easy life in this future dystopia, with steady and good pay (a few years of "Looping" pays enough for a lifetime of relative leisure), few responsibilities, and steady access to drugs, parties and women.  A looper's only concern is ensuring that his target meet his intended demise, as letting a target escape is simply unacceptable, with potentially devastating consequences.

Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt - "wearing" a CGI-ed face to make him resemble the older version of himself, played by Bruce Willis) is one such Looper.  He enjoys life in the city and is quietly stashing away half of his pay, hoping to move to Paris after his time as a looper is up.  All of his dedication and plans are waylaid when, through the unusual circumstance of his target arriving without a hood, he hesitates and allows the older version of himself to escape.  A manhunt ensues, and Joe finds himself in a race against the clock and his employer to hunt down himself.



"Looper" is smart, very smart, and expertly done.  The plot crackles, the performances shine, and via narrative techniques like flashbacks (flashforwards?) we are shown the stakes and the film's vision of the fluid nature of time.  You will never be able to make traveling time make sense, so it's best to just establish your rules and run with them.  Looper does this, and so escapes most of the headier discussions of time travel that are guaranteed to: 1. make your head spin, 2. descend into nonsense, and 3. sound like an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where you're just making up pseudo technical sounding nonsense.  Note: Looper isn't able to do this completely, but what it IS able to do is completely switch directions completely midstream without hitting a hiccup and effectively create a whole new and parallel narrative that exists alongside the main narrative but is largely separate.  Basically, Looper is two movies, 1/2 crime/caper/gangland thriller and 1/2 redemption/family/relationship story and 99% of flicks would fail when trying to pull something like this off, but somehow Looper does it largely seamlessly and effectively.  This is a serious achievement.  Characters have distinct development and motivations.  Joe and Joe (JGL and Bruce Willis) share enough besides the CGI-ed face that confrontations between them are fascinating, with a young man's headstrong foolishness butting up against his older counterpart's wisdom and know-how.

The good: the performances.  Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the finer young actors working today, even if he did try WAY too hard throughout his SNL hosting gig.  Bruce Willis is a pro and could play this role in his sleep.  Emily Blunt, who I've always thought had a tendency to sort of drift through her roles as scenery, really owns this one, and she'll grow on you.  Jeff Daniels has a lot of fun with what could have been a stock part.  The plot is smart and seamless and has very few holes... something that you can't often say about flicks featuring time travel.  There are some characters that exist merely to further the plot, but there are worse sins a movie can commit, Chris Nolan has been doing that trick for years.  What starts as a dystopian action-er turns into a character piece, and this flick is worth seeing for that alone.  It's shot spectacularly, makes great use of its characters, will have you at the end of your seat at times, and really uses its time travel elements pretty ingeniously.  I liked this one a lot.

The bad: as I said, any discussion about time travel bears the risk of crossing over into silliness, and this flick comes close a couple of times without ever crossing over into straight silliness.  As I said, some characters have no point except as a plot device and that can feel cheap.  I personally would have wanted the future to be MORE fleshed out, but I'm a nerd for world-building like that.  It's why I love George RR Martin.  Really, there are few criticisms here.  This is one of the best movies of the year.

"Looper" is smart, it's tense, it's fun, but above all, it's very, very well done.  A must-see.  Worth multiple viewings.

9/10

2012: The Year in Film: "The Master" Review

Paul Thomas Anderson is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important American directors working today. That's not hyperbole, it's simply fact. When your last film was "There Will Be Blood", a monumnetal work of art that will be studied and beloved decades from now, anything that immediately follows is going to be buzzworthy to say the least, even sight unseen. When you've also written and directed flicks called "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia" and "Punch Drunk Love", needless to say, you're an important filmmaker. Rumors started circulating about "The Master" about a year ago, and the excitement in film nerd circles reached a fever pitch when footage was finally released earlier this year. So needless to say, I was excited for this one. Let's check it out.

First, for a little background, postwar America was a complicated place. On the surface, we had never been richer, more powerful, healthier, or generally better off. Underneath the "American dream" sold to us by advertisers and falsely remembered so fondly by so many today was a general spiritual malaise. A "that's it??!" if you will. (Think: Don Draper at the beginning of Mad Men) This backdrop saw the emergence of pseudo spiritual mystic movements ranging from "new age" and Asian influenced spirituality to pop psychology to a massive rise in cults and new religious movements, one of which being, of course, Scientology. All of these movements sought to prescribe cure-alls to the pittfalls of modern society, and all of them fell far short of their professed goals, and continue to do so in their various incarnations today.  While this flick isn't technically ABOUT Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard, per se, it's certainly inspired, influenced by and based largely upon the charismatic movement L. Ron Hubbard would use to create his bizarre and influential spiritual movement, such that it is.

Freddie Quell is a troubled naval veteran of WW2 who suffers from PTSD, sexual compulsions, possible psychosis, definite nervous tendencies, definite alcoholism and a number of unknown and unstated but clearly present conditions. He finds himself an outcast of sorts, bouncing from menial job to menial job, cooking up batches of hooch that contain such lovely ingrediants as paint thinner and film chemicals when a chance drunken encounter with a pleasure cruise lands him in the orbit of Lancaster Dodd, a self-professed "theoretical philosopher, doctor, nuclear physicist, but most of all, a man" who has gained a dedicated bordering on fanatical following through his writings and teachings. The two men share an odd symbiotic bond of sorts, and Freddie gets drawn into "The Cause", led by Dodd and his group of family and followers, as they traverse the country and wider world, seeking to advance his teachings and movement.

First, this is a strange film.  The narrative, such that it is, is even less present than the narrative in "There Will Be Blood".. it's sort of a thread that meanders about behind vignettes that range from the powerful and profound to the ridiculous.  Rather than a straight evisceration of Scientology or cult-ish mystical/spiritual movements in general, this picture is much more concerned with its characters as people.  As such, we get a pair of absolutely masterful performances from extremely skilled actors at the tops of their games.  Joaquin "I'm probably actually crazy" Phoenix imbues Freddie with an unhinged manic energy and yet odd charm that you at once pity, fear and yet kind of oddly like him, despite everything he's been doing.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman is simply a force of nature in this role.  He's menacing and charming.  Brilliant and vulnerable and manipulative all at once.  Despite the fact that we know that he's a master manipulator manipulating his friends and family and quite possibly (read: definitely) making everything up as he goes along, you can't take your eyes off of him and can see how people would be drawn into his orbit.  Amy Adams turns in a memorable performance as well as Dodd's wife, who may be the biggest manipulator of all.  Any time PSH and Phoenix share the screen, the crackling energy is incredible. 
  


I feel as though this flick is a companion of sorts to There Will Be Blood.  Not explicitly, but thematically.  There's a similar iconoclastic approach to society and traditionally revered institutions.  Maybe a good title for this one would be "There Will Be Nihilism".  Where capitalism and capitalists were eviscerated there, spiritual leaders, philosophies and would be guides are here. Just my $.02.

Ultimately, this is a strange, beautiful flick with some incredible sequences and unbelievable performances.  Joaquin Phoenix would likely win Best Actor if Daniel Day Lewis wasn't playing someone named Abe Lincoln later this year.  It falls short of perfection by virtue of its strangeness (I guarantee you'll leave the theater a little confused), but is no doubt a work of art.

8.5/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Beasts of the Southern Wild" Review

Only 2.5 weeks late on this one.. things are looking up! So every year there's at least one seemingly random tiny film that comes out of no where at one of the acclaimed festival and wows the crowd to go on to an extended arthouse run culminating in a handful of Oscar nominations. This year that film happened to be a crazy little, immensely charming southern gothic psuedo fantasy/magical realism tale. I kept hearing about this one and finally went out to see it, so how is it? This flick features a tiny fictional, isolated, nearly post-apocalyptic community on the Gulf outside of New Orleans. Despite living in destitute conditions, scavenging and scraping by in squalor, the community is tight-knit and festive, mistrusting of outsiders and broader society as a whole. Survival skills are key, and residents of "The Bathtub" are forced to grow up fast in a community that time and wider society have seemingly forgotten. This tiny bayou island community finds its very survival threatened by melting icecaps and increasingly severe storms. In this community a young girl, named Hushpuppy, who seems to have an almost magical connection with nature, lives with her father, known as Wink, who is perhaps the proudest Bath Tub resident of all. The Good: the island, its residents, and the world they inhabit is imbued with an almost Wes Anderson-esque aesthetic.. it's a world all its own with unique characters, rules, and a complete world that exists on its own while seemingly bearing little in common with our own. When done well, this is extremely charming, and this flick does it without Anderson's aplomb and whimsy, electing instead for a grittier, earthier feel all its own. At once rustic and contemporary, this gives the flick a timeless feel, making it seem as though it exists in a time and place all its own. The decision to use unknown or amateur actors really adds to this feel and makes the flick feel rawer and more authentic. The main performances are great. Wink (played by a non-actor) and Hushpuppy (played, quite remarkably, by an incredibly charming little girl named Quvenzhané Wallis) have a believable and sometimes strained family relationship. The film looks great and feels light and magical enough due to the performances despite its serious tone and subject matter. The Bad: The film occasionally treads on overly sentimental territory. While this may not be a negative to everyone, it seems that so much of our modern media is permeated with an unearned and unnecessary nostalgic sentimentality that serves no purpose other than emotional manipulation. I don't have a problem with this, when it's earned by the underlying narrative and character development, but sentimentality for sentimentality's sake is exploitative and cheap. Granted, the film in no way entirely crosses this line, but it certainly walks it, and comes damn near inducing groans at several moments. In addition, the film is certainly an allegory for SOMETHING, but good luck placing your thumb on exactly what. This, combined with sometimes undue sentimentality, cheapens whatever its trying to actually SAY. Again, not a deal breaker, just moderately annoying. Ultimately, the often lovely and whimsical yet still serious story, combined with terrific main performances and great characterization overcomes its weaknesses to make this a sweet, charming flick that's well worth a watch. Its shortcomings left me less charmed than many were, but there's no denying that Wallis, as Hushpuppy, has done something amazing. To think that someone so young could be so talented is truly astounding. Watch this film for her alone. 7/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Lawless" Review

Ugh. I'm the worst, you guys. I saw this one weeks ago and just never got around to reviewing it. My apologies, football season + work and so on has just left me in a perpetual state of sleep deprivation and unable to muster the energy to review crazy person arthouse flicks like I've got in the hopper. But let's do it, shall we? We're headed into fall, and with it, Oscar bait, so my movie seeing schedule will likely pick way up and I'd like to be on top of it when I see say, "The Master". (can't wait...) So let's see about "Lawless", shall we?

 

Author/musician/screenwriter/crazy person Nick Cave and director John Hillcoat collaborated on 2005's "The Proposition", which is brutal and pretty much great, so I was excited about this one from first trailer on.  First, sometimes the marketing does a flick absolutely no favors. From watching the trailer and seeing the posters you'd think that this is a bang-bang shoot 'em up featuring hero bootleggers against a corrupt system. And while it's KIND OF that, it's mostly approximately 15 other things. This is no "Goodfellas" or grand crime drama, it's an arthouse flick infinitely more concerned with showing and ruminating than with its narrative or symbolism.  This is a time and a place that echoes today perhaps louder than ever before.. and through the lens of these larger-than-life people we can perhaps glean a thing or two about humanity... isn't that the greater purpose of art, after all?

 

It is the early 1930s in Franklin County, Virginia, in the midst of the Great Depression and Prohibition.  Franklin County, deep in the backwoods of western Virginia, was at one time referred to as "the wettest county in the world" due to the prevalence of bootlegged moonshine and illegal moonshine stills.  Based on a book by the grandson and great-nephew of the main characters, the flick focuses on the three Bondurant brothers, Jack, Forrest and Howard, notable and feared local characters and prolific bootleggers.  The Bondurant brothers, violent, stubborn, oddly principled and fiercely loyal, find themselves pitted against corrupt law enforcement as Franklin County becomes a gangland war zone.   

 

 

 

The good:  this flick looks and sounds great.  The sets, costumes, shots and sounds are all extremely artfully done, and blow away a lot of what you'll find in films with blockbuster-sized budgets.  This cast is extremely talented, with Tom Hardy and Jessica Chastain especially doing simply amazing work.  Hardy may well be the most talented actor under 40 working today, and it will be a damn shame if he doesn't walk away with at least an Oscar nom from this one.  His Forrest Bondurant is a dynamo... simply owning scenes and creating a nuanced and layered character out of whole cloth.  Jason Clarke is underrated and under used and is always, always good.  Guy Pearce and Gary Oldman in supporting roles?  Hot.  In addition, the flick treats its subject matter with respect and dilligence, the rural feel comes off as extremely authentic and gritty, and it doesn't shirk from the brutal violance associated with crime.  There's something beautiful and insane about the fact that it takes two Australians to make the most authentic modern depiction of depression-era 20th century rural America I've seen on film. 

 

The bad: Shia LaBeouf is simply out of his league here.  The role isn't especially flattering and is quite difficult, as a young, foolhardy, brash younger brother comes of age and searches for love, but Tom Hardy has more talent in one of his grunts than Shia has in his entire coked-out body.  It's not entirely Shia's fault... I'm not sure who honestly could have held a candle to Hardy in this one... Gosling, maybe?  But Shia is definitely outshined and out done and comes off as a weak-link.  Considering he's the main character, that's bad.  In addition, just what the shit is going on with Guy Pearce?  I get that he's supposed to be a strange outsider... but how would he rise to his position being THAT strange?  It strains credibility.  The plot is occasionally un-focused and tends to meander without seeming focus or aim.  I understand that it's not a plot-driven film, but at the same time some people (cough, Gary Oldman, cough) are simply criminally under-used while some seemingly unimportant parts and scenes are given too much play.  I don't know if that's an editing issue, a directing issue or a script issue, but it knocks something that could have been a classic down a couple of notches. 

 

In the end, this is a violent, sincere depiction of a fascinating group of people and a story well worth telling.  Come for the beautiful shots and Tom Hardy alone.  Well worth a watch, but unfortunately just a few notches short of true greatness. 

 

7.5/10. 

Mailbag: Episode V: The Hunger Games?

Because this blog is, first and foremost, a blog of the people, for the people and by the people (and must never be mistaken for a vehicle for my own ego), I've been receiving and listening to feedback regarding the movie-review portion of this blog, which has become its dominant function.  First, I've decided to overhaul the scoring portion, and have been scoring flicks slightly differently over the last 2 months or so.  Gone are tenth point scores, and the 10 point scale will only be divided into .5 increments.  In addition, the scoring system has been modified to adjust scores generally down.  At some point I'll probably write up a list with revised scores, but it became clear that there was little rhyme or reason to the actual scores I was giving flicks, so I decided to impose a little mental order.

For now, here's a general scale: under 6: a flick that is heavily flawed and generally not worth watching although something on the high end may have certain endearing qualities.  6-7: a flawed flick that for any number of reasons falls short of true quality, but is still watchable.  7-8: an overall good flick that falls short of being potentially great or memorable but is still well worthwhile, especially if you're a fan of the people involved/genre or source material.  8-9: approaching greatness but falling just short.  Still a fine film by any measure and anything 8.5+ is going to end up as one of the year's best.  9+: a potentially great film that will be among the year's 5 or so best and will deservedly be remembered.  Over the life of "A House of Brenner" (I've been reviewing movies since 2010) the 9+'s would be: Social Network, Inception, True Grit, Tree of Life, Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises and the Artist.  If we go back a few years we'll be talking about The Dark Knight, Children of Men, No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker, Avatar and There Will Be Blood.  In any rate, no more than 3-5 or so flicks a year will be 9's and up, nor should they be, or the value of the score would be cheapened.  Yes, I grade on a scale. 

In addition, I've received requests to review more "bad" films, or movies I don't want to see.  Since movie reviewing is something I fit into a life already full of being a mediocre lawyer, beer drinking, trying to meet women, reading comic books and watching way too much TV, I simply don't have much time to watch things I KNOW aren't good.  I tend to go through a careful vetting process before determining if a movie is one I'm going to see. (a combination of seeing Drew McWeeney and Roger Ebert's reviews, RottenTomatoes score + average rating and metacritic tends to do the trick) However, I'm going to try to see the occasional crappy movie, if only to mix up the reviews here and provide some cheap and easy laughs by blasting away at some Sandler fartfest or rom-com or the like.  This is a work in progress so we'll see how it plays out.  Maybe I'll post reviews of movies I watch on Netflix or cable or the like.  I'm more than open to suggestions and if you'd like me to blast apart a movie, PLEASE let me know.  I'm easy to find. 


So, with that housekeeping issue resolved, we have a short and painless mailbag to address.  It's been a while since I've answered the pressing questions of your souls, but please accept my apologies.  Know that I've been avoiding answering your questions by being completely and utterly horrible at managing my time.  So let's rock, shall we?


GH: George Carlin had a bit where he famously discussed how there should be a "two minute warning" prior to dying.  What would you do with your two minutes?

I would NOT answer bleak shit like this.  I don't even know, really... 2 minutes is too short a time period to do anything profound, amazing or bucket-list worthy, and if I recall the bit George Carlin just wanted an opportunity to be hilarious right before dying.  Well, two minutes is an insanely short amount of time so what would really happen is I would freeze up, freak out and not do anything until I had about 4 seconds left and then just died and everyone would be really confused and kind of embarrassed.  But if I had my wits about me and enough savvy to go through with it I'd start pontificating on all sorts of religious pronouncements and repeatedly stating that time was short because my father was calling me home in a matter of moments.  If you're making pronouncements and begging your deity to hold off on calling you home and then drop dead?  If in a public place, surely I could cause an adequate scene to become of at least minor note. 



JD: What would you do to be free of election ads until November?

Oh sweet Mary, what WOULDN'T I do?  If I could somehow avoid the media propaganda circus that is the nonsensical power grab of Presidential elections (let's be honest.. the biggest issue in this year's election is one where the incumbent adopted DIRECTLY the policies of his competition which was then reacted-to like it was the Bolshevik uprising by the nonsensical voices of hysteria on the right) it would be a real-life paradise on Earth and I wouldn't complain about anything at all for at least... 3 weeks.  Honestly, the worst part of the whole thing is how it's pure manipulation.  The shots, the music, the tone, the language used, it's all straight out of "Triumph of the Will" or similar Orwellian propaganda designed to purely appeal to base instinct rather than intellect.  The diversification of media, while great for things like "quality tv shows" and "choice of programming" is awful for news, information and education, because it means that people literally NEVER have to confront something that they don't already agree with.  That's dangerous and damaging to the creation and maintenance of an informed, involved and worthwhile citizenry, because these sources of information are FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS.  They exist to maximize their earnings which they do by maximizing viewers which they do by sensationalizing and dumbing down everything to the least common denominator which means letting everything devolve to hysteria, misinformation, rumor, gossip, outright lies and manipulation of data into neat boxes that fit previously-held beliefs.  Ugh, it makes me want to stab myself in the eyeballs.  The single MOST frustrating thing about people being uninformed puppets of monied interests is that it's NEVER been easier to inform oneself.  With the internet and ease of access to information we SHOULD be getting smarter as a culture, but we are absolutely not and instead every "discussion" on anything remotely political breaks down into a lowest common denominator scream fest of manufactured talking points.  Oh, Obama's socialist?  Romney is rich?  ...Read a book you lepton.  Breaks my heart. 



SB: Which Adam Richman-type food challenge would you do best at?  Giant burrito, giant steak, wings, etc.?   

My typical go-to answer is pancakes... but I really feel as though I'm a world-class burrito-eater.  This was only confirmed during a recent chipotle trip when my burrito was gone in less than half the time of my companions', also grown men.  I've also successfully downed two Chipotle burritos in quick succession without being too much worse for wear, so I feel I've got the bona fides to make a serious run at consuming massive quantities of rice, tortilla, beans, meat, salsa, etc.  Bring on Richman.  P.S., I'm not wholly convinced that I didn't somehow black out and become possessed by the spirit of Brady Hoke for that paragraph.  Certainly seemed like Hoke-ian food-based bravado.


EB: Spider-Man vs. Batman, no holds-barred, who wins? 

Well, there are a lot of variables in this one.  First, let's go through their capabilities.  Batman, of course, is billionaire Bruce Wayne, who has a vast armory and resources at his disposal, but as far as strength, speed, dexterity and endurance goes, is for all intents and purposes an ordinary man.  He's a highly trained, highly motivated ordinary man who may be at the peak of human physical condition and potential, but he does not possess any augmented characteristics beyond those of his suit and technology.  In addition, Bruce Wayne is presented as having a brilliant mind as has been called the world's greatest detective.  Spider-Man, on the other hand, due to a radioactive spider bite, has many superpowers.  Basically, he's extremely fast, agile, flexibile, strong, able to cling to walls/ceilings and possesses a certain semi-precognitive warning "spider sense" that alerts him to coming danger.  Spider-Man has been shown being capable of throwing and catching cars and lifting several tons without much difficulty.  In one particularly silly sequence of events, Spider-Man punched a T-Rex out cold.  In addition, Peter Parker has been shown to be a genius-level intellect, being one of the few minds capable of holding his own with the likes of Reed Richards.  As far as the confrontation itself, I think a lot of it depends on 1) the turf, and 2.) how much time is available to plan/prepare.  Batman, with preparation, is a lot more lethal and effective, especially against someone who has him far outmatched like Spider-Man.  In various stories he's been shown to briefly take on even Superman, usually with kryptonite, but still, Batman is a man who is much more dangerous than your average dude, even to someone as powerful as Spider Man.  Let's say, for the sake of making it an actual match (you couldn't throw them in a pit or Spidey would just break the entirety of Batman's face with one punch), that they are dropped into a neutral city, not NYC or Gotham, on opposite sides, and told that they must find and defeat the other.  It's hard for me to envision a scenario in which Batman could win.  Even with all of Batman's technology, Spidey's spider sense and reflexes make him a target that's all but impossible to hit.  Batman would no longer have the advantage of the rooftops and spider sense would remove the advantage of the darkness.  Let's remember that basically one punch from Spider Man ends it.  Batman would make a match of things, but let's be honest, he's outclassed by the man who may well be best equipped of all comic heroes to take out Batman.  Between spider sense and Spider-Man's speed, reflexes, strength and healing properties, I can't see how Batman could take him out without the benefit of home field, planning, and some traps.  Since the question wasn't "could Batman take out Spider Man if Spidey wandered into Gotham City and didn't know Batman was planning on taking him out?" I'm going to choose not to address that possibility and instead consider that Spider Man simply outclasses Batman in basically every non-technology way.     


AM: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to eat more calories in a day than an entire African village (pop 500, 400 adults 100 children) eats during a week. Could you do this? What strategy would you attempt? Assume the Village is an average cross section of African Villages, not particularly more hungry than any other, but certainly not likely to be "well fed" by Western Standards. You have a full 24 hour period. Bold Flavors. Full Spread. Lay it out. One rule: no vomiting.

We'll call this "The Hunger Games", because everyone in the movie looked exceedingly well-fed so they're forced to forfeit the title.  Jen Lawrence is a fine looking young lady, but she certainly wasn't malnourished... those were some full cheeks.  After some research, I found that even the most malnourished Africans are averaging between 750-1,200 calories per day.  THAT makes things much more interesting/impossible.  Even on the EXTREME low end, let's say 750 calories for adults and 500 for children, we're talking about 350,000 calories/day for the village as a whole.  NOT POSSIBLE.  So let's dial it back to something that may actually be possible.  Let's switch the question to could I out-eat 100 starvation-level Africans in a single day.  Let's say 75 adults, 25 children to keep a similar ratio.  We're talking about 93,000+ calories.  In 24 hours we're talking about 46X the daily suggested value and that's probably impossible without vomiting but let's consider how best to attack this monster.  Filling foods are going to be out because we need to get as many calories in as quickly as possible.  I'm thinking the best method is going to be desserts mixed with fried foods.  You know... as I actually looked up nutrition facts/calorie counts I think this is totally impossible.  Say you drank a milkshake (600 ish calories) and some greasy onion rings (500 ish calories) and we're still only 1/93rd the way there.  I did find out that a Sierra Nevada Bigfoot Barleywine has 330 calories/12 ounces.  However, it also has 9.6% alcohol, so apparently I'll be getting wasted in a hunt for calories.  10 of those will give me an extra 330 calories.  I discovered that vegetable oil and nuts are extremely high in calories.  So I'll be stuffing my face with pecans (700 calories per serving) and peanut butter (1500 calories per cup).   Fun fact: White Castle's large chocolate milkshake has 1680 calories.  So new plan: just sip on large chocolate shakes from White Castle and Sierra Nevada Bigfoot ALL day while snacking on pecans.  Never actually eat a meal, just ALWAYS be eating.  Let's say over a 24 hour period I drink 20 Sierra Nevadas and 20 milkshakes (not even one an hour... I think it's do-able if one were desperate and/or psychotic), we're talking about 46,000 calories.  Crap.  Halfway there and I'm going to be struggling to say the least.  I'll need to consume 67 servings of Pecans to make up that difference.  That's almost 3 an hour.  So let's say I eat 50 servings of Pecans in that 24 hour period (just about 2/hr), that leaves me with roughly 10,000 calories I need to pound out in some way.  And I think I'll fall short.  I think I'll be too wasted from all the beer/wine and too decimated from all the milkshakes to come up with another 10,000 calories.  So, in short, "The Hunger Games" will fail.  And is it crazy if this exercise actually made me feel like Americans aren't THAT overfed?  I mean, if I can't even eat the equivalency of 100 starving villagers in one day, we need to get to work, Yum Brands.  (/s, obviously)

That's all folks.  As always, I welcome queries of all sorts.  Holla.

2012: The Year in Film: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review

So Chris Nolan is unquestionably one of the 2-3 best directors working today. His Batman series is absolutely in the running for the best trilogy in cinematic history. For my money, the list consists of The Godather trilogy, Lord of the Rings, and Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Pretty solid company, and that's a discussion for another day, but my main point is simply that these films are important, not merely as comic book or "genre" films, but as legitimately great works that have value far beyond mere entertainment. In resurrecting arguably the most popular character in all of American fiction and treating him seriously, Nolan changed comic book movies forever,(along with Bryan Singer, no doubt)showing the world that characters from the world of comic books can and should both provide great works of entertainment and be taken seriously doing so. Even if his films weren't tremendous (they are), that alone would be a significant achievement. Combining a filmmaker of Nolan's talent with a cast including such legitimately great talents as Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman, and you're doing great, award-worthy work with a character who not so long ago was participating in nonsense that included benippled suits. Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are two of the best films released in the last decade and are among my favorites. (even though I personally think that Batman Begins is underrated and The Dark Knight is overrated, they are still very fine films in the 8.5-9 range) So let's take a look at how the capstone is, shall we?

First, it goes without saying that 1.) you should have watched Batman Begins and the Dark Knight before seeing this movie, and 2.) it will be near impossible for me to review this flick without having at least minor spoilers. I will keep them to a minimum, but it's simply not possible to discuss most flicks and this one in particular using vague platitudes. I will keep big details out. Let's rock.

Following the events of The Dark Knight, where the actions of the Joker took everything to an insane level and drove Harvey Dent to murder and madness, Batman took the fall for Dent's crimes and Bruce hung up the cape and cowl as new tougher crime laws passed in Dent's name were used to crush organized crime in the city.  Batman hasn't been seen in years and Gotham is enjoying a period of peace for the first time in decades while Bruce waits on the sidelines.   Against this backdrop a new, sinister force called simply Bane is rising that threatens to bring Gotham to its knees and forces the Batman back into the game in a new, changed Gotham with some new faces that only make the game more complicated.   Bane's plan?  Simply destroy Bruce Wayne and force Gotham City to tear itself apart.  As an older, rusty Batman faces his biggest challenge yet his survival and the survival of his beloved Gotham are both very much in doubt.   Did that read like the future back of the Blu Ray box? Sure. But I told you I'd be keeping things largely spoiler free..

The good:

• The acting is great, top to bottom.  Just about everybody brings their A game, especially Caine, Hathaway and Hardy.  Bale is very strong and brings an interesting new dimension to the Bruce Wayne/Batman character.  Blog favorite Tom Hardy is tremendous as Bane, bringing a physicality, a competence and a very human menace to the man who represents Batman's biggest challenge.  The fact that he does all of this while most of his face is covered by a mask is remarkable.  Batman's supporting cast of Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Caine as Alfred all do what they've done throughout the films in this series, and that's raise the quality of every single scene they are in.  I would argue that Fox, Gordon and Alfred represent Batman's mind, spirit and heart respectfully, but that's a discussion for another day... Caine, especially, does great work in depicting Alfred at his most concerned and paternalistic.  Let me say it, I've been hating on Anne Hathaway as Catwoman since the moment she was cast, but she's tremendous.  Truly a revelation.  I apologize to everyone involved for doubting that she could pull it off.  Let me say that if you didn't like Anne Hathaway before, you'll definitely like her after seeing this flick.   Joseph Gordon Levitt is more than capable as rookie cop John Blake, who has a special interest in Batman.
• Obviously, the filmmaking is tremendous.  The movie looks great, plain and simple, and Nolan has a real filmmaker's eye for knowing how to use atmosphere to build his films.  As we've seen, Batman is a character who can very easily descend into the silly, but Nolan smartly builds a gritty, realistic world in which he drops these otherworldly characters and as a result is able to craft smart dramas that exist in a world that's extremely true to life despite featuring comic book characters. 
• The story: it's clear at this moment that this is a true trilogy with one long, overarching narrative.  Each film, while having a self-contained storyline, is also part of a greater whole, where previous events echo and shape current interactions and events.  This isn't a situation where things happened that are discussed but seem distant, the actions of the characters in prior films are felt and have a real presence in later films.  This is a trilogy with a beginning, middle and end, where each successive chapter builds and expands the story, or legend if you'd prefer, of the larger-than-life Batman.  The scale of this film is unbelievably epic and the stakes much higher than what passed before... a more than fitting end to one of the great stories of our time.

The bad: [note: there isn't very much]

• The opening half hour of the flick or so, while undoubtedly awesome (Bane's introductory scene is great), is rather confusing and sort of all over the place.  I understand that there was a lot of introductory things to get out of the way, but the film opens and you aren't quite sure what the hell is going on.
• It's a BIT too bleak.  Soul-crushingly so.  Now the Dark Knight was a bleak flick as well, and Batman Begins isn't exactly sunny, but this flick is just straight-up deathly serious and super dark.  I'm a pretty dark guy myself, but it was right on the verge of being too much.  3 hours of bleakness is a lot.
• The score, despite me loving the use of the "rise" chant, was a bit much.  It's grinding and intense and a little over the top. 
• I have the same problem I had with The Dark Knight re: henchmen.  Where, exactly, are these murderous thugs finding these obsessively loyal, competent henchmen?  Bane just kills his cronies left and right... why would anyone work for him?

Like I said, the bad is minor compared to what the film does right.  I just didn't want you guys to complain when I didn't drop a 10 spot on you. 



In all, it's dark, it's satisfying, it's epic, it's terrifically done, and if it's not as good as The Dark Knight, that's mainly because the storyline is SO much darker and we don't get the maniacal glee of the Joker for distraction, rather the obsessive destruction of Bane.  If it wasn't the ending we needed, it was certainly what we deserved.  Go see this movie.

9/10