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

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

So it's been so long since Oliver Stone has made a film (I never saw the sequel to Wall St...) that I've never really had a chance to discuss my appreciation of him as a filmmaker on this blog before. He is a true, blue filmmaker.  A true artist.  He hasn't hit on every one of his films, not by a long shot, but he's ambitious, even audacious, and has a vision as a filmmaker that's not afraid to challenge the establishment that is shared by very, very few in the mainstream.   As a writer/director, he's experienced success and created a filmography that's nearly unparalleled in Hollywood today.  It's easy to forget, but we're talking about a guy who wrote and directed Platoon, easily one of the top 2 or 3 war movies and a top 25ish movie of all time, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, Nixon, Any Given Sunday and The Doors.  NO BIG DEAL.  Oh, and he wrote a little movie called "Scarface", which for all its flaws is undoubtedly an important film.  Long story short, Oliver Stone is a legitimately important filmmaker, who despite a faded star as of late (the extremely flawed theatrical release of "Alexander", "W" and "Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps", which is a mediocre shadow of the first entrant in the series at best constitute his output over the last decade) is still someone worth paying attention to.

"Savages" is an adaptation of a 2010 novel by Don Winslow.  The plot follows best friends Ben (Aaron Johnson) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch), who have created a marijuana empire in Southern California.  Ben, who has a botany degree from Cal, and Chon, who is an ex-Navy SEAL fresh from the Middle East, have combined their talents and know-how to create a thriving business that's run much like a legitimate enterprise, and has eliminated much of the dirty work from the drug trade by operating like a wholesaler.  They're rich kids from Southern California, and enjoy the lifestyle that comes along with their status, including a common girlfriend, "O" (Blake Lively).  Their dream life faces a serious challenge when the cartel from Baja Mexico comes north to challenge them.  The conflict that results forms the rest of the film... as the awful violence that characterizes the drug trade south of the border forces the California kids to respond in kind... living up to the title in the process.

First, the good: Kitsch and Johnson are great. I'm glad that Taylor Kitsch has finally delivered a top-notch performance in a film after a 2012 that's been iffy at best from a career standpoint (John Carter, Battleship) and this is how he should be used in the future.. not asked to do too much heavy lifting himself, but rather allowed to brood and chew scenery along with other actors. He simmers as the angry and violent Chon, a man eager to resort to violence and who revels in its many applications. Johnson, most memorable as the title character in "Kick-Ass" is unrecognizable as the idealistic and naive Ben. At age 22, he's definitely an actor to watch, as from the look of things he should be around for quite some time. Benecio Del Toro is great as cartel enforcer Lado, a man without a soul, remorse, mercy, etc., etc. and Del Toro invests him with a savagery that's reminiscent of Anton Chigur of "No Country For Old Men". Travolta is good, as he tends to be in these sort of roles, relishing the wise-ass crooked DEA agent. Salma Hayek is strong as well as Elena, head of the Cartel and quite savage in her own right, but also conflicted and layered. In addition, I love the plot to this movie. The story is damn worth telling and if told a little differently, could have easily wound up as a modern day classic. And let's not forget that Oliver Stone is an artist. Even amongst scenes of horrific violence there is a certain beauty, and when he lets his flair for the visual rise to the surface there are some beautiful scenes.

The bad: Blake Lively is a waste of space in this flick. Now some of it is certainly her character.. she's supposed to be a directionless trust fund baby just sort of drifting through life spending money and seeking pleasure.. but she felt flat and empty. Oh, and the line "I had orgasms, Chon had wargasms" exists in this movie. ... which is unbelievably awful. I had problems with the delivery of the flick as well, I know what they were trying to do - juxtaposing the beauty of southern California with the savagery of the international drug trade, but the whole endeavor felt shiny and glossed over and packaged rather than gritty and real. I feel that given the subject matter, a turn towards the dark and hard-boiled would have made this flick potentially a classic. In addition, the actual depiction of some of the violence is a little unnecessary, distracting, and over the top.

All in all, this is a flick that looks great, features a couple of stand out performances and memorable scenes, has a great plot and is well worth a watch. Unfortunately, it is TOO bombastic and over the top to really hit home. Oliver Stone aimed for "Traffic" and hit something more action-ey and traditional. Plus, the ending? Oooof. This flick is an 8 with a better ending. Ultimately, well worth a watch, but too heavily flawed to approach greatness.

7/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Safety Not Guaranteed" Review

"Wanted: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before." Was a classified ad placed in a California newspaper years ago that received tons of attention from the internet and was read by Jay Leno on air. The ad achieved "meme" status, usually by being accompanied by ridiculous pictures of the people who supposedly were responsible. Well, that brief moment of cultural cachet spawned a screenplay and a movie by a first time writer and director produced by the people responsible for "Little Miss Sunshine". Truth be told, I had no interest or even knowledge of this one prior to browsing Aubrey Plaza's IMDB page some months past when I realized that he may be passing the old standby Zooey D by on the "celebrity crush" status. After seeing the trailer and reading some of the post festival buzz, I decided it probably fit the bill for HoB viewing, so I was a cool/popular guy and saw it all by myself on the 4th of July. Just like the founders would have wanted.

So we're introduced to Darius (Aubrey Plaza), a young woman fresh out of college who's always felt melancholy and out of place, especially since the death of her mother some years ago. She's a bored intern at a Seattle magazine when during a brainstorm session, a writer (New Girl's Jake Johnson) puts forth the idea to do a story on a classified ad seeking help to go back in time. Darius, intrigued by this break from the norm volunteers along with a shy intern, Arnau (newcomer Karan Soni) to accompany Jeff to the sleepy ocean town where the PO box for the ad is located. It becomes clear that more is going on with the ad than it initially appeared as our characters track down the man responsible for the ad, a guy named Kenneth (indie dude Mark Duplass of "The League") who may or may not be in way over his head with his adventures in time travel.

This is a tiny, tiny flick, with all of 6 named characters and settings limited to: a house, the woods, a grocery store, an office, a hotel room, a car, and a bar. The intimacy of the flick and the silly nature of the plot of the film and the story itself as being researched and written by the main characters means that it comes down to the actors to flesh out these people and make this flick something worth watching. Luckily, they do not disappoint.
 

This film becomes less and less about the story being written and more about the connections between characters and that our characters seek. Cynical urbanites are contrasted against the residents of a sleepy shoreside town, and challenged when their snark is countered with sincerity.  Darius finds herself drawn to the equally lonely and lost Kenneth, and finds that what started as a research assignment is becoming an actual connection, of which she has few, if any.  The cynical, selfish, lazy, drunk Jeff finds his worldview somewhat shattered in what may well be an early-onset  mid-life crisis, and finds himself bonding with interns that were days before complete strangers. 

This film manages to be funny and sweet without mocking or feeling false.. a tough road to travel when one considers that the entire narrative is driven by a guy who put an ad seeking time travel companions.  This film is made by the performances of Duplass, Plaza and Johnson.  These are real, damaged people.. who make believable decisions, say believable things, question themselves, and are flawed yet ultimately likable.  The key is Duplass.  In playing a guy who sincerely believes he can travel through time, it would have been easy to pass him off as a paranoid nutcase... and he is, but not totally.  His sincerity and ultimate kindness is endearing, and you find yourself rooting for the guy, despite what are undoubtedly creepy undertones.  Plaza more than holds her own, proving that she has quite a career ahead of her as a sort of more talented female version of Michael Cera.. and Jake Johnson's star is certainly rising.  If you watch "New Girl" you know that Nick is probably the most likable character on the show despite ultimately being kind of a dirtbag slacker, and the same holds true here... Jeff is definitely a scumbag, but you like the guy.  I'm pumped to see where his career heads.

I like the decisions that the film made, loved the authentic-feeling connections that arose between the characters and found the film, at its core, to be sweet and funny and endearing and hopeful and fun.  The film is ultimately too lean and small (80 minutes ish) to achieve true greatness, but considering the premise, that's almost more of an achievement than a knock.  As far as indie dramedies go, this is one of the better ones I've seen in the last few years.

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "The Amazing Spider-Man" Review

So Spider-Man has a "Batman Begins" now, cool. First, as an aside, I grew up reading Spider-Man comics and if it came down to it, would probably count him as my favorite superhero or comics character. In addition, everyone knows that Sony, who owns the rights to "Spider-Man", has to have Spider-Man movies in production every 5 years or the rights revert to Marvel (who kind of has a kick-ass movie studio going at the moment) which basically makes all Spider-Man movies an even more callous money-grab than all movies already are. Which isn't saying a whole lot because every movie everywhere exists to make money. As another aside, I don't particularly like the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire flicks. AT ALL. I feel that they are too irreverent, silly, corny and miscast and do a complete disservice to the character of Spider-Man and especially to Peter Parker. Maguire's Peter Parker is a doe-eyed dope who bumbles about saying cheesy things while living in a New York City that appears to exist in some sort of 1970's dreamscape where Manhattan somehow resembles Mayfield from "Leave it to Beaver" and is only inhabited by corny white people. Spider-Man made his hay from being the first "realistic" superhero, who lived in a REAL city with real world problems. What about any of the three Spider-Man films feels "real"? The previous flicks seem like holdovers from 90's action/sci fi flicks, and it seems like Batman Begins and the new age of superhero movies have totally left them in the dust. So, long story short, when I found out they were treating this new Spider-Man flick as a total reboot, I was intrigued.. and upon seeing the first trailer? I was beyond stoked. So let's check it out, shall we?

Enter Marc Webb, new "hot" Hollywood director, fresh off of "500 Days of Summer" and rising English star Andrew Garfield, most recognizable as Zuckerberg's friend Eduardo from "The Social Network" (who may just be the best actor under 30 in the business..) to give us a new vision of Marvel's marquee hero. By now the story is well-known.. Peter Parker, orphan and nerdy teen, is bitten by a radioactive spider and gains the abilities of a spider. Climbing walls, incredible strength, endurance, leaping ability, so on and so forth. After a horrible accident takes the life of his beloved Uncle Ben, Peter swears revenge and takes up a masked identity to fight crime and seek the criminal who murdered his uncle Ben.  
So what sets this film apart from the earlier films? Several things that I'll address in order. First, Peter's life and New York City are MUCH more believable and realistic. New York is a gritty, believable city where people shouldn't be walking alone at night. In addition, Peter's high school and classmates seem like actual people you've seen before. People go to class, they screw around, they practice sports, they look like actual people in the year 2012. In addition, Peter has a believable hero's journey. Uncle Ben doesn't die and then BOOM, Peter's full-on Spider Man. There are a series of steps, decisions, and sacrifices that aren't unlike those of Tony Stark in "Avengers".

The single best thing the flick does, and this shouldn't be a surprise given how strong "500 Days of Summer" was, is the love story between Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker. Every scene between them sizzles and it's one of the most believable "teenage" love stories I've seen on screen in years. Which gets down to the real strength of the film.

Forget plot and the action scenes and the villain and everything else. This is a film about characters. Peter Parker is fully fleshed out and a believable young person in the year 2012. He has problems and worries and insecurities and FEELS like a teenager. His discovery of his powers is frightening and empowering and ultimately full of joy. He's cocky and nerdy and shy and yet troubled. He's a complicated person... which is why people love Peter Parker. This is a story about Peter Parker and Spider Man, Andrew Garfield grabs that and runs with it and never looks back. This is the definitive Peter Parker. Garfield will undoubtedly be a star.

This film is "Batman Begins" to Spider Man 3's "Batman and Robin"-esque descent into shit. By grounding Spider Man with a great actor in a realistic world with a strong supporting cast you set the stage for an established character with established relationships and friends and family who can jump into meatier fare in the future. Much like "Batman Begins", the villain doesn't matter so much as the journey. The villain represents a hurdle for Spider-Man to overcome on his own quest rather than a fundamental challenge to who he is as a person and a hero.

All in all, Garfield and Stone are great. They're a couple in real life and you can absolutely tell. They make Maguire and Dunst look like Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman from the Star Wars prequels. Dennis Leary is restrained (thankfully) as Police Captain and Gwen's dad Captain Stacy. Sally Field is appropriately matronly and gentle as Aunt May and I shouldn't have to tell you that Martin "Best father figure on Earth" Sheen knocks Ben Parker out of the park. Rhys Ifans, who has a complicated relationship with Peter Parker and his family, is appropriately conflicted as Dr. Curt Connors who becomes the Lizard, and lends a needed gravitas to a role that could become cartoonish VERY easily. The action scenes are strong, and Webb/Garfield take a certain joy in depicting Spider-Man as he is.. a determined, cocky, brilliant, hero above all. All in all, this is the best of the "Spider-Man" flicks.. and is well worth a watch. If you haven't seen it yet because you "just saw Spider Man", if you're older than 12, this flick is much more appropriate viewing. 8.5/10. I, for one, am excited to see where this series go and where Garfield's career takes him.