Before I get started, just wanted to say how sad I was to hear about Philip Seymour Hoffman passing away today. A great actor. Probably my faves of his would be Magnolia, The Master and Capote.
Finally, here they are ... my top 10 movies of 2013:
(10) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Though this is ranked lower in my list than the first Hunger Games was in last year's list, this is the better movie. Darker, and with a more tangible sense of the loss of life, it's a worthy sequel. I particularly liked Jena Malone and, sadly, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
(9) Now You See Me - This one surprised me a bit. The commercials for the movie were interesting enough, but the movie was a bit deeper than they let on and the storyline more clever. About a group of magicians recruited for a project by a mystery benefactor for a goal that is not as obvious as it may seem. A great cast which includes Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Morgan Freeman and Isla Fisher.
(8) Star Trek: Into Darkness - I think fans and critics are torn on this one. Either giving director JJ Abrams credit for putting a twist on what is generally considered the best Star Trek movie (Wrath of Khan), or criticizing them for unoriginality for the same reason. I believe it works because of who they chose in the role in question ... Benedict Cumberbatch. Both charming and threatening, he is the heart of the movie. I also liked how the relationship between Kirk and Spock was advanced.
(7) Ender's Game - I didn't want to like this. I wasn't even sure I was going to go because of my deep disagreement with Orson Scott Card's personal politics. But ultimately, the book and the movie stand on their own. And Card had no involvement in the movie. The filmmakers do a great job of distilling the main points of the book into a more manageable time frame. And the young leads: Asa Butterfield, Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit) and Abigail Breslin are well-cast. The training battle scenes are how I envisioned them when reading the book.
(6) The World's End - Brought to you by the makers and cast of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, this movie is funny, irreverent, yet poignant. Pub crawl, end of the world sci-fi, social commentary, and nostalgia trip all rolled up in one. Simon Pegg and Martin Freeman are both great.
(5) Sound City - Former Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl made this documentary about the famous LA studio that produced many of the classic rock albums of the 70's, 80's, and 90's including Nirvana's Nevermind and Fleetwood Mac's Rumours. I wrote a bit more about it here.
(4) American Hustle - I just saw the movie this last weekend. Very funny and evocative of many Scorcese movies, to whom director David O. Russell is often compared. The acting is universally outstanding ... probably the best ensemble acting of any of the movies in this list. I especially liked Christian Bale and Jennifer Lawrence. She is a fireplug and hilarious.
(3) 12 Years a Slave - A hard watch. Much like Schindler's List, this movie is not intended as a comfortable watch. There are going to be moments that have you squirming. Moments that have you convinced that the human race is not worth salvaging. But also with moments of unlikely beauty. Director Steve McQueen, and actors Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children of Men, Serenity), Michael Fassbender and Lupita Nyong'o are all deservedly Oscar worthy.
(2) Rush - I wrote fairly extensively about this here. A movie about racing, but not really. Rush is more about the things that motivate us in our lives. Sometimes they are external, but often they are internal.
(1) The Wolf of Wall Street - 5 minutes into The Wolf of Wall Street and several older couples exited the theater. Perhaps it was the frequent f-bombs. Maybe it was the snorting of cocaine off of naked breasts. But they apparently had enough. Me and the 85 year old lady sitting next to me who howled with laughter throughout the movie couldn't get enough. Like the best of Scorcese movies, you revel in the debauchery and almost root for the bad guys, yet you never lose sight of the fact that these are morality plays. The movie is a metaphor for the financial gluttony of the 80's (and now) and the belief that there will be no negative consequences for wantonly fucking people over and elevating the accumulation of money above all else. DiCaprio and Jonah Hill have never been better, and Australian newcomer Margot Robbie is fantastic.
Honorable Mention: A few indies: Upstream Color, Prince Avalanche, Drinking Buddies, Side Effects and The Europa Report. Some big budget films that were good ... just not quite good enough: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, Gravity and Pacific Rim.
I just wouldn't feel right presenting my top 10 of 2013 if I didn't put a tidy bow on 2012, which because of laziness, I never got around to.
(10) The Hunger Games - I thought this was faithful enough to the book, while understanding that you can't put everything on the page on the screen. The best thing about the movie is the main character, wonderfully played by Jennifer Lawrence. Woody Harrelson is also very good.
(9) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey- Not as good a movie as any of the LOTR movies, but it is of admittedly lighter material. Martin Freeman is well-cast as Bilbo and I think Peter Jackson does a good job of capturing the humor and roughness of the dwarves. We saw this in the high-frame-rate 3D and it was an interesting experience ... almost hyper-real.
(8) The Dark Knight Rises - The previous film, with Heath Ledger, is probably better. But this one, has plenty of acting talent, most notably Marion Cotillard and Tom Hardy. I think it wraps up the trilogy well. The plot twist is well-done.
(7) Looper - I'm a sucker for time-travel movies because of the way they twist your noodle. Causality, timelines, the nature of existence ... all good stuff. This stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt (also of Dark Knight) and Bruce Willis and the always stunning Emily Blunt.
(6) Prometheus - A flawed movie. But also beautifully shot. It succeeds when director Ridley Scott lets the scenes breathe and show off the vastness and loneliness of space. A good cast highlighted by Noomi Rapace (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) and Michael Fassbender as a truly creepy robot. I will forgive more in sci-fi movies because they frequently delve into bigger themes. In this case - where do we come from and why are we here.
(5) The Avengers - Director Joss Whedon makes a movie that works because of his trademark dialogue and humor and a plot that allows each of the characters to develop. Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk is an improvement over the previous actors who have been in that role but the true standout is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Because of his wonderful British charm, you can't help but root for the villain.
(4) Skyfall - This is the best of the new Bond films. An origins movie of sorts, delving into a bit of 007's past. The cinematography by my all-time fave Roger Deakins is incredible. Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) deftly weaves nods to the past Bond films into a new narrative that sets up well for future films.
(3) Argo - A deserving Best Picture Oscar for a an entertaining movie. Ben Affleck continues to show that he will be a director worth following in the future.
(2) Lincoln - If there is a better actor working today than Daniel Day-Lewis, I'd be amazed. He so completely immerses himself in every role that you can't imagine another person playing that role. I was most impressed with the script of this movie and how it made the minutiae of political wheeling and dealing into suspenseful (and funny) theater.
(1) Life of Pi -Well, you can color me surprised that my favorite movie of the year ended up being one that is largely about the nature of faith. Why that works for me is because it was visually stunning and ultimately it is about any kind of faith ... not necessarily religious.
Honorable Mention: Wreck-It Ralph, Bobby Fischer Against the World, Frankenweenie, The Muppets, The Master, Room 237, Lorax
"Life's an awfully lonesome affair.... You come into the world alone and you go out of the world alone yet it seems to me you are more alone while living than even going and coming." -- artist Emily Carr
You've lost your young child through a freak accident. Hurt and without bearing, you are adrift from your own life. Everyday living gives you little meaning or hope. There is no solace in the words of others and you are, figuratively, at the end of one's tether.
What are you choices? Give up, give in to grief, or to trust in yourself and move on. Stop letting the past and the way you have done things limit what you can do in your future.
Gravity is a metaphor. It turns that figurative isolation into literal isolation. This story of astronauts struggling in the hostile vastness of space is rife with symbolism. George Clooney's character, Matt Kowalski, represents the past that Sandra Bullock's character, Ryan Stone, must release in order to move forward. Entangled in cords, dodging the debris of a space station damaged by falling satellites, the both of them are doomed to die unless one or the other releases himself and allows the other to fight on and hopefully live. Clooney's choice allows Bullock's character to go on, to not be limited by his literal weight and the figurative weight of her past. When she finally gets out of her capsule back on Earth, she struggles to stand and finally gets back on her own two feet, reveling in the moment that is much more than a physical release. It is an emotional one.
I could be way off on my take of Gravity. Maybe I've listened to one too many reviews of artsy French new wave films or stayed up too late trying to find meaning and subtlety where it was never intended. But I don't think so. Alfonso Cuarón is one of my favorite directors and he is not a plodding Hollywood hack. With his fellow Mexican directors and friends, Guillermo Del Toro and Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, they have carved out a niche as original, visual and artistic talents not constrained by conventional American/Anglo narratives. Their movies are full of symbolism and allegory (Babel and Pan's Labyrinth most notably). And it is my belief that Gravity continues that trend.
I have purposely not read, watched or listened to any reviews of Gravity (except my bud Wil) because I didn't want to be influenced by what someone else may think the movie means. I didn't even want to see a confirmation of what I saw.
Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are stars and very good actors and do nothing in this film to change that opinion. Clooney is funny and charming, as always. Bullock is subdued, for her, but this serves the role for the most part.
I will not get into the technical aspects of Gravity. They have been extensively described elsewhere. Suffice to say, Cuarón has infused Gravity with a realism that gets about as close to what I imagine space would actually feel like. I saw it on a normal screen but will be revisiting it with IMAX 3D in the near future.
So, why didn't it completely work for me? Too much detachment. For all its visual beauty, I believe it lacks a heart. Something just kept me from altogether buying in. I can't even quite put my reservations into words. Secondly, with the movie being very short for an Oscar-worthy film (90 minutes), more time could have been spent explaining exactly why a doctor is installing something on Hubble. How did she even end up at NASA? I'm not expecting awkward exposition or anything, but it seems like a little more could have been revealed through her conversations with Clooney's character. Lastly, Bullock's role seems just a bit too much like a trick role, à la Tom Hanks in Cast Away ... a role set up to present well to Oscar voters. Maybe just a bit too much earnestness and not enough reality.
I'm definitely curious how a second watching may temper my opinion. Like similar space movies, Moon and 2001, Gravity has a way of making real the quiet, yet ominous isolation of space. And similarly, I didn't appreciate those movies fully the 1st few times. Grade: B
As usual, Mr Stachour at Journal Wunelle has done a bang-up job of a review of Gravityhere. Much smarter than I, a superior writer and possessing much more knowledge of life in thin air, I think you'll like his take.
I'm not a racing fan per se. I don't dislike it. As a general sports nut, I will watch a bit of everything. A NASCAR race , maybe some motorcycling racing ... and occasionally a Formula One race. But it's been awhile since I followed it with any kind of regularity. About 10 years ago, one of my best friends was a big Formula One fan and this almost forced me to become aware of racers like Michael Schumaker. But I was sadly (and blissfully) unaware of the rivalry in the 70's between British driver James Hunt and Austrian driver Niki Lauda.
An interest in racing is not necessary to appreciate Rush. The race scenes are great but ultimately it is the interplay between the Hunt and Lauda characters that is the strength of this movie.
Since watching Rush, I've done a bit more research into both Hunt and Lauda and see how well each of their characters were cast in both looks and demeanor. Thor's Chris Hemsworth has always had that natural charisma and rakish good looks that Hunt had. And Daniel Bruhl, now also being seen in The Fifth Estate, does a fine job in the role of Lauda.
Olivia Wilde, while being in a smaller role as Hunt's wife (for a time), is gorgeous. Her acting is fine, but she just doesn't get a lot of screen time. I did find it fascinating that she left Hunt to go out with Richard Burton, revealing how big Formula One was at the time and the level of celebrity that it had attained.
The rivalry between the drivers is at the heart of the story. Though they were drastically different: Hunt, an unredeemable playboy and lover of life and Lauda, a prickly and calculating tactician, it was their relationship to each other that drove both of them. While not getting too in-depth into the events of the movie, it is the drive to race and beat each other that gives them strength in crisis situations off-the-track.
Racing is just the vehicle, pardon the pun, for the point of the story. As the poster says, "Everyone's driven by something." Both of the racers are driven by a need to rise above the expectations of their families. Hunt has a maniacal need to experience everything to the fullest, something that makes him seemingly careless in real life and hard to beat on the track. Lauda, from a family of high achievers in business and government, feels that driving is the only thing he can do well and he is going to prove that he is the best. Good movies make a person think about your own life in a more immediate way than books do. The best movies will even motivate us to action or to changing something in our own lives. While I'm not intimating that Rush caused me to reevaluate my life in any substantive way, it was successful in getting me to at least think about the reasons that I do things in work and in my personal life.
It's one of the best movies I have seen this year. You root for each of the drivers despite (and sometimes because of) their obvious shortcomings. They are are so focused on their driving that relationships outside of racing are strained. Their differences in style cause conflict between the racers early on but grow into a grudging respect. While I believe this is done primarily for dramatics in the movie, as the drivers were actually quite close in real life and even shared an apartment early in their careers, there's no point in letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
Director Ron Howard knows how to tell a good story and I've always been a fan of his work (Frost/Nixon, A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13 being my favorites). The movie clocks in at about 2 hours but does not seem long. The characters are established well and organically without slowing down the narrative. I recommend Rush. Grade: A (Expect a fairly rapid-fire barrage of movie reviews over the next few weeks. I've finally gotten into a writing mood and will hammer out reviews of most of the decent movies I've seen this year. No particular order ... I'm just going to let the subject matter or emotions of each lead me to the next in line.)
It may seem a bit incongruous for me to be reviewing this movie this late, but it is what it is. I just watched Life of Pi today for the the first time. I've had the Blu-ray since my birthday but we just recently advanced into the modern age by buying a 60" Sharp flat-screen. I didn't want to sully the viewing experience by watching it on something so pedestrian as our 10 year old standard def monstrosity. From the TV ads and what I knew about the movie, I expected it to be a visual experience ... at it was.
Bil at Journal Wunelle admirably reviewed Life of Pi months ago and I have absolutely no quarrels with any of his observations. I came at my viewing of the film a little differently, as I read the book. So I knew of its "twist", but it didn't make it any less interesting. Unlike another critically acclaimed book with religious overtones that I didn't care for (The Lovely Bones), I did like Life of Pi by Yann Martel.
Pi, short for Piscene, is an India boy whose formative years are at his parents' zoo, These years, while familiarizing him with the animals and training methods at the apparent heart of this story, are perhaps more important for the spiritual journey he takes.While his world is largely Hindu, Pi is a spiritual dabbler who also ventures into Catholicism and Islam. To make sense of the world around him, he tries on whatever religion that will get to some kind of "truth". His dad may preach reason and rationality, but Pi's mother understands Pi's yearning for something that answers the bigger questions. Of course, one doesn't need religion to answer these "bigger questions", but this isn't my journey ... it's Pi's.
When conditions force his family to leave the zoo and relocate everyone, including the animals, to North America, several of the pillars of his emotional support are taken away ... his country, a girlfriend. When the means of their transport, an aging ship, sinks, the last of his support, his family, are also taken away. So Pi resorts to the means he already knows to make sense of a senseless tragedy and to survive. Regardless of one's religious views, the reader or viewer cannot begrudge him that.
While having religious faith may add a slightly different perspective on watching the movie, by no means do I think it is necessary. I've heard the screenwriter talk about his perspective in writing the movie (which may have been different than Martel's) ... that Pi's journey required faith, but not necessarily religious faith. Just faith in something. It can be faith in God. But it could also be in one's self, in humanity, in family, whatever. Just something that keeps you going. But even if the screenwriter didn't make that caveat, I still found it a fascinating and entertaining story. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't be interested in stories with religious themes. By far, the scariest movie I've ever seen is the Exorcist, which doesn't make a lot of sense for me to be afraid of. And, in general, the movies I find scariest are demon-possession types.
Religion, from a story-telling standpoint, is endlessly fertile ground because of the fascinating elements of redemption, resurrection, forgiveness, etc. Many of those elements are present in Life of Pi.
The method of the storytelling ... the adult Pi retelling his adventure to a writer (one imagines it being Martel)... adds to the reality/fantasy blend that is at the heart of the story.
The acting is good, but not so much the focus. Of any of the actors, I believe that Irrfan Khan (of Slumdog Millionaire fame) as the adult Pi is strongest. The focus is gloriously on the visuals of the film. Seeing this on Blu-ray on a nice TV was fantastic. The colors and settings are vibrant, almost dream-like, as one would expect when a story is told through the prism of a particular person's recollection. When that recollection is further augmented by desire and need, it is not hard to see why some considered the book unfilmable. But director Ang Lee rarely disappoints in anything, and certainly didn't in his Oscar-winning work here. I recommend this movie. Grade: A
In Greek mythology, Argo was the ship that Jason sailed on in search of the Golden Fleece. Metaphorically, that prize usually represents legitimacy or economic reward. In Ben Affleck's movie of the same name, Argo represents freedom.
Ironically, and unintentionally, I saw the movie on November 4th, the 23rd anniversary of the start of the Iran Hostage Crisis.
"Militants storm the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 in retaliation for sheltering the recently deposed Shah. More than 50 of the embassy staff are taken as hostages, but six escaped and hide in the home of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor. With the escapees' situation kept secret, the US State Department begins to explore options for "exfiltrating" them from Iran. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), a CIA specialist brought in for consultation, criticizes the proposals. He too is at a loss for an alternative until inspired at home by watching Battle for the Planet of the Apes on TV with his son: he plans to create a cover story that the escapees are Canadian filmmakers, scouting "exotic" locations in Iran for a similar sci-fi film ..."
I remember the days of the Hostage Crisis. The speed in which events moved in an age of a few TV networks and some newspapers is distinctly different than what they would be in today's constantly changing, instant update, Twitter world. Affleck in his direction and his setting the scene does a good job of focusing on those differences. It's obvious that a mission like theirs, that relied on the limits of data acquisition, could probably not be carried out today. I find it hard to imagine that 6 Americans could successfully hide out for 79 days and then escape in plain sight.
Argo is the telling of the Canadian Caper, as it was called at the time, but with much more of a focus on the CIA involvement. This involvement wasn't even admitted until the declassification of it in 1997. Canada was largely, and deservedly, given most of the credit at the time. They were risking much by harboring the Americans. Despite the way in which Canadians are portrayed in American popular culture, especially by conservatives, their willingness to do what is difficult and what is right should not be questioned.
One of the major reasons why this movie works is because the seriousness of the subject matter is leavened by irony and gallows's humor, usually by John Goodman, portraying a special effects man, and Alan Arkin, a producer. You would not think that levity would work here but, as is often the case, sometimes when things are particularly dire or hopeless, humor gives focus and hope.
The recurring refrain by the fake movie crew is "Argo fuck yourself", to great comic effect.
It's nice to see that Ben Affleck has transitioned from a mediocre, if lucrative, leading role acting career to a directing and character actor one. As I've written before, his previous work in The Town and Gone, Baby, Gone show that this isn't just some vanity project or passing fad. He's serious about making gritty and real dramas.
There are several scenes that are fictionalized so as to add drama, most notably the chase scene at the airport at the end. In addition, the path that led them to stay at the Canadian ambassador is not quite as focused as the film would lead you to believe. Canada was not the only embassy that aided them, with New Zealand, Sweden and England playing large parts. But that aid is diminished in the movie so as to accentuate the isolation of the group of Americans.
The strength of Affleck in Argo is in his direction, not his acting. And I'm not diminishing his acting in the movie as he plays Mendez appropriately. But, rather a showy acting performance in this role is not called for. He's playing a CIA agent who has to largely not call attention to himself. And, functionally, he's playing the straight man to Goodman and Arkin. Both of their roles as Hollywood movie types in the 70's are showy by the very nature of the period.
I highly recommend the movie as both pure entertainment and as a historical perspective on a time in our not so distant past. For those that lived through the times, we understand the tensions. But for those younger, Argo gives some insight to the nature of our continuing philosophical struggle with Iran. Grade: A-
“People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.” ― Steven Moffat (Doctor Who writer)
One of the merits of good science fiction is that it's not all about the special effects. It's about the ideas. Of course, there are directors that don't understand this. Michael Bay comes to mind. However, director Shane Carruth does.
Carruth made the sci-fi film, Primer, for $7000 in 2004. Hell, Michael Bay's hair stylist made more than that. We're talking Robert Rodriguez, El Mariachi, Rebel Without a Crew territory. Sleeping in your parents' basement, McDonald's catering style.
When you are making a movie for that amount, you have to wear a lot of hats. Carruth wrote, directed and starred in the movie. His parents catered the movie ... for real.
I've had the DVD for a year or two. I had heard a good review of it on NPR or some podcast. I can't remember exactly. But, I'm glad I finally watched Primer.
There are no special effects. The shooting locations are a garage and a U-Haul storage location. The technical dialogue is intentionally complicated, perhaps to obfuscate, but not in a bad way. More just to confuse enough to make the story plausible.
Primer is about 4 engineers making some kind of device in their garage in their free time. The way they talk about it, it is some type of device that will be market-changing once it is perfected. Two of the engineers think that that is all the device is ... something industrial and useful. The other two engineers, through extensive experimentation and fine-tuning without the other two, discover that it is much more: a time machine.
They refine enough that each can travel ahead in time a day or so. They use this to obtain stock information that will allow them to make short term investments and make money. The complications arise out of the fact that each time they travel, they are creating multiple timelines and iterations of themselves. These iterations encounter each other and confusion ensues. Add on to that the fact that the story is told in a style that is either non-linear (a la Memento) or such that you don't know whose timeline you are following. The ambiguity and causal confusion is what makes Primer, and these types of stories in general, interesting.
I can't get enough of time-travel/multiple timeline/causation stories. No one can honestly say that they haven't thought about what they would do or how they would change things if given the ability to travel in time. Or as the tagline says,
"If you always want what you can't have, what do you want when you can have anything?"
I can't honestly tell you where to find this movie. I think I picked it up used at a Blockbuster Video. As far as I can tell, it is not on Netflix Instant. Anyway, if you want to see it, and can't find it, I'd be more than happy to mail you my copy.
I've put it off too long. I was trying to get a lot of the critically acclaimed movies released late in 2011 watched before making up my list. But, it's already February and I need to go with what I have. I have to admit that I did not see as many movies in 2011 as I normally do. 2011 seemed like a bad combination of a not great year for movies and a rather pathetic attempt by myself to see the movies there were. So, to get 10, I might have dug a bit deeper than normal:
(10) The Muppets - This does a really good job of being both nostalgic and modern at the same time without being cynical or sarcastic (thanks to Jason Segel). My son had never seen the Muppet Show and loved the movie. I grew up on the show and loved it as well.
(9) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - I think this movie works, and most critic agreed, because of the combination of director Brad Bird (The Incredibles) translating cartoon action to live action, and some levity by Simon Pegg. I think this movie doesn't take itself too seriously like too much Tom Cruise stuff usually does. For a different take, I highly recommend Wunelle's review: "Recombinist ..."
(8) Hanna - I think this was an underrated movie and it was quite awhile ago that I saw it. The cinematography, sparse dialogue and nice performance by Saoirse Ronan all work to great effect. Click the title to see a nice review by Wunelle.
(7) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - Pt. 2 very nicely ties up both Deathly Hallows and the series as a whole. An especially good performance by the always great Alan Rickman as Snape.
(6) Rise of the Planet of the Apes - I was expecting just a decent popcorn movie and was pleasantly surprised to get a bit more. It should be no surprise that the unexpected bonus is the remarkable performance by motion capture actor Andy Serkis (of LOTR fame) in the role of the chimp Caesar. This performance was deserving of an Oscar nomination.
(5) The Ides of March - Great cast - Paul Giamati, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Clooney and Gosling. Timely subject matter - political intrigue and influence.
(4) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - I guess I'm one of the people that likes both versions of this film equally well. While I believe that Noomi Rapace's performance in the Swedish version of the movie is the defining one, I think Rooney Mara does a good job of not mimicking her and makes this her own. The pacing of the American movie is better and does not rely on having read the book as much.
(3) Haywire - Very distinctly Soderbergh in a dialogue and visual sense.
(2) Meek's Cutoff - Subtle, quiet, yet still powerful. Nice performance by Michelle Williams.
(1) Moneyball - If you think this movie is about baseball, you are largely missing the point. it is more about how we value things and how important it is to believe in what you are doing, even when nobody else does. This is probably Brad Pitt's defining performance of his career and one that a younger and more naive Brad Pitt could not have pulled off. It's a naturalistic, nuanced performance. Jonah Hill also does a great job in an understated performance.
Honorable Mention: X-Men: First Class, Super 8, Contagion, Rango, Limitless, Pearl Jam Twenty, Bobby Fischer Against the World
I would like to have seen the following (and surely will this year):
The Descendants
Drive
The Artist
A Dangerous Method
Take Shelter
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Hugo
Shame
The Iron Lady
The Tree of Life
A Separation
J. Edgar
Melancholia
Adventures of Tintin
I have a feeling that if I'd seen any of these, they would have made my top 10.
What does a Western set in 1845 on the Oregon Trail have to do with a modern action thriller, you may ask? More than you think, I say. I had intended on writing two reviews but in a weak moment, I thought I could save some time and appear clever by comparing Meek's Cutoff with Steven Soderburgh's Haywire. How successful I am remains to be seen. The success of the movies is not in question. Both are outstanding.
Meek's Cutoff is based on a true story of a group of settlers led by Stephen Meek (played brilliantly by Bruce Greenwood), their guide. He's prone to bragging and general nuttiness and the band of weary travellers eventually figure out he may not have any idea where they are going. The trip that was supposed to take a couple of weeks stretches over a month. They're almost out of water and in treacherous lands.
Some might consider Meek's to be slow, but I believe it is for effect. The deliberate nature of the narrative builds tension and anxiety in both the characters and the observer. Being in the 1800's, there is a definite hierarchy of decision-making in the group, with the males ostensibly taking the lead. The male members of the group converse among themselves, the females the same. In one of the most effective plot devices, the conversations of the males are often in heard in the background by the females. But it is done faintly so that the movie watcher is made to feel like the women, barely able to hear what they are saying. I found myself often trying to turn up the volume (was on Netflix) just to hear what they were saying. It was a bit maddening and made me feel anxious. And, I believe, that was exactly the director's intent.
After endless meandering, no clear directing by Meek, and with water quickly running out, tensions rise to the point that the lead female, Emily Tetherow, played by the always fantastic Michelle Williams, takes things into her own hands. I won't say how, as that would give away a bit too much, but it is literal, symbolic and forceful all at once. Besides the previously mentioned Greenwood and Williams, the cast is capably filled by Will Patton and Paul Dano, among others. Dano (There Will Be Blood) and Williams (Brokeback Mountain) have a bit of experience in the Western genre, but the revelation is the virtually unrecognizable Greenwood. Usually playing clean-shaven, reserved and authoritative roles (Presidents a couple of times, Capt. Pike in Star Trek), he is positively wild and woolly here. I recommend this movie. Grade: B+
Haywire, with MMA veteran Gina Carano in the lead role of secret agent for hire Mallory Kane, was another pleasant surprise. Carano has had a couple of bit roles, but this is her first starring vehicle. As you would expect from a non-actor, this is not a Shakespearean role exactly, but it doesn't need to be. Soderbergh plays to her strengths ... a cool demeanor, physicality, great fighting ability, and, let's face it, she's not harsh on the eyes.
The details and intricacies of the plot are not nearly as important as the set-pieces for Carano's action. The plot does enough to carry Carano around to different places/countries and to different scene-chewing baddies: Ewan McGregor as her "boss", Michael Fassbender as a fellow agent, and Mathieu Kassovitz (Amelie) and Antonio Banderas as a couple of diplomatic string-pullers. Michael Douglas, Channing Tatum, and Bill Paxton all capably fill roles as her allies.
Movie watchers, and Americans in general, are idiots. As a rule, they are unappreciative of nuance and incapable of picking up plot points unless they are spoonfed them. For this reason, Haywire is the odd action movie more appreciated by the critics than the general audience (a point well made at Antimatter's blog). Perhaps misreading the TV ads, movie-goers expected an all-action movie. Thankfully, that is not what Haywire is. It's not that it doesn't have action ... it's that it is not go-go-go and it is not cartoonish. The action grows out of the plot.
One of my favorite scenes is after Mallory and Fassbender's character have left the party and she already knows of the doublecross. And I'm pretty sure he knows she knows. But they play it coolly. They are showing every sign of a normal loving couple returning home but there is a tightly coiled tension awaiting that moment when they get in the room and he will attack.
The strength of the scene (and the movie) is as much about the anticipation of action as the action itself.
Haywire has a lot of the usual Soderbergh elements: a quirky jazz soundtrack, clever dialogue, and cinematography digitally filmed almost exclusively by Soderbergh himself. Like most good directors (and even some bad ones), you could guess who the director was even if you didn't already know. But in the case of Soderbergh, that's not a negative. I recommend this movie. Grade: B+
Now, to tie it all in, here is where I believe these two movies share some thematic elements. Both movies are spare with no effects and infrequent dialogue. Both have a strong female lead who initially take direction from males of dubious intent -- Greenwood's Meek and Ewan McGregor's Kenneth. Through adventures that are either ill-conceived or outright devious, those females discover the duplicity of the males. At that point, they take control of their futures and proceed to an ambiguous and unresolved end. But the destination, ultimately, is not as important as the path and the decision they made. Both have strong female protagonists that would be dangerous to underestimate or as the character Kenneth says in Haywire:
"Don’t think of her as a woman. That would be a mistake."
"James Miller has just written a book on the value of a copy versus the original work of art. At a book reading, a woman gives him her address, and the next day they meet and take a country-side drive to a local Italian village. Here, they discuss various works of art found in the town, and also the nature of their relationship - which gets both more revealed and concealed as the day progresses." -- from IMDb
Starring a British man and French woman, set in Italy and directed and written by an Iranian director. Dialogue in 3 different languages. Certified Copy is not your movie if you're not into foreign films. And not your film if you're not into talky dissertations on the nature of art and relationships and the perception of each.
What is really happening with this pair? Are they a couple, do they know each other, are they playing a role? Like in art, does it matter if it's the real thing if you don't know? That's the main conceit of the movie ... that their relationship is the living embodiment of the artistic/philosophical point that Miller is making in his opening speech.
Juliette Binoche, as always, is luminous. But you also get quite a bit of anger and humor out of her as well, She flips in and out of the three languages (French, Italian, English) with ease, funny in all of them. Miller is played by William Shimell, a British opera singer who has acted in only a few movies. He's fine here, but his is not the meaty role that Binoche's Elle is.
Like a lot of foreign and independent movies, Certified Copy plays more like performance art than your typical Hollywood movie. There is no action and the viewer is given a lot of the responsibility to fill in the blanks. If you don't pick up what they are trying to do, it can be confusing and boring. If I hadn't already heard several reviews of the movie prior to viewing it, I cannot guarantee that I would have caught on. Even knowing the catch, I can only say that it was mildly effective. Therefore, I would have to give this a tepid rating. Certified Copy is currently on Netflix Instant if you want to check it out. Grade: C+
Sitting down to review The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I had to get myself in the mood. How better to do it than with a Nine Inch Nails Genius mix in Itunes. Of course, it's Trent Reznor (of NIN) and Atticus Ross that do the soundtrack and whose cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song (with Karen O on vocals) begins the movie:
Beginning with a weird title sequence reminiscent of movies of the 50's and 60's, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo jumps right out of the gate. That sequence reminded me a lot of, ironically (because Daniel Craig's in this movie), the elaborate ones you would get with most James Bond movies. All black, in a medium of what appears to be oil, the characters come in and out of focus with occasional flames. Aesthetically, the result is effective in setting the scene and getting one a bit on edge. I listened to an interview on NPR's Fresh Air where Trent Reznor explained how they wanted to evoke both the literal and emotional cold of Sweden and the subject matter.
Just adapting an immensely popular book series, from the late Swedish author Steig Larsson, you are already under a lot of pressure. Add to that a well-received series of Swedish films that many people have already seen. Most directors would probably not take on the challenge. David Fincher did. His history has shown that he does not shy away from the dark side of human nature. Quite the opposite. His movies Se7en and Fight Club are iconic and went a long way towards defining what these type of movies should look like. They are highly stylized and if I had any criticism of this movie was that Fincher largely reigned in that tendency.
My wife liked this adaptation quite a bit more than the Swedish film. Like me, she had read the book prior to watching either, but she still found the Swedish adaptation hard to follow and not as well-paced. I really liked the Swedish films, particular the performance of Noomi Rapace in the role of Lisbeth Salander. While differing a bit from the description of the character in the book, Rapace owned the role and there was a rather large group of people pushing for her to reprise the role in the American film(s). Fincher chose American actress Rooney Mara for the role instead. Mara, wisely, did not try to recreate Rapace's performance.
It's unfair to try and compare the films and performances but it is the elephant in the room. If you don't acknowledge it's there, then you are not being honest about how it might inform your reaction to the new movie. Filmspotting does a great film review podcast that I recently listened to that touches on this point a bit. There are reveals in both the book and the Swedish movie that are surprising the first time you see or read them, but when you know they are coming up, the effect is not the same. That's not Fincher's fault. I think his vision of the film is great, but I think that it would be viewed even better if you had not seen the Swedish film.
The casting in the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is impeccable. We've already mentioned Mara, and Daniel Craig in the role of Mikael Blomkvist. Christopher Plummer does his usual fine work in the role of Henrik Vanger. Robin Wright Penn has always given understated performances and continues to do so in the role of Erika Berger, Blomquist's editing partner. Stellan Skarsgård, a Swedish actor that American audiences are already quite familiar with, plays Martin Vanger to great effect.
Because of the numerous times of seeing the original film and having read the book, I frequently have a hard time keeping the sequence and content of events straight in my head. But from my largely untrained eye, the specific instances where I saw Fincher straying from the source material:
- the location and manner in which the still living Harriet Vanger is found
- the exclusion of the short affair with Cecilia Vanger by Blomquist
- the nature and exact participants in the discovery of the past murders by Gottfried and Martin Vanger
- eliminating Blomkvist's time in prison
- additionally, there are a couple of things that do not happen until the 2nd book that are shown in this movie
- Salander having her computer stolen and then her attacking the thief (and her computer is broken in the process)
I have no major problems in any of the above cases. Eliminating the travel to Australia helps to keep the consistency in tone and location. The affair with Cecilia Vanger in the Swedish film is superfluous and does not propel the story forward in any way. Changing which discoveries were made together and which were made individually by Blomquist and Salander does not hurt the story, though I'm not positive why Fincher made this change. It may just be for pacing. Removing the time in prison is probably another case where the plot point really is not integral to the arc of the story.
On the subject of 2nd book plot points, I can't really criticize Fincher for incorporating items from the next book, when the director of the Swedish film, Niels Arden Oplev, did the same.
On the last item, I probably disagree with Fincher a bit. Being attacked by a group of punks establishes her victimization by males that is prevalent through her life. Giving her a more forward role in pursuing her assailant seems to get away from that. But I do understand why Fincher probably did it. He wanted to establish her willingness to stand up for herself. I just think it would be more effective to have that emotional release be during the confrontation with her guardian.
The strength of Fincher films is his evocation of mood. The color palette, the music, the pacing, weather, etc. all work together to bring about a certain feeling. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is no exception. While being less stylized, as I have previously mentioned, he still sets up shots that bring about feelings of dread and isolation. The snowy initial approach to the Vanger mansion reminded me of a Kubrick shot, most specifically The Shining. Kubrick liked to present perspective shots down a hall or road or space ship that tapered to a point far in the background. They were always spooky, as is Fincher's shot.
Though it's a long movie (2:38), it does not seem long, meaning Fincher has largely done his job. It entertains, establishes characters, solves the initial mysteries and sets up the series for the sequels one would expect to be made, whether Fincher will continue to helm them or not. Even though I'm a big fan of the source material and the Swedish films, I've never been one to hold something in such high regard that I will not be open to different interpretations. There is room in the rich world of Stieg Larsson for a different take. Grade: B+
The Ides of march (from dictionary.com): March 15 in the ancient Roman calendar; the day in 44 b.c. on which Julius Caesar was assassinated.
.
Obviously, the naming of the new George Clooney directed movie, The Ides of March, is not coincidental with the subject matter. The death of Julius Caesar was borne of a conspiracy and by its very nature was political. Ostensibly, he was killed because the senators feared the march toward tyranny and the end of the Senate. Ironically, it was his death that did just that. They compromised principles to do what they believed was in the best interest of the republic.
While there is no assassination in The Ides of March, there is plenty of political intrigue and the compromising of principles in the name of idealism.
Ryan Gosling's character Stephen Myers, a campaign manager for Clooney's character, governor Mike Morris goes into the campaign full of idealism and believing the man he is working for has that same idealism. Through the machinations of the film, the integrity of Morris and the political process is called into question and leads to Myers' loss of innocence. He is faced with the quandary of opting out altogether or scheming for what he perceives as the greater good. Does he make the right choice and how can it really be for the "greater good" if one compromises one's principles? Don't expect the movie to answer that question.
There's no "happy ending". Along with the fucked up political process it represents, the movie ends ambiguously.
When we start down the road of compromising and selling our soul, when do we lose ourselves?
The casting is good. Gosling is believable as a slick and confident pitch man for a candidate. If anything, he comes across as too slick and you have a hard time buying that he would have a crisis of conscience. Clooney is Clooney. Because of his ideas and charisma, you wish that he would actually run for office.
But the actors that steal the show are the vets, Paul Giamati as the opponent's lead adviser and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Morris' adviser. Would we really expect any less from a couple of Oscar winners? They have the unique talent to be perfectly cast in whatever they play because they are just that good. Jeffrey Wright is also outstanding.
Clooney is very clever in making the candidates in question Democrats. It removes a lot of the tendency by the Right to write off the movie as another example of Hollywood liberal propaganda. Clooney rightly sees the larger point that the problem is the process and not necessarily the political ideas involved. There is no moral high ground when it comes to behavior of the two major parties' campaigns.
This is by no means a "great" political thriller. It would not be mistaken for All the President's Men or The Candidate or even The Contender. But it is good and topical. Grade: B
My lack of movie and book reviews is not from a lack of viewing, or reading, but rather from laziness. It's time to play catch-up. I'll start with the most recent and will try to work my way backwards, one a day.
I just saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes late last night. It's nothing special but holds that elevated position of being science fiction, and as such, has to try harder to disappoint me. Because, as I've said ad nauseum, even the worst science fiction still has something to say. Where they fail in execution, they make up for in effort.
In effectively establishing how the "Planet of the Apes" came to be, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is useful. The movie's premise: development of a potential Alzheimer's cure has led to primate testing. Unintended, and unexpected, the cure (in the form of a controlled virus) actually enhances cognitive ability of the test subjects.
The virus establishes both how the primates get their intelligence and how the humans are decimated and subjugated (it appears to kill humans). The launch of a Mars mission and its subsequent loss establishes how human astronauts may, in the future, return to a vastly changed world. In their care for setting these things up, it is obvious that the filmmakers intend on making more movies (as if there was any question). It's all about the benjamins, baby.
The special effects of the primates are very good, from a technical standpoint, but are most obviously aided by the unique motion capture talents of Andy Serkis. Serkis, whose genius has been witnessed in Lord of the Rings (as Gollum) and King Kong, gives a humanity to Caesar without anthropomorphizing him. Serkis is truly a unique actor whose actual role is both hard to describe and quantify, but whose skill is obvious on screen. He is a normal actor as well, with roles in 13 Going on 30 and other films, but it was through Lord of the Rings and a position that was given larger significance because of his talent in motion capture. He'd actually do every scene both in studio for motion capture and on location for the benefit of the actors acting opposite Gollum.
The acting is nothing special, despite having some great actors in it, including Franco (as scientist Will Rodman), John Lithgow, and Brian Cox. Lithgow is really the only one that gets to show his chops. He plays Rodman's father, who is suffering from Alzheimer's, and who is Rodman's motivation for developing a cure. Freida Pinto, despite being gorgeous, does nothing to show her acting ability. I thought she was very good in Slumdog Millionaire, but she either does not get the opportunity to show her ability here, or fails to take advantage of the chances she does get. The script doesn't really give her a purpose.
Where I believe that Rise of the Planet of the Apes does itself credit is in its treatment of the role of science and ethics. It's like that quote by the Jeff Goldblum character in Jurassic Park:
"Don't you see the danger ... inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun ... I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it ... your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
While it is admirable to be thinking of a cure for Alzheimer's, we have to be aware of the unintended consequences.
If I have a criticism of the movie, it is in its moral stance of the James Franco character. He seems happy, or at least content, that his pet/friend Caesar gains his freedom, which is fine. But he seems unconcerned that what has ultimately led to the intelligence leap of the primates is also the virus that will virtually wipe out the human race. No time is spent to examine whether he has any concerns of this. He is complicit in wiping out humanity. But, I guess, at the end of the movie, he doesn't yet realize the pandemic that has started. Hopefully, it's something that will be addressed in a future movie.
Anyway, not a bad way to spend a couple of hours. Grade: B-
I put in a late push to watch as many of the Oscar-worthy movies released in 2010 as possible, so that I might be more prepared for my top 10. In past years, some great movies have been left out because I didn't get the chance to see them in time. Here goes:
(10) Unstoppable -- Your basic popcorn movie but with good chemistry between Denzel Washington and Chris Pine. Director Tony Scott, if nothing else, is not bad with action flicks and has had a few films that even rise above that (True Romance, Enemy of the State).
(9) Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 -- Basically the first half of a particularly long movie, but it sets the scene well for this summer's finale. The youngsters acting skills have rounded out quite nicely while the veteran British actors do what they do best.
(8) The King's Speech -- From a strictly historical perspective, this is a fascinating story and gives you a better appreciation of the role of King George in World War II and how different it could have been if his brother had not abdicated the throne. But beyond that, it's a perfect excuse to witness two awesome actors (Rush and Firth) go at it.
(7) The Town -- Who knew that mediocre actor Ben Affleck would turn into such a fine director? A gritty crime drama with a fantastic sense of place. Looking forward to more from Affleck in the future. And he actually acted quite well in this one.
(6) True Grit -- True Grit, like all Coen Brothers films, has the vernacular of the time and place perfect ... something that has been most evident in films like Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou. But also with the essential Coen twist - that sense of irony. The sense that you are getting a knowing wink from the directors and that you are privy to some inside joke. All the actors are great in this, but I was particularly impressed by the child actor, Hailee Steinfeld.
This is probably the most straightforward of all the Coen films, but masterfully done and beautifully shot.
(5) Inception -- Visually original with a plot intriguing enough to keep you interested. Maybe not as odd as other Christopher Nolan fare (most notably Memento), but still a very good film. I am rarely disappointed by Leo DiCaprio's choice of films or his performances in them.
(4) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/The Girl Who Played with Fire -- For those that don't normally check out foreign films, do yourself a favor and check out these thoroughly original Swedish films based on the Steig Larsson books. Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander is riveting and an unforgettable character. Looking forward to seeing her in the Ridley Scott sci-fi project, Prometheus, due out in 2012.
(3) The Social Network -- One can question the fidelity of the facts of Mark Zuckerberg's life as told in the Social Network. But it would be hard to question the use of the story as a metaphor for the nature of relationships in the modern age. Well-acted and wonderfully directed by David Fincher. Great music by Trent Reznor.
(2) Exit Through the Gift Shop - My favorite documentary of the year ... or is it (a documentary)? Directed (or staged) by street artist Banksy. A fascinating and funny study into the nature of art, the art scene, hype and documentaries. What is "truth" in a documentary? Is "truth" about facts or is it about revealing some kind of truth through an artful lie?
A quote during the movie by Banksy's former spokesman Steve Lazarides says it all, "I think the joke is on... I don’t know who the joke is on, really. I don’t even know if there is a joke."
(1) 127 Hours A story of adventure, ingenuity and of opting out of the rat-race ...a perfect mixture for me. Plus, its directed by one of my favorite directors, Danny Boyle. Much like Into the Wild appealed to me a few years ago, 127 Hours explores a lot of the same areas of nature, society, and success. I love movies that make you examine what the hell you are doing with your life and if you are living it for someone else's definition of success. James Franco is incredible and my pick for best actor.
Honorable mention: Waiting for Superman, Creation, Black Swan, Alice in Wonderland, Green Zone, Book of Eli, Shutter Island, Salt, Tron: Legacy
Several good kid stories that I liked: Despicable Me, Toy Story 3, Megamind, How to Train Your Dragon
A couple of 2009 movies that I didn't see in time for my list of that year: In the Loop, Moon
.jpg)
