The New Year

Last year was not good for posts. This year should be different.

I've engaged myself in the 100 Movies challenge - I plan to watch 100 movies in 2014 that I have never seen before. They won't all be new, because I'm not made of money, but I'm looking at this much the way I looked at my reading habits two years ago. The year I decided to only read books I've never read before, I read a bunch of stuff I never would have and it revitalized the way I look for things to read. I re-watch a lot of the same movies, which isn't a bad thing, but it limits my exposure to new stuff and keeps me from watching all the things on my Netflix queue that "I'm totally going to watch someday." That day is now!

Before we embark on this journey together, I should mention a few things I saw that I haven't told you about.

The Hobbit

 

I was going to wait to review The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug until I saw it again, because I went to a late show and MAY have slept through a bit of the beginning. But I don't actually think I'll have a chance to see it again, so: my overwhelming opinion of this movie is that while it's still too long, it's an improvement on An Unexpected Journey in every way. You may recall I got a bit whiny when I reviewed the first Hobbit movie, because it was too long and paced poorly and tonally weird and a whole bunch of other stuff, but mostly because I expected better of Peter Jackson. Desolation is slightly shorter, composed better, moves more efficiently, and has better side characters than Journey. Every addition to the source material makes it better (including Tauriel, the lady elf and new queen of my life).

 

It also feels very much like the filmmakers have a better grasp on how they're combining their different material - the Necromancer storyline fits better with the dwarves' journey this time around (which, granted, is partially due to the fact that The Hobbit as a book gets steadily darker - but it still works better than moving between troll snot and high council meetings).

 

I STILL don't think it needs to be three movies, but I'm glad they're at least getting better as they go.

 

American Hustle

 

You guys. YOU GUYS. This movie was so good. I'm having trouble formulating a coherent review because I just want to tell you to go see it, but I'll try my best.

I love movies that respect their audience, and this one definitely does. The writing is so smart, which is particularly evident in the way it uses humor - none of the jokes are slammed in your face, and if you're not paying attention you might miss them, and they never detract from the seriousness of the subject matter. But this movie is FUNNY. It's also a great con film, and as everyone knows, the best part of a con movie is the reveal...which American Hustle TOTALLY nails.

It's also incredibly well-acted - the story, which deals with a pair of con artists (Christian Bale and Amy Adams) who get in trouble with an FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) and agree to help him trap a politician (Jeremy Renner) in exchange for amnesty, is a completely serious, heavy story. And the actors never detract from that. But they are the reason the film goes from gut wrenching to wildly funny in the span of a few moments, without lessening the effect of either. Bale and Adams particularly have crazy chemistry with each other that makes them compelling to watch.

You know who else was compelling to watch? Jennifer Friggin' Lawrence. I am continually astounded that Lawrence is as good as she is considering how (comparatively) little experience she has - at this point, she has made four huge movies, and delivered critically acclaimed performances in three of them (she's excellent in Hunger Games, but that's not winning awards any time soon). The way she plays Rosalyn, Bale's disaffected housewife who is dumber than a sack of rocks, is so pitch-perfect that she completely steals every scene she's in.

 

Lest I wax fondly about this movie for 1200 more words, I leave you with this, Jennifer Lawrence singing Live and Let Die in full mobster housewife regalia.



Frozen

My sister and I are best friends, but we didn't used to be. We didn't really get to BE friends until I moved away to college - I don't know if we were too close or not close enough in age (we're three school years apart, about two and a half years apart in age), but we bickered and fought and pushed each other away for most of our childhoods. Now, we go out together. We talk on the phone. We are friends, confidants, an essential part of each others' lives. I tell you thing because it's a key part of why Frozen was so deeply, deeply affecting to me.

Disney has been on a role lately, portraying familial relationships that are just as, if not more important to the characters in its movies than romantic relationships. In last year's Brave, there WAS no romantic relationship - it was all about Merida and her mother. Likewise, the central relationship in Frozen is not that between Anna and one of her two suitors, but between her and her older sister Elsa. And let me tell you, Frozen GETS it. Frozen takes you into the relationship between these two girls and shows you how hard it is to be so close to someone, how hard it is to grow into different people, and how necessary it is to hang onto that bond. Yes, I had some problems with a few of the musical numbers (a couple felt shoehorned in, like they were more obligatory than necessary, and I just didn't care for one on a musical level), and yes, I wish the story had spent more time on Elsa and her struggles. But this is a movie about sisters, and it gets the sister relationship so profoundly right that I have a hard time complaining about the other stuff.

There is one other thing the story does that I won't spoil, but suffice to say, it is a complete departure from what you'd expect and what Disney has been criticized for doing in the past that I just have to applaud them for doing it. You'll know it immediately, and when you do, we can talk about the implications it has for the future of Disney princesses. It is a development that excites me.

One unexpected thing the film did in a really fantastic way: that snowman. If you're like me, you watched the trailers for Frozen with no small amount of dread, because of that AWFUL snowman. I was so afraid that he'd be this intrusive, forcefully comedic character that the movie wanted for marketing purposes. But! Olaf the snowman is quite well utilized. His humor is well deployed, so that it enhances rather than detracts from the emotional moments. He walks a fine line between endearing and annoying without ever falling on the bad side. I ended up laughing sincerely with him much more than I anticipated.

This is all to say nothing of the sheer beauty of the film - Frozen is incredibly lovely. The ice and snow glitters, and the other colors are vibrant against the white landscapes. The voice acting is likewise fantastic, with Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel voicing the sisters to great effect (if you haven't seen the "Let It Go" sequence, which Disney recently put up on YouTube, I highly recommend it - it doesn't spoil the plot, and gives you an enticing taste of Menzel's power in the role of Elsa). i

Frozen has been getting a lot of controversy, regarding the overwhelming whiteness of the cast and the trimming of female characters from the source story The Snow Queen. Both are legitimate criticisms, but don't let them prevent you from seeing such an incredible story about the love between sisters and the power of family. At the end of the day, Frozen is about two sisters who save themselves, regardless of the other people (including men) that enter their lives. And that is an achievement worth celebrating.

Catching Fire

Before we get into Catching Fire, I want to say a few words about Paul Walker.

I unironically love the Fast & the Furious movies. I think they are tremendously entertaining films that know exactly what they're offering, and they do what they do very, very well. The chemistry between the actors has always been strong, and while they aren't the best examples of solid plots or coherent writing around, they are fun, exciting, and have a shitload of replayability. Paul Walker was a big part of that - while he wasn't the best actor around, he was solid and reliable, and always came across as charming and likable. Going back to that chemistry, he was great fun to watch with Vin Diesel and Jordana Brewster, and he made a good anchor for the films.

I didn't know much about him outside of that franchise, but reading about him postmortem has been enlightening. Apparently he was involved in marine conservation projects, and he drove actual race cars, and he has a young daughter. The fact that these things were never widely splashed on the tabloids, and the fact that I never had his personal life shoved in my face, tells me that he was a private, classy guy for Hollywood.

The death of anyone at age 40 is tragic. I mourn Walker, and Roger Rodas, the driver of the car. I'm sad we won't get to see Walker on screen again, and my heart goes out to his friends and family.

Now. The Girl on Fire.

I've been trying to start this review for a few days now, and I don't know why it's been so difficult - I liked the movie quite a bit. It's a very similar story to the first one (which was why Catching Fire was my least favorite of the HG trilogy), but the good parts are better and the bad parts have been mostly expunged. The shaky cam filming is gone (thank GOD), because this is not a story that needs to emphasize the tension. It's more brutal, more emotional, the new characters are better and the old ones get more to do.

One of the strengths of the novel that really gets emphasized here is that we spend more time with the other Tributes. In my review of The Hunger Games, I believe I mentioned the strength of the acting - that's a trend that continues, with Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair and Jena Malone as Joanna Mason as particular standouts. I was skeptical about Claflin, but he gets Finnick's smarm and sleazy smile while ALSO getting the good heart and strong emotional current under all the act. He makes Finnick's grief as real as his charm. Malone as Joanna is everything I ever wanted: tough, sarcastic, shoving her middle finger in the face of the Capitol and rolling her eyes through the whole thing. Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, and Woody Harrelson are all back with bigger, better rolls and impress just as much as last time.

Visually, you can tell that the studio got a bigger budget after the success of The Hunger Games. Everything looks better, including the rehashed fire effect on Katniss and Peeta's clothes at the opening ceremonies. The arena is more detailed, the violence is harsher, the costuming is better. If I had one nitpick about the cinematography, it would be that I wish we got to see more of the Capitol with an increased budget - there is a scene set in the President's mansion that hints at the extreme opulence, and I wish they'd really pushed the lavishness there.

The movie's biggest problem is that it's clearly there as set-up for the Mockingjay two-parter. It has the unenviable task of being the middle link in the story, where the backdrop has already been established but we're not to the payoff yet. Some trilogies handle this better than others (The Two Towers springs immediately to mind) and The Hunger Games struggles with this, especially because the movie doesn't linger too much on the rising rebellion in the districts. We have to hear about most of that secondhand, which makes the ending feel more inevitable and less like the big reveal they're clearly going for. But they squeeze in more than the novel did (there's a bit when Katniss and Peeta are on a train and see graffiti of her mockingjay pin fly by), and at the end of the day, I'm still looking forward to the story's conclusion.

Even if it is, completely unnecessarily, going to be two movies.

Ender's Game

It's hard to talk about Ender's Game because I honestly don't know where to start.

I wrote a little about it on my librarian blog (you can read it here if you like), mostly addressing how I felt about Orson Scott Card, the book, and going to see the movie. I always intended to see the film, no matter how I felt about OSC; when I bought my ticket, I donated to the Human Rights Campaign as well. But I've been excited about this movie since the first trailer was released; it was a really well done trailer, managing to touch on the treatment of the kids in battle school, the characterization of Ender, and the mystery of Mazer Rackham without actually saying much of anything. It looked good. The casting was good. I had no reason to be anything other than optimistic.

To say the movie didn't deliver is an understatement.

Ender commands a really cool looking, but ultimately superficial, space battle

You can't be a book lover and a movie lover without running into the adaptation problem from time to time - books get adapted into movies all the time, and for the most part I enjoy them as a different mode of telling the same story. I try not to get hung up on small inaccuracies or changes made, because things inevitably have to change when moving from one medium to another. This was not the problem with Ender's Game. The problem with Ender's Game is that every change made, every omission, every alteration, fundamentally changed the tone and meaning of the story, so that by the time it's all wrapping up, you're left with a completely different message than the book offers.

From the very first scenes, which whip past you so fast it's almost impossible to digest them, I knew we were in trouble - all the key scenes were there, but presented in a manner that felt like the writers said "Okay, these moments are important, we have to include them," but without any understanding of why they were important. As a result, emotionally weighty moments from the book fall flat or feel goofy, because there's no context or buildup or anything to give them their importance. The scenes are presented almost in a vacuum, because the director has never taken the time to show you why they matter.

The "showing versus telling" is a problem here. Gavin Hood, the director, has pretty much decided that information has to be spoon-fed to the audience via voice-over or info dump by Ford, even when the telling contradicts what little he takes the time to show us. Every important development in Battle School is compressed into two battles, in ways that mean the audience has to be told why they are important - exposition which doesn't make the visual make sense, by the way. Like other big visuals (which do look stunning, I have to say), Battle School loses a lot of coherency for the sake of making a big special effects splash. You get the feeling that some things were changed simply for the sake of including those special effects.

I will say I enjoyed the acting, for the most part - Harrison Ford was perfect at getting Graff's gruffness, but also showing the real affection he develops for Ender. Ben Kingsley is great at Mazer Rackham, although his accent coasted just this side of incomprehensible. The place where the acting breaks down is with the kids, but I'm not quite willing to place all the blame on them - I've seen and loved Hailee Steinfield, Abigail Breslin and Asa Butterfield in other films. They are weak in Ender because the writing and the direction are weak, because the emotions and tone are wrong. Ford and Kingsley are great actors with years of experience under their belts, and actors of that caliber can elevate weak material (which they are absolutely doing here). Steinfeld and Butterfield simply don't have the experience; they needed more help from the script and the director, which they clearly weren't getting.

I can't really tell you how much I wanted to like this movie. I absolutely do not think the story is unfilmable - but you have to start with filmmakers that understand the material they're working with. There was a message in Hood's film, but it wasn't the message of the Ender's Game novel...and his Ender is not the Ender I grew up with.

Pacific Rim

I have half-finished reviews for Now You See Me and Man of Steel sitting in my drafts, and I couldn't tell you why I'm not all that compelled to finish them - I think part of it is that I was disappointed with NYSM and I don't feel like I have much to add to the Man of Steel discussion, which was VERY good but everyone else has pretty much captured why.

I am compelled - strongly, in fact - to tell you to go see Pacific Rim.

Charlie Hunnam and RInko Kikuchi as Raleigh Becket and Mako Mori

Pacific Rim is polarizing, and I think I've finally pinned down why: a lot of the buzz leading up to it had to do with the fact that, in a time in film history when most of the films being made are sequels, prequels, adaptations and franchise pieces, Pacific Rim was a "wholly original" piece.  Guillermo del Toro had lovingly hand-crafted the perfect genre film, and people (at least the people writing about film and media) were amped about it - a summer blockbuster with shades of Godzilla and Transformers, created from an Oscar nominated director.

But the fact is that it's a.) not completely original (like I said, shades of Godzilla and Transformers...and Evangelion, and Half-Life, and Cloverfield, and kung-fu movies, and much of JJ Abrams' body of work, and a whole host of other things); b.) it wasn't the magnum opus that people expected and thought they deserved.  The dialogue is weak, the story (while TOTALLY AWESOME) is a little goofy, there's unnecessary exposition which could have been dedicated to more character development, the big endgame is a little rushed.

I'm here to state, plainly and emphatically and on the record: WHO GIVES A SHIT.

No, seriously.  I'm not going to pull out the "It's a giant shiny action movie, who needs plot?" line, because I don't need to.  What Pacific Rim lacks in writing strength it more than makes up for in three main things:

1. World Building
Do you remember when James Cameron made Avatar, and everyone was going apeshit over the world he'd constructed?  The world building of Pacific Rim spits on that.  From the individuality of the kaiju and the jaegers, most of which we only see for a few minutes but manage to have distinct personalities, to the trickle-down effect that the monsters have on the black market (Ron Perlman plays a wonderfully shady black market trader in kaiju bits), Pacific Rim is dense with background detail that colors the story without overwhelming it.  I read a review that complained about all the jargon used in the film (I believe it was referred to as "geek speak"), which I noticed but didn't have a problem with, because its couched so firmly in context that I, at least, never had trouble understanding it.  I'll be buying the making of book, Pacific Rim: Man, Machines, and Monsters as soon as possible, because you KNOW that del Toro has pages and pages and pages of information that we never get to see - but the movie aches with it.  This is why, even when you can feel the homages that del Toro is drawing on, ultimately the movie itself feels pretty fresh.

2. Cinematography
Simply put, this is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen.  Every battle sequence is impeccably shot with clarity, even when the battles take place at night.  A scene in downtown Hong Kong is lit with neon signs and helicopter beams, the drift visualizations are ethereal and striking, and as I said above, the kaiju and jaegers drip distinct personality in their visual designs and the way that they move.  The way they move is important, too - no matter how flimsy some of the science is (and I don't really care, honestly) the monsters and the jaegers move realistically.  There's weight to them, things don't always happen quickly, and it feels real to the physics of things twice the size of the Statue of Liberty.  This goes hand-in-hand with the world building, and each detail of this world is precise and visually clear.  If Pacific Rim doesn't win all the technical and effects Oscars, frankly, they're doing it wrong.

3. The Actors
Remember when I said the writing was weak?  Here's where I tell you why it doesn't matter.  Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi form the emotional center of this movie, and they are all so compelling that I forgive them for any cliched dialogue they had to utter.  Elba in particular commands with the force of personality I've come to expect from him - he's an actor that elevates the material he's given, so even when I was wishing there was more to his Cancelling the Apocalypse speech, I was shaken in my seat by the lines he delivered.  Hunnam's Raleigh Becket is down-trodden, damaged, and immensely capable, and you can feel the way he waffles between hopelessness about the situation and stoic determination.  The idea behind Kikuchi's Mako Mori is occasionally stronger than the execution; it feels like the writers don't always quite know what to do with her, which is a shame because I loved her - she shows serious mettle, rising to an impossible demand and doing the best she has with less than desirable circumstances.  I deeply appreciated the lack of romance between Mori and Becket; their strong camaraderie feels more real to the characters and the actors.

So I urge you to see Pacific Rim.  Don't see it because it's the last hope for original movies - it's not.  Don't see it because it's the last hope for genre movies - it isn't.  See it because it's awesome.  See it because it's the most fun I've had at the movies in a really, really long time.  See it because it deserves a big screen.

And hold on to your hat when you do.

Oblivion

I'm still feeling pretty whiny about Star Trek, so I'm going to chat for a bit about a movie I DID like, even though I saw it a few weeks ago (on my birthday, actually!).

I had moderate expectations for Oblivion - I think Tom Cruise is a talented and capable actor, even if he is pretty crazypants in real life, and generally I enjoy movies he's in (Minority Report is one of my favorites, in fact).  And the general attitude about Oblivion seemed to be "That was better than I expected!", so it seemed like a safe bet.

Guys, this movie is great.  The story is solid (it's an adaptation of a graphic novel written by Joseph Kosinski, who also directed Tron: Legacy. ~The more you know~) and had a few twists I wasn't expecting, and the filmmakers do some really interesting and risky things that COULD have tanked it - but they didn't.

The biggest risk it takes, in my opinion, is in pacing - Oblivion is never in a hurry to impress you.  It has a lot of the window dressing of a big summer blockbuster, but the first hour or so is pretty much Tom Cruise wandering around a vacant Planet Earth reminiscing about a life he's never lived (pre-alien war, we're told.  Cruise and his partner Vicka, played by Andrea Riseborough, fix the drones that take care of giant water processing machines.  They have just two weeks left before they get to abandon ship and join what's left of humanity on colony Titan).  It moves incredibly leisurely, treading just this side away from boring.  It's captivating, though, because Cruise and the writers hit on just the right combination of nostalgia and weirdness to keep it interesting.

Ultimately, that pace is used to establish the world the movie is in, right before the rug gets yanked out from under you.  When the story starts shifting gears, though, the first chunk makes more sense.  Plot twists get dropped like breadcrumbs, the action spirals up slowly, and when the big reveals start happening it's almost breathtaking the way the filmmakers have played you.

Nothing comes out of nowhere - that whole opening sequence is seeded with clues that don't become clues until you know what the context is.  Going in, I thought I had a pretty good grasp on what the twist would be and what Morgan Freeman's role in all of this was; turns out what I thought I knew was correct, but only partially, and not in the way that really matters.

Oblivion also has an emotional resonance that surprised me, because I'm not used to genre or summer films being this willing to sacrifice explosions for the sake of emotional connection.  For all its scale (and there's a lot of scale - sweeping, barren landscapes, shiny futuristic planes and living platforms, lots of white and metals and a pretty cool suspension pool), the story feels small and intimate - it's the story of Morgan Freeman and his rebels, or course, but it's really the story of Cruise's Jack.  The big reveal and climax at the end feel earned, because you've spent so much perceived time with Jack, which means that Oblivion retains the emotional core that so much genre film misses (I was reminded of Avatar, actually, in that both are big, shiny science fiction tales, but Oblivion is actually resonant and, you know, good.)

Oblivion looks very much like a giant sci-fi summer blockbuster - with Cruise in the main actor seat and big, impressive visuals, superficially the film looks much bigger than what it ends up being: one man's struggle with identity and purpose.  

Star Trek Into Darkness, this time with SPOILERS

Let's get into it.

I will admit that I have never seen Wrath of Khan.  I've never been a Star Trek fan, so I never bothered, and thus may be missing something in Abrams' remake.  However, one of the things I loved so much about his first reboot was that it was so accessible - you didn't have to be a Trek fan to know what was going on, and you didn't have to be familiar with the characters to fall in love with them.  So I'm not willing to cut Abrams any slack on this front.

That said, here are my specific complaints about Star Trek: Into Darkness.

- As I said in my first review, I thought Abrams was telling us with his first Trek that he was off the leash, not to be constrained by the previously established Trek canon (however you may feel about that decision).  But what do we get as a follow up? A film that tries to shoe horn as much reference and remake that it possibly can into a story that would have been better served without it.  John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) was more interesting before the "reveal" that we're actually just doing Khan again.  The story of Kirk's disgrace with the Academy, and him getting called to task for his shitty captaining by his mentor Admiral Pike, was way more fascinating than the revenge drama we got.  All of this was washed away in the first twenty minutes of the movie.

- Let's talk about those first twenty minutes.  I was SO excited to see Pike's dressing down of Kirk, because it's a big character moment for him - yes, he's been insanely lucky so far, but the way he runs his ship and his attitude are dangerous and will probably kill someone someday.  To have another character, one that Kirk respects so much, actually call him out for that could have been a great story to follow - except that we forget about that the instant Pike dies.  The Federation takes the Enterprise away from Kirk...and then gives it back to him almost instantly.  His abilities as a captain are never in question for the rest of the film.  Even his bad decisions are mostly the product of him taking pretty solid advice from his crew.  It doesn't end up meaning anything.

- Which brings me to character motive, or lack thereof. As a Federation terrorist, Harrison was on the way to having some kind of motive - perhaps he was wronged by the Federation.  It doesn't matter, it didn't have to be complicated.  But by turning around and making him Khan, he has a tenuous motive for revenge against one specific member of the Federation (Admiral Marcus, who, um, what?  How can I give a shit about a conflict with someone I've never met before, and who's characterization wasn't explored enough to matter) and NOTHING to justify that last scene where he crashed the ship into San Francisco. Khan is only ever angry at one person: Marcus, Kirk, Spock.  But somehow, we're supposed to buy that he's this huge danger to the universe?

I feel like this is where it would have been helpful to have seen Wrath of Khan, because the scene with Old Spock gives some intimations of how dangerous Khan is - but the point is, we never see that in this version. He's some kind of superhuman, and I totally get why he hates Marcus, but the explosive destruction aimed at the Federation is never earned.

- Seriously, the Klingons were in the movie for two minutes and were more interesting than everything else.  Can the next movie be about them?

- The dialogue was brutal. Seriously, I love Karl Urban, he's a great actor, and we've seen that he's great at being Bones - so why why WHY would you reduce him to a series of stereotypical metaphors and one-liners?  All of the characters were distilled down to their TOS stereotypes (except, interestingly, Spock, who continually talks about being unable to feel and then being REALLY BAD at not feeling).

Speaking of, can we talk about how unfair Uhura's part in this whole thing was?  I alluded to it in my other review, but seriously: she's supposed to be capable and professional.  I do not believe at all that she would choose to fight about her relationship with Spock on the shuttle on the way to an extremely dangerous mission.  It was poorly placed, distracting, and damaging to all characters involved.

- For all that the stakes keep being raised, and the probability of death looms ever closer, I never felt like there was any tension.  With the sole exception of Khan and Kirk's flight through space (which would have been even more effective if it had been edited a little tighter), I never once was afraid for these characters.  Hell, Kirk died and I didn't take it seriously, because I knew what story we were in (which is another reason the Khan bait-and-switch doesn't work - yes, it's Spock that dies in the original, but that doesn't stick, either).  There is a way to create tension when your audience knows the ending of the story, this movie just never knows how.

- And at the end...nothing is different.  Khan is back in a cryo tube (which, how? How do you fight an super being back into a freezing tube?) Kirk has the Enterprise back. All the relationships are where they were in the beginning, because nothing was ever a serious threat to them.  The whole film felt like a wasted opportunity.

I'll probably go see more Trek films, if Abrams keeps making them.  But I won't feel the same kind of unreserved excitement I had before STID.  Which makes me really, really sad.

Star Trek: My first summer disappointment

I'm coming out of hibernation because I saw the new Star Trek film last night, and I have a lot of feelings about it. Specifically, I have a lot of BAD feelings about it, which have left me disappointed to the point of anger - which, on the one hand, is kind of ridiculous, because at the end of the day, movies aren't worth getting mad about...but on the other hand, I was SO EXCITED about this one. JJ Abrams' first Star Trek is one of my favorite m movies. I had it on my top ten list for 2009. I thought it was Best Picture material.

Into Darkness is...not. It manages to feel both bloated and hollow, drilling the same parallels into you over and over again with all the subtlety of an anvil, taking what were some of the best things about the 2009 film and tossing them merrily out the airlock.

I'm going to do this review in two parts, a spoiler free one and one where I can more fully enumerate the crimes of Star Trek: Into Darkness, the better to fully explain how I came to leave the theater feeling like I saw a different movie than everyone else I know (believe me, I wish I'd seen the one everyone is raving about. That sounded like a GOOD movie.).

To start, it's too long by about a half hour. The first twenty minutes are great - they move along, reveal some interesting conflicts, and get the action started...which then almost immediately tapers off into endless, pointless fight sequences and way, WAY too many shots of various crew members running down the white hallways of the Enterprise (which, by the way, has anyone ever bothered to map out the ship? Because I had no idea where we were supposed to be in the ship most of the time).

In addition to feeling padded out with unnecessary running, poorly edited action sequences, and revisiting the same plot points over and over, Into Darkness seems to take pleasure in wasting some of its best resources. Karl Urban as Bones is reduced to stupid metaphors and bitter one liners (to the point where another character actually says to him, "Enough with the metaphors!"). Uhura manages to somehow be both more and less interesting, getting to accompany Kirk on a mission but choosing the worst possible moment to bitch about her relationship problems. In fact, most of the crew, such strong presences in the first film, are basically reprising that here - hardly anyone gets anything new to do, or even say.

There's some good stuff here, not enough to assuage my feelings about it as a whole, but just enough to be frustrated by the film. The first two scenes are excellent, as Kirk' s methods and attitudes are called into question by the one person who's opinion he might actually care about. There's enough of the Klingons seen that I wish they'd been the villains of the film. And Benedict Cumberbatch, our actual villain, delivers monologues both traffic and sinister in a way that might have given me chills...If the material he'd been given had had more punch. But it's all so bogged down in senseless, motive-less buckshot that I had trouble keeping the good stuff in mind.

The conflict introduced in the opening sequence is pretty instantly brushed aside for something much less interesting, so that Abrams can pull what I'm sure he thought was an epic level bait and switch...but which ends up pretty much guaranteeing that the rest of the movie has no tension, because you now know exactly how it will end. This might be my biggest criticism and biggest disappointment: I thought that, with his first Trek, Abrams was making a grand statement that we were now playing by his rules. The old timeline was scrapped, he could send the Enterprise and her crew wherever he wished, and it would all be new, and fresh, and exciting. Into Darkness is none of those things. It is a group of people patting themselves on the back for being clever and good looking, while offering nothing in the way of new experience. I know you can do better, Mr. Abrams. I sincerely hope your next effort is more with my time.

Oscar Predictions!

I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the Oscars this year.  We'll see how I do tomorrow!

Best Picture: Lincoln
Ebert is convinced that Argo is taking it home, and after all the reactionary press Ben Affleck has gotten after his snub, he might be right - but tomorrow I think we're looking at a return to traditional Oscar values, and Lincoln simply has more weight on its side.  I think that the combined powers of Spielberg, Daniel Day-Lewis, the historical biopic subject and the epic scope are going to be too much for the Academy to resist.

Best Director: Steven Spielberg
I really don't see any other contenders in this category (not that the other directors don't deserve to be nominated!).  IF Affleck had been nominated, these two categories might be harder to predict - as it is, I think we're looking at a Lincoln-takes-all kind of evening.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
It's the performance of his lifetime.  It's the performance of several lifetimes.  He can't lose.

Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
Her real competition is Jessica Chastain, but I think Zero Dark Thirty is suffering a little on the awards circuit because of how similar it is to The Hurt Locker.  Lawrence has been getting more and better press than Chastain, plus her performance was unforgettable.  Granted, I haven't seen ZD30, and both women are turning into the kind of actresses that change the landscape of film, but I think the scales are tipped just slightly in Lawrence's favor.

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained
If Lincoln is losing anywhere, it's here - and that's because Django isn't winning any other category (in my opinion).  Tarantino is pushing too hard for the Academy to take him seriously, when his material doesn't stand up to that assertion.  Waltz, however, is becoming a virtuoso that plays in Tarantino's key - if anyone can snag an award for Django, it's him.

Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
For serious, they should just play the clip of Hathaway singing "I Dreamed A Dream" and let it speak for itself.

Animated Film: Wreck-It Ralph
For the first time in a while I don't think Pixar has a lock on this category.  I waffled hard on this one, because of how much I want ParaNorman to win - unfortunately, too often the Academy plays it conservative with the animated feature, and I think this year Disney's name is going to be too much to resist.  HOWEVER, Wreck-It Ralph was still an excellent movie, and will deserve the award.

Other Awards!

Cinematography: Life of Pi
Costume Design: Mirror Mirror
Film Editing: Argo
Makeup: The Hobbit
Music: Life of Pi
Music/Original Song: Adele, Skyfall
Production Design: Lincoln
Sound Editing: Argo
Sound Mixing: Les Miserables
Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Writing/Adapted Screenplay: Lincoln
Writing/Original Screenplay: Django Unchained

Chuggin' Along

So!  I have been dangerously delinquent on updating this blog.  I don't know if it was resolution fatigue or what, so I'm going to make a couple of preemptive statements regarding the future of this blog:

- Setting myself deadlines, it turns out, makes me not want to update.  SO.  Updates will go back to a "Whenever I feel like I have something to say" schedule.  Hopefully this will lead to an increase of words.

- Going forward, I am still going to try to keep to the "post reviews within 48 hours of seeing a movie" clause, because the fresher a movie is in my brain the better I can tell you all about it.

I'm playing with the idea of combining this blog and my book blog (Alternative Read) into one giant media entity, because then I can also flail all over about the tv shows I'm watching (spoiler alert: I get a lot of feelings about tv) and everything can be in one happy location.  I'm still trying to figure out what platform would best serve that purpose, so I'll keep you updated and, in the meantime, try to keep these things updated, as well.

ENOUGH ABOUT THAT, LET'S TALK ABOUT MOVIES.

Since last I spoke here, I've seen:

Mama.  I know, I KNOW.  Apparently I can't claim that I don't do horror movies anymore, because not only did I pay to see this in a theater, but I didn't actually have any nightmares after!  (I do have to make a studious effort to get it out of my brains if I think of it pre-bedtime, though.)  It was good!  Surprising no one, because Guillermo del Toro, duh.  Jessica Chastain and the little girls are fabulous - the girls especially do a great job of being creepy and endearing and feral and a whole bunch of other stuff.  The ending veers into melodrama territory, and is maybe a touch too overblown and tragic, but it's satisfying and ultimately makes sense.  I do confess to keeping my eyes glued on my knees during many of the scenes where you actually see the ghost, but: baby steps.

Fat Kid Rules The World, which: AWESOME.  This was one of the best YA books I read for my YA literature class in library school, and I was really excited when I found out that it got made into a movie and then successfully Kickstarted a distribution.  I got to see it when I went out to the American Library Association midwinter conference in Seattle, because someone from YALSA (the young adult division of ALA) e-mailed the director and said she wanted to screen it - he sent her a complementary copy and some awesome bumper stickers (proclaiming DON'T F*CK WITH THE FAT KID).  The movie, while obviously a slimmed down version of the story, captures the important stuff - and I felt like the people who made it really got the book.  It's about self confidence, self acceptance, punk rock, dealing with family issues, high school bullshit...all that teenage angst wrapped up in Troy, the titular fat kid, as he navigates what starts off as a pretty shitty life - but improves significantly when he gets involved with a drug addict/punk guitarist, Marcus.

Silver Linings Playbook, which was fabulous - the story itself has the skeleton of a typical rom-com, but the cleverness and sensitivity of the writing as well as the stellar performances elevated the whole thing.  Jennifer Lawrence, who I seriously want to be when I grow up (except that she's YOUNGER than me, which doesn't give me self esteem issues at all, thank you very much), is seriously charming - she's all broken edges and enviable hair and sharply witty remarks.  I like Bradley Cooper more and more, because I think he's very willing to step outside of his comfort zone and push his characters to the max; he does a whole host of things here that I haven't seen from him before, and it makes Pat's manic-depressive fluctuations believable, scary, and ultimately sympathetic.  Robert De Niro and Jackie Weaver as Pat's long suffering parents are also pitch perfect, especially Weaver, who plays Pat's mother with a quiet tolerance that speaks volumes even when she doesn't.

Warm Bodies: I don't actually have a whole lot to say about this one, which speaks plenty in and of itself, I think.  It was...ok.  A serviceable zombie movie with an interesting perspective.  I didn't like how many things happened because Reasons (like the big plot hook, shown in the trailer - zombies are coming back to life because of...love?  OK, sure.), and the pacing felt off to me.  The acting is charming, but all in all I could have waited for the DVD release.

My Oscar Predictions go up on Friday.  Are YOU watching?

The New Year!

First, let's get this out of the way:

The 10 Best Movies I Saw In 2012

10. Dredd

Karl Urban's Chin for Best Supporting Actor

I will defend this movie until the end of time.  It was concise, exciting, well-edited, excellently visualized, very well acted, and some of the most fun I had at the movies all year.  It managed yet another post-apocalyptic wasteland story without being boring or tired, by staying focused on the minutia of the story...while ALSO not overburdening the viewer with unnecessary (to the story) details.  Plus, HELLA REWATCH VALUE.  See my full review here.

9. The Words

Bradley Cooper for Best Smarming Author

This movie is a lot of things I don't usually care for - generally unhappy, lacking a satisfying ending, and featuring some really unhappy, unlikable characters.  But I appreciate The Words for daring to be unsatisfying in a world that is too full of pandering, safe choices when it comes to film.  It's compelling and bold in its refusal to play to your expectations.  See my full review here.

8. ParaNorman

Laika Studios for Most Exciting Animation Studio

While I still think the ending could have been composed better, ParaNorman wins major points from me for daring to be different - especially when you stack it next to the stale, rehashed Frankenweenie (same genre, similar subjects, but Frankenweenie reeks of Tim Burton's overused storytelling).  ParaNorman works with a lot of the same material - the undead, an outcast main character, etc.) but does so in a way that feels fresh, vibrant, and, occasionally, legitimately scary.  If Laika Studios could keep making macabre children's stories, that would be fantastic.  See my full review here.

7. Skyfall

Best Use of Assassination Glass.  Also that giant lizard for Best Deus Ex Lizard, but I couldn't find a screencap of that.

Daniel Craig seems to be my Bond of choice - I was never invested in them until he donned the perfectly tailored suit and started kicking faces in.  Skyfall manages to feel like a classic Bond film while still retaining that signature Craig style that I've come to be so fond of, and is dotted with class-act performances by the indomitable Dame Judy Dench, the oily Javier Bardem, and the clever Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris.  It's also extremely beautiful to watch, and very well orchestrated.  See my full review here.

6. Looper

Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Best Healer of Paradoxes

I haven't done a full review of Looper, because I only watched it a couple weeks ago - but I'm including it here because it was a 2012 movie and because it was such a fabulous science fiction film that is ALSO a great example of how to do time travel effectively.  What lacked for me in the performances (Joseph Gordon-Levitt is intentionally detached, which works for the movie but made it hard for me to connect with him and, by extension, Bruce Willis as older-him, but Emily Blunt, and the kid who plays her son, were fantastic) was more than made up for in the vision, scope and cohesiveness of the film.  It is really easy for time travel movies to lose track of what they're doing, or to get lost in their own mechanics, but Looper maintains a consistent set of rules for time travel which, while they aren't my personal views on the subject, were internally consistent and ultimately easy to follow.  I'm hoping the positive reception that Looper had means we're going to get more original science fiction - if it's all as good as this, we'll be in excellent shape.

5. Wreck-It Ralph

Vanellope and Ralph for Cutest BFFs

For the first time I can remember, Disney and Pixar released movies in the same year...and Disney's was better.  Like, by a LOT.  Brave fell so flat for me, and Wreck-It Ralph was emotional, and engaging, and fun, and can I be Vanellope when I grow up?  (Or an Nintendo make Sugar Rush a real game for the Wii?  Because seriously.)  This was also so clearly a labor of love - the attention to the little details, like the way an eight-bit character moves compared to a character from a modern Halo clone, show the respect the filmmakers have for their source material.  The whole film honors the video game medium in a really touching way.  I had a serious case of warm fuzzies when the credits rolled.

Also, Wreck-It Ralph gets major points for making me feel like I knew where the ending was going, but then surprising me with a finale that was both foreshadowed but unexpected. 

4. Cabin in the Woods

Best Use of Zombie Redneck Torture Family

I thought I knew what was coming, and then I REALLY, REALLY DIDN'T.  By now, you know that Cabin in the Woods is not your typical horror movie - how could it be, when it's a Whedon project? - but if you haven't seen it, I'm betting you don't realize how THOROUGHLY not typical it really is.  While I don't make a habit out of watching horror film, I like reading horror lit and reading about horror film, so I'm pretty familiar with most of the common tropes and what's been done to death.  Cabin in the Woods looks those tropes in the eyes, laughs dismissively, and then frolics gaily all over them.  It doesn't just rip them to pieces, it revels in tearing them apart.  The ending is pretty whackjob nuts, but so is the rest of the film; right after viewing, I wasn't sure how I felt about it, but on contemplation I don't think it could have ended any other way and retained that sense of insanity.  Plus, there are so many little details and touches that make this a fun experience to watch, it invites rewatches just so you can see what you may have missed the first time around.

3. The Avengers

Best Smartasses

If The Dark Knight is the platonic ideal of a superhero movie, then The Avengers is the platonic ideal of a superhero ensemble movie (good luck, Justice League.  You're gonna need it).  I've watched this one several times since its release on DVD, and let me tell you, that final battle sequence never feels overly long or stale.  The Hulk beating the shit out of Loki never gets less funny, Mark Ruffalo always breaks my heart, and my need for a Black Widow/Hawkeye prequel grows ever stronger.  See my full review here.

2. Argo

Best Deployment of an Expletive: "Argo Fuck Yourself."

I had a rough time deciding which of these last two movies got to be number one on my list, and honestly, it changes depending on how I feel.  While they're both historicals and period pieces, Argo is tight, exciting, and provides a fascinating look into the machinations of an area of government that gets maligned quite a bit. It's a spy movie about real spies, and Affleck skillfully works tension into the story even though we all knew (sort of) how it ended.  

See my full review here.

1. Lincoln

Best Use of Daniel Day Lewis. Don't lie, you think so too.

Lincoln, on the other hand, is thoughtful, a story with no less importance but minus some of the urgency thanks to Daniel Day Lewis' performance.  Lewis is playing an old, worn down, brilliant man in his twilight days, and it's evident in every line on his face and every angle of his body.  His Lincoln is both a powerful, commanding leader and a compassionate storyteller, and Lewis mediates between them effortlessly.  The film is also refreshing in that it shows a pretty complete portrait of what was going on during Lincoln's attempts to bring the Civil War to a close.  There's a lot of political wheeling and dealing that isn't flattering to the President (or anyone), but it feels honest.

So what's coming up for the blog this year?  My New Year's Resolution for Boycott BluRay is to see at least  two movies a month in the theater, trying for more - I always reach the end of the year wishing I'd gotten to see more movies, so in 2013 I'm going to commit to doing just that.  I'm also resolving to post reviews within 48 hours of seeing a film, to keep things current (to me, anyway).

I'm going to feature more different kinds of articles as well, like more Trailer Talk (which is super fun to write) and more ruminations about things movie-related that are not necessarily about new releases.  So on the first day of the month, in addition to whatever reviews I've posted, I'll be writing to you about...well, something movie adjacent.  Stay tuned!

Movies Coming Out In 2013 That I'm Excited About

Gangster Squad

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Warm Bodies

Now You See Me

Oblivion

Iron Man 3

The Great Gatsby

Star Trek Into Darkness

Man of Steel

Monsters University

Pacific Rim

The Wolverine

Elysium

Carrie

Ender's Game

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

How Les Miserables Hit Me Right In The Feels

I think the best part about Les Miserables is how deeply unforgiving Tom Hooper is towards his actors.  There's no breathing space in the film, not in the tempo and not in the cinematography; he forces the camera into the faces of people playing deeply unhappy, desperate, broken people and forces the audience to take it all, every drop of that bitterness and death.  When Anne Hathaway sings "I Dreamed A Dream," you have to look at her while she breaks down and weeps through the number.  It is haunting, and uncomfortable, and awkward, and the only way I'm going to picture that song from now until I die.

Hooper has harnessed the power of misery in his adaptation, contrasting the narrow vision of the musical when it focuses on the circumstances of individuals with the scope of the historic event it frames.  The solo numbers are framed tightly, as I mentioned above, and the group numbers are big and swelling and stirring.  Almost every actor is perfection (I would have swapped Eddie Redmayne with Aaron Tveit, who plays Enjolras), even the ones I had trepidation about - while I was confident that Russell Crowe would capture the martial nature of Javert, I didn't know if he could sing.  He's not as vocally strong as Hathaway or Hugh Jackman, but his rough tenor works, especially in "The Confrontation" and "Stars."

Hooper's singers are strong, but they're not perfect (well, except Samantha Barks, who plays Eponine and is completely flawless in every way), and this works for the film.  No one is ever clean, and someone is usually crying.  It's gritty and real without losing musicality (something that Tim Burton forgot while filming Sweeney Todd).  While Redmayne wasn't my favorite, he still broke my heart singing "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables."  It's an extraordinarily well composed film.  Jackman started strong and finished strong, but I was a little disappointed with his midshow performance, especially during "Bring Him Home;" for someone with actual Broadway experience, I wish he would have kept the song in a register he could realistically manage.

It's not all horror, though, and Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are pitch perfect as the Thenardiers.  They are funny without detracting from the seriousness of the material, and absurd without being out of place.  Even their costuming, garish and clownlike, meshes well with the muted color palette.

My biggest issue with the film is that even at 2 hours and 40 minutes, it feels rushed.  Hooper leaves no time in between each song to let the scenes breathe; even within some of the larger numbers, he leaps from person to person in a matter of seconds, often before they've finished singing a measure.  I very, very rarely say this, but here Hooper could have committed to a full three hours - or committed to shaving off a number or two, and improving the ones he kept.

Some of the camerawork was not good.  Crowe in particular got the brunt of this; Hooper seemed obligated to include the same upward sweep of him almost every time Crowe was in the scene.  Hooper also utilizes handheld shaky cam a few times, not enough to make it a Thing for the film but just often enough to be distracting.  The weather also seemed a little out of control; it rains when Hooper needs it to rain, and stops when he needs it to stop (such as "On My Own," a small oasis of rain before the grand "One Day More" begins).

Overall, it's a gut-wrenching film, which it should be.  I felt emotionally wrung out at the end, a little overwhelmed and a little exhausted.  While it has flaws, I feel like they're pretty nitpicky; in general, Hooper has done a solid job of adapting this musical to film, and of making it feel cinematic.

The Hobbit: An Addendum

So, as you might have been able to tell from my first post about The Hobbit, the movie gave me a lot of feels.  Most of which came from the fact that I wanted to like it a lot more than I did - not that I didn't like it, I did quite a bit, but I was still kind of disappointed in the final product.  Which led pretty directly to me writing a "review" which didn't actually say anything useful at all, but whined a lot and threw in some stuff about dwarves.  This addendum is my attempt to say something substantive about the movie itself.

I did not see The Hobbit in 48fps, or even in IMAX.  Because of this I didn't have the hyper-realism issue that many people have been complaining about; however (and I don't know if this is BECAUSE I saw it in standard form, or if everyone had this problem), there were several panoramic scenes that ended up blurry and headache-y for me.  This was especially problematic because they were scenes I wanted to see - the opening scene of Erebor, the dwarven city, for example, and the goblin underground compound.  New Zealand is used to great effect, and Jackson definitely remembers how to use great sweeping panoramas to good effect, but the film is a little heavy on the scenery porn, which matters more because of how padded the movie already feels.

The scale of the movie is pretty grand - Jackson proved he was great at doing epics with LOTR, and he brings that same sense of grandeur to The Hobbit.  It works to mediate some of the tonal dissonance that the film has, since there's not as much of that weighty feeling to the book; The Hobbit adapted scenes are very true to the spirit of the book - lighter, with some levity, while the material from the ROTK appendices (most particularly a meeting between Gandalf, Galadriel, Sarumon and Elrond) is more serious, more ponderous.  While individually, every scene is pretty great, they don't transition very well..  The opening sequence, where we learn the history of the dwarves and their homeland, gives gravity to the story; as I'm thinking about it right now, part of the problem I may be having is that we got the big sweeping epic FIRST and are only now going back to the prequel story, which puts more expectation on The Hobbit to be similar to LOTR in terms of tone and feeling.  Jackson does a good job of incorporating his extra material, showing that the story he's trying to tell is bigger than just The Hobbit text, but staying true to all his sources hurts him in terms of meshing the elements together.

All in all, The Hobbit was an enjoyable, but flawed, experience.  I think we were all expecting something more, which is why it's getting so slammed in reviews right now - it's a pretty good movie, and we were expecting something great.  I hope parts two and three deliver a little bit more.

The Hobbit

The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings.

I expressed concern when the first trailer hit, because it looked way too much like LOTR rescrambled with a different hobbit, and having read The Hobbit I wanted a movie that let the merits of that story shine without being overshadowed by the darker, more serious events of LOTR.

Well...yes and no.  The story Peter Jackson is telling here is much larger than what's contained in The Hobbit, which is why I'm finally comfortable with the fact that we're getting three movies (for a great rundown of what Jackson's doing with Tolkein's extended mythology, read this explanation by Dresden Codak author and artist, Aaron Diaz.  His whole tumblr right now is full of awesome LOTR, Hobbit, and Silmarillion facts).  But...

But.

There are two things that weaken this movie tremendously, and one of them is the constant insistence that this movie IS related to LOTR and IS a prequel and dammit, how many parallels can we fit into this film?  It's detrimental; Thorin Oakenshield is a badass with an awesome backstory, he doesn't need to be constantly and bluntly compared to Aragorn.  There's even one instance of a deus ex machina from Fellowship being directly reused, in a scene that was changed from the Hobbit text (not that I'm objecting to the fact that the book was changed - I'm objecting to the fact that Jackson reuses a terrible plot device that didn't work that well in the first place).

Radagast is pretty magnificent and I basically won't hear a word against him.

The other thing that hurts the movie is length; even with the added material, this didn't need to be a three hour movie.  I would go so far as to say it could have fit just as much story, and just as much scenery, comfortably into two hours and been a stronger film for it.  There are two scenes in particular, a chase scene and a battle, that are long to the point of being ridiculous and tiresome.  Edit more better, Jackson!  I know you can do it.

Some good stuff!  The dwarves are excellent.  Even though, for all its length, some of them are confined to caricatures and cut-outs (Bombur's most memorable characteristics are "fat" and "donut beard"), they still end up being memorable, and fun to spend screen time with.  They are also fierce; unlike the hobbits, who will always look a little funny with swords in their hands (intentionally, I think), the dwarves are true warriors.  They are also the best channel for the book's levity to come through; the scene where you meet them at Bilbo's house was one of my favorites in the whole film.

If my beard was this majestic, I'd want to be remembered for it too.

I don't really know how to talk about Riddles in the Dark, except by saying that it's the centerpiece of the movie, and could stand alone as its own short film.  It's amazing, and Martin Freeman (fabulous, amazing, I-don't-think-they-could-have-made-this-without-him Martin Freeman) sells the hell out of it.  It's kind of like Jackson conceived of this scene, and built the rest of the movie to support it (which is entirely possible, it's the cornerstone moment of the film, after all).  It's also a great way of starting the descent into darkness from the bright tones of the opening acts, and it's a great lead-in to part two.

Shall I talk some about Martin Freemen?  He's flawless, really.  He hits such the perfect tone, unassuming and pretty self-deprecating, that when his moments of bravery come he looks just as surprised as everyone else.  He makes those moments believable, as well - it's not like his cleverness in the face of danger comes out of nowhere.  He's always been a smart hobbit, and now he has the chance to be a hero, even if someone else will probably have to tell him when it happens.

Skyfall

I wasn't really a Bond fan until Daniel Craig remastered the superspy into a gritty, punchy daredevil, and I'm pleased to say that Skyfall represents a brilliant comeback from the plodding, dusty Quantum of Solace.  It's exciting, cohesive, and a more streamlined story, which gives some truly excellent character acting its chance to shine.  Reviewers are raving about Judi Dench and Javier Bardem for good reason - Bardem's peroxide blonde villain is slick and slippery, outwardly polished and maniacally twisted.  He is a polished psychopath; Entertainment Weekly compares him, aptly, to Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter.  He's chilling.  And if the Academy can nominate Johnny Depp for Pirates of the Caribbean, surely they can find it in their hearts to recognize Bardem.

What I deeply appreciated about Skyfall is that it's a serious action film that isn't afraid to be cheeky.  Casino Royale was an introduction to a new kind of Bond - not afraid to get dirty, more inclined to feats of parkour than gadgetry, it showed us the dark side of espionage (while still managing to include the obligatory martini and tailored suit).  Skyfall melds that with the more classic Bond feel, bringing back Q (Ben Whishaw, completely charming in the role) and some of the gadgets, as well as giving nods to some Bond staples (like the indomitable Aston Martin).  While there is never any danger of Skyfall veering into camp territory, it seamlessly brings back more elements of a previous Bond era.  Adele's theme song works into this as well; it has a very smoky, kind of scratchy 60's feel and I LOVE it.

(A side note about Q: I appreciated that Bond and I had the same thought about him at the same time.  Namely: "Dude, you're like TEN.")

I would also like to point out, without spoiling anything, that Skyfall has the best use of Chekov's Gun I have ever seen.  It is MASTERFUL, and it is batshit crazy, and I didn't think it would happen but then Christmas came early and I got the ludicrous death I so deeply deserved.  I won't tell you what it is, but I guarantee you'll know it when you see it.

I had planned to address the "Bardem as possibly gay" question, but...it doesn't really matter.  There's a scene between Bardem and Craig that might be flirting, might be gay chicken, might be a lot of things - the only thing about it that actually matters is that Bardem makes your skin crawl.  My personal interpretation is that Craig's Bond is simply trying to unseat Bardem's villain in the only way he currently can; I can't imagine that someone as savvy as Bond has never used sex as a weapon before.

(Also, if you're honestly getting your panties in a twist about Bond drinking a Heineken, he was on a BEACH in a SHACK.  Dude has to make due with what he has!)

More Scary Movies I Secretly Like Watching

Happy Halloween, my lovely haunted readers!  Tonight is Halloween, and in the spirit of the holiday I would like to both direct you to my Top Ten Horror Films I Secretly Kind Of Like, a list I made last year, and to also provide an addendum list (because, let's face it, I can talk all I want to about not liking horror movies - the truth is I am fascinated by them).

28 Days Later

That early scene, when Cillian Murphy stumbles out of the hospital and into the empty streets of London, is one of the eeriest things to be committed to film.  One of the brilliant things this movie does, that not many have tried to replicate, is change our expectations of the zombies: not only are they brutal, vicious, and hungry, but they're fast.  Zombies went from shambling horrors to rabid predators, more likely to dispense with the moaning and just rip into you with guttural shrieking.  Shivers.

(The use of red in the color palette of 28 Days Later is also interesting to note, for people who notice that kind of thing.  It borders on abrasive and gives me a headache, which was probably the point.)

Drag Me To Hell

Campy, over-the-top, and with a simplistic message (do unto others, and all that), Drag Me To Hell still manages some of the best jump scares in recent film.  Allison Lohman plays the loathsome Christine, a loan officer eager for a pay raise who declines to extend a loan to an old gypsy woman.  Christine apparently missed the memo on why it's a terrible idea to cross old gypsy women, because she finds herself the owner of a particularly nasty curse.  Thinking about the ending still makes me jump a little.  

Halloween

There are two classics on here, included because sometimes the originals are just better.  Halloween is scary because not only are there no ghosts, monsters or zombies, but because Michael Meyers doesn't have anything obviously wrong with him.  He's no Damien, no disciple of the devil, no possessed little boy - he's just a psychopath, enraged by young women who remind him of his slutty sister.  The blank white mask, which removes any trace of humanity, feels more like his face than any real one could.

Night Watch

I highly recommend watching this one with subtitles, because the cinematography actually incorporates them into the fabric of the film.  Watching a vampire lure a human through psychic calling is much creepier when the subtitles are red, and fade away like blood dissipating in water.  This movie, which is also the reason I get nervous around large flocks of crows, is about the supernatural forces that guard against each other and keep the world in balance...and what happens when a force too powerful to contain is released in Moscow.  It's beautiful and exciting, horror with a touch of class.  If you liked Let The Right One In you'll probably dig Night Watch.

Nightmare on Elm Street

The other classic I felt it was necessary to include.  A lot of horror deals with the invasion of so-called "safe" spaces, but none are as effective as the ghoul that can literally kill you in your dreams.  There's no hiding under the blankets here, and to know Freddy is to be killed by him.  Have fun trying to sleep tonight...

The Others

A shoestring budget and almost zero special effects give this one a lovely classic feel.  While not filmed in black and white, it may as well have been - the single location of the film is inside a great big house with all the windows boarded up to protect Nicole Kidman's children from their allergy to sunlight.  Shadows, light and darkness make up the special effects and create a mood so profoundly eerie that you'll find yourself jumping at nothing.  Very reminiscent of the original House on Haunted Hill.

[REC]

Another fun zombie movie that mixes them in with the found footage trope.  [REC] is kissing cousins with 28 Days Later, dealing with a virus and fast zombies, but adding an element of claustrophobia with the locked down building that the whole film takes place in.  In general, I think the found footage thing is a little played out, but this story of an apartment building dealing with a quarantine and horrifying monsters is exciting enough to get a pass.  

Red Dragon

Edward Norton makes almost as good of a foil for Anthony Hopkins as Jodie Foster.  Ralph Fiennes as the mumbling, wounded Francis Dolarhyde is a softer, though no less dangerous, villain than Buffalo Bill, which gives the whole film a different flavor when it could very easily have ended up being a rehash of Silence of the Lambs.  Also, as an English major, I can't resist the literary influence that Blake has on the film.  

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

Making fun of every slasher film you've ever loved.  This wonderfully composed satire isn't light on the jump scares or the gore, and it's tempting to cover your eyes even while you're still laughing.  Alan Tudyk and Tyler Labine play rednecks up for some fishing in the woods who have the unfortunate luck to stumble across a group of college co-eds, who become convinced that the two hapless hillbillies are actually serial killers.  This is only reinforced when the kids start dying in hilariously accidental ways (a woodchipper may be involved).

The Wolfman

I refer here to the 2010 version, starring Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins, which doesn't get enough credit as far as I'm concerned.  As a werewolf film it does some things quite well: it tells the story of the inner struggle between man and beast, and wonders if that struggle is universal and some are just better at suppressing it than others.  As any good monster film should, it has philosophical ideals framed in terms of literal monstrousness...but doesn't romanticize the monsters.  These werewolves are not your friends, and they will definitely eat you if given half the chance.

OscarWatch 2012: It Begins!

September is well over and we are deep into OscarWatch - something that was made QUITE clear to me on Sunday, when I went to see Argo.

Argo is a stunning film.  It is tense and claustrophobic, exciting and unbelievable - made even more so by the fact that it IS A TRUE STORY.  I repeat: the CIA inventing a fake Star Wars ripoff, press release and terrible poster included, in order to rescue six people from being publicly beheaded in Iran, ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  As with any film adaptation of historical events, I imagine things may have been spiced up a bit for the screen...although the way Ben Affleck presents it on screen feels very true to life, down to the terrible 70s mustaches and slightly grainy film quality.  It's harrowing, watching the six Americans get more and more convinced that they're going to die in the Canadian Embassy, and thrilling to watch the admittedly half-assed plan take shape.  At one point, Bryan Cranston as the CIA Chief refers to Plan: Argo as "The best, worst idea we've got."  That hopelessness, that desperation, drips off the film - which makes the payoff even more worth it.  Everything about this movie is brilliant and you should go see it, posthaste.

AwardWatch: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay (there's a book!  I wanna read it.).  Possibly a Best Actor nom for Affleck.  Best Visual Effects.  In my fantasies, John Goodman or Alan Arkin pulls a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I don't think it's too likely.

Let's take a look at the other hardcore Oscar Bait movies I saw trailers for, and make some predictions over what awards these films will pull:

Life of Pi

Stunning, stunning trailer.  I haven't read the book yet (I KNOW), but if one was going to make a film adaptation about a boy in a boat with a tiger, I would want it to look like this.  And Ang Lee has serious philosophical chops (which worked for Brokeback Mountain, not so much for Hulk), so I think we can expect cerebral and gorgeous things from this one.  Plus, the word from the early release at the New York Film Festival has been largely positive.

AwardWatch: Best Cinematography for sure.  Best Adapted Screenplay is also a pretty safe bet.  Best Director and Best Picture, MAYBE, but it depends on how the Academy feels about another 3D feature by someone with less pull than James Cameron.

Cloud Atlas

This feels like the illegitimate lovechild of The Fountain and Tree of Life to me, which gives me conflicted feelings.  I want it to be more Fountain and less bullshit - but it looks potentially overwrought, over-complicated, and unintelligible.  I won't mind the skips around in time and place if the story stays streamlined, and I don't have a lot of hope for that.  Looks pretty beautiful, though.

(On a related note, a Google Image search of "Cloud Atlas" brings up what looks like pictures from seventeen different movies.  This is my concern: that it will not only be overly complicated, but disconnected and incomprehensible.)

AwardWatch: After last year's Tree of Life event, I don't think this one has a lot of hope for Best Picture.  Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Visual Effects and probably Art Direction, Best Costumes and Best Makeup nominations are assured, and it'll probably pull some other technical awards - I can see Best Film Editing and Sound Mixing, and Sound Track if the Cloud Atlas sonata score was written for the movie.

Lincoln

It is deeply ironic that this film is being released in the same year as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  Ironic and a little sad, because AL:VH might have had more pull as a summer action flick if it hadn't drawn the inevitable comparisons to Spielberg's historical beauty.  Ah well.  

AwardWatch: Possibly everything.  Best Actor for Daniel Day Lewis for sure, Best Picture, Best Director.  Best Original Screenplay?  Probably.  Best Costumes and Makeup, because duh, it's a historical.  Best Art Direction, Cinematography, probably a Best Supporting Actor nominee in there (my bet is on Tommy Lee Jones), and Best Supporting Actress for Sally Field.