2011: A movie retrospective
2011....*sigh*. Once again, not the greatest year for movies--for blockbusters that is. However, the oscar-bait this year was uncommonly good. So there were perks. Anyway.
This is the year of first impressions. Most of these films I have only seen once so these reviews are based on my first impressions of them. As usual, remember that there are a number of films listed below which I have not seen yet so the list will change a lot as time goes on. Also keep in mind my criteria for choosing a top-10: these are my favorites (i.e. the most fun to watch, or the most important to me pesonally), not necessarily a universal scale of quality or what not. Also, re-watch value is a big factor.
So yeah.
My Top 10 for 2011:
1: "The Tree of Life" - upon seeing this film once, I became aware of how grateful I am for the work of Terrence Malick. This is a film maker who takes his time with projects, and usually that pays off ("The New World" being the harder one to swallow). Ever since "The Thin Red Line" came out, I kept on renting it, not sure what to think about it but always feeling profoundly moved and returning to it. Eventually I realized that "The Thin Red Line" is not only my favorite war film, but one of my favorite movies period, creeping up on my top-10.When pressed, I could not explain in detail what made "The Thin Red Line" so impactful; "it's like poetry on film" was my sincerest attempt to explain. Now comes "The Tree of Life" which takes on the mantel of poetry on film and carries it to great heights. Designating it as "poetry" was a way to describe "The Thin Red Line" in a way that set it aside from other well-made genre films. "Poetry" is the really only way to describe "The Tree of Life" as it defies other familiar categories. I have heard it described as "BBC's Planet Earth meets the Psalms" by my friend Mitch. I've heard it said that it was "weird," "beautiful," "the most important movie of the decade," and "the worst movie I have ever seen." I remember friends telling me they walked out because "it was 40 mintues of nature footage." Other friends told me that it changed the way they think about movies. Roger Ebert connected "The Tree of Life" to Sanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the sense that it is the sign of a great filmmaker and a great film when the piece attempts to explore the meaning of life and the human condition. "The Tree of Life" explores one of the basic examples of what I call "ascension" within the human experience--grace vs. nature. I could write forever about what the film means to me in terms of its content but that would require its own post on the blog. With that in mind, I'm going to address the film itself on a formal level. The film does have a narrative thread throughout but it is obscure and is constantly interrupted by contemplative sequences of nature footage, sublimely beautiful dream-scape sequences (what characters think and feel being told through image), and sequences depicting what appears to be either the big bang or some other cosmic origin event. Also mixed into the narrative (a 1950s family drama) is what appears to be a flash-forward to the present where one of the principle characters grapples with old wounds and the alienation of modern, urban life. The film is certainly not preoccupied with its narrative, but it really doesn't matter in this case because the narrative is not the point. Otherwise the film has some beautiful music and terrific cinematography. It is a sound and sight to behold [I love that the DVD opens with a message suggesting that the film be viewed with a very loud level of sound]. I admit that the film requires a substantial re-framing of typical viewing practices--it is not an entertainment film, even though it is entertaining on several levels. This film really tries to go deeper than entertainment or even myth to present its endless meanings. Is "The Tree of Life" a game-changer like "2001" was? Possibly, in the sense that he uses the medium of film itself to go beyond narrative storytelling and make a statement about human feeling and thinking--through the way film works on our minds...if that makes any sense. More likely the film will spawn a new genre of film -- the essay film or the "film poem." Perhaps this territory and style has been explored before by more arty, low-budget filmmakers, but Malick has chosen to use the Hollywood model to create a big-budget cine-poem which has become surprisingly successful. It didn't win the Oscar but I understand why [and no, it is not because "the Oscars are irrelevant"--please let that empty insult rest]. I foresee that "The Tree of Life" will continue to be an important film in the general discourse, but more importantly, it has shown that we have a great artist at work in the field in the form of Terrence Malick. I for one am relieved and I look forward to what he does next.
2: Hanna -- This film is a whimsical, funny, magical and darkly violent fairy tale. Here is Joe Wright taking a turn from his usual ilk to give audiences his take on an action packed chase-thriller. The plot is a familiar one and I admit I was skeptical. How could the "rougue human super-weapon being chased by its creators" genre provide any new angles? Well, first, you have the absence of Matt Damon (...thank...goodness) along with many of the oft immitated tropes outlined in the much beloved Bourne cycle of films (such as the infamous "shakey-cam"). Second, you douse the story with grittiness, style, and much welcome whimsy. It's hard to describe, but Wright simply finds new ways to present tried but true chase sequences--the flashing photography and throbbing techno-music of Hanna's first escape for example. Third, you center the story around interesting women; the young killing machine played by Saoirse Ronan and the cold, but amusing agent who is bent on catching her--played by Cate Blanchette. Fourth, you inject unexpected humor (and what a grand humor it is). Fifth, include character types and motifs which are not usually associated with the spy thriller--the endearing, British family which takes Hanna under their wing for a time. Sixth, set the pieces down over an exhilerating and downright crazy original score by the Chemical Brothers. Seventh, you create action set-pieces with a bare minimum of CGI (now an aesthetic choice in its own right). Eighth, you hire Joe Wright to make your movie because he has a photographic imagination which is so uncommon in genre films. He has a famous affinity for the long-take, and is not afraid to use it over and over again. Others have complained that the ending left them unsatisfied, but I kind of liked it. I don't know what a more conventional ending would have added to the story. In this case, the jarring effect was well...effective. So now we know that Joe Wright is able to craft exciting action-thrillers and yet still maintain the love for style which he exhibits in his other films. I hope Wright deigns to approach this genre again in his career.
3: "Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides" -- How strange to place POTC on par with a film like "The Tree of Life," but therein lies both the fallacy and excitement of creating a top-10 list. But I digress. I did not expect OST to be a favorite--I didn't even expect to like it. I went to see it in 3D with my friend Jonathan and I enjoyed it. Then I saw it again in 2D and I realized that the film would be the unsung hero of the summer. It is unfortunate that the film is marred by the residual exhaustion from the series' 3rd installment and therefore, audiences and critics would have difficulty approaching the film objectively. I would argue that OST is on par with the groundbreaking first film (The Curse of the Black Pearl) and in many ways, exceeds it. OST has all of the elements of BP, only unlike the previous sequels, OST has new jokes, new characters, a fresh plot, and a stand-alone storyline (other blockbuster trilogies: take heed). However, what this new film has over its originator is a tight plot. OST is based on a novel which is wholly separate from the POTC mythology--the resultant narrative therefore functions linearly and doesn't get so overwhelmingly distracted by heavy action sequences or a-rhythmic Jack Sparrow moments. In other words, it's a straightforward pirate story with Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbossa thrown in for fun and continuity. The other films--even the lauded first installment--are mostly uneven and clunky in their tone and pacing. Weirdly enough, OST is also kind of beautiful - the singing mermaid sequence is one of the best moments in the series. Johnny Depp's iconic Jack Sparrow appears as the central character, as he must, and of course, steals the show. Nothing unexpected there. The additions of Ian McShaine and Penelope Cruz are quite welcome and they fit well within the series' mode. Stephen Graham's character Scrum is also a delightful addition to the series and I hope he makes a return in any further installments (remember him in "Snatch" and "Public Enemies" where he played baby-face Nelson?). Also welcome is the simple but engaging sub-plot of the relationship between the missionary and the captured mermaid--a love interest which doesn't feel pointless and time-wasting. Anyway, everything serious aside, the movie is pretty fun--the most fun I had at the movies in 2011. Sometimes it is necessary to acknowledge a film for simply being a good-time at the movies which doesn't insult our intelligence or completely waste our time as an audience; Indiana Jones style.
4: Melancholia -- This is a film which is admittedly, not very much fun to see. It is quite painful, sad, and scary. The film left me quite moved, but not inspired. It left me contemplating things like depression, failed marriages, dysfunctional families, un-happy sex, self-hatred, spiritual band-aids, death, and the end of the world--but without the beauty of life, the hope for an afterlife, or God. So was "Melencholia" a rollicking good time which I could pop in to watch with friends? No. "Melencholia" is an experience in which one feels the collective dread of a people who desire to have control over their lives and yet have none--for whom the inevitability of death is both a release from the horror of meaninglessness and the supreme injustice which unites every human being. I should mention that the film bears a worldview which I do not share. I see suffering as a necessary component to the human condition--it grants meaning to our lives rather than the other way around. I realize that this is a huge can of worms so I won't delve into it to deeply; I feel that suffering is the natural result of humans' free will, even when it is beyond our control. When it is an "act of God," say a hurricane or depression, it is a call to surrender control--as are any number of good things which God provides. If we are to choose good, then there must be an alternative to choose as well. I also believe that the existence of God creates a great hope for humankind--and he is absent from "Melencholia." But divergent worldviews aside, the film addresses very real problems of the human condition which must be addressed. The film would have one think that there is no solution, but that is where I differ. However, it is still important to go to these places psychologically and emotionally. It is no surprise from the film's marketing campaign that the film is about the end of the world (which is depicted within the film's first few minutes). It is remarkable how obsessed our culture is with the end of the world--I for one have recurring dreams about it (nuclear holocaust). There are so many movies about this subject coming out now, not to mention general post-apocolyptic end-of-society films and books; it's on our brains these days. Anyway, the issues in the film are pertinent to our situation which makes it quite moving. I cried when Claire hits the breaking point of desperation and tries feebly to take action in the face of the oncoming catastrophe--especially the moment when the hail begins. It is tragic because I see this play out in real life. Someone is faced with their lack of control and they cannot accept it; so they run around desperately trying to take charge of the situation all the while completely missing what is truly important. All thematic material aside, it bears mentioning that the film is very well made. It's beautiful to look at and the actors all turn in great performances--most notably Kirsten Dunst in a career height. The music is beautiful and unavoidable as an audience member as it becomes the current which carries the film's weight throughout the film--and at times overpowers it. It is a shame there is so much nudity in the film--I for one do not share the affinity for it that Lars Von Trier and so many like-minded directors display in their films. Altogether, "Melencholia" is a film I intend to revisit someday as it is a powerful piece...but I will intersperse more than a few hopeful titles in between. :)
5: Rango -- From the moment I saw the trailer for this I knew this had the potential to be a great movie. "Rango" has a great look, wonderful humor, sharp wit, a great voice cast, and a good story. I could tell from the trailer that this film was going to be successful even though it didn't feel like a paint-by-numbers Dreamworks sequel--and it wasn't in 3D! What a concept! All hail to the director who single handedly revived the pirate genre on the silver screen and created the most iconic film-character of the past decade (Jack Sparrow). Gore Verbinski has left Pirates of the Carribean behind and has shown that his compelling style and attitude apply to a variety of genres. There is a vaguely Terrentino-ish flavor to "Rango" as it is in constant conversation with the Western genre (Terrentino owes so much of his supremacy and standing to the genre). Verbinski exhibits an equal affinity for the Western genre and talent for utilizing it and adjusting it for his own purposes. "Rango" is a love-letter to Westerns which successfully navigates its tropes with both honor and affection. Within the movie are numerous references to tropes of the mythic story telling which we are often taught to aspire to in creative writing and screenwriting. In particular I enjoyed the speech about the "inciting incident" which our hero delivers after which he promptly experiences one. Also welcome is the old Disney trick of anthropomorphizing animals and placing them in a basically human story (a la Disney's "Robin Hood" or "The Great Mouse Detective"). Why is this so compelling a device? Who can say? It just makes strange and perfect sense to dress up lizards and mice like cowboys and watch them play it out as if they were people and everything was normal. The humor in this film is sharp as a tack, but the film also has moments which are strangely moving and beautiful-- the mysterious walking cactus plants, the melancholic armadillo sage, the rapturous sun-set silhouettes and especially the moment when Rango crosses the highway in search of meaning and purpose. I'm often skeptical when celebrity actors are chosen to do voice acting because the actors don't seem to be called to be creative in those situations. Johnny Depp however does a superb job doing voice-acting in this piece. It's easy to forget it's him which is a sign of a quality performance. What can I say? "Rango" is wily and smart and fresh--a real treat.
6: Jane Eyre -- First, it must be mentioned that I have not read the beloved book Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, though I would like to one day. Consequently, my only basis for comparison are the many previous adaptations. This film, by virtue of artistry and budget is possibly the finest of the versions I have seen. I was impressed with the recent mini-series (2006) as it featured Jane as a young girl as well as the section where Jane absconded from Thornfield Hall and lives with a family in the moors. Another version I saw years ago (with Ciaron Hinds as Rochester) focused almost exclusively on Jane's life and relationship with Rochester. That version left an impression on me at age 10 or so. Cary Fukunaga's version (2011) features the full storyline and manages its depth well. I personally feel that this adaptation is a superior one. The film managed to present the sometimes gothic story with elegance and beauty. Fukunaga has a great eye for color--one of the most vivid impressions I was left with was the film's de-saturated "cream"-like hue. This effect is achieved from multiple fronts: Fukunaga's cinematographer, the costume design, and the art direction. The film uses color like a composer would use an orchestra--very intentional. I remember the music being good as well. Michael Fassbender makes a great Rochester, though it is less ambiguous than others. Mia Wasikowska is a suitable Jane, but she wasn't as endearing as Samantha Morton (from the 1996 version...at least as I remember it). The film also avoids the temptation to depict the story's climactic event and chooses instead to have it elegantly reported by Judi Dench's character (as happens in the book I believe). I'm not sure whether this improves the story or not...I think it does...? Anyway, the story, as presented by this film, is very moving. The characters felt like real-life people to me and I was invested in the outcome for them in the story. This film is about bringing light into darkness. As I said before, the film has a preoccupation with light and color but that carries through to its themes as well. Jane brings light into the darkness of Rochester and his household--light to their lives and their secrets. It is a testament to Jane's character that she stands up to the darkness for so long and then after a time of respite, she returns again. Why so high on my year's list? Because Fukunaga took a dark, brooding love story and made a film about light.
7: Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil -- While I attended the University of Iowa, I went to many screenings at the Bijou theater. At that time the Bijou was running a series of "midnight" movies which were often schlocky horror or sci-fi. Upon seeing the trailer for "Tucker and Dale," I rushed to inform the Bijou that this film would be a perfect selection for their midnight series as it is a sendup/love-letter to the slasher genre. They agreed and they brought it in. The theater was packed (mostly with girls--unexpected) and the audience absolutely loved it. Comedy and horror are always best viewed with an audience. Both genres are heavily dependent on the infectious "buzz" which is conducted and magnified in group experiences. Moments are funnier and scarier because members are laughing and yelping at the appropriate moments. This shared collective is one of the primary reasons I still love going to the cinema. Like my fellow audience members, I thoroughly enjoyed "Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil." The film has a top-knotch premise and a good, quotable script, filled with memorable characters and gags. Dale was a wonderfully drawn-out character constructed of various archetypes and he was a hit with the ladies in the audience. He was funny and endearing--the girls were "awwing" at his simple but precious attempts to woo his distraught muse. The cast is also good overall (Alan Tudyk from Firefly/Serenity!!!). "Tucker and Dale" is a bloody, funny and well-made crowd pleaser. The audience was yelping, cheering and whooping when I saw it at the Bijou...and I must admit, so was I.
8: Submarine -- A coming-of-age story told with an eye to the indie-aesthetic and hipsters...I wasn't sure this would be hit with me. But...it's British...and it's just really really funny and really really good. I remember thinking during much of the film "all of this heartbreak and could be easily avoided if you just___..." Submarine is a film filled with endearing but tragically flawed characters. Nothing altogether serious happens (like teenage suicide a la Romeo and Juliet), but one can feel the tension and frustration of the young infatuates who are at the mercy of their imperfect circumstances (Jordana is clearly a Borderline personality). There are many memorable scenes-- the weird neighbor's tai-chi, Jordana and Oliver's polaroid kiss, and the sublime vortex of water (a drain presumably) which the characters view from above on a bridge; just to name a few. The film has a fantastic visual palette. It is clearly working in the quirky-indie style, but it also has some decidedly 1970s flavor to its cinematography. But it's all mixed together so well and photographed so beautifully. There was rarely a dull image in the film. The dreary, coastal locations aid greatly in fraiming the film's images just right. The cast--mostly unkown to me--all turned in fitting performances. The script is tight as well--hilariously deadpan and touching in moments. Why is it on my top 10? Because it was a nearly flawless film and because I had such a strong reaction to it. Why isn't it higher? Well...there wasn't really much to it. But hey, I have never been one to demand a treatise on the meaning of life for every film.
9: War Horse -- Despite this film's un-met potential, War Horse stands up as a superbly made old-fashioned epic. Honestly, I saw the trailer for this and I thought "this is a hit if I've ever seen one." The film has the following going for it: period setting, youthful idealism, old-fashioned Americana (even though it is set in Europe), adventure, romance, spectacle, animals, trailer-friendly war-scenes, a sweeping John Williams score...and a very broad age demographic which is quite coveted (and rare). I thought the film was a sure-fire hit, but as it turns out, I was only slightly correct. The film did well enough financially by today's standards--people forget that a $79 million domestic gross was exceptional a mere 10 years ago. However, it was not the Titanic-sized hit that I imagined it could be. It had all of the elements (with the addition of animals!), but somewhere in its script stage, it simply failed to deliver the event status that it could (and should) have achieved.On the plus side, the film is delightfully nostalgic in its style. There were scenes and images which seemed to spring right out of our favorite memories of Hollywood greats like Gone With The Wind. In particular, the cottage home in the beginning of the film has the look of an indoor set bathed in golden light with glowing back-projected skies. The dialogue and acting also echo the folksy caricatures of ordinary people so common in our cinematic heroes 60+ years ago. The film simply has a warmness reminiscent of the more idealistic and patriotic films of the 1940s and 1950s. Unfortunately, the film has its drawbacks. Despite its gushing, sumptuous imagery, Warhorse suffers from a deficient screenplay. The script and plotting simply do not give the story justice. Don't get me wrong--the storytelling is definitely a few steps above most films that are released and it is quite effective in places. The film just failed to deliver a masterpiece like it probably should (and could) have. The story as it is, still reached me. I was touched by the notion of how senseless war is when you see its carnage happening around an innocent creature who has little stake in its outcome. After screening the film with my parents I was driving home by myself, thinking about war, and frankly, I was feeling repentant. I got home before my parents so I decided to take a stroll through our frosty backyard (it was December). There were no lights on our country road, just moonlight. Since there was frost in the air, the moon lit up this crazy halo around itself. I was pensive from the film I just saw, it was quiet, and it was beautiful, so I just stood underneath my dad's maple and prayed for a while--apologizing for our aggression, violence and failure to live peacefully and begging God's forgiveness. It's not every day that a film will help stretch you in this way. Did I mention that this film had a hopeful ending? I hope to see more films like Warhorse in the future.
10: Courageous -- This film gets kudos simply for being brave enough to speak about issues which just are not very sexy. Courageous is about middle-age, suburban, conservative, mostly-white, square, Christian men as they strive to have very nice families. BLAaaaaahhh... At least that is how Courageous would appear to a great number of viewers. The same could be said really about all the films which have been produced by Sherwood Pictures and directed by Alex Kendrick. I have seen them all and they have been consistently hokey. It seems sad that the benign niceness of a film can instill snarky eye-rolling and sneers in me. In reality, shouldn't I be celebrating ordinary people who champion their faith in God in spite of life's obstacles? Kendrick's team is getting better as they go, but their films are still mired with too-good-to-be-true niceness and unbelievable coincidences like those you may find within inspirational "send to all your friends" chain-emails. In some cases, Kendrick's films seem to be laughably engineered to be tear-jerkers (queue in a song by Third Day). Well, despite all of that, I have learned to look past the sterile tropes of the inspirational genre and find great respect for the messages contained within a film like this. The issue of fatherhood cannot be overstated. I appreciate a film which explores Christian men (like myself) who strive to be good fathers (or aspire to be). Furthermore, this film was more moving in general than its predecessors. Having a character die so we can witness the remaining family members deal with the death seems like a cheap tactic perhaps. However, since the film is striving for a realistic vision of ordinary people, a death in the family is just as likely to happen as anything else, and it amplifies the drama. There are many other faith-centric films which have achieved more artistically, but few which have reached the financial success of Kendrick's films. No doubt a large part of this success is credited to the films' significant marketing campaigns. But more importantly, Kendrick and his team seem to understand the needs and taste of the mainstream-evangelical Christian market better than any other filmmakers (other than Mel Gibson perhaps--how many evangelicals to this day still go crazy over Braveheart?). Kendrick's films have struck a chord with Christian families in the U.S. by providing both validation and conviction for many viewers. On the one hand, it is unlikely that Kendrick's team will reach the non-Christian world with films of this kind. But on the other hand, they have certainly proven to be effective at addressing very real needs within the Church itself. For that reason alone, I put this film in my top-ten.
Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
The Beaver -- "Mr. Crazy" returns to the screen, and not a moment too soon. I have to admit I miss Mel Gibson being in movies, although I understand this deficit in acting work is due to his quite successful career as a director, and the occasional public drunken outbursts. Here, we have the great Jodie Foster directing Gibson in a story which seems to have been designed to get my attention: a severely depressed man discovers a beaver puppet in a dumpster and procedes to engage in inner-dialogues through the puppet. Gibson's character then decides to tell his family and friends that the puppet is a "prescription" puppet and all must address themselves to it instead of to himself. It's a scenario which could easily have been driven into slapstick comedy. Thank goodness Foster chose to grant the story more depth and plenty of darkness as well. Foster (who penned the screenplay as I understand) wisely chose to show that many solutions to depression can be temporary; a euphoria which eventually wears down until the afflicted person must once again face his/her external problems up front. The film takes this real-life concern and amplifies the drama and symbolism to an unrealistic degree--as a film should do. Some people didn't buy the ending, but I rolled with it. In any case, the film is well-crafted altogether. It has a great cast - Gibson and Foster are both very good as always (this role was made for Mel). Jennifer Lawrence makes a post-Winter's Bone apparence and is compelling once again. Despite the painful subject matter, the film carries a wonderful sense of humor and it does so without straying into farce--which makes it palatable. Foster has proven herself to be a good director and I hope she does more films. The Beaver is not a perfect film, but I relish it when filmmakers take chances. Overall, this film is successful.
13 Assassins -- Having had no experience with Takashi Miike, I was not sure how this film would ultimately come together. I knew that it was going to be a period action film and that it would be very much inspired by the model perfected by the legendary (but mostly unknown to me) Akira Kurosawa. That meant I should expect the first two acts to be slow and dialog driven, but they would be succeded by an explosive and violent finish. 13 Assassins takes the beloved idium and magnifies it through a contemporary sensibility. That is, it is much more bloody and violent. I have to admit, the climax of the film is the biggest payoff I have seen in a long time. It is a veritable bloodbath of carnage and yet it does not feel completely pointless. There are even a few moving moments therein. It seems like we are living in a renaissance of asian action-spectacles, nearly all taking their cue from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon......Altogether, I look forward to seeing more films from Takashi, and I hope very much that they are somewhat like 13 Assassins.
Thor -- I cannot explain it, but I found myself really anticipating this movie. Thor is a larger than life comic character with illustrious ties to the lauded Avengers comic-book super group. The film also boasts none other than Kenneth Branagh--a veritable force of nature--as its director. One cannot escape the connection between yon Thor's theatrical old-english stylings with the over-the-top Shakespearean bent of Branagh's previous work. To some, the connection is a little gouache, but no matter how superficial the similarities may be, Branagh was a good fit for this material. In particular, the scenes in Asgard feature huge, cosmic imagery, bold warriors clad in crazy art-deco costumes, and characters who shout at each other in ultimatums. It's wonderful stuff, reminiscent of what I loved about the old Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman films. These scenes are the strong points of Thor. The film also has a great cast: the sometimes wooden, but very promising Chris Hemsworth (a great choice), the brave Anthony Hopkins, the amusing Kat Dennings, and the imposing Idris Elba (from The Wire!). The biggest surprise is the superb Tom Hiddleston as Loki. He goes over top a few times, but over all, I found him to be a compelling character with just the right amount of menace and flair. The film has a great sense of humor and has some decent action sequences (particularly the rainy-compound sequence). The film flies apart however with most of the Earth-scenes. Natalie Portman is her usual dispassionate self and the rest is just a little too silly, even for this kind of movie. There is also a bit too much CGI to augment the quite dull Ice Giants' world (complete with a cartoon monster fight). At the time of Thor's release, our theater didn't offer 2D screenings if a film was released in 3D so we had to see it in 3D. As with most films which utilize this tired gimmick, it does nothing but dull the picture and mess with the image design. So yeah, Thor is another in Marvel's start-up franchises which will tie-in with it's upcoming Avengers film (we'll see how that goes). It's effective in its own right and I would love to see a sequel- but the more Asgard, the better. [Avengers note: not as Good as Iron Man, but much better than both The Incredible Hulk and Captain America; The First Avenger]
Arthur Christmas -- Easily one of the funniest films of the year. It fought hard to be in the top ten. Its very British cast and rapid-fire dialogue gags were a joy. Ashley Jensen as Bryony was truly excellent. Great voice work. Jim Broadbent and Bill Nighy were also very good voices for this film. It's also very very nice. :-)
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows -- Sadly, this is a poor sequel to a poor adaptation of the beloved Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. Both films have a good look, a great cast, and an awesome score from Hans Zimmer (the saving grace). Both films fall almost completely flat. I cannot explain it. Even the talented Guy Richie along with all of the superb craftsmen he has accumulated could not make a truly exciting movie. Despite everything assembled here, both films simply wilt in the shadow of the far superior and much lower-budget Sherlock series from the BBC. That series is widely considered to be the definitive version of Doyle's iconic character for our time. Many many people (including myself) are eagerly awaiting the third season. The series is much delayed due to the fact that its principle actors are in New Zealand starring in Peter Jackson's Hobbit films. I cannot hide my excitement over that development. All that to say, I cannot think of anyone who is eager for another film in Richie's Sherlock Holmes franchise. That is truly a shame because it has some good visual flair, a wonderful cast, and some good humor. Too bad it's not enough to make a good movie.
Take Shelter -- This slow film builds and builds the tension to great heights. It is hard to describe how the film accomplishes this. Certainly Michael Shannon's superb but subtle performance does much. The film's simple premise would wear out quickly in the hands of another director but here, it held my attention and I was hooked. The film also has some great sound design. Thank goodness for the ending of this film.
Captain America: The First Avenger -- I would not envy the task of bringing this character to the screen. In our cynical age, it's hard to take a character seriously who wears the American flag and becomes a patriotic symbol after punching and otherwise beating up America's enemies. I suppose what draws doubt into the equation is the self-assurance of nationalism which is so unfashionable today. Regardless, Marvel could not miss an opportunity to make money by further setting up their Avengers saga. Chris Evans is a good choice for this character as is the great Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull. Strangely however, Weaving chose to project an annoying and un-scary high-pitched voice for the Red Skull. The character is also underwritten considering the richness of possibilities for this character. The true star of the film however is Tommy Lee Jones as a surly military commander. He brings great humor to the role as well as grizzled credibility. At the end of the credits for this film is a full-blown trailer for The Avengers which came as a complete surprise! This was the first time any footage had been released for the film and the reaction was uniformly positive. I for one was now stoked to see the mega movie in 2012. I couldn't have imagined what such a film would look like, but there it was, and with Loki as the villain! Anyway, Captain America as a film itself struck for a tone much like a romping Indiana Jones film, which was the correct decision. It works surprisingly well, even if it is ultimately not that special.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes -- I did not expect this to be a hit with me but it totally won me over. I was completely invested in the plot and characters. My room-mate and I were totally on the edge of our seats the whole time (perhaps we egged each other on). There is a moment in the film which serves as a rather big surprise and turning point for the plot. Without revealing anything more, let me just say that my room-mate and I both went crazy "WHAT!?--What!?" The film is surprisingly well-crafted. It's too bad it didn't go even further with the depth of its story. NOTE: best picture nomination? Ha.
The Adventures of Tin Tin -- Steven Spielberg's animated romp won me over with its Indiana-Jones style adventures and intrigue as well as great humor, sweeping action scenes, and wonderful sense of nostalgia . Andy Serkis stands out in his mo-cap performance as Captain Haddock. Serkis is a seasoned veteran of this process and probably wrote the book on how to make it work (who could ever forget his performance as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy?). I remember reading some of the Tin Tin books when I was a wee lad and I enjoyed them very much. I look forward to Peter Jackson's planned sequel to this film.
The Muppets -- This film is a love letter to the loveable characters and memorable appearences of Jim Henson's Muppets. It's a musical with new songs by Bret McKensie (from Flight of the Conchords! Yay!). The songs are fun, the gags are good, the celbrity appearences are cute, and the film is awash with fond memories for these great American icons. The addition of a new muppet (Walter) was a nice choice. I also enjoyed the self-aware attitude of the gags ("travel by map," "I was singing on the way over here"). All the pieces were there for a great comedy, but the good gags were far apart, and there weren't as many big character moments which one would hope for in what is effectively a homage film. It could have been so much better...but it was still good. Long live The Muppets.
The Descendents -- This was an effective, character-driven drama where Clooney was granted an intriguing premise in which to show off his sincere acting chops without having to stretch too far...AND it takes place in picturesque Hawaii. The film has a light tone for such heavy themes (infidelity, coma-states, death, growing up), but it never feels cheap. Truth be told, the boyfriend character totally steals the show from all the others.
Moneyball -- I was not looking forward to seeing a movie about Baseball. Thankfully, this film is not really about baseball at all so much as it is about the inside of pro-sports. This is a much much more interesting angle on the leagues and the dramatic narratives which pro-sports tend to generate. The film paints an un-romantic vision of baseball. In Moneyball, the sport is no longer a living breathing symbol of working-class America's triumph; it is now purely an illusion of that symbol. When a grassroots icon like Baseball becomes a mathematically precise algorithm for extracting money from the working class and placing it in the hands of state-of-the-art corporate money generators, the past-time has lost its magic. But Moneyball is not a lament. Instead it is a film which relishes in the achievments of these money-makers. Ironically, it still nurtures the great American underdog story, though it is a triumph to which few could relate. The acting was all good except for Phillip Seymore Hoffman (how often does that happen?). Though perhaps his character was just boring altogether on the page to begin with.
Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy -- I have to admit, I was not as taken-in with this film as many other viewers. It is a well-crafted film with a great ensemble cast. It just doesn't carry much excitment. There isn't much more I can say about it. It just came and went. Did I just watch something?
Midnight in Paris -- Arguably Woody Allen's most successful film since Annie Hall. I personally was not as taken with the film as many of my peers, but I certainly appreciated it, as I do most Woody Allen films. I suppose if I had seen Midnght in Paris--or many of Allen's other films--without knowing he was the filmmaker, I would probably have liked it less. I'm not sure what that says about me as a viewer; probably that I am easily taken in by elitist approaches to films. He's a "great filmmaker," therefore I must engage with his film on a different level. I personally think that my reason for approaching this film as a Woody Allen film (and therefore under a more forgiving viewer hat) is because filtering his films through the understanding of who he is as a person and where he comes from just makes tons of sense. Allen doesn't make films to make money or to please the masses...filmmaking is his therapy. Anyway...Midnight in Paris...I enjoyed it, but many of the literary references were lost on me. I think I got it though. :-)
Anonymous -- It's really to bad that this film sucked so much because it was so engrossing (haha!). I have no faith in its assertion that William Shakespeare was not the author of his plays, but the theories and implications are facinating. It's a great premise for a film. Rhys Ifans was unrecognizable to me so I was pleasently surprised to learn that he was the Earl of Oxford. Honestly though, the rest of the film - the writing, the acting, some of the visuals really suffered from...I don't know what. It just wasn't well made. Roland Emmerich needs to start watching some good films to remind him how to make them, because we all know he is capable.
Contagion -- Steven Soderbergh begins his his new wave of off-beat blockbusters with this film (leading into Haywire and Magic Mike). Contatgion is an epic thriller with a huge ensemble cast. It's a wonder however why the film was marketed as an event film because it certainly isn't anything of the sort. It even boasts an Imax version which I cannot imagine. I did enjoy seeing Elliot Gould and Jennifer Ehle -- these two actors should be working more. The film is certainly stylistic, but it is very subdued. This quirky nature is both an asset and a weird detrimental effect. The asset is we get to see a somewhat plausible scenario with plausible characters - a procedural about desease control with a minimum of sentimental detours. The problem? Without much emotional involvement, my ability to care about the characters and story is reduced to an anxious curiosity. The film is effective in that it makes me worry - but a bio-stats friend of mine tells me that the scenario in the film is not indicative of what experts project as a realistic behavior for an epidemic. Anyway, the primary reaction? Bemused indifference.
Another Earth -- One has to admire filmmakers like Mike Cahill for making effective high-concept films without a huge budget and known-actors. The film's premise is one of the more exciting ideas I have come across so after seeing the fantastic trailer I was anticipating this film very much. Sadly, it does not deliver a very satisfying product altogether. It feels like shavings of a great film which come together to create an OK one. The strength of the film's premise is what holds Another Earth together.
We Bought a Zoo -- A well-made, feel-good movie, but a mostly forgetful one. We Bought a Zoo works for its well-written characters and story. The story of a widowed parent trying to mend the wounds and maintain a healthy family is a good place to start. Add to that some cute kids, cute animals, and cutesy side-characters and you have a good egg. I actually was kind of moved by the recurring theme of "20 seconds of insane courage." It's not often that I take something away from a film and directly apply it to my life, but there really is something to that philosophy. I have found it has helped me a few times. Though being courageous and being impulsive are not always the same thing. I would add wisdom into the mix somewhere.
Paul -- Not very remarkable except for the fact that it is a love-letter to science fiction, horror and comic-book related genres. It's a geek movie, made by geeks, and it is about geeks. The constant references and in-jokes are a joyful signal that people like me are with friends. It's sad that the film had to have an annoying CGI alien, a strong anti-christian attitude, and bland stoner humor to water down the film's wit.
Win Win -- I appreciated this film for its humor and its courage in portraying a likeable but immoral man in a balanced way. Paul Giamatti is a virtuoso actor who never fails to liven up a picture. He is a great asset to today's filmmaker if they can get him.
Sucker Punch -- A very very poor film. I had strong suspicions that it would be a stinker and it lived up to my expectations. It's sad because it has so many spectacular, trailer-worthy moments. It also has a decent soundtrack album. Sorry Zack Snyder, you're just not a good filmmaker. Geeks everywhere may be horrified to hear me say this, but the only film of his I have liked at all was the warrior owl flick Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, and that itself was not that great. Weak Snyder, weak. I have hopes for his interpretation of Superman in 2013 though. Don't let me down Snyder.
Arthur -- This remake had its chuckles but few laugh-out-loud moments. It rests on a few trailer-worthy moments and the eccentric but endearing star, Russel Brand. This actor is certainly not for everyone, but I have found him to be such an odd but amusing performer since I saw him in The Tempest. Like Jack Black before him, Brand seems to be handicapped by scripts and plots - his genius is in improvisation, timing, and delivery. If one would create a project for Brand which allows him to play without having to act, I suspect the result would be even better. But yeah, Arthur? Mediocre at best.
Soul Surfer -- Another addition to the lineup of gushy inspirational Christian movies. The difference is, this inspirational true story has been taken seriously enough to gather a talented cast. AnnaSofia Robb is surprisingly effective in a role which deviates from the real-life person in looks and personality, but works nonetheless. It's refreshing to see Christians portrayed in a positive light, even if they're caricatures.
Water For Elephants -- I confess, I felt that this film was likely to be a huge hit given the success of the book it's based on and the quality of the assembled talents who made it. Sadly, the film does not come close to the grip in the book's telling. It's nice-looking and it boasts a suitable performance from Christolph Waltz, but it falls flat. It bears mentioning that as gripping as the book was, the minute I finished it I thought it was ultimately forgetful. It also had a lot of sexual material which was completely unnecessary.
X-Men: First Class -- The fantastic cast aside, there was little in this film to warrant much attention besides Kevin Bacon's turn as a comic villain. Bacon actually makes it work and his character was what made the film worth seeing at least once.
Super 8 -- A feature-length homage to the films of Steven Spielberg, Super 8 idolizes the urgent plight of plucky, clever kids in suburban American neighborhoods. The urgency? No one understands kids and what they go through. The plight? Wonderful kids are ignored and so they struggle to create themselves with no one to consult but their equally ignored peers. The nostalgic vision of childhood are the main draws to this film, though even that could have been done better. The stuff with the kids romping around is the strength of Super 8. Oh yeah, but there is this sci-fi alien monster plot as well...that's where Super 8 suffers. Sadly, the sci-fi elements are almost completely inept.
Troll Hunter -- There really isn't much that is remarkable about this movie except for the audacity to make it in the first place, and the perfect circumstances in which I saw it. These campy horror films sometimes stray the line of sincerity and parody. Troll Hunter dwells smack dab on that line. It's hard to tell when it is making fun of itself sometimes. Anyway, I saw this film with a full audience at the Bijou theater in Iowa City - crowds invariably make these films more enjoyable. The scene with the hunter appearing in troll hunting armor? Classic. Oh, and it's Norwegian which adds to the film's already wacky personality. I knew I was in for a treat from the first moment the hunter comes bounding out of the bushes yelling "Troooollll"
Green Lantern -- This film is a tiresome flop in almost every way. It's a shame because the mythos have great potential for a thriving franchise. Instead we have what is effectively a cartoon CGI movie. Even Ryan Reynold's suit is CG and to what possible purpose? I felt more disrespected by the studio with Green Lantern than I have with many other comic-hero films in the last ten years. It's Wonder Bread through and through - so little substance. So why is it on my honorable mention list? Because I feel like Peter Sarsgaard deserves some attention for his performance as Hector Hammond, the film's villain. He alone brings any discernible talent to this clunky wreck.
Conan O'Brien Can't Stop -- I suppose this film brought little new insights into this powerhouse personality which his fans didn't already know. I for one have never seen Conan's show so this was all new to me. The film is quite funny throughout. The character of Conan's assistant lends weight to this man's tumultuous everyday life. She becomes this underdog hero who is able to stand up under the tremendous pressure and stress of working with Conan -- all the while retaining her earthy humanity and sense of humor. I found myself rooting for her throughout, hoping that she would one-up him or somehow come out on top during one of his borderline abusive episodes. Their relationship was my favorite aspect of the film. I find Napoleonic Captain Ahabs like Conan O'Brien to be fascinating, but I wouldn't want to live with him though.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon -- This third (and final?) installment in the overblown and dull Transformers franchise comes closest to delivering thrills. This film had the most palatable sense of humor, the absence of the awful Megan Fox, and a villain one can actually understand. It allowed the robot characters to actually interact with each other in a meaningful way instead of being limited to one-liners. The human characters are the biggest waste with this series and sadly, this installment still features them prominently. While this film was not as awful as the other two, let's hope that this is the final cantankerous cry we hear from the Transformers.
The Devil's Double -- More wasted potential. The premise is cinematic gold: Saddam Hussein's thoroughly evil son has a good natured body double who is brought up to wealth and depravity, and ultimately rebels against it. It's a fascinating subject and this film had assembled adequate talent to pull it off (Dominic Cooper delivers). Sadly, it feels exploitative and dull. I understand that that Uday was a full-blooded monster in real life, but his various atrocities are portrayed without any emotional impact other than repulsion. It would have been great to see this story told in a more crafty, artful way.
The Guard -- This film had some promising elements. Brendan Gleeson is one of my favorite actors and rarely gets the opportunity to show off in a lead role. Unfortunately, this film was too dark, not very funny, and overall dull. Not even Gleeson and Don Cheedle. could save it.
The Artist -- This delightful silent film benefited greatly from over-hype. Once one gets over the novelty of a silent film (actually shot on b&w film) being made in our era, one sees that despite its charm and quality, The Artist doesn't really amount to much. It has a cute dog, a nice score, and a worthy lead performance from Jean Dujardin. If I were behind this film, I would have opted for an even more humorous approach, and less of a self-referential one. One of the most successful scenes in the film directly highlights the power of sound in a movie in a very clever way, but it doesn't go much further. I have to ask; did no one else notice music in the score which was lifted directly out of Hitchcock's Vertigo? I am at a loss to explain it.
The Help -- I was entirely skeptical about seeing this film--even resolved never to see it. This poor attitude is due entirely to my reaction to the book the film is based on. Everything I heard about the book made it sound trite and cliche. It sold scads of copies and was constantly being checked out from our library by elderly ladies, Danielle Steele readers, and book-club fanatics. In all, it was praised by readers I knew who generally towed the line of "whatever is popular I must read it." Fortunately, the film adaptation took the material and granted it a light but serious treatment. The actors were all good and the film was well crafted -- who would known that was Jessica Chastain?
Hugo -- The 3D/effects/family debut film for the greatly esteemed Martin Scorsese, Hugo carried great promise and hype but sadly falls almost completely flat. The trouble begins with the original source material. Brian Selznick's celebrated graphic/hybrid novel did almost nothing for me. I was frankly mystified as to why it was so well loved. It is inventive in places (the automaton for example) and it also has some interesting things to say about the cinema. The latter is probably what attracted Scorsese to this project in the first place. But the book went nowhere with its possibilities and the film ultimately does the same. However, the film is a few steps closer to meeting the story's potential because it magnifies the role of the famous filmmaker Georges Melies within the story. The film makes Melies an actual character in the story and focuses a good deal of attention on him and his history. That is the primary highlight of the film. Everything else about it is almost completely dull. I was a little embarrassed for Scorsese as the film simply trolls on in boring fashion with pointless characters, meaningless motivation, vacant action scenes, poor visual effects, annoying 3D-conscious cinematography, and bad acting. Not even Sacha Baron Coen's occasional amusing moment could save this film. Hugo is interesting for as a specimen, but it doesn't hold up on its own merits.
The Sitter -- It truely is a shame that producers in Hollywood believe that a successful adult comedy must strive to sear us with sex, profanity and otherwise shocking material. The basic premise of The Sitter is sound, but it could be done entirely without striving to offend and provoke its audience. Viewers are to blame as well - many people somehow believe that if a film presents wholsome sentimental values along side its over-the-top offensive material, it is absolved, and we get to enjoy being titillated without the guilt. This attitude is responsible for the success of Judd Apatow and the ensuing wave of his imitators. I for one am not fooled. I don't believe for a second that a film's content is justified simply because it tacks on some heartfelt moments at the end. Weak craft. All that being said, if one were to set aside the offensive material in a film like The Sitter (impossible, but bear with me), then one can simply enjoy the funny bits - and they are occasionally uproarous. It's too bad that The Sitter is too bad. .
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol -- Brad Bird makes his live-action debut with this triumphant return to my favorite action-spy franchise, Mission Impossible. More than 007, Jason Bourne, or Jack Ryan, the adventures of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) have had a soft spot in my heart since the rip-roaring and influential first installment came out in 1996 from director Brian de Palma. None of the sequels, including Ghost Protocol have achieved the perfect balance of tone and style of that film. What they have maintained is the presence of Tom Cruise in the only role I have ever seen him in where he seemed to fit perfectly. Ghost Protocol is probably the best of the new films. Buuut.....MI:III had some great moments and MI:2 had slow-mo doves and an arguably awesome pop/nu-metal soundtrack (Limp Bizkit plays the main theme? Oh yes). Actually, Hans Zimmer's score for MI:2 overall was actually pretty awesome. But Brad Bird's Ghost Protocol has some pretty good sequences, such as the famous Mumbai building-climbing sequence. The film also features the return of Simon Pegg (I didn't expect that) and the addition of Jeremy Renner to the franchise. It was expected that Renner would probably take over the franchise from Cruise, but then comes the trailer for the new Bourne film with Renner in the lead (instead of Matt Damon) and the announcement of a new Cruise-led franchise based on author Lee Child's character Jack Reacher. So it is now thoroughly unpredictable as to how the MI series will continue, if it does at all. In any case, Brad Bird has made a nice debut into the live-action world and has shown himself to be completely capable of a quality action film.
Real Steel -- ....or Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots. It's a wonder that this film did not capitalize on the overt similarities between the aforementioned game and its plot about humanoid robots punching each other in a boxing ring. I am amazed Mattel didn't sue the studio over that one. Apparently there was even a movie tie-in rip-off toy version which is essentially the same thing as Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots. Anyway, fortunately, as bad an idea this movie sounds, it actually turned out pretty well. It benefits greatly from the touching father-son relation at its core and its cliched underdog robot who learns to beat the big guys. That aspect of the film carries most of the weight for me. Otherwise, the film has some good fighting sequences, good visual effects, and Hugh Jackman. Thank goodness for the ever versatile Hugh Jackman.
Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey -- I could not resist seeing this film after I saw the trailer. What a touching story. A young man growing up in a poor neighborhood in Baltimore MD who has loved Jim Henson's shows Sesame St and the Muppets for years manages to climb the ranks of children's television to land a principle role on Sesame St. and finally become responsible for creating one of the show's most iconic and beloved characters: Elmo. It's a film about a man who brings great joy to children through his artistry. The film depicts an attachment between puppet and puppeteer which I thoroughly understand. I myself have had an interest in puppets since I was very young and know exactly what it means to imbue a character with elements of one's own personality to the point where can think of these objects as friends of a sort (as children sometimes do). The film itself is aptly made and shows an honest, though overall positive portrait of this man. He may be a poor family man, but he nonetheless has imbued much love into the character of Elmo and shared that with millions of children worldwide. It's a good lesson to learn I suppose: do not bless the masses without first blessing your own household.....but do bless the masses. :-)
Want to see:
Rubber
Barney's Version
The Trip
Larry Crowne
Terri
One Day
Our Idiot Brother
Warrior
Drive
50/50
The Skin I Live In
Pina
My Week With Marylin
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Immortals
Carnage
This is the year of first impressions. Most of these films I have only seen once so these reviews are based on my first impressions of them. As usual, remember that there are a number of films listed below which I have not seen yet so the list will change a lot as time goes on. Also keep in mind my criteria for choosing a top-10: these are my favorites (i.e. the most fun to watch, or the most important to me pesonally), not necessarily a universal scale of quality or what not. Also, re-watch value is a big factor.
So yeah.
My Top 10 for 2011:
1: "The Tree of Life" - upon seeing this film once, I became aware of how grateful I am for the work of Terrence Malick. This is a film maker who takes his time with projects, and usually that pays off ("The New World" being the harder one to swallow). Ever since "The Thin Red Line" came out, I kept on renting it, not sure what to think about it but always feeling profoundly moved and returning to it. Eventually I realized that "The Thin Red Line" is not only my favorite war film, but one of my favorite movies period, creeping up on my top-10.When pressed, I could not explain in detail what made "The Thin Red Line" so impactful; "it's like poetry on film" was my sincerest attempt to explain. Now comes "The Tree of Life" which takes on the mantel of poetry on film and carries it to great heights. Designating it as "poetry" was a way to describe "The Thin Red Line" in a way that set it aside from other well-made genre films. "Poetry" is the really only way to describe "The Tree of Life" as it defies other familiar categories. I have heard it described as "BBC's Planet Earth meets the Psalms" by my friend Mitch. I've heard it said that it was "weird," "beautiful," "the most important movie of the decade," and "the worst movie I have ever seen." I remember friends telling me they walked out because "it was 40 mintues of nature footage." Other friends told me that it changed the way they think about movies. Roger Ebert connected "The Tree of Life" to Sanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the sense that it is the sign of a great filmmaker and a great film when the piece attempts to explore the meaning of life and the human condition. "The Tree of Life" explores one of the basic examples of what I call "ascension" within the human experience--grace vs. nature. I could write forever about what the film means to me in terms of its content but that would require its own post on the blog. With that in mind, I'm going to address the film itself on a formal level. The film does have a narrative thread throughout but it is obscure and is constantly interrupted by contemplative sequences of nature footage, sublimely beautiful dream-scape sequences (what characters think and feel being told through image), and sequences depicting what appears to be either the big bang or some other cosmic origin event. Also mixed into the narrative (a 1950s family drama) is what appears to be a flash-forward to the present where one of the principle characters grapples with old wounds and the alienation of modern, urban life. The film is certainly not preoccupied with its narrative, but it really doesn't matter in this case because the narrative is not the point. Otherwise the film has some beautiful music and terrific cinematography. It is a sound and sight to behold [I love that the DVD opens with a message suggesting that the film be viewed with a very loud level of sound]. I admit that the film requires a substantial re-framing of typical viewing practices--it is not an entertainment film, even though it is entertaining on several levels. This film really tries to go deeper than entertainment or even myth to present its endless meanings. Is "The Tree of Life" a game-changer like "2001" was? Possibly, in the sense that he uses the medium of film itself to go beyond narrative storytelling and make a statement about human feeling and thinking--through the way film works on our minds...if that makes any sense. More likely the film will spawn a new genre of film -- the essay film or the "film poem." Perhaps this territory and style has been explored before by more arty, low-budget filmmakers, but Malick has chosen to use the Hollywood model to create a big-budget cine-poem which has become surprisingly successful. It didn't win the Oscar but I understand why [and no, it is not because "the Oscars are irrelevant"--please let that empty insult rest]. I foresee that "The Tree of Life" will continue to be an important film in the general discourse, but more importantly, it has shown that we have a great artist at work in the field in the form of Terrence Malick. I for one am relieved and I look forward to what he does next.
2: Hanna -- This film is a whimsical, funny, magical and darkly violent fairy tale. Here is Joe Wright taking a turn from his usual ilk to give audiences his take on an action packed chase-thriller. The plot is a familiar one and I admit I was skeptical. How could the "rougue human super-weapon being chased by its creators" genre provide any new angles? Well, first, you have the absence of Matt Damon (...thank...goodness) along with many of the oft immitated tropes outlined in the much beloved Bourne cycle of films (such as the infamous "shakey-cam"). Second, you douse the story with grittiness, style, and much welcome whimsy. It's hard to describe, but Wright simply finds new ways to present tried but true chase sequences--the flashing photography and throbbing techno-music of Hanna's first escape for example. Third, you center the story around interesting women; the young killing machine played by Saoirse Ronan and the cold, but amusing agent who is bent on catching her--played by Cate Blanchette. Fourth, you inject unexpected humor (and what a grand humor it is). Fifth, include character types and motifs which are not usually associated with the spy thriller--the endearing, British family which takes Hanna under their wing for a time. Sixth, set the pieces down over an exhilerating and downright crazy original score by the Chemical Brothers. Seventh, you create action set-pieces with a bare minimum of CGI (now an aesthetic choice in its own right). Eighth, you hire Joe Wright to make your movie because he has a photographic imagination which is so uncommon in genre films. He has a famous affinity for the long-take, and is not afraid to use it over and over again. Others have complained that the ending left them unsatisfied, but I kind of liked it. I don't know what a more conventional ending would have added to the story. In this case, the jarring effect was well...effective. So now we know that Joe Wright is able to craft exciting action-thrillers and yet still maintain the love for style which he exhibits in his other films. I hope Wright deigns to approach this genre again in his career.
3: "Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides" -- How strange to place POTC on par with a film like "The Tree of Life," but therein lies both the fallacy and excitement of creating a top-10 list. But I digress. I did not expect OST to be a favorite--I didn't even expect to like it. I went to see it in 3D with my friend Jonathan and I enjoyed it. Then I saw it again in 2D and I realized that the film would be the unsung hero of the summer. It is unfortunate that the film is marred by the residual exhaustion from the series' 3rd installment and therefore, audiences and critics would have difficulty approaching the film objectively. I would argue that OST is on par with the groundbreaking first film (The Curse of the Black Pearl) and in many ways, exceeds it. OST has all of the elements of BP, only unlike the previous sequels, OST has new jokes, new characters, a fresh plot, and a stand-alone storyline (other blockbuster trilogies: take heed). However, what this new film has over its originator is a tight plot. OST is based on a novel which is wholly separate from the POTC mythology--the resultant narrative therefore functions linearly and doesn't get so overwhelmingly distracted by heavy action sequences or a-rhythmic Jack Sparrow moments. In other words, it's a straightforward pirate story with Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbossa thrown in for fun and continuity. The other films--even the lauded first installment--are mostly uneven and clunky in their tone and pacing. Weirdly enough, OST is also kind of beautiful - the singing mermaid sequence is one of the best moments in the series. Johnny Depp's iconic Jack Sparrow appears as the central character, as he must, and of course, steals the show. Nothing unexpected there. The additions of Ian McShaine and Penelope Cruz are quite welcome and they fit well within the series' mode. Stephen Graham's character Scrum is also a delightful addition to the series and I hope he makes a return in any further installments (remember him in "Snatch" and "Public Enemies" where he played baby-face Nelson?). Also welcome is the simple but engaging sub-plot of the relationship between the missionary and the captured mermaid--a love interest which doesn't feel pointless and time-wasting. Anyway, everything serious aside, the movie is pretty fun--the most fun I had at the movies in 2011. Sometimes it is necessary to acknowledge a film for simply being a good-time at the movies which doesn't insult our intelligence or completely waste our time as an audience; Indiana Jones style.
4: Melancholia -- This is a film which is admittedly, not very much fun to see. It is quite painful, sad, and scary. The film left me quite moved, but not inspired. It left me contemplating things like depression, failed marriages, dysfunctional families, un-happy sex, self-hatred, spiritual band-aids, death, and the end of the world--but without the beauty of life, the hope for an afterlife, or God. So was "Melencholia" a rollicking good time which I could pop in to watch with friends? No. "Melencholia" is an experience in which one feels the collective dread of a people who desire to have control over their lives and yet have none--for whom the inevitability of death is both a release from the horror of meaninglessness and the supreme injustice which unites every human being. I should mention that the film bears a worldview which I do not share. I see suffering as a necessary component to the human condition--it grants meaning to our lives rather than the other way around. I realize that this is a huge can of worms so I won't delve into it to deeply; I feel that suffering is the natural result of humans' free will, even when it is beyond our control. When it is an "act of God," say a hurricane or depression, it is a call to surrender control--as are any number of good things which God provides. If we are to choose good, then there must be an alternative to choose as well. I also believe that the existence of God creates a great hope for humankind--and he is absent from "Melencholia." But divergent worldviews aside, the film addresses very real problems of the human condition which must be addressed. The film would have one think that there is no solution, but that is where I differ. However, it is still important to go to these places psychologically and emotionally. It is no surprise from the film's marketing campaign that the film is about the end of the world (which is depicted within the film's first few minutes). It is remarkable how obsessed our culture is with the end of the world--I for one have recurring dreams about it (nuclear holocaust). There are so many movies about this subject coming out now, not to mention general post-apocolyptic end-of-society films and books; it's on our brains these days. Anyway, the issues in the film are pertinent to our situation which makes it quite moving. I cried when Claire hits the breaking point of desperation and tries feebly to take action in the face of the oncoming catastrophe--especially the moment when the hail begins. It is tragic because I see this play out in real life. Someone is faced with their lack of control and they cannot accept it; so they run around desperately trying to take charge of the situation all the while completely missing what is truly important. All thematic material aside, it bears mentioning that the film is very well made. It's beautiful to look at and the actors all turn in great performances--most notably Kirsten Dunst in a career height. The music is beautiful and unavoidable as an audience member as it becomes the current which carries the film's weight throughout the film--and at times overpowers it. It is a shame there is so much nudity in the film--I for one do not share the affinity for it that Lars Von Trier and so many like-minded directors display in their films. Altogether, "Melencholia" is a film I intend to revisit someday as it is a powerful piece...but I will intersperse more than a few hopeful titles in between. :)
5: Rango -- From the moment I saw the trailer for this I knew this had the potential to be a great movie. "Rango" has a great look, wonderful humor, sharp wit, a great voice cast, and a good story. I could tell from the trailer that this film was going to be successful even though it didn't feel like a paint-by-numbers Dreamworks sequel--and it wasn't in 3D! What a concept! All hail to the director who single handedly revived the pirate genre on the silver screen and created the most iconic film-character of the past decade (Jack Sparrow). Gore Verbinski has left Pirates of the Carribean behind and has shown that his compelling style and attitude apply to a variety of genres. There is a vaguely Terrentino-ish flavor to "Rango" as it is in constant conversation with the Western genre (Terrentino owes so much of his supremacy and standing to the genre). Verbinski exhibits an equal affinity for the Western genre and talent for utilizing it and adjusting it for his own purposes. "Rango" is a love-letter to Westerns which successfully navigates its tropes with both honor and affection. Within the movie are numerous references to tropes of the mythic story telling which we are often taught to aspire to in creative writing and screenwriting. In particular I enjoyed the speech about the "inciting incident" which our hero delivers after which he promptly experiences one. Also welcome is the old Disney trick of anthropomorphizing animals and placing them in a basically human story (a la Disney's "Robin Hood" or "The Great Mouse Detective"). Why is this so compelling a device? Who can say? It just makes strange and perfect sense to dress up lizards and mice like cowboys and watch them play it out as if they were people and everything was normal. The humor in this film is sharp as a tack, but the film also has moments which are strangely moving and beautiful-- the mysterious walking cactus plants, the melancholic armadillo sage, the rapturous sun-set silhouettes and especially the moment when Rango crosses the highway in search of meaning and purpose. I'm often skeptical when celebrity actors are chosen to do voice acting because the actors don't seem to be called to be creative in those situations. Johnny Depp however does a superb job doing voice-acting in this piece. It's easy to forget it's him which is a sign of a quality performance. What can I say? "Rango" is wily and smart and fresh--a real treat.
6: Jane Eyre -- First, it must be mentioned that I have not read the beloved book Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, though I would like to one day. Consequently, my only basis for comparison are the many previous adaptations. This film, by virtue of artistry and budget is possibly the finest of the versions I have seen. I was impressed with the recent mini-series (2006) as it featured Jane as a young girl as well as the section where Jane absconded from Thornfield Hall and lives with a family in the moors. Another version I saw years ago (with Ciaron Hinds as Rochester) focused almost exclusively on Jane's life and relationship with Rochester. That version left an impression on me at age 10 or so. Cary Fukunaga's version (2011) features the full storyline and manages its depth well. I personally feel that this adaptation is a superior one. The film managed to present the sometimes gothic story with elegance and beauty. Fukunaga has a great eye for color--one of the most vivid impressions I was left with was the film's de-saturated "cream"-like hue. This effect is achieved from multiple fronts: Fukunaga's cinematographer, the costume design, and the art direction. The film uses color like a composer would use an orchestra--very intentional. I remember the music being good as well. Michael Fassbender makes a great Rochester, though it is less ambiguous than others. Mia Wasikowska is a suitable Jane, but she wasn't as endearing as Samantha Morton (from the 1996 version...at least as I remember it). The film also avoids the temptation to depict the story's climactic event and chooses instead to have it elegantly reported by Judi Dench's character (as happens in the book I believe). I'm not sure whether this improves the story or not...I think it does...? Anyway, the story, as presented by this film, is very moving. The characters felt like real-life people to me and I was invested in the outcome for them in the story. This film is about bringing light into darkness. As I said before, the film has a preoccupation with light and color but that carries through to its themes as well. Jane brings light into the darkness of Rochester and his household--light to their lives and their secrets. It is a testament to Jane's character that she stands up to the darkness for so long and then after a time of respite, she returns again. Why so high on my year's list? Because Fukunaga took a dark, brooding love story and made a film about light.
7: Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil -- While I attended the University of Iowa, I went to many screenings at the Bijou theater. At that time the Bijou was running a series of "midnight" movies which were often schlocky horror or sci-fi. Upon seeing the trailer for "Tucker and Dale," I rushed to inform the Bijou that this film would be a perfect selection for their midnight series as it is a sendup/love-letter to the slasher genre. They agreed and they brought it in. The theater was packed (mostly with girls--unexpected) and the audience absolutely loved it. Comedy and horror are always best viewed with an audience. Both genres are heavily dependent on the infectious "buzz" which is conducted and magnified in group experiences. Moments are funnier and scarier because members are laughing and yelping at the appropriate moments. This shared collective is one of the primary reasons I still love going to the cinema. Like my fellow audience members, I thoroughly enjoyed "Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil." The film has a top-knotch premise and a good, quotable script, filled with memorable characters and gags. Dale was a wonderfully drawn-out character constructed of various archetypes and he was a hit with the ladies in the audience. He was funny and endearing--the girls were "awwing" at his simple but precious attempts to woo his distraught muse. The cast is also good overall (Alan Tudyk from Firefly/Serenity!!!). "Tucker and Dale" is a bloody, funny and well-made crowd pleaser. The audience was yelping, cheering and whooping when I saw it at the Bijou...and I must admit, so was I.
8: Submarine -- A coming-of-age story told with an eye to the indie-aesthetic and hipsters...I wasn't sure this would be hit with me. But...it's British...and it's just really really funny and really really good. I remember thinking during much of the film "all of this heartbreak and could be easily avoided if you just___..." Submarine is a film filled with endearing but tragically flawed characters. Nothing altogether serious happens (like teenage suicide a la Romeo and Juliet), but one can feel the tension and frustration of the young infatuates who are at the mercy of their imperfect circumstances (Jordana is clearly a Borderline personality). There are many memorable scenes-- the weird neighbor's tai-chi, Jordana and Oliver's polaroid kiss, and the sublime vortex of water (a drain presumably) which the characters view from above on a bridge; just to name a few. The film has a fantastic visual palette. It is clearly working in the quirky-indie style, but it also has some decidedly 1970s flavor to its cinematography. But it's all mixed together so well and photographed so beautifully. There was rarely a dull image in the film. The dreary, coastal locations aid greatly in fraiming the film's images just right. The cast--mostly unkown to me--all turned in fitting performances. The script is tight as well--hilariously deadpan and touching in moments. Why is it on my top 10? Because it was a nearly flawless film and because I had such a strong reaction to it. Why isn't it higher? Well...there wasn't really much to it. But hey, I have never been one to demand a treatise on the meaning of life for every film.
9: War Horse -- Despite this film's un-met potential, War Horse stands up as a superbly made old-fashioned epic. Honestly, I saw the trailer for this and I thought "this is a hit if I've ever seen one." The film has the following going for it: period setting, youthful idealism, old-fashioned Americana (even though it is set in Europe), adventure, romance, spectacle, animals, trailer-friendly war-scenes, a sweeping John Williams score...and a very broad age demographic which is quite coveted (and rare). I thought the film was a sure-fire hit, but as it turns out, I was only slightly correct. The film did well enough financially by today's standards--people forget that a $79 million domestic gross was exceptional a mere 10 years ago. However, it was not the Titanic-sized hit that I imagined it could be. It had all of the elements (with the addition of animals!), but somewhere in its script stage, it simply failed to deliver the event status that it could (and should) have achieved.On the plus side, the film is delightfully nostalgic in its style. There were scenes and images which seemed to spring right out of our favorite memories of Hollywood greats like Gone With The Wind. In particular, the cottage home in the beginning of the film has the look of an indoor set bathed in golden light with glowing back-projected skies. The dialogue and acting also echo the folksy caricatures of ordinary people so common in our cinematic heroes 60+ years ago. The film simply has a warmness reminiscent of the more idealistic and patriotic films of the 1940s and 1950s. Unfortunately, the film has its drawbacks. Despite its gushing, sumptuous imagery, Warhorse suffers from a deficient screenplay. The script and plotting simply do not give the story justice. Don't get me wrong--the storytelling is definitely a few steps above most films that are released and it is quite effective in places. The film just failed to deliver a masterpiece like it probably should (and could) have. The story as it is, still reached me. I was touched by the notion of how senseless war is when you see its carnage happening around an innocent creature who has little stake in its outcome. After screening the film with my parents I was driving home by myself, thinking about war, and frankly, I was feeling repentant. I got home before my parents so I decided to take a stroll through our frosty backyard (it was December). There were no lights on our country road, just moonlight. Since there was frost in the air, the moon lit up this crazy halo around itself. I was pensive from the film I just saw, it was quiet, and it was beautiful, so I just stood underneath my dad's maple and prayed for a while--apologizing for our aggression, violence and failure to live peacefully and begging God's forgiveness. It's not every day that a film will help stretch you in this way. Did I mention that this film had a hopeful ending? I hope to see more films like Warhorse in the future.
10: Courageous -- This film gets kudos simply for being brave enough to speak about issues which just are not very sexy. Courageous is about middle-age, suburban, conservative, mostly-white, square, Christian men as they strive to have very nice families. BLAaaaaahhh... At least that is how Courageous would appear to a great number of viewers. The same could be said really about all the films which have been produced by Sherwood Pictures and directed by Alex Kendrick. I have seen them all and they have been consistently hokey. It seems sad that the benign niceness of a film can instill snarky eye-rolling and sneers in me. In reality, shouldn't I be celebrating ordinary people who champion their faith in God in spite of life's obstacles? Kendrick's team is getting better as they go, but their films are still mired with too-good-to-be-true niceness and unbelievable coincidences like those you may find within inspirational "send to all your friends" chain-emails. In some cases, Kendrick's films seem to be laughably engineered to be tear-jerkers (queue in a song by Third Day). Well, despite all of that, I have learned to look past the sterile tropes of the inspirational genre and find great respect for the messages contained within a film like this. The issue of fatherhood cannot be overstated. I appreciate a film which explores Christian men (like myself) who strive to be good fathers (or aspire to be). Furthermore, this film was more moving in general than its predecessors. Having a character die so we can witness the remaining family members deal with the death seems like a cheap tactic perhaps. However, since the film is striving for a realistic vision of ordinary people, a death in the family is just as likely to happen as anything else, and it amplifies the drama. There are many other faith-centric films which have achieved more artistically, but few which have reached the financial success of Kendrick's films. No doubt a large part of this success is credited to the films' significant marketing campaigns. But more importantly, Kendrick and his team seem to understand the needs and taste of the mainstream-evangelical Christian market better than any other filmmakers (other than Mel Gibson perhaps--how many evangelicals to this day still go crazy over Braveheart?). Kendrick's films have struck a chord with Christian families in the U.S. by providing both validation and conviction for many viewers. On the one hand, it is unlikely that Kendrick's team will reach the non-Christian world with films of this kind. But on the other hand, they have certainly proven to be effective at addressing very real needs within the Church itself. For that reason alone, I put this film in my top-ten.
Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
The Beaver -- "Mr. Crazy" returns to the screen, and not a moment too soon. I have to admit I miss Mel Gibson being in movies, although I understand this deficit in acting work is due to his quite successful career as a director, and the occasional public drunken outbursts. Here, we have the great Jodie Foster directing Gibson in a story which seems to have been designed to get my attention: a severely depressed man discovers a beaver puppet in a dumpster and procedes to engage in inner-dialogues through the puppet. Gibson's character then decides to tell his family and friends that the puppet is a "prescription" puppet and all must address themselves to it instead of to himself. It's a scenario which could easily have been driven into slapstick comedy. Thank goodness Foster chose to grant the story more depth and plenty of darkness as well. Foster (who penned the screenplay as I understand) wisely chose to show that many solutions to depression can be temporary; a euphoria which eventually wears down until the afflicted person must once again face his/her external problems up front. The film takes this real-life concern and amplifies the drama and symbolism to an unrealistic degree--as a film should do. Some people didn't buy the ending, but I rolled with it. In any case, the film is well-crafted altogether. It has a great cast - Gibson and Foster are both very good as always (this role was made for Mel). Jennifer Lawrence makes a post-Winter's Bone apparence and is compelling once again. Despite the painful subject matter, the film carries a wonderful sense of humor and it does so without straying into farce--which makes it palatable. Foster has proven herself to be a good director and I hope she does more films. The Beaver is not a perfect film, but I relish it when filmmakers take chances. Overall, this film is successful.
13 Assassins -- Having had no experience with Takashi Miike, I was not sure how this film would ultimately come together. I knew that it was going to be a period action film and that it would be very much inspired by the model perfected by the legendary (but mostly unknown to me) Akira Kurosawa. That meant I should expect the first two acts to be slow and dialog driven, but they would be succeded by an explosive and violent finish. 13 Assassins takes the beloved idium and magnifies it through a contemporary sensibility. That is, it is much more bloody and violent. I have to admit, the climax of the film is the biggest payoff I have seen in a long time. It is a veritable bloodbath of carnage and yet it does not feel completely pointless. There are even a few moving moments therein. It seems like we are living in a renaissance of asian action-spectacles, nearly all taking their cue from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon......Altogether, I look forward to seeing more films from Takashi, and I hope very much that they are somewhat like 13 Assassins.
Thor -- I cannot explain it, but I found myself really anticipating this movie. Thor is a larger than life comic character with illustrious ties to the lauded Avengers comic-book super group. The film also boasts none other than Kenneth Branagh--a veritable force of nature--as its director. One cannot escape the connection between yon Thor's theatrical old-english stylings with the over-the-top Shakespearean bent of Branagh's previous work. To some, the connection is a little gouache, but no matter how superficial the similarities may be, Branagh was a good fit for this material. In particular, the scenes in Asgard feature huge, cosmic imagery, bold warriors clad in crazy art-deco costumes, and characters who shout at each other in ultimatums. It's wonderful stuff, reminiscent of what I loved about the old Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman films. These scenes are the strong points of Thor. The film also has a great cast: the sometimes wooden, but very promising Chris Hemsworth (a great choice), the brave Anthony Hopkins, the amusing Kat Dennings, and the imposing Idris Elba (from The Wire!). The biggest surprise is the superb Tom Hiddleston as Loki. He goes over top a few times, but over all, I found him to be a compelling character with just the right amount of menace and flair. The film has a great sense of humor and has some decent action sequences (particularly the rainy-compound sequence). The film flies apart however with most of the Earth-scenes. Natalie Portman is her usual dispassionate self and the rest is just a little too silly, even for this kind of movie. There is also a bit too much CGI to augment the quite dull Ice Giants' world (complete with a cartoon monster fight). At the time of Thor's release, our theater didn't offer 2D screenings if a film was released in 3D so we had to see it in 3D. As with most films which utilize this tired gimmick, it does nothing but dull the picture and mess with the image design. So yeah, Thor is another in Marvel's start-up franchises which will tie-in with it's upcoming Avengers film (we'll see how that goes). It's effective in its own right and I would love to see a sequel- but the more Asgard, the better. [Avengers note: not as Good as Iron Man, but much better than both The Incredible Hulk and Captain America; The First Avenger]
Arthur Christmas -- Easily one of the funniest films of the year. It fought hard to be in the top ten. Its very British cast and rapid-fire dialogue gags were a joy. Ashley Jensen as Bryony was truly excellent. Great voice work. Jim Broadbent and Bill Nighy were also very good voices for this film. It's also very very nice. :-)
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows -- Sadly, this is a poor sequel to a poor adaptation of the beloved Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. Both films have a good look, a great cast, and an awesome score from Hans Zimmer (the saving grace). Both films fall almost completely flat. I cannot explain it. Even the talented Guy Richie along with all of the superb craftsmen he has accumulated could not make a truly exciting movie. Despite everything assembled here, both films simply wilt in the shadow of the far superior and much lower-budget Sherlock series from the BBC. That series is widely considered to be the definitive version of Doyle's iconic character for our time. Many many people (including myself) are eagerly awaiting the third season. The series is much delayed due to the fact that its principle actors are in New Zealand starring in Peter Jackson's Hobbit films. I cannot hide my excitement over that development. All that to say, I cannot think of anyone who is eager for another film in Richie's Sherlock Holmes franchise. That is truly a shame because it has some good visual flair, a wonderful cast, and some good humor. Too bad it's not enough to make a good movie.
Take Shelter -- This slow film builds and builds the tension to great heights. It is hard to describe how the film accomplishes this. Certainly Michael Shannon's superb but subtle performance does much. The film's simple premise would wear out quickly in the hands of another director but here, it held my attention and I was hooked. The film also has some great sound design. Thank goodness for the ending of this film.
Captain America: The First Avenger -- I would not envy the task of bringing this character to the screen. In our cynical age, it's hard to take a character seriously who wears the American flag and becomes a patriotic symbol after punching and otherwise beating up America's enemies. I suppose what draws doubt into the equation is the self-assurance of nationalism which is so unfashionable today. Regardless, Marvel could not miss an opportunity to make money by further setting up their Avengers saga. Chris Evans is a good choice for this character as is the great Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull. Strangely however, Weaving chose to project an annoying and un-scary high-pitched voice for the Red Skull. The character is also underwritten considering the richness of possibilities for this character. The true star of the film however is Tommy Lee Jones as a surly military commander. He brings great humor to the role as well as grizzled credibility. At the end of the credits for this film is a full-blown trailer for The Avengers which came as a complete surprise! This was the first time any footage had been released for the film and the reaction was uniformly positive. I for one was now stoked to see the mega movie in 2012. I couldn't have imagined what such a film would look like, but there it was, and with Loki as the villain! Anyway, Captain America as a film itself struck for a tone much like a romping Indiana Jones film, which was the correct decision. It works surprisingly well, even if it is ultimately not that special.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes -- I did not expect this to be a hit with me but it totally won me over. I was completely invested in the plot and characters. My room-mate and I were totally on the edge of our seats the whole time (perhaps we egged each other on). There is a moment in the film which serves as a rather big surprise and turning point for the plot. Without revealing anything more, let me just say that my room-mate and I both went crazy "WHAT!?--What!?" The film is surprisingly well-crafted. It's too bad it didn't go even further with the depth of its story. NOTE: best picture nomination? Ha.
The Adventures of Tin Tin -- Steven Spielberg's animated romp won me over with its Indiana-Jones style adventures and intrigue as well as great humor, sweeping action scenes, and wonderful sense of nostalgia . Andy Serkis stands out in his mo-cap performance as Captain Haddock. Serkis is a seasoned veteran of this process and probably wrote the book on how to make it work (who could ever forget his performance as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy?). I remember reading some of the Tin Tin books when I was a wee lad and I enjoyed them very much. I look forward to Peter Jackson's planned sequel to this film.
The Muppets -- This film is a love letter to the loveable characters and memorable appearences of Jim Henson's Muppets. It's a musical with new songs by Bret McKensie (from Flight of the Conchords! Yay!). The songs are fun, the gags are good, the celbrity appearences are cute, and the film is awash with fond memories for these great American icons. The addition of a new muppet (Walter) was a nice choice. I also enjoyed the self-aware attitude of the gags ("travel by map," "I was singing on the way over here"). All the pieces were there for a great comedy, but the good gags were far apart, and there weren't as many big character moments which one would hope for in what is effectively a homage film. It could have been so much better...but it was still good. Long live The Muppets.
The Descendents -- This was an effective, character-driven drama where Clooney was granted an intriguing premise in which to show off his sincere acting chops without having to stretch too far...AND it takes place in picturesque Hawaii. The film has a light tone for such heavy themes (infidelity, coma-states, death, growing up), but it never feels cheap. Truth be told, the boyfriend character totally steals the show from all the others.
Moneyball -- I was not looking forward to seeing a movie about Baseball. Thankfully, this film is not really about baseball at all so much as it is about the inside of pro-sports. This is a much much more interesting angle on the leagues and the dramatic narratives which pro-sports tend to generate. The film paints an un-romantic vision of baseball. In Moneyball, the sport is no longer a living breathing symbol of working-class America's triumph; it is now purely an illusion of that symbol. When a grassroots icon like Baseball becomes a mathematically precise algorithm for extracting money from the working class and placing it in the hands of state-of-the-art corporate money generators, the past-time has lost its magic. But Moneyball is not a lament. Instead it is a film which relishes in the achievments of these money-makers. Ironically, it still nurtures the great American underdog story, though it is a triumph to which few could relate. The acting was all good except for Phillip Seymore Hoffman (how often does that happen?). Though perhaps his character was just boring altogether on the page to begin with.
Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy -- I have to admit, I was not as taken-in with this film as many other viewers. It is a well-crafted film with a great ensemble cast. It just doesn't carry much excitment. There isn't much more I can say about it. It just came and went. Did I just watch something?
Midnight in Paris -- Arguably Woody Allen's most successful film since Annie Hall. I personally was not as taken with the film as many of my peers, but I certainly appreciated it, as I do most Woody Allen films. I suppose if I had seen Midnght in Paris--or many of Allen's other films--without knowing he was the filmmaker, I would probably have liked it less. I'm not sure what that says about me as a viewer; probably that I am easily taken in by elitist approaches to films. He's a "great filmmaker," therefore I must engage with his film on a different level. I personally think that my reason for approaching this film as a Woody Allen film (and therefore under a more forgiving viewer hat) is because filtering his films through the understanding of who he is as a person and where he comes from just makes tons of sense. Allen doesn't make films to make money or to please the masses...filmmaking is his therapy. Anyway...Midnight in Paris...I enjoyed it, but many of the literary references were lost on me. I think I got it though. :-)
Anonymous -- It's really to bad that this film sucked so much because it was so engrossing (haha!). I have no faith in its assertion that William Shakespeare was not the author of his plays, but the theories and implications are facinating. It's a great premise for a film. Rhys Ifans was unrecognizable to me so I was pleasently surprised to learn that he was the Earl of Oxford. Honestly though, the rest of the film - the writing, the acting, some of the visuals really suffered from...I don't know what. It just wasn't well made. Roland Emmerich needs to start watching some good films to remind him how to make them, because we all know he is capable.
Contagion -- Steven Soderbergh begins his his new wave of off-beat blockbusters with this film (leading into Haywire and Magic Mike). Contatgion is an epic thriller with a huge ensemble cast. It's a wonder however why the film was marketed as an event film because it certainly isn't anything of the sort. It even boasts an Imax version which I cannot imagine. I did enjoy seeing Elliot Gould and Jennifer Ehle -- these two actors should be working more. The film is certainly stylistic, but it is very subdued. This quirky nature is both an asset and a weird detrimental effect. The asset is we get to see a somewhat plausible scenario with plausible characters - a procedural about desease control with a minimum of sentimental detours. The problem? Without much emotional involvement, my ability to care about the characters and story is reduced to an anxious curiosity. The film is effective in that it makes me worry - but a bio-stats friend of mine tells me that the scenario in the film is not indicative of what experts project as a realistic behavior for an epidemic. Anyway, the primary reaction? Bemused indifference.
Another Earth -- One has to admire filmmakers like Mike Cahill for making effective high-concept films without a huge budget and known-actors. The film's premise is one of the more exciting ideas I have come across so after seeing the fantastic trailer I was anticipating this film very much. Sadly, it does not deliver a very satisfying product altogether. It feels like shavings of a great film which come together to create an OK one. The strength of the film's premise is what holds Another Earth together.
We Bought a Zoo -- A well-made, feel-good movie, but a mostly forgetful one. We Bought a Zoo works for its well-written characters and story. The story of a widowed parent trying to mend the wounds and maintain a healthy family is a good place to start. Add to that some cute kids, cute animals, and cutesy side-characters and you have a good egg. I actually was kind of moved by the recurring theme of "20 seconds of insane courage." It's not often that I take something away from a film and directly apply it to my life, but there really is something to that philosophy. I have found it has helped me a few times. Though being courageous and being impulsive are not always the same thing. I would add wisdom into the mix somewhere.
Paul -- Not very remarkable except for the fact that it is a love-letter to science fiction, horror and comic-book related genres. It's a geek movie, made by geeks, and it is about geeks. The constant references and in-jokes are a joyful signal that people like me are with friends. It's sad that the film had to have an annoying CGI alien, a strong anti-christian attitude, and bland stoner humor to water down the film's wit.
Win Win -- I appreciated this film for its humor and its courage in portraying a likeable but immoral man in a balanced way. Paul Giamatti is a virtuoso actor who never fails to liven up a picture. He is a great asset to today's filmmaker if they can get him.
Sucker Punch -- A very very poor film. I had strong suspicions that it would be a stinker and it lived up to my expectations. It's sad because it has so many spectacular, trailer-worthy moments. It also has a decent soundtrack album. Sorry Zack Snyder, you're just not a good filmmaker. Geeks everywhere may be horrified to hear me say this, but the only film of his I have liked at all was the warrior owl flick Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, and that itself was not that great. Weak Snyder, weak. I have hopes for his interpretation of Superman in 2013 though. Don't let me down Snyder.
Arthur -- This remake had its chuckles but few laugh-out-loud moments. It rests on a few trailer-worthy moments and the eccentric but endearing star, Russel Brand. This actor is certainly not for everyone, but I have found him to be such an odd but amusing performer since I saw him in The Tempest. Like Jack Black before him, Brand seems to be handicapped by scripts and plots - his genius is in improvisation, timing, and delivery. If one would create a project for Brand which allows him to play without having to act, I suspect the result would be even better. But yeah, Arthur? Mediocre at best.
Soul Surfer -- Another addition to the lineup of gushy inspirational Christian movies. The difference is, this inspirational true story has been taken seriously enough to gather a talented cast. AnnaSofia Robb is surprisingly effective in a role which deviates from the real-life person in looks and personality, but works nonetheless. It's refreshing to see Christians portrayed in a positive light, even if they're caricatures.
Water For Elephants -- I confess, I felt that this film was likely to be a huge hit given the success of the book it's based on and the quality of the assembled talents who made it. Sadly, the film does not come close to the grip in the book's telling. It's nice-looking and it boasts a suitable performance from Christolph Waltz, but it falls flat. It bears mentioning that as gripping as the book was, the minute I finished it I thought it was ultimately forgetful. It also had a lot of sexual material which was completely unnecessary.
X-Men: First Class -- The fantastic cast aside, there was little in this film to warrant much attention besides Kevin Bacon's turn as a comic villain. Bacon actually makes it work and his character was what made the film worth seeing at least once.
Super 8 -- A feature-length homage to the films of Steven Spielberg, Super 8 idolizes the urgent plight of plucky, clever kids in suburban American neighborhoods. The urgency? No one understands kids and what they go through. The plight? Wonderful kids are ignored and so they struggle to create themselves with no one to consult but their equally ignored peers. The nostalgic vision of childhood are the main draws to this film, though even that could have been done better. The stuff with the kids romping around is the strength of Super 8. Oh yeah, but there is this sci-fi alien monster plot as well...that's where Super 8 suffers. Sadly, the sci-fi elements are almost completely inept.
Troll Hunter -- There really isn't much that is remarkable about this movie except for the audacity to make it in the first place, and the perfect circumstances in which I saw it. These campy horror films sometimes stray the line of sincerity and parody. Troll Hunter dwells smack dab on that line. It's hard to tell when it is making fun of itself sometimes. Anyway, I saw this film with a full audience at the Bijou theater in Iowa City - crowds invariably make these films more enjoyable. The scene with the hunter appearing in troll hunting armor? Classic. Oh, and it's Norwegian which adds to the film's already wacky personality. I knew I was in for a treat from the first moment the hunter comes bounding out of the bushes yelling "Troooollll"
Green Lantern -- This film is a tiresome flop in almost every way. It's a shame because the mythos have great potential for a thriving franchise. Instead we have what is effectively a cartoon CGI movie. Even Ryan Reynold's suit is CG and to what possible purpose? I felt more disrespected by the studio with Green Lantern than I have with many other comic-hero films in the last ten years. It's Wonder Bread through and through - so little substance. So why is it on my honorable mention list? Because I feel like Peter Sarsgaard deserves some attention for his performance as Hector Hammond, the film's villain. He alone brings any discernible talent to this clunky wreck.
Conan O'Brien Can't Stop -- I suppose this film brought little new insights into this powerhouse personality which his fans didn't already know. I for one have never seen Conan's show so this was all new to me. The film is quite funny throughout. The character of Conan's assistant lends weight to this man's tumultuous everyday life. She becomes this underdog hero who is able to stand up under the tremendous pressure and stress of working with Conan -- all the while retaining her earthy humanity and sense of humor. I found myself rooting for her throughout, hoping that she would one-up him or somehow come out on top during one of his borderline abusive episodes. Their relationship was my favorite aspect of the film. I find Napoleonic Captain Ahabs like Conan O'Brien to be fascinating, but I wouldn't want to live with him though.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon -- This third (and final?) installment in the overblown and dull Transformers franchise comes closest to delivering thrills. This film had the most palatable sense of humor, the absence of the awful Megan Fox, and a villain one can actually understand. It allowed the robot characters to actually interact with each other in a meaningful way instead of being limited to one-liners. The human characters are the biggest waste with this series and sadly, this installment still features them prominently. While this film was not as awful as the other two, let's hope that this is the final cantankerous cry we hear from the Transformers.
The Devil's Double -- More wasted potential. The premise is cinematic gold: Saddam Hussein's thoroughly evil son has a good natured body double who is brought up to wealth and depravity, and ultimately rebels against it. It's a fascinating subject and this film had assembled adequate talent to pull it off (Dominic Cooper delivers). Sadly, it feels exploitative and dull. I understand that that Uday was a full-blooded monster in real life, but his various atrocities are portrayed without any emotional impact other than repulsion. It would have been great to see this story told in a more crafty, artful way.
The Guard -- This film had some promising elements. Brendan Gleeson is one of my favorite actors and rarely gets the opportunity to show off in a lead role. Unfortunately, this film was too dark, not very funny, and overall dull. Not even Gleeson and Don Cheedle. could save it.
The Artist -- This delightful silent film benefited greatly from over-hype. Once one gets over the novelty of a silent film (actually shot on b&w film) being made in our era, one sees that despite its charm and quality, The Artist doesn't really amount to much. It has a cute dog, a nice score, and a worthy lead performance from Jean Dujardin. If I were behind this film, I would have opted for an even more humorous approach, and less of a self-referential one. One of the most successful scenes in the film directly highlights the power of sound in a movie in a very clever way, but it doesn't go much further. I have to ask; did no one else notice music in the score which was lifted directly out of Hitchcock's Vertigo? I am at a loss to explain it.
The Help -- I was entirely skeptical about seeing this film--even resolved never to see it. This poor attitude is due entirely to my reaction to the book the film is based on. Everything I heard about the book made it sound trite and cliche. It sold scads of copies and was constantly being checked out from our library by elderly ladies, Danielle Steele readers, and book-club fanatics. In all, it was praised by readers I knew who generally towed the line of "whatever is popular I must read it." Fortunately, the film adaptation took the material and granted it a light but serious treatment. The actors were all good and the film was well crafted -- who would known that was Jessica Chastain?
Hugo -- The 3D/effects/family debut film for the greatly esteemed Martin Scorsese, Hugo carried great promise and hype but sadly falls almost completely flat. The trouble begins with the original source material. Brian Selznick's celebrated graphic/hybrid novel did almost nothing for me. I was frankly mystified as to why it was so well loved. It is inventive in places (the automaton for example) and it also has some interesting things to say about the cinema. The latter is probably what attracted Scorsese to this project in the first place. But the book went nowhere with its possibilities and the film ultimately does the same. However, the film is a few steps closer to meeting the story's potential because it magnifies the role of the famous filmmaker Georges Melies within the story. The film makes Melies an actual character in the story and focuses a good deal of attention on him and his history. That is the primary highlight of the film. Everything else about it is almost completely dull. I was a little embarrassed for Scorsese as the film simply trolls on in boring fashion with pointless characters, meaningless motivation, vacant action scenes, poor visual effects, annoying 3D-conscious cinematography, and bad acting. Not even Sacha Baron Coen's occasional amusing moment could save this film. Hugo is interesting for as a specimen, but it doesn't hold up on its own merits.
The Sitter -- It truely is a shame that producers in Hollywood believe that a successful adult comedy must strive to sear us with sex, profanity and otherwise shocking material. The basic premise of The Sitter is sound, but it could be done entirely without striving to offend and provoke its audience. Viewers are to blame as well - many people somehow believe that if a film presents wholsome sentimental values along side its over-the-top offensive material, it is absolved, and we get to enjoy being titillated without the guilt. This attitude is responsible for the success of Judd Apatow and the ensuing wave of his imitators. I for one am not fooled. I don't believe for a second that a film's content is justified simply because it tacks on some heartfelt moments at the end. Weak craft. All that being said, if one were to set aside the offensive material in a film like The Sitter (impossible, but bear with me), then one can simply enjoy the funny bits - and they are occasionally uproarous. It's too bad that The Sitter is too bad. .
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol -- Brad Bird makes his live-action debut with this triumphant return to my favorite action-spy franchise, Mission Impossible. More than 007, Jason Bourne, or Jack Ryan, the adventures of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) have had a soft spot in my heart since the rip-roaring and influential first installment came out in 1996 from director Brian de Palma. None of the sequels, including Ghost Protocol have achieved the perfect balance of tone and style of that film. What they have maintained is the presence of Tom Cruise in the only role I have ever seen him in where he seemed to fit perfectly. Ghost Protocol is probably the best of the new films. Buuut.....MI:III had some great moments and MI:2 had slow-mo doves and an arguably awesome pop/nu-metal soundtrack (Limp Bizkit plays the main theme? Oh yes). Actually, Hans Zimmer's score for MI:2 overall was actually pretty awesome. But Brad Bird's Ghost Protocol has some pretty good sequences, such as the famous Mumbai building-climbing sequence. The film also features the return of Simon Pegg (I didn't expect that) and the addition of Jeremy Renner to the franchise. It was expected that Renner would probably take over the franchise from Cruise, but then comes the trailer for the new Bourne film with Renner in the lead (instead of Matt Damon) and the announcement of a new Cruise-led franchise based on author Lee Child's character Jack Reacher. So it is now thoroughly unpredictable as to how the MI series will continue, if it does at all. In any case, Brad Bird has made a nice debut into the live-action world and has shown himself to be completely capable of a quality action film.
Real Steel -- ....or Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots. It's a wonder that this film did not capitalize on the overt similarities between the aforementioned game and its plot about humanoid robots punching each other in a boxing ring. I am amazed Mattel didn't sue the studio over that one. Apparently there was even a movie tie-in rip-off toy version which is essentially the same thing as Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots. Anyway, fortunately, as bad an idea this movie sounds, it actually turned out pretty well. It benefits greatly from the touching father-son relation at its core and its cliched underdog robot who learns to beat the big guys. That aspect of the film carries most of the weight for me. Otherwise, the film has some good fighting sequences, good visual effects, and Hugh Jackman. Thank goodness for the ever versatile Hugh Jackman.
Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey -- I could not resist seeing this film after I saw the trailer. What a touching story. A young man growing up in a poor neighborhood in Baltimore MD who has loved Jim Henson's shows Sesame St and the Muppets for years manages to climb the ranks of children's television to land a principle role on Sesame St. and finally become responsible for creating one of the show's most iconic and beloved characters: Elmo. It's a film about a man who brings great joy to children through his artistry. The film depicts an attachment between puppet and puppeteer which I thoroughly understand. I myself have had an interest in puppets since I was very young and know exactly what it means to imbue a character with elements of one's own personality to the point where can think of these objects as friends of a sort (as children sometimes do). The film itself is aptly made and shows an honest, though overall positive portrait of this man. He may be a poor family man, but he nonetheless has imbued much love into the character of Elmo and shared that with millions of children worldwide. It's a good lesson to learn I suppose: do not bless the masses without first blessing your own household.....but do bless the masses. :-)
Want to see:
Rubber
Barney's Version
The Trip
Larry Crowne
Terri
One Day
Our Idiot Brother
Warrior
Drive
50/50
The Skin I Live In
Pina
My Week With Marylin
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Immortals
Carnage
posted by Your humble servant at 2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home