Change Your Image
fellow456
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Incredibly Wearing (As It Should Be)
Why you shouldn't see it:
If movies that come to a slow boil aren't likely to hold your attention, there's a chance Zero Dark Thirty won't either. It covers a time period of nearly ten years, and you feel the length of the film accordingly. Each minute wears on you as time passes by with no real headway in the search for arguably history's most wanted man, and you begin to wonder whether it was all really worth all the fuss (and time... and effort... and cost...) of watching people look for him. This movie is drama much more than it is suspense, action, or anything one could remotely consider "light" (there are moments of levity, but they are more brief breaks from the slow-mounting tension than anything genuinely comical).
With the main characters of this movie all being CIA and military special forces, you might expect it to be an edge-of-your-seat thriller. While there are a couple moments of thrills, the vast majority is spent wondering where the thrills ran off to. Between a moderately graphic torture scene at the beginning and a raid on UBL's compound at the end, there's mostly just a lot of talking and scheming and thinking and nerve-wearing stretching of moments.
If you prefer for your movies to present you with some sort of agenda, as though Hollywood is responsible for calibrating your own moral compass, this one might not do the trick. It presents its material in a surprisingly even-handed light, which has reportedly bothered some of the more negative-minded critics out there. Since this film features depictions of distasteful acts, in the opinion of some, it is the job of the filmmaker to make obvious her distaste for said acts instead of simply portraying the story unfiltered.
Why you should see it:
On the surface of it, Zero Dark Thirty is, in the mold of both Argo and Lincoln this year, an expertly told historical tale. It takes an event about which most of us know many of the details and still makes it a gripping film going experience. When I take a step back and think about it, I realize that it's pretty inappropriate for me to catch myself holding my breath while watching any movie, let alone one with an ending of which I am quite familiar. And yet, that's exactly what this movie did to me, even more so than either of its historical counterparts among this year's crop of nominees.
I could probably talk at length about any number of things that I consider strengths of this movie. The brilliantly understated performances of every member of the cast, not least of all Jessica Chastain, which allow the film to be driven by the slow grind of the developing plot and the atmosphere it creates. The deft and even-handed treatment of the (only partially known) source material that allows the audience to draw its own conclusions regarding both the means and the end of the hunt for Bin Laden. The distinct lack of blatant Hollywood moments used to artificially amp up the suspense of each moment, which intriguingly does much more to draw the viewer into those very moments. And, not necessarily the movie itself, but - the trailer, which perfectly conveys to the viewer exactly what to expect from the movie without spoiling any of it (I seriously love this trailer, even more than I typically love trailers, which is saying a lot).
But what I really want to talk about is something else entirely. Or, more appropriately, maybe it's the combination of all of the above that leads to something that has really stuck with me as a movie-going experience I'm not used to. Now switching to explicitly first person, since it's the only voice that really seems appropriate:
When I was leaving the theater, I knew that I had been made to feel something, but I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Then, as I thought back through the events of the movie, I realized that I hadn't felt "something" at all. I had felt a number of things, and those feelings had corresponded exactly with Jessica Chastain's character Maya. And, by reflection, my own feelings on the UBL manhunt itself. Ranging from discomfort to resolve to determination to jadedness to exhaustion to relief, and, as the screen went black: emptiness. I had just devoted nearly three hours of my life to watching this movie - much like the characters devoted nearly ten years of their lives to catching Bin Laden, and the closing impression we were all left with was emptiness. Not the kind of emptiness that accompanies the depressed thoughts of "why did I just watch this movie," but instead the kind of emptiness that hit Maya like a hammer when she pondered her past and wondered how that could point her to any future.
In Short:
To be honest, if you have seen the trailer, you should know exactly what to expect from Zero Dark Thirty (unless you're bad at watching trailers... it's not a skill everyone has). I saw in it one of the best and most evocative trailers I've ever encountered, and that's pretty much exactly the kind of movie I ended up seeing. It's subtle yet direct, clear in purpose yet uncertain in meaning. I recommend it with a 9 out of 10, because while it isn't necessarily what I enjoy about movies, it is certainly what I appreciate about them.
Exceptions to the recommendation: if you prefer your waterboarding to be in a more private setting, people who actually enjoy the artificial, Hollywood-injected moments of suspense, if you would rather your media present you with one slant or another so that you don't have to risk getting lost in the uncertainty of your own self-resolved morality, if you're an Osama Bin Laden apologist.
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Unorthodox Romantic Comedy
Why you shouldn't see it:
I've never been to Philadelphia. I hope to change that someday, because it is a city full of history, and I personally have a healthy appreciation for history and the way in which it shapes the world in which we live and the people who we become.
Before I confuse you, allow me to point out that Silver Linings Playbook is not a movie about history. But it is a movie set in Philadelphia. And while I've never been there, I have developed a healthy hatred for it. You may say that hatred is baseless, but I say you've never met someone from Philly. Or you're from Philly and lack proper perspective. Admittedly, nearly all of my interaction with Philadelphia and its residents has, to this point in my life, revolved around sports. But Philadelphia athletes do things like electrocute dogs (I will kindly ignore you as you point out he was an Atlanta athlete while he was electrocuting dogs, because we had the benefit of ignorance), and Philadelphia fans are widely acknowledged to be the worst in sports (unless you're from Philly
then they're awesome).
You may be wondering why I should be suggesting that you not see a movie because it is set in a city you may or may not hate based almost solely on its relationship with sports. My response would be that Philly is a sports city, and it is defined in major part by its relationship with its sports. Accordingly, this movie, through its characterizations, very much relates to Philadelphia's relationships with its sports. So if you are like me and have a healthy distaste for Philadelphia, its people, or its sports, you may want to avoid watching this.
Why you should see it:
I said that Silver Linings isn't a movie about history, and that's true. Nor is it explicitly about Philadelphia. But it is a story about people who are the product of Philadelphia's history, and because of that, it couldn't be set anywhere else. Other films have settings that are merely the time and place in which the plot unfolds, but this is a plot that couldn't exist outside of its setting. The result is a story that is unique and compelling to me and yet all too familiar to many Philadelphians.
Bradley Cooper has seemingly made a career of playing assholes in his movies, and that actually hasn't changed here. Maybe that's because he's an asshole in real life (you'll never guess the city from which he hails
Philadelphia!). Anyway, in this movie it's almost as if his asshole personality is put back in its natural environment, and the result is a jerk you can pull for. I don't necessarily think he had to stretch his acting abilities all that far to appear in this, but he still does a fantastic job of portraying a man who is wholly unlike me but still completely relatable.
You can still get in on the ground floor of Jennifer Lawrence appreciation, since she's only been around for two years. But in those two years, she has two deserved best actress nominations (one of them here) and two roles in fan-pleasing box office genre movies. If she isn't on the fast track to becoming one of Hollywood's (much needed) leading ladies, I just don't know what to say. In Silver Linings, she plays a sort of mirror to Bradley's character, and likewise nails the jerk-for-whom-you-wish-good-things part (and yet she's from Kentucky
go figure).
Aside from the two main characters, there are still a few other noteworthy members of the cast. It appears as though this was an opportunity jumped on by Robert DeNiro to get back to quality acting, and I have to say that I've never before been genuinely entertained by Chris Tucker until now. I won't say that they offer any sort of counterbalance or opposition to the off-kilter nature of Cooper or Lawrence, because they don't. Everyone in this film is off his or her rocker at least a little bit, and that's the point.
In short:
I spent the entirety of Silver Linings torn between wanting to know what happens next and still not wanting to see what happens next. The unorthodoxy of the two leads draws me in in a way that I haven't experienced in a while, and I appreciate the opportunity to care about such flawed individuals. I don't believe Cooper had to reach to play his character, but that doesn't diminish his portrayal at all, and Lawrence keeps step with him the entire time. In the end, I think nothing more than spite for the city of Philly made me leave the rating for this one at an 8 out of 10 instead of more, but I still recommend it for anyone who can enjoy a completely unusual romantic comedy. At least I think that's what it is... I don't know what other category it would fit into.
Exceptions to the recommendation: anyone with a jealous wife or girlfriend who might make assumptions about why you're watching Jennifer Lawrence in this movie; anyone with a jealous husband or boyfriend who might make assumptions about why you're watching Bradley Cooper in this movie; if you think dancing scenes are stupid and contrived when added into romantic comedies; people who would like to go on thinking that they're the ones with problems; anyone who can't handle awkwardness fueled by inappropriate comments; if you really do have a seething hatred for the City of Brotherly Love.
Lincoln (2012)
DDL At His Best
Why you shouldn't see it:
Talking. If you aren't a fan of having dialog in your movies, then Lincoln probably isn't for you. So if you're one of the folks who voted for The Artist last year, you may not be too fond of this one. But, good thing for this movie, only two films lacking in dialog in the history of the Academy Awards have ever won best picture, and if all of the dialog was removed from this movie, it would probably just consist of opening and closing credits. And that would be a shame, because these are some old school credits without any entertainment value on their own.
Politics. It's not that they're spending the duration of the movie talking about anything. They spend the whole time talking in, about, and around politics. Even in what you would think would be personal family moments, there are still at least strong political undertones to the conversation. So you can imagine the scenes that are set in the political arena, where political discourse would make a good deal more sense. There are lots of men with funny hair saying lots of things to posture themselves in the debate.
History. In case you hadn't gathered, the plot of this film takes place in an historical setting, a little less than 150 years ago. And no, it's not an historical fiction, where they just take the setting and then add in a really crazy plot, a la Wild Wild West. It's a straight up history, 90% of which takes place within landmarks such as the White House and the Capitol Building (the one in Washington, D.C.). So if histories make you uncomfortable and/or bore you to tears, this one might not hold your interest.
Why you should see it:
Daniel Day-Lewis. This part is probably obvious. Or maybe it isn't obvious. If I'm going to be honest with you, I'll tell you that I watched this entire movie trying to convince myself that I was, in fact, watching Daniel Day-Lewis and not Abraham Lincoln. Try as I might, I was laughably unsuccessful. I could look the man right in the beard and not tell him from the man who lived a century and a half ago. I'm not sure what to say about Day-Lewis, other than the fact that I'm glad his method acting didn't lead him to demand that they film Lincoln's assassination using a real gun. With real bullets. I want to see more movies with this man being someone completely and totally not himself.
Tommy Lee Jones. He plays a supporting character (congressman Thaddeus Stevens), obviously, so his role isn't quite as prominent as Day-Lewis', but that doesn't mean he isn't essential to the film. And it's good for you that he is, because every time he shows up on camera, he steals the scene. His ornery attitude and the fact that he's a representative from Pennsylvania may make you think he's from Philadelphia, but he shockingly is not. His witty, sarcastic characterization frequently brings a much-needed lightness to the film.
Steven Spielberg. I'm not sure there was a person I was more disappointed in last year than Steven Spielberg. The fact that he would ever even think about releasing a movie as terrible as War Horse just makes me sad in my heart. The good news is that he has acquitted himself nicely here. He takes a moment of American history, finds the story behind it, and creates a gripping, expertly told tale. Much like Affleck with Argo, Spielberg is somehow able to make the audience feel suspense over the outcome of a plot that it already knows. It's not like Congress skipped the 13th Amendment. He's also done a fantastic job of casting, from the notable (and award- recognized) efforts of Day-Lewis, Jones, and Sally Field to any of the rest of the ensemble cast. Every time you turn around, there is another face that you recognize giving their hand in telling this important tale (keep an eye out for James Spader, who is excellent).
History. America hasn't always gotten everything right. Actually, they've gotten a lot of things wrong, but sometimes it's good to be reminded of the things it has gotten right. The 13th Amendment is one of those things, and I'm not sure many people realize just how close this country was to not passing it for many more years. It gives you a whole new appreciation for the will of a few extraordinary men and their clarity of vision to pass such an historically significant piece of legislation in the face of tremendous bigotry.
In Short:
Spielberg takes a part of history and makes it more. What could have been a drab exercise in the telling of the passage of a bit of legislation is instead a front row seat at one of the most important moments in US history. The whole film is shown in an almost dreamlike quality and pulls the audience into a powerful script featuring an iconic performance and generally excellent ensemble cast. I really want Abraham Lincoln to tell me another story, but sadly he's dead going on 150 years now, so instead I'll give this a 9 out of 10 and recommend it to anyone who can appreciate moments of historical significance.
Exceptions to the recommendation: anyone who would prefer to remain doomed to repeat history due to their lack of knowledge thereof; states' rights advocates who would be subject to high blood pressure from any increase in the power of the federal government; anyone who may just get confused that it's the republicans fighting on behalf of the minorities; people who were expecting to see Daniel Day-Lewis in a movie instead of Abraham Lincoln; people who are tired of the white-man-as-savior version of history; anyone who was expecting vampires or hunting thereof.
Life of Pi (2012)
Better At the End Than the Middle
Why you shouldn't see it:
Not to give away too much about this particular movie, but... it drags at parts. While it doesn't necessarily feel any longer than its two hour runtime, it does feel every minute of it. Have you ever watched a movie that takes place entirely on a lifeboat? Well, neither have I, but I've now seen half of a movie that takes place entirely on a lifeboat. I understand there's another movie - titled, coincidentally enough, Lifeboat - that takes place entirely on a lifeboat. Maybe someday I'll watch that Hitchcock piece, but until then I'll have to settle for this particular lifeboat-centric movie. Okay, okay, I have exaggerated slightly how much of this movie takes place on a lifeboat. The parts of the movie that take place on the lifeboat aren't technically entirely on the lifeboat, as there is also the 20-or-so-foot radius of open water around the lifeboat where some action also takes place. So there's that.
This one actually reminds me a fair amount of Cast Away in that the majority of the movie leans heavily on the ability of a single character to engage the audience's interest while he does nothing more than try to survive in extraordinary circumstances. The problem with that comparison is that Suraj Sharma is no Tom Hanks (full disclosure: I an almost creepy respect for Tom Hanks' acting chops, so I may be biased here). While the latter half of Cast Away thrives on Hanks' ability to make otherwise mundane on screen moments incredibly intriguing, Life of Pi just doesn't have as strong a feature actor to revolve its survival story around.
Strangely, some of the more dragging parts of the movie happen before Pi ever fatefully sets foot on a boat. Since the story isn't so much about a lifeboat as it is about a boy and the man that boy becomes, there's the sometimes regrettable necessity of building a backstory about where this person is coming from. It's hard to explain, but there is just something about this backstory that doesn't hold my attention nearly as well as others (for example, Cast Away). As a general rule, I spent a fair amount of the first half of the movie wondering things like, "When are they getting on the boat?", "Why are they not on the boat yet?", "Why do Indians wiggle their heads like that when they talk? Do they think it conveys any message to the listener other than induced confusion?", and, "Wait, does this movie even have a boat in it?"
Why you should see it:
Perhaps above I didn't mention a fairly big (literally and figuratively) additional character in the movie, specifically in the lifeboat: an adult male Bengal tiger. The tiger has a name, but I won't spoil that for you, and I will just refer to it here as "tiger." So anyway, what you thought was going to be a nice, laid back, somewhat boring adventure on a lifeboat turns out to be, in fact, a second-by-second struggle for survival against a freaking Bengal tiger. In case you're not as familiar as I am with Bengal tigers, just know that they average 500 pounds and are considered to be the most aggressive subspecies of an animal that is known to occasionally eat people.
Tiger has a funny name in the movie, and I will give credit to the author and screenwriter for occasionally adding in appropriate moments of humor and everyday humanity into an extraordinary coming of age story. If it hadn't been for the occasional giggle moments in the first half of the movie, I'm not sure I would have made it to the second half. Well, that's an exaggeration, since I'm pretty thoroughly stubborn when it comes to finishing movies, and even more so when it comes to best picture nominees. Still, suffice it to say that there wasn't much to hold my attention for the first hour.
All that being said, there is really one main reason that anyone would want to see Life of Pi, and that reason has everything to do with an appreciation for visual art. Once the film reaches the boat, nearly every frame of the movie one could take, frame, and put it up on his or her wall. The visuals are stimulating not only due to the fact that they include crystal clear detail and vivid, saturated colors, but they also depict images that are not frequently seen. You may not be aware, but an adult male Bengal tiger does not often chill out on a lifeboat playing with flying fish in the middle of the ocean. Even in little moments, Lee finds ways to create visual art out of his material. When the opening credits are rolling over footage of a small Indian zoo, the words on the screen behave like the animals on the screen. Sometimes it's the little things.
In Short:
Life of Pi is visually breathtaking at moments and beautiful for the rest of it. If you have interest in seeing it and aren't opposed to the whole 3D phenomenon, I recommend it as a readily available way to suck you even further into the visuals Lee has created. The story drags at parts for me, and but for the payoff at the end (which I won't spoil for you), I would be happy to write the whole thing off as eye candy and nothing more. But that payoff is there, and as a consequence I've been thinking about it since I saw it almost a week ago. If it weren't for the occasional slowness of the movie itself, I would rate it higher, but for now I'll settle at a 7 out of 10 and recommend it to anyone who likes pretty things and/or exploring the nature of storytelling.
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
Honestly a Little Overrated...
Why you shouldn't see it:
If you have a hard time relating to poor people or people who can't speak English, you might struggle with Beasts of the Southern Wild. I'm not talking about "poor people" as in they can only afford a feature phone instead of a smart phone, and I don't mean "poor people" as in they are forced to shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart. I'm talking about poor people in the sense that they haven't even heard of feature phones or Wal-mart. And I'm not talking about people who can't speak English because they were taught some other language as tykes; I'm talking about people who can't speak English because they are physically incapable of getting words of English out through their horribly creole lips.
The setting of this film is in a place called The Bathtub, which is a fictional... "neighborhood"? just outside the levees that protect New Orleans from flooding. These people live in a surreal sort of world where they seem to not only survive but thrive on their natural surroundings and the trash of civilization. Their lifestyle is actually fairly reminiscent of many takes on post- apocalyptic story lines. So really, anyone reading this review should have access to a computer and, therefore, be light years ahead of the good people of this movie and be largely unable to relate. Or so I assume.
I've stated before that I'm pretty good at watching movie trailers, and I'll still stand by that claim. But every once in a while, my skills will fail me, and various other factors will lead to my expectations of a movie being fairly different from the movie itself. This is one of those occasions. Specifically, the trailer and synopsis for Beasts lead one to believe that it is a much more fantastical film than it ends up being. With the exception of one part of the story, nearly every bit of it ends up being pretty firmly grounded in (a somewhat harsh) reality. It didn't help my opinion of the movie much that I thought the acting of 9-year-old Quvenzhane Wallis didn't strike me as any better than "decent" for a girl of her age, despite all of the rave reviews I had heard to the contrary.
Why you should see it:
While I don't anticipate any one of you being able to empathize all that strongly with the living squalor in which the protagonist of this film finds herself, I do imagine some of you can relate to her loss of a parent. Though I hope for your sake that you can't relate to her losing a parent and then having to deal with the other parent becoming seriously ill.
The metaphorical nature of the storytelling upon which Beasts is built is fairly evocative, with the world of a little girl literally coming apart while she has to deal with her father's illness. I can only imagine what it would be like to go through such a situation, but I don't believe it would be much different from how it is portrayed in the movie. In figurative terms, at least. I rather doubt that if I had, at any point, lost my parents, it would have been in the shambles that these people consider their homes.
In Short:
Beasts of the Southern Wild is as straightforward a coming of age tale as you can get while still involving the backward people of the Louisiana Bayou and mythological prehistoric beasts. The metaphor is effective, if not terribly complex, and it results in a quaint tale of a little girl's struggle with her particular lot in life. I rated it a 7 out of 10 for its successes despite its relative simplicity, and will recommend it as worth watching once, though I don't expect it to leave any powerfully lasting impressions.
Exceptions to the recommendation: if thick accents lead would lead you to turning on subtitles if only you didn't hate reading your movies; if you suffer from hydrophobia; if you suffer from cryptozoophobia; if you suffer from parthenophobia; or, more simply, if you prefer your women (particularly your pre-pubescent women) to be of the more passive variety; people who struggle enough with the parents who haven't left them.
Les Misérables (2012)
For Fans and/or Novices
Why you shouldn't see it:
You probably heard that Les Miserables is a musical. For the uninitiated, in this case, "musical" means nary a line is spoken. All dialog, internal or otherwise, is conveyed to the audience via song (and occasional dance). So if that sort of thing bothers you, I can't imagine that you'll get much of a kick out of this. But really, you've been fairly warned. I may be alone in this, but I think having an entirely musical movie is dangerous territory to tread, because of the difficult balancing act between having catchy tunes and songs that actually advance the plot. It seems like being catchy requires a hook, and most hooks are repetitive, and repetitive things don't really progress. Aside from that, the occasional downside of the musical format is partly inaudible dialog, which in turn stunts the progression of the plot for your mind if you didn't prepare for your film/play-watching by reading the Wikipedia article.
Speaking of which, if you do happen to peruse the Wikipedia article, you may surmise that this film is in fact based on a stage musical, which in turn was based on a novel. And not just any novel. A five part, 1500 page, 530,000 word novel that spans nearly 20 years and appears on Wikipedia's list of longest novels, right alongside the likes of War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged. In an industry that typically struggles to compress 150 page novels into two hour movies, I'm wondering what brilliant individual saw this piece that was ten times longer as a two and a half hour trip to the theater.
Apologies in advance, as I'm well aware that Les Mis is a wildly popular stage production
I guess the above is more of a gripe with the original musical mind that saw the novel and decided to turn it into a play. From a story standpoint, the heavily downsized movie version seems disjointed to me, with the main culprits being the two times the screen just flashed the words "Nine years later..." How is this all one story? It isn't. It's five stories with common characters. Everything - namely the characters and their relations to one another - just comes across as abrupt when they change. I'm assuming these transitions are either more gradual or are presented in a manner more sensical in the novel, but in a shortened version, they only confused me. Really, I'm trying to figure out how the play became so popular, and I'm leaning toward the music being the key.
Why you should see it:
This is apparently a highly controversial point, but the main reason I would recommend anyone to see this movie is really just for the moments with Anne Hathaway, and, specifically, her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream." This was an instance where the director's desire to have his actors act really paid off in my opinion, and I couldn't avoid getting goosebumps when I saw it. Some people will point to other performances of said song as much prettier renditions, but this is a woman in complete despair... Why would she sing beautifully in this moment? Anyway, I thought that one scene alone was fantastic and deserving of Hathaway's Oscar nod (and probable win).
Some of the other casting is also well-done, with Hugh Jackman (nominated), Samantha Barks (nominated for other awards) and Eddie Redmayne (nominated for other awards) as obvious examples. Each was able to properly portray their character with appropriate enough musical inclination to also sing their pieces well.
Those songs happen to be, as with many things about this movie, hit or miss. Some are fun and catchy, and others appear to be mostly expository and had a harder time sticking with me, a first time viewer/listener. I also understand that the film took quite a few liberties with the original music, editing and remixing it so that it is definitely a different interpretation of the material.
Otherwise, the production value for this movie is great. When the opening number started, I got pretty excited about the scale of it all. I'm also pretty fond of the movie poster, which did a great job at capturing my imagination with Cosette's almost haunting eyes. The strange thing about this big budget, large scale production is that the director spends a lot of time showing the audience very little other than the face of the person who is presently singing.
In Short:
My main complaint about Les Miserables is actually kind of strange, considering the fact that my favorite movie of the year may very well have been Cloud Atlas, but it seems like simply has too much plot to be boiled down into 2.5 hours. The only real reasons I would consider to be must- see for this particular fare would be if you're either a musical fan not familiar with the original stage production or a super fan who needs all things Les Mis. In light of that, I give it my first take-it-or-leave-it recommendation, and rated it a 6 out of 10 mostly for the efforts of Hathaway and Jackman (on whom I have a slight man crush), and the fact that having exposure to a culturally significant work such as this can do a person some good.
Amour (2012)
Huge Age Disconnect, I Guess
Why you shouldn't see it:
The obvious reason that jumps out at you is that Amour is a foreign language film, leading you to (unless you know French) read your movie. I'll take this opportunity to go off on a tangent addressing that very point. It's not that foreign languages bother me in and of themselves, or that I consider reading to be all that laborious. The problem that I frequently run into is that I am a slow reader. Accordingly, if I'm watching a movie with subtitles, I find myself spending too much time reading and not enough time taking in things like, oh, say, the movie that the dialog is really just supposed to supplement.
The story revolves around a very old French couple who live in an apartment in Paris. Through the course of the movie, you meet, to the best of my memory, three other characters, but each of them are little more than afterthoughts. And the plot advances entirely within the confines of the aforementioned apartment. So if watching two old people do nothing all in one place for two hours sounds to you like a boring affair, watching this most likely won't do anything to dispel you of that opinion.
Aside from all of the set pieces being tailor made for absolutely nothing happening, the way that the film was made also plays a large part in making the viewer feel little to no excitement. I'm sure you're familiar with the kinetic style in which movies these days are edited, creating fast pacing by cutting quickly from one shot to the next. Well that doesn't happen here. Shots go on for minutes at a time, unbroken and unchanged. Just two old people looking at each other. Or not looking at each other. I don't remember where they were looking, because I was too busy reading. Another element that creates a sort of dead atmosphere is the lack of a soundtrack. All of the sound in this movie comes in the form of foreign language speaking and - very occasional - piano music that the characters listen to.
I don't know if it's standard for people to act like these do once they get old, but everything on screen came off to me as stilted and formal. All of the dialog strikes me as very appropriate when speaking with strangers, which is strange, because almost all of the dialog is exchanged between a husband and wife, their daughter, and a former prized pupil. It's possible that the French just didn't translate well into English, leading me to think that there's an emotionless disconnect that isn't actually there. But then that wouldn't explain why everyone also acts (in their tone and manner) appropriately cold and distant, unless there is also a mistranslation between how French people and American people act. Regardless, when two people were interacting with each other, I couldn't tell whether they were complete strangers or dear relatives.
Why you should see it:
I'm honestly having a real hard time with this part. See, I know that (REVIEW SPOILER!!!) at the end I'm going to recommend that people not watch this movie, and then I have to give exceptions to that recommendation afterward. But I'm afraid that if I say anything positive about it here, I won't have any material left for the bullet points.
I'm staring, right this moment, at a couple of ratings for Amour. IMDb has it at an 8.0, while Metacritic has it at a 94.
I'm speechless.
I won't say that I always agree with every assessment of a movie. I know full well that I like some movies that other people don't, and vice versa. But there is a pretty big difference between agreeing with something and understanding it. I don't agree that Angelina Jolie is all that pretty or the earth is flat, but I understand why someone might think so. Here is an instance where I literally go cross-eyed whenever someone mentions how "good" or "brilliant" or "watchable" this film is.
In Short:
Amour couldn't be a much less exciting movie. If you are looking for something to keep you entertained, interested, or even awake, look elsewhere. To be perfectly honest, the only thing that really captured my imagination was the concept that there were sufficient people in the Academy who considered this their favorite film of the year. I guess I could, somehow, understand a rather morbid individual possibly appreciating this film, but to declare it their favorite would seemingly require an exceptionally special person. Apparently I'm wrong though, and people do like it. I don't know what to tell you. Regardless, I will happily give this movie a 3 out of 10 and suggest that everyone remember there are no ways for them to get these 2 hours of their lives back.
The Artist (2011)
Mostly Celebrating Hollywood's "Golden Age"
Pros: Obviously, a 1920's-style silent film is going to depend even more upon its acting than your average modern movie, as it doesn't have the benefits of advanced visual effects, sound effects, Technicolor, or, you know, dialogue to flesh out a story. That being said, this movie did a great job of casting the leads with actors who could fairly effortlessly convey emotions and thoughts merely through their facial expressions, body language, and general pantomiming. Jean Dujardin especially had a very expressive face, and the director hit a home run in casting his dog, which was, of course, adorable.
My favorite part of the movie was probably the dream sequence, which pretty deftly sums up George's mental and emotional state. That being said, I also enjoyed viewing the film with an eye for any anachronisms within it. They were clearly trying to mimic a 1920's production, but there were some things that they did in the movie that would not have been possible in a silent film from that era. There is a fun list on IMDb of actual anachronisms in the movie, which people- with-way-too-much-time-on-their-hands have noticed and detailed. God bless IMDb.
Cons: I know I said the acting was strong enough to carry the film in spite of the other missing elements that we have all taken for granted with modern movie making, but if I'm going to be honest... I like those other elements. A lot. Specifically the spoken dialogue part. It allows for so much more depth in a movie, and a significantly higher entertainment factor. Also, in order to properly convey emotions and thoughts in a voiceless movie, actors are forced to be pretty campy and mug at the camera a lot. I've just never been real big on that kind of overacting, which was prominent in earlier movies, also due in part to the legacy of stage acting in film.
Overall: I appreciate the attempt to rekindle an older style of storytelling, but I'm pretty confident that there was a good reason for the advancements in movie-making technologies, and I'm generally appreciative of the effects of science here. Now, I'm aware that the mere presence of these technologies does not mean that every movie these days (or even the majority) contains those extra layers, but luckily they're still available. While I don't regret having seen this movie, I wasn't particularly enthralled during the viewing, and I have no overwhelming interest in seeing it again. In the end, I couldn't kick the feeling that it was just one giant exercise in glad-handing the glorious history of Hollywood, so I glad-handed it a 6 out of 10.
Moneyball (2011)
A Little Too Dramatic?
Pros: I'm not going to say that I'm in love with Brad Pitt or anything, but... isn't he dreamy? Sadly, we aren't treated to any shirtless Brad, but he is shown working out a few times and is generally wearing form-fitting shirts. On the flip side, we are also not treated to any shirtless Jonah Hill, so... That's always appreciated. I don't really know anything about Billy Beane, but as far as I can tell, Pitt's character is how I would want Beane to be. He does a quality job of breaking out his dramatic chops of yesteryear while still including some of that boyish goofy charm that he has more recently developed. Speaking of acting, for all of you wondering what Jonah Hill's name is doing among the nominees for best supporting actor, please allay your fears. While I can't speak for every single supporting actor who appeared in a film in 2011, I can say that Hill's dramatic skills are indeed present, and I don't think he is misplaced with his nomination. He portrays the intellectual baseball nerd affably well (I didn't use "affably" correctly there, so don't bother looking it up to check me), and the only thing I would have liked more is if the movie had dived more deeply into the new age baseball metrics. But that's probably just the nerd side of me talking; I'm sure I don't speak for everyone.
Cons: Does Brad Pitt have a bet with someone about the number of times he can be seen eating on camera? Not just in this movie, but in all of his movies of late. And not just any food, but generally junk food that he's just shoveling into his mouth... Is he trying to brag about his metabolism or something? I don't really get it.
What I do get, however, is what a five tool player is. And I understood that after the first time those five tools were listed out. The next couple dozen listings weren't really necessary for me to grasp the concept. I suppose it's the point of the movie that baseball scouts and executives focus on the wrong things, but aren't there any other wrong things for them to focus on, other than fielding, running, throwing, hitting, and/or hitting with power?
And while we're at it, let's remember that we're talking about scouts who have been doing this thing for decades, and who have known those same five tools and been making the same assessments about kids for many years. Why do they need to stumble over their words? Shouldn't they know all this by now? I'm assuming there's a desire by some directors of "true stories" to have spoken lines be a little more clumsy and sputtered, because, you know, that's how real people talk. This makes me a little torn. Yes, I like realism. But at the same time, I go to the theaters in part to escape reality. If I want to listen to old men stumble over their words while they describe in broad, sweeping statements how good a ballplayer is, I'll go to the Polo Grounds. In the meantime, I'd like to watch these highly skilled actors deliver their lines with a greater degree of comfort (within their roles, of course), while I, as a responsible movie-goer, bear in mind that I am not, in fact, looking through a window on the real world.
While I'm not looking through a window at the real world, though, I am looking at a portrayal of it. And in this particular case, I'm looking at a portrayal of a baseball team that has been "gutted." Who did they lose again? Oh right, I should remember since they repeated the names Giambi, Damon, and Isringhausen even more often than the five tools mentioned previously. Even with this gutting, the A's still had the best starting rotation in baseball along with one of the elite shortstops in the game. And despite this flash back to reality, the screenwriters and director feel the need to hit you in the face with a dramatic 2x4 when you watch their movie.
Overall: That being said, the movie did suck me right in. It was well-made, with good pacing, compelling characters, an interesting enough story, and a thoroughly woven theme. And when some of the dialog wasn't awkwardly stuttered through, it was sharp and entertaining. Oh, did I mention the movie has Brad Pitt? I'm sheepishly giving it an 8 out of 10, while taking a step back to remind myself that I just saw a movie about generally managing a baseball team, not about curing cancer.
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Not Much Other Than "Cute"
Pros: Woody Allen's famously witty and neurotic tendencies are made more human and approachable by Owen Wilson, whose Gil is a very familiar character to the ones he's played in the past and strikes me as a good stepping stone into the world of Allen. I really appreciate the fact that this movie is a statement on this year's Academy Awards, where only one nominee for best picture is firmly grounded in the present. Allen really couldn't have picked a better year to make this into an Academy-worthy film, as its overarching theme serves to incredulously point out the irony of its inclusion in the nominees this year in particular.
Cons: As much as I can appreciate most of Gil's personality, I just can't relate to his unabashed love of the city of Paris. Since I've never been there, I will admit that this might have to do with my deep-seated reactionary attitude toward all things French. But honestly, what's so great about every street, building, sign, and cobblestone in that city? Also, pretty much every character in this movie not named Gil could stand to receive a hearty punch in the face. I probably wouldn't have fared very well in the 1920s, listening to speech patterns like that all the time. Speaking of the 1920s, I felt like I could have stood to know a bit more about that generation of writers, musicians, and artists to really appreciate a good deal of the portrayals and references littered throughout the movie. Although if Hemingway reads like he spoke in this, I'm glad I haven't read his books after all.
Overall: I won't say I disliked watching the movie, and there were a number of moments that made me actually laugh out loud (something I'm not typically wont to do alone in a dark room). However, I spent most of the movie wondering if it would arrive at an eventual point and whether I would care. Ultimately it did wind up with a theme that I believe ought to be quite strenuously stressed with some people, but it wasn't enough to make me think of it as anything other than a "cute" film that really only garners a best picture mention due to this particular year's crop of nominees. After some wrestling with an eight rating, I eventually settled on a 7 out of 10.
The Help (2011)
Great Idea, Decently Executed
Pros: The entire cast does a fantastic job of filling the roles that they were chosen to fill. Specifically, Viola Davis makes the most of her limited opportunity and turns her character into an appropriate central figure, while Octavia Spencer makes a fine effort of stealing every scene she's in. I would think it would take some courage on the part of Bryce Dallas Howard to play the role she was cast in, as most people, upon viewing, might be tempted to see her as the "Godless woman" that she portrays. I always have a little extra respect for those actors all while I'm struggling not to yell at their characters through the screen. The highlight performance to me, however, is Jessica Chastain, who depicts an individual incredibly lovable in her naiveté. She just doesn't realize that black people are supposed to be viewed as second class citizens by their white - and superior (<-- sarcasm) - counterparts, which makes her the most easily likable character in the movie (to me).
Cons: I tend to struggle with works like this. On the one hand, it appears to be doing some good by shedding light on the sh*tty circumstances for black people in the deep south during the time of segregation. On the other hand, however, there is room for the argument that it doesn't go far enough, and that it is arguably still detrimental to equality by continuing some stereotypes. I generally end up siding with the idea that any progress is a positive sign, and the only ultimate "cure" for inequality is time, while movies like this (and hopefully real world people like some of the characters in it) can help usher along the process.
But I do still have a hard time with dialog as cliché and hard to swallow as, "You is good, you is kind, you is special." I can't say for certain whether this kind of dialog is appropriate to the time, place, and people. I'm aware that African American Vernacular English does exist, but I'm hardly an expert on it, and as such I cannot figure out where my comfort line should be drawn with its use. Parts of the dialog in this movie seemed to make, for instance, the strong central figure of Aibileen still appear weak. Some aspects of the script were actually pretty good and entertaining, with sharp and funny dialog and a plot worth following after the first half hour or so. But then Davis gets saddled with lines like that... It really is pretty impressive that she was able to shine through some of what the author/scriptwriter decided she ought to say.
Something that bothered me on a bit more of a superficial level was the fact that Emma Stone's character was supposed to be unattractive. I understand Hollywood likes to cast attractive young actresses as "the ugly girl," but they at least generally try to make her look ugly. This movie didn't even try to do that. Stone just kept walking around, looking her normal cute self, while everyone referred to how visually unappealing she was. Let's have a little more effort there, filmmakers...
Overall: A number of scenes were indeed entertaining to watch, but all too much of it just made me uncomfortable. I don't blame the movie, of course, for portraying people and situations that are all too real and have every reason to make me uncomfortable (oh yea, and pretty angry). I encourage you to sit down and watch it, and if you are able to sit through the whole thing without being bothered by the actions of any of the white people in it, tell me so that I can know I have no interest in talking to you ever again. All told, it's a decent movie with good acting, an engaging plot, and a shaky script, and that ultimately doesn't really have anything other than a decent message to make it special. While wanting to give it a higher rating because I believe in the idea behind the story, I ended up giving it a 7 out of 10 just because the movie itself didn't knock my socks off.
The Tree of Life (2011)
More Fun to Think/Talk About Than to Watch
Pros: Okay, I'm about to pitch the perfect movie to you. Seriously, there's no way you can screw up this pitch. Are you ready? Here it is: Brad Pitt and Dinosaurs. But not in the same scene. That would be ridiculous. Don't be ridiculous. No, Mr. Pitt and these dinosaurs exist millions of years apart from each other, but they're still in the same movie. The cohesiveness of the plot thread that binds them is up to you. No matter what you come up with, I'm quite confident that you will make a winner for me.
The marketing for this film was spot on. A potential viewer could watch the trailer 100 times on loop and have the same knowledge of what happened as someone who actually saw the movie. Another potential viewer could just stare at the movie poster for two and a half hours and understand as much of the plot as I do. Okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration. But I stress the word slight. Like, to the extreme. There's really very little embellishment there. I could talk about this movie, at length, around someone who's never seen it, and I wouldn't have to worry about ruining it for them.
Accordingly, it really is satisfying to be able to say that I've seen it, and then talk about it in pretty much any manner I feel like. It's like I now share a special connection with the two people I watched it with, because we've all experienced something that makes very little sense. In the future, I'm confident I'll be able to make a reference to one of them that won't make any more sense to any of us than it does to anyone else, but it'll still get that knowing look in return. Maybe a smile, but more likely a scowl. Either way, it'll be special. And confusing.
Did I mention there are dinosaurs?
In all seriousness, Brad Pitt really must have eaten his Wheaties this year, because he does another very good job here. Portraying the great American patriarch, he sheds his generally off- color personality and goes the straight and narrow as a complex character torn between his dreams and his responsibilities. He simultaneously gives us a father figure with whom we can identify and struggle. While he's nominated for his work in Moneyball, this performance is probably more deserving of recognition, so I will gladly give that recognition here. (You're welcome, Mr. Pitt.)
Cons: Is it possible for a movie to have so many non sequiturs that the plot itself becomes a non sequitur? Because I think that's what happened here. The thematic elements of the movie are constant, but the plot almost seems like an afterthought. What I said above about the trailer and poster giving as much clarity of vision as the movie itself was said with a completely straight face. The style of the movie is just one of images and impressions. Many of the images are actually quite evocative... In moderation. When they make up the bulk of the film, it becomes a bit much.
I was tempted here to just start listing off some of the (many) random images shown throughout the movie (really, they're ubiquitous), but then I decided that I didn't want you to hate my review as much as a lot of people hate this movie.
I've mentioned previously how I feel about movies that lack dialog. The thing is, while it makes sense in a silent film, it makes very little sense in a movie that has dialog. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Blake, that didn't make any sense what you said just now." Welcome to The Tree of Life. Catching a theme? The point is that, yes, there is talking, which is an excellent device for advancing any plot. The problem is that the dialog in this particular movie tends to take what plot was there and tear it up and put a match to it. Most lines evoke a thought from the viewer like, "Wait, why the hell did he say that?" and, "... What does that even mean?" and, even less eloquent, "Huh?" And then most lines in the movie are, well, absent. I think there's a stretch of a solid half hour (although it feels like it's closer to an hour) at one point where no one says anything (because, as we all know, dinosaurs can't talk).
Overall: While I was watching the movie, if there wasn't either Brad Pitt or a dinosaur on the screen (which was about eighty percent of the movie), I was doing some combination of furrowing my brow, scratching my head, looking at the clock, and wondering when my roommate Jeff was going to say something really angry and biting. It was definitely a restless movie watching experience. Constant mental fidgeting, trying to figure out which way was up. The funny thing is that, in hindsight, I kind of appreciate it for what it was, which is a fairly spot on impressionist representation of growing up (with daddy issues), all the while questioning existence. It is a thoroughly introspective work that (either fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) doesn't really offer any answers. Just questions. I can dig it. But then I remember the extremely painful experience of actually watching the movie, and I give it a 5 out of 10 while I hope that I never have to sit through it again.
Argo (2012)
Expertly Crafted, Standard Espionage Thriller
Why you shouldn't see it:
The strength of Argo also happens to be its weakness. More so than a lot of modern Hollywood fare, this is a film about its story, and that story is about people in a not envious situation. It has been branded as a "thriller," but despite a riot at the beginning and some brief "action" at the end, the majority of this movie's "thrills" and plot advancement are presented in the form of dialog and tense expressions. Accordingly, if you aren't one to care about the story of a hostage crisis in the early 80's, you probably won't care about this movie, since there isn't much in the way of real exciting set pieces or even off-color moments to take your mind off of the tension of it all.
As I'm sure you're aware, Argo is based on true events. I can't speak for everyone, but movies that are supposed to have any relation to true events can make me uncomfortable. Did you know that Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Silence of the Lambs were both "inspired by" the same events? I'm a big fan of getting things right if you're going to try to tackle actual history, or you may as well just make up your own story and let it succeed (Silence of the Lambs) or fail (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) on its own merits. I can't speak for the veracity of any of these true events, since they're based on a top secret operation that no one even knew about until 20 years after it happened. Even now most people just remember the events surrounding this movie and not the events of the movie itself. That can be a smart move by a filmmaker, as it means you can tell the story how you think it needs to be told. On the other hand, it can be a risk, because you're telling a story about which no one necessarily cares.
Why you should see it:
Ben Affleck. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Blake, I've seen Ben Affleck, and I've seen enough Ben Affleck." Well you're kind of missing the point. Honestly, he does a fine job acting in Argo, though I wouldn't say his work is anything special. But did you know that Affleck also directs movies? He has only directed two movies (Gone Baby Gone and The Town) previous to this one, but I wouldn't rate either of them below "very good," and this one follows in their quality footsteps.
I just finished saying that Argo is about very little other than its story about people talking about a stressful situation. To further complicate the task for the filmmaker, everyone already knows how the story ends. And yet, despite these handicaps, Affleck somehow makes a suspenseful movie! There was a woman next to me in the theater, saying things aloud to the screen, along the lines of, "No, don't go through that door!" It's hard to explain how exactly this suspense is pulled off, but I think it has mostly to do with skilled actors playing identifiable characters in intimate settings. When the embassy gets stormed, you feel like you're about to get blindfolded and gagged by the mob yourself. When Affleck's Mendes is talking to Cranston's O'Donnell about how six Americans are about to get lynched for no good reason (depending on your viewpoint, I guess), you feel like you're standing right there next to them.
Speaking of Affleck and Cranston, it's possible I didn't give enough credit to the former earlier. The role of Mendes as a character is to be the steadying force for the rest of the characters and story, and he performs that role admirably. Because Affleck is able to pull this off, the character actors like Cranston, Goodman, and Arkin are able to present their own characters as the film's much needed engaging changes of pace. That being said, the highlights of the movie as far as entertainment factor goes are definitely those very same character actors. Their interplay with each other and Affleck is always worthy of screen time, and I spent a good deal of the movie waiting for the next time one of them would pop up.
In Short:
As you may remember me saying before, this movie isn't about anything more than a fairly straightforward story, so you're left at the end of it wondering in part what the point was. But I will say that the ability of the filmmakers to take a story that everyone knows the ending to and turn it into a suspense thriller is, well, impressive. Honestly, Ben Affleck as a capable storyteller doesn't come as a surprise, as he has a - admittedly limited - pedigree of making quality films. To make this particular quality film, he successfully turns an otherwise straightforward story into one of entertaining and empathetic characters in a surprisingly suspenseful situation. As far as talking movies go, I rate this one as an 8 out of 10, and I recommend it for anyone who can appreciate a good historical suspense/thriller/drama.
Exceptions to the recommendation: if you have had too much Ben Affleck; if you positively identify with revolutionary Iran; if you have incredibly sensitive ears; anyone for whom suspenseful situations lead to nothing more than stress and high blood pressure; individuals who would like to go on thinking that the "Canadian Caper" was, in fact, Canadian; if you prefer to keep Hollywood as far as possible away from your understanding of historical events; people who would like to remain blissfully unaware that Ben Affleck is a worthwhile Hollywood type when placed safely behind the camera.
Django Unchained (2012)
Mostly Standard Recent Tarantino Revenge Fantasy
Why you shouldn't see it:
If you've seen Inglourious Basterds and thought once was enough, you're not likely to find much worth reviewing here. This is another of Quentin Tarantino's fantasy revenge flicks, of the sub- genre that rails on systemic injustices.
Beyond that, there are a number of pretty obvious reasons that will probably jump out at you right off the bat, even if you haven't seen the movie. Most of these reasons boil down to whether or not you are comfortable with confronting humanity's occasionally (or frequently, if it's the deep south in the 1850's) ugly nature. This is a movie that makes white Americans uncomfortable with being white Americans in much the same way that Basterds probably made German non-Jews uncomfortable with being German non-Jews.
This film unabashedly displays outrageous racism and almost cartoonish violence (frequently using the high visual contrast of bright red blood spattering on bright white set pieces). Two things that, like it or not, are prevalent recurrences in the way mankind has conducted itself through the years. If you like to close your eyes, cover your ears, and sing "The Song That Never Ends" when you're confronted with either of these things, because you like to think happy thoughts about the good ways in which people treat each other, this movie is not for you, and you will likely find it a tremendous waste of your time. Unless you really like singing that particular song, I guess.
Why you should see it:
It should be noted, however, that the way that Django and Basterds make an individual want to check his cultural baggage at the door is wholly unrelated to the way in which movies like Amistad and Schindler's List do the same thing. While the two Spielberg movies make you take a magnifying glass to our past somewhat against your will, the two Tarantino movies are more like your charismatic buddy who comes along and says, "Hey, check this out."
Django takes American slavery, shines a bright light on it, and hands it a microphone so that it has the opportunity to show what it's about. In a way that possibly only Tarantino can do it, the movie takes a dark subject matter and turns it so ridiculous that the audience can't help but have fun with it. Everyone in the theater found a measure of satisfaction each and every time a slaver died, regardless of the colors involved. The movie also adds a sort of vindication for those of you who saw Basterds and would have rooted for Colonel Hans Landa if not for your disparate stances on the right of Jewish people to remain living. Pretty much the same character seems to travel back in time to strangely play a more (his name is Dr. King) or less (he's a white German) proto civil rights advocate whom you can really get behind and cheer along.
There are a couple enjoyable moments that sort of jarringly take you out of the main thread of the story with their surprising cameos and/or humorous observations on otherwise revolting situations. I'm not necessarily a fan of Jamie Foxx or Christoph Waltz, as I find the former unmemorable and the latter both lacking in range and somewhat creepy in the one role that he has settled into. But in this movie, Foxx does a good job of taking his dynamic role and morphing the character throughout the course of his story arc, and Waltz is more fun when he's "on your side" (which, ironically, is the side that kills people like you if you're white). I will say, however, that the acting highlight of the movie for me is Leonardo DiCaprio going largely against his type of controlled and almost closed characters in other movies to boisterous and cartoonishly evil in this one.
In Short:
I had originally started writing this post by going on a long rant about Quentin Tarantino when I realized I hadn't really said anything about the movie itself. And maybe that's the point. Most of you already have a pretty good idea whether or not you enjoy Tarantino movies. I ended up giving this one an 8 out of 10, and I recommend it as a good watch.
Exceptions to the recommendation: if you're someone who knows for sure that you just don't appreciate QT's work (which probably means that you just don't appreciate film and the history thereof (and may God have mercy on your soul)); if you're one of those aforementioned people who sometimes struggles with harsh realities; if you're someone who sometimes struggles with revenge fantasies; if you hate seeing Quentin Tarantino try (active word) to act; if you're a white person who sometimes forgets to apply your filter and uncontrollably repeats things that you think are funny; or, by extension, if you're an impressionable young child... hold off for a bit, and I'll explain when you're older.
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011)
Blatant Emotion-Grab
Pros: I don't know if I've mentioned this to you, but I'm kind of a big Tom Hanks fan. In the world of cinema, I'm pretty confident that a better actor cannot be found currently or in the past. And for another one of his caliber to come along in the future would simply be super awesome. Almost like the Second Coming of Christ, but without any of the sacrilege a comparison like that might normally imply. Accordingly, I spent much of the movie hoping for Mr. Hanks to pop back up on the screen, so that I could cry some more about the fact that he was dead (that's a spoiler only if you know absolutely nothing about the movie, by the way). This wasn't necessarily Hanks' best work, but I'm not going to complain about any opportunity to see him strut his stuff on the silver screen. Especially when he's providing me with an excellent parental role model, whereby his primary function in life appeared to be blatantly lying to his son in a playful sort of "I'm going to fill my kid's head with so many stupid little factual inaccuracies that he's going to have a complex when he's older" way.
Oskar Schell is the most eloquent child in the world. He speaks every line as though he's a thirty year old Shakespearean actor, instead of the ineffectually speaking ten year old that he ought to be. It's really important to me to be able to watch a movie and understand what it is that the characters are saying to me. That is, if there's talking at all. Some movies this year just sidestepped that problem completely. So anyway, it was nice that, quite unbelievably, a small child was able to deliver each of his lines in a manner that I could both hear and understand. In the emotionally raw reality of this movie, you have a little boy able to deliver lines in a very straight laced, non-speech-impeded, discernible manner. Wait a second...
Cons: Oskar Schell is the most eloquent child in the world. He speaks every line as though he's a thirty year old Shakespearean actor, instead of the ineffectually speaking ten year old that he ought to be. Why in the world does he speak so clearly? It's actually kinda creepy. And eventually very much wore on my nerves. I suppose it fit his character as some sort of improperly undiagnosed Asperger's-affected boy, but that's honestly not really the kind of character with whom I'm prone to identify.
I also couldn't identify with his motivation through the course of the movie. I've never particularly struggled with death, but that's most likely some sort of character flaw of my own, and I've also never had to go through the loss of, say, the only person in the world with whom I share some sort of bond. Or even the loss of a parent, for that matter. I'll count myself lucky on that front, obviously, and I will momentarily admit that I actually do remember "The Worst Day" and didn't find myself immune to the emotional effects of the movie.
Overall: Anyway, when I was able to take myself out of the fairly brow-beating sentiment of the movie and think about it objectively, it didn't necessarily strike me as well done or as eloquent as the boy himself. I think most of the effect of the movie just comes from the ability of nearly every audience member being able to identify with either losing a parent or with the horrific events of 9/11 itself. Or both. And it seemed to cash in fairly ruthlessly on those two things, almost using the crying version of a laugh track, indicating to the audience when they ought to choke up. *Cue double-emotion-whammy Tom-Hanks-as-Falling-Man flashback as I, with teary eyes, give the movie a 6 out of 10.*
Hugo (2011)
A Movie About Movies
Pros: Granted, this movie is derived from a book, which has assumedly fleshed out the world in which the story takes place. I haven't read the book, but I've sampled some of the pictures within it, and there's just no comparison between the illustrations of the book and the visuals of the movie. Coupled with the wonderful visuals is a very deeply interwoven audio track. Each scene practically jumps off of the screen and draws you right into the world Scorsese created. The majority of the plot takes place in a train station in Paris, but given how thoroughly the filmmakers fleshed out that world, you can't help but want to explore more of it.
We're all aware of how Hollywood is jumping all over the 3D bandwagon so that they can charge more for admission. But there are some instances where the technology is actually a useful tool and enhances the storytelling effect. This is one of those instances. The visuals become literally enveloping and greatly aid in the effect of pulling the viewer into the story. They are neither campy and in-your-face nor an afterthought, but instead they create a fully realized world that hugs the viewer in a magical blanket. (...Did I just use the word "magical" in something other than a very literal sense? I'm afraid I did.)
Cons: The rather sizable problem with the movie, however, is that the compelling nature of technological achievements in storytelling is completely at odds with the more traditional storytelling devices, like the script and acting. The audio-visuals are busy sucking me into a world where the story and characters are trying to push me right back out. It's a very conflicting viewing experience, to say the least. The plot is one that I really couldn't care less about, but that could be remedied with a decent script. The main character, Hugo, rarely does anything other than flash those enchantingly bright blue eyes, cry, and say things that are completely void of substance. Little better can be said for the remainder of the ensemble.
The cast sports the likes of Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Sascha Baron Cohen, and Chloe Moretz, but in a vacuum, you would probably conclude that all of these people suck at movies. Moretz plays her character of a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed tyke to an aggravating tee. Cohen falls flat as the comic relief. Kingsley does an alright job, but he suffers from the same problem as the rest of the lot, and the movie as a whole, in that it's aiming to appeal to your average 10 year old. Don't get me wrong; there's a place for movies aimed at 10 year olds. I loved movies when I was 10. But I thought the median age of the Academy votership was 62, not 10. What is this doing as a Best Picture nominee?
Overall: If you really want to watch this movie, I highly recommend forking out the extra cash to see it in 3D. It does the best job in recent memory of completely pulling the viewer into its world, and it's a great example for how 3D can enhance a story. The problem is that enhancing a story from "bad" still doesn't do a whole lot. This is another case where I get the sinking suspicion that the Academy saw a movie about the history of movies and leapt at the opportunity to heap it with praise, even if it was, in some cases, undeserved. While I gag at the fact that it also got a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay, I give it a 6 out of 10.
The Descendants (2011)
Good If Not Extraordinary
Pros: Let's be honest for a moment. You come to this movie for George Clooney, and if we're going to keep being honest, he's certainly worth the price of admission, suiting his best actor nomination nicely. But what may be surprising to some of you is the fact that his co-star, Shailene Woodley, does her part to keep pace with the much higher pedigreed Clooney. While other characters provide welcome comic relief and dramatic foils, Clooney's Matt and Woodley's Alex give the film a very human element with whom the viewer can't help but identify. Who would have thought we would be saying that about the first Batman with nipples (part of me feels bad for planting that thought in your head... but only part) and a chick most known for starring in modern teen soap operas?
Aiding in the effort to get the viewers emotionally invested is a very deep immersion in the Hawaiian setting with the film's characters. From the stunning visuals to the quaint musical soundtrack to the constant bare feet, the movie brings the feel of Hawaii into the theater (well, I'm assuming this, since I've admittedly never actually been to Hawaii). In the end, you're left feeling as though you have actually experienced the events of the movie side by side with Matt and Alex.
Cons: I know I just talked about how easy it is to identify with the main characters, but it's actually a little difficult to identify with a lawyer trust fund baby who lives in a tropical paradise and struggles with anything. *Coughfirstworldproblemscough*. Okay, so it's not quite so superficial as that, but you do still have to kick yourself every time you're reminded of the fact that, really, these people have it alright. Well, I didn't actually need to do any kicking of myself, because I was so busy enjoying the movie, but hopefully I just planted that thought into your head.
Overall: Despite the plot revolving around a topic that traditionally makes me pretty uncomfortable, it's all actually a funny and enjoyable movie. The script made me breeze through the whole viewing, eagerly waiting to see what would happen to "us" next. On the other hand, while it is a fun to watch little movie, it isn't really all that special. Nothing about it stands out to me, and I'm pretty sure in five years I'll mostly just remember it for being nominated for best picture. But after gazing into Clooney's dark and stormy eyes, I can't help but give the movie an 8 out of 10.
War Horse (2011)
Possibly Spielberg's Worst Movie
Pros: Steven Spielberg. War movie.
Cons: I don't mean the above in some sort of, "That's all that needs to be said" mentality. That's actually all that can be said. Only the above is still misleading. When I say "Steven Spielberg," I mean that someone traveled back to the 1950's to find a Spielberg still in grade school who does not yet know how to identify good plots or scripts or make them into good movies, and then had him make this movie. And when I say "war movie," I mean that if any war was in this movie, I guess that part ended up on the cutting room floor. When it finished, my roommate Jeff asked, "Did I just watch a PG war movie?" No, Jeff. Somehow, against all odds, this movie stumbled its way into a PG-13 rating. My guess is that the more severe rating was the result of, "Contains no rainbows or lollipops. Allusions to violence and less happy places."
I'm sorry, but I need to take a moment here. The fact that Spielberg directed this movie is really hurting my heart. Since the 80's, if he wasn't making movies that will literally change your life upon watching (e.g. Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List), he was at least making movies that were endlessly fun to watch (e.g. Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park). Seriously, look at his directing filmography. Seven of my forty favorite movies had Spielberg at the helm. And the rest (that I've seen) are at least highly rated, if not top rated. So why the hell did he make this movie? It's killing me. No matter how many times I check the IMDb page, his name is still right there, under "director."
The horse is the character that you care about the most, which I guess is the point. The problem is that the previous statement really isn't saying much, and I actually worded it wrong. What I meant to say was, "The horse is the only character that you care about at all." The whole movie attempts to be one big stab at sentimentality, but it falls flat on its face, because sentiment is best saved for, you know, things that you care about.
I'm pretty sure the only reason this movie got any positive press (and... *sigh*... an Oscar nomination) is because it's about a horse, which apparently gives it some sort of credibility. If you were to take the exact same plot, characters, script, and actors, but replace the horse with another, less traditionally revered animal, it almost certainly would be laughed out of every movie house in existence.
Separated by war. Tested by battle. Bound by friendship... War Goat.
Overall: The best that I can say for it is that I never really looked at the clock. But I'm pretty sure at this point that the main reason I never looked was because I was waiting with baited breath for this to turn into a Spielberg movie (i.e. a movie that I enjoy watching). Right up to the moment when the screen turned black for the closing credits, I was convinced that Spielberg was just toying with me, and that the good part of the movie was right around the corner. Then the closing credits came, followed by all those copyright things at the very end for things like Dolby sound and Technicolor, and then the screen went black, and then... Steven Spielberg forced me to disgrace him with a 4 out of 10. I actually think a movie about a goat would have at least been funny at parts.