The box-office hits: Django Unchained, The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall, The Hobbit, The Amazing Spider-Man. The award-winners: Argo, Lincoln. With titles like these, I might almost say that this year's honorable mentions list is more interesting than its top ten list. Whether you caught all of them on the big screen or not, let's examine the perks and faults of each film- that is, what got them the rating they got (good or bad), and also what kept them from getting into the top ten list. From fast-paced spy films to slow-paced dramas, here it is: the 2012 honorable mentions list.
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson
Release Date: December 25, 2012
Running Time: 165 minutes
Rating: 4/5
I'll admit it: Django Unchained is the first Tarantino film I've ever seen. I was initially avoiding it, but after the wide acclaim it's gotten from pretty much... well, everyone... I felt incredibly obligated to see it. And I don't regret it in the least; Django is a fantastic movie. But to be clear, it's fantastic in its own way. The first thing that stands out is Quentin Tarantino's talent as a director. From the first shot you can see that this is a man utterly in love with the film format itself, who picks up a little something from every film in the genre that came before him. This is more or less evident in the incredible soundtrack, which slides in Ennio Morricone pieces from classic Westerns between original soul and hip-hop singles composed for the film by modern artists like John Legend, James Brown, and 2Pac. This kind of mixture perfectly encapsulates what Django Unchained is about: creating something new and flashy whilst still paying fair homage to the old and time-honored. An old story of revenge is rewritten to tell the origin story of an ex-slave bounty hunter who sets out to free his wife from the most horrifically brutal slave plantation in the south: Candyland (the idea of "Candyland" itself I think houses the film's main genius, both its design, its eerily friendly name, and the mythos constructed around it). On the sidelines, Christoph Waltz plays an obliging dentist-turned-gunslinger who becomes Django's mentor and partner, while Leonardo DiCaprio gives a stunning performance as the devilish slaveowner Candy (though he is just barely eclipsed by Samuel L. Jackson as his terrifyingly cruel butler Stephen). Stylistically, the film is brilliant and visually lush, capturing the beautiful yet wicked world of the antebellum South through crisp, elegant camera pans and fashionable on-screen titles. Tarantino coins it as a new genre altogether: the "Southern". But don't be misled: Tarantino's trademark luxurious cinematography is accompanied by his trademark violence and profanity. What I'm saying is that while the film is enjoyable for film nerds just for its fine artistic qualities, it's also enjoyable purely for its qualities of irreverence and vulgarity. I'm well aware that these are qualities that would estrange some audiences, and if you feel you're among that kind of audience, then I would advise you to trust whatever decision you've made about the film already. But I think the film succeeds beautifully in drawing a specific kind of target audience to it, and I'm talking about young men from the ages of 16 to 36 whose interested is peaked by the kinds of movies that are cool because they are tough, unruly, and dangerous. I'm not a person who likes violence or gore, but I'm simply stunned by how Django Unchained can make a blood-soaked wall so appealing, and in my opinion the reason that it can pull that off is by the epic buildup to the entire sequence. The action is ridiculously overkill but it is satisfying because it's kind of like a payoff for a great historical injustice as represented by the characters in the story- and granted, attaching something like the abomination of slavery to a movie like this naturally doesn't escape being problematic. Django shoves the issue of racism straight in your face, but even though its stance on the subject is clear and politically correct, there are some things that it tries to get away with that it shouldn't be able to get away with- and of course, that's an entirely different subject and I'm not one for politics, anyways. But while the film is a delightful experience it is also rife with moments that would make anyone uncomfortable. Still, I can't ignore the great achievement that this movie is, boasting traditionally smart dialogue, jaw-dropping action sequences, and self-assured awesomeness: the final product is just as tough and rambunctious as its heroes.
Director: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Colin Farrell, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken
Release Date: October 12, 2012
Running Time: 110 minutes
Rating: 4/5
In 2002, Charlie Kaufman wrote the script for the Spike Jonze film Adaptation, which was about Charlie Kaufman writing the script for the Spike Jonze film Adaptation. Martin McDonagh's Seven Psychopaths is kind of like that. Like Adaptation, it's a screenplay about its own creation, with crazy characters thrown in who get killed at the end, and like Adaptation, it begins as one kind of movie and ends as a different kind of movie. Adaptation begins with a quirky and soulful drama and ends with drug use, car chases, and gunfights. Seven Psychopaths begins with drug use, car chases, and gunfights, and turns into a quirky and soulful drama during the second act. Martin McDonagh has a rather odd knack for creating action-packed comedies with mask tragic and distressing layers buried underneath. Seven Psychopaths is certainly lighter and funnier than McDonagh's breakout film In Bruges, but it's hardly as refined or as touching either. Which isn't to say that it's a complete manic romp, either. This is a film that will make you laugh when you least expect it and cry when you least expect it- but you'll probably laugh more often. The plot is a stroke of genius: a screenwriter is writing a script entitled "Seven Psychopaths" but all that he's developed is the title. He's looking for psychopaths to put into his story, and, well, all I can say is... be careful what you wish for. His best friend works with a con man who kidnaps dogs for a living to collect the reward money from distressed owners. This little business is all going fine until they happen to kidnap the wrong dog- that is, a Shih Tzu belonging to a high-ranking mob boss. Antics ensue. What is perhaps most striking about this story, for me, is how many surprising turns it takes. After about fifteen minutes of this movie, you get the impression fairly quickly that you really have no idea what will happen, say, five minutes later or even one minute later. And there's hardly another dark comedy of recent years that is quite as fun to lose yourself in as this one.
Director: Leos Carax
Starring: Denis Lavant, Edith Scob
Release Date: July 4, 2014
Running Time: 116 minutes
Rating: 4/5
I've been told by some that Holy Motors is the weirdest film ever made- and while that's probably not the case, this surreal Leos Carax escapade is certainly up there. What's taking place isn't difficult to understand: the story is a simple one, of a man who is employed to arrive at various "appointments" throughout the day... he must don various disguises and "act out" various positions in life. This man, named Mr. Oscar, rides around in a dressing room inside a limousine. While many of Oscar's errands are pretty inherently odd (for instance, a green hunchback who eats everything in sight), the story is pretty straightforward. We're not wondering about what's happening, but rather, why it is happening. There are no visible cameras, but the fact that there are hidden cameras at each appointment is hinted at. Perhaps Oscar performs for an invisible audience, or perhaps the film serves as a metaphor for something more obscure- such as the various roles that we play throughout life. What the true answer is, I'll never know. Holy Motors is generally entertaining, but it grows tedious and slow in several scenes, and the surrealism of the imagery and the story can't mask this. We have some delightful moments, some perverse moments, and some moments that are simply unmissable: the accordion interlude, for example. But on the whole, Holy Motors is no undiscovered masterpiece, but it's an interesting little art house piece, and certainly a good introduction to the work of Leos Carax.
Director: Ang Lee
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall
Release Date: November 21, 2012
Running Time: 127 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Life of Pi is one of those films which a lot of people don't like simply because of how much the critical hype for it exceeded the actual quality of the film- and yet, to be honest, Life of Pi wasn't that bad of a movie. I do, of course, loathe movies that are made for 3D (3D has been, and always will be, nothing more than an obnoxious ploy to get you to pay a few dollars extra for glasses that smudge up when you try to adjust them and nausea-inducing special effects), and within the first few minutes of this film I could sense the film's pretentiousness seeping in from every corner. Clever little opening credits that fade and fade out as an unwarranted excuse to use some text effects, you know. My pretentiousness alarm went way off the charts once I heard the author say, "So you say you have a story that will make me believe in God?" But once the story actually began, I was absorbed. Yes, there are some cheesy and contrived moments, but the story of the boy stranded alone at sea with a tiger somehow manages to be really captivating- and the immersive visuals probably have a lot to do with that. Another thing that surprised me about the film was how well it dealt with its supposedly spiritual subject matter. Its main character claims to adhere to three different religions, and although the film is not suggesting that you follow in his example (as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism do have some... er, minor contradictions) it does allow the story to open up in a way that people of either of those three faiths can sink into it... the god presented in Life of Pi could be the Christian God, or the Allah of Islam, or one of the many Hindu gods. And yet, the film declares this entity as being neither- it's simply "God". And as a result of that, the film has naturally been rejected by many members of all three faiths. Life of Pi is nonetheless not as profound as it thinks it is, or as it would like to be- still, it is an exciting film that's fun for the whole family.
Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Release Date: July 20, 2012
Running Time: 165 minutes
Rating: 4/5
It's kind of universally acknowledged that The Dark Knight Rises was the least impressive chapter of Nolan's Batman trilogy. In fact, that seems to be all that people can say about it. It's the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about it, leave out the fact that I enjoyed it immensely when I saw it in theaters. Yet somehow, over time, the prospect of seeing The Dark Knight Rises seems a tiring and daunting one. Have his two most recent films really caused Nolan to fall so far from grace in my mind? I used to think his films, the Batman trilogy in particular, were the best thing ever. I can only think of one explanation for why Nolan's films don't seem as awesome now as they used to for me; and the reason for that is probably that at the time I was only allowed to see PG-13 films, and I liked Nolan because he could make films that were grittier, darker, and more realistic than most of the other happy-go-lucky PG-13 action-adventure films that were delivered to me. Now that I'm an adult, directors like David Fincher and the Coen Brothers (whose vibrant films make Nolan's seem slow and moody by comparison) kind of remove the need for me to celebrate Nolan anymore, who I look back at awkwardly like an old friend I haven't spoken to in a while. But I still can't ignore the fact that his films are exceptionally good, even if I'm not as appreciative of them as I once was. As it seems so long ago, I'm struggling intensely hard to conjure up reasons from my memories explaining why the The Dark Knight Rises didn't suck as much as some people said it did. I suppose a large part of the backlash can be explained by the very high stakes that the film had built up around it. I feel like the film delivered to us everything that was shown to us in the trailer, yet some people still complained that the trilogy's final chapter underwhelmed them. Perhaps, like many other superhero sequel films, it crammed in too many extra characters and villains, but I don't think that's the case. Bane (the new main antagonist), Miranda Tate (business partner and love interest for Wayne), Selina Kyle (minor antagonist and also a love interest), and John Blake (young and dashing police officer) are all well-developed and interesting characters that define the film and allow us to make speculations about Gotham's future after the events of the movie itself have concluded. For me, the most reasonable explanation for audiences' negative reactions would be that the climax wasn't climactic- I actually wonder if perhaps it was too climactic to be believable. Within The Dark Knight Rises the dream of Ra's al Ghul comes to life: Gotham actually crumbles. If you've seen the film, you know I'm not kidding. Bane himself operates the city under a regime in rebellion against the rest of the country, whilst disguising it as a socialist rules-free utopia- and it's the way in which this is done that opens up the possibilities for a lot of unspoken political and social commentary. It's only normal that something like this would provoke mixed reactions: some people accept it and some people reject it, but even the people who think that it wasn't a bad climax still think that it could have been better. Despite all this, there are a lot of things within the film that people ignore that rescue it from itself: mainly, its powerful themes of hope, courage, and redemption. The Dark Knight Rises brings back the answer to the question of identity that has been plaguing Bruce Wayne all throughout the first two films. Batman, in Nolan's films, is Wayne's battle with himself more than it is his battle with crime, and this movie ties that thread through, introducing a strong sense coherency and resolution to the trilogy as a whole. And that wouldn't have been able to work if not for the tour-de-force of performances from its all-star cast and the rich dramatic material that is given to them by the genius mind of Nolan himself, who delivers the same golden stuff that he delivers in the first two films: brilliant camera work, deep character studies, subtle political food-for-thought, and a sufficient level of realism. This isn't a film about a superhero; this is a film about a hero.
Director: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman
Release Date: October 12, 2012
Running Time: 120 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Though Argo has been repeatedly decorated with awards and celebrated as one of the best films of the year, even as the best film (BAFTA, Golden Globes, Academy Awards), I would scarcely call it such. Still, it is a commendable historical fiction that brings to life a story of real-life espionage in a period of hostage crisis. Argo is compelling. It successfully recreates the world surrounding the crisis, transporting us to that place and time in the late 70's where all eyes suddenly turned to Tehran as the Embassy was stormed and fifty-two Americans were taken into captivity. What the world didn't know at the time was that six American citizens escaped the panic and were able to remain in hiding in the Canadian embassy until a joint rescue mission between the CIA and the Canadian government recovered them in January, 1980. Suspenseful storytelling continually reminds us of the context of this risky covert operation in light of the impact that its success or failure could have on a global political scale. Furthermore, Argo is informative. The solid and sincere theatrics on the part of Ben Affleck and everyone else on the cast constitute a large part of what makes the story seem so real and alive to us as we witness it. This little known historical event, the "Canadian Caper", is translated onto the screen in a way that thriller audiences will grasp most easily. So on all of these points it passes with flying colors, but though they are few, I must say I do have some complaints. It's the shiny Hollywood veneer that's applied to the movie's basic plot that constrains it- when it comes to a decision of excitement or accuracy, the film will favor excitement. In fact, the film strips down so many important details that many film critics are praising and commending something that really isn't the real "Canadian Caper" story. When adapting historical events to a film format, there will also be limitations. But a filmmaker need not necessarily see them as limitations- a text that's being adapted can tie you down or it can free you, depending on who's adapting it- if Werner Herzog had done this same film, I'm sure that it would be worth all the praise it's received, because he wouldn't need to compensate for lack of melodrama with a forced climax that alters historical events. Instead, Herzog would have compensated for it with artful directing. Ben Affleck is a good director, though, because he's more or less unnoticeable. But while we can buy what's presented to us, Argo really had the opportunity to be a better movie than it actually was, and I quietly decline the invitation to acknowledge it as a masterpiece.
Director: Joe Wright
Starring: Kiera Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Johnson, Domnhall Gleeson
Release Date: November 9, 2012
Running Time: 130 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Either Anna Karenina is underrated or I'm the only one that likes it. I mean, I can see why some people have criticized it as a "style over substance" film: it is immense in style and just plain gimmicky. But in my opinion, the film's elaborate and extravagant production design enhance the story rather than distract from it. Of course, those who have read the novel will probably have a different impression of the film. While I do acknowledge that it is an adaptation, I plan to discuss only its value as a film, not its value as an adaptation. And its value as a film is simply stunning. Director Joe Wright places the entire film (with the exception of a few outdoor scenes) within an old theater that changes its interior decorations every scene, so that every action, every location, is presented to us only through the creativity of the set pieces. This could drown out the characters, but in my opinion, it only frames them, bringing our attention to what's important: Anna Karenina is looking around for some kind of escape through her relationship with Count Vromsky. Her world is the stage and the theater, because it's all about the presentations that people give to each other, the performance of society and the constraints placed on her by her loveless marriage. Actually, it is the minor characters that dance around Anna and Vromsky that interest me more than the two romantic leads themselves. Domnhall Gleeson's character of Konstanin seems more like an audience point-of-view character and his determination and devotion form an interesting contrast to Anna and Vromsky's impulsivity. Clearly all of this is only drama extracted from the rich source material of Tolstoy- but that only draws attention to the film's ability to condense such a complex and lengthy book into the short space of a fast-paced opulent motion picture like this one, whilst still keeping these same key themes, ideas, and details. Obviously we're not going to get the same picture the novel would give us, but the movie is far from a failure, and that's made all the more evident in how enjoyable the film is. It's so lovely to look at that you just naturally sink into the lavish plot and let the actors move you along, sure, we're constantly being reminded that these are actors on a stage, but that doesn't matter because the acting is good enough to draw you in, just like it would if you were sitting in a theater house. Anna Karenina is not only dazzling and engaging, it is possibly the most entertaining period romantic drama I've ever seen.
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams
Release Date: September 14, 2012
Running Time: 144 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
A lot of people seem to agree that The Master promises just a bit more than it delivers when the film really didn't promise us anything, technically. People placed expectations on it that it would be a film about Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character of Lancaster Dodd, charismatic new-age cult leader. What the movie actually is about is Joaquin Phoenix's character of Freddie Quell, the torn-up war veteran with a drinking problem. In short, it's a story about PTSD troubles. At the beginning of the movie, Freddie Quell is stationed in the Pacific, making love to sand sculptures and drinking ethanol drained from a torpedo. We are treated to picturesque images of ships, oceans, department stores, and lettuce fields as Quell tries out different jobs to cope with the transition to a civilian lifestyle after the brutality of the second World War. The optimism of a triumphant America, a whole generation swimming in cultural-industrial progress, is shadowed by the psychological wounds of ex-soldiers, embodied in this leading character. The great majority of the film's narrative tracks Quell's involvement with a new religion (an obvious stand-in for Scientology), but while we are treated to some interesting scenes of mental-spiritual exercises that Dodd puts his followers through, there is never any big reveal or climax. Yes, Lancaster Dodd is an ominous character- but he never becomes anything more than a dark cloud equipped with a large welcoming smile and a pin-striped suit. We're forever unclear of his intentions; whether he's a fraud or not remains the audience's decision... this is appropriate for the nature and tone of the film, but at the same time, transforming Dodd into a more intimidating character could have worked greatly to the film's benefit. What we get instead is a third act that's quiet, drawn-out, and unsure of itself. The final climactic moment is whether or not Quell decides to stay with the group, so what the film becomes is not a chronicle of a mystic community and its leader, but rather a chapter in the life of a soldier searching for meaning and solace in the wake of the devastation of war. There is no build up, nor is there really a payoff... which many people, myself included, would consider to be the film's major problems. The whole story seems more like a mid 20th-century novel than a film- I mean, it's intensely literary, bringing to mind works like A Separate Peace or something from Hemingway or Fitzgerald- and for once, that's not a compliment. I really wish this movie was a book, because then it would be fantastic- on the other hand, if that were the case, then we couldn't be rewarded with the gorgeous direction of Paul Thomas Anderson. I guess The Master is pretty fascinating for what it is, as a work of art: it succeeds in doing exactly what it tried to do, everyone involved in it had a clear idea of what they were making. But if you're planning on seeing The Master, then you need to have an equally clear idea of what the film is going for. If not, you may find it tedious and disappointing.
P. S. If you were wondering about the cast, though: for goodness' sakes, it's Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman! How could you expect anything less than an incredible execution?
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Chalize Theron
Release Date: June 8, 2012
Running Time: 124 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Somewhere within Zach Snyder's Watchmen, Doctor Manhattan drops the line "They claim their labors are to build a heaven, yet their heaven is populated by horrors." Somehow, this was the quote that I kept thinking of over and over again while watching Prometheus. Attempting to serve as a prequel for Ridley Scott's massively successful Alien franchise, Prometheus landed in somewhat of an awkward place: sci-fi geeks and general audiences alike seem torn between two opinions. One is that it's a brilliant film, and the other is that it's a disappointment. And while the trailer may have definitely built it up to be way more than it was, I find it hard to say that Prometheus is a bad film. Sure, it's weird seeing technology that looks newer than the technology used in Alien being used in the prequel- but you still feel like you're in that universe, and the film does a good job of really pulling you into the cold darkness of space. Each new artifact that the crew of the Prometheus discovers brings with it a kind of numinous awe that sends chills down your spine, and the film manages to fill you with just as much wonder as it does horror. The tonal shift in the center of the film sets up that dividing line, what was once mesmerizing is now terrifying, and soon a terrible evil is unleashed which turns upon each character one by one. The idea, the size and scope of the film- it's all incredible. My only problem with it are the cold and bland characters (the robot is really the most likable and interesting one of the bunch) and the inconsistent pacing. The story has good concepts, it just doesn't have very efficient means of bringing those concepts forward through the characters- it becomes just another horror film where characters can be brought in and thrown away at a moment's notice. Again, Michael Fassbinder is virtually the only character we really feel for. Still, the film does show that Ridley Scott can do something good if he returns to the genre in which he had his greatest first successes, and I'm anxious to know what, if anything at all, he has in store for this new series.
Director: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Judi Dench, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney
Release Date: November 9, 2012
Running Time: 143 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Skyfall may not be the the last of Daniel Craig's bond films, but paired with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, it seems like the third chapter of a complete trilogy. Both marketing and the chilling opening sequence hint that those were certainly the intentions for the film, that it serve as a climax to the other two. And is it? Well, if The Dark Knight Rises teaches us anything, it's that good films can be ruined by raising expectations so high that they cannot possibly be exceeded or even met. Like The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall is a good film... but it's not really perfect, and in fact, could have been better for several reasons. Here, Skyfall delivers as a Bond flick because it causes its tortured hero to confront his personal history whilst tackling a new threat. This is also where the film's shortcomings start to appear. What Skyfall essentially tries to be is an drama film with action tacked on, what it ends up being is an action movie with drama tacked on. I'm not trying to say that action movies can't be good movies, or that action movies need to be dramatic and serious. That would be stupid. Because if you put everything else aside- characters, plot, themes- and solely judged this film based on its action sequences, visuals, locations, and ideas, then it's a flat-out amazing movie. For goodness' sakes, take a look at the Subway scenes, the hackers' island, and the luxurious casino of Macau. Not to mention, Skyfall doesn't skimp on grit, bringing us one fierce turn of events after another as Bond watches the entire M16 agency tumble down around him. And how can I ignore the amazing performances of Judi Dench and Daniel Craig? But what I am trying to say about action and drama is that when you decide to blend an action spy flick with serious drama, make sure that you put the drama underneath and make it a foundation, rather than draping it over the action like some poorly knitted blanket of emotional context. To be completely honest, I'm not very familiar with the James Bond universe at all, so I'm not sure I'm really equipped to evaluate any James Bond movie as a Bond movie. But I can evaluate Skyfall as a movie. And though it is naturally flawed in several ways, it pulls through. It challenges its main character and draws things to a grilling conclusion in an ample and entertaining way, leaving me waiting for the next installment with great anticipation.
Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Release Date: November 9, 2012
Running Time: 150 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Lincoln. Now here's a film that's not entirely terrible, but is painfully overrated. Only natural that it should be directed by that crowd-pleaser Spielberg. I guess it's cinematically beautiful to one degree or another, but that's not what you remember from this film. What you remember is a lot of political red tape, arguments, handshakes, and arguments between a bunch of old guys- it's more a movie about the political system than about Lincoln. I mean, it only encompasses one small part of Lincoln's life: the emancipation proclamation. And all it really says about that is that America's politics are so split down the middle that even the good guys have to go through all sorts of sneaky dealings and persuasions if they're going to get a majority vote. This is pretty scary considering that in politics everyone thinks they're the "good guys". Even though the congressional vote in this movie is about the freedom of slaves, Lincoln barely seems concerned at all about the actual slaves, but more about the political agenda behind the emancipation proclamation. A lot of very important historical context seems entirely removed from this story, and really the only thing that really makes Lincoln a strong and charismatic character (besides Daniel Day-Lewis' fabulous performance, but we'll leave that out of it) is the fact that he's freaking Lincoln. We're just expected to like him because he's a national hero. I guess none of what I've said is necessarily problematic at its own, but it's the fact that no one seems to notice that this movie is actually such a huge mess. I can't even pick apart what to celebrate about it and what to criticize about it because it's so confused as to its own stance. It doesn't do anything new and interesting with the character of Lincoln, but rather seems to just adhere to this right-wing heroic stereotype that we've created around him. Sure, history isn't sugar-coated either. But then Lincoln is too human to be godlike, too godlike to be human, and too simplified to be historically accurate- there are so many important facets of Lincoln's personal history and beliefs that are left completely undone. The fact that this movie even claims to be about Lincoln is preposterous, as like I said, most of it seems to be just congressional proceedings. What Steven Spielberg has made is a richly involving historical drama about slavery and politics, one that will stand the test of time. However, the film I am speaking of (it's Amistad; look it up) was made fifteen years before the release of its weaker but more popular successor Lincoln. People will claim that Lincoln is new and it is bold, but it's neither. It's the same old type of historical political slave drama that comes out every few years, except this time it avoids looking at any actual slavery at all. Why the movie needed to be made, what it's trying to do, and furthermore, what it's trying to say, are completely unclear. But most importantly, it's flat-out dull, despite its excellent shimmering presentation.
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Sylvester McCoy
Release Date: December 14, 2014
Running Time: 169 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Let's face it: we all know what's wrong with Peter Jackson's Hobbit films. So it really pains me to state it again and again: splitting one book into two movies is bad enough. Splitting one book into three movies is a travesty, a crime against hundreds of innocent movie-goers committed solely out of the greed of the filmmakers themselves. Why must a simple, coherent, and exciting adventure story about dwarves reclaiming gold from a dragon-guarded mountain turn into a franchise that insults us by leaving us with uncomfortable cliffhangers twice. And yet while I've defamed and derided the loathed second installment, I can't say the first installment was that bad. In fact, it was the hope that the first installment gave me for the trilogy that caused the second installment to be such a disappointment. Well, what does An Unexpected Journey have that Desolation of Smaug doesn't? Don't they both have pretty much the same problems? Well, I would say that, but... The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is arguably entertaining. Yeah, sure, it's bloated and stretched out. Sure, it introduces characters and concepts that shouldn't be introduced until Lord of the Rings. Sure, it shifts between pleasant adventure romp and moody pretentious prequel, creating a mood that is painfully disjointed. These are several hiccups that the film battles which make the entire film more or less unpleasant for anyone who's paying too much attention. But in all other respects, it tackles the book more or less faithfully, handling all of the key scenes in just the ways that I would have expected them to play out... and the scenes, for what they are, are agreeable. The unnecessary battles are unnecessary, but the "riddles in the dark" scene, the troll's campfire banter, the fight in the goblin cave, and of course the dinner that started it all: they're all impressively shot and agreeably delivered. I even have to applaud Sylvester McCoy's wonderful characterization of Radagast the Brown. Even if it's done less than excellently, it's always interesting and fun to see a book you love come to life on the screen, especially when it's brought to you through the talents of actors such as Martin Freeman or Ian McKellan. And the beautiful visual landscapes, despite the questionable level of CGI involved in creating them, don't really hurt either. The first Hobbit film is a good fantasy flick for a late afternoon, in spite of how unsatisfying it is when taken in context a trilogy so large and vast it's unwatchable as a whole. On its own, though, it's mostly harmless.
Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans
Release Date: July 3, 2012
Running Time: 136 minutes
Rating: 3/5
Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man can really be summed up in a single word: unnecessary. Certainly, it does have its merits: namely, in its actors. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey delivers a transfixing performance, and same goes for Rhys Ivans as the sympathetic scientist-turned-supervillain Lizard. As for the casting of Andrew Garfield himself... I have to say that he displays great talent as an actor, but while I can see him as Spiderman, I can't really see him as Peter Parker. See, the original Sam Raimi Spider-Man was a rite-of-passage movie for me. I'm used to seeing Peter Parker as the dorky nerd whose tough heroic life provides a contrast to his regular life. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker, on the other hand, is hotter, sassier, and more successful- when the whole Spiderman transformation happens in his life, it's doesn't seem like too much of a change for him; it's more like just another stepping stone in his career path. MacGuire's Parker (in the first movie, at least), you sympathize with. The recent update seems more like the kind of lucky classmate that you would feel jealous of, and on top of that, the last five seconds of the film illustrate that there's been very little change in his character, not to mention the basketball court scene where he shows off his powers in an effort to mess around with some school jocks. I mean, compare that scene to the scene in the old movie where MacGuire was the defensive victim: the newer Peter Parker seems like a total jerk by comparison. Okay, sure, maybe my love for the original is creating some kind of bias that's somehow preventing me from enjoying the reboot that everyone seems to love. But these minor complaints are only shadows of a much larger problem that seeps into every corner of this movie. And that problem is the tiring new trend in Hollywood superhero films to make things "cooler". By "cool", I mean better-looking, smarter, darker, stronger- kind of like the new Peter Parker. This is an understandable trend; Nolan's Batman films and the new Bond movies used this technique much more successfully, taking comic-book stories and fleshing them out with a refined low-key directional style, more profound themes, and greater character depth. Nevertheless, it's also important to understand that "cooler" doesn't always mean "better": and the Spider-Man films are a perfect example of this. The story of Spider-Man is by nature comic-bookish, I mean, come on, it's about a teenager that gets bitten by some weird kind of radioactive spider and suddenly gains its powers, then becomes a masked costume-wearing crimefighter who eventually must triumph against a genetically-enhanced mad scientist. Trying to make this story in any way "serious" would be more ridiculous- and I felt that there were many moments in The Amazing Spider-Man where this feeling of forced seriousness worked to an unintentionally ridiculous outcome. A story can be comic-bookish and still be realistic on a level of characters- we're emotionally moved by the 2000 Spider-Man no matter how improbable it is, because the realism is accomplished through placing the characters in real emotional situations. May I also add that the first movie has Parker (realistically) initially trying to use his powers to gain money, before Ben's death causes him to take up crimefighting? Not to mention that in the remake we hardly even know Ben long enough to really mourn over his passing, and most of the time we do see him on screen, he's being more of a jerk than Peter is. Making this superhero story smarter and cooler has removed a lot of fun and heart from what the characters mean to a lot of the kids in my generation. In the end, Amazing Spider-Man succeeds in many places, but takes itself far too seriously to really be an enjoyable experience.
Director: Drew Godard
Starring: Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchinson, Fran Kranz
Release Date: April 13, 2012
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: 3/5
Nothing is quite so enticing as a horror comedy, nor so rare. Yes, a lot of horror frequently borders on the satirical, but the mood of most horror movies is often just as intimidating as the scares, I mean look at how oppressive and downer-ish the pale, bleak world presented to us in films like The Babadook is. So it's refreshing to find a film that's as light-hearted and nonchalant as it is terrifying. Is The Cabin in the Woods this kind of movie? Yes and no. Yes, it is more playful and witty than your average scare-fare, and it packs in a decent number of thrills. But other than the killer chuckler here and there (Whedon's fingerprints on the project, no doubt), it's actually not that funny. If a movie like this is supposed to work, then we should at least care for the characters' survival... yes, we do care for their survival just based on their circumstance, but these five college students who go out for a weekend at a cabin the woods aren't given good enough dialogue for us to really empathize with them as individuals. And sure, when you finish the movie that's really a part of the whole thing. The characters are presented as more or less bland people with possibilities of depth because that's what they are, they're real people that are pigeonholed into the positions of stereotypes to serve the purpose of some annual ritual. The whole point of Cabin in the Woods is that the "ritual" itself is really the horror movie- we enjoy seeing this same story over and over again, just because we enjoy the thrill. We, the audience are the "ancient gods" that must be appeased. Fleshing out the characters more than their basic formulas would "anger the deities". But maybe that's where the movie's big flaw is. Everything dissatisfying about this film can be brushed away with excuses like "well, it's trying to be meta" or "it's all commentary on the horror genre". Give me a break. This film is too "meta" and referential for its own good. It's so focused and reliant on its clever and gimmicky idea that it doesn't invest as much in the little details. There are so many ingenious moments: the fact that the entire cabin is locked within this inescapable dome (like The Truman Show or The Hunger Games) to ensure the deaths of those within, the fact that the victims unwittingly choose their mode of death, the fact that you see every monster imaginable trapped within rows upon rows of glass cages, or the fact that there are scientists in a large underground facility watching their every move, celebrating every death, and even placing bets on the outcomes of the ritual- it's all freaking brilliant! But even as someone who likes his humor pitch black and cynical, the humor of this film is stale-tasting, like it's so mean-spirited and lifeless that it's passed the boundary of what qualifies as humor. The scares themselves are satisfying but kind of empty, not haunting like they should be. I don't even think it's right to mention endings, but goodness, did the grand finale make me want to push the whole movie aside like a plate of Chinese leftovers. This film is well-made. It's done with the right ideas, the right visuals, the right budget, and genius ideas... but it just doesn't quite make that crucial connection that a film should make with its audience, leaving a sour taste where the sweet goodness of a cult classic should have been. The Cabin in the Woods is smart, but soulless.
Dishonorable Mentions
Director: Tarsem Singh
Starring: Lily Collins, Julia Roberts, Armie Hammer, Nathan Lane
Release Date: March 30, 2012
Running Time: 106 minutes
Rating: 2/5
I guess one could say that fantasy films like this one are a sort of guilty pleasure of mine. They look cool: with elaborate colorful costume designs, a certain degree of general campiness and fun, weird-looking special effects that meld CGI with traditional methods, and not to mention loads of imagination. So naturally, I couldn't resist the fun-looking, charming, and colorful Mirror Mirror, the most recent rendition of the fairy tale of Snow White. Ugh. I can't say that it was a complete waste of time, because frankly, very few movies are, but still, halfway through it I was just praying for the ending to come, and fast. Everything that I just described to you above about cheery magical family fantasy movies being fun and interesting? Mirror Mirror has none of that. Oh, it tries. And it succeeds at being the exact opposite. It's basically Ella Enchanted in the hands of superior directors, actors, designers, and concept artists, but with a highly inept pair of screenwriters. It'd be easy to say that this is a style-over-substance movie, but even if you were to mute the sound entirely and just watch it all the way through silently, it'd still be an awful drag. Why? Because Tarsem Singh has an amazing imagination and he used practically none of it, aside from a few parlor tricks even a child would scoff at. I wasn't even aware Tarsem was directing until long after I'd finished the film, and needless to say I was shocked... and disappointed. Possibly even embarrassed. From the start, it should be made clear that I will not be judging this film as an adaptation of an existing fairy tale, because honestly no one who adapts a fairy tale today stays true to the original anymore and no one cares because we're all tired of the original fairy tales anyways (well, most of them, at least). In reviewing this film, it's better to just pretend like the story of Snow White never even existed before then, because this film really isn't trying to subvert the story of Snow White. It's trying to subvert fairy tales in general. Seriously, the film acts as if it's the first movie to do that, ever. Ella Enchanted embraced its anachronisms; Mirror Mirror is just flat-out confused, keeping things in a mostly medieval time period, but throwing in random cultural jargon just to make things seem "modern". What's worse than that is that its heroine is nothing more than a "strong, intelligent, independent princess" cliche (cringes), her love interest is the "gullible self-centered but charming prince" cliche (double cringe), the dwarves are the "ragtag group of lovable outcasts from society" cliche (triple cringe), while the villainess is the "witch who's insecure with her aging and also man-thirsty"... and she also has a "frustrated bumbling assistant" cliche following her around (cue cerebral hemorrhage). The script is so full of itself, naively disrupting gender roles and fantasy tropes with political humor and slapstick gags to "empower twelve-year old girls" probably, and I guess that's a good incentive, but it's all in vain if you don't have well-developed characters at all. By flipping one cliche, they fall into another cliche. Seeing all of these cardboard characters travel through a tedious plot that's even more fabricated than they are is plain sickening. While it does look very pretty and there are several small ideas here that could have worked well in a better context, Mirror Mirror on all accounts is a failure that teaches a very important lesson to other screenwriters: when working within a genre, do your research; borrow without copying, and only borrow a trick that can work twice. What lesson does it have for audiences? Don't trust everything on Redbox, that is, not unless you have a good amount of aspirin on hand.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment