Art of the Reel

‘The Purge’ – Call it ‘After Midnight’ whereby Ethan Hawkes leaves Julie Deply and Europe to return to the U.S. to sell home security systems. And be in a really bad movie. Written and directed by James DeMonaco, ‘The Purge’ works better as an 85 minute home insurance advertisement than as a commentary of the animalistic urges of man. For those who haven’t seen the trailer, the setup is this: It’s the year 2022 and things are looking good – unemployment is at 1% and the crime rate is comparably low. These optimal economic conditions are well maintained because the government has instituted an annual 12-hour period called “The Purge” during which all criminal activity becomes legal. The Purge is designed as an act of catharsis for the American people, allowing them to vent all negative emotions however they desire consequence-free.

Do I believe such a solution would work effectively in the real world? No, but that doesn’t matter. I do think that the setup of this picture is promising enough to explore some very dark and serious issues. After all, this model assumes that crime is cathartic, but is it really? How exactly does someone transform into a monster during this 12 hour period? Are they able to revert back to their prior self without any feelings of remorse? Such questions aren’t explored – this is because the movie simply devolves into a standard home-invasion picture and completely forgets about its own premise.

Here is what ‘The Purge’ is really about (rather than what it pretends to be about): James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) has made a fine living selling home security systems. While he’s out on the road trying to surpass his sales quotas, his wife Mary (Lena Headey) struggles with her defiant teenager daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane) and young tech-obsessed son Charlie (Max Burkholder). You see, Charlie is just a kid – the concept of “The Purge” is just too advanced for his feeble mind; proof of this is demonstrated when he lets a panicky and bloodied stranger into their home. What complicates matters further is a group of Purge participants and their leader (Rhys Wakefield) show up at James’ front door demanding that the stranger be released back to them (the stranger is referred to as a “homeless filthy swine”). If James doesn’t comply, the gang will breach the property’s security, enter and kill everyone in the house.

Mr.DeMonaco’s is very fluent in cliché-speak – this is not a close call, this is a very bad screenplay. After the teenager daughter witnesses a horrific act of violence (a situation in which she was rescued from), she responds to her protector with “Things will never be the same ever again.” When James finally makes a decision on how to deal with the unexpected developments that have taken place, he says “This is our home!” What did the injured stranger even do? There are restrictions in terms of the class of weaponry that can be used for “The Purge” – but who enforces this law? Why would Ethan Hawke’s character (who specializes in security) leave his second floor windows unlocked? When a character is forcefully bound to a chair, why would anyone leave a knife on the floor just meters away from him – do they want him to escape? And worst of all, this is a very hypocritical movie asking viewers to take sheer pleasure in the brutal deaths of these home invaders until it concludes with a “Violence is not the answer” message. Mr.DeMonaco penned the screenplay for the remake of ‘Assault on Precinct 13’ (also with Ethan Hawke) – I didn’t like that movie, but I doubt that script was worse than this.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no characterization – everyone is a caricature. A better picture would have given us a little more understanding as to Charlie’s open-handed motivations. As written, however, he comes off as moron who can’t let go of his pacifist mentality – I’m sorry if that is mean but he insists on helping this stranger (who has a knife in his hand and will use it against any of the boy’s family members if he needs to). The Purge participants outside James’ door are a bunch of killer rich kids who look like they belong to a Delta Sigma Pi fraternity. They utter the sort of the pseudo poetic banalities that would force a high school English teacher to assign a failing grade at their attempts at artistic expression and send them off to the psychiatric ward for evaluation. The “gang leader” doesn’t even have a name – according to IMDB, he is credited as “Polite Stranger”.

To add insult to injury, ‘The Purge’ isn’t even well made. With a budget of $3million, it looks $2.9million cheaper than it should. With its dimly lit settings and rapid camera movements, it’s hard to see what is actually transpiring – this is particularly true in its moments of action which are so poorly edited, it’s next to impossible to derive any detail. A tripod shouldn’t be outside of the scope of a $3million production.

The best thing that can be said about ‘The Purge’ is that it is mercifully short at 85 minutes (though it does feel twice as long). It was the #1 film at the box office last weekend, because of an effective marketing campaign which sold viewers on the setup of the picture. But, this is an essentially a second remake of ‘Straw Dogs’ with a socioeconomic hook that dismembers itself after the opening credits. Here’s hoping this weekend’s ‘Man of Steel’ and ‘This Is The End’ have much more to offer – I’m certain they will. QED.

Back in 2001, who among us thought that the wheels of the ‘Fast and the Furious’ series would still be in motion twelve years later (with a sixth entry with the seventh entry being released in Summer 2014)? The best way to enjoy ‘Fast & Furious 6’ is to pretend that it is a sequel to ‘The Avengers’. Newton’s Laws of Motion may not have any bearing here, but it doesn’t need to if we can accept that this movie is essentially a live-action cartoon (albeit a very good one). If you can leave your critic’s brain at the door, I think you will find yourself (as I did) having a tremendous amount of fun. Contradictory to the laws of probability as well as the laws of diminish returns, this is a series that is picking up a great deal of momentum (with this picture and the last one), and ‘Fast & Furious 6’ is my personal favorite in the series. This is spectacular summer entertainment! I have no reservations in saying upfront that I love this movie!

Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and Dwayne (formerly “The Rock”) Johnson feel the need – the need for speed. Taking up where ‘Fast Five’ left off, Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), and Dominic ‘Dom’ Toretto (Vin Diesel) are enjoying the fruits of their labour from the previous heist that made them and the rest of their crew fabulously rich. All retired, Brian and Dom receive a surprise visit from Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) with a proposition to stop an ex-military terrorist from getting his hands on the last piece of a powerful weapon he’s going to use on the world. Soon, the entire team is reunited. Most of the picture’s comic relief rests of the shoulders of Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris. There is also a new member – a CIA operative played by Gina Carano. She could send The Rock home crying after a fight. No, really! Luke Evans is fine as the villain, but these special ops turned ruthless crime lord types are starting to become a cliché.

Does the story really matter? The plot is just at the service of the revved-up engines and adrenaline-pumping action sequences. If you’re on the lookout for sharp dialogue, and fine performances, well, what the hell are you doing at ‘Fast & Furious 6’? This is about color, movement, technique – and on that basis, it operates terrifically. Despite pretty much hating the first four entries in this series, the opening credits (which plays off well on the nostalgia factor for fans of this series) made me realize how much I’ve grown to enjoy these characters; yes, even when they talk about the importance of family, and working as a team (usually exchanged over the obligatory barbeque montage which has become a staple of this series). Also, the picture’s notions of masculinity would make Howard Hawkes blush.

Whether we are looking at stunt-work, CGI, or a combination of the two, director Justin Lin (who worked on two other films in this series – ‘Tokyo Drift’ and ‘Fast Five’) raises the bar with one action sequence following another and another… If you’re laughing at the movie, I can almost guarantee the laughs are intentional – the vehicular manoeuvrings are impossible (and just before the end credits, we get a disclaimer stating that the stunts should never be replicated by the viewers). Humans fly in the air, land on hard surfaces with very loud thuds, and just brush themselves off and carry on with only a few bruises – like I said, this is a cartoon.

One thing that needs to be said about ‘Fast & Furious 6’ is that it is, by far, the most honest movie of the year. It has no delusions of grandeur; it knows exactly what it is and fully embraces the ridiculousness of it’s gleefully over the top ever-escalating action sequences. This includes an OMG finale that I won’t even begin to describe – except that it involves a number of four-wheelers, a cargo plane that is about to take off, and four-wheelers contained within the cargo plane. Most action pictures make the choice of delivering sensation at the expense of characters and plot – I’m not saying that ‘Fast & Furious 6’ is an exception to this category; but I am saying that Mr.Lin has done an exceptional job in crafting a motion picture experience that is among the best of its kind. Even among the hardest of cynics, I defy anyone to come out of this movie saying they were bored.  

Despite its 130 minute runtime, this was a movie that does not wear out its welcome; I didn’t want to see it end – a joyous experience that you could file under “Guilty Pleasure”. Except that I won’t. I feel no guilt in giving ‘Fast & Furious 6’ a very strong endorsement. This is the sort of picture that demands to be seen on the big screen. Thankfully, the movie is not in 3-D. QED.

Starting today (and going forward), I will include a ‘Three to See’ section at the bottom of my reviews, which list out my three favorite movies playing in theaters (or that are newly available on DVD/Blu-Ray).

Three to See: ‘Lore’ (TIFF Bell Lightbox), ‘The Place Beyond the Pines’ (Cineplex Yonge/Dundas, Famous Players Canada Square, Magic Lantern Carlton Cinemas), ‘Fast & Furious 6’ (Wide-release)

In its second week of release, ‘The Great Gatsby’ has already split critics, with just as many upward thumbs as downward thumbs. For the record, mine is up. The best way to enjoy ‘The Great Gatsby’ is to forget about F.Scott Fitzgerald’s third novel which you were forced to read in high school (or in college/university if you were a slacker). Gatsby, like any literary work, isn’t scripture – filmmakers have to right to take artistic liberties with the source material. For those who can’t bare the sight of the slightest deviation – and, mind you, this is directed by Baz Luhrmann (‘Moulin Rouge’, ‘Romeo and Juliet’), well, there’s no convincing you.

For those who didn’t submit their end of term paper but somehow managed to eek a passing grade, this is the story of an unassuming young man (Tobey Maguire) who gets pulled into the roaring twenties world of the wealthy when a mysterious millionaire (Leonardo DiCaprio) wants to rekindle his romance with the man’s married but equally wealthy cousin (Carey Mulligan).

The Great Gatsby’ is splashy with lots of glitter and the picture seamlessly combines old-fashioned production values with new-age digital filmmaking – it is even released in 3-D (which I can’t really comment on, because I attended a 2-D screening). Those two dimensions were enough to take in all the artifice, which is suitable for the illusionary world it creates. If you didn’t think the book worked as a commentary on American consumerism, wait til you see what Luhrmann’s created.

Luhrmann does respect the source material – some lines are taken straight out of the page, while others are improvised by the performers. But, his craftsmanship as a filmmaker is evident –juxtaposing present-day hip hop imagery on its 1920 jazz-era setting (unless of course I’m mistaken and Jay-Z’s ‘No Church in the Wild’ was released nearly a hundred years ago). And in doing so, he’s created a mood for the times that unfortunately no living person can accurately verify, but we can accept it as presented.

Gatsby is first seen through the window of his mansion – and to both the Tobey Maguire character, and to the viewer, he is an enigma. He has got money, flashy cars, and the liquor bill for his parties must be in the six-figure category. Yes, he is a rich man and his wealth makes a striking contrast against the poverty of two other supporting characters in the picture – George and Myrtle Wilson. But, his past remains something of a mystery. Leonardo DiCaprio is a charismatic screen presence but this role requires more of him – it is tricky to walk the line between confidence and desperation.

The film’s climactic moment, a scene set in the Plaza Hotel, shows how great Luhrmann and these performers really are. Everyone takes full advantage of the moment. And while the performances do get showy here, take quiet notice of the fact that  there isn’t any music,  and watch camera cuts across these individual’s faces after their truths have been revealed.

‘The Great Gatsby’ is lavishly presented, with perhaps the most costly production design cinema has ever known. This is an entertaining, big budget soap opera with fine acting and amazing visuals. Good Gatsby, not great. QED.

If you’re a baseball fan, you’ve probably been waiting in anticipation for the great Jackie Robinson to get the big-screen treatment. But, ‘42’ isn’t a picture for fans only – if it isn’t already, I think this is going to be a crowd-pleasing hit. Even so, there will be some detractors, and I think one scene in particular is going to create a few haters. If you were offended by the overuse of the n-word in Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Django Unchained’, you will probably be equally offended by a scene in ‘42’ where Philladelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk) repeatedly slings racial epithets at Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman). It’s a scene that will make you feel uncomfortable, but I think it’s very important – the scene reminds us of a time in American history when this racial segregation existed – blacks couldn’t even share the same restrooms as whites. 

The color barrier in major league baseball was broken by Dodgers president and general manager Branch Rickie (Harrison Ford). He set his sights on Jackie Robinson, a 26-year-old baseball player in the Negro leagues playing for the Kansas City Monarchs. Branch didn’t believe Robinson was the best player at the time, but he was selected because Branch believed he would be able to withstand the racial and social repercussions that were bound to come his way.

The real-life Robinson is the true hero of this story but the best player in ‘42’ is Harrison Ford, giving one of the very best performances of his long career. Some may argue this isn’t a big stretch for Ford; that he’s tapping into his malcontent persona. Here, his character tries to align his personal Christian values of brotherhood with his ambitious professional targets. I think Ford is so good, he deserves Oscar consideration; though that isn’t very likely since Academy voters often have a difficult time recalling films released prior to September. Chadwick Boseman has the look of a professional athlete on the field, but more importantly, he is able to honor his real-life counterpart in those scenes where he absorbs a torrent of abuse from his white opponents, spectators, officials, and even his own teammates.

I did have a few issues with ‘42’ – we learn much about Jackie Robinson the baseball player, but very little about his life off the field; there are very few moments of Robinson with his wife and child and so we don’t really know how he was as a person, or as a husband or father. The movie would have received a stronger recommendation from yours truly had it further developed Mr.Robinson’s background. In the hands of another filmmaker – say, Spike Lee, or Martin Scorsese, ‘42’ would have given us a grittier, more intense account of the events that took place. Director Brian Helgeland plays it safe, giving us a film that very much admires the story’s hero, but in an honest, inspirational, and accessible manner. The end result is a good movie about a great subject; a competently made, historically accurate, and respectable motion picture, even if it remains trapped within the conventions of its biopic genre. QED.

It’s finally summer, woot! From the looks of it, there will be at least one major blockbuster release every weekend from now until the end of August, and I will do my best to cover them all. Kicking off this year’s summer blockbuster season is ‘Iron Man 3’, which would sound like it’s a sequel to ‘Iron Man 2’ but it feels more like a sequel to last year’s hugely successful ‘The Avengers’. Shane Black takes over the filmmaking reigns from Jon Favreau and this offering hits enough right notes and is good enough to warrant a passing grade.

The plot – by now, just about everyone knows that billionaire inventor and industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the man behind the superhero Iron Man. He recently saved the world from an alien invasion with the help of other superheroes, but is now suffering from anxiety attacks and insomnia. Compounding his problems is a mad, bearded jihadist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who’s recently surfaced and broadcasts some terrible executions. There’s also a creepy industrialist Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) who has his own weird agenda.

Shane Black has penned some good scripts for action pictures of the 80s and 90s (the original ‘Lethal Weapon’, ‘Last Boy Scout’, ‘The Long Kiss Goodnight’, etc.). This is Mr. Black’s second outing as director (his first being ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’ from 2005, which also starred Robert Downey Jr.). While that picture only earned $4.4M of its $15M budget, it did gain a cult following once released on DVD. This may seem like an odd choice by the studio – to pass the keys one of Marvel’s most successful film franchises over to Mr. Black. But, it works.

From the opening scene when Robert Downey Jr. starts saying something in voiceover narration, stops, and decides to start this story from a different direction – this is very ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’-ish and Mr. Black opens the picture in a knowingly, self-referential way. I do think this is a script that was made for Downey Jr. Very infrequently does there exist a perfect match between a performer and a screenwriter whereby the actor is able to spew out the writer’s dialogue in the perfect way – such is the case here. The banter between Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow is terrific and the early scenes with these two have a very old-school screwball comedy feel to them. I don’t think that Gwyneth Paltrow has really stood out much as an actress over the years but here she proves she can be quick and funny – again, this could be due to the matched pair factor; maybe Robert Downey Jr. brings out the best in her.

Stark appears to treat everyone (except Paltrow’s character) the same way. He does form an interesting relationship with a kid who helps him when he is desperate and doesn’t have anyone else to turn to. But, he doesn’t treat the kid any differently than he would treat anyone else – the kid is just another annoying adult in Stark’s eyes. I appreciated this element of the picture – most screenwriters would have been tempted to throw in a mushy subplot involving these two characters. How many among of us have fantasized about being able to tell a kid to shut up and stop being annoying? I doubt any of us have actually responded this way. Stark will call it as he sees it.

 ‘Iron Man 3’ is, however, first and foremost a big-budget summer blockbuster. Does it deliver on that level? Yes. There are some very cool individual moments; for example, each time Stark gets into his Iron Man suit – I won’t spoil this by describing it but each time it happened, I responded mentally with “Well, that was pretty cool.” The most recent Bond film, ‘Skyfall’, was what I like to call a back-to-basics Bond. The situation is this – the hero is stripped away of the tools he or she previously had in their possession. This requires the hero to be resourceful and to use their smarts to assemble something worthwhile. ‘Iron Man 3’ features a similarly cool scene where Stark has to go to a Home Depot-like store to purchase the raw materials needed to re-create a badass suit. 

There are also some pretty incredible set pieces and, as one would expect, the film’s climactic action sequence is rather sensational. Let’s face it – summer audience members want to see stuff get blown up real good. ‘Iron Man 3’ doesn’t make the mistake that many big-budget action pictures make – providing viewers with non-stop, wall-to-wall action. Let’s think about that phrase for a moment. Do we want our action films to have never-ending action? When you see something get blown up real good, there should be something underpinning the explosions, or at least someone to care about so that when an explosion does go off, we don’t want to see our characters (that we have a rooting interest for) in harm’s way. It should also be clear why a structure is blowing up at the time it blows up. Thankfully, there are moments of pause between the extravagant set pieces for us to better know these characters.

But, this leads me to some of the weaknesses of the picture. I don’t think that Stark’s character changes here – he always has the perfect response to any situation. One of the joys of the original ‘Iron Man’ was being able to see the evolution of this character from weapons dealer to superhero. He needed to figure out what his true calling was. In ‘Iron Man 3’, it’s clear that he’s battling some internal demons. “Nothing has been the same since New York.” says Stark. Well, we know he’s referring to the events of ‘The Avengers’, but what of that? The fact that he was almost killed while trying to save the planet? I suppose it would be out of character for Stark to talk about his feelings; but, the film doesn’t make the reasons behind his anxiety clear to us. He doesn’t seem to learn from it either. ‘Iron Man 3’ had the stage to intelligently answer a difficult question posed by Captain America’s character in ‘The Avengers’ – “Take off the suit/armour and what are you?”

At one point, Pepper Potts gets to put on the armour, and it had me thinking that she would be more involved in the action this time around. Nope. I think she spends a huge chunk of the back half of the film either hanging upside down or trapped under a heavy structure. I don’t want to see her get rescued in ‘Iron Man 4’ – she’s no longer just a minor character.  The bits involving The Mandarin are also very strange, but I also appreciate the inclusion of these scenes because they give ‘Iron Man 3’ its satirical edge.

There’s a lot going on in ‘Iron Man 3’, with its large cast, convoluted storyline, and equally convoluted subplots. I think that Joss Whedon’s ‘The Avengers’ was much better balanced. He was better able to handle the various moving parts – each character received the right amount of screen time needed to shine, and no one was lost in the shuffle. ‘Iron Man 3’ lacks the cohesion of ‘The Avengers’.

Still, ‘Iron Man 3’ is good enough to earn a recommendation from me because the parts that do work are so good; they make some of the lesser moments worth enduring. But, does my assessment really matter? At the point of writing this review (8:09 p.m. EST, May 9th, 2013), ‘Iron Man 3’ has already made $205M domestically, and $563.5M internationally. Those box office figures may have been sufficient enough for a review. QED. 

I’m certain Nietzche, Aquinas, Kant, and Descartes are covered in every single undergrad Philosophy curriculum in existence, but how come there isn’t a Philosophy course on the filmmaker Terrence Malick? He has made a total of six full-length features in the last forty years – ‘Badlands’, ‘Days of Heaven’, ‘The Thin Red Line’, ‘The New World’, ‘The Tree of Life’, and most recently, ‘To The Wonder’. Three of these pictures were made within the last eight years, but all six of them pose an eternal philosophical question – “What is the meaning of it all?”

I’ve been a fan of Mr.Malick’s work for a long time. Upon its initial release in 1998, I even ranked ‘The Thin Red Line’ higher than Spielberg’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’ – my moviegoing friends consider that statement as absurd today as they did fifteen years ago when I had to present my review in a Media Studies class.

‘To The Wonder’ is Malick’s weakest picture to date. While I’m not recommending the film, I should state right up front that it does serve as an efficient travelogue for those who are unable to travel this year. ‘To The Wonder’ is a romantic melodrama about two characters falling in and out love. Like most of Malick’s work, this one follows a nonlinear structure but the love story within the film appears to contain a through line. Oklahoman boy Neil (Ben Affleck) meets Ukrainian girl Marina (Olga Kurylenko) in France. She has a ten-year old daughter named Tatiana (Tatiana Chiline). We experience the first joyful stage of this relationship, with screensaver-esque backgrounds. Nothing is visually drab or ugly in this Malickian universe. With the help of his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezski, Mr.Malick has created a world that is ravishingly gorgeous. The Parisian setting presents dream-like opportunities for visual artists – the limestone buildings, the architectural aspects of a cathedral (counterforts and conical spires), and cobblestone streets. Mr.Malick has always been able to find beauty anywhere, and these early moments of the film illustrate his gift wonderfully.

Eventually, these characters end up in Oklahoma. I didn’t think there would be nearly as much for Lubezski to revel in. But there are wheat fields, and creeks; also, less flattering geographical spots such as parking structures and supermarkets. Marina dances through these golden fields in the sunlight and through supermarket aisles. She does a lot of twirling; she is a carefree spirit and she can’t contain herself – of course, a guy like Mr.Affleck could have this effect on a woman. These blissful moments eventually expire and soon enough, there are feelings of resentment and hostility between these two. This causes Marina and her daughter to return to France. Neil then reconnects with a rancher he knew in childhood, Jane (Rachel McAdams). Marina also begins a bond with Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), a priest who is struggling with his faith.

We seem to be tapping into Malick’s memories and I’m convinced most of what appears on-screen is autobiographical. I found a lot of the dialogue inaudible – much of it seemed to be quiet whispers; at times, I felt like I was being brought into a conversation between two people mid-way, and was lost at sea. That is the point, I suppose – not to listen, but to feel.  The dialogue that was audible was nearly indecipherable with pseudo-poetic ideas about love - “Emotions, they come and go like clouds.” “You fear your love has died, it is perhaps waiting to be transformed into something higher.” 

These abstract qualities, however, made it very difficult for me to connect with the film. I admired much of what I saw, but I felt like I was being put through an academic exercise. As an example, I can’t even begin to explain the disintegration of the relationship between Neil and Marina – other than in terms of the metaphorical imagery which is often presented with muted colors. As mentioned before, Malick often poses an eternal question – “What does it all mean?” He may not have had a driving narrative in his previous work; what he did have were images which implanted provocative questions into the minds of its viewers. Never will I forget the composts and birth of the universe sequence in ‘The Tree of Life’ and wonder how this connected to a coming-of-age story (or a family in Waco, Texas). Or the first shot of ‘The Thin Red Line’ which shows a crocodile submerged in the jungle river – is nature at war with itself? Some have considered his work self-indulgent; I’ve always found it awe-inspiring. Which is exactly where my trouble with ‘To The Wonder’ lies – where is the sense of awe and wonderment? The images in this picture didn’t speak to me; Mr.Malick has made his point inaccessible and has forced me to endure this experience.

What exactly does the landscape represent? The emotions felt by its central characters? The emotions not felt by them? More importantly, how do we care about characters that appear to be theoretical constructs? I reiterate the fact that I probably wasn’t supposed to care; that I was supposed to delve into Malick’s philosophical world and derive a formula for “Higher Meaning”. But, the drama at the core of the film should support Malick’s philosophical leafage. I couldn’t make the connection. Same goes for Javier Bardem’s character – his story seems to be from another movie altogether.

Malick’s intentions are admirable, and if anything, ‘To The Wonder’ is ambitious to a fault. I don’t want to ask for a more conventional piece, but I think a little less wonder, and a little more story would have gone a long way. Marina’s daughter, Tatiana, has one of the film’s few audible lines of dialogue. This was the only universal truth I was able to leave with – “There’s something missing.” Yes, there is. QED.

‘The Sapphires’ represents the kind of film that is difficult for a critic to review. Is this great cinema? Not really. But it is a great 103 minutes at the movies. ‘The Sapphires’ possesses an exuberant, innocent fun that is simply infectious.

The picture is inspired by a true story - three aboriginal sisters and their cousin escape the racism of 1960s Australia and head to Vietnam as a singing group to entertain the troops. The group is known as the Cummeragunja Songbirds prior to being rebranded as The Sapphires; and in spite of internal discord, their singing voices remain in perfect harmony (typical of musical biopics).

 ‘The Sapphires’ was directed by first-time filmmaker Wayne Blair and was written by Keith Thompson and Tony Briggs (Tony Briggs’ mother, Beverly Briggs, is one of the real-life Sapphires). On a very strange note, I must also comment on the fact the appearance of the real-life Sapphires, who we inevitably see photos of during the end credits. This is the first movie I can think of where the real-life women in which this story is based on turn out to be significantly be more attractive than the actresses portraying them on-screen.  

Three of the four singers, Gail (Deborah Mailman), Julie (Jessica Mauboy) and Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell) are sisters who live on a dusty Aboriginal reserve where they live with their parents, other family members and friends. Unfortunately, they’re forced to contend with the racism from the outside white population towards them. They perform at a local talent show, but they’re not welcome there. They’re greeted with racist remarks and are denied the victory they quite obviously should have earned. But, they catch the eye of David Lovelace (Chris O’ Dawd), a musical accompanist for the local signing talents. Two things appear to make his life worthwhile - booze and soul music. He reminds the girls that they are black, advises them to drop the country/western music routine, and to transition over to soul music. Of course, he sees this as an opportunity for him to become their manager and entertain the soul brothers serving in Vietnam. En route to Vietnam, the girls and their manager stop in Melbourne to pick up Sapphire #4, Kay (Shari Sebbens) – she was removed from the family as a child and sent to be raised by a white family due to her light skin color.

Kay’s story in particular gives the film some weight as she undergoes her own identity crisis. There is Gail’s resentment towards her but also the question of whether Kay thinks she has the upper hand over the other members of the group. After all, people don’t have racist feelings towards her due to her lighter skin, and she did have an advantageous upbringing relative to the other three Sapphires.

In a lesson he offers the girls, Dave states that country music dwells on failure whilst soul music embraces hope in the face of adversity. What ‘The Sapphires’ does well is take all of these elements of misfortune – racism, war, alcoholism, political unrest, family conflicts; and converts it into bubbly, nostalgic entertainment. We see footage of Muhummad Ali, JFK, Martin Luther King and we’re reminded of how significant these events were in American history. But, we’re also reminded of the days of Motown and how struggling African-American singers worked hard, very hard, to entertain the masses; and how some people chose to neglect their artistry and respond with racist taunts.

The Weinstein Company (the film’s distributor) was nice enough to supply us with a copy of the picture’s soundtrack on the way out of the screening. This could very well be Jessica Mauboy’s album – ten of the sixteen tracks are sung by her. Her (as well as the other cast members of The Sapphires) add a nice spin on 60s era classics such as ‘Land of a Thousand Dances’, ‘I Can’t Help Myself (Sugar Pie Hunny Bunch)’, ‘I Heard It Through The Grape Vine’, and ‘What a Man’.

‘The Sapphires’ isn’t without its flaws – its tonal shifts from comedy to drama and back again to comedy are a little abrupt. The look of the picture is occasionally shoddy with some unpolished production. And, the main driving story about these girls’ rise to fame is both predictable and sentimental. But, even through all of its flaws, the film’s sincerity and charm stand out.

As I exited the theatre, I submitted a tweet-sized review which stated “’The Sapphires’ - Predictable but charmingly irresistible and filled with great performances; I think this is going to be a crowd-pleasing hit.” I might be wrong about this in the short run – the film is now playing in limited release (at the Varsity in Toronto). Will the picture get a wider release beyond that? I’m not sure; that is entirely dependent on the word-of-mouth it receives. This may happen during its theatrical run, or once it’s released on DVD/Blu-Ray/Netflix/On Demand. Regardless of the channel, I do hope ‘The Sapphires’ finds an audience, and I suspect it will. QED.

There’s a story in the movie business about a wise old producer who used to applaud at the end of every movie because he knew how hard it was to make a movie, even a bad one. I don’t think this producer is alive today, but if he was, I’m convinced he wouldn’t applaud at the end of this film. ‘Identity Thief’ is my second zero star film of 2013 (the first being the horrendous ‘Movie 43’). I hadn’t given a single 2012 release zero stars (the last movie to receive this honour would be ‘The Human Centipede 2’ in 2011).

Jason Bateman plays a guy named Sandy Paterson and the movie thinks it’s hilarious that a guy’s name is Sandy. Things are going well for him until he’s duped on the phone by Diana (Melissa McCarthy) who has him believe that she is calling from a credit alert bureau. In reality, she is fishing for his private information, and once she has it, she creates a drivers license and credit card in his name and goes on a wild spending spree in Florida. Through a complicated series of circumstances, Sandy flies out to Florida with the intent of finding and returning Diana to Denver in the hopes that she’ll admit the truth and his name will be cleared. Of course, crazy road trip escapades ensure, none of which are remotely funny. This includes Melissa McCarthy being chased by inexplicable armed thugs – what do they even want from her? This is never explained in the movie.

What an incredibly stupid plot! Shouldn’t his credit card company have noticed something was wrong? How can the same credit card have a transaction take place in Florida and Denver within the same day? The Florida transactions are quite substantial – shouldn’t this raise a red flag? Aren’t we all forced to pay a monthly protection fee for each of the credit cards we hold? Is this the level of security we get in return? I expect to receive a call from my credit card company shortly for the $30 cheeseburger I purchased last night. 

‘Identity Thief’ repeatedly circles back to same joke about Jason Bateman’s character having the name Sandy. Each time this happens, he responds with “It’s a unisex name.” Yes, it is! It isn’t that feminine a name – there’s Sandy Koufax, Sandy Berger, Sandy Alomar Jr., and Sandy Ward to name a few. Now, if his name had been Margaret, I might have laughed the first time the joke was made. But, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what doesn’t work about the picture.

Let’s not forget that Melissa McCarthy is a brilliant performer – she was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar last year for her work in ‘Bridesmaids’. If there’s one good thing that can be said about Identity Thief, it’s that Melissa McCarthy just goes for it – she’s a fearless comedienne. But, the script has her going through the motions with its repetitive gags – for example, her character has a habit of punching people in the throat; I didn’t laugh the first time, nor did I laugh the ninth time this happened. If this role had been played by Jim Carrey, Vince Vaughn, or Will Farrell – they would be able to take their outrageous comic antics and run to the end zone with them. But with Melissa McCarthy in front of the camera, the filmmakers undercut her, larger-than-life physical comedic talents – every fifteen minutes or so, the script requires her to cry about her upbringing, her sad life, and about how she doesn’t really have any friends. First world problems. In any case, we as audience members know what we would like to see – more so than the studios; and I think one of the many tweaks the script could have used would be to have Melissa McCarthy remain unremorseful and corrupt throughout. After all, if the character had been played by a male actor, that’s how it would have transpired on screen.  I’m not being sexist - the screenwriters are.

As for Jason Batemen, this is his second collaboration with director Seth Gordon – they both worked on ‘Horrible Bosses’ previously (which I gave a rave 3.5/4 star review to). Bateman can play the corporate drone convincingly but I didn’t believe for a moment he would be willing to go on this crazy journey. He’s smart enough to know that this is a matter the authorities could deal with. Bateman, like McCarthy, is a likeable star – the script leaves them both are stranded in the middle of nowhere without any help in sight. These are two actors who should have been able to sense that this script was a stinker – can I really sympathize with them? To make matters worse, even the filmmaking is lousy. Gordon zeros in on these performers faces often; this telescopic method doesn’t give us enough space to actually see what is happening with these two actors. What we get is a game of cinematic Wimbledon with the camera shifting its attention between McCarthy and Bateman; why can’t we just see them in the same frame?

But, what do I know? Identity Thief is the second highest grossing film of the year so far – it’s brought in a total of $130 million and is among the leading films at the box office, even in its eighth week of release. This makes all of us a victim of an identity thief. I didn’t laugh once, either with or at these characters – I didn’t even want to laugh near them. Get the point yet? I didn’t laugh. ‘Identity Thief’ is a terrible movie – one of the worst moviegoing experiences I’ve ever had. With a runtime of 111 minutes, this felt as long as the 5-day road trip Bateman’s character goes on – it is such a slog. I couldn’t wait for this to end. If there was a bright spot about it, it was that I got to see this movie with someone pretty awesome. But, even with great company, I just can’t bump the film’s score to 1/2star.

Being a film critic sounds like the best job in the world – you get to see every major movie that is released, and write about your experience in a darkened, air conditioned room. Truth be told, the job of a film critic sucks sometimes - a movie like ‘Identity Thief’ is proof of that. During my review of ‘Movie 43’, I stated that my chapter in life as an entertainment writer has probably reached its terminal end. Luckily, I saw ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ shortly after and all was right with the world. Here’s hoping I see another great picture soon. Else, this could be the end. If so, it’s been a blast. QED.

Park Chan-Wook makes his North American debut with ‘Stoker’, which is currently in limited release. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the name, Mr.Chan-Wook is the filmmaker behind the ‘Vengeance’ trilogy – these pictures include ‘Sympathy for Mr.Vengeance’, ‘Oldboy’, and ‘Sympathy for Lady Vengeance’. ‘Oldboy’ was the most popular of the three and instantly spawned a vogue for all things Korean amongst stateside cinephiles. I happened to see ‘Oldboy’ and ‘Stoker’ on the same day and so I know that I’m already going to offend some moviegoers with this remark, but my honest reaction is this – I’d rank ‘Stoker’ higher than ‘Oldboy’ (which is currently sitting at #85 on the IMDB Top 250 List).

Why beat around the bush? I think this is one of the most chilling and disturbingly effective movies I’ve seen in a really long time. India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) is a sullen high school student whose father dies mysteriously on her 18th birthday. On the day of his funeral, India discovers that she has an uncle she never knew she had - the stylishly-dressed Charlie (Matthew Goode). He has an uncomfortably creepy flirtation with India’s mother (Nicole Kidman) and people start disappearing. But ostentatiously.

As he did in ‘Oldboy’, Park Chan-Wook’s technical skills and showmanship are on full display here with his use of bold colour and aberrant compositions. We first see India on the side of the road and Mr.Chan-Wook shoots this scene from a low angle; her dress flows in the wind and there’s a freeze frame during a moment I shouldn’t describe (except for the fact that it filled me with giddily perverse anticipation for what was to come). But the imagery within the opening shot lets us know that this story is going to end in an awful, bloody mess. Take for instance another scene during a long, tense dinner; the camera roams in a specific manner – only the person with something to say can be seen within the frame. If not for the plate of food in front of their clenched forks and knives, this dinner table could easily be mistaken for a poker table – who will be the first to reveal their tell? Or a scene in which a hairbrush runs through the Nicole Kidman character’s hair which then transitions into a blusterous field of grass. Or the visceral use of sound during the sharpening of a bloody pencil.

One shot shows India lying on her bed, seemingly circumscribed by boxes of identical shoes (with each box containing a different shoe size). The grand piano is positioned in the front room – and all three central characters have their moment to play; such moments emphasize sexual dread and yearning. There are also the echoes of footsteps on hardwood floor, and the foreboding creeks along the basement stairs under the swinging lampshade. This is a meticulously designed picture with every detail in the frame being fully realized.  In this regard, Mr.Chan-Wook strikes a rare and delicate balance – but making his visual sensibilities appear outlandish yet restrained; gorgeous yet minimalistic.

In terms of the performances, the standout here is Matthew Goode – not to be confused with the rock singer, Matt Good. His character shifts from charming to creepy effortlessly. From the moment he appeared on screen, I knew there was something “off” about him and I couldn’t wait to find out what his deal was. Nicole Kidman has played this sort of damaged character with a bemused sense of self-preservation in ‘The Others’ and ‘Rabbit Hole’ and she is hauntingly good here too. And, she gets one showy scene towards the end when she lets her daughter India have it with a monologue about the impetus of parenthood. And I should credit Mia Wasikowska for picking mostly challenging roles – ‘The Kids Are All Right’, ‘Jane Eyre’, ‘Albert Nobbs’. Her character’s arc of maturity, as uncomfortable as it will make some viewers, is so clearly defined by her performance. I have an enormous amount of admiration for her as an actress and can’t wait to see what she does next.

A word of caution – ‘Stoker’ won’t be for everyone. Certain scenes will have viewers walking, if not running out the exit door; such as a shower scene which shows a young girl masturbating (the scene is intercut with a grisly murder sequence).  Some viewers are going to see this, like ‘Oldboy’, as a celebration of brutality and violence. I didn’t see it that way – I saw it as an intensely eerie examination of the darker side of human nature. The idea that some people could kill without any hesitation or remorse (and that such people may have been capable of it at an early age) is an unsettling thought, but Mr.Chan-Wook makes his audience members feel uncomfortable from the get-go. I suspect those who are able to stomach the unsavory material will be in for an aggressively creepy ride.

There appears to be a wave of foreign filmmakers making their excursion into Hollywood; in the last few months, there has been Park Chan-Wook with ‘Stoker’, Jee Woon-Kim’s ‘The Last Stand’, and Juan Antonio Bayona’s ‘The Impossible’ to name a few. Of the pictures I’ve seen, I’m impressed by the fact that these filmmakers don’t sacrifice their artistic sensibilities with the shift to American moviemaking. They remain firmly grounded in what they believe cinema should represent regardless of where the film is actually produced. But this begs the question – are North American audiences ready for these kinds of artful thrillers? The box office numbers suggest otherwise; but, of course, this could be due to the marketing of these pictures (after all, they contain the star-power necessary to draw in a large crowd, but they failed to do so). In any case, my hat is off to the filmmaker who sets out to make a “great movie” as opposed to the “great movie at the box office for the weekend”.

‘Stoker’ is beautifully photographed and tension-filled; outbursts of violence are unexpected and so their impact lingers. It’s very much in the spirit of movies such as ‘Badlands’ or ‘Natural Born Killers’ making us believe that these brutal murders aren’t the result of monsters or members of the mob, but by damaged souls who are absent of a conscience. ‘Stoker’ examines the artfulness of violence whilst simultaneously ensuring that its human element remains intact. I can already sense that this is going to be a very divisive film with just as many audience members pointing their thumb way down as those pointing it way up. I fall into the latter category, and to me, this was significantly more than a 2-hour perfume ad. ‘Stoker’ is such an extraordinarily composed piece – one that won’t escape my memory any time soon. QED. 

Just this past Sunday, nearly 41 million American viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 Oscars. And despite people’s reservations about host Seth MacFarlene, most of us can agree that the Oscars were a celebration of some of the finest cinematic moments of 2012 (which was a fabulous year for cinema). And just days after the Oscars, Hollywood has decided to release ’21 & Over’ – a movie that celebrates youthful idiocy.

Here’s the story – what little there is. Straight-A student Jeff Chang (Justin Chon) and two best friends (Skylar Astin, Miles Teller) take Jeff Chang out for Jeff Chang’s 21st birthday. But, Jeff Chang has an important medical school interview the next day and Jeff Chang’s oppressive papa will be ready to pick up Jeff Chang at 7 a.m. for his interview. What was supposed to be a quick beer becomes a night of drunken humiliation, and utter debauchery. If you’re watching ’21 & Over’ in China or Hong Kong, you get a different story about a Chinese student who attends an American college and gets corrupted by our westernized partying ways.

Notice my overuse of the name Jeff Chang? You see, I thought if I said it over and over and over again, you would find it funny. Because the screenwriters of this picture seem to think so. Jeff Chang is the joke here as can be seen by the movie’s trailer. Can you guess how many times we hear Jeff Chang’s name being called out in ’21 & Over’? I lost count. Just once, couldn’t someone call him Jeff?

Assuming you’re watching the North American version of ’21 & Over’, you know exactly where this movie is going from the moment its characters and their situations are introduced. This is the directorial debut of Jon Lucas and Scott Moore – the screenwriting duo behind ‘The Hangover’ (which admittedly, I hated). We seem to be getting several of these crude R-rated comedies each year now. The problem is most are concerned with upping the gross-out factor; each film has to be more disgusting than the one that comes before it. Unfortunately, this often comes at the expense of the basic elements of screenwriting – you know, like, um, story and characters. And a note to all comedic filmmakers – never ever use shaky-cam. There is no need for a documentary-like “you are there” feel for a movie such as this. Please get a tripod.

There is nothing new here. This is the cinematic equivalent of concocting a recipe where the ingredients are far from other, far superior pictures. For example, the long-time buddy pair (one is a wisecracking horn-dog, the other is a nerd focused on the future) – ‘Superbad’. What about the strict, ethnic father who wants his son to practise medicine just like he did (without considering the alternative that his son may want something else for himself) – ‘Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle’? And what about the two blindfolded women who make out for the boys but get their revenge by forcing them to kiss each other afterwards – ‘American Pie 2’? ’21 & Over’ blends all these elements (and many more) together and the result is stale, unappetizing and hard to swallow.

As I mentioned before, there isn’t much of a story here. It is intended to be a series of vignettes – it’s all setup and payoff, setup and payoff. But, what’s at stake here? Are we worried that Jeff Chang is going to sleep in and miss his med school interview? Or that his father, Dr. Chang is going to be on the run for Jeff Chang and “honour-kill him” (as one character puts it). Given that Jeff Chang is passed out for most of the picture, the weight of the film lies on the shoulders of his two friends – this is a problem. There is no on-screen chemistry between the two and the script didn’t convince me (even for a moment) that these two would ever register as friends.

And if you’re going to be a raunchy, R-rated comedy – be a raunchy, R-rated comedy. The movie makes a 180-degree turn in its final act in a desperate attempt to give this mean-spirited picture some heart. But, these guys are jerks; I didn’t find anyone likable, and because I have no vested interest in any of them, I didn’t care about the life lessons they gained after this crazy night out. Worse yet, complications (such as Jeff Chang’s friends realizing that Jeff Chang is carrying a gun in his pocket) are resolved in overly-simplistic ways. Surely, this is a pretty serious issue, but ’21 & Over’ isn’t interested in addressing it in mature ways. The tonal shifts in the last act gave me whiplash.

Its primary focus is on grossing us out. And I have to admit, I did laugh a few times. But, there are significantly more misses than hits. I did laugh when Jeff Chang drunkenly yelled out that he was going to be 21 forever. But, for that one laugh, I had to later watch Jeff Chang munching on a tampon, believing it to be a candy bar. And then I had to witness two stoners strip a passed-out Jeff Chang, put him in a bra, and glue a teddy bear to his junk. And then, I had to see Jeff Chang run through the U.Washington campus like a screaming lunatic (and oh, that poor teddy bear). Your mileage may vary; there does seem to be an audience for fat jokes and vomit gags. But I’m so very tired of movies like these. So. Very. Tired.

The best thing that can be said about ’21 & Over’ is that it isn’t as abysmal as it could have been. And, well, at least it’s better than ‘Movie 43’. My suggestion is that you skip out on Jeff Chang’s invitation. Unless you personally know a Jeff Change. In which case you should definitely hang out with him this weekend – he has to be more likable than the Jeff Chang in ’21 & Over’. For sure. QED.

My predictions for the 85th Annual Oscars for all 24 categories are included below. Last year, I got 19/24 of these correct.

Best Picture:

‘Amour’
‘Argo’
‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’
‘Django Unchained’
‘Les Misérables’
‘Life of Pi’
‘Lincoln’
‘Silver Linings Playbook’
‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Will Win: Argo
Should Win: Django Unchained

Best Actor:

Bradley Cooper, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’
Daniel Day-Lewis, ‘Lincoln’
Hugh Jackman, ‘Les Misérables’
Joaquin Phoenix, ‘The Master’
Denzel Washington, ‘Flight’

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, ‘Lincoln’
Should Win: Denzel Washington, ‘Flight’

Best Actress:

Jessica Chastain, ‘Zero Dark Thirty’
Jennifer Lawrence, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’
Emmanuelle Riva, ‘Amour’
Quvenzhané Wallis, ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’
Naomi Watts, ‘The Impossible’

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’
Should Win: Jessica Chastain, ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Best Supporting Actor:

Alan Arkin, ‘Argo’
Robert De Niro, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’
Philip Seymour Hoffman, ‘The Master’
Tommy Lee Jones, ‘Lincoln’
Christoph Waltz, ‘Django Unchained’

Will Win: Robert De Niro, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’
Should Win: Christoph Waltz, ‘Django Unchained’

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams, ‘The Master’
Sally Field, ‘Lincoln’
Anne Hathaway, ‘Les Misérables’
Helen Hunt, ‘The Sessions’
Jacki Weaver, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’

Will Win: Anne Hathaway, ‘Les Misérables’
Should Win: Helen Hunt, ‘The Sessions’

Best Director:

Michael Haneke, ‘Amour’
Ang Lee, ‘Life Of Pi’
David O. Russell, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’
Steven Spielberg, ‘Lincoln’
Benh Zeitlin, ‘Beasts Of The Southern Wild’

Will Win: Steven Spielberg, ’ Lincoln’
Should Win: David O. Russell, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’

Best Original Screenplay:

‘Amour’: Michael Haneke
‘Django Unchained’: Quentin Tarantino
‘Flight’: John Gatins
‘Moonrise Kingdom’: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola
‘Zero Dark Thirty’: Mark Boal

Will Win: ‘Amour’, Michael Haneke
Should Win: ‘Django Unchained’, Quentin Tarantino

Best Adapted Screenplay:

‘Argo’: Chris Terrio
‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’: Lucy Alibar, Benh Zeitlin
‘Life of Pi’: David Magee
‘Lincoln’: Tony Kushner
‘Silver Linings Playbook’:David O. Russell

Will Win: ‘Lincoln’, Tony Kushner
Should Win: ‘Argo’, Chris Terrio

Best Animated Film:

‘Brave’
‘Frankenweenie’
‘Paranorman’
‘The Pirates: Band Of Misfits’
’ Wreck-It Ralph’

Will Win: ‘Wreck-It Ralph’
Should Win: ‘Brave’

Best Foreign Film:

‘Amour’
‘Rebelle’
‘No’
‘A Royal Affair’
‘Kon-Tiki’

Will Win: ‘Amour’
Should Win: ‘Amour’

Best Documentary:

‘5 Broken Cameras’
‘The Gatekeepers’
‘How To Survive A Plague’
‘The Invisible War’
‘Searching For Sugar Man’

Will Win: ‘Searching For Sugar Man’
Should Win: ‘Searching For Sugar Man’

Best Cinematography:

‘Anna Karenina’
‘Django Unchained’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Lincoln’
‘Skyfall’

Will Win: ‘Life Of Pi’

Best Editing:

‘Argo’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Lincoln’
‘Silver Linings Playbook’
‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Will Win: ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Best Production Design:

‘Anna Karenina’
‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’
‘Les Misérables’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Lincoln’

Will Win: ‘Les Misérables’

Best Costume Design:

‘Anna Karenina’
‘Les Misérables’
‘Lincoln’
‘Mirror Mirror’
‘Snow White and the Huntsman’

Will Win: ‘Anna Karenina’

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:

‘Hitchcock’
‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’
‘Les Misérables’

Will Win: ‘Les Misérables’

Best Original Score:

‘Anna Karenina’
‘Argo’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Lincoln’
‘Skyfall’

Will Win: ‘Life Of Pi’

Best Original Song:

‘Chasing Ice’: J. Ralph (‘Before My Time’)
‘Les Misérables’: Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer (‘Suddenly’)
‘Life of Pi’: Mychael Danna, Bombay Jayshree (‘Pi’s Lullaby’)
‘Skyfall’: Adele, Paul Epworth (‘Skyfall’)
‘Ted’: Walter Murphy, Seth MacFarlane(‘Everybody Needs a Best Friend’)

Will Win: ‘Skyfall’: Adele, Paul Epworth (‘Skyfall’)

Best Sound Mixing:

‘Argo’
‘Les Misérables’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Lincoln’
‘Skyfall’

Will Win: ‘Les Misérables’

Best Sound Editing:

‘Argo’
‘Django Unchained’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Skyfall’
‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Will Win: ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Best Visual Effects:

‘The Avengers’
‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’
‘Life Of Pi’
‘Prometheus’
‘Snow White and the Huntsman’

Will Win: ‘Life Of Pi’

Best Documentary Short:

‘Inocente’
‘Kings Point’
‘Mondays at Racine’
‘Open Heart’
‘Redemption’

Will Win: ‘Mondays at Racine’

Best Animated Short:

‘Adam and Dog’
‘Fresh Guacamole’
‘Head Over Heels’
‘Paperman’
‘The Simpsons: The Longest Daycare’

Will Win: ‘Paper Man’

Best Live Action Short:

‘Asad’
‘Buzkashi Boys’
‘Curfew’
‘Death of a Shadow’
‘Henry’

Will Win: ‘Death Of A Shadow’

This will be the first year since 1989 that the director of the Best Picture winner wasn’t nominated in the Best Director category (the last time this happened was ‘Driving Miss Daisy’). ‘Argo’ was a great movie and I ranked it at #2 on my Top 10 List of 2012 (with ‘Django Unchained’ marginally edging out ‘Argo’). 

I suspect the Best Actress award will go to Jennifer Lawrence, though this is difficult to predict. Jessica Chastain gave the better performance (great technical acting) but Jennifer Lawrence’s work is showier. Emmaneul Riva turns 86 on Oscar Sunday – it would be nice to see her win the award, and she just might.

Daniel Day-Lewis is the front-runner for Best Actor. He was pretty much guaranteed to win the award when the poster for ‘Lincoln’ was released.

Best Supporting Actor – Another tough category. This will be between Robert De Niro and Tommy Lee Jones. But, my guess is De Niro will win it and it will be his first win in 32 years (‘Raging Bull’ being his last).

Anne Hathaway for ‘Les Miz’! Undeserved – all she did was sing for a bit and die. Oops, spoiler. Sorry. She’s won every Best Supporting Actress award leading up to the Oscars – she will win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; this is a lock!

Steven Spielberg will win Best Director. Don’t bet against him. This is the Academy’s chance to honor a film veteran who is back at the top of his game.

‘Amour’ will win Best Foreign. This is a certainty; rarely do foreign film crossover to other categories (especially major ones like Best Picture and Best Director).

Zombies are the *new* vampires, and I’m not sure I understand why. Admittedly, George A. Romero’s original ‘Dawn of the Dead’ remains one of my all-time favorite horror flicks but I’m in the minority on Danny Boyle’s ’28 Days Later’/’28 Weeks Later’ and AMC’s ‘The Walking Dead’. Zombies don’t make for interesting creatures - they snarl, walk slowly, sniff the air, feast on human flesh, approach a physical barrier, and are eventually killed with a shot to the head.  We’ve never once been able to identify with a zombie character or understand what triggers go off within their decaying mind. ‘Warm Bodies’ breaks tradition and offers us a story that allows us to see things from the zombie’s point of view.

Based on the novel by Isaac Marion, writer-director Jonathan Levine offers us a fresh spin on the zombie genre. The story takes place eight years after a plague has killed off most of the world’s population and turned those victims into zombies. Now, the remaining humans led by Colonel Grigio (John Malkovich) and protected by his armed militia live behind a huge walled city. On the other side of that wall – zombies; and among the zombies is R (Nicholas Houst) who, like his friend, M (Rob Corddry) live at a deserted airport. R and M have almost conversations – most of these consist of grunts, groans, and “eh’s”. We’re able to hear the thoughts in R’s head and come to understand that he’s conflicted about feasting on humans.

While on the lookout for food, R encounters Julie (Teresa Palmer) and a group of her friends. R sees Julie and is immediately drawn to her. His latest victim ends up being Julie’s boyfriend, Perry (Dave Franco). We learn that a side effect of zombies eating human brains is that they experience the memories of the victim – this makes R’s attraction to Julie even stronger. And this causes him to save Julie from being killed by other zombies. They take refuge in a well-decorated airliner, and eventually Julie comes to realize that R means no harm. I should also mention there’s a difference between the dead and the truly dead; the truly dead as referred to as Bonies – these are ferocious and quicker moving zombies who have resorted to tearing off their own flesh, thus making them skeletal-killing creatures that are on the hunt for both zombies and humans.

If not for the fact that he’s part of the undead, R could very well be a character in a circa-2013 John Hughes knockoff. He looks like a hipster high school kid who found a good make-up artist for Halloween. And he’s got fabulous taste in music (well, except for John Waite’s ‘Missing You’). I also think Teresa Palmer has a great screen presence – I’ve noticed her in previous films (none of which I liked) including: ‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice’, ‘Take Me Home Tonight’, and ‘I Am Number Four’ and always held the belief that she would be able to shine through in the right role. I only hope she continues to pick scripts as good as this for future projects, and I believe if she continues to do so, she will become a recognizable talent. Perhaps knowing that there was no way for John Malkovich to out-crazy the craziness contained within ‘Warm Bodies’, he gives a surprisingly dialed down performance. The best of the supporting cast is Rob Corddry; he’s able to deliver laughs with minimal dialogue – the key to a good comedy is timing, and Corddry’s comic timing is brilliant.  

‘Warm Bodies’ does have its flaws. The special effects surrounding the Bonies aren’t particularly convincing, and their movements appear to be clunky. Some of the musical choices are a little too obvious; I understand that music is used as a tool for the speech-challenged R to communicate with Julie, but the movie does have an overreliance on it during the first act.  And while there is a degree of subtlety to both the humor of the picture and its message, there are times when it’s not so subtle – most noticeably a scene with R under Julie’s balcony that, you know, reminds us of a tale of star-crossed lovers penned by Mr.Shakespeare.

Thanks to the success of the ‘Twilight’ series (or failure depending on how you look at it), there appears to be a surge in the human/supernatural romance sub-genre. As with any romantic film, the courtship process has an element of mechanics to it. But, at least the characters here are (pardon the pun) fleshed out. Mr.Levine’s script has a terrific sense of humor and I admired his optimistic view of humanity (which was a nice change of pace after seeing some really grim pictures lately) and he infuses the film with stylistic flourishes. I loved ‘Warm Bodies’ and give it major points for breathing new life into a genre that seems as dead as its zombie counterparts. I doubt there will be a better post-zombie-apocalyptic love story this year. QED.

About a month ago, I published my list of the Worst 10 films of 2012. The picture to take the #1 spot on that list was ‘The Campaign’ – the Will Farrell/Zack Galifiankis political comedy which inexplicably seems to have its share of promoters (based on the comments I received for ranking the picture so low). ‘Movie 43’ makes ‘The Campaign’ look like an artful rendition in comparison; and I doubt this picture will have anyone promoting it. Even the releasing studio, Virgin Produced, didn’t screen this in advance for critics, because they knew how we would react to it.

The film’s ads state we can’t unsee this thing. My dear readers, I beg of you not to see this. I watched it and am now I’m reviewing it for you so you don’t have to. Film critics may have the best job in the world – but this is a perfect example of when it becomes rough; I was just robbed of ninety minutes of my life. And despite the fact that I’ve only been a contributor to Chic Darling for a short period of time, ‘Movie 43’ made me want to resign as entertainment writer. In fact, this may very well be my last review.

The idea for this project came from Peter Farrelly – who along with his brother Bobby Farrelly directed some of my favorite comedies of the 1990s: ‘Dumb and Dumber’, ‘Kingpin’, and ‘There’s Something About Mary’. Peter has obviously fallen of harder times. It was his idea to create a film consisting of twelve different storylines, each one done by a different director. These idiots include: Elizabeth Banks, Steven Brill, Steve Carr, Rusty Cundieff, James Duffy, Griffin Dunne, Patrik Forsberg, James Gunn, Bob Odenkirk, Brett Ratner, and Jonathan van Tulleken.   ‘Movie 43’ stars one of the biggest ensemble casts ever in film: Halle Berry, Gerard Butler, Anna Faris, Hugh Jackman, Johnny Knoxville, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Seann William Scott, Emma Stone, and Kate Winslet to name a few.

This is the biggest waste of A-talent in cinematic history – those thinking that this will be an interest star-studded turkey are wrong. There is no camp value to be had; ‘Movie 43’ is gross, scatological, witlessly crude, offensive, and an entertainment-free dead zone as far as I’m concerned.

Apparently, this was shot over a four year period – the only fatality here is the audience. The first segment is entitled ‘The Pitch’. Dennis Quaid plays a mad screenwriter trying to pitch a script to film executive Greg Kinnear. Quaid’s outrageous ideas are dismissed by Kinnear, so what does Quaid do? He pulls a gun on Kinnear forcing him to purchase the film. The following segments show us exactly what Quaid’s ideas are. The second segment called ‘The Catch’ features Kate Winslet on a blind date with Hugh Jackman – when Jackman removes his scarf, she noticed an anatomical abnormality – he has a pair of testicles dangling from his neck; no one else seems to notice it, only her! Haha, hehe, whatever. Then there’s ‘Homeschooled’ where we get to see real-life couple Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts homeschooling their teenage son. They simulate a high school environment within their home so he can have a completely miserable (but normal) high school experience. Their actions towards their son are too cruel for me to describe. ‘The Proposition’ – another real-life pair Anna Farris and Chris Pratt consummate their love for each other by him defecating on her. Gross. ‘Veronica’: Kieran Culkin and Emma Stone engage in an uncomfortable sexual conversation which unbeknownst to them is broadcasted to the shoppers of a local grocery store because the intercom microphone was left on. And there’s the ‘iBabe’ – a replica of a nude woman which functions as an MP3 player; you see, there’s a fan built into the genital region of the iBabe which is mangling the penises of boys who are experimenting on it. And then there’s a fake commercial called ‘Machine Children’ which is paid for by the society of the prevention of cruelty to children inside machines.

I’m not done.

‘Middleschool Date’ – Chloe Grace Moretz gets her period for the first time during a date with a boy from school. He responds by dialing 9/11 to yell out “Help! My friend is bleeding out of her vagina.” Another faux commercial follows this – this time involving two women and tampax. ‘Happy Birthday’ – Johnny Knoxville captures a leprechaun (Gerard Butler) for Sean William Scott as a birthday present. ‘Truth or Dare’ – Halle Berry and Stephen Merchant are on a blind date in a Mexican restaurant (the least offensive dare involves blowing out the candles on a blind boy’s birthday cake before he gets the chance to). ‘Victory’s Glory’ – Terrence Howard is the coach of an all-black basketball team; they’re about to play an all-white team. His motivational speech: “You’re black, they’re white, this ain’t hockey!” Then end credits finally arrive and we see bloopers in which cast members break out of character and laugh. What were they laughing at? There’s nothing funny going on here. Oh wait, faux end credits too; there one segment left. ‘Beezel’ – Elizabeth Banks is jealous of her boyfriend’s (Josh Duhamel) cat. The cat masturbates over beach photos of Josh Duhamel. I’m not kidding.

Did any of this sound funny to you? What were these cast members thinking when they read the script? This isn’t a close call; this is a very bad screenplay. Now, I’m the person who normally defends crude comedies. I’ve given enthusiastic reviews to: ‘Ted’, ‘Horrible Bosses’, ‘Hot Tub Time Machine’, ‘Get Him To The Greek’, every Judd Aptow film, and almost every Kevin Smith picture. But these movies have smart writing, likable characters with a rooting interest; and amidst all the R-rated humor, they have a big heart, and so there’s a chance to get emotionally invested in the fates of these characters. Not in ‘Movie 43’, not even close. No one here is remotely likable; everyone is an a-hole.

‘Movie 43’ is deplorable, first-class junk. You couldn’t write worse jokes if I asked you to write worse jokes. Even with 86.9167 years left in this century, ‘Movie 43’ has made a strong bid for the worst movie of the 21^st century. And if you liked this, you should probably unfriend/unfollow me right now. QED.

‘Jack Reacher’ is based on the popular novel ‘One Shot’ by Lee Child. Tom Cruise is Jack Reacher: a former enigmatic army investigator and multiple decorated combat veteran who is now off the grid – a drifter by choice. There is a gunman who takes five lives and all the evidence points to the suspect in custody. Upon interrogation, the suspect offers up a single note saying “Find Jack Reacher”. Well, you don’t find Jack Reacher, but he finds you. A defense lawyer (Rosamund Pike) then hires Reacher to investigate the sniper shooting case.

Word of caution - ‘Jack Reacher’ opened on December 21st (I’m only catching up on it now), and I have to say the timing for this release couldn’t be any worse. The opening scene shows a sniper shooting at people including a woman holding a small child. The Connecticut elementary school shooting took place one week before the release of ‘Jack Reacher’. Though this occurs within the first three minutes of the picture, I can see audience members who are still affected by the tragedy checking out of it (and understandably so). For the record, I am giving ‘Jack Reacher’ a recommendation (an enthusiastic one) - but some of you may want to see it later than sooner.

Is Tom Cruise tall enough? For those of you who read the Lee Child’s book, you know that Jack Reacher as a literary construct is supposed to be 6’5 and 250 lbs – a hulking figure. Tom Cruise is not – he is 5’7. Who cares? I feel like just about every movie I’ve reviewed recently is an adaptation of a popular novel – some screenwriters are faithful to the source material while others take liberties with it. Any review of mine that is a film adaptation of a literary work starts off with “Based on the novel by «insert author here»” for this reason – I know in the comments section, the question I’m going to be asked is “How does the movie hold up to the book?” 99% of the time, my answer will be “I haven’t read the book”. But, I also believe that people need to calm down with their fidelity to the source material they love. If you can’t stand the thought of a trivial detail being altered (for example, the height of the story’s hero), then seek out another offering at your local multiplex.

I personally thought Tom Cruise was a great casting choice. And his short stature works to the film’s advantage – the characters around Reacher underestimate him. They may not have lost a fight in their day, but they’ve never had Jack Reacher as an opponent. This isn’t the typical Tom Cruise performance where he flashes that megawatt smile and tries to desperately for us to love him – he dials it down here, and because he has, I bought his badass character completely. His charismatically low-key performance reminds you why Tom Cruise is a movie star – we’re fixated on the character he portrays, and we momentarily forget about the time he declared his love for Katie Holmes by jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey’s couch during her show.

The film hints at a romance between Tom Cruise’s character and British beauty Rosamund Pike – I found her character underused and didn’t buy into the relationship between the two. ‘Jack Reacher’ is sprinkled with comedic bits, and the exchanges between Tom Cruise and Robert Duvall are some of the film’s bright spots. Unfortunately, Wernzer Herzog comes off as a stereotypical villain, which is a surprise considering how his distinctive baritone makes him sound menacing – even as he provides the voiceover for a subject he’s passionate about, as he demonstrated in the documentary ‘Cave Of Forgotten Dreams’.

There is a fantastic prolonged car chase through the streets of downtown Pittsburgh that occurs about halfway through the picture and in this sense ‘Jack Reacher’ feels like both a classic noir from the 50s and a thrilling chase flick from the 70s – a mind-teaser of blockbuster proportions.

‘Jack Reacher’ was written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie – the writer of the cult classic ‘The Usual Suspects’. The last film he directed was the criminally underrated ‘The Way Of The Gun’ back in 2000. McQuarrie has a gift for taking a relatively simple crime and inflating it into a complex web of twists and turns, double-crosses, and character revelations – his pictures contain far more depth and complexity than what is normally found in the action genre. Though most moviegoers aren’t going to recognize him by name, I truly believe McQuarrie is a master at work, and I applaud him for never underestimating the intelligence of his audience members.

Jack Reacher is a compelling character, and the movie feels like one of the better entries in the James Bond series – one in which the character relies on his smarts rather than tacky gadgets to face his enemies. Here’s hoping the next entry in this series is equally thrilling. ‘Jack Reacher’ is one of the biggest positive cinematic surprises of recent memory.
 

…..from a year when 10 aren’t enough. 2012 was one of the strongest years in cinema I’ve ever experienced. Here’s a look at the highs of 2012.

1. DJANGO UNCHAINED
My criteria for picking the #1 film has always been that which expresses the joy of filmmaking and expands the possibilities of what film can do. Director Quentin Tarantino shares his love of movies that’s both homage and pop art in equal measure. And so, my #1 pick is the movie about a mid-19th century slave (Jamie Foxx) who joins forces with a German-born bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) to capture or kill criminals, all while trying to track down and buy the freedom of the slave’s wife from a cruel and charismatic plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio). Yeah, that’s right; I ranked ‘Django Unchained’ higher than ‘Lincoln’. Both these films offer wildly different solutions to the problem of slavery (‘Lincoln’ being a period piece drama whilst ‘Django’ operates as a bloody live-action cartoon). But even as a live action cartoon, it is a troubling and important film about slavery- what’s clear is QT’s disgust of slavery and sympathy for the underdog. Tarantino still remains one of the great screen writers of our time and his signature dialogue-heavy, suspense-filled set pieces are to be savored here. The script doesn’t go in the directions we expect and the startling and unexpected turns this picture takes are a complete blast to watch. ‘Django Unchained’ was the finest moviegoing experience I had in 2012 – another incendiary masterpiece from one of the best filmmakers working today.

2. ARGO
A CIA operative heads into the middle of the Iran hostage crisis in hopes of getting six American escapees out of the country under the ruse that they’re all part of a movie crew scouting Tehran for a new sci-fi flick titled ‘Argo.’ Ben Affleck directs and stars in ‘Argo’, and though he has had an inconsistent career as an actor, he has hit three home-runs with three at-bats as director. ‘Argo’ works as both a white knuckle thriller and as a ‘Wag The Dog’-esque satire, and the balance between these two very different elements is perfect. This is a complicated film in this sense – combining elements that may seem tough to blend together. It’s an international drama, and a thrilling action picture, but also a very funny Hollywood comedy. Affleck, as director, has found his calling. Each film has him increasing in scope, and ‘Argo’ is his most accomplished work by far. ‘Argo’ is a film of exceptional craft – assembling a thriller that relies on precision and timing rather than shootouts and explosions.

3. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
After an eight-month stint in a psychiatric hospital, a young man (Bradley Cooper) tries to get his life back together while interacting with an equally troubled young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) he’s just met. At first glance, a comedy about mental illness would seem like a difficult feat. Leave it to director David O. Russell to find the perfect tone in creating a film whose protagonist(s) suffer from bipolar disorder and depression. The casting is perfection. Jennifer Lawrence has already established herself as a gifted actress, but now she’s playing a damaged character – one that is sexy, has the perfect line for any situation, but is also vulnerable. Truth be told, there hasn’t been one Bradley Cooper film I’ve liked until now. A film like ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ demonstrates that an actor can be a miraculous thing in the right role. Some of his comedic antics are present here, but the role requires him to combine these elements with dramatic acting. This is also a return to form for Robert De Niro, an actor who has been suffering from “Al Pacino Syndrome” for some time. ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ is a master class in film acting.

4. AMOUR
Michael Haneke’s latest is a heartbreaking, fully-realized portrait of love in old age. This film about an aging Parisian couple is an honest and true portrayal – in its scenes of wheelchairs, hospital beds, and frustrations of feeling hopeless. But, it also show a steadfast love earned over decades of being together: sharing births, talks about the arts, and just being there for each other for the moments both big and small. The title is French for love and I can think of no other film I have ever seen which attempts to define what love is (in such an uncompromisingly honest way). I will never forget ‘Amour’ – it has left a permanent mark on me.

5. LIFE OF PI
Based on the best-selling novel which was believed to be unfilmable, Ang Lee’s Life Of Pi’ is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. Filmed in gorgeous, beautiful 3-D, this is the story of a teenager who must contend with being shipwrecked for a long time on a lifeboat where his only companion is a wild tiger from his family’s zoo. The 3-D photography is beautiful – showcasing the mysteries, dangers, and wonders of the Pacific. I know the Academy voters are already set on giving the Best Actor Oscar to Daniel Day Lewis for his portrayal of the 16th President of the United States. I just hope they don’t forget how they felt about Suraj Shamra’s wonderful work here – this is a role that challenges body and mind and is worthy of Best Actor nomination. Ang Lee’s filmmaking styles couple with Yann Martel’s fable result in a remarkable cinematic experience.

6. CLOUD ATLAS
I know I’ve witnessed something amazing; that I’ve seen a film of unbounded imagination, and fearless scope. But, I’m not entirely sure I know what it’s about. ‘Cloud Atlas’ interweaves six interrelated stories over a span of five centuries involving a gigantic cast of A-list stars in multiple roles. Acts of love, cruelty, kindness and more appear to ripple through incarcerated souls as well as time from the past through to the present and well into the future. This is one of the most ambitious movies I’ve ever seen. What does all this come down to? The movie’s themes about the nature of life are evident - we are bound by one another “from womb to tomb” as one character states, and when one door closes another opens. We make choices between gutlessness and bravery, cruelty and humanity, and each of these acts have consequences. I found ‘Cloud Atlas’ to be a magnificently bold, ambitious, gorgeously filmed epic unlike anything I have ever seen before. “Now, what the heck was that about?” Your papers will be due on Monday.

7. SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN
‘Searching For Sugar Man’ is a celebration of the goodness of an artist and his craft. How do we know he is a good person? Well, he was on the verge of stardom before fading into obscurity and at no point do we see him display any feeling of bitterness about it. The public may not have been right the first time, but then again, there is more than one public. If anyone was worthy of a second chance, it was singer-songwriter Sixto Rodriguez, and this inspiring documentary unfolds like a good mystery. Director Malik Bendjelloul follows two Cape Town fans to find out if the rumored death of Rodriguez was true; and if not, what became of him? This wasn’t an easy quest – Rodriguez was a man who was only known by his music. Even his face on the album covers remained unclear. There is more than enough material here for a good musical documentary but what makes ‘Searching For Sugar Man’ a great movie is that Bendjelloul takes it a step further – he reminds us that second acts are possible and of what it feels like to burn bright and hopeful before disappearing. ‘Searching For Sugar Man’ should be a lock to win the Best Documentary Oscar this year.

8. LOOPER
An assassin (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who’s hired to kill victims sent to him via time travel must contend with his next target (Bruce Willis) being himself from thirty years in the future. Huh? The theatrical trailer of ‘Looper’ makes it look like a two hour chase flick with a time travel conceit. But, that isn’t what this movie about is about. The mechanics of the time travel concept is introduced early on, and then pushed into the background in favor of sinking into this milieu encompassed by characters that face some very difficult questions. Director Rian Johnson’s primary focus is on the narrative. The action set pieces and special effects are simply window dressing. ‘Looper’ is an ambitious picture, successfully combining elements involving dystopian futuristic sci-fi, western shootouts, and even children with serious anger management and parental issues. With a great premise, sharply drawn characters, first-rate performance, and an intelligent script that meanders in the best possible way, ‘Looper’ is a gentle reminder that there is still original filmmaking out there.

9. END OF WATCH
Two L.A. cops, known for taking risks and bending the rules, come across heightened criminal activity they’re determined to stop but that puts them in grave danger. Director David Ayer has crafted an exceptional film that combines two tired genres: the racially mismatched buddy cop movie, and the handheld found footage picture. This is Jake Gyllenhall and Michael Pena’s show and they shine to the extent that I wished there was an end of the year best duo award for such work - I can’t remember the last time I saw such great chemistry between two male leads. Much of the dialogue between the two felt very natural and I’m sure some of it was improv. It was great to see a movie about honest cops who work to serve and protect, and not to use their badge as excuse to get away with murder. David Ayer gives us an unforgettable, sometimes gruesomely violent and shocking ride. To say that ‘End Of Watch’ is one of the best police movies ever made would be a disservice - to congratulate it for clearing a fairly low bar. It deserves even better praise than that.

10. HEADHUNTERS
Directed by Morten Tyldum is based on the novel by Jo Nesbo, ‘Headhunters’ boasted the second biggest opening weekend in Norwegian history. This film about an accomplished headhunter who risks everything to obtain a valuable painting owned by a former mercenary is a first-rate thriller – one that doesn’t depend on stunts and special effects, and instead takes delight in the turns and reveals contained within this labyrinth of impositions. Filmmakers outside of Hollywood don’t have the millions of dollars to spend on CGI. What it comes down to is the basics – well developed characters and an involving story. ‘Headhunters’ successfully pulls the viewers into its machinery and holds them there for its duration. No hero this year has been put through the ringer like the central character here. ‘Headhunters’ is a film that flew under most people’s radar this year. I know there is an American remake in the works, but I strongly urge you to seek this version out before Hollywood butchers it.

HONORABLE MENTIONS: Flight, The Intouchables, Moonrise Kingdom, Oslo August 31st, Rust and Bone, A Simple Life, Skyfall, Take This Waltz, The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, The Sessions

Note: A few of you have asked if I forgot about ‘The Hunt’ (a movie that I’ve been trumpeting since I saw it at TIFF in September). Not at all. It’s opening in Toronto on March 2013, so it will be on my list of the best films of 2013.

1. The Campaign

A cinematic mess of impeachable proportions which proves the only thing more annoying than a Will Farrell comedy is a Will Farrell comedy with Zack Galifianakis. It even resorts to baby-punching for a cheap laugh.

2. Red Lights

An all-star train-wreck that has a twist ending so preposterous, it makes M. Night Shymalan’s post-Signs career look Hitchcockian in comparison.  

3. Les Misérables

Certain to garner multiple Oscar nominations, but I found Tom Hooper’s edit style (whereby the performers belt their lungs out in close-up) to be entirely wrong. 

4. Mirror Mirror

Tarem Singh’s visual palette can’t disguise ‘Mirror Mirror’ from being Snow White Trash.

5. The Devil Inside

‘The Devil Inside’ is the sort of the film that would play on an infinite loop in Cinematic Hell. Exorcise your right to skip it!

6. Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning

I don’t know how this series about cyborg servicemen has been running for two decades. Jean Claude Van Damme is no stranger on my annual Worst Of lists.

7. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

‘Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close’ feels like a parody of a Best Picture nominee - and yet somehow, it was nominated for Best Picture this year. 

8. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2

‘Twilight: Breaking Dawn – Part 2’ is one of the weaker entries in this insanely popular (but idiotic) franchise. At least, we can say for sure that this is the end.

9. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

‘The Hobbit’ represents an even greater level of disappointment for ‘Lord Of The Rings’ fans than ‘The Phantom Menace’ did for ‘Star Wars’ fans. This feels like a rough draft to a much better film.

10. The Bourne Legacy

‘The Bourne Legacy’ is not about Jason Bourne, and Jeremy Renner even looks like he’s silently asking himself why this movie was ever made. This is as unnecessary a sequel as there ever was this year.

‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ is perhaps the biggest film ever made about little people with big, stumpy feet. This is Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s first Middle-Earth fantasy novel. ‘The Hobbit’ is a prequel to the insanely popular ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy (also directed by Mr. Jackson). It is about (as you would expect) a hobbit – he’s been recruited by a wise wizard to join thirteen dwarves. They seek on a quest across Middle-Earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from a fierce dragon.

‘The Hobbit’, as I recall, is a quick read. This 320 page children’s book has been stretched beyond the limit. Inexplicably, this story has been dragged out into three movies. The first entry in this series runs at approximately 170 minutes, and I felt all 10,200 seconds of it (I suspect the next two pictures will be at least as lengthy, but here’s hoping those don’t *feel* as long). ‘The Lord of The Rings’ trilogy was a grandiosely epic tale of Good vs. Evil. ‘The Hobbit’, on the other hand, was a very light-hearted adventure book. Early in the film, it is said that Dwarf Thror’s “love for gold had become too fierce.” I think the same criticism can be said for Jackson’s love of this material. Financial motivations aside, I’m not entirely sure I understand why ‘The Hobbit’ needed to be made into a trilogy. The hardcore ‘Rings’ fans who purchased the extended editions of the original trilogy may appreciate what is offered here – it gives them a chance to spend more time with characters they love. This, however, doesn’t make for a tight story and ‘The Hobbit’ really suffers from a narrative standpoint. Note: There are two (!!) prologues!

To make matters worse, there is no resolution to this overlong, plodding spectacle. I understand that this is a deliberate choice and that the full construction of the arc can only take place at the completion of this trilogy. Even so, ‘An Unexpected Journey’ is clearly a setup for a sequel, and while these characters are still in the early stages of this journey, there should be some sense of accomplishment. The movie ends abruptly and unexpectedly (that is until you realize you’ve been sitting in the same seat for three hours). The incomplete feel was both satisfying and dissatisfying - I felt that I was cheated out of a conclusion; but , I also felt that a weight had been lifted, releasing me of my movie reviewing duty.

What is an acceptable length for a film of this scale? There is no answer to that. A movie is only too long if it feels too long. How faithful should a film adaptation be to its original source material? Again, I don’t know the answer. I can say that it feels like everything (and then some) from the first third of Tolkien’s book is displayed on the screen. And yet, the movie doesn’t work.

‘The Hobbit’ resembles a videogame structure – all the pieces are mechanically assembled: Insert a scene featuring the Dwarves, followed by a scene with the Orcs, then one which combines the Orcs with the Goblins; oh wait, let’s see those Orcs again. Also, it doesn’t feel like anything taking place really contributes to the quest these characters embark on. The film goes on so many tangents that after a while, we forget the purpose of their journey. The mission in ‘LOTR’ was to return a powerful ring to its place of creation and destroy it. There were several missteps and setbacks along that journey, but we never forgot what the end goal was – we felt the stakes were high. The stakes in ‘The Hobbit’ are significant lower than they are in ‘LOTR’. If the mission isn’t a success, thirteen dwarves lose their lives. The problem here is I don’t care for these characters – the dwarves are essentially interchangeable; they don’t possess distinctive traits to make them separable.

Since the mid 1920s, 24 frames per second (fps) was agreed upon as a shooting and projection standard – a rate that is slightly slower than how the human eye perceives reality. However, this frame rate creates problems with quick camera pans – the result isn’t as fluid and seamless as one might hope for. I believe this is the reason why Mr. Jackson has decided to shoot ‘The Hobbit’ at a new frame rate – 48 fps. The screening I attended showcased the picture in IMAX 3-D at 24fps. While I can’t comment on the visual intelligence at 48 fps, I feel I should comment on the fact that a $150 million movie cannot change cinema – it can only change the way people make $150 million movies. I’m afraid it comes down to basics: an involving story featuring well-developed characters; the special effects and creative visuals should be the icing on an already tasty cake. But, the visual eye candy (at least present at 24 fps) can’t disguise ‘The Hobbit’ from being the wobbly, ungainly film that it is. The movie *feels* as long as it does because it is difficult to get immersed into the experience – to share the identities and adventures of these characters. We’re witnessing technique from a distance.

There are some good things about ‘The Hobbit’. The casting choice of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is a good one. Fans of the ‘LOTR’ series will be glad to see Ian Mckellen, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blachett, Christopher Lee, and Andy Serkis return to their respective roles. We expect good performances out of these actors, and everyone here hits the right notes. ‘The Hobbit’ does build up towards a well-produced climactic battle between the Orcs and the Dwarves (and it was great seeing Bilbo’s character step up to the plate). My personal favorite is a mesmerizing creepy sequence involving a game of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum (once again, played by Serkis in his motion capture character).

‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ represents the same level of disappointment for ‘Lord of the Rings’ fans as ‘The Phantom Menace’ did for ‘Star Wars’ fans some thirteen years ago. This feels like the rough draft to a much better film – one that is in need of judicial editing to make a tighter movie. Lacking the novelty and excitement present in the ‘LOTR’ pictures, ‘The Hobbit’ comes off as a pale imitation of something we’ve seen back in – oh, hmm, 2001, 2002, and 2003. QED.

“These stretched limousines that fill the streets; I’ve been wondering, where are they parked at night?” This is a question posed by Robert Pattinson’s character in ‘Cosmopolis’. The answer to this question can be found in the last scene of ‘Holy Motors’. What do these two films have in common? Both premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year. Both films span the course of a single day. The central characters in both pictures are very wealthy and spend their day being driven around in their stretch limo. And, of course, there are schedule stops and detours along the way. In theory, this would make for an interesting double feature. Unfortunately, only one of these two movies gets it right.

Let’s start with the one that doesn’t work. ‘Cosmopolis’ is the latest film from controversial director David Cronenberg (who I’m a big fan of). Based on the novel of the same name by Don DeLillo, the film follows Robert Pattinson’s character, a young Wall Street billionaire. It is set almost entirely in his limo during the course of a fateful day. He runs into one traffic jam after another. After all, the President of the United States is in the city, there’s an anarchist riot, and a funeral for a contemporary hip hop artist. People step in and out the limo. He occasionally steps out of the car to meet his wife who doesn’t want to have sex with him. The women who do want to have sex with him enter the limo.

“The urge to destroy is a creative urge.” The characters in ‘Cosmopolis’ speak in epigrams about fate, destiny, revolutions, the free market, the intersection of man and technology; the film fulfills an entire Philosophy undergraduate curriculum in the course of two hours . There is a precision to the dialogue which I admired. The characters here are smart – they speak to each other in a highly structured way – a way that no one in real life speaks. Unfortunately, it is also pretentious, boring, and everything transpiring on the screen keeps the viewer at a distance. I didn’t care at all about anything that happened to R Pats. But, shouldn’t I? When the film’s main character is being targeted by an assassin, shouldn’t I care if he lives or dies? The final confrontation between Pattinson and his assassin (played by Paul Giamatti) feels like its own separate movie. It’s a very talky sequence that goes on for thirty minutes (and feels even longer).  

There will be ‘Twilight’ fans that enter this movie to see Robert Pattinson. Their attention spans will be tested. “Where’s Bella? Where’s Renesmee?” The casting choice of Robert Pattinson is this role is a curious one. The verdict is still out on him. In every role he picks, he plays a distant, non-responsive character. I wonder if he is this boring in real life? I’d like to see him in a comedy – this could demonstrate his range as an actor. That being said, and despite the fact that I didn’t like ‘Cosmopolis’, I do think this is a step in the right direction for R Pats. With ‘Bel Ami’, ‘Little Ashes’, and ‘Water For Elephants’, he is clearly choosing non-commercial movies outside of the ‘Twilight’ series, which thankfully, has now come to a conclusion. If he continues to choose roles like these and work with interesting directors, he won’t be typecast as Edward forever.  

‘Holy Motors’ is Leox Carax’s first film in twelve years. At the start, the central character played by Denis Lavant appears as a rich financier type. He slips into the back of a huge limo and is driven through the streets of Paris by his driver Celine (Edith Scob). Inside the limo is a dressing room consisting of costumes, props, and make-up. His dossier contains nine appointments. To give you an example of the sort of assignments he goes on – well, he dresses up as an old woman and pretends to be homeless. In one sequence, he becomes a Tasmanian devil-man who disrupts a fashion shoot in the cemetery, kidnaps the model, and hides out with her in an underground lair. In another sequence, he plays an actor wearing a full-body stocking dotted with motion captures sensors and performs a bizarre sex act with a woman in a black studio. All sorts of cray-cray happens.

‘Holy Motors’ is a most peculiar experience – a film of an unclassifiable genre. Or a cinematic capsule consisting of multiple genres. What the hell does it all mean? The opening shot is of a movie theatre audience gazing into the screen ahead of them. We then see a man (Carax) waking out of bed, then walking towards the room of a wall – the wallpaper resembles a forest. He is able to unlock the door with a key that grows out of his fingers. This leads him to the aforementioned movie theatre where we now meet Monsieur Oscar (Denis Lavant). Is this a movie? Is this a dream? Is this a movie circumscribed within a dream? Or is the dream circumscribed within the movie? I don’t know.

There is a Lynchian feel to ‘Holy Motors’ at the start. But soon enough, the films develops into its own thing; establishes its own tone and rhythm with unforeseeable stops along the journey. It is intended to be episodic – a series of vignettes tailor-made to display the showmanship of a fearless performer. I think this is a movie for true fans of cinema – yes, some of the material is morbid, but what ‘Holy Motors’ does well is communicate the joy of filmmaking. Peter Greenway once said that “Cinema is far too rich and capable a medium to be merely left to the storytellers.” I think Carax would agree – he’s crafted a film that contains a story if you want one, and doesn’t if you don’t.

Lavant is splendid (and in a way, he is the film); I can’t believe that he didn’t win the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival for his work here. The award went to Mads Mikkelson for ‘The Hunt’ (a terrific performance, but Lavant’s is unquestionably the actorlier of the two). I praised Tom Hanks and Halle Berry for stretching themselves in ‘Cloud Atlas’ – a movie that required them to play six vastly different characters situated in segments ranging from the 1700s to the 2300s. While this picture may not be as ambitious in scope, it still presents the same (if not greater) opportunity for its central performer – to be able to embody nearly a dozen separate identities, whereby each segment (or “assignment”) consists of a separate film genre. And while ‘Cloud Atlas’ was a complicated film, it was still easier to identify a thread of narrative between the alternating segments. Don’t even bother with ‘Holy Motors’.

I found ‘Cosmopolis’ to be an academic exercise. It has a fully functioning brain, but there was no soul. Conversely, ‘Holy Motors’ was a joyous ode to cinema – a film that seems too weird to exist, but works in wonderfully mysterious ways. QED.

Like most love it or hate it films, ‘Anna Karenina’ is neither. It falls right in the middle. Call it a half-success. Or a half-fail. This is Joe Wright’s adaptation of a Leo Tolstoy’s novel which has been made into a movie (or mini-series) over a dozen times in the last eight decades. As is usually the case with literary adaptations, I have not read the source material. This is Mr.Wright’s third collaboration with Keira Knightley (who he previously directed in ‘Atonement’, and ‘Pride and Prejudice’).

The plot: Keria Knightly plays the title character, a 19^th century aristocratic socialite who appears to have it all. She’s married to a government worker (Jude Law), and the two have a son. But she’s in love with Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a young cavalry officer. She then has this brazen, adulterous relationship that threatens her societal standing. Everyone stares at her disapprovingly while fluttering their fans. She’s left to contend with the personal and social ramifications of her adultery.

There’s a lot in ‘Anna Karenina’ that works really well. Ambition counts for a lot these days, and I admire Wright’s ambitious approach in bringing this story to the screen. There is an intricately structured theatrical framework surrounding a simplistic girl-meets-boy narrative. It is a carefully calculated technical approach, and I give the film big points for trying to do something different. Here are some examples of the visual intelligence employed: There is a character on stage and set pieces slide in such a way that it creates a room around him; as the camera pans around a particular character, the set surrounding them changes; a character walks across a hall and there are others dressing him as he’s walking (his body doesn’t remain in a state of rest for even a moment); the back of a stage opens up and you see the beautiful countryside. If you were impressed with the long tracking shot Mr.Wright demonstrated in ‘Atonement’, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

From a technical standpoint, ‘Anna Karenina’ is first rate. Unfortunately (and the reason I’m not recommending the movie), this also creates a problem. The technique employed, by its very definition, is one that is distancing. We’re being reminded that we’re seeing actors on stage - this makes it difficult to see them as characters, and we cannot get absorbed into the story in the way we ought to be. I wish I saw this picture at the Toronto International Film Festival so I could ask the director why he chose this filmmaking method. My guess is this – the upper class members of St.Petersburgh really took “All the world’s a stage” to heart, and lived their lives as if they were on stage.

But, this method doesn’t allow us to sympathize with Anna for the decisions she makes. She is not a victim of high society, she’s a victim of her own indiscretion – she chooses to leave her husband and son because she believes she has experienced true love for the first time. It’s strangely impulsive to those around her, and divorced women in 1847 Russia didn’t receive much sympathy from their peers. Maybe that was the point Mr.Wright was trying to make. But, if I credit the technical approach for being an enormous success, I have to say that it comes at the expense of characterization, which comes off as a failure. Ultimately, Mr.Wright fails to construct Anna as a tragic hero. A viewer can get hooked into the journey of a heavily flawed protagonist provided he or she feels empathy for the character (the most recent film I can think of for myself would be Denzel Washington’s character in ‘Flight’). The distancing technique kept me at arm’s length emotionally, and ultimately, I did not care for her. It’s also difficult to feel her suffering with all the visual eye candy afloat. There’s a scene where Anna is sick and lying in bed, and her hair is so artfully arranged across the pillow – this, coupled with some beautiful lighting, makes her suffering look pretty.

‘Anna Karenina’ is one of the most difficult movies I’ve had to review this year. Most films are clearly good, or clearly bad, with only a few falling dead in the middle. There is so much to love here. And yet, I can’t quite recommend it. Expect Oscar consideration for Best Costume, and Best Production Design. Other possible categories include Cinematography, Best Actress (Keira Knightley). I certainly don’t think it’s worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but Academy voters may think otherwise. Perhaps the gentlest of thumbs downs I’ve given all year. QED.

‘Killing Them Softly’ is a film adaptation of the novel ‘Cogan’s Trade’ by George V.Higgins. As is the case with most adapted screenplays, I never read the source material, and thus cannot offer a comparative analysis. Reviewing the movie as a movie, I can say that it is has Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Ray Liotta, and Richard Jenkins. It is directed by Andrew Dominik, whose previous film ‘The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford’ I pretty much loved. So, with such talent both in front of and behind the camera, why did I hate this movie as much as I did? 

I hated this movie right from the opening. The opening is like nails on a chalkboard - very irritating sound editing which made me wonder if I had walked into the incorrect auditorium; one that is showcasing the umpteenth sequel to ‘Saw’. The movie then manages to momentarily escape the corner it’s locked itself into with some clever, but admittedly artificial dialogue. The film’s greatest strength is also a weakness. The problem here is Tarantinoism; wise-cracking hitmen who speak at an elevated level you wouldn’t expect. But, because this has been done to death now, you do expect it.

Mr.Dominik creates a dark underworld – one that is occupied by hitmen, drug dealers, drug addicts, and illegal card operators. My guess is this story takes place in Boston – my uneducated assessment based on the accents and geographical references. Scott McNairy and Ben Mendhelson are two idiots who must contend with the aftermath of robbing a syndicate card game operation, including the hitman (Brad Pitt) who has been called in to address this matter. Ray Liotta is the guy who oversees these card games, and of course, he likes to appear in movies such as these (brutally violent pictures that contain a minimum of 100 f-bombs). I liked seeing Pitt play a hitman with a very specific set of rules – he is cool and detached, and leaves the emoting to others. The film’s title is derived from this character’s refusal to kill people he knows personally – he doesn’t like it when feelings get involved, and so he “kills them softly” from a distance. The only two people who seem to know anything about him: the middle-management gangsta (Richard Jenkins), and a washed-up hitman (James Gandolfini). This is a world consisting of tropes and archetypes. Which is a polite way of saying clichés and pretentions.

Why was James Gandolfini’s character even in this? He is only in two scenes. His character’s personal life is a complete mess – his two dialogue-heavy scenes consist of him bitching about his marriage and talking about hookers. This is just an excuse to have Tony Soprano as a cast member. This character’s motivations and actions do not tie into the main story at all. It’s just filler – take these two scenes out, and it doesn’t impact the direction of the picture in the slightest.

I understand films such as these contain scenes of graphic violence, and rarely does it ever bother me. Here, it did. In one particularly brutal sequence that seemed never-ending, a character is beaten into a bloody pulp. It is just stomach-turning torture porn for the sake of being stomach-turning torture porn.  

What annoyed me most about ‘Killing Them Softly’ is its misguided attempt to be about something. The film is so preoccupied with creating an aura of meaningfulness that it comes off as meaningless, and ultimately phony. The cars, clothes, and griminess of the production design make it appear as if this story is taking place in the early 1990s. But, the television and radio edits make it clear that this movie takes place in 2008; specifically, the weeks leading up to the presidential election whereby every macroeconomist’s forecast of a financial crisis was proven to be accurate. The only thing I hate more than an incompetent movie is an incompetent movie that assumes the stupidity of its audience members; that audience members won’t be able to get the intended message without beating them over the head with it.

The political elements are so distractingly heavy-handed. During the robbery, the television in the background shows George Bush announcing the bailout and its financial effects on American families; this speech is being delivered as the thugs walk out the door with giant suitcases filled with cash. We also hear Obama’s speeches of hope and change in America. Yes, it’s an attack on the capitalist structure; but it is delivered to audience members in the most assaulting way imaginable. ‘Killing Them Softly’ feels like the polar opposite of what ‘The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford’ represented – this was an expertly crafted film that was quiet and subtle, and assumed a certain degree of intelligence from its audience members.

My verdict – rent/steam/download that one instead. Skip this one. QED.  

Ladies and gentlemen, I have some breaking news – for the last three weekends, there has been a movie occupying the #1 spot at the box office. Vampires and werewolves – um yeah, the last Twilight film is currently playing in theatres, and now that the series is over, I don’t know what I’ll do with myself. After all, this is the film that is out-grossing ‘Skyfall’, ‘Lincoln’, ‘Life Of Pi’ – three terrific motion pictures which remind of us of what cinema is capable of doing.

It only seems like four years ago since buff werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner) and sparkly vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson) were battling for the affection of Bella (Kristen Stewart). I suppose it seems that way because the first (and fairly unmemorable) Twilight was released in 2008. This is a series that has been inconsistent in terms of its badness. The material isn’t the problem. On the weekend of the first film’s release was the release of another vampire romance – an excellent and criminally overlooked Swedish movie called ‘Let The Right One In’. In a perfect world, the pubescent masses et al would have been flooding the theatres to see this one. Le sigh.  

The full title, ‘Twilight: Breaking Dawn – Part 2’ is one of the weaker entries in this insanely popular (but idiotic) franchise. This is the most self-aware film in the series, fully embracing its bat-shit crazy premise. But, it is still plagued by the faults of its predecessors: glacial soap opera pacing, inconsistencies in the ever-changing rules revolving around the vampire mythology. So, what is this movie about? We have the Italiano vampires known as the Volturi. Michael Sheen plays the CEO of the Volturi and he receives some intel –the daughter of Edward and Bella is an immortal and must therefore be destroyed. But, of course, they are dead wrong about this particular matter - just how moronic are these moronic vampires? Anyways, all this somehow leads to a chaotic climactic battle, which is essentially a series of decapitations that push the bounds of its MPAA PG-13 rating. The fact that ‘Bully’ (an important documentary about child/teen bullying in America) nearly received an R-rating for a few f-bombs and this gets a PG-13 rating makes me question the validity of the MPAA rating system.

There’s also a twist in the final sequence that’s unforgivable. I won’t spoil it, but I will say that the same cheap trick was used earlier this year in Oliver Stone’s ‘Savages’ and it is the biggest cop out a filmmaker can take. Ok, I changed my mind – I’m going to (sort of) spoil it. You will be fooled by a fake ending which telegraphs something that may seem epic. Once you’ve had the rug pulled from under your feet, you will have realized that all five of these pictures built up towards something so anti-climactic: a (poorly written) dialogue exchange between all the stakeholders involved in this (imagined) all-out war.

Question for Twilight loyalists: vampires don’t sleep, but Edward and Bella are seen putting their daughter to bed several times. Is it because she’s a hybrid? Because she’s half-vampire, half-human, does that mean she only requires half the amount of sleep that a human infant would require?

There is one good moment here. Just before the “big battle” takes place, everyone is out standing in the winter cold under the grey skies. Sheen’s character sees the child – his eyes light up bright red, and he releases a bizarre combination of a cackle and a giggle. Overacting? You bet. But, at least someone is acting here.

Why am I even bothering? There is an audience for this. All of you reading this have already made up your minds about the series – this review won’t alter your perception. ‘Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2’ will continue to dominate the box office in the coming weeks. At least, we can say for sure that this is the end. For the Canadian Saga Film Division, I’m Jerry N, and I’m signing out. QED.

Cinema has always been considered a great democratic art form – even though it has never been particularly good at representing democracy. There is a plot device in most political films that never ceases to amaze me: when an American president faced with a monumental crisis delivers a speech that wins everyone (regardless of their political stance) over. No character ever responds in disagreeable outrage. Though art imitates life, the concept of political opposition bears no meaning in the movies. Most political films aren’t very good, so for me to say that ‘Lincoln’ is one of the best political films ever made may not be saying much, but I really do think this is a gem of a picture.

The challenge director Steven Spielberg faces with ‘Lincoln’ is a big one. Any American audience member who has his or her high school diploma would have needed to pass American History. And my guess is if you don’t know what 16^th President of the United States of America was responsible for during the American Civil War, you should have your History credit revoked and your high school diploma withdrawn. You know, he was kind of a big deal. In any case, most audience members will be equipped with this knowledge. This leaves Spielberg with the challenge of telling an involving story whereby the outcome is already known. And, of course, Spielberg is up to the challenge.

The moment the film’s poster was released, there was already talk of Daniel Day Lewis being considered for a Best Actor Oscar. A strange curiosity it was for me to see this actor of British and Irish citizenship play of one of the most influential American presidents. Bill The Butcher (‘Gangs of New York’), Daniel Plainview (‘There Will Be Blood’), Christy Brown (‘My Left Foot’) - with his angular frame and craggy features, DDL has embodied characters that we as moviegoers will never forget. From his self-conscious posture to his angry outbursts when it looks like the amendment won’t pass, Daniel Day Lewis completely nails every inch of his performance of the title character. And yes, it is absolutely worthy of a Best Actor nomination. Let me go a step further - Daniel Day Lewis *will* win the Best Actor Oscar.

The supporting cast choices are almost entirely excellent. Tommy Lee Jones is fantastic as the quick-witted, fiercely verbal Republican house leader. Joseph Gordon Levitt is great in just about everything now – he plays Lincoln’s elder son who is eager to see combat. To the younger moviegoing audience, don’t see this movie just for JGL – he has a very small part. Sally Field, playing Lincoln’s wife, captures the protectiveness, and moments of near insanity of her character well – but she looks old enough to be Lincoln’s mother. There’s also a barely recognizable James Spader (or completely unrecognizable to me).

‘Lincoln’ isn’t a full-scale biopic in the traditional sense. We’re witnessing a small fraction of the man’s life - but, this window is more than sufficient to understand who he was. And even so, there is enough material present in ‘Lincoln’ for a 10-part mini-series (the movie itself has a runtime of 149 minutes). Spoiler alert (to those who fell asleep in History class) – Lincoln dies. The assassination scene didn’t have the big, Spielbergian emotional impact I was expecting it to have. The most moving scene for me was a quiet scene where the 13^th Amendment is read aloud. Which is unlike the usual Spielbergian technique to have his film’s sweeping score milk the emotion out of the viewer – this isn’t intended as criticism, because it’s worked on me in the past (I knew I was being emotionally manipulated, but I didn’t care *cough* War Horse *cough*).

But, there are a number of Spielberg trademarks that are present. ‘Lincoln’ opens with a scene of muddy, hand-to-hand combat and these moments of chaos feels like Saving Private Ryan Lite. However, for the PG-13 standards, there are some brutal and truly memorable images. Spielberg still can’t resist the occasionally corny moment though.

I’ve criticized political films for having the cornball political speech scene. There are many moments of speechifying in ‘Lincoln’, and all of it feels authentic. Lincoln is proud of his own story telling abilities, much to the annoyance of those around him. But, as a viewer, I loved hearing them.

The debates and insider deals in ‘Lincoln’ do make today’s congress look like amateurs. This is a richly detailed account of what Lincoln and his allies that to do to put an end to slavery. I’ve mentioned Daniel Day Lewis’ lock for the Best Actor Oscar. I suspect there will be nominations in the following categories: Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones), Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Costume, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture. Movies of this craft and quality tend to sweep. QED. 

James Bond has been fighting off villains and bedding women for five decades now, and on his 50^th birthday, he gives us a gift – ‘Skyfall’ is a spectacular entry in this 23-film franchise. This is Daniel Craig’s third outing as Bond, and though his brute force and Jackie Chan-style stunts initially made me believe he was better suited for a Bond villain than Bond, I have come to accept that this is how the latest reincarnation of the iconic character will be defined. Because I don’t want to spoil any of the fun, I’m going to keep the plot description very short. Bond must overcome some injury-induced rustiness whilst dealing with a rogue agent who’s hell-bent on undermining him and MI6. The enemy here is played by Javier Bardem in a completely loony, over-the-top performance that is good, but truthfully, feels slight in comparison to the creepy antagonist he played so well in ‘No Country For Old Men’ (he garnered an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in that role). The film also suffers occasionally from some pacing issues and does run a little long at 143 minutes.

Those are just minor quibbles though. ‘Skyfall’ is the most visually stunning Bond film in the series. The movie was shot by Roger Deacons, one of the greatest cinematographers working today (he has been the principle cinematographer for all Coen Brothers films since ‘Barton Fink’ in 1991). Whether we are in London, Shanghai, or Macau, the screen pops with vibrant colors and a richly glossy look. I didn’t get to see the movie in IMAX, but I will definitely give it a second viewing on the largest screen possible just to admire the look of it.

You may forget midway that you are watching a James Bond movie. This is a very different Bond picture – one that is driven by developing its characters, and exploring the relationships between them as opposed to taking place in a gadget-filled live-action cartoon universe that this series seems to occupy. Yes, the babes, the cars, and the exotic locales are all present, but when I think back to ‘Skyfall’, it’s the characterizations that stand out for me. There’s a weakness and vulnerability to Craig’s version of Bond that makes him more compelling. Historically, Bond has been able to escape any messy situation without getting any blood on his suit. Here, he’s wounded and weary; and this helped create a rooting interest that I haven’t felt since the early Connery pictures.

I did have my misgivings about Sam Mendes directing this project. His work as a director include: ‘American Beauty’, ‘Road to Perdition’, ‘Jarhead’, ‘Revolutionary Road’, and ‘Away We Go’. Many of these are great films, but he is known as a director of drama. His working with framing and staging action sequences in ‘Jarhead’ felt very minor and underwhelming, and so, he wouldn’t have been my first choice as director. But, he completely hits the target here.

‘Casino Royale’ remains the best of the recent Bonds, with ‘Skyfall’ being just a notch below it. This is, however, a significant improvement over ‘Quantum of Solace’, and one of the most memorable action films of the year. Still in tip-top shape at the age of 50, here’s hoping the central character goes on for another half-century, especially if the results are as exhilarating as what’s offered here. QED. 

I don’t know if I’m ready to review ‘Cloud Atlas’. Is one viewing enough? I know I’ve witnessed something amazing; that I’ve seen a film of unbounded imagination, and fearless scope. But I’m not entirely sure I know what it’s about. Based on the novel by David Mitchell (which I have not read), ‘Cloud Atlas’ interweaves six interrelated stories over a span of five centuries involving a gigantic cast of A-list stars in multiple roles. Acts of love, cruelty, kindness and more appear to ripple through incarcerated souls as well as time from the past through to the present and well into the future. ‘Cloud Atlas’ is one of the most ambitious movies I’ve ever seen, and is in the tradition of other great films of this scope – ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ and ‘The Tree Of Life’.

Usually, at this point in my review, I go into detail about the plot of the film. I’m not sure I will here. Maybe it’s because I can’t. Each segment tells a story of intrigue that touches on some universal themes. Directors Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski, and Tom Tykwer deliberately assign multiple roles to the actors so that we as an audience are able to follow threads to different stories. Easier said than done. During many moments, I asked myself “Is that Hugo Weaving? Is that Jim Sturgess? Did Tom Hanks spend more time with the make-up artist than he did reciting his lines? Wait; is Halle Berry an African-American woman, a Jewish woman, and an Asian man?” One moment, Tom Hanks’ character throws a book critic off a high-rise building, and the next, his other character is a post-apocalyptic villager strangely infatuated with Halle Berry’s extraterrestrial character.

The 24^th century storyline has the characters speaking in futuristic gibberish. This is the true-true. I will admit some of this is pretty laughable.  

As an exercise in technical filmmaking, this is largely substantial. I will concede that there is enough material in ‘Cloud Atlas’ for six movies – each individual segment is worthy of a full-scale feature all on its own. I greatly admire the choice of the filmmakers to not tell these six stories like vignettes (and have each story appear in chronological order at 27 minutes before moving onto the next one). The filmmakers cut between segments rather rapidly. There’s even a line by one of the characters acknowledging that flashbacks and flash forwards are cheap tricks. To me, each story becomes more involving and more emotional because of the way it is assembled – the energy level and tension of each story builds off of the others. By the end, I felt there was more at stake than there otherwise would have been if the film decided to present these segments as individual short films. These stories are meant to complement each other in the way that a system functions when all its individual components are called into action at the right time. A piece of the system shouldn’t be removed – they exist as a comment on each other, and they are interlinked in such an intricate fashion that the only people who can truly decipher this algorithm are the filmmakers and screenwriters themselves.

But, each of us deserves a crack at it. Yes, ‘Cloud Atlas’ is maddeningly complicated. It is a challenge to keep with these stories involving a 19^th century ship, a slave, aboriginals, an aging composer and his new assistant, corruption within a nuclear plant in the 1970s, and a revolution in Seoul in the 22^nd century. And the makeup is so well done that often times, we don’t realize we’re seeing the same actors – the fact that some of them go as far as crossing genders only adds to the puzzlement. What does all this come down to? The movie’s themes about the nature of life are evident - we are bound by one another “from womb to tomb” as one character states, and when one door closes another opens. We make choices between gutlessness and bravery, cruelty and humanity, and each of these acts have consequences. On a more basic level, the picture has a “fight the power” message that would make the fathers of transcendentalism proud. I may be entirely off base. But then again, what did viewers derive from ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ upon its initial release in 1968?

Good films are in season after all. Will ‘Cloud Atlas’ be a major contender come awards season? I don’t think so. I think it certainly has a good chance of making my personal Top 10 List of the year, but I think it will ultimately prove to be too polarizing to warrant nominations in the major categories. That being said, ‘Cloud Atlas’ will certainly receive recognition for Best Makeup, and Costume Design. The visuals are breathtaking, whether we’re looking at futuristic CGI f/x, or real world cinematography, and so a Best Cinematography nomination is also possible.  

Does the film’s reach exceed its grasp? Yes. The filmmakers throw the entire pot of spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks, and I don’t feel like I should fault a film for having too many ideas. All great art represents some kind of failure – you don’t do anything great by doing something within reach. Scene by scene, story by story, I was completely enthralled in the experience. Though it will have as many detractors as promoters, I found ‘Cloud Atlas’ to be a magnificently bold, ambitious, gorgeously filmed epic unlike anything I have ever seen before. “Now, what the heck was that about?” Your papers will be due on Monday. QED.

 

‘Samsara’ is a most unusual film – one that is absent of dialogue but packed with images from sacred the places the world over. Directed by Ron Fricke, ‘Samsara’ is the sequel to ‘Baraka’ from 1992, which in Arabic translates to blessing. Samara, on the other hand, is defined as the cycle of death and rebirth to which life in the material world is bound. This picture was filmed over four years in 25 countries around the world, shot on 70mm film and output to digital format. In the words of the filmmakers, “’Samsara’ explores the wonders of our world from the mundane to the miraculous, looking into the unfathomable reaches of man’s spirituality and the human experience.”

As mentioned previously, there is no dialogue here, just images and music. Spirituality, or religion, depending on how you view it, plays a huge role in ‘Samsara’ – we see shots of primitive people engaging in their tribal rights by dancing, and man’s evolution, which eventually leads to people praying in mosques, and churches, as well as an increase in the volume of human traffic on city streets through sped up images. The images in this picture are as equal parts awe-inspiring and disturbing, but all of it is handled with great care. Most films don’t require much of the viewer – we sit in a movie theatre and passively experience the events that unfold on the screen. This is an example of an experience complete onto itself – the viewer is transported from his or her theatre seat into this strange world – a world we all inhabit, but one we fail to meditatively regard the strangeness and wonder of.

I envy these filmmakers. They were able to travel the world and record such magnificent images. But at least this project was in the hands of some incredibly visionary artists. This is the sort of picture that could serve as a time capsule – should future generations ever wonder what it was like to live on this planet during this time period, ‘Samsara’ would provide the data. Of course, the derivations, hypothesis testing, and conclusions are all for the viewer to draw. There is no narrative in the traditional sense. What was Ron Fickle trying to say? Did he have an agenda? Maybe these cameras were situated in the right spots at the right times. The footage may have then been cobbled together in a random manner. If these sequences of images were rearranged in another order, would it make a difference? What is a beginning? What is an end? What is narrative? If you walk into this film midway, would this still be an experience you can sink into? I think so.

‘Samsara’ may have a standard definition, and in that sense, this is the only thing standard about it. This film means whatever you want it to mean. According to the website Rotten Tomatoes, I am with the critical majority on this picture (which is currently at 72%, which means 72 out of 100 critics are endorsing the movie). But, I have to say, I completely disagree with part of the critical consensus statement: “It’s a tad heavy-handed in its message, but Samsara’s overwhelmingly beautiful visuals more than compensate for any narrative flaws.” Bull. How can ‘Samsara’ be heavy handed if people didn’t get it? Or if it’s meaning varies from viewer to viewer. Criticism about the film’s narrative means that entertainment writers are asking for a more conventional film.

What did I get out of Samsara? I saw a visual palette consisting of people, places, structures, rituals. But, it’s the disturbing bits that stuck with me. There is a scene in which we see chickens and cows at a poultry/beef-processing plant. Operationally, this plant appears to be first-rate. Chickens aren’t smart animals, but they are aware of their fate – within a matter of seconds, they are fed into a tractor, beheaded, stripped of their feathers and skin, and sliced and diced. The cows are processed in an equally mechanical manner using an overhead conveyor, which they hang from before being sliced. The methodology used here would make Six Sigma graduates proud. Assuming that they aren’t vegetarian, of course. This scene not only demonstrates automation at work, but organizational efficiencies by being process-driven.

One of the essential joys of the movie-going experience is that occasionally, you get a film that takes you to a place you haven’t been before. Both ‘Baraka’ and ‘Samsara’ take us to dozens of exciting places the world over. Despite having seen more of the world than the average person at my age, ‘Samsara’ made me realize how little of it I actually know. Everything that was transpiring on the screen had taken place on this planet over the last few years, and yet, I felt in the grand scheme of things, my life experience has been very narrow, and I know next to nothing about my fellow man. Films like ‘Samsara’ inspire one to travel and see the world. And for those, who can’t afford to do so, seeing this documentary is one way to get there. QED.

- Jerry Nadarajah

‘Argo’ is the fact-based story one of the most improbable rescue operations in recent history. Ben Affleck directs and stars in ‘Argo’, and though he has had an inconsistent career as an actor, he has hit three home-runs with three at-bats as director (his two previous films being ‘The Town’, and ‘Gone Baby Gone’). This movie will have you in its lock from its opening scene to the post credits.

It is 1979 and the Iranian Revolution has forced the Shah of Iran to flee for safety to the United States. In response to this, Iranian students and other revolutionaries raid and take over the American Embassy in Tehran, and hold 52 Americans hostage. However, six manage to avoid capture and have taken refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador. Of all the bad rescue plans proposed by the CIA, the “best bad idea” is from Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck). His plan: pose as a Canadian filmmaker shooting a science fiction film in Tehran where the six escapees will pose as various members of the production crew. Tony then recruits the help of make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman), and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) to help make the phoney film as their cover. It is then up to Tony to fly to Tehran, set things in motion, and hopefully fly out with the six American escapees before anyone finds out about this elaborate rescue mission.

But, who the heck would believe that a cheesy science fiction picture is being filmed in Iran during the hostage situation?

The cast is uniformly excellent. As an actor, Ben Affleck hasn’t been better. There is enough of a back-story present to understand where his character comes from and what his motivations are. On a side note, I think he rocks a pretty good Dave Grohl look here. John Goodman and Alan Arkin’s characters provide the film’s moments of comic relief – both are very reliable performers. The supporting cast consists mostly of lesser known actors (regular moviegoers will recognise some of these cast members from other pictures).

‘Argo’ works as both a white knuckle thriller and as a ‘Wag The Dog’-esque satire, and the balance between these two very different elements is perfect. This is a complicated film in this sense – combining elements that may seem tough to blend together. It’s an international drama, and a thrilling action picture, but also a very funny Hollywood comedy. Think about this for a second – this film is about the Iranian hostage situation, but it’s funny! In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, ‘Argo’ would suffer from multi-personality disorder; but, Affleck moves fluidly between these storylines, making transitions that would seem tough on paper appear seamless.

More about the technique: The film opens with the reappearance of the old red and white Warner Brothers Studio logo (from the 1970s & 1980s). The opening scene plays out like a documentary about the 1970s Iranian Revolution. The grainy photography allows the stock footage to blend effortlessly with the actual film. Even the montage during the end credits (which I won’t give away) is a testament to the amount of research dedicated to this project. The attention to detail in this picture is truly remarkable.

Though steeped in the filmmaking style and trends of the 1970s, ‘Argo’ is also a reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This picture premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival – the same week Canada severed its diplomatic ties with Iran, citing safety concerns and maintaining their long-standing view that Iran is a threat to global peace.

Affleck, as director, has found his calling. Each film has him increasing in scope, and ‘Argo’ is his most accomplished work by far. Like Clint Eastwood before him, Affleck will become at least as well known and respected for what he does behind the camera as anything he does on screen. ‘Argo’ is a film of exceptional craft – assembling a thriller that relies on precision and timing rather than shootouts and explosions. Though it is a little early to tell, my guess is that this picture will be a serious contender come Oscar season. My personal favorite of the year so far, ‘Argo’ is a reminder that sometimes Hollywood can make ‘em like they used to! Oh, and Canadians are the most awesome people ever!

- Jerry Nadarajah

So, what exactly is ‘Looper’ about? Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is an assassin known as a looper who works for the mob in the year 2074 – a time where a certain portion of the population is gifted with telekinetic abilities. He waits in prearranged spot which resembles an open field. Here, he shoots bound and gagged victims who arrive through time travel thirty years into the future – a time where it is more difficult to dispose of murdered bodies. Here’s the problem – his target is now himself (Bruce Willis plays Old Joe). To avoid getting into spoilers, I’ll end my plot description here.

When it was announced that ‘Looper’ would be the opener for the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival, I sort of rolled my eyes. “Looper?! That’s not a TIFF film!” Now that I’ve seen it, I can say that ‘Looper’ is very much is a TIFF film. On the surface, it appears to be a two hour chase flick with a time travel conceit. But, that isn’t what this movie about is about. The mechanics of the time travel concept is introduced early on, and then pushed into the background in favor of sinking into this milieu encompassed by characters that face some very difficult questions. Director Rian Johnson’s primary focus is on the narrative. The action set pieces and special effects are simply window dressing. ‘Looper’ is an ambitious picture, successfully combining elements involving dystopian futuristic sci-fi, western shootouts, and even children with serious anger management and parental issues. Think of it as a strange (but effective) hybrid of  ‘The Terminator’, ‘Blade Runner’, ‘The Shining’, and ‘Serenity’ (yes, by definition “hybrid” is a mix of two things, but if a movie like ‘Looper’ can make up its own rules, so can I).

‘Looper’ is a violent film to be sure, and goes in directions you would not expect. This is true in particular for some of the decisions made by the Bruce Willis character which will straight up shock and upset many of you. Yes, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis are playing the same characters – but the life experience contained within this thirty year gap has placed them at cross-purposes. My favorite scene in ‘Looper’ involves these two actors sitting across from each other in a diner, spelling out their intentions over a plate of steak and eggs. There is some dark comedy in this tension-filled scene that reminded me of the coffee scene between Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in Michael Mann’s ‘Heat’. Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the better actors working today and he proves his versatility by choosing to play this character – it’s the most “flawed” a character he has ever played, but there is some humanity to this Young Joe. And there’s a vulnerability to Old Joe that allows Bruce Willis to showcase his acting abilities and remind us that he isn’t just an action star. Once the Emily Blunt character is introduced, the film slows down, and that’s just fine because we really get to know these characters and care about the critical decisions they have to make.    

Those expecting wall-to-wall noise (a huge fault of the theatrical trailer) may be disappointed with what ‘Looper’ has to offer. As with every time travel film in existence, it may not stand up to the scrutiny of hindsight. But, with a great premise, sharply drawn characters, first-rate performance, and an intelligent script that meanders in the best possible way, ‘Looper’ is a gentle reminder that Hollywood isn’t completely devoid of original filmmaking.

- Jerry Nadarajah

Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, ‘Resident Evil: Retribution’ is the fifth film in the zombie/ video-game franchise, but feels fresh enough to stand as its own entity. Now, Paul W.S. Anderson shouldn’t be confused with Paul Anderson – the director of such great films as ‘There Will Be Blood’, ‘Magnolia’, and ‘Boogie Nights’. No, Paul W.S. Anderson is the guy who brought us such cinematic abominations such as ‘Mortal Kombat’, ‘Soldier’, and ‘Death Race’. He did direct one good film back in 1997 called ‘Event Horizon’ – I personally liked it, though admittedly, it was dismissed by many critics during its time. ‘Resident Evil: Retribution’ is Anderson’s first decent picture in fifteen years.

The opening sequence featuring airships equipped with lots of firepower is played backwards in slow motion before fast forwarding to normal speed. Andreson’s wife, Milla Jovovich, then summarizes the events of the previous four films in this film’s prologue which failed to bring clarity to confusion. If anything, the over-explaining made me more confused. In the next twenty  minutes or so, Anderson is just toying with the audience – Michelle Rodriguez is two characters, Milla Jovovich is a married suburbanite getting her daughter ready for her first day of school, characters are interchanged, and even dead characters from the previous films reappear. Huh?  The best explanation I can give is as follows: Alice (Milla Jovovich) is the last hope for a world overrun by zombies – but, she needs to break free from a top-secret complex where the virus was developed and unleashed.

Anderson isn’t a narrative filmmaker – the plot barely made any sense to me but his visual sensibility is strong enough to compensate for this imbalance. Form is substituted for theme and that’s okay. A film such as this is about image-making. And the images are quite striking – strong, independent women dishing out carnage; somersaults through the air; small bodies drifting into vast spaces. In fact, spaces, or enclosure rather, seems to be part of Anderson’s shtick. Proof of this is demonstrated in his previous works – Event Horizon, which is set entirely on a spacecraft; Alien Vs. Predator, whereby the film takes place in a pyramid buried 2,000 feet underground; the first Resident Evil picture was mostly restricted to its Umbrella Corporation setting. ‘Resident Evil: Retribution’ is structurally set up as spaces-within-spaces to the nth degree.  It all seems to be part of a testing facility, and the design is similar to that of a conventional game – there are stock characters and scenarios. However, this isn’t a game that is meant to be interactive with its audience. As an audience, we don’t want to interact with the movie; we want the movie to act on us so the fun on the part of the viewer is watching Milla Jovovich try to beat the game.

In this regard, ‘Resident Evil: Retribution’ shares something in common with the much more ambitious ‘Cabin In The Woods’ from earlier this year. Both films place familiar characters in familiar situations in an attempt to fully reveal their cliché-ridden genres. ‘Cabin’ was very well received by the critical community, but I gave it a negative review. My issue with that picture was that it deconstructs the genre by pinpointing a formula, which is then applied onto itself, and as a result, doesn’t distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. Anderson’s picture, admittedly, isn’t nearly as ambitious, but he accomplishes what he sets out to achieve – crafting a film that rewards the viewer who is aware of the visual aesthetics on display over the intellectual who tries to mentally piece together the jumbled narrative.

Now, I tend to take an unfavorable approach towards 3-D for reasons I’ve mentioned countless times in previous reviews. According to close moviegoing friends of mine, “Well, that didn’t need to be in 3-D” has become something of a common phrase of mine for such pictures. I can think of four filmmakers who use this recently popularized medium well: Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Michael Bay, and Paul W.S. Anderson. Anderson manages to successfully avoid the weak areas of 3-D: dimly lit settings, shallow focus, shaky cam. Instead, he focuses on the strengths of the medium: visual depth, wide shots, and slow motion – the latter of which luxuriates in each and every mechanical step of choreographed movement.

God help me for this but I’m giving ‘Resident Evil: Retribution’ a recommendation! This is entirely a technical achievement – I can’t defend it on any other basis. Was it lowered expectations? Or a decidedly good mood for this jaded moviegoer? Or the fact that Anderson finally delivered a decent action vehicle after a decade and a half of torturous projects? I’m going with the latter. ‘Resident Evil: Retribution’ is big, loud, idiotic, and disrespectful of Newton’s Laws of Motion. It also happens to be pretty fun. QED. 

- Jerry Nadarajah

‘Dredd’ is a remake of a 1995 Sylvester Stallone flop called ‘Judge Dredd’. With a $90M budget, it grossed ~ $35M and was one of the one of the worst films of the year. ‘Dredd’ feels more like a remake of the recent ‘The Raid:Redemption’. Sorry, but I hated all three of the films we’re talking about here. Like ‘The Raid:Redemption’, ‘Dredd’ isn’t a movie, it’s a video game. There isn’t a story here, just a premise – infiltrate a drug kingpin located on the top floor of a 200-story building. This requires the film’s characters to shoot their way out of some grimy hallways at each level. Those in favor of gun ownership may enjoy much of what’s offered here. Karl Urban’s chin gives a solid performance underneath that metal helmet - not since Linda Lovelace’s ‘Deep Throat’ from 1972 has a film relied entirely on the mouth of it’s central performer. And Olivia Thirlby’s work is on the pancake side of flat - I’m falling asleep just thinking back to her.

The video game style ultra-violence became nauseating for me. There is a singular spectacular slow motion 3-D effect which is used to communicate that a character is on a drug which is called Slow-Mo. Naturally, Slow-Mo makes time go reeeeaaaallllyyyy ssssllllooowww. An example of this is when a lady lifts her arm out of a bathtub, and the water looks like diamonds dripping off her body – yes, this is a cool effect the first time we see it. But, then it becomes gimmicky because this technique is used repeatedly to the point of exhaustion. Prospective filmmakers of this genre, please listen: stunts and special effects alone do not make a movie. You need to have a story that’s worth telling, not a premise that serves as an excuse for shoot ‘em up violence. You need to have characters that are well drawn, not artificial constructs. This film, like ‘The Raid’ is the cinematic equivalent of watching a pack of lions tear into each other. We know some will die, but in the end, we don’t care which ones. These pictures suffer from the absence of a human element. Karl Urban has agreed to participate in the film’s inevitable sequels. Perhaps next time, we can hope for a side of story and character to complement our big order of big, loud special effects.

- Jerry Nadarajah

‘Silver Linings Playbook’ won the Blackberry People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival. Of the twenty plus films I got to see at TIFF this year, this was the one that had my vote for the award.

After spending eight months at a psych ward, Pat (Bradley Cooper) is released to live with his parents in Philadelphia (Robert De Niro, Jackie Weaver). His wife, Nikki, has filed a restraining order against him but Pat is convinced they’ll be back together if he can prove he’s controlled his anger and is now a changed man. He meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), who promises to get Pat in touch with Nikki under the condition he partners with her for a freestyle dance competition

At first glance, a comedy about mental illness would seem like a difficult feat. Leave it to director David O. Russell (who directed one of the best movies of 2010, ‘The Fighter’) to make it work. Yes, Hollywood has churned a number of films where dancing brings people together, but I doubt you’ve seen one with characters as sharply drawn as these. Also, given the very messy inner worlds these characters encompass, dance makes sense – it’s about rhythm, movement, space, expression, coordination.

‘Silver Linings Playbook’ evoked fond memories of ‘Rocky’. Both films have a terrific sense of place - the city of Philadelphia acts as its own character in both of these pictures. And both films have excellent scripts which feature characters that are as real as they can be portrayed – you can describe them like you can close friends or members of your own family: how they would react, or what they would say in situations.

The casting is perfection. Jennifer Lawrence has already established herself as a gifted actress, but now she’s playing a damaged character – one that is sexy, has the perfect line for any situation, but is also vulnerable. As for Bradley Cooper, I feel I should start from the beginning. Truth be told, there hasn’t been one Bradley Cooper film I’ve liked until now. In fact, I’ve found his screen presence rather annoying – he mostly plays the same kind of character: an unlikeable jerk. A film like ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ demonstrates that an actor can be a miraculous thing in the right role. Some of his comedic antics are present here, but the role requires his to combine these elements with dramatic acting. The character he creates here draws us to screen every moment he is present, and has us rooting for him even during some very intense verbal and physical outbursts. This is the sort of role that a young Jack Nicholson would be able to play effortlessly. And this comparison to Nicholson is perhaps the best compliment I can give Cooper. His performance here is worthy of an Oscar nomination, and I hope he continues to choose roles as challenging as these in the future. Jackie Weaver is also great as the voice of reason and this is a return to form for Robert De Niro, an actor who has been suffering from “Al Pacino Syndrome” for some time.  

What makes ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ great isn’t its message or philosophies about mental illness, but its immediate human experience and the texture of that experience. Great films are able to create and reflect emotion. Mostly we as an audience remain aware that we’re sitting in a theatre watching a film, but every once in a while, we grow so absorbed in the experience of the movie that we forget ourselves – we’re sharing the identities and experiences as the characters of the movie. Such was the case for yours truly. Nearly three quarters into the year, and ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ has made a very strong bid for occupying one of the very top spots on my Top 10 List of 2012.

The film opens November 21st.

- Jerry Nadarajah

I’m thrilled to be back at the 36^th annual Toronto International Film Festival. Last year’s festival was a huge success featuring high profile films such as ‘The Descendants’, ‘Moneyball’, ‘Pina’, the eventual Oscar winner for Best Picture ‘The Artist’, and the eventual Oscar winner for Best Foreign Film (my personal favorite of 2011) ‘A Separation’. This year, the festival features 400+ films at 11 different venues where auditorium seating ranging from 200 to 3,000 seats. As a regular TIFF-goer, I can say with certainty that the films at the festival are an indication of the level of quality of films that will be released during the Fall season. Four of the five previous Oscar winners for Best Pictures were pictures that were hugely successful with audience members during TIFF (‘The Hurt Locker’ is the only recent Best Picture winner that wasn’t featured at the festival). For those of you who are tired of the superheroics, bloated sequels, and unnecessary remakes so far this year, I am here to offer words of comfort: there is some fresh filmmaking on the way. We’re at the midpoint of the festival, and I wanted to mention three films which really impacted me.

Rust & Bone (Jacques Autiard)

The film stars Marion Cotillard as a whale trainer at a Marineland who loses both her legs in an accident. She develops a relationship with a bouncer who moonlights as a bare-knuckle boxer. The bouncer (Matthias Schoenarts) is struggling to make ends meet. He has a five-year-old son and is practically homeless. He is a brute, but has to learn show kindness to his son and to Cotillard. He eventually helps bring her back into life, and she helps him find his way. A beautiful romance, but also gritty and tough, and well deserving of its MPAA R-rating. This is a master class of acting, and Marion Cotillard deserves serious Oscar consideration for Best Actress. It’s by far the finest performance I’ve seen all year – a template of technical acting: a quiet, stripped bare performance that doesn’t wallow in self pity. We get the sense that we are watching real people, not character types or Hollywood constructs – people we can discuss like members of our own family. Films such as ‘Rust & Bone’ are why I became a fan of cinema. Autiard’s previous film was ‘The Prophet’, another huge success at TIFF in 2009.

The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg)

Mads Mikkelsen – you may not know the name now, but I’m willing to bet that you will eventually. I’m certain his terrific performance in this new Danish film will grab the attention of Hollywood casting directors for future projects. Mikkelsen’s character finds his life turned upside down when a five-year-old student suggests that he exposed himself to her. This quickly escalates from an absurd statement to fact without any supporting evidence. Set in a small town, Mikkelsen soon finds his entire community against him. His innocence is clear from the beginning - there is no ambiguity or doubt, and we as an audience are with him every step of the way as he becomes the target of mass hysteria. What I really loved about ‘The Hunt’ is its sense of place – the film is specific about its setting but its themes are universal. This is a small town in Denmark where everyone knows each other – we know Mikkelsen’s character is innocent even if the town doesn’t, and it is heartbreaking to see what he has to go through. I think ‘The Hunt’ deserves Oscar consideration for Best Foreign Film. This isn’t the sort of picture that is exclusive to arthouse aficionados – it has great potential for crossover appeal. I hope it finds an audience. One of the great moviegoing experiences I’ve had this year.

 

The Impossible (Juan Antonio Bayona)

Bayona’s previous film was a horror film called ‘The Orphanage’. The horror he has chosen to depict this time is one that is very real – the Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami which devastated Southeast Asia in 2004. Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor play a couple vacationing in Indonesia during Christmas with their three kids. The opening disaster sequences is complete and convincing with visceral use of sound – one of the most horrifying and emotionally draining sequences ever put on film. The wave scatters and badly wounds the family members. This movie is an account of these family members fearfully seeking each other amidst tens of thousands of strangers caught in the mayhem of this natural catastrophe. Impressive performances all around – we’ve come to expect exceptional work from Naomi Watts, and Ewan McGregor, so I’m going to call out a very young talent in this film, Tom Holland. Breathtaking production design, terrifying special effects, uniformly excellent performances, and an emotionally involving story; the rare sort of film that makes you hopeful for humanity. One that sees a tragic event as revealing the best aspects of people.

- Jerry Nadarajah

‘The Words’ is a film about, well, words – more specifically, the act of producing words, known as writing. For a movie about writing, which could involve some compelling characters, an involving narrative, and good use of language, ‘The Words’ is frustrating, and less complex than it thinks it is. Directed by first-time filmmaker Brian Klugman, the movie follows a writer (Bradley Cooper), at the peak of his literary success, discovering the price he must pay for plagiarizing the work of another writer. The cast also includes Jeremy Irons whose character sets the plot in motion, and Zoe Saldana as the supportive wife. There is also Dennis Quaid, who reads from his new novel ‘The Words’, which is about the Bradley Cooper plagiarism story; there’s also Olivia Wilde, a grad student who is very interested in Quaid’s new book. Are you following this story-within-story structure? I promise my plot description above is more clearly presented and dramatically compelling than anything transpiring on the screen with ‘The Words’. I must admit the performances are great, especially from Jeremy Irons who plays a more vulnerable character than we’re used to seeing. Bradley Cooper, an actor I’ve always considered more lucky than talented, is almost good enough in this to make me retract that claim. A big problem here though is the narrative, which spells everything out. Characters’ actions, which we as an audience should be processing, and emotions we should be feeling are spoon fed to us by Quaid’s character. Hemmingway is also referenced a number of times – after all, he did lose his manuscript in a briefcase on a train. Why couldn’t the movie be about that instead – or about Cooper’s character fraudulently publishing Hemmingway’s lost manuscript? That would automatically eliminate some superfluous characters. Same goes for its recursive storytelling structure. I’m not asking for a more conventional film. But, like a good book, I should be immersed in its literary world and not reading it at arms length. QED.  

- Jerry Nadarajah

 ‘The Expendables’ from 2010, directed by Sylvester Stallone, was an unremarkable action film that only contained two memorable scenes. 1: A beefy, but overly sensitive Mickey Rourke making an emotional confession about letting a woman commit suicide during the Bosnian war; 2: Jason Statham punching a guy in the face when the dude was already on fire. It was an ensemble piece in which Stallone et al liberated the masses of the third world using whatever tools they had at their disposal (I’m certain this included steroids).

I doubt those of you seeing ‘The Expendables 2’ are interested in its plot, but let me humor you anyways. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Dolph Lundgren – they’re all back. New to the team is an easily adaptable Yu Nan, a young but ambitious Liam Hemsworth, and the lone-wolf mercenary Chuck Norris. When one of these members, who I will not mention by name, is killed during a seemingly routine job, they seek revenge on Jean Claude Van Damme, a villain appropriately named John Vilain. He has the blueprint to the location containing five tonnes of pure plutonium (“Six pounds of it is enough to change the balance of the world” says JCVD). Their mission, as instructed by Stallone - “Track him, find him, and kill him!”

Despite the (marginally) negative review I gave the first picture, I have to say I had a blast watching ‘The Expendables 2’. Can I defend it as a great movie? Perhaps not. But, I can say I had a pretty great time watching this film fly with the fireballs, bullets, and testosterone. So, why an endorsement of this film and not the first? Well, I think much of it has to do with the directorial choice. Even though Stallone has directed a number of action movies, I think he is best suited for drama. Take a look at this scene, which I described in the first paragraph of this review. Notice how Stallone gets closer to the emotion of the scene by absolving shot-reverse-shot. His direction of action scenes, however, is often clunky and chaotic. Simon West took over the director’s chair for ‘The Expendables 2’ and that’s the biggest positive change I noticed. West’s previous (good) efforts include ‘Con Air’, and ‘The General’s Daughter’.  He has a good sense of framing, and how to construct an action sequence, and combining the two in  widescreen. Though the action scenes are as busy this time around as they were in the first picture, so much is simultaneously transpiring on the screen that you may need to watch such scenes frame by frame to fully appreciate what West has assembled. But, the end result is a much crisper visual sense that pushes the film forward. The opening rescue operation sequence involving trucks and airboats is nothing short of goofy, spectacular entertainment. And the final showdown left me with sweaty palms.

There is nothing dishonest about ‘The Expendables 2’ – it knows exactly what it is. It’s a blast to see these action film veterans together – yes, the first movie was an ensemble piece as well, but the screenplay of ‘The Expendables 2’ has a better sense of humor about itself, even if it is of the self-deprecating variety. It’s hard not to smile rehearing some of these actor’s self-referential signature lines. The special effects look as dated as the 1980s action films its paying homage to, but that didn’t bother me. Even if some of the actors are looking a little shrivelled at their old age, they’ve still got it, particularly Jean Claude Van Damme, an actor who many of my movie-going colleagues (and myself) have criticized for years. This back to basics action film is lean and efficient, seamlessly shifting from self-parody to shoot-em-up violence. ‘The Expendables 2’ is a pretty awesome throwback to the action films of yesteryear. I’m not embarrassed to admit it - I loved this movie. Perhaps the biggest positive surprise of 2012 so far for yours truly. QED.

- Jerry Nadarajah

The plot: Calvin (Paul Dano) is a 29-year novelist who wrote a hit novel 10 years ago and has since been struggling from writer’s block. He isolates himself in his apartment, and his only friend is his brother Harry (Chris Messina). On occasion, he visits his psychiatrist (Elliot Gould); he barely speaks to his mother (Annette Bening) or her boyfriend (Antonio Banderas). Calvin’s life changes when he wakes up from a dream in which he encounters a beautiful woman in a park. This gives him in the inspiration to start another story about the girl who he names ‘Ruby Sparks’. He finds himself falling in love with his own creation. One day, she is in his apartment as a flesh and blood woman who sees herself as his girlfriend.

This is a concept you just have to accept, there is no explanation. “Its love, its magic!” shouts Calvin. ‘Ruby Sparks’ deviates from the formulae of its rom-com trappings and raises some interesting philosophical questions. The first half of the picture about romantic fulfillment is light, fluffy, and delightful. The second half is very bleak – one scene in particular caused me physical pain to watch. The tonal shift from gentle to dark is seamless, and doesn’t suffer from a cinematic case of multi-personality disorder like most films do. We do know these two characters fall in love, but what happens after that? He created her – is it morally acceptable to tweak her according to how he sees fit? Or at the point when it becomes clear that she is an individual, should he stop writing and see how things pan out? At what point does nurturing become smothering? What exactly are his responsibilities – is this similar to that of a parent of a child? If I had this magical ability, how would I respond to these situations? How would I react to my psychological flaws in a relationship that I had been previously blinded to in creating this girl? Does this situation translate to the online world – do we create personas of who we want to be rather than who we are?

Few films this year engaged my brain as much as this one did. The premise may require a big leap of faith for some – I admit, I rolled my eyes initially, but quickly became involved in the lives of these characters. It isn’t completely far-fetched – authors become attached and form relationships with their fictional constructs. This picture reminded me of vintage Woody Allen, and Paul Dano is a good conduit for the Allen persona with his neurotic tics, and low-key style. His struggle as a writer is identifiable, especially in regards to the weight of success. Following up on a hugely successful project is no easy feat. Audiences have expectations which are always benchmarked by the quality of the artist’s previous work. Parallels can be drawn between the Paul Dano character and the directors (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris) of this film. This is a follow-up to their first film, ‘Little Miss Sunshine’, which was well received by audiences and critics, and was a Best Picture nominee for the Motion Picture Academy in 2006.

The script was written by Zoe Kazan, the same person who plays the title character in the movie. This is a screenplay to savor, one whose subject matter is approached with a sensitive eye about the way men perceive women. Calvin’s brother states “You can do anything with her” – this includes making Ruby’s boobs bigger, and having her give him blow jobs. But, Calvin’s isolated character seems more interested in female companionship.

The last high-quality unconventional rom-com I saw was ‘500 Days of Summer’. I love that these two films challenge the mechanical aspects of their genres, but it is a shame that audience members have to wait every three years for such a film to appear. I would like to thank all of those involved in this project – both in front of and behind the camera. I can’t wait to see they do next. I’d consider *this* spark to be about 100,000 volts, which is substantial enough to resurrect a very tired genre.

- Jerry Nadarajah

Note: ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is not the sequel to ‘Black Knight’ starring Martin Lawrence.

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is perhaps the most anticipated film of the year so far (arguably surpassing ‘The Avengers’, and ‘The Hunger Games’). I took a break from microblogging on my social media accounts because I didn’t want to read anything about the film. My expectations needed to be reasonable. As with every movie, the less I know prior to seeing it, the better. For a moment, let’s ignore the hype, and focus on reviewing the film as a film.

I promise to keep this review spoiler-free, but if you don’t want to know plot details, skip over to the next paragraph. It’s been eight years since Batman (Christian Bale), billionaire Bruce Wayne in costume, defeated a villain who was intent on destroying Gotham. But, the superhero was blamed for the death of a district attorney, Harvey Dent, whose work posthumously cleaned up streets and filled prisons under the powers granted by the Dent Act. Since then, the caped crusader hasn’t been seen, which is also true for Bruce, who remains in self-imposed seclusion. He can’t even stop a burglar, disguised as a waitress, from stealing his mother’s pearls. But, there is a villainous threat to Gotham City in the form of Bane (Tom Hardy), a thug with a metal cage on his face. As Bane’s plan unfolds, Wayne must decide whether to bring Batman out of retirement. And if The Dark Knight does indeed return, can he save Gotham city before it’s too late?

Yes, this is a comic book movie, but as I watching ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, I forgot I was watching a comic book film. ‘TDKR’ is more grounded in reality than any other comic book picture I have ever seen. With plot points involving financial meltdowns, occupy riots, nuclear weapons, and terrorism, there are clear parallels between this fictitious comic book world and present-day America. Batman does not have special powers and is only present for no more than 15% of the picture.

Christian Bale’s Batman growl might not be appreciated by everyone – I think it brings a high level of intensity to the character, and I admire it. Tom Hardy delivers very strong work as Bane, even if his most of his face is obscured by the masked cage on his face. Minor quibble – it was a challenge to understand some of what Bane was saying because of this. Sounding like an odd cross between Sean Connery’s love child and Darth Vader, he utters lines of anarchy in chilling fashion. Director Christopher Nolan knows something other filmmakers need to learn - you do not overexploit a great villain. Hardy is onscreen for the right amount of time, and while it may be a flashy performance, it doesn’t dominate the movie. Returning from the previous two films are Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. Newcomers include Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, and Joseph Gordon Levitt. It is cinematic heaven watching this amazing cast at work. No one is winking at the camera – they all take their roles very seriously. And no one gets lost in the shuffle – every cast member has his/her time to shine.

I’d like to credit cinematographer Wally Pfister for his wonderful work here, which is surely deserving of Oscar consideration come awards season. Same goes for the sharp script by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. Minor criticisms – as mentioned above, it’s difficult to understand some of Bane’s dialogue (I recommend the use of subtitles if you’re watching this on DVD/Blu Ray); also, some of the plot lines do meander a little bit. However, ‘TDKR’ mostly justifies its length of 165 minutes.

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is a completely satisfying final entry to one of the greatest trilogies in motion picture history. An ambitious, brutal, gorgeous epic - what a spectacular ending!

- Jerry Nadarajah

‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’, directed by Benh Zeitlin, was the surprise winner of the Camera d’Or Award at Cannes, and the Grand Jury Prize (Dramatic) at Sundance. A surprise to me because I don’t think the movie is very good. The plot: Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis) is a six-year-old girl who lives with her father, Wink (Dwight Henry) in “The Bathtub”, a southern Delta community at the edge of the world. Wink is an abrasive, physically abusive alcoholic dying of some vague illness. Tough love – he’s got to prepare her for a time when he no longer can protect her. After this, I’m not sure I know what the movie is really about, but I’ll attempt a basic flow-chart: Temperatures rise —> Ice caps melt —>The Bathtub gets flooded —> Prehistoric creatures arise and roam the tub —> Hushpuppy searches for mom. The film is also narrated by Hushpuppy in a “Kids Say The Darndest Things” fashion.

Given the two major film festival awards this film has received, I can only assume I’m in the minority on this one. But, it does have its charms. Quvenzhané Wallis is a very compelling force of nature, and the rest of this cast of non-professional actors is very good (even though Dwight Henry is doing a Samuel L Jackson impersonation, at least it’s a good impersonation). Much of the film looks very pretty, especially considering the constraints of its more than likely shoestring budget – the credit here goes to cinematographer Ben Richardson. Some of the film’s imagery has resonated in my psyche, the most memorable one being young Hushpuppy running through a field with sparklers during a festival (yes, I know this is the poster of the film, but the image still sticks). There is also Zeitlin’s fetish for the thighs of middle-aged women – or so the camera zooms in on her leg to show us a tattoo that we wouldn’t have seen as clearly from a distance.

I’ve praised the performances of the cast members above, but they’re all underdeveloped as characters. Hushpuppy encounters a number of people through the course of her journey including a captain of a fishing boat who collects fried chicken wrappers, a woman who dances with her at a brothel, FEMA operatives on a mission, etc. etc. With the exception of her father, these characters are without flaw (and even his character has such a quick turnaround that it isn’t believable). Surely, the aftermath of a natural disaster would leave at least some of its victims with feelings of disconcertment, and outrage. There is a sense of artificiality to this community – these characters exist to aid Hushpuppy in her journey without any hesitation.

The cloying score, composed by Dan Rohmer and Benh Zeitlin, smothers every inch of this picture. They try just a little too hard in trying to manipulate your emotions with it. The greater they tried, the more I was able to resist. Based on the reactions of the audience members at my test screening, I suppose I should recommend bringing a Kleenex. I don’t think that this movie deserves your tears though.

The biggest problem I had with ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’ had to do with the decisions made by the characters. The residents of The Bathtub seem to believe that they are self-sufficient. If their community bands together, they will get by. They don’t need outside help. False! What makes this a fully functioning community? The fact that they like to get drunk, play with fireworks, and dance to folk music? Government aid workers evacuate The Bathtub and whilst they quarantine its populace (prior to relocation), Hushpuppy and crew escape the hospital, and return to The Bathtub. They see this as a victory. I do not. They have chosen to return without outside assistance. They have chosen poverty. Are they celebrating their freedom of choice? I think the film is celebrating desolation, and insubordination.

‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’ is an overly optimistic fantasy about a natural disaster that revealed the good-heartedness of man as opposed to the formation of a chaotic, violent society. I admired Zeitlin’s attempt to create a unique viewing experience, but the film’s grating score, underdeveloped characters, and plot devices kept me at a distance. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend it.

Note: For those of you prone to bouncy camerawork, several audience members left this screening due to motion sickness. I didn’t find the rough visual style to be a distraction, but clearly others did. QED.

- Jerry Nadarajah

 

The summer opener of 2002 was Sam Raimi’s ‘Spider-Man’ and I remember walking out of the film feeling disappointment. According to Rotten Tomatotes, the critical aggregator states that I was in the 10% minority of critics who did not recommend the movie. But, given that 90% of the critical population endorsed it, was there a need for a reboot? As a critic, should I dock this latest version points for being a quick turnaround piece? Or should I view it on its singular merits? ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ is a significant improvement upon Sam Raimi’s original, and the second best of the four existing Spider-Man films (with Spider-Man 2 still being the best of the bunch).

The story – Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is a teenage outcast, raised by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). He is bullied by Flash Thomspon (Chris Zylka) and has caught the eye of Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). She is the head intern for Dr. Kurt Connors (Rhys Ifans) at a biotech firm called OsCorp. Peter is interested in Kurt’s findings since he worked with Peter’s late father and may have the answers to some of Peter’s questions. Cross has a missing arm, and his scientific interests relate to cross-species genetic splicing. Peter sneaks into Oscorp, finds himself in a lab and ends up being bitten by a genetically mutated spider. You can guess what he becomes as a result of this. Gwen’s father, Captain George Stacy (Dennis Leary) is on the hunt for this masked vigilante, known as Spider-Man. Hm, this could complicate matters between Peter and Gwen. But, there are even bigger things to worry about when Connors juices on an experimental serum which transforms him into a destructive lizard-man. Realizing his cross-species state, he decides to release a chemical cloud from the tower of his corporation which would turns all humans into human-lizards. It’s up to Spidey to save the day.

There is an emotional hook to ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ which made this picture a more resonating experience than I was anticipating. The origin story takes up the first half of the film and is presented much more clearly than the first time around – we understand exactly why Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man. The picture isn’t just wall-to-wall noise – there is a story and the film takes its time to develop its characters. Andrew Garfield has much more dramatic range than Tobey Maguire, and I enjoyed his rebellious spin on the character. Emma Stone, as always, is likeable here and the two have a very nice chemistry. My only minor complaint is that Garfield (at 29 years of age), and Stone (24) look too old to be playing high school students. “This” Peter Parker is a photographer, but I don’t think he’s employed by The Daily Bugle. Actually, I don’t think The Daily Bugle was even referenced here. This picture is directed by Marc Weber, whose previous directorial effort includes the romantic comedy ‘500 Days Of Summer’ (which made my Top 10 List of 2009). In that film, he proved he was a very good director of actors.

But, does he know how to construct action sequences? The exaggerated set pieces in the original Spider-Man prevented me from giving it a positive review. If you can reference a few scenes from the DVD/Blu-Ray, take a look back at the way Spidey swings between buildings in the streets of Manhattan, and you’ll notice they lack conviction – he looks like a cartoon character, he just moves too fast; there isn’t the weight of flesh and blood. Technology has come a long way in ten years, but Weber gets it right here. He understands that CGI action needs to be slowed down in order for the viewer to derive detail. This makes the fight scenes involving Spider-Man easy to follow. The film’s single best sequence involves Spider-Man rescuing a boy from a burning car – unlike most 21^st century CGI-heavy films, you can explain in a step-by-step manner what the actions between the two characters are. The actions involving the lizard, however, are a little more chaotic and incomprehensible, but the clear framing and editing of Spidey’s actions compensate for this.

Despite my misgivings of its existence in the first place, I’m happy to report that ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ is a very enjoyable summer blockbuster. I look forward to what the cast and crew do with the sequel to this new installment. Truth be told, they have big shoes to fill, given what Raimi did with ‘Spider-Man 2’. But, for now, let’s celebrate this victory. Thanks to all involved. I had a blast!  

- Jerry Nadarajah

‘People Like Us’, the latest tearjerker to grace the multiplexes, is the directorial debut of Alex Kurtzman, whose previous screenwriting efforts include the first two Transformer films. Those giant chunks of talking metal felt more dimensional than the human characters of this picture. Kurtzman’s intentions are admirable. ‘People Like Us’ has its heart in the right place – though, that may be the only right thing about it.

We are introduced to a fast-talking corporate facilitator, Sam (Chris Pine) who hustles his customers by using inventory overages for bartering purposes. He refers to it as “being on the ground floor of money.” We sense that something is broken inside him. He flies home to Los Angeles for the funeral of his estranged record-producer father. His father’s will stipulates that Sam must deliver $150,000 in cash to Frankie (Elizabeth Banks). We then learn that Frankie is the illegitimate daughter of Sam’s hippie father. A simple genealogical tree structure would imply that Frankie is the sister Sam never knew he had. And she has a trouble-making 11 year-old son, Josh (Michael Hall D’Addario) which means Sam also has a nephew. But, Sam is buried in debt – is he going to hand the money over to Frankie? From here, you know where this story of redemption is headed:
1 – The two banterers have a rough start, but slowly begin to bond – Check!
2 – A teary monologue (or maybe two or three) about this now-deceased record producer – Check!
3 – Josh finds a much-needed father figure in Sam – Check!
4 – The best-day-ever montages begin to roll in, one after another – Check!

The plot I’ve described above seems plausible. So, why then does the film feel artificial? Much of it has to do with the characterization. Josh might just be a little too articulate for a kid his age – he has a witty response for any occasion. I could almost smell the workshopping as I was watching this: the intelligence in the characters, the script’s overuse of metaphors (including vinyl records to represent authenticity), the cloying score desperately trying to manipulate me into generating an emotional response at a particular moment, the reliance on several jump cuts to illustrate moments of chaos and character confusion. All it takes is one line of dialogue to clear up all the confusion - “We are bro and sis.” But, this secret serves as the motor that drives the film. Without it, ‘Films Like This’ would then be a 10-minute short instead of a full-scale dramedy.

There are some nice moments in ‘People Like Us’. It starts off well, and there is some intrigue in discovering how these characters are connected to each other (which I’ve spoiled for you above, oops!). Chris Pyne, and Elizabeth Banks are fine in their roles – they have the ability to act. However, I couldn’t help but feel they needed a better movie to showcase their talents. I think ‘People Like Us’ needed another run through the typewriter, and a less frantic filmmaker behind the camera to make it a satisfying whole. Even though it has the best of intentions, it is ultimately too calculated and artificial for me to recommend. This is Alex Kurtzman’s first film. I think he’ll get it right next time around. QED.

- Jerry Nadarajah

Currently playing around the country is a small-budget indie film called ‘The Avengers’. With a measly budget of only $220 million, I’m hoping this review will work its magic and create the word of mouth necessary to get audiences in the theatres to see this modestly scaled picture. Ah, I kid! Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and The Hulk all in one film! It’s a comic book lover’s wet dream!

‘The Avengers’, directed by Joss Whedon, is one of the best comic book blockbusters ever made, and is my favorite film of 2012 so far. It has a very good sense of humor about itself, and acknowledges the goofiness and giddiness of having all these superheroes together in the same room without disrespecting the fans of this source material. Robert Downey Jr. is terrific again as the brilliant, self-centered Tony Stark (a.k.a Iron Man), and he delivers most of the film’s memorable comedic lines. But, my personal favorite hero here is Steve Rogers (or Captain America) played by Chris Evans. He has the underdog attributes, and there is a sweetness and innocence in his character that makes him stand out, at least to yours truly. Mark Ruffalo’s self-deprecating spin on the Bruce Banner character is far more effective than the Eric Bana and Edward Norton versions. The other players - Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, and Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, are all effective, and no one gets lost in the shuffle – there’s enough screen time for each of them.

 Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor’s brother, has severe sibling rivalry issues. Like every major villain in a superhero film, Loki wants to take over the world, and he plans on doing this by using a cube-shaped futuristic energy device to unleash his powerful army on Earth. Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) assembles this group of superheroes to try to stop Loki, but they spend almost as much time battling each other as they do focusing on their enemy. I saw ‘The Avengers’ in 2-D and refused to pay the surcharge for a potentially inferior viewing experience, so I can’t comment on the effectiveness of the added dimension. But, I can state that ‘The Avengers’ is everything a summer blockbuster should be. The special effects are first-rate, the action sequences are amazing, the characters underneath these ridiculous costumers are very well-developed, the writing is spectacular, there are more laughs delivered by this film than any full-scale comedy I’ve seen all year, and everyone in this exceptionally talented cast is operating at the top of their game. This is the first summer release of 2012, and has already set the bar very high. A rare example of a film that fulfills its hype, ‘The Avengers’ earns my highest recommendation.

- Jerry Nadarajah

As I went through my Twitter feed this afternoon, I couldn’t help but notice a high volume of angry tweets directed to film critic A.O. Scott of The New York Times for panning ‘The Avengers’. Samuel L Jackson, who plays Nick Fury in ‘The Avengers’ tweeted: “#Avengers fans, NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!” Many other tweets included profanities and relentless name-calling at Mr.Scott. I must confess I didn’t read The New York Times review of ‘The Avengers’ (Spoiler about my methods: I refuse to read any reviews about a film until after I’ve seen the movie and written my own review). But, I am going to say the comments about A.O. Scott from comic fans and movie lovers are unfair. ‘The Avengers’ wasn’t even released at this point - these moviegoing tweeps are defending a movie they haven’t even seen, and are attacking this critic by dismissing his review as “wrong”.

Now, according to Rotten Tomatoes, ‘The Avengers’ is sitting at 92%, which would put A.O. Scott in the 8% minority. It’s not easy to write an unpopular review - the review where the writer is swimming upstream against the overwhelming tide of critical opinion. It isn’t much fun to write a minority opinion, especially when everyone thinks the film is a masterpiece, except you. The most recent example I can think of is when I panned ‘Rango’ last year. This animated film, adored by most, received an 89% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and ended up taking home the Oscar for ‘Best Animated Film’ of 2011. Many friends and film followers were convinced I missed the boat on this one, and that was fine. As long as they were able to explain to me what they saw in the film that I had supposedly “missed”. The responses that irritated me were the ones that stated “’Rango’ is sitting at 89% on Rotten Tomatoes, so you’re wrong.” Why am I wrong? Because I’m in the minority? Has individual expression been replaced by an aggregated critical approval score?

Isn’t this what film criticism is about though? It isn’t a science - there isn’t a “right” or “wrong” review. It’s not just about analysis – ultimately, it’s personal. It’s about how *I* responded to what was presented in front of me, and what the experience was like to me. It is about having a focal point for an argument, one that is independent of viewer and critical consensus. And I have some admiration for A.O. Scott for sticking with his guns, and writing a review which I believe expresses how he truly felt (even though I haven’t read the review myself). With the noise and argumentation of social media, I’m sure I will continue to receive a few harsh comments for some reviews. Writing about criticism requires the reporter to be accepting of it. So, I say let the lively and passionate discussions about film continue. And for the record, I am not changing my vote on ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’, or ‘The Dilemma’ – the responses I received for my endorsement of these two films from last year were….interesting.

- Jerry Nadarajah

I’m often asked what my guilty pleasures are. And I respond by saying I don’t have any, since I don’t think I should feel guilty for enjoying a film, no matter how poorly it was received within the critical community. I feel no guilt for having enjoyed ‘Lockout’, the new sci-fi action film directed by James Mather, and Stephen St.Leger. Though I suppose for most people, this would qualify as a guilty pleasure. The plot – It’s the year 2079 and the world’s most violent criminals are now incarcerated in an outer space prison. Snow (Guy Pearce) plays a wrongly convicted government agent. His one chance at freedom is to rescue the President’s kidnapped daughter, Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace) – her idiotic journey to a maximum security prison in space has resulted in her being held hostage by its prisoners. I’m glad I didn’t have to do a video review of ‘Lockout’ – I wouldn’t have been able to describe the plot with a straight face. The laugh ratio is high enough to warrant “Best Comedy of the Year” status. I laughed out loud throughout much of this cheesy throwback to the action films of the 80s and 90s. The action sequences are colorful, but cartoonish and scaled back to receive a PG-13 rating. Guy Pearce and Maggie Grace elevate the material even with its ridiculous plot, and the fact that there are as many clichés as bullets being fired in the picture. When a film is so bad it’s good, well, then it’s good, right? ‘Lockout’ has no delusions of grandeur. It aims to be a big dumb fun, and it succeeds. I doubt I’ll give ‘Lockout’ a moment’s thought once this review is posted, but for its 95 minute runtime, it makes for pretty good escapism.

- Jerry Nadarajah

’21 Jump Street’ is the latest action bromance comedy starring Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. It is a loose sequel to the television series, also of the same name, which ran from 1987 – 1991. Truth be told, I made no connection to the TV series when I saw the trailer for the film. Nor did I know the show even existed until the moviegoing colleague I saw this movie with pointed it out to me. Is this sequel faithful to the Fox cable show? Does it defile the original? I don’t know. I don’t care. All I care about is whether or not the film version of ’21 Jump Street’ succeeds in its own comedic terms. And it does.

Schmidt (Hill) is a pudgy high schooler who wears braces, and stammers when he talks to girls. Jenko (Tatum), on the other hand, is the handsome jock that will most likely end up the school’s prom king at the end of the year. Years later, they find themselves at the same police academy. Jenko excels in his physical examinations, but struggles with passing his written exams. Schmidt is the opposite. They end up becoming friends and work together to overcome each other’s limitations. They are assigned the safe task of park patrol and manage to foul up a major drug bust. As a result, they are exiled to 21 Jump Street, a program in which cops, chosen for their youthful appearances, go undercover as high school students to stop criminal activity involving teenagers. Their mission, as directed to them by the highly profane Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) is to prevent the spread of a new synthetic drug by finding the supplier.

’21 Jump Street’ is pretty funny and on a par with ‘The Other Guys’, the 2009 buddy cop comedy starring Mark Wahlberg and Will Farrell. This movie belongs to Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. In previous years, I’ve found Channing Tatum to be stiff and dull on screen. I did, however, have a change of opinion when I saw Ron Howard’s highly underrated ‘The Dilemma’ from last year. Tatum was the show-stealer and demonstrated a gift for comic acting. And skinny Jonah Hill is as funny as fat Jonah Hill. The hunkiness of Tatum paired with the dorkiness of Hill feels completely organic, and the two create a believable friendship. The supporting cast is also (mostly) good. Ron Riggle plays a creepy Phys. Ed teacher. Brie Larson plays the girl with a big smile who might give Jonah Hill’s character the romantic possibility he was never able to have when he was in high school. Ellie Kemper plays a Chemistry teacher who takes a sexual interest in her student, the character played by Channing Tatum. It’s interesting seeing a middle-aged Ice Cube as a hilariously angry and profane cop. Let’s not forget the track Ice Cube collaborated with NWA on in the 1990s called “F$!% The Police”.

Credit to Michael Bacall for creating a very funny script that celebrates 80s movies clichés and manages to be a strange but effective combination of teen comedy and buddy/police comedy. In fact, ’21 Jump Street’ is probably the most perceptive film about “highschoolism” than any other teen comedy I can think of in recent memory, and it’s these scenes that work best. You see, high school in 2012 isn’t the same as it was in 2005. Teenagers are now environmentally friendly, they’ve realized that bullying isn’t cool, and this forces the two main characters to experience micro-generational deracination. And the film’s villain, who is a high school student, is one that is articulate, and ivy-league bound. Oh, how the times have changed.

What prevents ’21 Jump Street’ from achieving greatness? The film’s villain, played by Dave Franco (James Franco’s younger brother) is a little weak. Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller don’t inject as much as much energy and excitement into the action sequences as they do the comedic material. Some of the humor is that of the lowest common denominator variety – ahem, penis jokes, and homophobia, ahem. The final sequence felt a bit too much like ‘True Romance’, but it could have been designed to pay tribute to that movie. Clocking at 109 minutes, ’21 Jump Street’ does feel about 15-20 minutes too long for the kind of movie it is.

Still, what we’re left with is 90% of a pretty good movie which is much more than we’re usually offered at the multiplex. This is a very good example of how formulae, in the right hands, can actually work. The screenwriters and directors are aware of their own ridiculousness – they’re turning what is universally considered a cheesy television series into a movie, but they’re having fun with it. Thanks to a great pairing of the two leads, and a very funny script that pays homage to the action comedies of yesteryear, ’21 Jump Street’ is clear about its intentions, and constantly winks at the audience whilst delivering big, verifiable laughs.  

- Jerry Nadarajah

 

The controversial, but government-approved ‘Act of Valor’ is the latest film to tackle the subject on the war of terror. This time, however, we witness real-life SEALS playing fictitious SEALS. It’s as if the filmmakers are telling the audience that a war film with a Hollywood cast automatically strips the picture of its authenticity. I don’t think so – ‘The Thin Red Line’, ‘Platoon’, and ‘Apocalypse Now’ are just a few of the many great films in the war genre. ‘Act of Valor’ should have had “WE WANT YOU” as its tagline because the picture feels like a 2-hour recruitment video. The metric that will be used to determine the film’s success won’t be the tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes, or the total dollar figure it rakes up at the box office. The key data point here will be the number of SEALS recruits. Did the number of British Secret Agent applicants increase significantly when ‘Casino Royale’ was in theatres?

A team of six Navy SEALS are sent to the Philippines to rescue a CIA agent who has been kidnapped. Prior to her kidnapping, she was investigating a connection between a terrorist, Shabal, and an international smuggler, Christo. In the process of the rescue mission, the SEALS discover that Shabal is plotting an attack against the United States with a new, horrific weapon. The SEALS are then tasked with the mission of locating Shabal, as well the 16 suicide bombers he is sneaking into the Mexican-US border. The suicide bombers are equipped with vests filled with gel explosives. Shabal’s plan is to have them detonate their vests at strategic points throughout the United States, causing media panic, and further plunging the American economy.

The real life Navy SEALS who are essentially playing themselves are unquestionably brave, honourable men. However, there is only about two sentences of back story for these characters. Of the two main characters, one is a family man who likes to surf, and the other has a pregnant wife at home. As believable as the SEALS are, they do often struggle with reciting lines of dialogue. I don’t know if I can blame them for this – they aren’t trained actors. But, what about the SEALS as characters? They collaborate perfectly, free of discord. They stick to the plan but are able to adapt when necessary. They don’t even seem to curse unless they’re under attack. Nor do they question the value of the cause. And this is why ‘Act of Valor’ feels like propaganda. The film doesn’t examine the complexities of war – there are no corrupt officials, nor are there any psychologically damaged soldiers.

What ‘Act of Valor’ does have is action, and lots of it. These cast members were involved in sensitive, high-stakes, real-life missions, and I think this gives the action sequences, which essentially consists of a series of rescue missions, an aura of authenticity. This goes for the level of detail involved in their planning, their methods of avoiding detection, and their frequent use of military jargon. That being said, I don’t know what the heck a “hot extract” is and I suppose most civilians will be as lost as I was during the moments of military speak. The characters in this film have access to a wide range of modern weaponry and while what’s present is credible, it also robs the film of some of its tension. The SEALS have the upper hand in terms of firepower and logistical support. It’s the equivalent of cheering for the house during a poker tournament.

‘Act of Valor’ is one of those movies that is easier to appreciate than enjoy. As we watch this film, we’re reminded of the men and women sacrificing their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. It’s an admirable attempt at providing an accurate depiction of who the SEALS are, and how they work. As a film, it has some pretty impressive mission sequences, but it also has underdeveloped characters, stilted dialogue, a cloying score, and simplistic view of the war. The most unsettling aspect to yours truly is how every frame of ‘the movie felt like it was trying to convince the audience to join the military. As you can probably tell, I can’t recommend ‘Act of Valor, so my recommendation is to skip it and rent the criminally underrated ‘Green Zone’ or the Academy Award-winning ‘The Hurt Locker’ instead.

- Jerry Nadarajah

 

Of the thousands of films I’ve seen in my lifetime, ‘Wanderlust’ has set some sort of record with me. I had mixed feelings walking out of the theatre, and initially posted a tweet-sized review which stated “’Wanderlust’ is 51% original comedy, and 49% stale comedy. On balance, I’m giving the film a marginal recommendation.” After exchanging a few tweets with a fellow follower (who also had mixed feelings about the picture), I decided I was being far too generous. My follow-up tweet to my review involved flipping the ratio to 51% stale / 49% original, thus revoking my initial recommendation. This has never happened before.

The film opens with George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) bickering about whether or not they should buy a micro-loft in Manhattan. They go through their list of pros and cons, whilst their real estate agent sits and watches impatiently, waiting for them to make a decision. But, George’s boss gets arrested by the FBI, and Linda has her documentary about penguins with testicular cancer turned down by HBO. This leaves them both unemployed, and they hit the road for Atlanta to stay with George’s brother, Rick (Ken Marino), a highly successful business owner. Along the way, they stay at a bed and breakfast hotel that turns out to be a hippie commune. After spending a night there, they head to Rick’s only to realize they can’t stand it and thus return to the commune. Trying to adapt to this unusual 60s era hippie lifestyle where free love reigns, George and Linda find their marriage challenged. There’s also an evil land developer who wants to turn the commune into a casino.

As you may have noticed from my description above, ‘Wanderlust’ doesn’t have much of a plot.  A film like this relies almost entirely on its cast to pull it off. Some of the actors are given the chance to shine. We meet the occupants of the commune, many with a handful of eccentricities. There is a nudist who is working on what he thinks will become a bestselling novel. He also stomps grapes, but thankfully covers his midsection with a thin cloth to avoid shedding pubes into them. We are also so introduced to a pregnant woman, well into her trimester, who then pops out her baby with an effortless squat. And there’s another lady who illustrates the commune’s philosophies of free love – fighting off your sexual urges with multiple partners supposedly invites disease and death, and who is a fan of either? The members of the commune do not clap their hands – they demonstrate appreciation by rubbing their fingers together. And there are no doors since privacy is not in their vocabulary.

I have to admit, I enjoyed meeting a few of the above-mentioned characters in the film and was laughing at parts of ‘Wanderlust’. Both Paul, and Justin Theroux are very good in their respective roles and they are almost good enough to make the film work. Justin Theroux’s character has been a member of the commune for so long, he mocks people and their obsessive reliance on modern technologies such as VCRs, fax machines, and floppy disks. I also have to give the movie points for being an R-rated comedy featuring lots of bad language, nudity, and drug use. Too many films these days play it safe by toning down the crude material in order to receive a PG-13 rating. The releasing studios believe such a rating will draw in a larger audience, thus yielding higher box office numbers.

‘Wanderlust’ as a cinematic experience is much like hanging with these drug-fuelled characters – the film lacks structure and cohesion. It is a series of set pieces, and while I’ve mentioned some of the comedic bits that work, there are also a number of jokes that get hammered into the ground well before the point of delivering laughs. Aniston’s character consumes a hallucinogenic substance and takes the lyrics of R.Kelly’s ‘I Believe I Can Fly’ literally. The presentation of her documentary about penguins with testicular cancer is also flat and unfunny. But the most cringe worthy scene that I found physically painful to watch involves Paul Rudd’s character talking to himself in a bathroom mirror. He rehearses what he is about to say to a woman who has offered herself to him, and lines such as “I’m going to get up in yo vag” are said repeatedly to the point of discomfort. This extended scene goes on for at least three minutes, and then when Rudd meets the lady for what could be the big moment, we hear it all over again, and the joke which was unfunny to begin with has now been milked for all it’s worth.

 ‘Wanderlust’ isn’t bad enough to make you wish all those involved in this project would depart from society and live on their own commune. It is a mixed bag, but unfortunately I don’t think this is a bag worth sorting through. I acknowledge that the cast does elevate what is otherwise paper thin material, but I’m fairly confident that most of us would rather see them in a better picture.  This is director David Wain’s second near miss in a row – his last project being ‘Role Models’, also starring Paul Rudd. I think the two of them will get it right the third time around.

- Jerry Nadarajah

BEST PICTURE:

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight In Paris

Moneyball

The Tree Of Life

War Horse

My Prediction: The Artist

If I Picked The Winner: The Descendants

BEST DIRECTOR

Woody Allen – Midnight In Paris

Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist

Terrence Malick – The Tree Of Life

Alexander Payne – The Descendants

Martin Scorsese – Hugo

My Prediction: Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist

If I Picked The Winner: Alexander Payne – The Descendants

BEST ACTOR

Demian Bichir – A Better Life

George Clooney – The Descendants

Jean Dujardin – The Artist

Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Brad Pitt – Moneyball

My Prediction: Jean Dujardin – The Artist

If I Picked The Winner: George Clooney – The Descendants

BEST ACTRESS

Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis – The Help

Rooney Mara – The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn

My Prediction: Viola Davis – The Help

If I Picked The Winner: Rooney Mara – The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn

Jonah Hill – Moneyball

Nick Nolte – Warrior

Christopher Plummer – Beginners

Max Von Sydow – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

My Prediction: Christopher Plummer – Beginners

If I Picked The Winner: Christopher Plummer – Beginners

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Berenice Bejo – The Artist

Jessica Chastain – The Help

Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer – Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer – The Help

My Prediction: Octavia Spencer – The Help

If I Picked The Winner: Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Bullhead (Belgium)

Footnote (Israel)

In Darkness (Poland)

Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)

A Separation (Iran)

My Prediction: A Separation (Iran)

If I Picked The Winner: A Separation (Iran)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Woody Allen – Midnight In Paris

JC Chandor – Margin Call

Asghar Farhadi – A Separation

Michel Hazanvicius – The Artist

Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumulo – Bridesmaids

My Prediction: Woody Allen – Midnight In Paris

If I Picked The Winner: Asghar Farhadi – A Separation

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

John Logan – Hugo

Bridget O’Connor, Peter Straughan – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Steven Zillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Charvin – Moneyball

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – The Descendants

George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon – The Ides Of March

My Prediction: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – The Descendants

If I Picked The Winner: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – The Descendants

BEST DOCUMENTARY

Hell and Back Again

If A Tree Falls

Paradise Lost 3

Pina

Undefeated

My Prediction: Paradise Lost 3

If I Picked The Winner: Pina

BEST ANIMATED FILM

A Cat In Paris

Chico & Rita

Kung Fu Panda 2

Puss In Boots

Rango

My Prediction: Rango

ART DIRECTION

The Artist

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2

Hugo

Midnight In Paris

War Horse

My Prediction: Hugo

CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Artist

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

The Tree Of Life

War Horse

My Prediction: Hugo

COSTUME DESIGN

Anonymous

The Artist

Hugo
Jane Eyre

W.E.

My Prediction: Jane Eyre

FILM EDITING

The Artist

The Descendants

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

My Prediction: The Artist

MAKEUP

Albert Nobbs

Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows Part 2

The Iron Lady

My Prediction: The Iron Lady

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)

John Williams - The Adventures of Tintin

Ludovic Bource - The Artist

Howard Shore - Hugo

Alberto Iglesias - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

John Williams - War Horse

My Prediction: Ludovic Bource - The Artist

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)

“Man or Muppet” by Bret McKenzie – The Muppets

“Real In Rio” by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown – Rio

My Prediction: “Man or Muppet”

SOUND EDITING:

Drive

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

War Horse

My Prediction: Hugo

SOUND MIXING:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattloo

Hugo

Moneyball

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

My Prediction: Hugo

VISUAL EFFECTS:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

Hugo
Real Steel

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

My Prediction: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

BEST DOCUMENTARY, SHORT SUBJECTS

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights

Incident in New Baghdad

God Is the Bigger Elvis

Saving Face

The Tsunami and the Cherry

My Prediction: The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights

BEST SHORT FILM, ANIMATED

Dimanche

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

La Luna

A Morning Stroll

Wild Life

My Prediction: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

BEST SHORT FILM, LIVE ACTION

Pentecost

Raju

The Shore

Time Freak

Tuba Atlantic

My Prediction: The Shore

TOTAL SCORE: x/ 24

- Jerry Nadarajah

January sucks for movies. There, I said it. Traditionally speaking, multiplexes are playing one of two kinds of films around this time of year. There are the high-quality award contenders. And there are stale leftovers held back from the previous year. Yes, there are a few good January releases - ‘The Book of Eli’, ‘Taken’, and ‘Coach Carter’, but these are rare anomalies. We can now add ‘Contraband’ to this prestigious list.  

It seems like every criminal in movie history who decides to put an end to their wicked ways can’t. At least until they pull that one last job. After that, they’re able to reap the benefits of a crime-free life. Such is the case with ‘Contraband’. Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg) is an ex-smuggler now installing security alarms and living a quiet life with his wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and two young sons. His brother-in-law Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) sets the plot in motion by botching a drug deal for ruthless crime boss Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi). To settle Andy’s debt, Chris is pulled into one last job. At the council of his friend Sebastian (Ben Foster), and jailed father, Bud (William Lucking), Chris assembles a crew to sail to Panama and return to Louisiana with $10 million in counterfeit money.  

There’s a lot going on in ‘Contraband’ – more than I’m giving credit for with my plot description above (Note: I probably described about half the picture – it’s hard to go into any further detail without getting into spoilers). I think we, as viewers, have a good idea of what’s happening, even when some of the details around the heist get complicated. The fine points of counterfeiting (using starch-free paper), the maze-like streets of Panama, the counterfeiter’s hideout, a ship going out of control due a loss in hydraulic fluid, shots of the container parts and giant cranes – all of these showcase director Balastar Kormakur’s impressive eye for detail. He makes the ship container a terrific place to shoot a significant portion of this picture. The casting is also very good - the actors, most of them appearing as if they need a shave and shower, have such a commanding presence on screen. I’m glad that Mark Wahlberg doesn’t even attempt a New Orleans accent. Giovanni Ribisi is great fun as the hyperkinetic drug dealer with a chillingly pitched voice. Equally fun is another loony villain, played by Diego Luna. But the show stealer here is Ben Foster. He’s an excellent actor who has appeared in ‘The Messenger’, ‘Rampart’, ‘3:10 To Yuma’, etc. Mr. Foster crafts a three-dimensional character who is difficult to read, but intriguingly so. Kormakur is great at creating this criminal world, and has made the occupants of this world equally fascinating. In other words, I believe he’s given the actors the flexibility to build out their characters, and Ben Foster has taken full advantage of this.

‘Contraband’ is a superbly crafted caper with a very good sense of pace – the only thing that seems to slow down in the film is the ship containing a cargo of counterfeit bills. There’s never a dull moment. That isn’t to say the picture is wall-to-wall action. There is a fair amount of exposition around the details of the heist. The film takes its time to establish its characters and their relationships with each other and such scenes give the material weight. The most memorable scenes are those held within the ship, and in Panama City when a job within a job goes terribly wrong.

 Is ‘Contraband’ great art? Absolutely not. But in a season of lowered expectations, it is a pleasant surprise. And as an example of its genre, I think it’s very good. Thanks to a great cast, a very talented director, and a strong script. ‘Contraband’ receives an unusually enthusiastic recommendation for a January release from me.

- Jerry Nadarajah

Dear readers, Happy New Year! It turns out the first major release of 2012 might just end up being my pick for the worst movie of the year. ‘The Devil Inside’, directed by William Brent Bell, opens with a disclaimer stating that “the Vatican did not endorse this film nor aid in its completion.” I can’t think anyone who would endorse this film. ‘The Devil Inside’ follows what now seems to be the overused “found documentary” footage format. It’s 1989 and Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) murdered two priests and a nun when an exorcism was performed on her. Fast forward to twenty years later, and we see Maria’s daughter, Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade). She’s working on a documentary about exorcisms and decides to travel to Rome to see if her locked-away mother is mentally ill, or demonically possessed. She manages to get two priests, Ben (Simon Quarterman) and David (Evan Helmuth) to help her out. They operate outside the Church, trying to help people that the Church won’t. And, of course, Isabella and Michael capture all this with multiple video cameras.

Where do I begin with what went wrong here? ‘The Devil Inside’ doesn’t even feel like it was directed. The camera is unnecessarily shaky during its entire runtime. I understand the “Bourne-effect”, but is this technique necessary for scenes where characters are sitting down to have a conversation? Was the camera held by someone suffering from Delirium Tremens? Also, if you’re an exorcist and your test subject has the strength of superwoman, would you impose minimal restraints on her for comfort’s sake? Similarly, would you place a (potential) test subject in the backseat of a moving car? And if so, would you actually perform an exorcism in the backseat?

Back in 1973, there was a great movie on exorcism called ‘The Exorcist’. You may have heard of it. Many films since have replicated the formulae of this picture to scare viewers out of their wits (ok, more importantly, capitalize on its success at the box office). Many have failed, and this is no exception. There isn’t an ounce of originality to be found within ‘The Devil Inside’. Let’s take a look at the Exorcism subgenre film handbook. The demon knows the darkest secrets of those in the room – check! Painfully contorted bodies during the exorcism – check! Foul language spewing out of innocent mouths – check!

After an incredibly dull 85 minutes, the film picks up in its last two minutes, before providing us with the worst ending in the histories du cinema. Ben and Michael are in a moving car with an unconscious Isabella in the backseat (oh shush about spoilers, I don’t want you to see this movie). She regains consciousness and appears possessed via transference. This leads to a struggle between the three in the vehicle and the film ends with the car speeding into oncoming traffic, headlong into another car. The camera cuts to black, and we hear the impact of the vehicular entanglement. We’re then told to visit a website (www.therossifiles.com), and read that “The Rossi case not yet been solved.” The End. There is no resolution, no closure to the story. Never before has a film felt more like a cop-out.

And now I tell a tale out of school. Press screenings, at least the ones I’ve attended, work as follows: Most of us watch the movie with a critical eye since we’ll have to write about it afterwards. Some take notes. The audience leaves in silence at the end of the film. There is very little dialogue about the experience between individuals - we don’t want to steal our colleagues’ ideas. Not the case with this screening. ‘The Devil Inside’ is a perfect example of a uniter. The audience collectively booed out lout at the close of the picture. People congregated in the lobby and openly shared their thoughts on the film. Everyone was in full agreement. I can’t recall a single positive remark. The “at least it was in focus” defence doesn’t even hold here.

But, of course, I have to say something favourable about ‘The Devil Inside’. The marketing behind this film was brilliant. Kudos to the individuals who assembled this trailer – they managed to find about sixty seconds of effective material consisting of creepy blind nuns, demonic screams, and sliced lips. In doing so, they were able to lure horror fans in for what they were expecting to be a real slice of heavenly hell. Prior to the screening, I skimmed over a few related tweets – mostly about users’ high level of anticipation and excitement for the film. My favourite one came from my friend, Mel Ward (@busychyld), who was seated next to next to me in the theatre. “I have a feeling that I’m about to see one of the scariest movies ever!” she said. Sorry, Mel. Not this time. ‘The Devil Inside’ is the sort of the film that would play in an infinite loop in Cinematic Hell. Exorcise your right to skip it!

- Jerry Nadarajah

1. A Separation  

Some may say I’m cheating with my #1 pick since it doesn’t open in Canada until January 20^th, 2012. But, it opens in limited release stateside Dec.30^th, 2011, and I got to see this movie in 2011, and since it’s MY list, I’m going to say it qualifies! ‘A Separation’ is an Iranian masterpiece about a married couple who separates and the intrigues that follow when the husband hires a caretaker to look after his father. Both the film’s title and my one-sentence plot description completely understate director Asghar Farhadi’s case, which consists of psychological, social, and moral intricacies. The separation isn’t limited to the divorce of an Iranian couple, but also father from father, parent from child, class from class, and so on. The film is specifically Iranian in the sense that it was made by an Iranian filmmaker who expresses the characters and their situations meaningfully outside the confines of censorship. And yet the themes of responsibility, gender, class, justice, honour, social and religious divisions, tyranny, and truth make ‘A Separation’ achieve universality. Every aspect of the film is perfectly handled, and the family dynamics and scenarios feel authentic, and true to life. This deeply resonant film is perfectly constructed, brilliantly performed, and beautifully photographed. It couldn’t be any more tense, dramatic, or compelling. This is a landmark achievement in World Cinema, and I predict it will remain a timeless masterpiece. It deserves a nomination for Best Foreign Film by the Motion Picture Academy. Please and thank you.

 

2. Certified Copy

‘Certified Copy’ is a masterpiece of writing, construction, directing, performance, cinematography, editing, everything. Set over the course of a lazy day in Tuscany, the film follows a British writer (William Shimell) and a French antiques dealer (Juliette Binoche). Initially, they appear to be strangers, but are mistaken for a married couple in a cafe. After leaving the cafe, the nature of their conversations shifts drastically. The film’s title comes from the name of a book written by the William Shimell character who argues there’s no difference between a real object and a fake one if they represent the same thing. This idea plays into the relationship of the central characters – are they strangers pretending to be a married couple? Or are they a married couple whose relationship has disintegrated and are pretending to start over as strangers? More complicated explanations about what’s taking place also exist, but I think it’s irrelevant to what director Abbas Kiarostami is trying to say. ‘Certified Copy’ is one of the least manipulative films ever made – it means whatever you want it to mean. Personally, I like the idea of being meeting a stranger and being able to fabricate a 15-year history consisting of fictitious memories. To me, the film demonstrates the power of conversation - what two people can choose to invent between each other. I’ve seen ‘Certified Copy’ three times and my interpretation of the film has changed with each viewing. Juliette Binoche won the Best Actress award at the Cannes Film Festival for her performance in this film, and it is the best female lead performance I’ve seen all year. ‘Certified Copy’ is a gorgeous, through-provoking, irresistibly romantic film about art, fraudulence, authenticity, love, and truth.

 

3. Incendies

‘Incendies’ is a Canadian film that was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards this year and I’m still surprised it didn’t win. The setup is as follows – upon the passing of their mother, Quebecois twins are given instructions to deliver two envelopes, as part of her will. One envelope is intended for their father whom they’ve believed to be dead, and the other to their brother who up until now they never knew existed. ‘Incendies’ is an artful combination of a mystery, political thriller, and family drama. Certain images, including that of a burning bus, will stick with you long after the credits roll. Each scene, which involves a clue or discovery into the twins’ mother’s past, has something unsettling coiling underneath it. The performances from this unknown cast, especially Lubna Azabel, are outstanding. ‘Incendies’ is very stripped down and intimate and we, as viewers, feel like we are with these characters as they unravel the mystery of their mother’s life. Rarely do we forget we’re sitting in a movie theatre (or at home watching a film), but this is a perfect example of a film complete onto itself – we disappear into the experience. ‘Incendies’ is an astonishing, admittedly disturbing piece of filmmaking, and a huge step forward in Canadian cinema.  

 

4. The Descendants

‘The Descendants’ is a quirky, offbeat film about a man, played wonderfully by George Clooney, trying to keep his head above water. His daughters are in full rebellion stage. His cousins (and the state of Hawaii) are relying on him to make a decision about a pristine tract of land owned by his family. He’s also been alerted to the fact that his wife was having an affair at the time of an accident which has landed her into an irreversible coma. This is Alexander Payne’s best film yet (‘Sideways’, and ‘About Schmidt’) which has the ensemble of the year. Every cast member is operating at the top of the game. Even characters that appear for brief moments are memorable. Payne’s film achieves the difficult balance of juggling all these complex emotions and presenting them in a believable manner. The film takes place in Hawaii, and we discover that it’s not all surf boards and waves. These occupants of this state go through the same problems and have the same dysfunctional families we do. The Descendants’ is perfect in depicting the imperfections of its characters.

 

5. Poetry

‘Poetry’ is a heartbreaking film from South Korea, directed by Chang-dong Lee, which won Best Screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival. It’s about a 66 year old pensioner who enrols in a poetry class while dealing with Alzheimers and is forced to face a difficult decision involving her irresponsible grandson who has been accused of rape. The film stars Jeong-hie Yun, a South Korean star in the 1960s, who came out of a 16-year retirement in entertainment to play the lead role. At no point in the film does ‘Poetry’ devolve into a tear-jerker about dementia or intergenerational bonding. This is a very restrained picture – in fact, I don’t recall there being any music. ‘Poetry’ is a small film, but one that is completely engrossing, and we’re with Jeong-hie Yun’s character every step of the way in her journey. It’s the sort of picture that most mainstream moviegoers haven’t seen, but truthfully, I cannot imagine anyone walking out of this film unsatisfied. ‘Poetry’ will stick with you long after the credits roll. And if it doesn’t split you in half, check your pulse….

 

6. Drive

‘Drive’ had a lot of people talking about this violent, arthouse action picture upon its release. Ryan Gosling plays a 21^st century Man With No Name employed as a Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a getaway driver. He finds himself a target when a contract is put on his head after a heist goes completely wrong. The supporting character’s back stories come to life on the screen, but not Gosling’s. He remains elusive. Gosling is able to do so much by doing so little – by holding a subtle glance a little longer than you might expect. It’s this minimalist approach that makes his character so mysterious and compelling. As a testament to his commanding performance, there’s a scene midway through the picture involving a takedown at a strip joint. Even with nude dancers in the frame, your eyes will be focused on Gosling. The film’s director, Nicolas Winding Refn, won Best Director for his work here at Cannes. ‘Drive’ oozes cool – yes, even with its 80s pop soundtrack and its title in a hot pink font. It is a hugely stylish, unique, dazzling, breathtaking neo-noir film whose appeal isn’t limited to fans of arthouse cinema.

 

7. Shame  

‘Shame’, directed by Steve McQueen (yes, that’s his real name) is the first movie in years to receive an NC-17 rating. Michael Fassbender plays a good-looking 30-something year old living in New York who seems to have it all together. Under that exterior though, he has a sex addiction. Like addicts of all kinds, he is self-destructive and goes to dangerous lengths to satisfy his cravings. One day, his sister (Carey Mulligan) moves in, and this cramps his lifestyle of pornography, masturbation, and hookers. Fassbender gives a daring, quietly intense performance that is worthy of a Best Actor nomination. McQueen has crafted an unsexy film about sex. Fassbender’s character doesn’t experience pleasure. The camera close-ups on his face make this clear. This is a man exorcising his demons. ‘Shame’ offers no easy answers – much of McQueen’s film is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Great art is that wish aspires to do something beyond itself. That means bushing boundaries, which ‘Shame’ (pardon the pun) shamelessly does. ‘Shame’ is unsettling to watch, but those inclined will likely find this to be bold filmmaking.

 

8. Hugo

‘Hugo’ is a big-budget 3-D family film with Dickensian overtones from master filmmaker Martin Scorsese. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan living in a Paris train station in the 1930s. He tries to fix a broken automaton and ends up being involved in a mystery that will change that lives of those around him. This picture ends up being about the birth of cinema and ironically, this movie about the early days of filmmaking is presented in 3-D. This is by far the best use of 3-D, supplanting James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ – Scorsese effectively utilizes the medium to create an immersive viewing experience, drawing the viewer into this fully realized fantasy world. This is Scorsese’s love letter to the films of the early 1900s. With wonderful source material and featuring perfect performances, Scorsese has crafted a film that is delightful, charming, entertaining, and a reminder to most of us about why we love going to the movies.

 

9. Take Shelter

‘Take Shelter’ is a film about a husband and father, played by Michael Shannon, who has these reoccurring dreams and visions of an apocalypse. He has a family history of mental illness, and wants to seek treatment, but because he fears the truth of his dreams, he builds a storm shelter in his backyard to protect his family. ‘Take Shelter’ is directed by Jeff Nicholas – he has a meticulous eye for detail, and has made a film that excels as both a family drama and a psychological thriller. Each scene is permeated with a sense of dread, and the dreams of Shannon’s character feel so vivid and chillingly real. The lead role in ‘Take Shelter’ was made for Michael Shannon, an actor I’ve long admired, and this is his best performance yet. ‘Take Shelter’ is the sort of film that will keep you guessing until the very end, and even its ending is open to interpretation. It’s the rare sort of modern film that can trouble your sleep, not with CGI constructs of monsters, but with a more familiar dread about our days being numbered by climactic changes.  

 

10. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ is David Fincher’s remake of a 2010 Swedish film, which was an adaptation of Steig Larsson’s novel. A journalist (Daniel Craig) and unorthodox researcher named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) team up to solve a murder which took place 40 years ago. Fincher’s take on this story is what a film adaptation should be: he honours the source material, but presents it in pure Fincherian style. He has a crisp sense of framing, and effectively utilizes hyper-realistic lightning. He keeps his distance, and this focus on the exterior of the characters makes looking at the interior irrelevant. Fincher directed last year’s ‘The Social Network’. Both Mark Zuckerberg and Lisbeth Salander drive people away from them (though Zuckerberg does it with his rapid fire speechifying and Salander does it by being withdrawn, and not saying more than she has to in a half-monotone voice). ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ is tense, brutal, and Lisbeth Salander is one of the most fascinating on-screen characters I’ve seen in a really long time.    

Honorable Mentions (in alphabetical order): 50/50, Beginners, Cafe de Flore, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Moneyball, The Myth of the American Sleepover, The Tree Of Life, Trust, Warrior

 

Theatrical Trailers:

A Separation

Certified Copy

Incendies

The Descendants

Poetry

Drive

Shame

Hugo

Take Shelter

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

- Jerry Nadarajah