Silver Linings Playbook

Before I begin I must warn you that it is impossible for me to review this movie without spoiling the movie. So much of what I feel towards the movie spawns from what happens towards the end and it is impossible not to talk about it. So, if you do not want the movie spoiled for you let the following be your review and then go away: Silver Linings Playbook has awesome performances and is worth seeing, but should have stuck a better landing in the end.

Pat Solitano(Bradley Cooper)is just getting out of a stint in a mental institution, but only he and his mother think it is time for him to get out. He went in for beating a man to near death after discovering this other man in the shower with Pat's wife. Up until that point Pat had been living his life with an un-diagnosed bi-polar condition. He gets out of the mental institution with one goal: get his wife back. he has this new found positive attitude that he calls "Excelsior." He is always looking for the Silver Lining in every situation. To get his wife back he has to get in shape, calm down, open up and he has to read all of the books she will be teaching to her high school students. Unfortunately for Pat things get complicated. First off, his bi-polar condition refuses to go away and he has these manic fits and because he has a restraining order out against him, a cop is never too far away. Pat has no verbal filter and offends most people, but things get infinitely more complicated when he meets Tiffany(Jennifer Lawrence). Tiffany lost her husband recently and probably suffers from a few mental disorders herself. In order to process her husband's death she slept with a whole bunch of people. pat and Tiffany become friends and Tiffany tells Pat she could pass a letter to his estranged wife, if he helps her enter a dance contest. Pat does not like the idea, but he agrees to it, much to the chagrin of his OCD father (Robert De Niro). Pat's dad, an avid gambler, wants Pat to be home for Eagles' games because he believes Pat is good luck. As the film goes on all of these little worlds collide into one big night.

Silver Linings Playbook fires on all cylinders for 85% to 90% of the film. I found Cooper to be completely mesmerizing and he proved he can absolutely hang with the big boys in terms of A-list actors. I have been saying for years that I felt he was going to cross over into prestige pictures and he really handles his business here. His Pat is all over the place in the right kind of ways and he effortlessly handles Pat's manic episodes, whether they be fits of anger, sadness or both. His interactions with all of the characters are well crafted and he has an easy and sexy chemistry with Lawrence. Lawrence is probably the most solid or complete performance because Tiffany is an endlessly fascinating character. She too is fighting disorders and she is manipulative, but sweet in a way and Lawrence, at the young age of 23 is completely up for the challenge. I found their climatic dance sequence to be utterly charming, funny, whimsical and even sexy. De Niro reminds everyone that he is still an actor to be reckoned with. He is not in your face or scary the way De Niro characters often are, no he is subtle and almost too calm for the most part, but he is all together memorable. The interactions from the whole cast help keep this movie elevated beyond a script that could use to refining.

I have always enjoyed David O. Russell movies because he gets incredible performances out of his actors. I am never sure if I love him as a director because he makes weird story choices, or weird screenplay choices, but he definitely knows how to pull great performances out of actors and this is no different. Who else was going to give Cooper a chance to really prove he could act and not just be that pretty douchebag in every film. However, Russell makes a really bad choice with this movie that basically causes the movie to crumble under the weight of itself. Towards the end of the picture, Pat realizes he loves Tiffany and that he is fine with letting things go with his wife. The minute Pat realizes this, all of his mental disorders vanish and Pat turns into suave Bradley Cooper the Movie Star. Now, I have had conversations with 4 or 5 people about this, some in depth, some which need to be revisited for more depth and it bugs some people and some people do not care. I have issues with it and it really hurts the overall film. Now this is not really about showing mental disorders in a true light, although the movie does that so well for so long, but it just seems completely out of character for Pat to suddenly turn. He was un-diagnosed for so long, but from conversations we gather that he was always dealing with issues, but the minute he realizes he loves Tiffany, he is filled with this calm? I get that love can do many strange and wonderful things, but the realization of this love comes at a time of high stress, and with Pat we learn that high stress only elevates his disorder.

What stress? Well, he has to perform a dance with Tiffany in front of a huge crowd, including professional dancers AND they have to get an average score of 5 because his OCD gambler addict dad bet his entire life's savings on them getting a 5. The Eagles also had to win because of the Parlay bet. Now, if your mental illness was triggered immensely by stress, your entire family fortune being on your shoulders would without question be stressful, but the movie sidesteps that the second Pat puts on a nice suit. Russell completely abandons Pat's character, what made him volatile, but weirdly charming. He becomes the man who sweeps girls off their feet, not the guy who asks inappropriate questions, wears a trash bag over his body for his jogs, and questions everything. Look I get it, if a girl could cure a mental disorder, that girl would be Jennifer Lawrence, but the movie loses a punch at the end by completely succumbing to the Romantic Comedy ideal that love truly can make everything and everyone better.

That being said, the performances are so good it still ended up in my top 10. The 90% of the movie that works, really works. I loved all of the character interactions until the end. I found Cooper and Lawrence to be totally worthy of all of the praise being heaped at them and I did not even mind the story taking off in that cliche "everything happens in the same night" thing, because this family is totally screwed up and they absolutely would bet on insane stuff like a dance competition. I found the movie to be funny, sad, sexy, relatable and down right hard to watch at times because of how the disorder manifested. I thought the music was excellent and the camera work, while basic, to be effective. I enjoyed Chris Tucker and Julia Stiles in supporting type roles and I wanted to just unabashedly love Silver Linings Playbook, but they just messed it up in the end.

MAMA

If you have followed this blog at all over the years, you will know that I love horror movies. I do not even have a favorite sub-genre within horror, I love them all. When I first saw the trailer for this one, I was hooked, right up until the point where they revealed the title. What a stupid title for a horror movie. It felt like the kind of title you give to a spoof of horror, like a fake Grindhouse trailer or something. However, I have infinite trust in anything that is remotely touched by Guillermo Del Toro. And the trailer did look legitimately creepy, even if it cheats because creepy kids always make for creepy movies and this has 2 of them.

In a quick prologue to the film we see a man desperate and panicked. The news tells us a man had killed co-workers and we see that the man has probably killed his wife. He grabs his two kids and heads off to who knows where. In the midst of a storm though, he does not get very far, crashing his car and setting off on foot until he comes to a cabin. The kids are totally freaked out, not knowing what is happening, and the man grabs his gun puts it to the back of his eldest daughter's head and is ready to the pull the trigger when something grabs him and kills him. We are not entirely sure what it is, but it is supernatural. The daughter turns around and tries to see what happened, but her glasses had been broken and she was essentially blind without them, so all we see is blurry action. Opening credit sequence and cut to five years later. Annabel(Jessica Chastain) and Lucas (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) are a reletiveyl normal if broke couple scraping by. Lucas is the brother of the man from the prologue and has spent the last 5 years searching for the missing girls and his brother. Annabel plays in a punk band, has jet black short hair, a wicked tattoo on her arm and is incredibly thankful to not be pregnant. However, one of the men Lucas paid has found the two girls. When Victoria(Megan Charpantier) and Lilly(Issabelle Nillise)are found and brought back to civilization, they are, of course, affected. They crawl on the ground like creatures, do not speak and barely eat. They look dead in the eyes, and unsure of anything. The Psychologist naturally assumes this is just part of the process of having been in the woods for five years, but we know there is more to it. There is something supernatural following/protecting these girls, but this entity gets jealous when the girls start to take to Annabel.

MAMA completely works for me. I understand people who think it goes a little off the rails in the climax, but it is kind of a staple of the genre and, if I am being completely honest, I kind of loved how balls to the wall it got. One of the best ways for a horror movie to be effective is to not show us much of anything. Paranormal Activity completely capitalized on that, but MAMA uses it in such an effective way, that when the story makes it imperative that we see this MAMA creature, it is going to ultimately feel less effective, but I found the effects of MAMA to be genuinely creepy and even when she was out in full force, I was still creeped out by her. That does not mean I did not enjoy it more when she was mostly off screen. The most effective scene is a sort of split screen where we see Annabel changing over laundry on one side and Lilly on the other playing tug of war with someone we cannot see. We assume she and Victoria and playing and Annabel thinks that as well. Lilly can be heard giggling from where Annabel is, but soon Victoria comes into the Annabel side of the screen and we realize Lilly is playing tug of war with an unknown entity. It is genuinely creepy and incredibly off-putting. There is also a very effective death scene that takes place in complete darkness save for the flash from a camera. It shows the director understands how to play with lights and sounds in the most effective of ways.

The performances are great especially for a horror movie. The two girls are excellent. Both are unsettling, but there is a depth to both girls. They are asked to do some pretty gross and weird things, and both are totally game for it. They form a real connection to each other and to this MAMA figure. Chastain, as is becoming the norm, kills it. She could have easily playing Annabel as this tough, uncaring character, as look of the character would suggest. It would have been fine, but instead, she gives Annabel this incredible warmth and resolve. She goes beyond the punk rock thing so many actresses would have clung to and turns Annabel into a fully realized character which raises the stakes immensely. Annabel is still tough, but she is this sweet mother figure and that makes everything that happens way more intense. It cannot be easy acting scared of a green screen, but Chastain makes it look so effortless. The quiet moments with the children become these super unsettling sequences because we know what MAMA will think of the closeness.

The end is going to split people, but knowing Del Toro fought for the original ending and got it, makes me happy. Yes, like most horror movies, once the story gets going, the creepiness is lost in favor of loud jumps and deaths, but even those moments were scary for me because of the design of the MAMA character. I could have done without the weird fever dreams from Lucas, in fact, I could have done without the Lucas character after the first 15 minutes, but I get what he is doing there. I found the climax to be full of tough choices and deep anguish, honestly. I was fully into the film and that helped me let the movie spin completely out of control and still find enjoyment in it. However, I think even if I had not loved the ending, I still would have come out of MAMA with a positive view because it is so effective the rest of the time and Chastain is so great. The overall tone and look really give MAMA an unshakable vibe of unease and that is the best thing a horror movie can have going for it.

Final Grade: B

Zero Dark Thirty

As the Oscars draw near, the controversy of this movie is getting out of hand. Is the movie pro-torture? Does showing torture automatically mean that a movie endorses torture? Blah blah blah. Of course your reading on what is being shown vs what is being endorsed will depend on your political leanings. That feels secondary to me when it comes to fictional retellings of realistic events. Do we want the movie to be exact? Or do we want the movie to entertain/challenge us? Or do we want something compeltely different? I do not really have a straight line answer for that. I do know that reading about this movie before I saw it just exhausted me. I needed to see for myself what all of the hype was about. I have to admit, my excitement for Zero Dark Thirty had many peaks and valleys. I was very excited when I first heard about it, then after the teaser, I was not as excited, but the full length trailer got me excited again. However, that exhaustion had set in around the time I was finally getting to see it, so my expectations were not as high as they once were.

Maya(Jessica Chastain) is a woman on a mission: to find Osama Bin laden. That is her calling and she spends a decade doing everything she can to find him. She enters this mission as someone with not many credits to her name, but some of the other field agents are not really sure she has what it takes to be in the field because being in the field means witnessing some pretty heinous torture. Circa 2002-2008, agents in the field were routinely torturing prisoners to find information and the first 30 minutes of this movie shows some pretty hard to watch torture led by Dan, a long time agent who is so desensitized to everything. After years and years, Maya has been holding onto one lead: a messenger who is thought to go between Osama and the leaders of various sects. This is her link and she is going to follow it until it produces fruit. The problem is, the CIA is moving on from the search because there are other threats, but Maya is not going to budge. This is what she has been working for for nearly a decade and she believes she is closing in on Osama's location. Once she believes she has located where he is hiding, she is met with serious resistance from the higher-ups. They do not want to make a move without 100% proof and they cannot get it, so for over 100 days they sit on this property doing nothing. Maya knows Osama is there, but she can do nothing about it but bug her boss to make a move. We know the history the film portrays, so it is not shocking that the higher-ups finally relent and the house taken and Osama is found and killed.

Zero Dark Thirty feels like 3 movies: The first act is full of torture and has a slower, but not boring pace. Act 2 is this very episodic almost procedural film that really drags and then the third act is this intense, white knuckle chase film shot in near complete night vision. Kathryn Bigelow, who directed one of the most intense movies ever (The Hurt Locker) does not hit it out of the park for me with this film. There is something just so, whatever to me about roughly half of this movie. The pacing feels a bit too sluggish to really get the intensity of the end to feel immediate. That being said, there are some high points. Bigelow does certainly know how to build up to a big moment. There is this super intense sequence involving a possible informant that really leaves you with this mix of on the edge of your seat and burying your face out of concern for what you think may happen and feel powerless to do anything about it. In fact, Bigelow knows how to do action. I am over a week away from seeing it and the things I remember most are the action sequences. There is the hotel explosion, the gun attack on Maya and of course, that great climatic sequence. However, everything else kind of felt lethargic for me.

Now the movie ultimately lives and dies with Jessica Chastain as she is in roughly 90% of the movie and that turns out to work in Zero Dark Thirty's favor because she is mesmerizing. Chastain's Maya is tough, smart, and entirely too composed, which is what makes the few times she falls apart even more memorable. Chastain can do a lot with just her body language and the character has to stand up to some pretty intimidating guys and she holds her own. Kyle Chandler (an absolute favorite of mine) has a nice supporting role, but when he gets usurped by Chastain, the movie takes off on a whole other level because that is when you really start to see the fight in Maya. Chastain has done amazing work in a very short amount of time and is quickly becoming a favorite actress of mine. I remember thinking she was too pretty to pull off something like this, but she is more than up to the challenge. The movie falters a bit, but it is never because of her. All of the acting work is great. It is always nice to see Chris Pratt in pretty much anything. He adds a sense of lightness, even if only momentarily,and Joel Edgerton adds a strong quiet presence. As usual, Mark Strong lends gravitas to a supporting role.

Now the big question: Does the movie endorse torture? Eh, no it does not. It shows what was happening during the that time and it did not prove entirely effective either. The scenes of torture are incredibly tough to watch, and the movie is not out to make apologies for them nor is it saying "Yay torture!" It is merely saying, these things happened in our quest to capture the guy who was behind the 9/11 attacks. Bigelow does a very great job at not exploiting the pain of 9/11 for dramatic effect and I definitely appreciated that. 9/11 is shown very briefly, but mostly in a complete black out with only sound. She knows we do not need those images in our head to remember what happened that day.

The climatic chase/shoot out is as intense as I had hoped more of the movie had been. Quick movements, loud gun shots, shadowy figures, limited scope of vision and loud screams and shouts dominate the finale and it does leave you in a state of intense catharsis. I know that is a bit of an oxymoron but that is how I felt. I believe that the climax is what will follow you when the film ends. it is probably best that way because there is too much that feels like filler, like a super broad episode of Law and Order. People trying to gather evidence, but showing every single bit of it in the middle section. Chastain is does phenomenal work, but the movie itself falls just flat for me.

Final Grade: B

2012 top 10

before I begin, allow me to say that 2012 was a fabulous year for film. I feel like my 11-15 movies of this year, would easily have made my top 10 in many other years. Actually some of the 16-20 of this year might have squeezed into the top 10 of other years. I am not joking. I could easily make a top 20 of this year and not even struggle to come up with the final few movies. My top 10 will be a mix of prestige films and films that were just pure enjoyment. My top movie of the year is easily a contender to enter my top 10 of all time (which admittedly has more than 10 movies). Okay, onto the recap.

I think the only movie that could have made this list that I missed this year is The Master.

First a few movies that just missed the top 10:
The Grey- Seek this out. Worlds better than the trailer
Flight- Denzel is sensational.
Sleepwalk with Me- Quirky and heartfelt. Seek this out!
Chronicle- Might be my favorite hand held film.
Lincoln- Just a little too dry, but very compelling.
Zero Dark Thirty- Jessica Chastain makes this movie tick.
The Hobbit- Suffers from a weak first act, but the riddle scene was worth it all.

10. 21 Jump Street- Honestly, as good as a year for movies as 2012 was, the comedies were not terribly memorable. However, this was one of the funniest movies I have seen in a really long time. Hill and Tatum make an excellent team, but it really is Tatum who blew me away. He went all in and we were rewarded by his efforts. He clearly does not take himself seriously, and this movie gave him a real chance to show it. It has hilarious one-liners, great physical comedy and some pretty killer action. I feel like it is going to be a memorable comedy for me for a long time and there are definitely lines I enjoy quoting still, 9 months later. Also, the cameo might be one of the best cameos in film. I was very unsure I would have any interest in this when I heard about it, but very early on in the movie, I realized this was exactly what I needed.

9. Silver Linings Playbook- This would be in the top 5 if the ending did not frustrate me so incredibly much. It almost knocked it out of my top 10, but the performances were too good for me to ignore. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence have a seriously sizzling chemistry and the while the screenplay and direction go completely awry in the end of the third act, the dialog is so refreshing for the most part. It was great to see De Niro act again, and I did not even mind the traditional story cliches that the film fell into because I feel like it established a kind of necessary story arc and the characters do such outlandish things, that it did not feel like a stretch for that whole "two big events on the same day thing" that so many movies do. I found it is to be very funny and depressing. It was quick tongued, but also pretty brutal. For years before he hit it big I was saying Cooper was going to be a force to be reckoned with and I am glad to see it happening.

8. Cabin in the Woods- In all honesty, most years this would easily be a top 5 movie for me. No joke, that is how much I loved this movie and this year in movies. It takes everything I love about horror movies, spins them around, squishes them together and creates a world that is hilarious, creepy, violent and 100% full of awesome. A great cast of "typical" horror movie characters, and such a brilliant premise that I worried the film would cave in on itself in the third act, but instead of caving in on itself, it explodes every possible idea you have about horror movies into one of the most unique third acts I have ever seen in the genre. if you are looking for a straight horror movie, pass on this, because it is not a horror movie. It is a smart deconstruction of a genre that people either love or hate. It is no surprise that Joss Whedon has his hands all of this. Also, if there is any justice in the world, Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins will do more movies together.

7. The Perks of being a Wallflower- It bums me out that this movie did not get any real traction upon its release. It is that damn good. How Ezra Miller does not have a supporting actor nomination for this movie is beyond me. Everything in this movie works and it should not. Coming of age novels often make meandering, navel gazing films, but this movie has heart and soul and crackles with life and sadness and love and all of the things you thought in high school. Emma Watson sheds the Harry Potter thing beautifully and Logan Lehrman takes an iconic young adult literary character and turns him in this fully fleshed out young man that you are dying to root for. Stephen Chbosky is definitely making a case that authors should write and direct the adaptations of their books, because every move he makes is pitch perfect. I hope this film finds life on DVD. it deserves a real audience.

6. Les Miserables- I know this movie divides people like crazy, and I get it. Personally, I do not love the stage musical and I loathe the story, generally. However, this movie genuinely filled me with emotion at so many times, it was impossible for me to ignore. The direction sucks, but this is another movie where the performances really did everything for me. I think Hugh Jackman gives my favorite performance of the year (although Cooper and Denzel were both brilliant). His Valjean just destroyed me countless times. I loved his voice on film. I am not sure doing it that way would work on staqe, but on film, where I want things more intimate, I just loved him. I cannot say enough about Anne Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream." I mean it really is one of the best sequences of the year in any film. Her raw, fragile state just gutted me. No joke, it is a thing of beauty in all of its ugliness. I have complaints about the movie, but the emotional core is there and that is what spoke to me during the film.

5. The Dark Knight Rises- When this movie exploded onto the masses, it was not met with the same universal praise as The Dark Knight. I get it, it is slower and the villain is not as enigmatic as Heath Ledger's Joker, but I totally bought into it. I found Tom Hardy to be a serious force with which to be reckoned. His menacing Bane pummeling Bale's Batman during an otherwise silent scene, was just a work of demented art. I thought the arc of the story was magnetic and I found the new characters to be just be perfect in every way. Hathaway's Catwoman was sexy, sophisticated and strong and Joseph Gordon Levitt's beat cop was the center piece for me. Everyone was wonderful and Nolan's ability to give Batman a sense of gravitas will always fill me with wonder. I did not think the movie was overly long because when you truly love something, can it really be too long? I had incredibly high expectations for this movie and I felt like every single one of them were, at the very least, met and some were exceeded. The action sequences were paced wonderfully and I was never bored during the extended plot oriented moments. People want to whine about the ending, but I actually felt like they did not do the cop out ending, so kudos to everyone.

4. The Avengers- Much like Jurassic Park, the Avengers is pure entertainment and like Jurassic Park, it entertains on every single level. It is hilarious, the action is insane, it has heart and soul and it has the best use of The Hulk I have seen on film. Joss Whedon, having a killer year, really outdid himself with this film. No joke, it works every single minute. Everyone on screen is perfect at what they do, the movie is paced beautifully and it never loses a sense of playfulness, even among the madness of the action. RDJ, of course, does everything right as Tony Stark, but for me, the real jewel in the bunch is Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner. Now the third actor in less than 15 years to play Banner, Ruffalo gets him down exactly. Nothing is wasted in this movie. Every joke worked for me, every moment of action was sharp and awesome. The effects were phenomenal and I just flat out enjoyed myself. There is a lot to be said about movie that is just entertaining as hell.

3. Django Unchained- You know a year in film is excellent if a Tarantino film does not end up in my top 2. Tarantino has probably created his most complete film with Django. It has great dialog, wonderful visual flair, perfectly placed music and 4 outstanding performances. It also has heart, which many of his movies lack. There is something deeper to be found within Django and it does not get lost even when QT does his insane QT thing. It really is a wonderful movie and it was even better a second time, for me. Everything clicks for me here. DiCaprio is menacing to a point I did not think he could be, Foxx and Waltz have a great easy chemistry about them, and Sam Jackson's performance is so daring that I was not sure it was real. Everyone sounds comfortable with the rhythm of QT dialog and the pacing works, even with a new editor. I loved the cinematography and found the locations to be outstanding. I really felt this movie, though, which is why I am excited for the next chapter of QT's career. Imagine if he was always able to inject real human stakes to all of his movies? Hell yes!

2. Argo- This continues to surprise me. With all of the other movies to come out this year, this is still standing at number 2. That is just how much I loved everything about it. Affleck has directed 3 pretty incredible movies, but he upped the ante here. Every single moment of Argo crackles. It is intense on so many levels that I was exhausted when it was over. It has great humor as well, but the humor did not detract from the intensity, it only heightened it in some weird way. Alan Arkin got the nomination, but God bless John Goodman. I mean seriously, can the man get recognized for making every movie he is in better? I thought the script was phenomenal and the little details of the era were remarkable. I found myself completely wrapped up in everything that was going on and having never learned any of this in school, I had no idea what was going to happen and it made the already insane pacing of the third act even more insane. I love how absurd everything is, but how real everything is at the same time. The way those two ideas blend is a testament to just how confident Affleck is as a director. Oh and do no get me wrong, he is solid as an actor in this as well. His steady hand behind the camera shines through for him on camera as well. If you have not seen this movie, I really suggest you see it as soon as possible.

1. Looper- Every so often a movie comes out and it just hits you like nothing else ever has. These are the movies that top top 10 lists for the year and movies that make "All Time" lists. For me, Looper is one of those movies. I cannot fully explain why. In all honesty, something about this movie just clicked. Gordon-Levitt and Willis do great work all throughout the film. There is no denying that. Blunt and Pierce Gagnon are outstanding. All of the supporting/cameo roles are played perfectly. But that happens often in movies. This was about something more. There is a level of creativity working here and a level of cinematic freedom that sings from the opening beats. Rian Johnson has directed 3 movies in 3 different genres and all 3 of them work. He is a visionary writer and director and Looper is already a masterpiece for him. I do not want to hear your nonsense about time travel loop holes. Save it, seriously. It is a movie. It is not meant to be realistic. If it did not work for you, fine. However, when it ended, I just sat there in stunned silence. That does not happen often. I am pretty quick to grab my phone and tweet a quick response. Not here. I needed to just sit and let it all sink in. It is the kind of movie that reminds me why I love movies. I was so filled with emotion, but not really because the movie is emotional (it has a great emotional punch), but because I felt like I just finished watching something that truly transcended me as someone who appreciates the art. When Looper was done I knew I had just seen something that only comes along every so often. It was a magical experience for me. It was a film that I never wanted to end, but when it ended, I was glad because it meant I had experienced it completely.

This is 40

Pete (Paul Rudd), Debbie (Leslie Mann) and their two kids (Maude and iris Apatow) are back! In what is being billed as a sort of sequel to Knocked Up, This is 40 follows that wacky married couple from the aforementioned film. Their birthdays separated by mere days, Pete and Debbie are turning 40! Except Debbie thinks it is the worst thing ever and refuses to admit to it, so she is turning 38, again. Pete started his own record label, but is only signing older musicians with limited fan bases and the nostalgia factor just is not booming. Debbie owns a clothing boutique, but one of her two employees stole $5,000.00 and she has to figure out if it was the weird, quiet girl, Jodi (The always hilarious Charlyne Yi) or the sex pot Desi (the always sexy Megan Fox). Pete and Debbie argue endlessly, their kids, especially Sadie (Maude)yell all of the time and no one ever seems happy. In all honesty, This is 40 could easily be called #richwhitepeopleproblems.

If the description of the movie does not sound appealing, I do not blame you. Seriously, the movie is not terribly appealing in large chunks, but it is also flat out hilarious in large chunks. John Lithgow and Albert Brooks show up as Debbie and Pete's fathers respectively and the movie would be worth it for their scenes together. Both men are legends in acting/comedy and this movie is no different. Brooke has the bigger funnier role as a mooching father, but Lithgow's facial expressions alone are worth watching. The man can say so much with his long face. The two men liven up a sort of puttering second half of the film. I love Paul Rudd in anything and this is no different. He and Mann have a special kind of chemistry. It is uneasy and you are never sure if they want to beat the crap out of each other or love each other. It is that unpredictability that Director Judd Apatow is depending on. Apatow's movies are always a blend of shocking comedy and serious heart and This is 40 is no different, but something just did not click the whole way through for me.

Listening to two people with a giant house, who drive BMW's and Benz's, whine about having no money is tough to do. Both of these people own businesses, and I know that is stressful, but over two hours of listening to these rich people whine is a bit grating. Also, have you seen Leslie Mann in a bikini? hard to listen to a woman gripe about getting older and not being attractive, when she is still rocking that fabulous body. Mann is a funny actress and I have always found her to be endearing, but she went to a seriously whiny place in this movie and it did not work for me. I found Debbie to be the most obnoxious character in the world. It got to the point where I really believed all of these people would be better off if Pete and Debbie got divorced. I know it is supposed to be how real couples fight, but there is a point where it is too much.

That is not to say there are not flat out hilarious moments. Pete self checking his ass for bumps killed me. Jason Segal and Chris O'Dowd trying to get with Megan Fox was a great sequence, and Sadie's obsession with LOST was a great running gag (I get it Sadie, I get it). Also there are those great Apatow conversations that feel so fresh and unrehearsed, but this film, has much less of those. This is 40 felt more conventional in how the story was being told. There was less of those great moments with secondary characters. I know Melissa McCarthy has become quite a crowd pleaser, but I did not find her cameo too appealing. It was kind of obnoxious (her outtakes in the credits were hilarious though). This whole movie just felt one beat wrong. There was something off. The pacing drags and the movie could use some trimming, but typically when Apatow's movies get too long, I do not mind because something hilarious was kept in, even if it did not make total sense. Here it just felt too slow.

This is 40 has more hits than misses, but it has more misses than I am used to from Apatow. I am one of the rare people who loved Funny People. I love the way he mixes sex humor and genuine heart, but here it was like there was not enough of either of them.

Final Grade: B-

Django Unchained

Purchased by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) with the intent to be set free Django (Jaime Foxx) is a slave with a serious grudge. Schultz needs help tracking down the Brittle Brothers, whom Django can identify and no one else seems to be able to do that. Schultz is a bounty hunter and a very good one at that. He promises to set Django free once he has captured (killed) the Brittle Brothers. Schultz detests slavery, but uses it to his advantage. He gives Django the last name Freeman and together they ride. Django turns out to be a natural in the white man killing business and the two team up for the cold winter with the promise that Schultz would help Django find his lost wife, Brumhilda (Kerry Washington). When the winter clears, the two discover Brumhilda was sold to Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Candie is a devious, awful man and the second half of the movie is a cat and mouse game between Django and Schultz and Candie.

Told with Tarantino's typical flair, Django moves quickly, dares us to watch extremely uncomfortable scenes and pops off the screen with wit. Django Unchained is a dazzling film pure and simple. Every single moment is rich. From the opening bristling monologue from Waltz, to the unbelievable shoot out to the explosive climax, I was never bored. In the interest of full disclosure, I love Tarantino. I love the way he makes movies as if they were movies. He tells interesting stories, but he never pretends it is not a movie and I love that about him. He is always the star of his movies, but one thing I found unique in Django Unchained is how much he relents to the talent, and the talent is spectacular.

Foxx is surrounded by all of these great over the top masterful performances, but the man holds it down in a big way. His Django transforms a few times through the movie and each one is a smooth transition due to Foxx's general cool attitude. He looks great in these comically awesome costumes and never feels out of place in the western atmosphere. The other actors are getting all of the credit, and rightfully so, but Foxx really grounds the movie. His facial expressions are worthy of the close ups the get. I felt my heart breaking as he was struggling to keep his cool in order to get his wife back. Washington, as Brumhilda, does not have too much to do, but she makes it a memorable cameo like role. Waltz, clearly in his element with the Tarantino dialog and rhythm, shines brightly, as expected. His Schultz is the smartest man in the room, and he has no problems showing it off. Waltz gives Schultz gravitas when needed, but he also keeps it light when needed and no one, as we saw in Inglorious Basterds, can manipulate a prop quite like Waltz. He commands your attention every single second.

The two most surprising performances though go to DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. DiCaprio is clearly playing against type and that kind of performance can be fun and interesting for a while and it is. DiCaprio's introduction is hilarious and weird and quirky, but he quickly turns into a scary sociopath. Clothed in ridiculous velvet and an unusual haircut, DiCaprio starts off like a flamboyant Hugh Hefner characters, but Tarantino quickly reveals a fiendish devil. Dicaprio's Calvin Candie is a very wealthy slave owner, but his favorite trade is Mandingo boxing. In one of the 3 hardest scenes to watch, Candie screams over his slave to beat another man to death. It is a brilliantly scary moment and it gives us everything we need to know about Candie. DiCaprio is typically the good guy after the truth. Here, he takes the idea of a villain and runs with it. He scared me. I did not think DiCaprio could scare me, but he flat out owns the confrontation scene. He gives a brutal, yet somehow charming performance and it soars over the second half of the film. For his part Samuel L. Jackson gives an incredibly daring performance as Stephen, Calvin's favorite house slave. Stephen is the ultimate Uncle Tom and Jackson throws himself completely into the role. His limp, his entire attitude screams self hating black man. I was quite shocked to see how unabashedly he threw himself into it.

The action sequences are brutal, yet over the top enough that they are okay to watch, but there are a few scenes that was incredibly tough to watch. Tarantino is not out to make slavery look cool. He does make the movie look cool, and the action look cool and all of the characters look and sound cool, but slavery is treated with brutality in every way. The costumes and sets all look stunning, especially Calvin's mansion. Wow, what a gorgeous mansion. The score is perfect for the film and Tarantino's decision to include contemporary music in a period piece was jarring at first, but it fit. Tarantino never plays by the rules and because of it, his movies have a unique richness. I know he plays on things that already exist and takes the idea of an homage to a whole other level, but he always makes his movies his own. If we were watching footage from the slavery period, we would not hear Tupac, but Tarantino does not want us to think we are actually watching something from the period of U.S history where we had slaves.

I come away from every Tarantino movie knowing I am going to remember the experience for a long time. They are events. The dialog in this movie is as close to perfect as can possibly be. Every single shot looks like it took hours to get it just right, yet seems so seamless at the same time. There is also this great sense of humor to it. If you are not laughing during the KKK scene, you are probably dead. That is how Tarantino operates. The same movie can have this gut bustingly hilarious scene, and then have a scene so brutal you are not sure you can watch it without covering your eyes. And somehow it all works. Kudos to Fred Raskin for his editing. It was a big point of concern after Tarantino's usual editor, Sally Menke, passed away, that Tarantino's would lose something, but this one is not missing anything. The cinematography is gorgeous, but that is no surprise from Robert Richardson.

Django Unchained will sit towards the top of the year's best for me. For Tarantino, it sit squarely in the middle with some of his other great films. Who knows what time will do to it and I know I will own it and watch it once a year during my girlfriend and mine's TarantinoFest.

Final Grade: A

Les Miserables

After serving 19 years as a prisoner in Post French Revolution France, Jean Valjean(Hugh Jackman) is released to be a free man, but he finds freedom to not be very freeing. His crime, stealing bread to feed his sister's dying kid, does not seem to warrant the reaction he has received. No one will hire a former felon, and he cannot find a place to sleep. After he is given food and bed from a Bishop, Valjean steals all of the valuables from the Church. He does not believe in the good of man and who can blame him. However, when he is caught, the Bishop tells the police that Valjean was given the valuables and he left without taking the candlesticks as well. Valjean realizes here he is at a Crossroads, he can use these valuables to better his life, but it means throwing away his papers and not going to his parole hearing. He must become a fugitive. Cut to a few years later, and Valjean is living as a business owner and mayor of a small Parisian town. The gruff Law officer, Javert(Russel Crowe) has been dispatched to Valjean's town, and Javert quickly thinks something is up with Valjean, but he cannot quite place it. In this town, Fantine (Anne Hathaway) loses her job at Valjean's factory and because she has to send money to innkeepers who are watching after her little girl Cosette, Fantine sells her hair, her teeth and eventually her body. When Valjean realizes what has happened, he promises Fantine that he will protect her daughter. Cut to another few years later and Valjean and Cosette(Amanda Seyfreid) live a quiet life in France, but revolution is brewing. And love is brewing as well. Cosette has met Marius(Eddie Redmayne)and they instantly fall in love, but Marius is a man of the revolution and once Valjean decides he and Cosette have to leave because Javert is on his trail, Marius throws himself fully into war. Oh and the whole thing is sung.

I am much more of a film guy than I am a musical theater guy, and I believe that in reviewing a film adaptation of anything, you have to stick to the film. It has to stand on its own merits. So in thinking of that I have to say that I do not love Les Miserables. Yet, I am completely in love with this movie. It succeeds on almost every level and I connected emotionally to it in so many different ways. Every time I thought I was done crying, something would trigger another sobbing emotion. It did not even feel like nearly 3 hours to me. From the moment Jackman started singing to the very end, I was completely hooked by the people on the screen. Once I let the movie wash over me, I was completely enthralled, which is saying something because the director (Tom Hooper) tried his best to ruin the entire experience.

Jackman not only gives his best performance ever, but he gives what is easily the best performance of the year and the best in quite a few years if you ask me. His gravitas mixed with a deep sensitivity leads to one of the most heartbreaking male lead performances I have ever seen. I found his vocals to be exactly what they should have been. His performance ripped me apart in a number of ways. From the start as a completely broken man to a man searching for redemption for the rest of the film, Jackman is perfect. His rendition of "Bring him Home" crushed me. The softness of his voice in that vulnerable moment was enough to make me literally weep. And to follow it up with a rugged determination to Marius away from the war was such a stark difference, but he handled both with ease.

Eddie Redmayne is another guy who I felt gave a knockout performance. Facebook is griping about his Kermit voice or his jaw wiggling, but I was too ripped apart during his "Empty Chairs, Empty Tables" performances to notice. He was diligent, romantic, full of great ideals and it is not difficult to understand how love completely sweeps him up. I know people wish that Aaron Tveit has just been cast as Marius not Enjolras, and honestly, that probably would have been great casting, but I think it would have robbed people of Tveit's great Enjolras and it is truly a great performance in a role that could easily be a "whatever" role. It is a pretty thankless role, if you ask me and Tveit turns it into a powerhouse supporting role worthy of the epicness of Enjolras's fate as Hooper shoots it. As Cosette, Seyfreid is fine. She is super pretty and her voice, while a bit thin, does not deter from the show and she and Redmayne have a nice chemistry. Samantha Barks as Eponine, a childhood friend of Cosette's and a hopeful lover of marius, just kills "On my Own" but in my opinion, she is too pretty to be Eponine. Not that Eponine has to be ugly, but Barks is stunning and it is a little weird for her to be the scorned.

Anne Hathaway, sweet lord is she phenomenal. I love her, and have loved her for a while. I think she was robbed in Rachel Getting Married. This year she has had two wonderful, and completely different performances. Here, as Fantine, she has the best single moment in the movie. Her "I Dreamed a Dream" is a serious showstopper. It was gut wrenching, heart breaking and superb. I wanted to applaud when it was done. She completely owns the movie every time she is on screen and you want so much more of her. Hathaway's Fantine not only rips you apart, it puts you back together, just to rip you apart again. Then you have Russel Crowe. The man is getting torn to shreds by everyone, but I do not really get it. His vocals are not as strong as the others, but he does not have a bad voice. It just does not fit as well as the others. I actually found his controlled performance to be quite effective. He also looked great in the costumes. He looks like an officer of the law. His "Stars" was not as epic as I think many always hope it is going to be, but he did not bother me. I know that is not a ringing endorsement, but he does not take away from the movie.

Through all of that, I have to say Tom Hooper does his best to ruin this movie with some of the most egregious uses of dutch tilts I have ever seen in a movie this side of Doubt. Why oh why must you tilt every shot Hooper? Why must you take the camera away from these great, simple shots and do awful things to them? You have these great actors giving heart breaking performances left and right, just leave the damn camera alone. It was so frustrating to watch these awful tilts when I was trying to just watch these songs with such great gusto. This reaffirms my hatred for Hooper.

I have seen every complaint possible about this movie from my musical theater friends, and of course, everyone is entitled to think what they. I found the film to be an arresting and emotional three hours that I want to experience again. The performances are so strong and the emotional connection to the characters so exquisite that it overcame Hooper's obnoxious dutch tilts. The costumes is excellent, the color palette for the backgrounds took some getting used to, but for me, this movie is all about the performances. Seeing all of the Facebook comments also reaffirms that I am not really a musical theater person. I am a movie person. I think if someone had just put a stage version onto the screen, I would have hated it, like I often hate the musical on stage when I see it. On stage the performances are always too broad, the singing too big and pretty to be emotionally arresting and the set never looks as good as it should. In this film, all of that is solved, for me.


Oh I just realized I left out Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, if only they were left out of the movie...

Final Grade: A-

The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey (H:AUJ)

After peter Jackson completed his perfect Lord of the Rings trilogy, it was no surprise that he wanted to take a crack at The Hobbit. Rumors swirled about how he would tackle it. Would it one movie, or two movies? Would he create a whole movie from scratch to bridge the gap between LOTR and The Hobbit? Honestly, I did not care what he did, as long as he did something. Peter Jackson showed a comprehensive understanding of how Tolkien's world worked. Then he was just going to produce, but he brought in Guillermo Del Toro to direct, which was also fine with me. After years of hold ups, Del Toro left the project to pursue Pacific Rim, an amazing looking Science Fiction movie, and Jackson was back on as a director. Then it came out it would be three movies which just threw the world off its nerd axis. But, The Hobbit is a short book and how could he possibly find a way to make it three movies. Yes, the Hobbit is a short book, but Middle Earth is rich with characters and stories. I have trusted Peter Jackson. The extended versions of the LOTR movies are actually better than the theatrical cuts. However, after the disappointment of Lincoln, I wanted to lower my expectations, but that was hard when I was getting to go back to Middle Earth!

Bilbo was once a hobbit who had a great adventure. Now an elder hobbit, Bilbo Baggins(Ian Holm) starts writing his story so Frodo will be able to read it. As a young hobbit Bilbo (Martin Freeman) was approached Gandalf (Ian McKellen)but not really given a reason. A few hours later Bilbo starts getting visitors and soon his house is overrun by 12 dwarves and Gandalf the Grey. These Dwarves are setting off on an adventure to get their underground kingdom back from the dragon Smaug. Smaug took it decades ago after the Dwarf king got greedy and started stock piling his riches. Dragons love treasure and the Dwarves were no match for the fire breather. However, signs have started to appear that make the Dwarves believe the time is now. They have to take back their home. Led by the great Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the dwarves appear fearless. Gandalf believes Bilbo is the right person to fill out their group because Hobbits can go along being unseen. It gives them a surprise. Bilbo has no intention of laving his home, and this puzzles Gandalf because as a young hobbit Bilbo was quite adventurous. Bilbo gives in and they head off to find the Dwarves old kingdom.

Much like the LOTR trilogy, H:AUJ is, at its core, a road trip movie. We have a big group of people trying to get from point A to point B and encountering the most insane predicaments. In the Hobbit, our group of heroes are being chased by a Pale Orc with a grudge against Thorin, they get mixed up with rock creatures, and an underground army of Goblins. There is also a big bad unknown Necromancer looming, probably giant spiders and the mostly unseen Smaug. However, the Hobbit has to stand on its own and not just lean against the LOTR trilogy. As a first picture in a new trilogy set in the same world as LOTR, H:AUJ is quite successful. I am not as blindingly positive about this as I was about the original trilogy, but I am still full of wonderful raves. H:AUJ gives me precisely what I wanted it to give me. There is this great sense of epic adventure and wonder, which had to be difficult to cultivate because, in a sense, we have seen all of this before. The sweeping helicopter shots of the great New Zealand landscapes are still as stunning now as they were 10 years ago, Howard Shore's sweeping score still sends shivers down my spine as a signal of a magical journey to a magical time. Peter Jackson uses motion capture and CG graphics in a stellar fashion, even if the Pale Orc's movements were not as fluid as they would have been if it was a human in make up. I loved the sense of danger and revenge and honor and duty that these movies are supposed to fill me with.

That is not to say there are not some issues to be found. Luckily for me, the entirety of the issues come within the first hour and they were long out of my head as the film picked up steam. As we are introduced to these characters and reintroduced to this world there is some serious clumsiness in terms of tone and pacing. The Hobbit is not as serious a story as LOTR, and Peter Jackson has always had a twisted sense of slapstick humor. Here the slapstick is more traditional. The introduction to the Dwarves is incredibly wonky. They are characters we are supposed to believe in battle later, but they are all goofy characters. They are vaguely gross, they eat everything, show no care for Bilbo's stuff and it just was a wonky way to get going. The pacing in the first hour is also a bit jerky. The Prologue soars, then the movie slows down, then the dwarves come in and the pacing gets exploded. It felt like Jackson was still trying to figure out where he wanted the movie to go and what he wanted it to be. The first hour feels like the first hour of a two hour innocuous adventure film. I would not say I was bored by it, just uneasy about what it spelled for the rest of the film.

However, once the group set off on their adventure, the movie sidesteps the wonky pacing, save for an unfortunate turn to the Brown Wizard Radagast and his sled of bunnies. And even the Radagast thing did not bother me too much especially when he turned out to be helpful in a scene that was both amusing, and thrilling. The second hour of constantly changing scenery was a great trip through middle Earth. We get to see Sarumon, Elrond, and Galadriel again. We get an extended look at the gorgeous Elf kingdom of Rivendell and of course all of the gorgeous shots of the New Zealand landscape. In all honesty, there is not a ton of battle sequences until the final hour, save for a flashback as to how Thorin Oakenshield got his last name and why he understands better than anyone why the Orcs are so problematic. The second hour is, though, where we get the incredible action sequence set on these giant rocky cliffs that are actually rock creatures hurling rocks at each other causing these insane avalanches. It is a stunning work of CGI, and editing and cinematography. Hour two is also where we get a kind of ridiculous scene with three idiot Orcs that I have heard many people complain about. I actually liked this scene because it was funny, and it also showed why Gandalf wanted Bilbo on the journey. He is smart and thinks on his feet. However, it does start a trend of Gandalf being absent, then coming in at the last second and saving the day.

The final hour is a spectacle of frenzied action, and one quiet intimate scene that will live inside for a long time. That scene, the most important scene in the film and the scene that launched the LOTR trilogy is between Bilbo and an unnamed creature. We, of course, know his name to be Gollum (Andy Serkis). After being separated from the group during a Goblin invasion, Bilbo falls down a dark hole and winds up near a creature who he witnesses kill and Orc. This creature finds Bilbo and they begin a back and forth that is funny, quietly intense, subtle and brilliant. During the course of the scene, Gollum loses a ring and Bilbo, without Gollum knowing, picks it up. Bilbo is looking for a way out and Gollum offers him a deal. They will engage in a game of riddles and if Bilbo wins, Gollum will show him the way out, but if Gollum wins, he gets to eat Bilbo whole. It is the most stunning work in the film. The writing is crisp, Serkis' work s Gollum is as good as it was 10 years ago, the direction and blocking are excellent and Freeman is perfect. It slows the movie down in the best way possible and when it ends, you are left breathless and even sad. It is a monumental moment for the entire world of Middle Earth and I loved how patient Peter Jackson was with it.

The final hour features two just outstanding action sequences. And they transition into each other so incredibly well. We get the heart of the film in the end here and it sets up the next film perfectly. I loved how Jackson takes the action seriously, but also has fun with it. The entire battle sequence between our heroic group and the underground Goblins is quite a feat of fight choreography and then to follow that up with a more brutal and rough action sequence is brilliant because the heroes go from looking like superheroes, unstoppable in any situation, to destroyed and beaten to mere inches from death. That contrast makes it even more thrilling for me. I found Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins to be funny, risky, and full of great character tics. I love his facial expressions. They fit within this world very well. I admit, I was hoping for Thorin to be just a bit more mysterious like Aragorn, but that might have been my inability to disconnect from the LOTR trilogy. I also liked that Jackson is not afraid to put in some Hobbit songs. One of them was too goofy for me. but they are a huge part of Tolkien's world and it was nice to hear some of them.

H:AUJ is not the perfect film I hoped it would be, but when it was over I was ready for the next one to start. I was ready to stay in the world of Middle Earth and to still crave that after a three hour movie is quite a feat. I am disappointed I did not get any real great shots of Smaug, but I am willing to wait, if that is what I have to do. The movie really soars once the group of heroes sets off, but I would not be surprised if people out there do not take to it. I do believe it is a movie that is more for fans of Middle Earth. It does not necessarily leave the impact the original trilogy made, but I think it sets the story up for a great next chapter. I am not at all sure where a third chapter fits in, but Tolkien's writings about Middle Earth are rich with material. There are definitely things in this movie that do not technically appear in The Hobbit book. He is pulling for all of Tolkien's Middle Earth writings and that is why I know Jackson understands Tolkien's world. I will probably see HAUJ twice more, with on of those being in the High Frame Rate with 3D, just I can see if it really is the future of cinema.

Final Grade: A-

Lincoln

Steven Spielberg has long been my favorite director. It probably has a lot to do with Jurassic Park being the seminal movie of my life. I believe my desire for film began with that movie. It was the movie that made me realize exactly what movies could do. Spielberg is responsible for many of my favorite cinematic stories and even his mediocre movies have big shiny bright spots. He has wanted to make this Lincoln picture for a decade it seems. At one point Liam Neeson was attached to play Lincoln, but as time went on he got too old, or maybe just changed his entire career trajectory. Either way Spielberg ended up winning the Lincoln lottery with Daniel Day-Lewis. Often touted as the best actor alive, you know you are going to get a live wire performance out of Day-Lewis. With Spielberg at the realm of a slice of real life History, chances are you are in for a treat. Look at his real life history track record: Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List and Munich (watch Munich again and tell that movie does not rock). Spielberg knows this terrain. The reviews are overwhelmingly in favor of Lincoln as one of the year's best. It has become a must see for the educated film goer. It is leading the charge in circles that believe smart well made movies can make money with movies like Argo and Flight as well. It is a no-brainer! right?

Opening up weeks after the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln focuses on our 16th President's bid to get the 13th amendment added to the constitution and therefore ending the Civil War. He has just been elected to his second term and he wants to throw his weight around and do something he truly believes in, even though the odds are stacked against him. he has to get the 2/3 majority vote in Congress and that means turning Democrat votes from no into yes and they are not much inclined to do that. The majority of the film is this fight. It is a fight with words and stories and it is a valiant fight to be sure. Lincoln is the focus of the film. It is through his eyes that we see this process. We meet his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln (A sublime Sally Field), his two sons, Robert and Tad (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Gulliver MacGrath, respectively) and his trusted staff played by a host of wonderful actors like David Strathairn, James Spader, Bruce McGill and Tim Blake Nelson. Also along for the ride are John Hawkes, Tommy Lee Jones, Lee Pace, and Hal Holbrook as well as a host of other really great character actors.

Lincoln is a great film. It is intense, well crafted, well acted and mostly, well written. Every scene has dialog that just pops and reveals deep insight to the characters and their motives. The film unfolds like a play, which is not shocking because Tony Kushner wrote the screenplay. Spielberg and Kushner trust the audience and the audience is reward with phenomenal scenes strung together into a great movie. The scenes are long and intensely played and intensely shot. No one making this movie was afraid of long scenes, or scenes where there is nothing but talking and it works. Everything about this movie worked, so why when it was over was I just left feeling kind of "whatever" about it?

Expectations. They are a bitch. For weeks I had been hearing about how this was the best movie of the year. 2012 is a killer year for movies. Every critic and pundit tend to agree on that. In a year that is so full of great movies, for so many to call Lincoln the best, well that just raised my expectations and Lincoln fell short of them. Lincoln delivered on every promise. The team for the film is remarkable they all succeeded. John Williams' score soars, Spielberg's directorial touches show restraint when needed, Kushner's words jump off the screen, and every single actor does exquisite work. Day-Lewis is beyond captivating as Lincoln. He embodies everything we know and things we did not know about Lincoln, and he clearly loves Kushner's words. Yet, there was something just not there for me. There was a quality I was expecting and it was missing. I have no idea what that missing quality is. I am stumped. The movie is great. it will deserve any awards it is nominated for, especially the acting from Day-Lewis, Sally Field and especially Tommy Lee Jones. I think James Spader might have been my favorite among all of those. he is so weird and to see him in something so traditional, but add his weird flare to it, was brilliant.

I loved the care with which they handled Lincoln's death. I loved how intimate the whole movie was even though it was about the ugliest of times in American History. I loved the idealism, the hope and the optimism Spielberg has for America and how Lincoln embodied all of that. I loved the touches in the script where Day-Lewis got to show Lincoln the comedian, and Lincoln the story teller. I have nothing bad to say about the film. It does everything right and I have no doubts that I will watch it a second time. it just did not do the things to me that Argo or Looper did. There is nothing that I didn't expect. There is a world of care within the film. It is a personal film for everyone involved, or at least it comes off that way. I believe it will stand the test of time and who knows, maybe I will love it later in life. For now though, it is a wonderful film that I just cannot seem to fall in love with. It is almost as if it is too on the nose. Maybe that is the problem, it is too technically perfect? Who knows, I am strange.

Final Grade: B

Red Dawn

A few years ago I heard about someone wanting to remake Red Dawn. I was unsure how this was going to go because Russia is not really our biggest threat these days. Okay not really, I was pretty much excited. Who would not want to watch another movie where a rag-tag group of teenagers essentially stop the world from fully going into WWIII? I mean seriously, who would not want to watch that movie? In the 80s it was a brilliantly cheesy concept and in 2012, it is still a brilliantly cheesy concept. You take a group of known young actors, mix with a couple of up and coming young actors, put in some ridiculous action sequences, shake well and serve with a side of AWESOME and enjoy the feast. It should be the perfect empty calorie meal.

Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth in full action stud mode) is home from the Marine Corp, for reasons unknown. Is he just on leave? Did something happen? These are pesky questions not answered. His younger brother, Matt (Josh Peck) is a punk high school kid who does not understand teamwork. A football game happens, awkward family exchanges happen and then 5 minutes later, BAM!!! North Korea invades their hometown and we are off to the race. Jed, Matt and a group of teenagers escape the attack and head for the Eckert family cabin. This scrappy group of young people decide, with Jed as their leader, that they need to fight back. They cannot defeat them head on, but with sneak attacks and trickery they can put a dent into the terrorists. Go 'MERICA! But, they are just teenagers, how can they possible understand how to attack trained terrorists? Silly movie goer, there is a serious montage of Jed teaching everyone how to shoot, fight, listen for footsteps and how to dress wounds. Matt, though becomes an issue because he wants to sacrifice the team to save his gorgeous girlfriend, Erica (Isabel Lucas) and he is still angry at Jed for running to the military after their mom died many years ago. Do not concern yourself with how she died, it is not important, because...EXPLOSIONS!!!

If it seems like I did not enjoy Red Dawn, please know that I loved it. It sacrifices character, story, exposition, in favor of an awesome car chase, great explosions and a doozy of a climatic action set piece. I was not expecting a life changing event with this movie, I just wanted a good time and I was treated to just that. Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck and Josh Hutcherson are all likely going to have great movie careers. Hemsworth is this decade's best pure young action stud. He is likable, but distant. He is charming, but cold and he is believable as a man who can out-action everyone else. Peck is a bit whiny in this, but the character is at fault for that. He proves he work as part of an ensemble, but also shows he can probably hold a big movie on his own. Hutcherson already has big budget cred with The Hunger Games, but I really thought he was under the radar in this movie. I was hoping he would have more to do, but when he does get a chance, he shines and he gets the best moment in the movie, if you have an affinity for the original. Connor Cruise (Yes, Tom's son) is solid without too much to do and Lucas is stunning, but she is not much of an actress. Adrianne Palecki is the true female star of this one. I have loved her since Friday Night Lights and keep hoping she will find the right vehicle to break out. This is probably not it, but she plays a tough, yet vulnerable girl very well. You believe she will get down in an action scene, but also that she is break down and cry if needed.

Red Dawn moves quickly, which is probably its best asset. It gets going in the first five minutes and does not really spend much time away from keeping the action moving. There are a lot of speeches, but they are almost all voice overs as the Wolverines are setting up a sneak attack, or setting bombs up to explode. The actions scenes are shot a bit too frenetically for some, I imagine, especially anytime they are running in the woods. The opening car chase is especially frenetic. It might be too much for some people, but I actually loved it. It really helped sell me on the kind of improvisation of the group of teenagers. By filming so haphazardly, I got the sense that the danger was real. Even Jed, who is pretty calm throughout, loses his crap during the initial invasion. The shot of the Korean's parachuting into this town was also pretty outstanding. It was almost a first person account, as if to say, what would happen if we looked up and saw a bunch of Koreans dropping from the sky like rain? The key sequence though, is that climatic action set piece. Set inside a fortified jailhouse, guns blaze, gas bombs explode and there is also some awesome hand to hand combat. It has a little bit of everything you want in an action scene. I loved how it was staged. The levels of the building are perfectly utilized and the writers does a great job of spreading out the cast, so the action can constantly move from one person to the next. The director does a good job of keeping the action from getting too messy as well. We never lose sight of who is who and what the motivations for each characters are. it is very well done.

There is not a lot of explaining why all of this is going on. The opening credits gives us exposition as to why North Korea is our biggest threat and during some of the scenes, we can hear speeches from the Korean's to the American prisoners about how America needs someone new to lead it because we have gotten too much freedom. It looks as if some sort of brainwashing might be going on, or an attempt of it. The Wolverines offer all of the people hope. They become a symbol of a nation refusing to give up. Yes, the movie is very pro-military. It is very conservative thinking in that way, but honestly, it is a dumb action movie about a group of teenagers who destroy a terrorist plot to take over the USA, so please do not take it seriously. No, Red Dawn is not a great movie. Anyone who says so is probably an idiot, but it is a fun action movie and I think it does exactly what it set out to achieve. I had a great time for 110 minutes and there are times when that is all I want.

Final Grade: B-

Life of Pi

Life of Pi is the kind of movie that almost dares you to love it or hate based on the ending. When it is over, you are left wondering if a great, powerful movie can be entirely altered by the final 15 minutes. It makes you question what is important in a film: is it the journey or the destination? I do not have answers for you, or for myself, but I can say this, Life of Pi is exactly the type of film that makes me happy because I know, deep down, I will think about it for quite some time. In the 5 days since I have seen it, it still lingers over me, it still haunts parts of my brain, pulling at me to think about it, analyze it. It has a reverence to it, which is fitting because it is a spiritual adventure. It does not require a belief in a Deity, but the movie exists in a spiritual realm. I am new to the material, having never read the book. I know much about the long arduous process of turning it into a movie though. Once thought to be an unfilmable novel, 4 different directors and 3 different leading men were attached at various times. Well, I can only say they appeared to have got the right people for the job.

Pi(Suraj Sharma) is a young man full of life and spirit until his dad rips the innocence from him. His father, a man of science and logic, did not like that his son was a believer in multiple faiths. Pi had a great capacity for the beauty in the world. He believed in Judaism, Christianity, and is a follower of Islam. He just believed that God existed and found lessons everywhere. He believed everything had a purpose and all creatures had a soul and his father crushed that when the family got a tiger for their zoo. The tiger, Richard Parker, would soon be a bigger part of Pi's life than he could have ever imagined. When the family is forced to move, they get on a ship and in the midst of a giant storm, Pi is lost at sea with only Richard Parker as a companion.

Life of Pi is a survival story. It is Castaway with a tiger instead of a volleyball. Pi is stranded on a boat with this giant tiger, and the film takes place almost entirely on the water in that lifeboat. It is not a movie about plot, but about character, faith, and survival. The structure of events is not the point, the destination is not necessarily the point. His survival might not even be the point since we know at the very start that he survives the ordeal. He is telling the story to a story writer. Life of Pi tells the story of a remarkable young man who tell a remarkable story. And it is a remarkable story, and it is remarkably told.

Ang Lee, director of such films as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain, does amazing things with this film. I audibly gasped at the beauty of the film at least 5 times. There are gorgeous shots, amazing landscapes, the storm is mind boggingly phenomenal. Lee's steady confidence allows for all of this to happen. He trusts the beauty around him. There is a scene where the ocean is lit up by jellyfish and we see this gorgeous whale and it looks like a screensaver, it is that stunning. The reverence Pi has for God and beauty is felt throughout this entire film. Lee understands this is Pi's story and shoots it as Pi would see it. He sees the beauty, and the frailty, and the Godfulness in everything. This is not just the God we think about as being a old guy with a beard in Heaven, no this is the God who is all around in nature. The God who could allow devastation to happen, but also surround this young man with the beauty of the world. Maybe that does not make sense, hell, I am not sure it makes sense to me as I write it, but while watching the film, it made complete sense.

Ultimately though, I was left with this ending. This ending that threatened to completely erase the first 110 minutes of the movie. I will not spoil it here, but something happens that completely turns the movie around. I get the point. I understand what the story is trying to get at with the ending. I am not immune to this idea of God in our lives. Or more precisely, this idea of survival by believing in God. I was behind it and it makes a gorgeous story. It has a power behind it. I also get why there is this ending. I am just not sure how I feel about it. It forces you to question the motives of the author. However, I think what it mostly does is it makes you question you. It makes you question humanity and what we are really about. If you think I am being hyperbolic, well, I do not think I am. Life of Pi has grand ambitions. It operates from a place of "Why are we here" and when a movie sets that lofty type of journey, I do not think it is a stretch that is asking us about our own humanity. I am glad I took the journey, for I am left with these questions and when a movie leave me with questions about humanity, I think it is a good thing.

Final Grade: B+

Skyfall

I have always had a sort of "ehhh" reaction to James Bond. I enjoy the movies for what they are, but to be completely honest, every Bond movie looks like the last Bond movie. I am not a Bond fanatic. I will never argue who the best Bond is, and when Bond is a category on Jeopardy, I never do well. They all run together and they leave no real impression on me. Also, I think I am different from most people who are Bond fans because I prefer this new more intense Bond. When Pierce Brosnon drove an invisible car as Bond, I thought it was time to put the character to bed, and they did, sort of. Bond got reimagined, taken back to the beginning with Daniel Craig as a more serious, more weathered looking Bond. That caught my attention. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were more Jason Bourne than James Bond and I preferred that. However, I cannot recall a single thing in Quantum of Solace in this moment. Skyfall has pedigree though. Sam Mendes in the director's chair is always going to grab my attention. Reviews called it the best Bond. Others said it married the ridiculous of early Bond with the grittiness of recent Bond. My best friend, who is not easy to please in action movies, raved. I was pumped.

Bond, James Bond (Craig) is in the middle of a case when the film opens. This case eventually takes him on a rooftop chase, but not on foot, no on motorcycles! The chase eventually ends up on a train and after some seriously intense fighting and great editing, Bond is shot and presumed dead. However, Bond is never dead. Enjoying vacation by banging a super hot chick and engaging in a drinking game involving a scorpion, it looks like Bond has found peace. However, like the Godfather, he keeps getting pulled back in! When he realizes someone may be targeting his boss, M (Dame Judi Dench), Bond goes back to work. After passing a series of tests, Bond is deemed ready to go back to work and he is quickly on the trail of Silva(Javier Bardem) who has a personal vendetta against M. Silva was once an agent of MI6, like Bond, but after a case went awry, he became vengeful. Silva does not believe in weapons though, he believes in technology. He can clear an island using just a computer. He can hack anything at any time. He is always one step ahead, as villains often are. In order for Bond to get the upper hand he has to face his personal demons and face who he really is.

Skyfall has everything you want a Bond film to have. Hot girls, awkward sex scenes, great fight scenes and a sexy car. it goes over the top, but is also gritty and reality based. Craig makes the perfect Bond. I know that is a controversial opinion, but his stoicism makes Bond fallible. He actually looks like he is in trouble when things looks bad. He does not take things in stride and know he is going to win like every other Bond. Craig's Bond is human. He suffers real pain, both physical and emotional. His Bond is quick witted and great with ladies, but he also wears his damage in his eyes and I think that is key for me with a character in so much danger. I want to see the stakes in his face. I want it to register that death is possible. Bond is human, and normally he is treated as a super hero. I think that is why I respond so well to the new Bond movies, it makes Bond relatable. Craig wears the suit very well, he is believable as a womanizer, and he is belivable as a kick ass spy, but his face is tired. He wears the weariness of a spy so incredibly well.

Javier Bardem is no slouch in the villain department. Our introduction to him is the stuff of legendary villains. He is theatrical, menacing, slimy and unbelievably damaged. The crackling homoerotic nature of Bond and Silva's first meeting is jarring in any setting but in a testosterone fest like Bond it is shockingly disconcerting. Bardem and Craig play that first scene like a gay chess match, neither character budging an inch, wondering who will flinch first. It really is the scene that sticks with you when the movie is over, in my opinion. Bond is so full of manly driven desires, to see Bardem flamboyantly unbutton Bond's shirt and make homoerotic quips while Bond deadpans "who says this is my first time?" is unsettliingly comical. Bardem has made a menacing villain before and won an Oscar for it, but here he is going to over the top and he succeeds at every turn. He never loses the comic touch you always want a Bond villain to have, but like Craig's Bond, he grounds his emotions in reality. His vengeance, while not noble, is almost understandable. He is not out for world domination. He just wants payback. Who cannot relate to payback, even if his is on a grand scale?

Skyfall includes some great action set pieces as well. The roof top motorcycle chase ( it is like the screenwriter watched Bourne and thought, this is cool, but motorcycles would make it awesome) sets the stage, and leads to a great top of train fist fight, but we also get an incredibly intense gun fight in a public place that looks as at home in a heist film like Heat as it does in a Bond film. It is very in your face. My only problem with the movie is in the climax. It is a great action set piece, set in a gorgeous castle with explosions, bullets, a car being demolished and a helicopter crash, but it plays a lot like Home Alone. Without very many weapons, Bond, M and another guy set traps, create weapons from household materials and rig doors, Ala Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone. Once the climax gets going, I was able to push that aside and just enjoy it, but as the set up was going on, I was giggling a little bit in thinking of Bond and Kevin McCallister teaming up.

With Mendes' steady confident hand, Roger Deakins' always solid cinematography (especially in the final 35 minutes), Thomas Newman's gorgeous score and solid performances, Skyfall is definitely the best Bond movie I have ever seen. It is memorable, action packed, has personal stakes, and finally puts Bond in a context I can grasp. Often times we see movies that fill in back story for characters we do not want (Darth Vader, Michael Myers for example), but giving Bond just a bit of back story helps raise the stakes of the film and make it all the better. It sets up the story of the Bond we have known for decades, while giving us a sliver of the humanity found deep inside.

Final Grade: A-

Oh, Adele's title song is gorgeous.

Wreck-it Ralph

Toy story worked because it played off an idea most kids have at one time: what if my toys were real? Wreck-it Ralph asks the question what if video game characters were real? It is the exact same premise as Toy Story, but instead of Pixar's usually flawless story telling, Wreck-It Ralph is coming from Disney who has been incredibly hit-or-miss lately, emphasis on miss. The trailers were cute. They played on my generation's 8-bit nostalgia. It gave us some of the characters we grew up with and promised video game jokes of all kinds. The animation looked good, the voice work looked good, but the movie was not selling a story. It was selling nostalgia. The problem with nostalgia is it has a short shelf life. A 90 minute that is nothing but "remember this character..." would be an awful movie experience. Toy Story worked because nostalgia was merely a hook for a brilliant story told incredibly effectively. Wreck-it Ralph was high on my to-see list, but I was concerned about how effective it would be.

Wreck-it Ralph (John C. Reilly) is the villain in a Donkey Kong style arcade game called Fix-it Felix. Somehow the game has remained popular enough to last in one arcade for decades, seeing flash in the pan games come and go. The problem is, Ralph is not actually a bad guy. When the game turns off for the night and the characters go back to their own world, all Ralph wants is to be liked. he wants to have friends and prove he belongs next to Felix(Jack McBrayer) as a hero. In the game, when the hero wins he gets a medal. This gives Ralph the idea that he should go into another game to get a medal. The next morning he game jumps and ends up in Hero's Duty, a first person shooter that looks like a video game version of Spaceship Troopers. Breaking all of the rules of a first person shooter, Ralph gets his medal, but things go awry and instead of being back in his own game, he ends up in Sugar Rush, a race car game. The rest of the movie takes place in Sugar Rush, a lushly colored video game littered with candy. Imagine CandyLand as a video game. Ralph meets a precocious young girl, Vaneloppe(Sarah Silverman) and they become friends. Vaneloppe is a glitch, and in her game if she is allowed to race, odds are the kids playing will complain and the game will be unplugged and the characters will end up bums in the Grand Central Station of video games. However, all she wants to do is race. This is the key story, there are a few side plots involving a bug jumping from Hero's Duty to Sugar Rush and threatening to consume the game and destroying all games.

Wreck-It Ralph succeeds on every level without question. The animation is top notch. The movie pops off the screen (in 2D) with vivacious life and fluid motions. Sugar Rush could have been too cutesy, too, well...sugary, but it works. I was worried when I heard the majority of the game was going to take place in this Sugar Rush world, but it works. It lends itself to great gags, great visuals and awesome racing. However, it really is the story that gets you. Much like Toy Story, the nostalgia is cute. It really gets you into the world, but once you are in the world, you become attached to Ralph. Ralph is like the big dope who is well intentioned but cannot help but screw everything up because of his size. John C. Reilly could not be more perfect in the role. He has a gentle sweetness to his voice, but also an over-arching melancholy that permeates his entire being. Sarah Silverman tones down her annoying to give a very warm, feisty and fun voice performance to a character that could have easily derailed the entire movie. These two have a gentle and warm chemistry and watching the friendship between the two characters is what gives this movie its beating heart.

There are great video game jokes for people who love video games, and there are great jokes and slapstick for kids and there is a sophistication for the parents of all generations. I have a hard time believing people out there not enjoying this movie. It is a good time for everyone, but it is also heartfelt and has great underlying themes. It tells us not to let other people define who we are. Ralph has a job, and it takes him being away from that job to make others appreciate who he is and what he does. He looks like the villain and is programmed to be the villain, but he has a giant heart. On the other end, Vaneloppe is told by her entire game that she is a mistake, but she knows in her heart who she is and when all of the truth comes out, it is a very touching thing to see. She uses her "glitch" to her advantage. It teaches kids, and all of us, that maybe we are who we are meant to be. We are not mistakes and maybe our "flaws" help make us the beautiful people we are supposed to be. Am I reaching? I do not think so. I think every good movie aimed at kids has a great message under it and Wreck-it Ralph has plenty. However, more than anything else, it is a great heart warming movie that had me falling in love with my youth all over again.

Final Grade: A-

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The history of film is littered with authors who try to adapt their own novels and fail. Generally speaking, authors should not direct movies based on their own stories. For years I heard rumors of a Perks of being a Wallflower adaptation and for years they were just that, rumors. However, once casting got underway the adaptation appeared inevitable. Author Stephen Chbosky had written the screenplay and was going to be directing his own adaptation and he was going to take R-Rated material and turn it into Pg-13 material. I truly believe adaptations have to be judged separately from the source material, but the PG-13 knowledge scared me. Plus, the book means so much to so many people at a very specific time in their lives, I was not sure how it would translate to film. The very epistolary nature of the novel did not seem like it could translate very well. Well, The Perks of being a Wallflower bucks all of those trends because it is fantastic.

Charlie( Logan Lerman) is a total loner entering high school. He eats lunch by himself and is as depressed as a teenager could possibly be. His favorite aunt died in a car crash, his best/only friend killed himself and Charlie himself had an unknown episode prior to the events of the film. His brother was a big time football star, his girlfriend is popular, but has a jerk for a boyfriend and Charlie's dad is not terribly understanding to his situation. he keeps to himself and spends most of his day wishing himself gone. That changes when he meets a pair of step-siblings: Patrick (Ezra Miller and Sam (Emma Watson). Patrick is a brash flamboyant class clown and Sam is a gorgeous, but damaged girl who immediately catches the eye of Charlie. Patrick and Sam help Charlie to come out of his shell. They give him friends, a purpose and help him laugh and be happy. The story unfolds as we get a, intimate look into the lives of misfit teenagers trying to find their place in the world, and the story is being told to a "friend" in a series of letters from Charlie. Charlie is trying to figure out why he is so sad. Why he has these flashes of memories and why he does, at times, nearly black out with rage or sadness.

The Perks of being of Wallflower left me a blubbering mess. For days I thought about how perfectly crafted it was, how wonderful the acting was and how easily Chbosky managed to adapt his story, but mostly I thought about all of the emotions I felt watching it. Patrick and Sam appear to have everything together, but their lives are just as messy and sad as Charlie's and the performances from Miller and Watson are simply stunning. Watson is a revelation in a stripped down very vulnerable performance of a character that could easily move into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope. Lerman's Charlie, though, is the reason this movie works so well. he makes Charlie a character we are endlessly rooting for. He is sweet, likable, wounded, funny, heart breaking and most of all, honest. This movie only works if the honesty of the characters shine through and it is a credit to Chbosky that he pulled amazingly honest performances from his trio of leads.

Charting one full school year, the film shows up every possible up and down you could imagine. We have love, heart break, holidays, warmth, distance, deep sadness, acceptance and mostly friendship. yes, this is a story about one young man realizing why he is damaged, realizing that the entirety of his memory betrayed him and that the reality of his life is so dark and sad that he has to black out just to forget it, but deep down it is about this great friendship. Patrick and Sam rely on each other, but they come to rely on Charlie as well. They love Charlie and Charlie loves them. What gets them through all of it is the friendship they share.

This film does not rely on you having read the source material. It may cause you to devour the source material afterwards, because it is an easy read, much like this is easy viewing. Chbosky does not have many directorial tricks up his sleeve. He allows the words, the characters and the emotions to speak for themselves. He had a great editor who could cut the flashback sequences in the perfect place, but he does not need any camera tricks because this is an intimate look at a slice of teenage life. He gives us tight shots and lets the actors do the rest. We laugh with them, we cry with them and we hope they find whatever they are looking for. We desire to feel infinite the way they do in those perfect moments. It is all made possible because of the stunning trio of performances. Miller is a star in the making. Watson shows she is definitely worthy of having an outstanding post Harry Potter movie career and Lerman really gives us a Charlie that we can all relate to no matter what our personal high school experience. I will be surprised if this film is not in my top 10 at the end of the year.