AMC Best Picture Showcase Day 1

Today is the first day of the Best Picture Showcase. I will be updating posts on the Kirkham A Movie A Day Facebook Page, and later will transfer them here. If you want the live updates, just go to Facebook. Looking forward to a great day.

OK, I had a little trouble here. There was a post about the first two films we saw but when I went to update, I accidentally posted an earlier draft and wiped out my comments.

So here are some insights on the movies we saw today. A little later than I had hoped for, but worth talking about nonetheless.

AMOUR

I had been warned that the movie was bleak and that it was claustrophobic. It is after all about two old people in their apartment facing death. No spoiler here because the very first scene reveals that the wife Anne is dead in her bed. The film chronicles the sudden decline and painful process of coping with a debilitating illness while still maintaining the love and dignity that a partner of many years deserves. I found it much more interesting than I had expected. There were some light touches here and there, the kinds of daily moments that all of us have that make a hard day bearable.

The dialogue is all in French, and there is basically no film score. Music does play a part in the story but it is not used in background, it is integrated as a small part of the events that take place. One blog I read said that it is not a movie, in large part because nothing happens. It is very deliberate in it's pace, but there are small events chronicled and the characters do go through an arc of developing changes.  My friend Anne sat next to me and there were two moments where she jumped and grabbed my arm in alarm. That is not a movie that has no drama in it.

Having been married to my wife for thirty two years, I understand how complex the emotions were for the two people involved. Sometimes we are at our best, but it does not take long for us to be at our worst either. The two lead actors in this are amazing. The story is small and slow and mostly painful, but it is also filled with the kind of love that is deep and abiding. May we all make it to the end with this kind of courage and devotion.

Les Miserable

I have already written about this film but I do have a couple of minor modifications. I found the music still quite good, and the main songs are often excellent. The problem with the singing transitions and lack of tunefulness continues. Anne Hathaway will deserve her award, she has the two most moving moments in the film. I thought Hugh Jackman did himself credit and the last sequence where he reconciles  his love with having touched the face of God, brought the tears that I had missed the first time around.

I think for a neophyte like me, the immersion into the story the first time, with it's talk singing transitions was a bit overwhelming. I still see flaws and it almost certainly works better as a stage show. On stage the pace would break for scene changes and applause. The big moments would feel more like they were earned rather than dumped on us. The film tries to overpower continuously, and the camera work is much to busy and excessively close.

ARGO 

This continues to be the favorite for the Academy Award and it was my favorite from the moment I saw it. Nothing has changed for me. The tension starts right away, you are plunged into a world of terror masquerading as a people's revolution, and nothing ever feels safe. I will add a couple of comments on issues that I did not discuss before. I was provoked to laughter when watching the Iranian Foreign Minister criticizing the Canadians for their supposed breach of International Law. That actually happened while the Iranians were holding the hostages. I also liked the authenticity of the era even more when I remembered that the Warner Brother's logo at the start of the film was the 1979 era design. It was a clever little touch that I'm not sure everyone noticed.

The brave part of this film making is to actually acknowledge that our people there were just doing their jobs. Many of them despised the Shah also, but what they got in his place is not much better and in so many ways worse. The C.I.A. are the good guys in this story, and we get some Hollywood history to boot. One of my wife's friends thinks this is really just a TV movie. I'd like to subscribe to the programming she must be seeing, because this is top notch film work by everyone involved.

DJANGO UNCHAINED

Quentin Tarantino makes movie for people who like movies more than films. Yet there is also an aspect to the movies he makes that raises them to art status. This revisionist western, that attacks the easy target of slavery, does so with gusto and outrageous violence. There is so much to laugh at in the film, you might sometimes miss the stern rebuke our ancestors receive for allowing this institution to thrive anywhere in the U.S.

This made my list of the best films of the year but it is not necessarily Tarantino's best film. The three leads are all excellent but once again I suspect that Christoph Waltz has stolen the show. His bounty hunting dentist, with a clearer grasp of English than all the Americans he interacts with, is a character to treasure in your movie going memory. Django gets the big shootout, but Dr. King Schultz has all the best lines. 

 

Next week we have the other five nominees. Three of those will be new to me and I will try to write them up a with a fresh attitude. See you all next week.

DP/30: Skyfall, sound re-recording mixer Greg Russell

A Good Day to Die Hard

To say "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a disappointment is an understatement. Many people may have had low expectations for the film. There were a large number of fans who rejected the last film "Live Free or Die Hard" as not being a true "Die Hard" experience, so they had no hope for this to begin with. At our house however, John McClane is an icon, and we all enjoyed the hell out of the 2007 entry. If I can find the photo of the standup that we have, I will post it later (see below). There may have been some flaws in the last film but they were inconsequential from our point of view. From the first strains of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in the trailer, we were anticipating and excited that a new film featuring one of our favorite characters was coming. Ten minutes into the new film I started to worry and half an hour in, I knew it was pretty much a lost cause. This movie is flaccid, confusing, and put together in a way that shows a severe weakness in story telling and an utter disregard for the things that make McClane a great character.

This is a generic spy film, masquerading as "Die Hard". There is ultimately a heist element to it, but by the time you get to it, there is very little left that is interesting. We all want plenty of action in a film like this, but it has to be connected to the story and character to pull us in. There is very little set up to this movie, and the events that start the first action sequence are confusing. Within a short period of time we are plunged into an elaborate chase where people we don't know, are chasing people we don't know and are being followed by a character we should know but who gets behind the wheel for reasons we can't know. Yeah, that's the way it feels. The car chase has three vehicles chasing each other, in circumstances that are not always clear. There is a communication between McClane Junior and his C.I.A. handlers, that features a drone over Moscow, and there is some kind of time window that they are up against. There is no explanation of what the time window means, what the objective is for the lead vehicle, and the mayhem that ensues is simply random. Here is one of the ways the film fails to be "Die Hard": there are quips but they are disconnected from character. McClaine makes apologies to invisible drivers in anonymous cars for no reason at all. None of the quips are funny and they don't have the edge that characterizes our NYPD Lieutenant.

 As we spoke of it last night, there is a pretty obvious reason the film fails. There is a severe lack of a demonstrably intelligent and evil villain. Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Oliphant are each solid actors that can convey smarts with a word, a look or inflection. Even William Sadler's Col. Stuart had personality and confidence. Here we have two competing villains from the beginning, neither of which gives us much of an impression of themselves. One of them is supposed to be brilliant, we know this because he plays Chess against himself. That's it for character development. There is a snotty henchman that kills randomly, including his own men, but can't be bothered to shoot our heroes at much more provocation than he gets in the rest of the movie. All of the other "Die Hards" feature exchanges between the bad guys and our hero. That's where John gets to smirk, insult and generally push their buttons to the boiling point. There is no boiling point here. Everything is hot from the beginning and one hot item is replaced with another when it is convenient for the plot despite being unbelievable for the characters. The plot turns are so obvious and dull that it would surprise me if anyone could be bothered to explain why any of it happens.

 The third and fourth films in the series, added side kick characters so that McClane could bounce off of them and they would provide some relief from all of his deliberate actions. They provide a little spark to the film. McClane's son is supposed to provide that here, but his character barely has anything to say and when he does say it, it is muttered under his breath. Samuel Jackson's colorful vulgarities and race baiting and Justin Long's hipster geek irony were fun. Jai Courtney as Jack, has little chance to match insults or vent with his dad. He mostly glowers for reasons that we are supposed to understand without being told. His role in the spy plot is partially hinted at but vanishes in an instant and we are left with a chase film where we don't understand who is chasing who. The whole movie consists of shootouts and jumping. Jack shoots and jumps but does not seem to think or analyze. John McClane apparently has second sight, because he gets suspicious twice of characters that we have barely met when they turn around on the heroes.

 There was one point a third of the way through the movie that gave me a brief moments hope. The henchman character thinks he is insulting the two Americans when he says, "it's not 1986 and Reagan isn't President." Here is a chance for some sparkling cowboy swagger to go with our long awaited Yippee Ki Yea, instead there is just some laughter used to cover an escape attempt. Nothing creative or connected to what the other characters are doing or saying. Where is John McClane? Look Bruce Willis can still sell a movie but he has to have more than his looks to do so. The stunts, shootouts, chases in this are all so by the numbers that, you can count the moments till the next one, in your head. We went to an advance 10:00 pm screening and were the only people in the theater. Somewhere some one smelled this coming. We would not have listened, but that doesn't mean that we should not have.

The Impossible

If you can get through the trailer without a tear in your eye, you might be able to make it through this movie dry eyed. I freely admit I could do neither. The story of one family's survival in the face of the 2004 Tsunami is truly moving and quite frightening to anyone who has a family that they love. The pain and hardship that all families effected by the disaster is hard to imagine. Visualizing it for us is a harsh reminder of all that was lost but also an inspiring story of hope and love. Once upon a time, disaster movies were all star affairs, where nightmares were invented. "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" etc. Getting through a fictionalized story with cardboard characters is an exciting vicarious experience. Watching a real family, even though portrayed by actors is nearly traumatizing.

In 2004, there was no YouTube and the clips of the tsunami were limited. Two years ago, in the Japanese event, the cameras were ubiquitous, and the clips on-line were numerous. The terrifying power of the ocean, rising across the vista, sweeping away all in it's path fascinated me. I spent hours watching in torment as I could see people and cars being swept away from helicopter shots overhead. This film brings us to the ground level and puts us in front of those waves with the endangered family. The sequence of the tsunami striking the resort where the family was vacationing is incredibly realistic. The vision of being pulled under and tossed about while objects bashed you or cut you or worse is something that the film makers have recreated with intimate reality. Because the focus is on one family, this does not feel much like an entertainment, but more like a well realized visual diary of their experience.

Naomi Watts plays the mother of this group, and she and the oldest son are the main focus. Her performance has been nominated for an Academy Award and it is understandable why she was singled out. She is strong and terrified all at once. The stunts and makeup must have been grueling, and it is hard to imagine the difficulty of being able to act in those contexts. Her performance is primarily in non-verbal expression of love and determination. Although she has dialogue, it is not the words that anyone will remember from her performance, it is the anguish of her scream as she clings to a tree. It is the breathless facial expression she gives to her son in the overcrowded and frustratingly chaotic hospital. The look of hopeful gratitude she conveys to everyone who helped her and her son is an expression that I imagine all of us would have when aid is offered to the desperate.

Ewan MacGreggor plays the anguished dad. He is also excellent but with far less screen time and a story that does not have the same traumatic physical action to it, I think he has been overlooked when passing out praise. I have to say however, that the real star of this film is the young actor Tom Holland, who portrays "Lucas" the oldest son. Much of the film rides on our ability to relate to the story through the eyes of a ten year old boy. His actions are heroic at times, and when there was selfishness, he made it seem like the natural reaction of a scared child. There are long periods of time where the camera lingers on his face and sagging shoulders. This is not a performance that is overly emotive. His tears come at appropriate moments and do not overwhelm the story. This is what a great child performance looks like.

The other two children are also very good but they largely get by on the sweet faces and innocent manners of kids everywhere. Geraldine Chaplin turns up for one brief memorable scene and she gives the boy playing the middle son an opportunity to shine and make us care even more about this family. While the family is the center of the story, in the background we can see the story of thousands of others. The details are not delved into, but the difficulty is something we will be able to related to. This is a true horrifying story of survival. It did not need to be tweaked to bring the drama to home and change the label to "Inspired by True Events". That human beings of any type managed to crawl out of the debris left by this powerful event is amazing. That a family of five, including three small children, survived, got lost, and separated and found each other again is Impossible.

Spiders 3D

Here is a film that sneaks into theaters today and will be in your video store in a month. It is a movie that is clearly planned for a straight to DVD release but probably had contractual obligations to play in a certain number of theaters to get the kind of promotion and upfront fees it needed. I went and looked and even BoxOffice Mojo did not have the number of screens it was playing on. Spiders (3D) is being played off pretty quickly because that is the way the movie business has gone. It won't be long until all these kinds of movies never play in real theaters, just home theaters.

I have to say from the standpoint of a guy who grew up in the 1960s and 70s, that's too bad. Creature feature ought to be enjoyed in a theater on a Saturday afternoon with a bag of popcorn and three of your buddies. Spiders (3D) is not a self aware camp classic. There is no tongue in cheek here. I saw a trailer for a very similarly themed film called "Big Ass Spider" and it looks like it will fall in the same venue as "Snakes on a Plane"or "Eight Legged Freaks". Movies with a high level of irony and hipster sensibilities. Spiders (3D) is not hip, it doesn't try to be funny or fresh. In fact in some ways the story is downright creaky. All it does is tell a traditional Sci Fi/Horror story for a brisk ninety minutes. It has a lot of traditional elements to it and it is exactly the kind of movie that you might have found as a second feature attached to the main attraction in a 1970's film release.

 Basically, spiders from an experiment on a old Soviet Space Station, end up in the subways of New York and bad things start to happen. There have been dozens of movies with giant creature themes and almost all of them have been entertaining in one way or another. The giant bunnies in "Night of the Lepus" are so silly that you will laugh at the movie. The swarm of spiders in "Arachnophobia" will make your skin crawl as you are laughing and squealing. The giant ants in "Them" are clunky but creepy for the time, and the bugs that attack the Earth in "Starship Troopers" are swarming with CGI badness. "Spiders" has some of the same kinds of thrills but they are all very mild. Early on we get the creepy from the way spiders move and the idea of them planting eggs inside a body. In the later parts of the movie we are treated to Godzilla style spectacle with Army and Air Force units fighting against the arachnids. None of it is very gruesome, this is not a spatter zone like Troopers was. This is just fighting back against big spiders.

 Two very traditional archetypes are present here. First you have the splintered family being tested and restored by adversity. The lead characters are a NY Transit official and his soon to be ex-wife public health inspector, who discover the nature of the threat. They have a tween daughter that is neglected but loved and an older babysitter who plays protector when the mom and dad can't be around. The second cliche in the movie is the military conspiracy which wants to weaponize the species. There is a hard headed colonel who leads the network of evil insiders against the general population but also the troops themselves. Nether story goes very far, they are just convenient frameworks upon which the story can rely to move to the next scene. There are no surprises in the resolution of the story, there is not a high level of fear, just a little bit of creepy.


The film was competently made, none of the actors seemed amateurish even when the story and dialogue seemed to be. The special effects are mostly screen work and CGI with a few practical on camera prop pieces. I did think there was a nice shot early on in the film when the one of the small spiders aggressively attacks a rat in the subway tunnel as the bureaucrats are talking in the background. This is a family friendly little science fiction flick that was put together on a budget, tells a conventional story and finishes quickly. It would be a very high class film for the SyFy network, but it would only rate graveyard hours on most cable networks. Don't go out of your way to find it, you can show it to the ten, eleven and twelve year olds in your house on a rainy day. Afterwards you can play a game of "Monopoly" or "Clue" and have a safe,pleasant evening at home.

Kirkham A Movie A Year

I posted on the Letterboxed Site but some of you may not be on there. Somehow I managed to make it to 55 and I can't quite believe it. To show you how long a period of time that is, I have listed one movie from every year that I have been alive. These are not necessarily the best movies of the year. In fact many of them are obscure, but I loved them at one time or another and I would heartily endorse all of them and be willing to argue the point. As I did with my James Bond List in November, I simply cut and pasted screen shots of the Letterboxed page. I will also include a link if you want to see it closer.

 

 55 years of movies on Letterboxed.

Warm Bodies

OK, here is an analogy for you; "Twilight" is to Vampires, as "Warm Bodies" is to Zombies.I've never been one of the haters of the "Twilight" series, but I never understood why the brooding emo kids were supposed to be vampires. The only thing they had in common with traditional vampires was that they drank blood. Well the only thing the Zombies in this movie have in common with traditional Zombies is that they eat brains. I don't see an automatic problem with playing with the conventions of a genre, but the whole purpose of this movie is to take those conventions and sweep them away, to tell a story that has almost nothing to do with the original set up. It feels like more of a cheat here than it did in the teen werewolf/vampire soap opera. It was a fun idea for the duration of the trailer, but for the length of a movie it kind of irritated me.

Every few years or so, Shakespeare's immortal tragedy Romeo and Juliet, is reinvented for the cinema. Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrman, stay true to the text and visualize the story differently. "West Side Story" turns it into a musical, "Valley Girl" turns it into a teen romance without the tragedy. I had missed the name of the female character in this movie until she returns back to the protected compound of uninfected humans. As soon as she was greeted by her name, I saw all the connections to the Shakespeare play. "Warm Bodies" is Romeo and Juliet with Zombies, but pretending to be something else. Frankly it is less a romance than a comedy, and the story, as classic as it may be is not quite strong enough to hold all the disparate elements together.

The leads are attractive enough and the unusual nature of their romance is played up.Nicholas Hoult was the star of one of my favorite films from the previous decade, "About a Boy". From the gawky kid he played in that movie he has grown to be the kind of handsome young man that girls might swoon over, even if he is dead. Of course he never really is, at least not from our understanding of zombies. If you are willing to accept that Zombies can be sentient, then I guess there is a chance that this will work. The internal monologue of the Hoult's lead character, "R", is funny in a self knowing and mocking way. Of course it immediately undermines all the horror elements of the movie and there is never a single moment of horror or fright. There is one jump, but it has to do with our lovers as hero survivors rather than the Zombie Apocalypse. This movie is really designed as a Valentines Day date movie without Nicolas Sparks.

You really have to shut your brain off on this one. There is an early joke about how slow the zombies move, but five minutes later, "R" is running with Julie down corridors and across airport tarmacs. Zombies can't talk, according to the internal monologue, but again, just a few minutes later, "R" is doing Tarzan speak with Julie. Except for the one incident of brain eating, he could easily be the cute mute boy next door and not a zombie. Most of the humans in the "safe zone" act more zombie like than the "corpses" they supposedly fear. With the exception of Julie, and her cute best friend (and nurse, wink, wink Billy) no one seems to be doing much in the human world. Her father, the head of the security for the "safe zone" is played by John Malkovich, in the least John Malkovich way possible. There is nothing about his character that suggests that Malkovich was a good casting choice. It is a waste of a good actor with cache to spare in oddball parts. Here he could be anybody.

If you are a fifteen year old girl, you will like the film for the cute boy and girl love story. If you are anyone else, I hope you go with a fifteen year old girl because otherwise the experience will be wasted on you. Two or three small laughs in the beginning, followed by an hour of "what the hell is this?" and then an attempt to turn the death of Romeo and Juliet into the restoration of life to our main character. The word "exhumed" is used as a punch line for a lame bit in the movie, but it is prophetic, because after I saw this, I needed to be "exhumed" from the stupor that it induced.

Bullet to the Head

I saw a couple of sites that were hating on this film. I can't understand why they would despise it so much, unless they were expecting all the punchlines from the trailer that did not show up. Two weeks ago, Schwarzenegger returned to the action scene with a movie tailored to his age and cut to fit his style. Sly is doing pretty much the same thing here, only it looks like they cut down on the humor and built up the violence to make it work for his style. Arnold has always been a little bit of a cartoon, so some of the over the top gags were appropriate there, but Stallone is much more based in the real. His milieu has always been gritty. From Rocky to Rambo and a dozen others, Sly films have always hung around the edges rather than in the glamor. "Bullet to the Head" is pretty much a grim action feature that follows a standard pattern and provides a huge dose of violence. That's it, pretty much end of story.

Stallone did not write or direct this one like he did with the last of his Rambo, Rocky films and the first Expendables. He appears to be an actor for hire here and that means his input may have been somewhat limited. He does not exactly walk through the role, but there is nothing in this that feels the least bit personal to him. The movie was directed by the once great Walter Hill. He has had a hand in dozens of movies that I have loved, but he too appears to simply be working here not invested. The movie was competently shot, in focus and used standard modern film making techniques, but nothing about it stands out. Except for Stallone's age and the amount of blood on the screen, this could have rolled out in the highlight period of both their careers, the late 1980s.

Hill wrote the book on spinning the body cop formula off into new directions. In "48 Hours" the buddy was a con, sprung from jail to help on the case (it helped immeasurably that the con was Eddie Murphy in his breakout role). In "Red Heat" the buddy was a policeman from the Soviet Union, and the Austrian Oak adds charisma to Jim Bulushi as the American cop. Here, Stallone plays the odd man out. He is the criminal enforcer who teams up with an out of town Korean American cop in New Orleans. Sung Kang is an actor I did not recognize, but when I looked him up it turned out I'd seen him in three or four films. Unfortunately, the fact that I could not remember him is indicative of his presence in this movie. There is nothing in his character that was special or fun and there was even less in the performance. Like Sly, he's just here to earn a paycheck. He does his job but does nothing to lift the movie.

Stallone is 67 years old this year. His body is pumped up and the veins in his arms pop in that style of most committed body builders. His face looks like it has aged, but normally. There are no obvious signs of the plastic surgery that many older performers suffer from. When people warn youngsters about tattoos, they often visualize the tattoo on a sagging body and wrinkled torso. I don't think the tats he sports in the film are real, but you would have a hard time using his physique as a warning to the teens thinking about body art. I had no trouble seeing him as a still tough guy, even at that age. Late in the story he has a one on one fight with a much younger and I think bigger opponent, played by recent Conan star Jason Momoa. Their fight is still believable, or at least as believable as you are going to get when guys are facing off with axes.

The axes actually reminded me of maybe the worst Stallone vehicle I ever saw, "Cobra". In that film, a cult of serial killers are after Stallone and there was a scene where they held axes in each hand and clanged them together like the thundersticks you might see at a baseball game. It was stupid there, and only slightly more real in the current film The ridiculous nature of the face off gets the one good joke in the movie as Sly's character wonders if he and his opponents are supposed to be vikings. That's about it for the jokes. I did appreciate the irreverent politically incorrect insults that his character throws at the Asian American cop. It's not that they were good, or funny, it's just that it seems like the way a person like his character would speak. It isn't cleaned up to avoid insulting anyone, it simply shows the mindset that his criminal lives in. If there was something in the movie other than Stallone to recommend it, I missed it. This is another one that is what you expect it to be. Not as entertaining as "the Last Stand", but very much a workable action flick for as couple of hours. I want Stallone to keep working, but if he makes more movies like this, his career will return to the icebox times of the early 2000s, and no body wants that.

Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters

Back in the 1990s, in Southern California, movies were preceded not only by trailers for future films but ads for the Los Angeles Times. I think there must have been some exchange agreement with the papers and the theaters, as an advertising tradeoff. Since the internet took off as the main source of info about show times and theater locations, the ad revenue dropped and the newspaper stopped being advertised in front of every movie playing in So Cal. In the ten years before they disappeared, the paper promoted it's unique position as the Company Town paper by making the ads focus on the movie business. Many of the ads had nice bits of info about movie making and some of the personalities involved. In celebration of the past, as a service to any of my readers from other parts of the world or from more recent times, I am including these snippets in my reviews for the rest of the year. In honor of today's film, you got the LA Times movie ad featuring some special effects using guns, and bows and arrows. This is especially appropriate given the nature of today's movie.




The Red Band Trailer that you see above, was the deciding point for me in seeing this film. Prior to this trailer, the movie looked like some CGI action flick that had a weird subject and a silly point of view. Once I saw the trailer, I did not really change my mind but I did add on to my expectation, violent blood splatter and reckless disembowelment. Once I knew that was coming I was on board. Sunday mornings decapitating witches and eviscerating them as they fly through the forest, yeah, that's more like my cup of tea. In all truth, it is not as gruesome as it might have been, and the CGI takes the edge off a lot of the gore, but for a stupid idea with a stupid script it pretty much lived up to my low hopes.

The idea of taking a fairy tale and turning it into the basis of an action film is not new. Heck, last year we had "Snow White and the Huntsman" and twenty five years ago there was "The Company of Wolves". The difference here is that it is all being played for laughs. Nothing is supposed to be serious, from the narration to the weaponry of the leads, to the obvious tip off of a 3D promotional tag. The very opening of the film takes a shot at a long gone cultural reference, pictures of missing children on a milk carton. Of course they are bottles of milk, the pictures are drawings and they are tied onto each individual bottle. If the script could have kept up with that tone a little more, this movie would work a lot better and be more fun. As it is, not too long after it gets started, it begins to take itself too seriously. Sometimes that is the story, which involves white witches and black witches in a struggle for dominance. Sometimes it is the characters who are not given enough to say and are reacting more than attacking. This movie needs a big shot of Bruce Campbell to make it work, instead we get Jeremy Renner. Renner is a real actor, slumming in a piece of schlock, probably for a change of pace and a nice paycheck. An while he is amusing, he simply does not have the comic persona a piece of silliness like this needs.

I do think I made a mistake in not seeing this in 3D. Usually, 3D is an unnecessary addition to a movie that needs something to pump it up. Here it probably is justified by the pieces of bloody body parts that would come flying off the screen. The sprays of CGI blood would probably be more enjoyably over the top in a third dimension. The slo mo shots of arrows, axes and other weapons would be more savory and memorable in 3D. I think I would definitely have enjoyed the resolution of the curse of hungering for things that crawl in the earth a little more. That scene did have one shot that helped Renner establish a bit more comic potential, but that trait is never developed fully and Hansel simply comes across as grumpy most of the time. The truth is there is not much logic in any of it. Characters come in and out of the story, they act for reasons that are never clear, and the witches have no personalities except the one played by Famke Janssen. Most of her performance is growling scowling CGI rendered witch talk. There is just not enough character to care one way or the other.Gemma Arteton is a slight personality with an even slighter character to play in Gretel. Again, there is not any real need to look at this as a measure of ability for any of these actors, the script and film making treat them as figurines to be played with and moved through the story to get to the next action shot.

By all means go and see this if you have a screening in 3D and money burning a hole in your pocket. It won't hurt you or insult you, but it won't make your juices flow much either. There is potential for great pulp stupidity in this film, but it can't quite catch fire like all the  witches need to do in the story. There are things about it that could work, but I don't have the energy or need to talk about them. This is just another filler until better stuff shows up, move along.

Mama

After we saw this movie this morning, Amanda and I had a discussion about the horror films we had seen recently. We usually are willing to go, and usually sorry we went, or at least disappointed. This morning has not broken the trend. We both agreed that the last time we saw horror films that worked for us was "The Crazies" and "Drag Me to Hell." Both of those are a couple of years old now, and we are still plugging along hoping for something that will give us a shiver and be glad that the lights are on. "Mama" starts off with great promise but ultimately fails to deliver.

The opening of this movie is maybe the best set up for a horror film I can remember in a dozen years or so. Before any ghosts or spirits make an appearance, we are horrified to see the desperate acts of a man at the end of his rope. Too often this story plays out in the real world and it is not an entertaining one. The anguish that the man feels can never justify what has happened but there is a sense of understanding of the emotional turmoil a person can go through. The little girl who plays the three year old Victoria in the story is just perfect. It is hard to say if she is a good actor, but in the part she delivers the right kind of innocence and trust and anxiety all at the same time. The sequence ends with the arrival of our apparition and everything has hooked us in for a strong horror experience. When the story picks up five years later, there is another very creepy sequence with the discovery of the two sisters and their return to the world. After this, things begin to fall apart.

It is a cliche to say less is more, especially in a horror film. Everyone is aware that the visualization of the evil spirit or monster can almost never live up to the imagination that we have been working on. Short shots in shadows and quick glimpses in a mirror or across a doorway are usually good for making the audience anxious and a little bit scared. Unfortunately, we need more for the story to pay off. Sometimes, like in the film "The Others" or "The Sixth Sense", the ideas get really good and surprising and they work to frighten us. Most of the time we end up with something like this, where the horror images are the focus of the last third of the story and they are a let down. A previously, nearly invisible antagonist becomes visible and then there is a confrontation that just does not work.

One of the reasons that the frights don't work as well here is that the audience has become jaded by CGI effects. The artists who put this material together can visualize almost anything, and as a consequence they do. When those images are so removed from anything bordering on "realistic", the image simply becomes a grotesque cartoon. That's what happens here, the spirit appears and then we get a chase film featuring a dark version of an animated nightmare. Slasher movies have a edge on ghost stories because when the fright comes it feels real. I think a ghost story can get away with being dismissed if it can achieve a level of believability. Unfortunately, "Mama" just can't do this. The unrealistic nightmare story of a movie like "Phantasm", feels more real despite the fact that it does not take place in an ordinary universe. Look, there are two or three good jumps, and a disturbingly real looking fall down a staircase, but the payoff feels weak.

Story does in these movies as well. There is always a complicated explanation and then a sequence of revelations that tell us what kind of result to expect. "Mama" has some nightmare visualizations that never amount to anything. The Uncle has a vision of his dead brother, which forces him out of his hospital bed to investigate. Once he arrives at the scene that he envisioned, nothing happens. The psychiatrist in the story is freaked out enough to stop his session in the comfortable home where the developing family is living, but he is not so perturbed as to refrain from going into the woods alone, into a spooky house in search of a ghost, in the dark. The vengeful spirit is pursuing a secret agenda. The psychiatrist find a key part of the puzzle from a government clerk who helped him earlier with other information. Unfortunately, instead of a creepy story being revealed in a mundane file drawer in an office building, the director (and co-screenwriter) chooses to try to amp it up by hiding this key piece of physical evidence in a warehouse that looks like it was lit by the same interior decorator of Hannibal Lecter's cell. It is also so cavernous that I would not be surprised if the Arc of the Covenant wasn't also hidden there.

Jessica Chastain's character Annabelle is the most real person in the story. She is ambivalent about participating in the recovery of the girls. She resents the life changes it imposes on her and sometimes she is just a bitch to her boyfriend. Yet she is also a woman who can empathize with two frightened little girls. We can see a potential for a loving relationship and that part of the story works. The idea that jealousy in a spirit might provoke danger is an interesting one, but it is not consistently followed. The spirit here acts in ways that are capricious and have nothing to do with the back story. The resolution makes no sense and the creep factor was gone twenty minutes before the story was over. There are a couple of scares but nothing to make me say, "I Remember Mama".

Bond Memorabilia from USC Four Years Ago

The weekend we went to the Bond Festival and got to see Barbara Broccoli, Michael Wilson, Marc Foster, Tom Mankewitz, Richard Kiel, and Maude Adams, we also stopped by this lobby display in the cinema building on campus.

DIRECTOR/WRITER MICHAEL WINNER DEAD AT AGE 77 - Celebrating Films of the 1960s & 1970s

DIRECTOR/WRITER MICHAEL WINNER DEAD AT AGE 77 - Celebrating Films of the 1960s & 1970s

Somewhere Charles Bronson is getting ready for his next great action film.

The Last Stand

Trying to save a little time this evening because we had another engagement, so just a quick video blog on this film.

Top Ten Moments I Experienced in Movies in 2012

Let's face it, not all movies are worthy of two hours of our attention, where as some are deserving of even more time. It is often the brief moments in a film that redeem it or that make us remember the rest of the film fondly. I selected ten moments from movies this year that reached up and slapped me. They are sometimes poignant, sometimes harsh and sometime hysterical. Here are ten moments to remember 2012 by.

10. The U.S.S. Missouri makes a guest appearance in Battleship. 

I know that the movie was crap. I also am aware that it is widely despised. I however may be one of the few who overlooked it's shortcomings and enjoyed it for the popcorn junk snack it was. The one part that worked for me was when the old-timers launch the Missouri back into battle. Of course it is impossible, but the AC/DC music, the shots of Big Mo, turning into the ocean, and the real heroes of WW2 jumping to duty gave me a rush of patriotic adrenaline which made me happy.

9. The Hunger Games: Katniss Salutes Rue and District 11

This is the point of the story where Katniss goes from a competitor trying to survive, to a real icon of a revolution. Her brief alliance with Rue and the honor that she shows her, stirs the residents of District 11 to a mild riot. Just the sort of thing the games are supposed to prevent. This is the match that lights up the rest of the stories and makes the material rise emotionally. It brought a tear to my soft-hearted eye and made me care a lot more about the stuff that was going on on the screen.

8. Prometheus: Dr. Shaw Gives Herself a C-Section

This was the most tense and horrifying scene in the movie. This is the only moment that Prometheus rises to the level of the original Alien. We are terrified by the concept that our own bodies can harbor the dangers we most fear, and it takes an act of incredible will for Elizabeth Shaw to take the action she does. The scene is gory, suspenseful and the one truly scary moment in a film that needed more moments like this.

7. The Grey: Liam Neeson Stands Up to A Wolf by Getting Ready to Punch It

If you have ever seen the inspirational poster of the mouse flipping off the eagle as it is about to get torn to shreds, you will understand the impact of this moment. Neeson's character is not going to go quietly into the night. He is going to kick and scream and fight for every moment of life he can get. Whether it could ever work is beside the point. What matters here is that his character is going to try anything he can think of to keep living. This deeply philosophical story is summarized nicely by the deceptive idea that this is an action picture where Liam punches wolves. The real question is whether or not we should bother? This film answers that question very clearly.

6. The Dark Knight Rises: Batman Re-Appears After Eight Years of Hiding

The moment we waited for in the movie. Batman comes out of hibernation and begins to fight for Gotham again. The surrounding areas during a police chase all go dark, and then, to the pounding score, Batman drives out of the darkness on the Batpod, to run down the criminals who just invaded Wall Street. Like the moment from the Michael Keaton Batman film, when he opens his safe and reveals Batman's costume, we suck in our breath and wait for the fireworks to begin. It is a signal that our story is about to take off.

5. The Avengers: Hulk Smash Puny God

Sometimes the super intelligent industrialist, the heroic warrior, the Norse demi-god, and all the SHIELD agents just over think their approach. The Hulk just gets right to the point and we all laugh our asses off and applaud. This is a moment of genius, like Indy pulling his gun and shooting the swordsman, the direct approach is often the most effective.

4. Django Unchained: Dr. Schultz is simply done with Calvin Candy

 Christoph Waltz's character has outwitted a hundred idiots in his career.  He has used cleverness and language to move successfully into his career as a bounty hunter. He is even as gracious as he can be when he gets outwitted. He is simply not going to knuckle under to a stupid request to be treated as a civilized person, by the lowly scum of DiCaprio's Calvin Candy. Even though they have achieved their goal and could safely leave by giving in, Schultz simply draws a line in the sand, and the fireworks that result are the orgy of violence we have waited for through the whole movie.

3. SKYFALL: 007 Has Two Great Moments in One Movie

OK, maybe it is a cheat, but It is my favorite movie of the year and I did not put these at the top, so indulge me a little. In the pre-title action sequence, Bond makes a daring leap from a back hoe that is collapsing on top of an escaping train car. As he jumps into the passenger car, he takes a moment to pay attention to his stylish appearance. Like Connery pulling off a wetsuit to reveal a tuxedo, or Roger Moore straightening his tie after flicking a bad guy off a building, this was a moment straight from the hearts of 007 lovers everywhere.

As a fan of James Bond since I was seven or eight, there are many iconic moments, characters and gadgets that I recall with great adoration. In closing the second act and beginning the third in Skyfall, the film makers bring back an old ally in a reveal that frankly gave me a little too much of a charge. Thankfully the only body excretion was a tear.

 

2. Piranha 3DD: The Greatest Line in 2012 (Maybe in Movie History)

This is not a great film, but I was entertained. I will never be able to erase from my memory (nor do I want to) this terrific piece of dialogue.

 

1. Les Misérables: I Dreamed a Dream

There were a lot of things I did not enjoy about Les Miz, but all of them are forgiven because we got Anne Hatheway doing the key song from the play. If she is not the Academy Award Winner for Best Supporting Actress, I may never watch the awards again.

 

 

 

Gangster Squad

I selected the trailer above because it still has a brief clip in it that makes reference to a shootout in the Chinese Theater, a scene that was removed from the film and caused this movie to be moved to January after the Aurora CO. shooting. I understand the sentiment but it seemed to be a little overdone to me. The film probably is a good fit for a January release when action fans are starved for a little love. The trailer makes it very clear that this is an action popcorn film and not really an attempt to make a classic crime film. The idea of machine gun shootouts on the streets of L.A. is clearly an invention of a creative mind. The story of how the LAPD kept organized crime to a minimum in the city has been covered before by better films like L.A. Confidential and Mullholland Falls. This is basically a pulp version of that tale and fidelity to the actual history goes right out the window.

There is not really any originality to the story or the film making. The plot is basically "The Untouchables" transferred to the West Coast, and instead of Robert DeNiro chewing the scenery, we get Sean Penn.  Of course in the DePalma film, we got some interesting character development and some actors who had charisma in spades. Here there are cryptic references to the characters past but almost no follow through on why any of that matters. Josh Brolin is a good tough guy but he has no personal development in the film, just the back story that is created for his character. Ryan Gosling I suppose is a stand in for Sean Connery, but with a love interest and lacking 30 years of gravitas to back it up. From the pregnant wife to the doomed members of the squad, and even the death of an innocent bystander, everything about this movie is predictable. There are some attempts to put a California Dream spin on the story, and that may be the right way to go, but anytime there is something that resembles a theme being raised, it is immediately overtaken by a shootout of some sort. The California Paradise idea is a good one because this was the land of opportunity after the war. Thousands were flocking to the Southland, to take advantage of  wide open spaces and the fantastic weather. That criminals would be among the immigrants is not surprising. What is a surprise is that the only hint that this criminal intrusion into SoCal was having was dead kids and kidnapped wanna be starlets. The details of the rackets are not explored, we just get histrionics from Penn's Mickey Cohen.

My parents were part of that wave of immigrants. They came out here in 1947, and got started in the entertainment business like so many others. The nightclubs and bars and hot spots shown in the film, all have a very authentic feel to them. My daughter took the train into Union Station for a year after she graduated from but continued to work at USC, and it still looks like the 1940s. Clifton's cafeteria is used as a set, and they probably did not have to do much more than take the newspapers out of the racks to make it look like it belongs in the era. I'm pretty sure the scene in the Mexican restaurant was shot at El Cholo, and it looks exactly the same. All the old neighborhoods of East L.A. and Pasadena, as well as large sections of the Fairfax district, still resemble the suburban paradise that vets were looking for.  It looked to me like the Chinatown sequence was done on a soundstage, but the reproduction from the long standing main square in the area was tip top. Some of the daytime shots of the city, with large sections of empty hillsides are clearly CGI, those spots were being filled in with new homes when I was a kid. While there may be a few blank spots here and there, the crowded hillsides don't resemble the spacious vistas of the late 40s and early 50s. The clothes, and cars and general language of the film are all accurate and it is a big draw for the audience. Those of us raised on the film noir of Hollywood, lust for the days when men wore hats that made them look sharp instead of like shlumps. Women dressed up when they went out, and all the nightspots were decorated with neon and deco themes. The vision of a gangster wielding a machine gun harkens back to Hollywood's heyday of Warner Brothers gangster films, populated by Cagney, Bogart and Robinson. The film makers know this is what we are looking for, but it happens so often in this movie that each time feels less dramatic. By the climax of the film, it is just one more shootout in a nostalgic location with the weapons used more in the movies than in real life. There was one shot of a bad guy with a Tommy gun in each of his hands. This owes more to John Woo than Howard Hawks. I think because so many locations harken back to those days, and they are iconic from movies or collective memory, we will continue to get films set in this city, but at that time period.

Brolin is stoic and determined, Gosling is wain and smouldering, and Sean Penn is over the top. Robert Patrick gets the best scenes and lines, but he is not in the story as much as Connery's old timer was in "The Untouchables". Emma Stone is really very pretty, but she and Gosling don't have the chemistry that they had in last years, "Crazy, Stupid, Love". Her part feels tacked on and underdeveloped. The other guys on the Gangster Squad, could have had something to do that might have made the story more profound, but every time an idea pokes it's head up, the shooting starts again. Michael Pena is in this movie for no reason, and Giovani Ribisi and Anthony Mackie, get only a little time to register. I always love the disclaimer at the end of a movie that says this is a work of fiction and it is not based on any person or location. That's silly, the LAPD headquarters building is named after the Police Chief played by Nick Nolte here. They slip in a reference to a more recent chief by having Darryl Gates as his driver and the guy Parker uses to bring in Brolin's character. I know they want to avoid lawsuits, but when the movie is all based on Location (LA) and real people (Mickey Cohen and Chief Parker), it is ridiculous to deny a link.

I liked this movie pretty well for what it is; a slam bang action piece with a cool setting. They overdo the shootouts and violence. The characters are not given much chance to develop past their archetypes. The city looks great and the music is good (even the segments copped from Ennio Morricone's score for "The Untouchables"). There are no story surprises and very little tension. There are plot-holes galore, but don't worry about it because the plot is just a chance to play cops and robbers in a cool setting. No one except the set dresser, art directors, costumers and make up people will be looking at this with a huge amount of pride. There is nothing embarrassing here, there is just a lack of something to care about or any originality. If you do go to see it, stick around for the credits. They play over some beautiful postcards of Southern California from that era, and you get a sense of how well they nailed the look, without getting much else right.

"It's A Major Award"

OK, maybe not a major award but it is an nice acknowledgement from one of the blog pages that I frequent. Nick over at the Cinematic Katzenjamer included me in his first annual Awards poll on his site. I guess I was a big enough pest in his posting sections to qualify as a know it all. The category I was in was "Most Likely to Teach You Something". Old guys like me acquire bits and pieces of information if we live long enough and then we are lucky to pass it on.  Fortunately, I have found some folks on line who share my interest in movies, both good and bad. What is nice is that I tied in this category with a guy who's web site is a lot more organized than mine is (and I suspect he has a lot more breadth than I do in some genres). I'm sure I benefited from the support of my readers and those on Nick's site that I have been lucky enough to add something to their knowledge. I am in awe of the effort that all these other folks put into their blog pages. If I had the skill and time, I'd wish my site was half as cool as Public Transportation Snob, Fog's Movie Reviews or the CinematicKatzenjamer. Still let me thank all of you that have supported me and this project. Let's have a great 2013.

Texas Chainsaw 3D

OK, you know there is no reason for you to see this if it does not interest you in the first place. Decent human beings and discerning movie goers will wisely stay away. This review will simply be for those depraved horror fans and goremeisters who wonder whether there is anything here for them to lap up. If you fall into either of those categories, there is a small amount of consolation for you here. All others should wait for a more varied horror film down the road. I will say that the trailer for the "Evil Dead" remake played with this, and although it was not the sick red band version that I saw on line, it still looks like something worthy.

I usually do not read reviews on other sites before I see a movie, because I want the impressions that I share to be mine. In this case I have made an exception and there is a reason that I mention this. "Fog's Movie Reviews" posted his evaluation yesterday, and I knew I was going to see this today regardless of what he said. In the talk back section one of his reader's mentioned a set of standards that his father uses for judging movies like this. I thought it was a sweet set of criteria to use, so I am going to borrow it and use it here to talk about my reaction the the film. His first standard is "Was it A Jumper?", how many times did it make you jump in your seat? Texas Chainsaw has several moments that attempt to get us to leap up out of fright. From my own personal reaction it worked 2 and 1/2 times. The first jump was not in a suspense scene at all, and it introduces an extra character to the story. I think it works because it was so out of context. The second jump I had, was right in context, I knew it was coming and it worked anyway. Looking into a dark area in a creepy basement, you know something is coming out of there, and it does, but like I said I bit and jumped a little. They go back to that well a couple of more times but do not get me to go with them. I added the 1/2 because even though the third shot did not get a jump, it was a slight intake of breath, and again, I knew it was coming.

The second question is “How’s the gore?” or is there a lot of gore? Is it realistic, or comedic?There was a fair amount of gore in the film. It is after all "Texas Chainsaw". The problem that I had was that the gore is not used in a suspenseful manner or for comedic effect. It usually occurs separate from the plot or the attacks on the victims. For example, it gives nothing away for me to tell you that at one point, "Leatherface" is clipping the fingers off of one of his victims, in the kitchen sink. The victim is already dead, we cut right to the shot and there was not dramatic intent, it was simply a gratuitous bit of gore, it served no point except to gross out the audience. If that is OK with you, then the gore quotient is probably high enough. At the very end, there is a pretty good sequence with a fight and the chainsaw and a giant meat grinder. This is the one place where the gore served a story point and satisfies a desire of the audience for an emotional reaction connected to the visceral.

The third criteria offered up by "Spikors" Dad is “How stupid is it?” How foolish is the comedy, or how horrible are the decisions that are made? There really is no comedy in the film. Not a single laugh to release tension and only a couple of laughs because the movie is so stupid. I don't like spoilers and I always try to avoid describing too much of the movie. I will simply say that there is a line that comes from our main heroine in that final sequence, when a secondary villain confronts our main antagonist, that is laugh out loud stupid. The movie tries to play both ends against the audience and this line shows a switch in  point of view that epitomizes why remakes are often problematic. When doing a movie like this, stick to the essentials and don't try so hard to set up an emotional backstory that will justify your sequel. There is plenty of stupidity preceding that line however, which makes all of the characters deserving of being carved up. Cops don't act like cops, rednecks treat everyone as if they are expendable, and characters lose their loyalty toward their friends because the story calls for it. I did like that some characters do change your original view of them before they are snuffed out, but I don't think this device is going to work for the main characters.

The best part of the movie was the opening summary of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which completely explains the events of the first film in the series in about three minutes during the credits. Everything that follows the truck death of the Sawyer brother from the original film, begins the process of trying to change the point of the movie. This seems inherently stupid when you already have a premise that works. I don't want to know what happened to Hannibal Lecter as a child to turn him into a monster, I want to know how he is going to act once he is that monster. I want to see how the victims are chosen, how they fight and how they die or escape. A pathological horror film is fine, but mixing it with a gore fest and then adding on characters that behave stupidly or inconsistently does not work well. Look, I did not hate the movie. It was actually pretty well made and directed. The script betrays all of the actors and the audience and that is the main downfall of this flick. The 3D is actually a good justification for seeing this. Chainsaws being thrust in your face is a lot more satisfying than watching the emotional turnaround of a horror franchise like this. 

The Traditional Top Ten List for 2012

Everyone has their criteria for deciding the best of the previous year. Not everyone explains the criteria they use. Some judge by quality of workmanship, others by their own personal enthusiasm, and some do an aggregation of  positives as a way of figuring out the top of the heap. My personal film going is not exhaustive enough to be definitive as to the best of the year. I get around to plenty of films, but many of the quality films slip under the timeline at the end of the year, or they played for limited times during the year and I missed them when they came out. For the last seven years, I have caught up with several Academy Award nominees at the AMC Best Picture Showcase, so although they did not make it into the yearly tally, I did get to see them in a theater. This year I saw sixty two new films that came out in 2012. In addition, I went to twenty other films, the ten at the BPS and another ten which were special screenings of classics. If I just used that as my standard, the best film I saw this year in theaters was Casablanca. So I limit my choices to ones that were originally released in the calendar year. While it is fun to challenge others and to be challenged to defend your own assessment of a single movie, I use my end of the year list for sharing with others my personal enthusiasms. I do not pretend that all of my choices are award worthy or superior to the things others might like. My list is "my list" of the movies I responded to the most positively during the year and at the end when comparing all of those responses. I hope you enjoy and feel free to post your own lists in the reply section.

10. Wreck It Ralph

I think animation is one of the great artistic mediums for people to work and to touch others. I have frequented animation festivals at different times in my life, and of course by personal library is stocked with Disney fare and Looney Tunes. Wreck it Ralph is a fresh story, set in a world I am not familiar with but one that I understand. The voice work was excellent and the design of the film was cotton candy amazing. I struggled a bit in choosing this over "ParaNorman", which is equally well designed. Ralph wins out because the story seems a little more coherent to me and it is accessible to everyone. ParaNorman might be a little creepy for smaller children.

9. Django Unchained

The last film I saw in the last year, was Quentin Tarantino's riff on the spaghetti western. It has a wicked sense of humor, and a grim view of the "peculiar institution" which was the focus of the civil war. All of this was accompanied by the florid violence and witty dialogue that  have become trademarks of a Tarantino film. He makes movies for people who geek out over movies, so in essence he makes them for me. Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz do the buddy movie with a vengeance. Leonardo DiCaprio is a late arrival in the film, but brings considerable talent to making his character a loathsome piece of crap that we can hardly wait to get smacked down. 

8. Paul Williams Still Alive

I was most aware of Paul Williams film music, but I knew he had a huge body of pop hits to go along with the movie work. When I was younger, he was everywhere: on TV, in Movies, doing concerts and acting. Somewhere along the way he virtually disappeared. As the title implies, he is still alive, and as a matter of fact was President of ASCAP, the music rights group for composers. He simply stopped being the attention seeking celebrity he had been for most of his career. A week before I saw the film, he made an appearance at a screening of Phantom of the Paradise and did some Q and A. I stayed and got a chance to shake his hand. At the documentary premier, he also did a Q and A and was equally charming. I enjoyed the film immensely, and while it may not be a traditional documentary, it was strengthened by the choices the director made and of course by the subject himself.

7. Lincoln

I had a little trouble with the story the film tells. I thought it focused on an odd period of time and an event that was less interesting than other episodes in the President's life. In fact the selection of the Constitutional Amendment as the fulcrum for the story actually reduces Lincoln's prominence in the film. Never the less, the performances are staggeringly good and Spielberg does his usual excellent job at making a film that matters. It was a movie that I admired more than I loved, but it was definitely one that is high quality and will bear repeating down the road.

6. Silver Linings Playbook

Another end of year addition to the quality list. The ads make it look more comedic than it was, and the romance is truer than you might expect. There are three great performances in the film and the depiction of someone with bi-polar addictive personality is harrowing. This is a movie that one can enjoy more afterwards than during, because several scenes are uncomfortably realistic and sad. Oh, and it has football in it.

5. The Grey

The earliest release on my list, this is a film that opened a year ago and may have slipped by the attention of the usual critics groups and Awards organizations. Liam Neeson stars in an action based mediation on what is valuable in life and where do we get the will to go on. Because it was promoted as an action film, many may be unaware about how deep the spirituality is in this movie. It is also a sharp, thrilling piece of entertainment. The title refers not only to the wolves that stalk our protagonists, but to the cloudy arenas in which we make our daily decisions. It is sad but also very moving.

4. Frankenweenie

I like Tim Burton style, even though I have not always liked Tim Burton movies. His roots as an animator have always pervaded his live action work. Here he is basically an animator again and it shows that this is his true medium. I have nothing but praise for this movie. Yes it is sentimental and it drips with all the Gothic imagery that Burton brings to the table. Unlike Dark Shadows earlier, here you have a real story and there is an emotional core to it. I must have seen the trailers fifty times during the lead up to this, and I thought I would be burned out on just the idea. Once the movie starts, the magic takes over and I remember why I love movies so much. All it takes is a boy and his dog.

3. Looper

This movie starts out with all kinds of things that I usually hate. A fictionalized world where criminals lead lives that are over the top and have no consequences to them. Sin City is one of the most annoying films I ever saw and this had every indication that it was going that direction. At some point however, there is a shift, the science fiction element in the story, forces us into a deeper look at the main character and the main character takes a deeper look at himself. This movie ends up going in a very different direction and I was really impressed by the way the story telling pulled us through some moral dilemmas and some exciting action set pieces as well. What started out as a piece of pop crap actually turned out to have something to say to us and to say it in a very interesting manner.

2. ARGO

In my opinion, the best picture favorite at the Academy Awards, and the best made drama of the year. ARGO takes a real historical event and turns it into a gripping suspense film, despite the fact that the audience is likely to know the outcome before they even step into the theater. The art direction, costumes and make up for this movie do not go over the top in making the late seventies a time period for mocking. Instead, they set the scene for a reliving in an honest way of a breathtaking piece of espionage success in the midst of what to that point was one of the biggest disasters in American Foreign relations. Good people doing their jobs are victims and they act in an heroic manner. They are rescued by other good people doing their jobs in a creative and dramatic fashion. As a bonus, Hollywood film production gets a short historical review with a realistic depiction of how the business worked at the time. By the way, all of the actors are very good and the ensemble performances by the six who escaped being taken hostage by the Iranians is noteworthy for the subltelty of their work.

1. SKYFALL

This will not be a surprise to anyone who knows me. I am a Bond fanatic and so it might be expected that 007 would put in an appearance. He does, but he does so not simply out of loyalty to the character. This is simply a terrific film. The story manages to update Bond and connect him to his roots all at the same time. It has the most spectacular action sequences of any film released this year and some rock solid performances. I got to participate in a blog-a-thon leading up to the release of this movie and the whole experience is the shining highlight of the last six months.. Even if you have never been a big fan of Bond, you will almost certainly enjoy this film. I saw it twice on opening day (including the midnight advance screening) and I have watched it twice more since then. It may only be up for one award at Academy time (Adele impresses me a lot), but this is a movie people will see over and over again for the next fifty years. I don't know who goes back and watched "The Hurt Locker", "Crash", or "The King's Speech", but everyone can watch a Bond film and enjoy it repeatedly. This is admittedly a selfish choice for the top of the list, but it is my list after all.