The 5 Most Overrated Movies of 2012

Just as each film year brings dozens of great movies that I eagerly recommend, it brings just as many terrible movies that no one should see. A tradition of most critics is to make a year worst list. This is very difficult for “amateur critics” like myself: It is hard enough seeing all the good movies of a year, it is near impossible to see all the bad ones. Anyway, I don’t want to spend too much time picking on indie movies with a small cast and small budget.
Therefore, I decided to make a “most overrated” movies list. Obviously I am not the first person to think this concept up, but I don’t think there are as many of these lists out there as there should be.
Chances are that most people will think I am crazy after reading this list. I get that. I probably agree with the status quo 90% of the time, but by writing so much about the 10% when I don’t, I seem like a lunatic. However, I feel that challenging the most popular movies will get the most discussion, and someone needs to address these issues.
These movies are ranked based on the margin between their perceived greatness and actual greatness. There ARE spoilers.

The Cabin in the Woods

I know, I know. Everyone says this movie was a flop. That is true; sort of. $42 million domestic gross with another $24 million overseas isn’t great, but it probably paid off the production budget (if not the marketing cost). And really, that is all it needed to do: This is exactly the kind of movie made for the DVD market. Just two years ago, Kick-Ass was declared a box office bomb when it grossed under $50 million domestically and under $100 million worldwide, but excellent video sales means that a high profile sequel will be arriving this year. Snakes on a Plane suffered a similar fate in 2006 (it grossed less than Cabin in the Woods): it was a flop in theatres but it remains popular to this day, with its famous line quoted all the time and even its direct-to-DVD knock-off (Asylum’s Snakes on a Train) doing decent business. This is how it works for these quirky, R-rated, genre-mashing, lowish-budgeted films. Cabin in the Woods will remain popular for years (if not decades), thanks to its high-profile names (secured at a low price when the film was completed back in the 2000s), its favorable reviews, and its legion of passionate fans.
And boy are those fans passionate. According to them, Cabin in the Woods isn’t just a fun horror-comedy, it completely revolutionized the film-industry. Joss Whedon (Cabin’s writer/producer) is a god, and this is his greatest creation.
Well, that just isn’t true. Cabin in the Woods didn’t revolutionize the film industry, it isn’t even particularly clever or funny. The whole concept is based around the idea that it is a classic horror story (five teen-agers spending the week-end in a cabin in the woods are attacked by zombies) which is being orchestrated by a group of government officials trying to appease the ancient ones (the audience) lest the world be destroyed. The film instantly identifies “cliches” like stoners always dying, promiscuous behavior being punished, and the “final girl” idea. Then it does...nothing to challenge these notions or explore these ideas. It just identifies them.
Well obviously they are standard pieces of horror films. That is because the horror genre, more than any other, is made up of morality plays. Characters who exhibit selfish or foolish behavior (and the protagonists of this film are experts in these skills) are punished. The more innocent characters have a chance at survival because they remained “pure.” If you don’t think the horror movies ideas of what is pure and impure are accurate then by all means make a movie explaining that, but don’t just simply point out the conventions as if they are meaningless coincidences that you are the first to discover. And by “you” I mean Joss Whedon.
The other problem with the film is one I am hesitant to mention as I fear it will turn off some of the Screened community and negate what I previously said. Please don’t let my next sentence keep you from seeing anything else I say. I take umbrage with the movie’s non-chalant attitude towards marijuana usage. Study after study shows it is dangerous, and furthermore it is illegal. I don’t think viewers should simply accept an unsubstantiated idea like “marijuana is harmless” being pushed onto them, just like the film industry did with racist ideals in the 30s and sexist ones in the 50s.

Amour

Amour was the little indie that could. Despite its dark subject matter, its low budget, its lack of a big-name star, and being in a foreign language (probably the four biggest risk factors for a movie), it managed to get nominations in both the Best Picture category (beating Skyfall and Moonrise Kingdom) and Best Director category (beating out Ben Affleck for Argo and Kathryn Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty).
That doesn’t mean this success was deserved.
Amour is phenomenally made. The acting is perfect, the direction flawless, the tension unrelenting, and every scene bursting with emotion and genuity. In the end, though, it is all wasted. Amour is a miserable, bleak, depressing movie. A look at a couple trying to cope with old age, Amour subjects its viewers to over two-hours of non-stop misery and offers no hope at the end. The climax is a ten minute mercy killing scene a la One Flew Over the Cuckoos’ Nest where the husband kills his near-catatonic wife with a pillow as a completely stationary camera watching on (with no musical score). Then it continues for another thirty freaking minutes with the man living with his wife’s body, writing her love letters, hugging a stray pigeon for comfort (it is implied the pigeon may have suffocated), and then finally dying.
The theme is that the picture shows real, genuine love, and also demonstrates the pains of aging and life in general. I guess it does. That doesn’t justify the emotional strain it puts on a viewers who are subjected to this kind of torture.

The Avengers

For all its witty dialogue, great acting, cool visuals, and...cool visuals, The Avengers is kind of stupid. Some would say this is because it is a comic-book movie. They are wrong. As a die-hard comic-book nerd, I have read hundreds of Avengers comics and can attest that it has character development, political and ethical scenarios, and exciting conflicts this movie never touches upon. 2012 was full of comic-book movies that were exciting, funny, and action-packed that also brought real emotion and real themes to the story (The Dark Knight Rises, Dredd, MIB3). The Avengers is stuck back in the 70s when superhero films were just empty-headed popcorn flicks.
Now, yes, I am the person who insisted Battleship was awesome (in this article) when it was just as (if not more) silly, stupid, and action-packed as The Avengers. However, The Avengers falls in a trap most adventure flicks fall into (and Battleship, miraculously, did not), which is to end up filling the void between explosions with morally questionable ideas. I am not a huge fan of the government, but I don’t think it is constructive to suggest that they would okay the nuking of New York City. Yeah, this isn’t meant to be taken seriously; but this gives credence to those who would break laws “here and there” because they don’t feel any sense of patriotism or affinity with the nation they live in.
And what exactly do the Avengers represent? Sure, they are funny and fun to be around, but unlike their comic book counterparts they are selfish, arrogant, impulsive, and altogether not admirable. At no point do any of the heroes act selflessly (aside from fighting in one battle to save Earth, and you never got the feeling they were in any real danger). In fact, they are constantly bragging and bickering and never seem to feel a sense of unity to SHIELD, the agency that seems to actually be behind defending the world. Now I’m all for unconventional, flawed heroes, but I think having them actually learn something or demonstrate an ideal we should strive for would be nice.
Controversy has surrounded writer/director Joss Whedon (the Cabin in the Woods guy)’s decision to replace War Machine, the badass partner of Iron Man who already had his origin story told in Iron Man 2, with the dorky Green Arrow-wannabe Hawkeye. Some have suggested it was racism (War Machine is black, whereas the closest The Avengers movie has to racial diversity is an eastern-European played by New York City-born Scarlett Johansson). Others say that it is because Hawkeye has appeared in more Avengers comics than War Machine (though Hawkeye didn’t join the team until two years after its creation). I think while the second reason probably played a big part, Whedon also chose to ignore War Machine because that character didn’t represent the ideals Whedon wanted in the movie. War Machine is a military veteran who has a strict code of honor and patriotism and even chases down his friends when ordered to: Apparently that isn’t a trait modern action films want to encourage.
Also, The Avengers loses points for the worst attempt to work the film’s title into a sentence since The Dark Knight.

21 Jump Street

Okay, so I get a lot of people found this funny. I really do. But please, please think for a minute of what the morals behind this R-rated action comedy are.
The original show (that the movie is based on) was a drama, where the cops are supposed to be cool and everything is taken seriously. It might have become a little ridiculous at times, but it still was really entertaining to watch the cops go undercover in high schools and take down villains. Plus, it served as great PSAs for teaching middle schoolers and high schoolers about the dangers of drugs and child pornography.
The new movie is a wish-fulfillment comedy, where two cops get to redo high school on an undercover assignment, and have no obligation to perform like normal adults or obey the law. I’m guessing that most people in this situation would act responsibly, since they are decent human beings. But not these two. They break into the evidence room, steal a ton of confiscated marijuana, and give it to the students to gain popularity. They host a giant party with tons of alcohol, where they are the only guests not underage. Every scene is just shock humor, and the joke is “wouldn’t we all do this if we could.”
No, we wouldn’t. Because actions have consequences. Tons of kids lives are screwed up every day by drugs and alcohol. Acting like they are harmless is stupid. As is mocking the idea of police who actually care about their jobs and do the right thing.
I get that I am probably the only person who will actually hate this movie (don’t worry: I hate it enough to make up for the rest of you). But I really hope--and this is not meant to sound arrogant or self-righteous, though it probably does--people actually take a look at what it all means.

Argo

When a movie opens with a voice-over, everyone groans. This is because it is lazy story-telling. The whole point of watching a movie instead of reading a book is that the movie is going to show you what happens, not just tell you. However, sometimes there is too much back-story to fit in a movie, so a voice-over is really necessary (Looper comes to mind). Generally, it doesn’t matter, since the movie is fiction and it is okay to take the narrator’s assessment of history at face value, since everything is made up to begin with.
This does not work when it is a true story. A five sentence summary of Middle Eastern politics from 1850 to 1979 is not sufficient information. It is a back-handed way of pushing a particular political interpretation into the public mind without offering any supporting evidence.
Argo continues this style of abandoning the truth (it is based on a plan to smuggle six Americans out of the Canadian ambassadors home during the Iran Hostage Crisis) throughout the film in order to support its own political agenda. For example, when the Americans--who worked in the US embassy--find shelter with the Canadian ambassador, the CIA official says that they were turned away by the British and Australian ambassadors. This isn’t true. In real life, they spent a day with the British ambassador, but when it became clear that Iranian extremists were about to break down the door and kill everyone, the British ambassador had them smuggled to the Canadian embassy at great risk to everyone in his home. Later on, there is an order given to the protagonist--CIA spy Tony Mendez--that he abandon his plan to quietly get the Americans out of Iran because if it fails, it will make the government look stupid, but having it end in a bunch of deaths from a shoot-out will look good to the press. Tony then tells the CIA to shove it and disobeys orders like he is John McClane. This never happened. Never happened.
What is particularly infuriating is the circular logic employed by the film’s fans. Why are there all these factual inaccuracies? Because a realistic story would be boring. Then what makes this more special than any run of the mill spy thriller? It is true.
That's all, folks.

Lincoln (A+)

Another election year has come to a close, and if there is one thing the year-long battle has reminded us of, it’s that we really hate politics. Democracy has an enormous amount of benefits, but it’s crucial flaw is that it requires the people to come together and debate, compromise, and battle until they can nominate/elect other people to spend their career debating, compromising, and battling for a solution that will make no one completely happy. In a way it would be better to have a dictator who says “this is the plan, and there is nothing you can do about it, so you might as well shut up.” Obviously, the above statement isn’t true (having a dictator with absolute power is bad idea) but sometimes it feels like it is. That is why to see exactly why democracy is a system we should stick with, it is important to see how it was handled at its absolute lowest point in US history: the American Civil War.

When Lincoln begins, the Civil War is in its fourth year. The surrender of the South is now an inevitability. The Emancipation Proclamation, which currently bans slavery in most of the South, was implemented as part of Lincoln’s war powers and once the war ends will be struck down by the Supreme Court. The Republicans, President Abraham Lincoln’s party, are planning to try and pass an amendment to the constitution that bans slavery completely. Most expect this to happen in the Spring, when there will be even more Republican seats in Congress. Lincoln makes the controversial decision to have the proposed amendment be voted on by the end of the current year. Lincoln fears that if he waits, the war will end and people, wanting a smooth reconstruction period, will prevent the amendment from passing. The problem is that voting now means that he will need far more votes from the rival party, the Democrats, since the newly-elected Republicans are not yet in office. To accomplish this, Lincoln makes the borderline illegal decision to offer important (and high paying) government jobs to out-bound Democrats in return for votes. He also resorts to postponing peace negotiations with the South, even though these negotiations would most likely lead to an near-unconditional surrender.

Aside from the Democrats, Lincoln is entangled in a political battle with Thaddeus Stevens, the 1800s equivalent of House Majority Leader, who is not only an abolitionist but is also openly in favor of black voting rights and (gasp!) interracial marriage. Stevens views Lincoln’s off-the-books deals and compromises with the Democrats as appalling and is already expecting a lengthy battle with the president over civil rights issues during the reconstruction. Lincoln fears Stevens outspoken attitude toward racial equality will scare off Democrats who could be persuaded to be in favor of the amendment; the president implores Stevens to deny his more radical beliefs until after the vote.

Munich scribe Tony Kushner made an interesting choice when writing Lincoln to base the plot around the six month period surrounding the passage of the amendment, not the life of Lincoln. It was undoubtedly the right choice. Banning slavery was the crowning achievement of Lincoln’s life, and the story surrounding that is by far the most interesting. Furthermore, by having the action focused in such a short time period it avoids the distant feeling created by the multiple time skips that most often accompany biopics. The audience feels all the tension, all the passion, and is completely engrossed in the moment, even if it did happen 150 years ago. Jumping around in time might have shown us more about Lincoln and what motivates him, but it wouldn’t have done justice to the goal Lincoln cared most about.

Of course, it is necessary to show some aspects of Lincoln’s personal life. Therefore, much emphasis is given to a subplot involving the president’s adult son, Robert, who desperately wants to fight for his country. Lincoln is using all of his connections to keep this from happening, which is a huge scandal, seeing as the draft Lincoln was adamant in passing has sent thousands upon thousands of unwilling young men to their deaths. The reason, at least according to the movie (and most historical sources back this theory up), is the toll it would take on Mary Todd Lincoln, who is already distraught over the death of two other sons (Edward and William, who both died as children from disease). This plot-line has little to do with the central story, but the phenomenal acting makes these scenes a personal element to what is otherwise a stuffy political drama.

Lincoln has an enormous cast, and dozens of respected actors (including Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Robert and Hal Holbrook, who previously played the role of Lincoln himself to great acclaim, as a senior Republican who views Lincoln as a bit of a radical) have juicy scenes. In bigger roles there are fantastic performances from Tommy Lee Jones, capping off an incredibly cinematic year by playing Stevens, and David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward, Lincoln’s closest ally. The best, outside of the job of playing Lincoln himself, is Sally Field as Mary Todd, with the help of Kushner’s screenplay she makes Todd a far stronger, more sympathetic, and genuine first lady then most are familiar with.

As for the president himself, that job goes to Daniel Day Lewis. Of all historical figures, Abraham Lincoln is perhaps the one which most frequently graces the silver screen, having been played by such legendary actors as Henry Fonda, Gregory Peck, David Morse, and Tom Hanks, but there is really no doubt that Lewis has given by far the best performance. We can never know for sure exactly what Lincoln was like, but Lewis’s genuine performance (aided by Oscar-worthy make-up work) is both commanding and personal. Even though this has been a particularly strong year for acting (seriously, watch Denzel Washington in Flight), it would be heinous for the Academy to snub Lewis an Oscar for this movie.
Like every movie, Lincoln does have flaws. John Williams’ score is mildly underwhelming (to me at least), which wouldn’t be a deal except that, this being a Spielberg film, it is used frequently. Also, the movie ends on a strong note with what would have been a perfect final shot--Lincoln walking down the hall of the White House to go to the theatre. However, it doesn’t end there: We get the Lincoln family reacting to the news of his death, a few speeches at his funeral, a flashback to a speech he gave on election day, and a few other well acted, well shot, big budget scenes that couldn’t be fit into the regular narrative. These is no way detract from the rest of the film, but they are dull and add nothing to the story. My guess is they were only included to ensure award nominations for Lewis and Field.

Steven Spielberg, possibly the greatest director of all time, helms Lincoln. As usual, his gorgeous imagery, flawless editing, and bold vision bring every aspect of Kushner’s phenomenal screenplay to life. There is no question, though, that Kushner is the mastermind behind it all, as the story is by far the most important part. Kushner has not only created a captivating character study and a meticulously detailed (and accurate) portrayal of 1860s current events, he has written a strong argument for why democracy works. The constant politicking surrounding the passage of the most important amendment have been forgotten, but by bringing them back the audience sees how all of the events in Congress that when they happen disgust people are just the way the people’s voice is carried out.
A great film doesn’t just talk about big issues, but also small, personal ones as well. Lincoln also has a captivating message of the importance of doing anything necessary for the right thing, even compromise. And it is all seamlessly blended with the political aspect of the story.

Lastly, it is crucial to mention that Lincoln is not just a film for Americans, just as The King’s Speech was not just for Brits and Invictus was not just for South Africans.
Lincoln is both personal and epic, and one of the best arguments for democracy ever given.

Red Dawn (A-)

Despite its considerable flaws, Red Dawn is an incredibly entertaining, satisfyingly patriotic action flick that perfectly captures the spirit of the original.

Red Dawn (2012) is a remake of Red Dawn (1984). The 1984 version told the story of a group of high schoolers and college kids who form a band of guerilla warriors after the Soviets invade the United States. The 2012 version takes place in modern times, so a Soviet invasion wasn’t going to cut it. The new bad guys: North Korea. When the movie was shot it was China, but they digitally changed the flags in post-production so as to make the foes Korean. Either way, it is kind of dumb: China’s entire economy is built around trading with the US, and North Korea lacks the manpower or weapons for a full scale invasion. However, showcasing a series of violent terrorist attacks orchestrated by people on the other side of the world wouldn’t have the same effect as the shot of commie comandoes parachuting from the sky. In order to explain the scenario, the movie comes up with a semi-plausible explanation wherein North Korea--using Chinese and Russian technology--is able to shut down every electronic device in the US, thus leaving it vulnerable to attack. Less clearly explained is how the nation of under 25 million is able to rally an army that can launch a long-term occupation of a nation of over 311 million. However, if you are still considering watching the movie after seeing the trailer then you know you can get over this fact.

With a concept that is kind of dumb, it would be very easy for the movie to get too campy and too self-referential. Instead, it takes itself deadly seriously. This is certain to turn off many, but it is most definitely the best choice. The original Red Dawn was a celebration of patriotism and the indefatigable nature of the American spirit even in the terrifying climate of the Cold War. The new movie takes this message to the current age. A full-scale invasion might be implausible, but it is most certainly true that there are vicious armies out there just as hell-bent on destroying the US and everything it stands for as the Soviets were. The message that a group of ordinary, everyday people--kids even--can make a stand for their country and their ideals is just as powerful as always.

Now it is easy to scoff at the above idea, not because one disagrees with it (in broad theory, at least, few Westerners do), but because it seems painfully simple. Honestly, though, it seems that movies struggle to convey it as clearly as Red Dawn does. Even good action films don’t. Take, for example, The Avengers. In terms of acting, visuals, dialogue, and budget Avengers is the superior to Dawn, and its message is pretty much the same: That the idea of a pure, larger-than-life American hero is still able to inspire the nation in turbulent times. However, Avengers’ many subplots about corrupt government officials and conflicted and troubled super-soldiers along with the inherent barrier put between the audience and the story by having a billionaire cyborg super-hero as the protagonist manages to dilute this message to the point where it seems tacked-on; adding self-referential jokes greatly magnifies this effect. Despite its lower budget and more obvious flaws, I found the comically earnest and down-to-Earth style of Red Dawn ultimately more satisfying than the super-human thrills of Avengers.

Red Dawn does explore some more complicated war-time scenarios than its 80s predecessor. American civilians are shown joining the new North Korean police force in order to ease the pain of transition, and end up becoming targets of the heroes. This plot thread is soon dropped by making these so-called “traitors” so cowardly that no one really cares of their fate, but the notion that an underground resistance movement would include killing one’s own people adds an extra dimension to the whole affair. The high schoolers band of rebels, named the Wolverines, use the same strategy as in the original--blowing up North Korean headquarters even if it costs them their life--but I think the idea of car IEDs and suicide bombings being implemented by the good guys seems much more sinister now than in the 80s, and thus adds to the impact that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty in order to win a war.

A major flaw in Red Dawn is that the dialogue between the Wolverines seems very staged and uninvolving. This is not the fault of the cast (though lead actor Josh Peck doesn’t help matters); it is due to the fact that while writers Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore did a great job on the overall story, they could not write any convincing character interaction, and the newbie director was unable to get the cast to improvise.
The other big problem in Dawn cannot in anyway be blamed on the filmmakers. The picture still had a few days left in filming (enough for six minutes worth of the movie) when the distributor--MGM--went bankrupt; the story is complete and there are no plot holes, but the fact that there are missing scenes does show.

These flaws are significant, but not enough to make one skip the film. The action is compelling and the slight change in the ending from the original is undoubtedly an improvement. Another good part is the work of Chris Hemsworth, who actually made this movie before he achieved stardom in Thor. His charisma and charm bring a lot to the movie; he is definitely a grade above your typical action star.
Red Dawn has its problems, but that doesn’t keep it from being an immensely entertaining and satisfying action movie.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (C)

With the pretty visuals, surprisingly funny moments, and so many characters you barely notice that nothing happens in the whole movie. Nothing can excuse that anti-climactic ending, though.

When we last saw the Twilight Universe, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) had chosen the vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) over the werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) and had nearly died giving birth to a half-human/half-vampire child named Renesme (MacKenzie Foy), but had been revived as a vampire. Breaking Dawn Part 2 begins with Bella’s first hunt. For those unaware, Edward and his family are rare “vegetarian vampires” who through incredible restraint practiced for decades have been able to live off the blood of animals rather than that of humans. Bella starts out stalking a deer, but her superhuman sense of smell alerts her to a mildly injured mountain climber nearby. Bella is consumed with the thirst for blood and charges off to feast on the unfortunate adventurer. Edward runs after her, grabs her arm, and says “don’t do it--you can control yourself.” Bella apologizes and goes and eats a puma instead. One scene later, Edward’s mother remarks that since some vampires have additional super-powers (Edward, for example, can read minds), Bella must have the ability to exercise great self-control and it is thus quite easy for her to avoid killing humans. And that plot thread, which had been built up for five two-hour movies, is solved.

For the remainder of the movie, Emmy-winner Melissa Rosenberg (Dexter) desperately tries to form some semblance of a story. Last year, I wrote that the previously laughable Twilight franchise had produced a true gem with Breaking Dawn Part 1, a movie I put on my top ten list of 2011. Now, we see the negative effects of putting all the best parts of the final Twilight book in one movie and then devoting another to tying up loose ends.
This movie tackles the interesting topic of the Voltury, the royalty of the vampire world that offered Edward membership back in New Moon. Concerned with the growing power of vegetarian vampires and Renesme, which they (falsely) believe is a vampirized child, the Voltury decide to go to the Cullens’ home in Forks, Washington and kill them. This would make for an interesting movie, except for the fact that Stephanie Meyers--who wrote the books--didn’t really spend much time telling it. Rosenberg frequently starts interesting plot-lines and gives an entertaining fight scene, but in the end must avoid telling a satisfying ending since she has to be faithful to the source material. My guess is that both Meyer and Twilight distributor Summit want to save the inevitable conflict between the Voltury and the Cullens for a Renesme franchise, which would be fine except for the fact that it was the plotline advertised for this movie.

The stories of Bella, Jacob, and Edward all seem told, so little time is devoted to character development for them (probably a good thing, since none of those characters were remotely interesting). Instead, the trio takes a backseat to about twenty vampires new to the franchise (not an exaggeration). These new bloodsuckers have allied with the Cullens against the Voltury for various reasons. The most interesting of these are Casey Labow’s Kate, who can fire blasts of electricity from her palms, and Lee Pace’s Garret, a non-vegetarian vampire who fought valiantly for the Americans in the War of 1812. Of course, there are also some stupid characters that shouldn’t be included, first and foremost being Patrick Brennan’s Irish vampire Liam, who dressed like a leprechaun. I was most intrigued by how the Egyptian clan of vampires hides the universal vampire trait of sparkling in the sunlight in their sunny homeland (the past four movies insist that by living in the perpetually cloudy Washington mountains the Cullens avoid notice).

In this movie, like the others, there is the disturbing element of how unconcerned the Cullens seem to be with the existence of the non-vegetarian vampires, which are effectively super-powered serial killers. Here they actually ally with a bunch of them, but never seem remotely conflicted if perhaps with their extraordinary super-powers and vast knowledge of vampires they should try to stop them. The earlier movies stated that vampires could not battle each other since the Voltury forbade it, but seeing as current circumstances have brought the Voltury and the Cullens to war it seems that should be a non-issue now.
Director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) has done a great job of taking away the dumbest elements from the earlier movies. The acting is better (Stewart has greatly improved since she started the series), the scenes are much quicker and concise, the make-up is exponentially superior, and cinematography (by Pan’s Labyrinth’s Guillermo Navarro) is gorgeous. Condon can’t undo the appearances of everything in the early movies, be he chooses to frequently ignore the effect of sunlight on vampire skin, since Twilight Director Catherine Hardwicke made the sparkling thing look so stupid; he also uses ample speed ramping and slow-motion to hide the cheesiness of the “vampire super-speed” special effect used by Hardwicke.

The best element is Billy Burke (TV’s Revolution) as Charlie, Bella’s police officer father. Burke has always brought incredible depth to his role, and here Rosenberg takes the most amounts of liberties with Meyer’s book in order to give Burke the opportunity to make his scenes both funnier and more in depth. The scene where Jacob reveals his werewolf ability to Charlie could be the most humorous I’ve seen this year, and the moment where Charlie awkwardly attends a Christmas party where every other attendee is aware of the vampire conspiracy (Bella refuses to tell him) is one of the series’ most heart-felt. He can’t save the movie, though.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 is watchable, but the lack of a plot makes it a bit of a letdown.

End of Watch (A-)

The ability of End of Watch to take what is essentially a simple story and make it such an emotional tribute to the police force lies with the engaging, genuine relationship between its central characters.

David Ayer writes two kind of movies: fast-paced action-comedies like The Fast and the Furious (the original) and dark, suspenseful cop dramas like Training Day. End of Watch is definitely one in the latter category. From the opening car chase, shot in near-total silence, the movie is gripping and burns with intensity. The story simply follows two Los Angeles police officers’ daily battles, both in the crime-ridden streets and their personal lives. The film is building up to a showdown with a brutal, new drug cartel that treats LA like territory to be conquered and the police like an opposing army; however, there is no one incident that triggers the feud, no personal connection between the gangsters and cops, and not even one character who can be deemed the head bad guy. This isn’t so much a cops-and-robbers adventure than a look at the ground troops in a war.

Ayer is less experienced as a director than as a writer, but it is his work on set that really shows. The two protagonists are played Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena, and Ayer makes every moment between the two so genuine that it is impossible not to care. The credit should also be given to the stars. Both are recognizable actors with several blockbusters to their names as well as some critically lauded work (Gyllenhaal got an Oscar nomination for Brokeback Mountain and Pena had juicy roles in World Trade Center and Crash), but neither are really considered Hollywood A-list. In End of Watch, they prove themselves as never before.

Many have criticized Ayer’s choice to shoot the movie in found footage format, something generally reserved for micro-budget horror fare like Paranormal Activity. I think it was a good choice--this is an intensely personal film and one that must truly absorb the audience, and by actually having the characters be the ones operating the camera, it does just that. However, there are moments where Ayer’s inexperience with the style shows: I am fairly certain that he knows the logistics of why cameras are placed where they are when they are and whether someone is holding them, but there are scenes where the audience member will become distracted trying to figure it out. These scenes are probably most jarring in the conversations between Pena and Gyllenhaal’s characters in the squad car, which are captured from possibly four different angles (how many cameras can these guys afford, and how much time did they spend setting them up in strategic locations?). The scenes where it is most comical are where the gangsters are shooting the action. Why would a career criminal take a camera to video-tape all his illegal activity? Isn’t it a lot of work holding a camera in one hand and positioning it at your target while you fire a gun with the other hand (at least the cops have theirs clipped to their pockets like pen protectors)? And why would Mexican gangsters who’s first language is obviously Spanish insist on speaking English with each other?
In the end, though, these are only minor complaints. The movie is riveting from beginning to end, and it is impossible not to get choked up at that final scene.
End of Watch is a powerful tribute to the police who risk their lives every day to keep our cities safe.

Goon (A)

DVD Review

FYI: This is an absurdly long movie review. Whether you are reading this on my blog or on Screened, please know that my other reviews are shorter.
Crafting a comedy is a very difficult thing to do. If the filmmakers truly go for every joke and try to make every moment laugh-out-loud funny, the movie ends up empty and soulless. If the filmmakers want to actually tell a meaningful story, they generally end up interrupting the humor and thus creating a tonally off-putting story (on average, would you say that the first half or second half of a comedy is better?). Goon is an excellent tale that manages to be funny all the time, yet still knows when to skip a joke and go for something truly touching.
Doug (Seann William Scott) is a bar bouncer with little future. He is a nice guy, but he certainly suffers from some learning disabilities, something his parents (Eugene Levy and Ellen David) refuse to admit he has. His life changes when as an audience-member at a non-professional hockey game Doug head-butts a burly, helmeted player senseless after the man walked into the audience and threatened Doug’s heckler friend (Jay Baruchel, who also wrote and produced the picture). Doug is offered a job on a semi-pro team as an enforcer, a player who’s job is to protect star athletes by starting fights with aggressive members of the opposing team. After a promotion, Doug leaves his home in the US to go a cold little corner of Halifax, Canada and beats the snot out of people for a living.

Goon is laugh-out-loud funny practically all the time. Instead of relying on drunken-party shock humor like another recent Scott film--*cough* American Reunion *cough*--we see poignant yet ridiculous looks at the bloodlust that fuels hockey fans (I do not say this condescendingly: I am a hockey fan and I unabashedly admit that it is a sport based on a primal urge to see grown men brawl like animals). One particularly good scene features Doug sliding an opponent’s face across the plexiglass surrounding the arena and leaving a bloody smear, while a small child and her bookish parents cheer and applaud from the other side.
Now, I suppose, would be as good a time as any to warn viewers that Goon is disgustingly violent throughout. Bones are snapped, teeth are shattered, noses are squashed, and the ice is stained with blood; all of which makes sense if you keep in mind that this isn’t a Miracle-style tale of playing hockey, it is a movie about gladiatorial combat on an ice rink. I was at some times genuinely concerned if it was too much of a glorification of something absurdly dangerous; I have decided no since 1) kids don’t dream about becoming enforcers, they dream about becoming star players, 2) the movie is R-rated and people should know what they are getting into and be mature enough not to emulate the stunts, and 3) the movie’s brutality is so forthright that few people would actually be inspired to follow through with it (though likely some will).

Other humorous moments come from the shenanigans of Doug’s dumb, unsportsmanlike teammates; the cliched and yet still entertaining foul-mouthed coach (Kim Coates); and the slutty, adorable love interest (Alison Pill). Every actor has believeable chemistry with every other actor, something that should be credited to both the amazing cast and Director Michael Dowse (Fubar). The best part of it, though, is the story, which is equal parts heartfelt and hilarious.
Jay Baruchael is best known for his acting ability (he starred in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and She’s Out of My League after a minor role in Million Dollar Baby) and Evan Goldberg’s early scriptorial career success with Superbad (which came out in 2007, mind you) has been overshadowed by duds like Pineapple Express and The Green Hornet. It turns out they have way more writing potential than it seemed: Working with Dowse and loosely adapting a memoir from a real-life enforcer, the two have far exceeded expectations on the story/screenplay. Both have amazing understanding of what makes good comedy, enormous restraint to ignore easy jokes, and the courage to trust their actors to convey plot elements that aren’t explicitly stated. What is more impressive, though, is they know how to incorporate a heartfelt, surprisingly powerful story into a Hangover-esque screwball comedy.

The future of Doug’s “stardom” is not glossed over. His years as an enforcer are undoubtedly short-lived and the ability to play real hockey is far out of his league. What Doug does have, though, is a noble desire to help his teammates and a deep respect for the sport. In scenes mixed with both irony and sentimentality, Doug and his fellow players--both on his team and the opponents’--share a deep love of hockey and sense of comradery even though their shouting matches and brawls are unprofessional and, to a certain extent, cheating.
This theme is outlined by two very interesting characters. The first, played by international actor Marc-Andre Gondin (a name that I guarantee you will become better known), is Xavier LaFlamme; a former big league star who has bumped back to the minors after an illegal back-check by a rival enforcer nearly killed him and put him in a downward spiral of erratic behavior. While getting to play in the semi-pros is the most successful moment of Doug’s life, it is a humiliating put-down for Xavier. Interestingly, it is Xavier who is jealous of Doug; LaFlamme is disgusted by Glatt’s stupidity and doubts the sincerity of his adherence to the sport. As an enforcer, Doug’s job primary job is to protect Xavier from injuries like he suffered in the majors; tragically the highlight of his career--and probably his life--will be if he manages to keep LaFlamme safe and confident enough to score goals and become a star again.

The other noteworthy character--and one of the year’s best--is Ross “The Boss” Rhea. The veteran enforcer (played perfectly by Liev Schreiber) who caused Xavier’s career-ruining injury, Ross has left the majors and is about to retire, but plans to go out with a bang. Doug plays on another team from Ross, but spends nights analyzing Ross’s best performances in order to emulate them (and, yes, all of his “best performances” were fights). Ross is a barbarian who has ended countless careers--his first scene, in a crowded press conference, is a laughably phony apology for an illegal move that broke a player’s back--but he isn’t all that bad a person. The movie is building up to the inevitable battle between Ross and Doug, but from the get-go Ross sees the puppy-dog sweet Doug and is instantly concerned that his opponent doesn’t get that an enforcer’s career is brutal and short. In the movie’s best moment, Ross tells Doug that it is likely that when they finally play each other Ross will hurt Doug so badly that he will sustain permanent injuries, and is touched when he realizes that Doug does understand this, but is so passionate about the team that gave him glory that he is willing to literally risk his life in order to take them to the championships.
Simultaneously heartwarming, hilarious, and horrifically violent, Goon is one of the best comedies of recent years.

Being Flynn (A+)

DVD REVIEW

A dark, powerful, and ultimately uplifting drama, Being Flynn is one of those truly great pictures.
Writer/director Paul Weitz’s last work was Little Fockers, which would make you think he is a bad filmmaker. This is not true—he wrote Antz and was both writer and director on the excellent About a Boy. Sure, there are some “only good; not great” entries on his imdb page (Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant), and some shockingly awful ones (Nutty Professor II: The Klumps), but he is undoubtedly one of the greatest movie-makers around. He just isn’t a very reliable one.

Being Flynn is not, as some sources claim, a comedy. It is actually very dark. The plot centers on Nick Flynn, a depressed young man dealing with his mother’s suicide by snorting cocaine and working in a homeless shelter (two activities which don’t usually coincide). Nick’s world is rocked when his father, Jonathan, shows up needing a room. Jonathan is, like Nick, a writer; he considers himself as one of the three greatest America has ever produced (the other two being Mark Twain and JD Salinger). Unfortunately, he has never had anything published, was evicted from his house for attacking his neighbor with a cudgel, and lost his job as a cab driver after drunkenly crashing his vehicle. Nick looks at Jonathan and sees where he will end up, and he hates him for it.
One of the best things about the story is that neither man is softened up to be more likeable. Jonathan remains belligerent and delusional; his misfortune is definitely of his own doing. Nick’s hostility towards him is surprisingly cruel, and the son is destroying his life in just the same way as his father. Nick knows it, too, but he is powerless to stop it.

The screenplay is a heavily fictionalized account of a memoir by a real Nick Flynn, and Nick is the most important character in the story. Jonathan isn’t a supporting character, though. Much of the movie centers around his journey, descending the social ladder from low to rock-bottom; all the time he insists he is a genius and has not done anything wrong. A particularly heart-rending moment is where Jonathan, recently evicted, sits in spends the night in a diner drinking coffee and flirting with the waitress; a homeless man walks in and the staff gives him free coffee but tells him he has to drink it outside. A few months later, a haggard Jonathan goes back to the diner and is hurriedly given a free cup and ushered out.
The supporting cast includes Steve Cirbus, Eddie Rous, and the real Nick Flynn’s girlfriend Lili Taylor as workers in the homeless shelter. Olivia Thirlby plays Nick’s manic pixie dream girl; the movie doesn’t overly romanticize this relationship, instead showing a life Nick could have gotten if he wasn’t so hell-bent on destroying himself. Julianne Moore is excellent as always as Nick’s beleaguered mother.

Nick is played by There Will Be Blood’s Paul Dano, who makes the character more genuine and flawed. The great Robert de Niro plays Jonathan and the film owes much of its power to his heart-rending performance. For anyone who says de Niro is no longer an acting legend, this movie is a testament to how he still carries the weight of making excellent
screenplays into excellent movies.
In the end, the viewers get excellent commentary on how people can and should view their lives; that perhaps life is like an unfinished story to be completed after we depart from it. This theme only works since the movie manages to be so genuine and so heartfelt. We truly care about the characters, but more important than that is how we can relate.
Being Flynn is an incredible, powerful drama and an absolute must-see.