Dead Man Down (A)

The trailers for Dead Man Down suggest is is a stylish revenge tale with Taken-esque action scenes. I think the rather underwhelming reaction to the picture has to do with the inaccurate genre the marketing placed this film in. Dead Man Down is a slow, suspenseful thriller that is firmly based in characters. It provides an excellent look at depression, grief, and friendship. The revenge plot is almost a side story.

Dead Man Down has so many twists and turns that I can barely say anything about the plot without giving something away. This is what I can tell you without spoiling any more than was in the trailer: The protagonist is a man who calls himself Victor. He is part of a crime syndicate led by an ambitious, stylish, and ruthless gangster named Alfonse Hoyte (one of only two black characters, both of whom are bad). Victor is (maybe) romancing a woman named Beatrice, who has a dark past represented by a few facial scars. Not much to go on, but trust me: You don’t want spoilers.
The story is written by J.H. Wyman, who has done some TV writing and producing but has little credited work in film. In fact, his last credited movie was Gore Verbinski’s The Mexican back in 2001. I hope he does not wait as long to write his next picture. His story is something special: A thriller where you care about the characters. Deeply. They aren’t just avatars for video-game esque violence: Victor and Beatrice seem like real-life, breathing people with a history and emotions. If it weren’t for this, it would be impossible to care enough to handle the slightly-implausible and very complicated plot (Wyman's TV background shows; this movie has enough material that it could have been a good series or mini-series). Wyman might cop out a tiny bit at the end with a too-tidy conclusion, but this is a small flaw, and by that point the audience should be involved enough in the story to ignore a slight change in tone.

Part of the reasons Wyman’s script works is because of the acting. As Victor, Colin Farrell is doing his normal sad-guy schtick, but that is what is required here. Beatrice, on the other hand, is a more complex role and one that needed a fantastic performance to work. Fortunately, the role went to Noomi Rapace, the star of Prometheus and the Swedish The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Rapace’s Hollywood career is fairly new (up until 2010, almost all of her movies were Swedish), but it undoubtedly shows promise. Her ability to convey dozens of emotions at once, to constantly be interesting, and to have a character that seems both likeable and flawed is incredible. She has yet to be recognised by a major award ceremony, but it is unlikely she won’t have at least an Oscar nomination and maybe even a win within the next five years.
The rest of the supporting cast is great as well. Alfonse Hoyte is not as pivotal a character as the advertising would make you believe, but Terrence Howard gives him extra depth (if Howard has ever given a bad performance, I haven’t seen it). French actress Isabelle Huppert has a throw-away role as Beatrice’s deaf mother, but the character is fascinating and her performance is so touching that her scenes are actually the most memorable. Practically non-existent in the picture’s marketing is Dominic Cooper, who has a very important role as Victor’s friend who knows nothing of Victor’s past. The role would be good with anyone, but Cooper makes it all the better.

Danish director Niels Arden Oplev (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) helms the project. Oftentimes when promising foreign directors move to Hollywood they quickly pick big-budget blockbuster and their style never translates (Daniel Espinosa’s Safe House comes to mind). For Oplev it is the opposite: Choosing a smaller film where he can have more creative control, he takes the best parts of his lower-budget, ultra-violent foreign work while knowing that the graphic material acceptable in Scandinavia is unacceptable for international audiences. Oplev’s talent is best visible in the action sequences, which are fast-paced, gritty, violent, and (for the most part) believable; it is also worth remembering that if it weren’t for his direction and editing the acting might not seem so flawless. His biggest mistake is the make-up he chose for Rapace to wear as Beatrice: Her facial scars are a critical part of the story, but honestly they don’t look all that horrifying. In fact, you barely notice them.
Oplev and cinematographer Paul Cameron (Man on Fire) chose an interesting color scheme and composition for their cinematography: The images are sleek and stylish but at the same time look faded, dull, and almost like you would see on an old VHS tape. This doesn’t always work, but I think it provides a nice backdrop to the underlying themes in the film. This is not a revenge fantasy: It is a look at depression and grief. How does one move on when everything in life has lost its luster? How can one find friendship when they feel like they don’t even care anymore? These are the questions this film asks, and the answers it gives are compelling and moving.
Dead Man Down is a slow, suspenseful, and emotional thriller/drama; you don’t come across movies like this every day.

Jack the Giant Slayer (B)

It has gaping plot holes, no depth, dozens of cliches, a far-too-short runtime, and numerous other flaws, but I’d be lying if I said this family-oriented action adventure wasn’t entertaining.
Jack the Giant-Slayer is a retelling of the classic story--A young peasant in medieval Europe travels up a beanstalk and battles giants. In this story, Jack is accompanied by a knight named Sir Elmont and is on a quest to rescue a princess.

Jack is already receiving comparisons to last summer’s blockbuster “fairy tale” Snow White & the Huntsman, but despite what trailers may have you believe, Jack is intended for family audiences. Director Bryan Singer certainly has a few moments here and there where he interrupts his tone to have a slightly violent scene (something that the X-Men director seems to struggle with when doing more kid-friendly pictures), but if the harsh PG-13 rating is deserved--and, to be honest, it isn’t--it would take less than 75 seconds of cuts to edit it down to PG. This adventure is significantly tamer than similar PG-fair like Eragon, Chronicles of Narnia, and Tron: Legacy; it is possible that the studio may have wanted a PG-13 rating just to attract older audiences. If that is the case, it didn’t work.

In an attempt to please kids, there are some things that will turn off adults. Flatulence humor and booger jokes, for starters. Also, idiotic comic relief characters, most annoying of which is a human bad guy minion played by Ewen Brenner. The main antagonist--the giant General Fallon--has a second head which serves as a less irritating but still weird sidekick. I suppose Singer agreed to a two-headed villain in order to distinguish the character, and some may find it funny or at least a little interesting. My guess is that the majority of people, like myself, will find it too weird. The second head isn’t exactly another character--it only grunts and repeats garbled versions of the main head’s sentences. Still, it’s dopey grin looks almost friendly and clashes horribly with the gruff giant head on the right, and you kind of feel bad for what may be an innocent (if dim-witted) extra character unfairly chained to his jerk-tastic twin brother.

If you’re wondering, none of the other giants have extra heads (or arms or legs, for that matter). In fact, for the most part they look pretty cool. They are shot with motion capture, like was used for Gollum and Caesar of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Since there are a lot of them, they don’t look quite as realistic as those two characters, but they still showcase a neat blend of human and beast-like qualities: They are enough like people to seem like formidable foes, but not enough like us for anyone to care when they fall in battle. I do wonder where the female giants are, though. Perhaps the species reproduces aesexually, or the genders just look the same as each other. My best guess, though, is that the she-giants from Jack left the city in the clouds and reside on the same planet as all the girl dwarves from Lord of the Rings.

The biggest flaw of the film is undoubtedly the run time. It is 110 minutes, which is significantly shorter than most action adventure films. With the amount it costs for a family to go to a theatre, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the two plus hours that is standard for this genre. You have been warned.
The other big issue is plot holes. Obviously logic isn’t what one is looking for in this type of movie, but it is always frustrating when you see that the viewer has put more thought into the story than the producers. With four credited writers it is clear this is a story that has undergone several drafts and has lost a bit of coherency in the process.

Still, none of these flaws stop this very playful tale from being entertaining. The action is stellar, the visuals are decent, and the whole thing looks gorgeous. The imagery is constantly inventive, and both the giant and human world looks like the kind of place you would love to visit. Possibly best of all, though, is the acting. Nicholas Hoult, the cute kid from About a Boy, has matured into a charming, personable leading man. He seems heroic and cool while also being a little dorky and completely relateable. His dynamic with Eleanor Tomlinson is genuine and enjoyable, even if her character of Princess Isabbelle is both an annoyingly spunky and precocious (read: selfish) teen and a whiny, utterly useless damsel in distress. In fact, Tomlinson should win award just for successfully thwarting the writers attempts to make the year’s most dislikeable character.

The supporting cast is full of A-list actors such as Stanley Tucci as a villainous human noble and Bill Nighy as General Fallon (it isn’t just his voice; he did all the acting too in a motion capture suit). Character actor Eddie Marson plays a doomed redshirt audiences actually care about (kudos to Singer for not editing him out); and Ian McShane is a scene stealer as the King. Best of all, though, is Ewan McGregor as Sir Elmont, who ends up partnered with the peasant Jack. Generally this role would be comic relief (like Prince Charming in Shrek 2) but the screenplay lets McGreggor form an utterly charming, funny, cool, and actually quite smart warrior: I would love to see a spin-off just about that character.
There are a lot of flaws with this movie, but it is still great fun, and the kind you can bring the whole family to.

10 Best Films of 2012

I know most people disagree with me, but I just didn't think GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE was quite at the level to be on a top 10 list.

As is my tradition for Oscar week, I write my own list of the top ten best films of the given year. Since some of these choices might be unconventional, I will say upfront that I have seen over 100 movies from 2012 including all nine best picture films. So if the list looks weird, it isn’t because I only see bad movies, it is because I have bad taste.
Please note that I chose not to include documentaries on this list.

10. Hope Springs

David Frenkel, the director of The Devil Wears Prada, helms a picture starring two of the greatest living actors, Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep. Of course it was going to be great. Telling the story of an older(ish) couple who goes to a small town in Maine to get marriage counseling (the therapist is played by Steve Carell), this picture is truly inspiring. Sure it has its flaws--Streep’s character seems a little too perfect when compared to the grump Jones one--but nevertheless this funny, genuine, entertaining, and heartfelt dramedy is absolutely stellar.

9. Barfi!

I love the new trend of having modern movies incorporating elements of the old silent films. We’ve had Wall-E, The Artist, and now this under-seen gem from India. This story is about a young man (Ranbir Kapoor, who is on par with Hollywood’s very best) that is deaf. He misunderstands his name of “Murphy” to be “Barfi!,” resulting in this bizarre and difficult to market title. Barfi! is caught up in a romance with a woman betrothed to a man she has barely met and he ends up becoming friends with an autistic girl he kidnaps for ransom money. This is a delightful, entertaining, and inspiring tale about embracing life to its fullest, and one that any age can enjoy.

8. Goon

It always looked funny, but who would have thought this R-rated comedy about a hockey enforcer, who’s job is to start fights on the ice rink, would be so good? Sean William Scott plays the title goon, and this ends up being an inspiring tale of the importance of loyalty and finding oneself, all centered around brutally violent fist-fights. It doesn’t shy away from showing the dark side and long-term consequences of this highly controversial topic, but at the same time it never ceases to be laugh-out-loud funny. Also, the film’s antagonist, a veteran enforcer played by Liev Schreiber, is a truly unforgettable character.

7. Rise of the Guardians

This animated movie takes favorite childhood heroes like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Jack Frost and puts them into an action extravaganza in the vein of (though much superior to) The Avengers. It is wildly entertaining, due to the action, the humor, the constantly inventive and mind-blowingly gorgeous visuals, and the truly emotional story. This tackles the powers of dreams, hope, and faith, and gives answers that even adults can relate to. The studio might be Dreamworks, but this is Pixar-level quality.

6. Dredd

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Guardians is Dredd, a gory, dark, gritty, futuristic sci-fi comic book movie that isn’t afraid that isn’t afraid to alienate a few viewers to tell an original and entertaining story. In Dredd, the world has become one giant, dystopian, crime ridden city and the only forces of justice are Judges, which have the duties of cop, judge, jury, and executioner. Chief among them is Judge Dredd, who’s unwavering commitment to the law seems extreme in our time and is probably unheard of in this future. The action scenes are fantastic, the movie has a great sense of humor about it, and it isn’t afraid to get into some bigger issues (if more people had seen this movie, it would be considered controversial). In a time filled with morally ambiguous and anarchistic pretty boy heroes, Dredd gives us a morally absolute protagonist who isn’t afraid to judge.
Footnote: Don’t judge this movie because it shares the same source material with 1990’s Judge Dredd. It is a completely different type of film.

5. Safety Not Guaranteed

This heartfelt, utterly charming picture tells the story of three reporters (the main one being played by Aubrey Plaza of Parks and Recreation) who go to a small town to investigate an add left by a man requesting a partner to time travel with him. The man (played by Mark Duplass, in a rare turn acting without writing or directing) turns out to be deadly earnest and possibly insane, but he and the Plaza character end up starting an odd romance.
It is funny, but it never forgets us to make us feel for the characters. Everyone in this movie is flawed but instantly likeable (particularly interesting is a loud-mouthed, possibly racist, but impossible to hate reporter played by Jake Johnson), and it is difficult not to be entertained every minute. This is a touching look at taking the ultimate risk of friendship.

4. MIB3

A movie doesn’t have to be dark and gritty to be great. MIB3 is funny, action-packed, inventive, and perfectly acted (I would give Josh Brolin the Best Supporting Actor award); best of all, though, is that it has heart.
This story centers around Agent J (Will Smith)--an agent of the Men in Black organization that keeps Earth safe from extra-terrestrial threats--going back in time to the 60s in order to stop an alien invasion led by a sinister new bad guy (Jemaine Clement’s Boris the Animal). There he finds out the dark secret that has haunted his partner (played by Tommy Lee Jones in current day and Brolin in the 60s universe). This film is just as clever as the other installments in the action-comedy series, but in addition it also captures the sense of wonder and appreciation for the vastness of the universe even better than its predecessors had.

3. Jeff, Who Lives at Home

This is another one from the Duplass Brothers (Cyrus): They produced, wrote, and directed, but didn’t star (Mark Duplass does acting, such as in Safety Not Guaranteed, but he chose not to here). The duo has always shown great talent, but this film is a near-masterpiece. Starring Jason Segel as a 30-something stoner living in his mother’s basement who bases his entire life around the philosophy of M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs, Jeff features a great cast including Susan Sarandon, Ed Helms, and Judy Greer (Helms has a very sizable role as the Segal character’s neurotic brother, so much so that it could be considered a lead). The plot synopsis might sound like it is a little cynical, but it is really a pretty sweet film that should appeal to a large audience. It walks the line between comedy and drama perfectly, and has a genuine quality to it that you don’t see very often in movies. Also more-so than in most other films, Jeff has a truly powerful, inspiring message on faith, hope, and initiative. This should go on everyone’s must-see list.

2. Lincoln

This excellent story on the passage of the amendment banning slavery in America is truly incredible. Steven Spielberg rarely directs a movie that isn’t excellent (executive producing is another story) and here he is adapting an award-worthy screenplay from Munich scribe Tony Kushner. Every member of the cast is phenomenal; Daniel Day Lewis's work as Abraham Lincoln is one of those rare performances that practically everyone seems to agree was the year’s best. In my review, I wrote about how this film provides a convincing argument on how democracy works. What I may have neglected to emphasize is how this also provides personal statements on compromise and determination. Such is the case with a truly great movie: There are so many amazing things about it you can spend a whole two pages talking about only a small part. Regardless of what country you live in, this is a picture you can’t miss.

1. Being Flynn

I am baffled at why this movie didn’t get more praise. My best guess is simply that not enough people watched it: This is filmmaking at its best.
Being Flynn tells the story of a man (Paul Dano) volunteering at a homeless shelter who finds his alcoholic father (Robert De Niro) to be a resident. The father’s life is getting worse and worse, but he keeps insisting he is a writing genius, on par with Mark Twain. This is a very dark drama (written and directed by About a Boy’s Paul Weitz), but the emotional pay-off is something you rarely get from a film. This movie has powerful messages on perseverance, how we interpret the past, what makes a life successful, and how we should view ourselves.
Honorable Mentions: Chronicle, The Dark Knight Rises, Flight, Les Miserables, and Life of Pi
I welcome comments, even negative ones. And please, please provide links to your own top ten of 2012 lists.

10 Best Cinematic Villains of 2012

One of the things that can make a movie great is having a fantastic villain. Here are a list of what I believe ten best of 2012 were. At the very least this should provide an opportunity for more mainstream, blockbuster movies to make a top ten list.
If you haven’t seen the movies on this list, you might be a little lost. Also, there are spoilers. In fact, some of the names on this list are spoilers.

10. Stephen

Samuel L. Jackson, Django Unchained

The primary antagonist of Django Unchained is considered to be the sadistic rancher Calvin Candie (Leonardo diCaprio), but just as important to the plot--and far more interesting--is his right-hand man: Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson, almost unrecognizable under fantastic make-up work). Stephen is a slave, and he works for a man who treats slaves like animals and makes them battle to the death (by the way, there is little historical evidence suggesting “mandingo fighting” was a real thing). Stephen is very smart, intensely charming, and a good leader, but he remains intensely loyal to his master, revealing the protagonists’ plan to trick Candy into selling a slave at a low(ish) price.
This idea--that the biggest foe to liberation was that many slaves didn’t view themselves as people--has sparked incredible debate; it was even used in a lecture by one of my professors as a (very flawed) portrayal of modern day race relations. Writer/director Quentin Tarantino doesn’t do as much as he could have with this character, but it is definitely a fascinating idea. Furthermore, Stephen is the most interesting thing in every scene he was in, which is saying alot, since Tarantino has never created a boring character.

9. Selina Kyle

Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises

Like all the characters in Gotham City, Selina Kyle is defined by her past. She was put in a hopeless situation beyond her control (just like Bruce Wayne/Batman was when his parents were murdered) and she is trying to build a new life. Batman has always said that crime did not control Gotham and people were not doomed to the situation they were born into, but since he himself can’t let go of an event that happened thirty years ago, it seems impossible that his goal was realistic. Kyle is trying to steal and manipulate her way to happiness just like Batman is trying to by punching gangsters. It is obvious they are made for each other.
Kyle also highlights the film’s underlying political message of social mobility and integrity. Is it Kyle’s fault she was born into squalor in America’s worst city? No. But there is no magic way to erase her record, as she so desperately hopes: The only way she finds a new life is through hard work.

8. Old Joe

Bruce Willis, Looper

The protagonist of Looper, Joe (named after the actor who plays him, Joseph Gordon-Levitt), is a truly despicable person. He is a hitman: When people in the year 2074 are sentenced by gangs to be executed, they are tied up, blindfolded and sent back in time to the year 2044, where Joe executes him. This in and of itself would make Joe a pretty unlikable person, but in addition he betrays his best friend to a truly horrible fate for money.
It would seem logical, then, that in order to have the audience still care about Joe, the villain--his futuristic self--would be even more terrible. However, Director Rian Johnson boldly makes Old Joe (Bruce Willis) a seemingly better person than Young Joe. Old Joe retired from crime, married a nice lady, and settled down; he has gone back in time to save his wife. Yeah, he starts offing small children, but it is all because he wants to keep them from growing up to be the mass murdering terrorist responsible for hurting the woman he loves.
Old Joe is a fascinating character: He has all the charm, smarts, and fighting prowess of his younger self, but he also has a moral compass. He hates the younger version of himself, but must protect Young Joe in order to keep himself alive. He also is struggling to retain his memories that define his identity, which are changing each minute he interacts with his younger self.
For all his good, though, Old Joe is still unable to do the one thing that can break the time loop the film’s characters are stuck in: Self-sacrifice. Old Joe could always tell his younger self not to marry his future wife (thus keeping her safe), but he doesn’t because he can’t give her up. In the end it is his younger self who is able to (maybe) break the loop by giving his life for someone he loves.

7. Bane & Talia Al Ghul

Tom Hardy & Marion Cotillard, The Dark Knight Rises

The reason these two aren’t higher up on the list is that there is something inherently stupid about their master plan. Why does the League of Shadows care so much about Gotham City? If they are anti-west terrorists, like Al Quadea, why do they wait five months to blow it up? If they are anarchists, why do they want to blow it up at all? I get this is all symbolism for current events, but come on!
Still, these villains really do make The Dark Knight Rises come together. Bane may always live in the Joker’s shadow, but he is just as much of a compelling, intimidating foe. That calm, intellectual voice coming from a giant, brutal terrorist is instantly capturing, the Darth Vader breathing is still just as badass as it was in ‘77, and there is such a commanding presence Tom Hardy’s super-villain emits. When a corrupt businessmen who has been using Bane to take down Bruce Wayne tells the hulking giant to “remember who is in charge” Bane’s calm answer--”Do you feel like you’re in control”--is just as captivating as anything the villains said in the last movie.
Lots of criticism has been leveled against Christopher Nolan for the final act twist, where it is revealed Bane is merely the boy toy of Talia Al Ghul, Bruce Wayne’s businesswoman lover (a great performance by Marion Cotillard). I think this makes everything make more sense. Bane views a world powerless and despicable. He confidently announces that Gotham City doesn’t have to feel afraid and bound to the laws of Batman, but he himself feels himself a slave to the will of someone else. He was never able to climb out of that prison, and he worships the one person he believes could. And Talia is just aspiring to the impossible goals of her father (Ra’s Al Ghul, Liam Neeson’s villain from the first Nolanverse movie). It is a perfect contrast to Batman’s belief that anyone could be a super-hero, no matter what their origins are. When Batman proves that Talia wasn’t the only one who could escape the underground prison, he is really proving the message Bane has been preaching but never really believed.

6. Raoul Silva

Javier Bardem, Skyfall

When the theatrical trailer for Skyfall came out, everything looked incredible cool: Except for the villain. Out of context, watching Javier Bardem in garish clothes and an absurd wig stroking the chest of Daniel Craig’s James Bond seemed ridiculous.
And it is. But it is also so terrifying. Bardem and the team behind Skyfall create a villain that has all the elements of the campy villains from the Connery and Moore Bond years, but still perfectly fits into the gritty Bond universe of the 21st century.
Silvia, who was once the best secret agent working for MI6, was given up to the Chinese by M, who was both his boss and maternal figure, in exchange for a bunch of other captured agents. After months of torture, he snapped and decided to blame M for his pain--and, using exceptional hacking skills, does just that. He is both a perfect parallel to James Bond, who will follow M’s command to the dot, and a perfect symbol of the terrorists that threaten the world in this day and age.

5. Ma-ma

Lena Headey, Dredd

It is hard not to find Ma-ma--the primary adversary of the criminally-underrated, futuristic, sci-fi, action drama Dredd--rivetting. One a lowly prostitute named Madeline Madrigal who’s face was brutally slashed by her pimp, Ma-ma founded a vicious new street gang that took over a skyscraper with the population of a medium-sized city.
It would be so easy for Director Pete Travis and actress Lena Headey (in a nomination-worthy performance) to make her over-the-top or campy (after all, this lady did bite off someone’s testicles!). Instead, Ma-ma (who both uses and sells the drug slo-mo, which causes people to perceive time 100 times slower than normal) is deeply menacing by her quiet, unenthusiastic, and depressed attitude. We seriously believe this lady could command the small army of street thugs she has at her disposal.
Ma-ma is the perfect symbolism of the decay and lifelessness that crime has brought to the dystopian future shown in Dredd. And her both metaphoric and literal slow-motion fall is truly epic.

4. Hugh Lang

Don Cheadle, Flight

Flight’s protagonist, Captain Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington, amazing as always), is the pilot of a commercial airline that suffers a horrible accident (through no fault of his own). Whitaker’s incredible skill and courage manages to save most of the lives on board, but things turn worse when it comes out he was drunk and on cocaine while flying.
The story of Flight centers around Whitaker’s denial of his personal issues (such as alcoholism). And Hugh Lang is actively encouraging him to hide it.
Hugh Lang is the excellent lawyer who is hired by the union to keep the crash from becoming a legal nightmare. Lang and Whitaker instantly dislike each other, but Lang decides to make it his mission to keep Whitaker out of jail because he is one of the few people to accurately recognize that if it had been any other pilot, everyone would be dead. However, Lang is actively encouraging Whitaker to perjure himself and deny his illness and wrong-doing. Any idea that Lang is a good thing for Whitaker is dispelled when, near the film’s climax, he actually buys Whip cocaine in the hopes that it will counteract the effects of the alcohol and keep the pilot from seeming drunk. When Whitaker decides to finally do the right thing and tell the truth, Lang is disgusted and appalled.
What better personification of the outside pressure for people to hide their problems and deny it (even to themselves) than this smarmy lawyer?

3. The Woman in Black

Liz White, The Woman in Black

Possibly even more so than action movies, horror movies live or die by their villains. In horror films, the villains are the real stars, and the protagonists are the supporting characters. For the movie to work, the villain must be unique (Nightmare on Elm Street’s idea of being killed in your dreams was a stroke of genius), genuinely scary (it might have been by the books and campy, but all the same it is impossible to sleep after watching Poltergeist), and symbolize something that the audience can actually care about, be it the fear of death (Final Destination), the risks of adulthood (Friday the 13th), the dangers of technology (The Ring), or the sinister of the unknown (Paranormal Activity).
The Woman in Black (both the film and character) have all three. The movie opens with three small children methodically committing suicide. It really is a shock (it definitely fits into the “unique” category), which is exactly what a horror picture needs to be. And the tension just builds from there, every second is frightening. And, best--and most importantly of all--the movie is able to tell a story.
Jennet Humphrye was an 1800s mother who’s child was taken away from her by her sister after the state (probably accurately) ruled she was an unsuitable parent due to being a complete lunatic. Unfortunately, her sister’s carriage got stuck in a swamp and the sister abandoned the child in order to save her own life. Humphrye’s killed herself in grief, but not before vowing to exact her revenge on the town that had allowed her son to die. She does so by returning as the ghost known as the Woman in Black, possessing the bodies (though not the minds) of the town’s children, causing them to kill themselves.
What is best about the Woman in Black’s character is that she is able to give the movie a real story and theme. When the film’s protagonist--Daniel Radcliffe’s Arthur Kipps--dies (unsuccessfully) trying to save his son, he is able to take his child to the afterlife where he can be reunited with his deceased wife. The Woman in Black can only look on in sorrow, unable to stop him, but also unable to go as well, for she is tied to the mortal world by her attachment to vengeance.

2. Boris (the Animal)

Jemaine Clement, MIB3

Much of what makes the Men in Black series so great is the charm and wit of its heroes--Agent J and Agent K always have a fantastic one liner to punctuate each action scene. However, the series has always struggled with mildly dull villains. They are other-worldly, uptight, and never as interesting as their adversaries.
Now that we are on the third of these movies, it was time to introduce a villain who matches our heroes in both wit and physical combat. Meet Boris. The sole surviving member of the Bogladeshian race, Boris is the super-humanly strong biker out to conquer Earth, but he takes the time to master Earthlings unique brand of humor. Every line this guy says is instantly quotable (when a hippie tells Boris to “make love, not war” he replies “I prefer to do both”). Boris is also a far more intimidating villain: When this guy is able to take out a prison full of highly trained soldiers single-handedly, you know the Men in Black might not be able to defeat this foe so easily.
Of course, a great villain also has to contribute to a great overall story, and Boris does so in every way possible. His somewhat tragic inability to be able to redo his past (this is a time travel movie, by the way) despite all his efforts perfectly parallel Agent J’s sense of wonder and acceptance of the fantastic world around him. Watch the scene where an older Boris confronts his younger self and the two growl at each other like animals and try to not be blown away.

1. Ross “The Boss” Rhea

Liev Schreiber, Goon

Goon is probably the least-watched of the movies on this list, which is a pity, because it is fantastic. This is a comedy is about Doug Glatt, a Massachusetts man who moves to Canada and becomes a hockey enforcer, a man who’s job is to start fights in the ice arena.
Ross Rhea is a rival team’s veteran enforcer (played perfectly by Liev Schreiber) who frequently causes career-ruining injuries. 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.
The friendship and animosity between Doug and Ross is fascinating, and it is what makes this movie so great.
'Nuff said.

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.