Hey, internet. I just wanted you all to know that I finished the Netflix Original series House of Cards today. This was a political drama starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright (-Penn).
I had high high hopes for it, and while it didn't wow me, it didn't let me down. Considering how much weight I put on this show I'm surprised it didn't let me down. So that says a lot for it.
I'm not sure what these people are saying. Is it that if you depicted no graphic violence, the world would calm down and there would be less violence? Or is it that if you sense certain things about violence and then portray those things in a film, does that make the violence go to another level? Or is the violence in films a way to experience something without having to do it in real life? -David Lynch
I've been thinking about violence in the media recently. We're seeing a lot about the gun laws, and the NRA is keen on pointing out other causes to violent behavior in our society other than guns. Television and movie violence tends to top the list of main culprits when there is a mass shooting, or--to a lesser degree--the spreading of decadent behavior.
I'll just go ahead and say that I'm all for more regulations on guns. I think it's too easy to get firearms (the mere idea that you can buy hundreds of round of ammunition online without any sort of identity check is insane to me), and more extensive background checks is a good place to start. I'm not going to say it's the solution to the problem, but it's something. Do I think we should outright ban guns? No. In addition to that being pretty much impossible, I think there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there. I think they are aware of the power each firearm possesses and they treat it accordingly. I also think there are a lot of dumbshits out there, too. So, you know, take the good with the bad and deal with more rules.
But we're not here to talk about gun laws and my view on them. This is a movie blog.
So let's talk about movies.
I can't say whether we as a culture have gotten more violent in the past hundred years, but I can confidently say that our movies have. Not only are we seeing murders on screen, but we're seeing them in all their gory detail. Think about the shower scene from Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), and then weigh it against the scythe killing in Hostel: Part II (2007). WARNING: The second clip is brutal.
The fifty year span brought us a crisper image with color (I'm aware that color film was invented and in use in 1960. The reason Hitchcock chose to shoot it in black and white was because he didn't think the movie would get a wide release if audiences saw that much blood in color. Look how far we've come!) We're doused with so much more blood in the 2007 movie, and the wounds look more realistic (and visible, for that matter). The setting feels more like it's set in reality. It doesn't feel like a film set, which all movies do now days. Filmmakers are constantly trying to bring the stories closer to reality. To fold the audience further into the story they need to make it more real, and the easiest way to do that is visually. Making films look more like real life is one of the arguments for 48fps. Putting a realistic image with a semi-plausible plot line will bring the viewer further into the story. They are trying to convey a possible outcome in your life.
You might say that the Hostel movies reach an extreme that Psycho doesn't even come close. I would agree with you. Absolutely correct. But at the same time, Psycho was that extreme when it came out. People probably reacted in a similar manner to that flick as they did to Eli Roth's movie.
One more thing I want to get out of the way before I get into this anymore.
I am against censorship. I do not think people should be able to tell Eli Roth or Quentin Tarantino that they can't make movies like Hostel or Pulp Fiction. I don't care if people have to rate it, and then put warnings out followed by a picket and a boycott. But no one should be allowed to tell them how or how not to express themselves. I think calling Hostel "art" would be a stretch, but again, I should not be able to dictate what constitutes a piece of art and what does not. Also: I loved Django Unchained and that movie is violent as shit. It's up to the viewer to educate themselves on what they're about to watch.
To add one more thing. I don't want it to seem like I'm casting blame on one thing. The state of violence in our culture is so much more complex than being able to point to a solitary cause.
So.
Based on what Lynch said, I want to propose an idea: Is it possible we have gotten more violent as a culture, not directly because of violent movies, but rather as movies acting as a catalyst? We're shown the most depraved of acts and people when we watch certain movies. I know that there are people out there that match these characters. It might not be exact in the act, but in the potential and the personality. When millions of people see this it shows them a new normal. It shows them how much they could actually get away with in our society, and raising that bar allows people to comfortably slip into that more violent level of existence without the guilt. (Or you could say kids who haven't separating good from bad watch this shit and misinterrupt what the filmmakers are trying say and grow up with a skewed sense of reality. That would fall on the parents, though. And I watched T2 as a five-year-old and turned out mostly okay.)
Another way to look at it is profanity in television. Most network channels still shy away from too coarse of language, but we hear "bitch," "asshole," and "shit" regularly on FX. Those characters talk like I talk. They've made a brand that is more realistic to my life. Thus, more people are privy to this kind of language, making it more common, and then more acceptable in day to day interactions. When are artist then wants to push the line and shock people they have all the more work to do. Pushing that bar up shows us more and more of the decadent behavior.
Essentially what I'm saying is I think the violence is already here in our society. Movies or no movies, the violent people are among us. But film shines a light on it, making it a common thought. The light that is shined perpetuates the rise in violent behavior, but doesn't necessarily cause it.
Am I way far off on this? Am I buying into the NRA's everything but guns mantra? I haven't committed myself to this theory, but it's been bouncing around my head today. Let me know what you think.
And one more note:
I'd be a fool not to touch on the fact that books have been violent much longer than movies. There has been more rape, murder, sex, and gore in books as a whole than movies collectively. So why would we not see a spike in societal violence from the effects of books? You have to actively visualize what a book is telling you. It is much easier to desensitize yourself from passively watching a movie than it is when you're actively reading a book.
Before we get into this. I just want to let everyone know that Katie hates seeing eyeballs on screen. Mostly when the eyeballs are getting injured/popping out of the sockets. We all have our weird fear of things on screen, like I can't stand seeing the needle go into the skin. On top of that, she really does not like watching overt sexual content. So, you know, she made a great choice when she plugged A Clockwork Orange in. I asked her to make play by play notes while the movie ran, giving us pretty much a stream of consciousness experience. Let's take a look. (Joe)
Weeell, this movie is off to a great start. R.I.P. Drunk Old Dude.
Grandma has purple hair? Whaaaa?
Oh. Mom. My bad. Wait, he's in high school? Bull. Also, love the obsession with Beethoven. At least this kid has good taste.
So, super creepy guy in the bedroom, yes? Wait, so he has a key to his house, felt him up, and made himself a drink? What a jerk. Again, loving the soundtrack. House of mirrors?
Hehey! 2001 reference, yes?? Surprise! More ladies. Orchestra's back. Get ready to close your eyes. CALLED IT. I can't get past the eyeballs on the sleeves. Aaaaaahhhhh
NO. THERE’S MORE ORCHESTRA. Girls run! Waaiit. Whaa? Woah woah woah, a knife? But, why? They're friends, what did he do?
Hold up. Now they're hanging out? I'd be out of there in a heartbeat. "See my hand? I'M OUT." Why the fascination with women's bodies? Come on lady. Cats. I like her.
Good for her! She didn't answer the door. At least she's not dumb. Calling the police! Goodness gracious she's so smart. I hope I don't see more of her than I want to. Woah, what are those paintings? I don't like her anymore. He looks so smug. I don't like him anymore either. Haha wait, I never liked him. Why am I still watching this? Creepy guy's back! Boys watch out! He killed cat woman! I don't know how to feel about that. How much longer is this movie? I need to watch Disney or something. His eyes are gorgeous. I wish they weren't; it would make it so much easier to stop watching.
Op! Just smiled. Ew. I can stop watching now. Did he just smirk at the officer? He just smirked at the officer. That's not okay. His tie is short and fat and it looks silly.
Ha! And the back part is longer. Classic. Woah! Almost saw body parts I didn't want to. Thanks Kubrick.
HIS EYES. I can't look past them. Boooobs again. Goodness. Hahahahaha the Father just referred to him as his inmate number. For some reason I found that hilarious. Haha! He just did it again. Love it. Okay. I made it. I'm an hour in. Aaaaand, I still don't know what it's about. Hold up. He's still talking to the Father. Maybe he'll change his ways?
Gah! What a cool composition! Oh no. Orchestra again. Naked lady pictures next to a cross. Stay classy, inmate #655321. Okay, orchestra music's gone and nothing happened. I'm confused.
Well! This has been fun. 1hr 11mins and 25 seconds in. I'm out.
GAH I have to keep going. Dammit Joe, you seriously owe me big time.
Damn. It was paused too long the screen went black.
It's still paused. I'm going out of my way to find things to distract me now.
IMMA DO IT.
Gosh this is disgusting. Stop with the eye drops! You're killing me! I actually really enjoy this song. 1:16:00. Buuuut, not the video that’s playing simultaneously. Beethoven! Damn you Burgess, you genius. Young Malcolm McDowell looks nothing like old Malcolm McDowell. Wait, now he's performing in a play? I'm still getting over the eye part. I couldn't handle anything after that. I'm struggling even now to keep watching. Woah! Violence makes him sick! Burgess, again, you genius. Uh oh. Techno 70s music is back. Please don't show more of that poor girl than needed. Whoo! He's getting better! His tie is even on proportionally now. Was this intentional? I hope so. I love it. Hehey! Yellow hair! Nice change, Mom. Why is he yelling? Ah. I'm so proud of him. That tie looks smashing. Short and fat ties must run in the family. Come on, Dad.
No! The snake’s gone, too?
The music in the background is not helping. Aww. I actually feel bad for him now. :(
So much emotion! Woah! Drunk homeless man is alive?! Are those his friends? I don't recognize them without their eyeball infused long sleeve shirts.
Long shot! Good one, Kubrick. Woah woah woah! Stop hitting him! Cool sound design though. Wait, where is he going? OH SNAP. Wait, whaa? What happened to the lady? Wait, “victim”? But the treatment worked... Woah, is he crazy? What's wrong with the old man now?
Oh gosh, please don't go where I think this is going. Singing in the Rain. Good choice. WOAH, HOLD UP. NOT A GOOD CHOICE. Oh man. I hate to say it but this movie is turning out great. I think he's being poisoned. Or they're going to kill them.
Poisoned it was! Spoke too soon. Okay, not cool. He's obviously changed, so now they're being cruel.
But he did rape and murder his wife, so the old man has a right. But does he? KUBRICK OH MY GOSH THE SYMMETRY IS AMAZING.
I'm so conflicted. He's still alive?! Oh my gosh.
Oh ew. He’s right there. Be professional guys. Pink hair. I don't get why Mom's hair color keeps changing. There's the short and fat tie on Dad again. This has to be on purpose. Symmetry again. Man. So cool. Okay, now a blue haired nurse? Come on. Now he's back. Back to being bad? Like before he went to recovery? COOL HOSPITAL SHOT. I'm sorry, I can't look past the ties. They're always super thick. I hate it. But I love the fact that the long monologue of the cop guy is broken up by shots of Alex eating. Very cute.
Ha! I love it. No, no, no, not Beethoven's 9th. Phew. Back to the cool hospital shot.
So what did Fredrick promise him? I was distracted by him eating. What's happening to his face?
I can't wait to see James "I just sucked on too man lemons" Franco make an ass of himself again. He started out with a fake gangsta emcee kind of accent, then switched to Southern? Also, giving yourself an accent takes more than just dropping one letter off of the word. He's so dumb. You know this, I know this, so let's just stop talking about it!
Secondly, there has got to be a better way for girls like Vanessa Hudgens and Selena Gomez to make that scary shift from kids/family friendly to serious movies. I mean, take a note from Ryan Gosling (his shift was The Believer), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Mysterious Skin), Leonardo DiCaprio (The Beach), or Neil Patrick Harris (Harold and Kumar). Two of the above mentioned films are indie, to the point of near no one has seen them. One was about an American Nazi youth and the other was sexually depraved. NPH's choice was so over the top that he played himself (it helps that he had hit rock bottom and didn't have much to lose), and DiCaprio's was this strange movie that didn't really have a mass appeal. It wasn't necessarily trying to be cool, but weird.
These girls have instead picked a party movie for their transition. They are only painting themselves into a different corner at this point. Look at Thomas Mann:
You might recognize him from Project X. It's a very R-rated comedy about some kids throwing a house party. GROWN UP THEMES! And it looks like Spring Breakers will have a similar tone.
Speaking of Thomas Mann, though, you might also recognize him from Fun Size, the Nickelodeon produced party movie. That one I'm still trying figure out. He hasn't been in a lot and his two biggest movies are probably often mixed up.
Essentially, these "adults" are now typecasting themselves as the party crowd. Do you really think Sam Mendes is going to see one of these actors drinking a beer on screen and think that makes them more appealing for one of his movies? No, but Todd Phillips might (but Phillips is also too smart to cast one of these dip-shits). The audience they seem to be trying to get away from is only a few years behind these movies (or not at all. At this point they are just setting bad examples for their existing fan base).
Do something outside the box. Robert Pattinson made Cosmopolis, not fucking Let's Get Hammered on the Party Boat. You know, because he recognized the ramifications of his choices.
Have you ever heard someone talking about a scene in a movie and you're thinking to yourself, Holy shit! That sounds so awesome! And then you watch the movie and the scene is utterly lame and you feel foolish for ever thinking it was going to be good or entertaining to begin with? Well, it has happened to all of us! Here's a list of some of our favorite let downs. (Joe)
Spider-Man III: Peter Parker Goes Bad
Aliens, men made of sand, piano sequences, and clay-faced Toby Maguire. What isn’t there to love about Spider-man 3? A lot, there is a lot you can’t love about Spider-man 3. Bad acting, horrible dialogue, James Franco…and who okayed casting Topher Grace as Eddie Brock?
When I was just a lad, Venom was portrayed as this giant terrifying creature. Apparently Topher Grace fits the mold. Anyways, this movie had a chance to do something really great and Raimi seriously dropped the ball. I completely understand that the Spider-Man movies were supposed to be fun and campy, but there is one scene that took it to a whole new level. When the alien symbiotic takes over Peter’s suit, he starts to feel more confident and powerful. This was their chance to show how powerful and dangerous it was. Instead, Sam Raimi thought it was a better idea to turn this into a huge long sequence of terrible jokes. It starts with Peter combing his bangs forward over his eyes like some fourteen-year-old scene kid. He then proceeds to walk down the street pelvic thrusting and double gunning at every single female he sees. Some laugh, some cringe, and some are into it. The scenes greatest/worst moment is Peter arriving at the bar MJ is working at and he sits down at a piano and starts playing some jazz tune. While the band is playing, Peter starts swinging (weird nobody questions this) and dancing around the bar, snapping like a maniac and dancing with Gwen Stacy and kisses her to make Mary Jane jealous.
Seriously guys? If you want to show Venom as this creature that turns people into public enemies, you cant have a scene where people are dancing around, calling people hotlips and saying “now dig this.” It completely takes away from the aspect of “evil.” Fortunately, this drop-of-ball if you will has given us one of the most laughable sequences in movie history. For this, Sam Raimi should be given a medal of honor, then shot.
Four Brothers: Car Chase Four Brothers tells the touching story of four adoptive brothers, some of whom have fallen onto the wrong side of the law (and by some I mean all), coming together to help track down the gunman who shot and killed their adoptive mother.
The scene I'm pointing out occurs somewhere in the middle of the movie. They've been playing detective and track two men down who might have information (or the murderers) involving the death of the interracial brothers' mother. The two men somehow escape questioning and get to their car, only to be pursued by Mark Wahlberg, Outkast, some other singer and the dude from Tron: Legacy AKA The Four Brothers.
The movie is set in Detroit during the winter months, so there is snow. For anyone who haven't driven in snow: Go fuck yourself! I wish I was you! You have no idea how great you've had it every holiday season! For those of you that have driven in snow: You get it. When it snows it seems like everyone either slows down way too much, or they're trying to show off how badass they are by speeding far too much. When it comes to the actual driving, you've got to be careful to not go too fast because then you're just not going to stop. Sometimes you don't stop even if you're going really slow.
One thing I'll point out is most of the chaos while driving in the snow happens mentally. I'm usually muttering to myself and waiting to slid into a car, or person, or animal, or a something.
The issue with the scene is it's a blizzard. Oh yeah! Chaotic blizzard car chase! It's never been done before and people hate driving in the snow! Slippery sliding and shit in the house! False. What we get is the slowest car chase of all time. It looks like the cars are going about twenty miles an hour, gently bumping into one another. The absence of other cars on the road makes this scene even more boring. Other drivers are the worst part about driving in the snow, and now we've got a 3am chase through the streets of Detroit, where no one else seems to drive. They even tried to put a flat tire into the scene to build the tension, but the blow out didn't seem to affect the brothers' car in the slightest? Oh, shit! Tension!
An added bonus to this: The guys being chased are overacting way too much. Their screams, while they assumed would build the tension and make the whole situation seem a lot worse, actually makes the whole cars bumping look even more ridiculous. There isn't panic in their voices, just forced screams.
Robocop: Shoot-Out
Scenes that are great in conception and
yet have little to deliver? Pardon my blasphemy, but I'm throwing in
Robocop.
Now, to be fair, others come to mind.
Take Home Alone, for example. A little boy has two crooks run
a gauntlet of near fatal, intricate, and brilliantly timed traps
building up to a promising boss battle only to have these invincible
foes be knocked cold by an arguably delicate shovel-tap (spoiler
alert? No. If you haven't seen Home Alone, go to hell).
But then there's Robocop:
Verhoeven's masterpiece. Don't yell just yet, I love the movie. But I
have a major complaint every time I watch it. There comes a point in
the film where Robocop (part man, part machine, all cop) enters a
warehouse/drug factory determined to senselessly beat the balls out
of his psychopathic nemesis, Boddicker. But to get to him,
Murphy-redux has to shoot his way through a literal warehouse of
armed men one by one, destroying everything that moves. So to recap:
a goddamn robot gets to go on a limitless shooting spree against
dozens of heavily armed men in an enormous building filled with
chemicals and catwalks and glass and guns and drugs, destroying
everything in its path until it gets to the guy on the other side.
Whoa, awesome. Even as I write that I'm crossing my fingers for chain
reactions of people getting lit on fire while running through
mountains of cocaine, stumbling into a scaffolding of paint thinner
that falls over, crushes a guy in half, lights off some gasoline
which explodes a window which sends shards of glass into twenty guys'
eyeballs, and Robocop just strolls through the flames unscathed,
casually shooting other precarious barrels of deadly acid above even
more enemies.
But
instead, Robocop just targets everybody and casually shoots them all
one by one. The end. Thank God he's at least walking while this
happens, not just standing still. The only improvement the audience
gets to what otherwise is just “bad guy shooting, Robocop shooting,
bad guy dying” is the faintest hint of one guy unintentionally
harming another, which, really? C'mon. It might as well be slapstick.
I want something that makes “mousetrap” crap itself. I want
mayhem. Even Big Willie Style wreaked more havoc in the hangar at the
end of Bad Boys. Give
the armed robot a chance.
To be fair, Robocop
does proceed to immediately throw Boddicker through several panes of
glass for no reason whatsoever, very satisfying. And I get that the
scene needs to keep up pacing, that it's an important scene in the
movie that brings out a hint of Murphy's “anger.” But to write
such an open-ended and promising scenario for what we all accept as a
ludicrous and over-exaggerated movie to begin with, why not go full
monty? Lord knows Verhoeven doesn't get his reputation by holding
back.
Here's my disclaimer: I didn't see all the movies I wanted to see this year. I missed Safety Not Guaranteed, Beasts of the Southern Wild, The Silver Linings Playbook, and Zero Dark Thirty.Would one of these movies made its way onto my list? Maybe! I don't know! I haven't seen them yet! But the movies below are movies I definitely did see and liked a whole lot.
Let me know what you're favorites were at the bottom.
10) The Dark Knight Rises
This one almost didn't make it. I think it fits in perfectly with the trilogy they made, but it's not as solid of a stand alone movie as the other two. But, it is still a pretty damn good movie. Opposed to pointing out logical jumps in the plot, I'm going to focus more on how this movie didn't collapse under the weight of itself.
The expectations were set so high, and it still was able to handle the pressure. They were coming off of Ledger pushing The Dark Knight to the high rankings of super hero movies. One of my complaints about the first two movies was that Bruce Wayne seemed to take a backseat to the villains and plot. Christian Bale was finally able to have a Batman movie to himself. There wasn't as much Batman as one would hope in a two and half hour movie, but watching Bruce Wayne try to pull himself back together was fascinating.
Then we have the baddies! Tom Hardy was a perfect follow-up to Heath Ledger. Bane was so calm and calculated, bringing a steely terror to the franchise. Anne Hathaway proved everyone wrong--with a sexy and cool turn--when she owned the role of Selina Kyle.
I've always been a sucker for Batman, and even while I tried to think of a movie I liked more than The Dark Knight Rises, I failed to come up with anything that could knock Nolan's final chapter in the series off this list.
9) Flight
My only complaint about Flight? It is a little long, pushing close to two and a half hours. This year seemed like it was the year of long movies, though. We've got Jack Reacher, This is Forty, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Lincoln, and The Hobbit: An Extremely Long Journey all pushing two and a half hours. But whereas some of those felt too long, Flight was only kind of long.
Denzel Washington is enough reason to watch this flick. He is one of the great actors I have had the privileged of growing up watching. He is always good and entertaining, but not necessarily always captivating. I haven't seen his last few movies, not because they didn't look good, but because they looked too safe and generic. This one, on the other hand, isn't about the plot, but rather the character. And they got the man to play the part.
The movie follows a pilot that was able to safe over a hundred people on a plane that crashed due to mechanical failure. The problem is that the pilot was super hammered while he was supposed to be flying the plane. The bulk of the movie deals not with the plane crash (they get that out of the way right at the beginning), but with the alcohol addiction that possesses this one individual. If it weren't for Daniel Day-Lewis and Joaquin Phoenix, I would put all my money on Washington winning an Oscar for this performance.
8) Killing Them Softly
It's a mob movie with not a lot of mob. There is a lot of talking, but it's mostly the state of finance and hookers. The dialogue in this movie doesn't really deal with the plot of the movie, but the problems that are present in the lives of a lot of Americans.
The fact that the movie is brave enough to crawl along at a snail's pace, and still keep me on the edge shows the subtleties of Killing Them Softly. Now, there is violence. I mean, killing is in the title. And much like Drive, the violence is amplified on two levels. First they've enhanced it so it is often realistic. They drop the music out, and we get the sound of every punch, or shot, or bit of broken bone. Secondly, they sandwiched the violence around an otherwise boring movie. Not a lot happens. The plot is simple and could have been told in twenty minutes if a fast-paced director like Michael Bay directed the movie. But the slowness of the movie helps push those violent bits to the core of our minds. We are completely focused on Ray Liotta's cries while he begs for his life. And it impacts us all the more.
An added bonus to this flick: Brad Pitt. He's the man, and he gives one of the coolest speeches at the end of movie. This is his movie, but generally takes the back seat during scenes, letting Richard Jenkins or James Gandolfini really shine.
7) Django Unchained
Tarantino makes cool movies. That's the best way to describe what he does. Take a look at Inglorious Basterds and you can see that even when making a war movie, he has this hip edge that makes his movies just cool. The soundtrack has a lot to do with Tarantino hitting that threshold, but a lot of it is in the dialogue.
So from the standard Tarantino elements, let's take a look at the movie itself. We've got Jamie Foxx in one of his best roles. Will Smith was originally offered the title role, but in the end, I think Foxx was the better choice. He's got the swagger that is so important to the character. Leonardo DiCaprio plays one of his first bad guys, and while it wasn't as diabolical as I was lead to believe, he does pull of the despicable. It's almost how good natured he seems to be about everything that makes it even worse.
This might also be the bloodiest movies Tarantino has made. The only other flick to rival would be Kill Bill vol 1, but still, even if they're comparable you can imagine how much corn syrup went into making this thing. It might be the most fun I had at the movies all year. Good Christmas!
6) The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson knows how to make movies. He is our modern day Scorsese or Coppola. For The Master he's taken a pretty heavy subject--and controversial for some--and really pumped an intriguing, surprisingly objective story behind it.
We follow an ex-sailor drifter across the United States. He has a substance abuse problem with drink, and I say drink opposed to alcohol because he is consistently making his own potions throughout the movie. He encounters a charismatic man who has some similarities to L. Ron Hubbard, the mastermind behind Scientology. The two men find a kindred spirit in the other, and we're shown what happens with the primitive mind comes into contact with the evolved. This isn't to say one is better than the other, but we see each of the strengths and weaknesses work against one another.
Joaquin Phoenix, playing the ex-sailor, gives the best performance of his career. He has taken not only the lines, but the body language and took in all the qualities of this character. The facial expressions he silently presents shows the insanity before he even has to mutter any one of his lines. And then there is Philip Seymour Hoffman. The man who never disappoints. An original score from Johnny Greenwood doesn't hurt, either.
5) Cloud Atlas
I still feel like I need to see this movie again and again. Within the first twenty minutes I knew I wasn't going to keep up, and decided to just let the movie flow over me. The visuals are spectacular and it proves the Waschowskis haven't lost their zeal for pushing the limits of technology (this was also co-directed by Tom Tykwer, of Run Lola Run fame).
Upon first exiting the theatre I told people that this movie was going to be one that people looked back on as a game changer. I stand by that notion, but at this point I'm not really confident in what game it is changing. I just know that it is upping the game for sci-fi flicks and epics. The way it is able to weave so many different stories together, while not giving equal weight to each one, they definitely make you feel for all the characters. I hadn't felt this overwhelmed in a movie since Inception.
The cast is delightful across the board, and I'm a little in love with Ben Whishaw.
4) Holy Motors
Foreign movie alert. Dumbo French movie a lot. Another crazy confusing blending of genres alert!
If Denis Lavant wins an Oscar for acting I will be a happy man. I don't expect him to win, but I think from everything I've seen this year he deserves it. I would like to try to explain the flick to you, but in the end, I'm still not so sure what I watched.
The movie is built on vignettes, that don't necessarily have anything in common except they're all tied to the main character's job. What is his job? I have no idea. But it's great!
The movie feels like David Lynch and David Cronenberg got together, hashed out an idea, had someone write the whole thing in French, and then filmed in with the perfect blend of their signature styles.
3) Cabin in the Woods
Another movie that was just too much fun. Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon knew exactly what they were doing when they made this movie. The first half is so over the top cheese ball that you're not expecting to see the second half as it amps up the action.
They've infused such a sick amount of humor into watching people die, but in through all the laughs, there is a lot at stake. The gore and violence is over the top enough to laugh at, but still based enough in reality that the horror fans will rejoice. It's not meant to be scary, so while you're twidling your thumbs don't be tempted to turn it off. You've got to give it a chance, and if you're a normal person, it'll pay off.
And Richard Jenkins is the best.
2) Looper
I've yammered on enough about how much I love Rian Johnson. He has the rare ability to take genre movies that we think we've seen before and transcend them above a regular popcorn flick. That's precisely what he does here.
Time travel is a sticky subject to get into. So what does Johnson do? He makes it pretty damn vague, and essentially doesn't spend the time to try to justify his choices. This is the way it is, and that's all there is about it. I like that tactic, and it seems to spill over throughout the whole movie. There are hints at parallel universes intertwined with a linear timeline, but to make the story work he lets the audience think about some of it by themselves. You want to figure it out? Have fun. You want to just enjoy the movie? Even better.
The action is fantastic. Watching a man fall apart because the mob is dismembering you're past self was incredible. I never thought about that and how it would work, and it turns out that I loved it. Also, Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a perfect Bruce Willis. He should win the Oscar for Best Being Bruce Willis. Not one of his movements seemed to be out of place. He even got the dry laugh down to a T. Like Tarantino, Rian Johnson knows how to make cool movies.
1) Seven Psychopaths
This isn't the best movie I saw this whole year. If I'm being completely honest, I would have to crown Flight or Argo as the best movie I watched. But this list isn't about what I thought the best made movies were, but rather my favorite movies of the year. What movie made me the happiest while I watched it? Seven Psychopaths.
Basically, within the first five minutes of the flick Reid look over at me and told me I was being really loud with my laughter. He slouched in his seat, in what seemed to be massive embarrassment. Alas, I did not stop laughing throughout the entire movie.
The cast was spot on, each showcasing a specific brand of humor. My favorite character had to have been Sam Rockwell, being overly ridiculous for the majority of the movie, and then explaining how he would end the movie was priceless (by the way, this is a meta-movie, so be prepared). The dialogue was quick and witty. Some of it was unnecessary, but all of it was enjoyable.
And then on top of the humor, there were some touching moments throughout the flick. Christopher Walken and his wife made me feel lucky to have a significant other. The story of the Viet Nam vet was the tying thread that brought the movie to the number one spot of my list. It took the movie past a few laughs and gave it a living pulse. To have a #1 movie, you need to put some heart and thought behind it and that's exactly what they did here.
I'm going to go ahead and say that I haven't read the The Hobbit novel. Yes, so this review isn't really how well they adapted the book, but rather it's looking at the movie on its own. Which probably isn't a good thing.
Like I said before, I didn't feel like I really needed to watch hobbits and dwarves walk around for another twelve hours. At this point I've sunk another three hours of my life into watching these bitches walk around. The majority of the movie is Gandalf yelling run, and then all the shorter dudes start running through the woods. What does this mean? The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is exactly what I thought it was going to be.
It starts off with broad strokes and explanation of blood-lines and dwarf history. The audience gets caught up with major motivations for later characters at the beginning. This takes about fifteen minutes. Then we're stuck with what felt like forty-five minutes of dwarves overtaking Bilbo's house. They just eat and burp and Bilbo asks them to stop. For forty-five fucking minutes. In retrospect, I realize it was probably closer to thirty minutes, but still much too long to explain the basic concept of the journey. Bilbo is the chosen fourteenth member, but he says 'no thanks.' Then he thinks about it. Will he or won't he? Oh, he does.
They set off and encounter trolls and orcs and we get some more back story on Thorin. Some albino orc really fucking hates him. And Thorin the dwarf hates the orc back. So there is some history. They want to kill each other so bad! They talk with some elves, then walk into a mountain that is filled with goblins. And (if you've seen the trailers) this is where Bilbo comes into contact with Gollum and it starts to feel a lot like a prequel, which I realize it kind of is, but at the same time kind of isn't.
The basic premise of the movie: let's get to a mountain to reclaim the Dwarf homeland.
Here are my issues: this fucker is long. Along with being long, it meanders through most the scenes and it just feels like they wanted to get past the two and a half hour mark as some sort of justification for making three movies. Because the scenes tend to run on the long side the movie gets boring.
At times the effects look dated. I mean, The Lord of the Rings was a game changer when it comes to CGI, and The Hobbit won't have the same classification. I will say, though, when Gollum is on screen the effects are breathtaking. There are moments when they've outdone themselves, but it seems like they focused on select scenes while quickly putting together others. The inconsistency was distracting to me.
And now the things I liked: Martin Freeman is the shit! I thought he did such a wonderful job as Bilbo. He was by far my favorite part of the movie. The scene when he meets up with Gollum was filled with scene chewing, but instead of rolling my eyes I bought into it. It was the only time I didn't mind Peter Jackson running the clock out. Freeman fits in so well with all the LotR members that you would have assumed he was always a part of it.
The last forty minutes are quick moving with a lot of action. Then there are also bits of calm when Bilbo's character is changing and it starts bringing the whole ensemble together. I just wish they could have kept it as two movies to make the stories a bit more fluid.
Anyone is excited for this flick won't be disappointed. It has pretty much everything I imagine a Hobbit fan to hope for, but it kept running its wheels a bit too much for me. My favorite part of the whole thing? The Pacific Rim trailer.
