AMF's Miscellaneous Recognitions

Not all movies can end up on a "best of" list... but that doesn't mean they weren't without merit. It's been a good year for Hollywood!

Biggest Disappointment: The Place Beyond the Pines
I wanted so much to love this, and I did love the first story (the movie is structured as a triptych, telling three unique stories using the others as context). The first third is brilliant and so the stupidity of the second and (especially) the third segments becomes exponentially frustrating. So much potential... so much wasted potential. Although you have to [SPOILERS] give props to a movie that offs its headlining actor less than halfway through the run-time.

Most Unfairly Panned: [tie] The Host; World War Z

I'm not saying either The Host or World War Z deserve to win any awards (although some of the SFX in the latter are pretty brilliant), but I will argue that both of these movies are better than public reception led you to believe.

If The Host hadn't been cursed by the phrase "based on the book by Stephenie Meyer" on its poster it may have fared a lot better, regardless of content. Taken in and of itself -- ignoring all Twilight-y context -- it has some really interesting things to say about sexuality and sexual autonomy, as well as the mores of attraction. It's heavy stuff for a teen romance, and it's not all handled perfectly, but it's there and it's legitimately interesting. 

World War Z had a similar expectation problem... only this time for the opposite reasons. The book (by Max Brooks) on which this is ostensibly based is brilliant, and has been a cult favorite for years. The movie cadges the title from said novel and not much else; if you were expecting a true adaptation of Brooks's work, you were left tragically wanting. Taken as a non-affiliated big-budget zombie apocalypse film, though, it works well and manages to do some interesting things in a genre that has been run into the ground.

Most Inscrutable: Upstream Color 

I legitimately don't quite know what this movie was about. I truly don't know if I liked it or not. It's slow, it was clearly done on a beyond-shoestring budget, it's in many ways very, very disturbing... and yet, it was compelling in a modern-art kind of way. I'm not sure what happened or why I should care, but maybe that's beside the point.

Best Trailer: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty 
This teaser whumped me. I fell in love. By all accounts, the movie doesn't live up to the promise displayed by the trailer... but I don't care. The pure, almost-tragic joy in these two minutes can (and maybe should) be taken on their own. Of Monsters and Men and magic realism -- can you get much better?

Biggest Guilty Pleasure: Battle of the Year 
This movie is terrible. I'm not defending its merits, but just like you sometimes crave Cheetos instead of some fancy French cheese, sometimes you need b-boy dancing and Sawyer from Lost being emo instead of a film. This has training montages (multiple training montages!), inspirational coach speeches, some great male bonding, and dancing (so much dancing!). Cuddle up with your Cheez-Puffs, grab some Diet Coke, and turn off your brain. It's all good.

Worst Movie: Romeo and Juliet
I watched this with two brilliant Renaissance Lit scholars and thus cannot even claim to be as pained by it as one could be (although by the end even I was howling in rage)... but even if your sum contact with Shakespeare was reading Romeo and Juliet in high school, you may very well be offended by the aggressive stupidity of this adaptation. For one thing, you know that "wherefore" (as in "wherefore art thou Romeo?") means "why", not "where". Too bad nobody told Juliet that before she recited it. Ouch.

AMF's 2013 Year-End Recap

Top 10 Movies of the Year (in no real order)

Blue Jasmine
Woody Allen's candy-colored tragedy about the wreckage that mental illness leaves in its wake gets my nod for best film of the year, hands down. It's pretty and sprightly and utterly, holistically heartbreaking. 

Enough Said
Nicole Holofcener writes people like nobody else. These are people you know: they're your friends, your co-workers, they're the people you see every day and who you intrinsically care about -- they may not be perfect (in fact, they're usually far from it), but they're very, very real. Nothing earth-shattering happens in this movie, but it somehow leaves you excited for the adventure ahead of our protagonists, even after the credits roll. 

Moral of this movie: love is sharing your stoop

Nebraska
I have a little "thing" for movies about old people confronting their own obsolescence (don't even play the theme to Up unless you want me to start bawling). I'm not sure entirely what I was expecting from this movie, but I loved what it is -- a quiet, sometimes-frustrating meditation on what it's like to realize who your parents were before you, and who they are because of you.

American Hustle
This ballsy tour de force is one of the most self-assured crime movies I've seen in a very long time. It's exquisitely put together, yet giddily enthusiastic -- Christopher Nolan-esque precision, yet with such a dirty, sexy vibrance that you never see the surgically elegant hand behind the action. 

dude-perms and velvet and boobs, oh my!

Warm Bodies

Every end-of-year list needs one movie that may not be good, but just makes you feel good. I grinned for essentially the entire run-time of this movie, and for ages afterwards. It's a Romeo and Juliet story that, on first glance, doesn't look like much... but it gets under your skin. It's a movie to turn on while you cuddle with someone. It may not be life changing, but it's warm and sweet and oddly affecting.

Dallas Buyers Club

I almost didn't bother going to see this because, based on the trailer, it just looked schmaltzy and like a soggy change-of-heart sob story. Ads, luckily, lie. Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto both rock some serious Method acting and while this is inherently a rather emotional story to tell, there are no cheap saccharine moments here.

McConaughey and Leto waiting patiently for their Oscars

Gravity
The spectacle of this movie may suffer on DVD, but the experience of seeing this on a theatre screen in 3D, was truly one of the highlights of the year. I panic-attacked multiple times (the first time being about 2 minutes in... it boded well for the next 2 hours), but the completeness of the world constructed by Cuarón is immersive and incredible.

Blue is the Warmest Color
I was conflicted about putting this on my list. It's 3 hours long but could have easily been edited down to about 2, the director is a perv (as well as essentially abusing his lead actresses), and, let's be honest: there was no need at all for that 9 minute pornographic sex scene that earned the movie its (very valid) NC-17 rating. But on the other hand, it has two of the most beautiful performances (by Léa Seyoux and Adèle Exarchopoulos) I've ever seen and the first 90ish minutes are a near-perfect depiction of what the confusion of being a teenager in love feels like.

this is a kissing movie

The World’s End
I would follow Simon Pegg and Nick Frost almost anywhere and while this didn't generate the buzz that Shaun of the Dead did, I almost think it was funnier. It is, like the rest of their oeuvre, smart, snappy and silly... and then it just jams you in the gut with legitimate emotional heft. 

Much Ado About Nothing
There's no movie I'd rather have been a part of than this. A long weekend overflowing with wine, friends and Shakespeare -- what could be better? 

everyone's had this house-party moment ... right?

Point-by-Point: The Man with the Iron Fists - 4/10

We start in China at some unspecified-but-long-ago time. There's a gang that was taken over by a traitorous lieutenant, there's a rightful-but-out-of-power leader to said gang, there's a blacksmith, there's a madame and her prostitutes, there's a western badass, and there's a buttload of gold that they all are somehow involved with. A variety of things happen, but any plot is mainly an excuse for kung-fu action.

The Good: While none of the action is outstanding, the variety of characters and weapons is entertaining. I especially enjoyed Zin Yi's knife armor that would sprout blades wherever needed. The movie is ridiculous in a campy / throwback sort of way, and there are enough fun bits that you begin to think it would have been very possible to make a better movie than what they ended up with. Russell Crowe is fun to watch and seems to be having a good time, although he does end up making the rest of the cast look bad.

The Bad: RZA. He's a pretty mediocre director and an utterly horrible actor. Since this is his movie and he was the main character, that inevitably led to a crappy outcome. There are some interesting style choices, especially when it comes to music, but the movie begins to drag towards the end and some of the fight scenes rely on CGI gore instead of actual fight choreography. The story is a little thin, but you can chalk that up to the genre. Even with all of that, the movie could have been salvaged if RZA had picked someone better in the lead role instead of trying to do it himself. He doesn't have the acting chops to pull off the dramatic parts and looks downright silly during the action scenes. I don't know if he chose to be the main character because of ego or just because he thought it'd be fun, but he should have hired a real actor.

The Ugly: With all the gore in the unrated version, there are a lot of scenes to choose from. However, probably the ugliest was just how the Man with the Iron Fists comes by his name.

Points Pondered

-Were I Russell Crowe's character, I'd think about carrying an actual gun along with my knife gun.

-Mirrored battle rooms seem far more confusing in movies than they'd actually be in real life. If the average 8 year old can make their way through a hall of mirrors at a carnival, a trained martial artist can figure out where the bad guy actually is.

-Taking a 10 or 15 minute timeout to learn the Blacksmith's history was a bit much, but then watching the RZA try to fight people made the whole exercise laughable. If he doesn't fight like a badass, no amount of backstory will convince us.

-Knife Armor seems like a risky proposition, and would probably be a hassle to put on and take off. Still, pretty cool looking. 

Point-by-Point: The Frankenstein Theory - 4/10

A researcher finds out that his ancestor was the basis for Dr. Frankenstein. He thinks the monster is still alive, and he hires a documentary crew that accompanies him to the arctic circle to track the creature down. It goes about as well as you'd expect.

The Good: This is an interesting idea for a movie, and by framing it as a documentary, there's slightly higher production value than the average found-footage film. Also, the acting (save for the main character, sadly) is well above par for this kind of movie. They actually spent some money on real actors for the side characters - the meth head and the guide both did standout jobs. 

The Bad: Our hero Dr. Venkenheim veers a bit towards Gene Wilder in a supposedly serious film, and it doesn't quite work. But the main problem is this movie just doesn't deliver on it's promising premise. It's a very slow build up to an utterly underwhelming conclusion, and there's nary a startle along the way. 

The Ugly: The weather. I really hope they didn't drag the entire crew up to the arctic circle, but wherever they were looked miserably cold. Oh, and I guess you see a corpse that was ripped in two. But mainly the weather.

Points Pondered

-At first I was about to give the movie a 6, but then I realized I had just watched Greystone Park and in comparison everything looks like Shakespeare. Just because a movie isn't terrible doesn't make it good.

-Christine Lakin of Step by Step fame plays the doctor's girlfriend, which I only realized after I saw her name in the credits. I would say she should be in more stuff, but a quick check of her IMDb page shows she's in about 5-10 things a year. Might be time to raise her standards.

-There's absolutely nothing in the movie you don't see coming from miles away. Halfway in and most people could give you the order in which the cast is culled.

-Be warned - the cover is much cooler than anything you see in the movie.  

Point-by-Point: Greystone Park - 1/10

A group of folks with a camera wander in to a haunted mental hospital. Why, or who exactly these people are, isn't made entirely clear. Anyway, if you've seen a found-footage horror movie, it's basically just like that, but worse.

The Good: Move along, nothing to see here.

The Bad: This movie is a mess. The premise is overused, the characters are utterly boring, and I'm not entirely sure there was a plot. Even for the shaky-cam genre, the camera work was notably bad - the movie was overly dark, with far too many out-of-focus and wildly-swinging shots, and an amazing amount of fake distortion / cutting to random 'creepy' shots the camera could never have taken. Trying to follow along with anything in this movie is a lost cause. Of course, it wouldn't be a total loss if it was at least scary, but no dice. Sure, there's a jump scare or two and the occasional shadowy blur as the camera pans across from one wooden actor to another, but that's nowhere near enough to keep the average viewer from falling asleep. So, to recap, the acting, editing, writing, and directing were all horrible. I bet the catering even sucked.

The Ugly: The look on Oliver Stone's face when he saw just how crappy of a job his son did. That's an assumption, of course, but it's a safe one. 

Points Pondered

-If you can figure out the relationship between our main characters, or even how many people are actually in the group that enters the asylum, my hat goes off to you.

-If this is found footage, why is there a score?

-There's not one point in this movie where I felt like I had a firm grasp on what was happening. It quickly devolves into people yelling at each other in similar looking rooms and hallways. 

-Until they find a fully-lit cathedral. In the middle of an abandoned mental hospital.

-The credits look like they were created in iMovie - 3D stone-textured names, poofing off the screen. I mean, did the director even watch this?

-Really, just watch Grave Encounters instead. Or maybe even an episode of Ghost Hunters.

Point-by-Point: The Tall Man - 6/10

The Good: This starts off as a pretty good thriller - the story, pacing and direction are solid. The twist in the middle, which I didn't see coming, had me figuring that this movie was going to be great.

The Bad: It was all downhill from there. The second half of the movie slows to a crawl, and it doesn't help that it relies on Jessica Biel's acting chops. 

The Ugly: The assumed morality of the final reveal is off. I'm being vague to avoid spoilers, but it seems the movie treats the end as fairly clear-cut when it really isn't.

Points Pondered

-Really, owning as creepy of a van as our villain does should probably be regarded as probable cause for any crime.

-Most of my points pondered actually occurred in the latter half of the film, so I'll avoid mentioning them. Instead, I'll just say that the Tall Man from Phantasm is both taller and scarier than the The Tall Man's Tall Man. 

Point-by-Point: The Chaser - 4/10

An ex-detective turned pimp tries to track down his missing girls who, despite all evidence to the contrary, he believes have merely run off. Turns out, there's a creep involved, and then the chasing begins.

The Good: Taken individually, there are some interesting and well done scenes. There are moments in the direction and story-telling where I can see why people really like the film. Also, despite our hero basically being a total jerk, the performance is able to humanize him, making us truly end up on his side.

The Bad: The plot holes and sheer stupidity of the characters ruined this movie for me. Usually I'm pretty good at turning my brain off and just enjoying the ride, but The Chaser pushed me over my limit. Your story has serious problems when you rely on multiple people being idiots in order to get your characters out of sticky situations. Once is annoying, but it was almost a motif. For me, this killed any suspense they were trying to build, which then destroyed the pacing because I was sitting there going "There is no way this should possibly be happening" instead of focusing on the actual story. 

The Ugly: The utterly pointless murder near the end, that happens only due to a long sequence of the aforementioned stupidity. You can claim that it makes this movie gritty, or brutal. To me, it's just the director giving a big middle finger to the audience. 

Points Pondered

-Although this one takes it to an entirely different level, pretty much every Korean movie I've seen has totally incompetent cops. Is this just in film, or are they really that bad?

-There's absolutely nothing about the bad guy that convinces me he wouldn't get caught within an hour of his first crime.

-If my houseguest drew a creepy, four-walls-and-floor mural in two days, I might ask him to leave.

-This movie just proves that if you're sick, you shouldn't go to work. It's for your health, as well as the health of others. 

Point-by-Point: May - 8/10

May is a lonely girl. She meets a few people, but they find her creepy. She proves them totally right. 

The Good:  For a fairly small horror movie, the acting is outstanding. Angela Bettis is pretty much perfect as May, which is important because the movie could have easily fallen apart if her performance was even a little bit off. She makes you feel for May, even when she's being horrible. I also have a soft spot for Anna Faris (The House Bunny is far funnier than I would have imagined). Also, credit to the director - it's not easy to combine all of the emotional responses he was going for without it being a muddy train wreck, but he goes effortlessly between black comedy, psychological drama and horror. 

The Bad: Because of previously mentioned blending of genres, the pacing is a bit strange. I didn't have many problems with it, but someone hoping for a thrill-a-minute horror film will probably be bored towards the middle of this. 

The Ugly: Of the all gore in movies, violence of the ocular variety is by far the worst. This movie is a horrible offender.

Points Pondered

-My wife informed me that if the cat ever died while she was away, I should put it in the freezer. No.

-I appreciate that everyone treats May realistically - try to be friendly, see that she's kind of cute and quirky and want to hang out, then realize that she's actually crazy and slowly back away. Most people will take weirdness in stride until it gets to dangerous-weird.

-Has there ever been a non-creepy doll? 

-It's a bit odd - Jeremy Sisto looks to have aged a lot since this movie came out, and Anna Faris basically looks the same.  

Point-by-Point: Kill'em All - 2/10

A group of assassins is rounded up and forced to do battle. Why? That's never satisfactorily answered. 

The Good: This is a tough one. I guess there are a few nice shots of Bangkok. It also doesn't waste a lot of time getting to it's point.

The Bad: You'd think a movie about 8 assassins with different backgrounds and fighting styles killing each other would be exciting, but this movie is excruciatingly boring. The characters are entirely forgettable, and they all fight in basically the same way. I mean, you have to actively TRY to be boring to screw up this premise. I hate you, Kill'em All, for making me nostalgic for The Quest. Remember? The Van Damme movie? Featuring a tournament of deadly fighters from across the globe? No, the other one. That wasn't GOOD, but it was at least fun to watch. Kill'em All was not.

The Ugly: The set. I know the official description says they're locked in a "high-tech bunker known as the Killing Chamber," but that's awfully grandiose. I was thinking something like the X-Men's Danger Room, but it's basically a basement in an abandoned building that has a pipe for gas to come in. That's it. Disappointing.

Points Pondered

-It doesn't really seem fair to pit an assassin who specializes in explosives against one that has trained for years in hand-to-hand combat. Of course, he manages to hold his own, because this movie is dumb.

-For some reason, they decide to kill the most interesting assassins off first. Would have been too exciting, otherwise. 

-"Hey, now he's fighting like a monkey!" Oh, The Quest. 

-While you watch this movie (which you really shouldn't do), keep in mind that the main bad guy had all of these deadly assassins unconscious and totally helpless at two points during this ordeal. The fun begins when you try and reconcile that with the villain's ultimate plan. 

Point-by-Point: 13 Assassins - 8/10

A group of 13 samurai are sent to assassinate a brutal lord before he can grab any more power. Yet another well-titled movie.

The Good: For the most part, Takashi Miike tones down his usual cavalcade of brutality and that lets his ability as a director to shine through. The battle sequence is long yet amazing and well-shot, and avoids devolving into random guys hitting other random guys. Of course, he still puts in a few visceral scenes, but they are all the more effective when not surround by more of the same.

The Bad: Even though the story is well-told, it's fairly rote. Also, a number of the 13 aren't fleshed out very well, leading you to figure that they'll just be fodder when the time comes.

The Ugly: The variety of scenes used to paint a monstrous picture of our bad guy is about as ugly as it gets. Of course, by the end of it, you're totally on the side of the assassins, which is the point.

Points Pondered

-I knew this wasn't the average Miike film when a guy commits seppuku and you don't actually see him stick and knife in and watch his guts fall out.

-Setting this at the end of the samurai era definitely makes it more believable that a handful of well-trained men could pose a threat to a small army of amost-ceremonial samurai.

-The interplay between the leader of the 13 and the general of the enemy army was well done. It could have become one of a number of clichés, and avoiding them made the story stronger.

-Reading the description of the uncut version, they definitely made some wise choices for an international audience. Usually changes are made to dumb down films for a wider market, but here they eliminated a lot of silly scenes and weirdness that would have felt out of place. 

Point-by-Point: Lady Vengeance - 6/10

A lady goes to prison for awhile, then seeks vengeance on the one who put her there. The title is apt.

The Good: Park has style to spare. While it didn't quite impress me as much as Oldboy, the movie has an elegance that's easy to like. I also appreciate that people looked to have aged between when our hero first went to prison and eventually got out - I've run across far too many movies where 5 or 10 years supposedly pass and all the folks even have the same haircuts.

The Bad: I didn't like the story. More to the point, I felt like it was a good premise wasted. I actually kind of enjoyed the whole build-up of her calling on prison connections, but once a little girl shows up and other families get involved, it gets stupid fast. There are more than a few pointless scenes, and none of the actors seem like anything special. Overall, it's a pretty, dull movie.

The Ugly: There are a few scenes to be sure, but surprisingly nothing really approaching Oldboy. Let's go with the man-dog in the dream sequence.

Points Pondered

-The main character looks cooler in the poster than she does in most of the movie. I mention this mainly because I really like her eyes in the poster.

-She totes a very cool, albeit impractically super-close-range, handgun. But hey, style is definitely important.

-The "10 prisoners to a room" system seems to just be inviting problems.

-I think we can all agree that Chan-wook Park just enjoys torturing Min-sik Choi.  

Point-by-Point: Buried - 7/10

A contract trucker gets buried alive in Iraq. We spend the next 90 minutes in a coffin with him.

The Good: This movie takes it's concept and runs with it. I was skeptical that it could never leave the coffin without getting dull, but the film held my attention throughout. Really, it's impressive that they were able to make such a tight thriller with so little, and should serve as an example for modern thrillers that seem to get more bloated every year. Ryan Reynolds does an admirable job, and they seemingly (and impressively) light the entire movie with items he has in the coffin.

The Bad: There's nothing really profound about the story, and some of the political aspects seem a bit thrown together. And of course, if you happen to be a person who has nightmares about being buried alive, such as my wife, you should probably just find another movie.

The Ugly: Not to spoil it, but the last thing the kidnapper has our hero do is basically awful. Probably unnecessary, but it definitely upped an already tense movie.

Points Pondered  

-I would guess that the most important trick in keeping your cell phone battery up is turning down your brightness, not turning off the vibration.

-Really, why would any actor agree to do this movie? I guess there's a thin line between challenging and hellish.

-One day, the people of Movieland will figure out how to build a flashlight that works as well as a real one and isn't constantly flickering off and on.

-If it's the policy to never pay these kidnappers, why do they keep burying folks in the desert? and really, 90 minutes seems like an absurdly short deadline for a large money transfer.

Point-by-Point: The Man From Nowhere - 8/10

A pawn shop owner befriends a young girl, who is then abducted. He objects, and decides to hurt everyone he meets until he finds her. It's a solid mix of Leon: The Professional and Taken.

The Good: Pretty much everything here is good. The acting from our hero and the little girl seriously impressed me, and the action sequences were stylish and brutal. In general, the story is well told and I really found myself pulling for the guy, even as he was beating up cops and stabbing gang members repeatedly.

The Bad: The movie could afford to cut down a little on the melodrama, but it wasn't awful. The only things truly bad were the comic relief characters, which seem to be required in Asian films, no matter how out of place.

The Ugly: Despite several savage fight scenes, the child-organ-harvesting ring wins.

Points Pondered  

-I can't imagine business is very good at his pawn shop. It seems a bit out of the way, and he exudes "you don't want to talk to me."

-I really like the build of not showing him commit any violence in person for the first half of the movie or so - all we get to see is the resulting carnage he creates.

-Our guy runs down a hallway, jumps through a window, smashes the glass, hits the ground a story below, rolls and keeps running - the camera follows him THE ENTIRE WAY. Not quite sure the specific way they did it, but it's awesome. 

-He definitely looked a lot more suspicious when he put a hat on to hide from the police. Really, anyone wearing a suit and a baseball hat is going to seem a bit odd.

-Yes, the knife fight at the end is truly cool. Cutting out the soundtrack during the scene is a nice touch.

Point-by-Point: The Warrior's Way - 7/10

A samurai runs away with a child and hides in an American near-ghost town. Stuff happens, but what you really care about is that yes, you get to see who wins if a cowboy fights a samurai. 

The Good: I really like the comic book stylings of this movie. It excuses (or can lead to, depending on your point of view) the over-the-top action, absurdly evil villains, and some of the excesses in acting. Bottom line, this is a throwback Western that looks cool and is a lot of fun.

The Bad: The same things I like about this movie will probably cause many folks to hate it. Also, the movie occasionally stalls when the action abates, and some of the acting is a bit rough.

The Ugly: Even though this movie has a perfectly good Kate Bosworth hanging around, we're stuck with Geoffrey Rush's naked butt.

Points Pondered  

-More babies need handles.

-This movie nailed the comic book feel so well, both in plot and cinematography, that I figured it was based on one. Nope.

-What was Geoffrey Rush doing here?

-I think we can all agree that the French clown is the worst sort of clown.

-Did this movie really need the last scene? It seemed like a stupid add-on to a fine ending.

Point-by-Point: 30 Minutes or Less - 4/10

A pizza driver gets a bomb attached to him by a couple of crude dopes and is forced to rob a bank. He's given significantly more time than 30 minutes, which seems like false advertising. 

The Good: The Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari parts. The two work well together, and their bank robbery prep and execution were the funniest parts of the movie. Really, the story isn't bad, and both of them react at least semi-understandably to the situation.

The Bad: The Danny McBride and Nick Swardson parts. I guess if you like Danny McBride's schtick, this won't be an issue for you. But basically every time they came on screen the movie dragged to a halt, and he did 4 minutes of dick jokes. Totally killed any hope they had of setting up a tense "watch the timer" situation, and in general ruined the movie for me.

The Ugly: If you listen to Danny McBride for 30 seconds, you'll find something for this section.

Points Pondered

-I'm actually slightly impressed that the movie took a rather dark subject and was able to make it in to an acceptable thing to laugh at.

-I imagine reacting very similarly if a bomb vest was placed on me - Spend some time googling on how to disable a bomb, then use my movie knowledge to try and rob the bank. 

-This movie would have been better with a more serious villain, even if they were slightly inept. Where's Sean Bean when you need him?

-In general, a flame thrower is a poor weapon choice. Cool, but still poor. 

Point-by-Point: Tell No One - 8/10

A man who was suspected of killing his wife 8 years ago finds himself having a really crappy week when two bodies are dug up near where his wife was attacked. A bear-dog, hitmen, and an impromptu game of real-life frogger are all involved. 

The Good: This is a classic thriller, with a really well contained setting and plot. Pretty much every character makes understandable decisions, which speaks to how well this was written. It's got a nice look to it and all the actors deliver solid performances. 

The Bad: The ending drags a little, but it's a problem that a fair number of thrillers have. There's no great way to have someone do the big reveal at the end and tie all the strings together quickly and interestingly. This film does a decent job, and avoids the "Villain gloats and tells his entire plan while holding the hero at gunpoint" thing. Still, definitely a flaw.

The Ugly: Now, my wife disagrees, but that was a seriously dopey dog. 

Points Pondered

-Our main hero sure spends a lot of time with his sister's wife. That, combined with early (intentional?) misdirection as to his relationship with her had me confused about a potential incestuous threesome.

-Based purely on watching european movies, all thugs play FIFA video games.

-There's a lot more intrigue in the horse-jumping world than I would have guessed. 

-This film had a surprising lack of loose ends. On multiple occasions I found myself thinking "but what about . . . " and the movie would inevitably have an answer. 

Point-by-Point: Intruders - 4/10

A ghost (or something) named Hollow Face goes after two kids in different parts of the world that are both writing about him for some reason. It seems to do the usual ghost stuff, but, as in apparently every modern supernatural thriller, all is not what it seems.

The Good: The director gives us a nice looking movie, and all the actors do a decent job.

The Bad: Really dull. The shifting between two stories might have been interesting if handled better, but it ends up feeling like two forgettable scripts tied together so you can have something movie-length.

The Ugly: The special effects are rather rough.

Points Pondered

-I'm glad the cat made it.

-Did anyone think that Clive Owen's co-worker would grab those parts he needed without incident? Anyone?

-"We were just playing" is really a poor excuse for creating an impromptu bonfire in your yard.

-Was there any reason for this to be rated R? I mean, if you cut the one brief nude shot and (maybe) some of the language, you've got an easy PG-13.

Point-by-Point: Grave Encounters 2 - 4/10

It turns out the first Grave Encounters was actually real, and our new protagonist is out to prove it. Of course, having seen the first movie, he should probably have guessed it wouldn't go too well.

The Good: This is an interesting premise for a sequel, and they pull it off reasonably well. Like its predecessor, quality-wise it's a step above most other found footage movies, both in story and general competency.

The Bad: Like a lot of sequels, it feels a need to outdo the original in scares and intensity. This, combined with the fact that it takes the team awhile to even get to the hospital, causes the actual horror part of the movie to feel rushed and overly stupid. It loses the great build-up of the first movie, which was half the fun.

The Ugly: Did we really need a tea-bagging? I mean, sure, it was absolutely VITAL to the story, but it still seemed a little over-the-top.

Points Pondered

-If you're video-blogging, pick a better backdrop than your bed.

-Now, if you're totally convinced the first movie is real, why the hell would you step foot in that hospital?! I mean, the whole point of the first movie is that it's impossible to escape! At least have the decency to not act surprised when your original exit disappears.

-So while there are apparently patterns and rules to how rooms shift, the hospital can still totally ignore all that and just screw with your mind.

-Having the "spirits" or whatever pick up a bunch of cameras so suddenly you can get your usual multi-angle movie shots really seems like cheating.

Haiku: Seeking a Friend For the End of the World 8/10

Asteroid ahoy!
An unconventional arc
Makes this powerful.

love and a bit with a dog

What would you do if you knew the world was going to be vaporized in 3 weeks?

Point-by-Point: Side Effects 7/10

The Good:
I watch a lot of movies: some of them are good, most of them are bad (let's be honest: my tastes, when indulged, run toward soggy costume dramas, pseudo-art bullshit and serial killers-on-the-lam). If my tendency to watch fluffy movies has taught me anything, it's how to recognize bad editing and worse pacing; if you want a master-class in tight pacing and excellent editing, watch a Soderbergh film. I just love how this man makes movies. They're generally not flashy, but you always feel somehow taken care of: in the hands of a master. Side Effects is no different. It may not be his best work, but it's still so competent you can't take your eyes off of it.

Another perk of Soderbergh's movies is that you can always expect spot-on performances from actors and for as much as I want to hate Rooney Mara (lady is just too perfectly pretty-and-delicate-and-otherworldly-and-talented-and ...), I can't and she's a revelation here.

My favorite part about this movie, though, was how real the depiction of Emily's depression was. As someone who's been there, this rang very true. Most movies that attempt to illustrate depression (especially debilitating depression or suicidality) get it wrong. Sometimes it's hard to put exact words to how it's wrong, but it feels thus. Side Effects gets it right. Maybe that's not supposed to be a compliment, but I appreciated it greatly.

The Bad:
This is one of those movies that is, for all its competence, a one-time affair. I do not feel compelled to own this, nor watch it again. I would tell other people about it -- go see it! -- but I am not champing at the bit to take them to it. I'm not sure exactly what generates that sense, but I think it may be the denouement. While the majority of the movie is a tangle of intentions and claustrophobic camera angles, the conclusion just feels a little too neat. There's a special kind of open-ended ending that makes one want to start again at the beginning; Side Effects does not have one of those.


I feel like this movie wanted to say something damning about SSRIs and America's (pharma) drug culture. If it did, it got lost under the political maneuverings, financial scandal-mongering and lesbian gesturings. This isn't a terrible thing (don't get me started on "message movies"...), but  I feel like there was just enough of a gesture in its general direction that I ended up confused.


The Ugly:
Can we just admit it? The reason Channing Tatum still gets roles is not because he is an talented man. To be fair, his entire role here was pretty much scripted as "good-hearted, slightly-douchey meat sack of a husband-character", for which he was perfect... but the dude's just kind of useless on screen, especially when paired with people who are much better actors. It's awkward.

Points I Pondered:

• What do drug companies think of this movie? Especially as they do name-check a fair number of real anti-depressants and make no bones about some of the less appealing side-effects (heh) and quite accurately skewer the existing marketing campaigns.
• Reviewers keep mentioning Catherine Zeta-Jones's "mannish" wardrobe -- it turns out what that means is "not skin-tight latex" (read: what a well-paid, 40-something professional woman would wear). Is that all it takes to "dress like a lesbian" these days? Good to know.
• The oldest Hollywood trope in the book is the "small town kid goes to The Big City to make it big in his/her dream job". Do people really do this? Somehow, it just seems backwards logic. I guess I just don't know how much truth is in the stereotype.

Yea, this is a gratuitous illustration. But she's pretty and this is my page.

• [Spoiler ahead]: What kind of spouse blabs enough about his insider trading dealings to his wife that she's able to tutor someone else in how to conduct a multi-million dollar heist? I am feeling a little left out of my husband's life right now, that he doesn't tell me enough about his job that I could essentially take it from him!

Haiku: Half Nelson 9/10

Choking loneliness.
Good at his job, bad at life.
Eviscerating.

Haiku: Bernie 8/10

A bad joke's set-up:
Mortician kills old lady.
Linklater has fun.

All snarking aside, this was a superbly quirky and engaging docudrama. I do rather wonder how close it was to the actual story... but given the number of townspeople interviewed in it, it couldn't be that far off?

Point-by-Point: Toy Story 3 6/10

I realize this review is approximately 3 years late, given that Toy Story 3 came out in 2010. Forgive me. I avoided seeing this for a few reasons: I hated TS2 with a passion (mainly because of Jessie "The Worst Character Ever" Cowgirl) and I was informed that if I cried at Up, I'd lose my head at this. I can't even listen to the soundtrack to Up without bawling: stories about aging, obsolescence and loss are kind of my kryptonite. Given this auspicious lead-up, I was prepared for something big when we popped it in the DVD player.

Imagine my surprise when, 2 hours later, I felt ... nothing. TS3 is very competent. It's cute. It had some nice bits. It just wasn't anything special.

The Good:
Pixar doesn't put out half-baked films, and given its pedigree, Toy Story 3 got the royal treatment. It's a very pretty movie that both hearkens back to the original(s) and utilizes the technological advances that have come into use in the intervening years. From Randy Newman's soundtrack to the return of most of the principal voice characters, this has all the trappings of the original Toy Story my generation grew up on.

The boys are back in town

The junkyard/trash-compactor sequence is one of the better animated action sequences out there. It's inventive, tense and interestingly drawn. I'm not sure I'd show it to small children, but it rivals many of the escape scenes in adult movies.

The Bad:
I remember reading so many reviews raving about the emotional affect of this movie: the brilliance of its commentary on old age and the trauma of being pushed to the wayside. I'm sorry -- I didn't see it. I just didn't. Again, this was a hype thing: I was just expecting something more in line with what a lot of commentators I respect had written.

Additionally, I felt like this movie felt like a sequel. The nuance in the original was brilliant (it, in fact, improves as one revisits it with adult eyes), and yet here, when the stakes are bigger and the psychological punch should be more profound, the jokes are more facile and the characters' motivations are simpler.

The Ugly:
Pixar can animate beautiful, intricate hair and water, and yet for all that attention to detail, the animators seem to obstinately continue to create people who look freakish, disgusting and somehow more plastic than the toys this movie is about. I realize this is a stylistic choice, but it seriously  detracts from the (my) enjoyment-factor. Especially given this studio's talent for hyper-detailed creations, this irritates me more than is rational. For a better illustration of how to animate people with style, watch Laika Studio's films Coraline or ParaNorman.

Do not need. Ever.

Points I Pondered:

• How did the "ooooOOOOoooo" aliens get into Andy's toybox? I thought, in the original, they were left in the arcade game?
• Does anyone like Jessie the Cowgirl? Am I the only one who can't stand her? I may have issues. I never saw the end of Toy Story 2 because she was just too annoying to push through the pain.
• Do parents really make kids strip their rooms before college? I'm 28 and I'm pretty sure my bedroom is still pretty much set up like it was when I moved out a decade ago. 

Point-by-Point: Warm Bodies 9/10

The Good:
Warm Bodies has a silly plot on paper, but somehow it works perfectly on film. The panache with which the story is approached brings just the right balance of sweetness and snark to this riff on Romeo and Juliet and all involved are in on the joke.

This is one of those rare movies where I genuinely liked all the characters -- even the side-roles are well-drawn and sympathetic. Most importantly, there is no crude, slapstick sidekick character; I hate that trope with a passion! Nicholas Hoult is pretty much adorable no matter what, but his slightly-cockeyed stare works excellently here (he has truly mastered the smize).

Smize!

The voice-over monologue is also one of the best I've encountered in a long time. It's a perfect balance of exposition (which, when your character isn't all that verbose, is a good thing) and self-aware sarcasm. The intelligence of R's inner thoughts also helps steer the movie away from coming off as super-creepy kidnapping/Stockholm Syndrome fantasy (which is very much could have become, in clumsier hand).

Bonus points for the soundtrack and the way it's utilized, as well. Many of the songs are played in-movie/in context (record players, iPods, etc) and this creates a great foundation for the action. As the characters experience the music, you experience them. It's fun.

The Bad:
Let's be honest: you probably shouldn't apply logic too strenuously to this movie. At all. Just... don't.

While we do get a fair bit of backstory on the characters, the backstory on the history of how this came to be is left entirely vague. This makes the ending a little more uncertain than I feel comfortable with: what if whatever caused this in the first place comes back?

The Ugly:
This is a personal thing (hey, this is my space!), but it freaked me out that R's speech, typifying him as a zombie, is almost entirely composed of stuttering management techniques. I realize it's something that I am far more attuned to than the average, fluent bear, but it was admittedly rather disconcerting to hear how I'm theoretically "supposed to" sound being used to indicate being a mindless corpse. Excellent ego-boost right there.

I'm trying to find a Youtube clip demonstrating what I'm referring to, but unfortunately, I can't find one. Plenty that include voice-overs, but none that show R's zombie-verbal capacities. Dang it!

Points I Pondered:

• I guess I'd never really thought about it before, but I guess it makes sense that as a zombie you wouldn't need to sleep (sleep being a way for a body to heal and restore itself from the wear-and-tear of life). I never realized before that you don't ever see sleeping zombies in any movies, but you really don't. Nobody ever sneaks up on a nest of napping undead!
• It's kind of nice to see that Annaleigh Tipton continues to get roles. Reality TV stars (well, if you count getting third on America's Next Top Model "being a star") can make good! 
• How well do brains keep, if you don't refrigerate them? 

Haiku: The Talented Mr Ripley 10/10

The Talented Mr. Ripley

Sun, jazz, sticky lust.
Balancing lives and lovers
there's no denouement.

Damon's upper lip really deserves special credit for its Method acting

Point-by-Point: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters 4/10

The Good:
Let's be honest: nobody thought this would be good; even the movie itself doesn't think it's going to be good. But it's just that kind of awareness that makes H&G:WH watchable. While the camp does fall down in certain places (the camp-to-serious ratio is about 60:40, when it should probably have been more like 80:20 -- Evil Dead style), there is just enough to make this a fun ride.

I am a big fan of movie weaponry, in general, and this movie had oodles of totally-absurd and anachronistic guns and bows. Again: this does not a "film" make, but it does increase the fleeting enjoyment of it.

18th century machine gun? Just suspend that disbelief and roll with it

We saw this in IMAX 3D, and while I'm not sure this was really necessary, the 3D is well handled. Yes, there are a few of the obligatory arrows-at-the-face shots, but overall, it's done surprisingly tactfully. I appreciate movies that understand when to leverage 3D's the surprise-value and when to let it just exist in the background.

The Bad:
This may not make a ton of sense to anyone else but me, but a big problem I had with H&G:WH was that it just looked too clean. there's mud and blood and dirt, sure, but everything is shot so brightly that it just felt oddly sanitized and too shiny.

It's been a few hours since I walked out of the movie theatre now... and I don't really remember what happened. I remember the set-pieces, but I'd be hard-pressed to really explain a lot of the characters' motivations. This probably doesn't bode well for its quality.

The Ugly:

This is what Gerard Way would look like as a witch. This character irritated me for ages because I couldn't figure out who she looked like. I finally figured it out! Bam! My Chemical Romance!

Points I Pondered:

• The more I think about gun control issues, the more I get slightly weirded out by movies with gleeful, unapologetic gunslinging.
• I'm sure there're some interesting essays to be written about stereotypical Gothic typography and everything that I'm sure is wrong with it (comparable to the kerfluffle over Asian typography, although not quite as vehement for obvious reasons).

Point-by-Point: Rust and Bone (Le Rouille et d'Os) 8/10

The advertising for this film -- and many of the reviews of it -- refer to it as a "romance" or "love story". I was surprised, therefore, to discover that it's not, at least in the conventional, Nicholas Sparks sense (or, as the synopsis may lead you to believe, a grown-up take on a Lurene McDaniel story). I don't know if there IS a word in English to really encapsulate the relationship between the two main people. It's not love, but I'm not sure what it is. Regardless of its name or lack thereof, it is fascinating.

The Good:
The on-paper story arc of Rust and Bone is: boy meets girl, girl loses her legs, boy becomes a prize-fighter, everybody bonds. This sounds incredibly saccharine, right? Somehow, through the skill of the director, the screenwriter, and the ferocity of the two lead actors, it's not. At all. These are damaged, imperfect, anti-heroic characters in a lot of ways, and yet not one ounce of false pity is elicited, either between the characters or for them by the audience. This was, by far, the most "adult" movie I've seen this year, not because of the content (although there are a fair number of scenes which fully earn this it's R rating), but because of the clear-eyed way in which situations are handled and the complicated-yet-recognizable relationship that develops between the characters.

This movie would not have worked an Nth as well as it did, were it not for the two lead actors: Marion Cotillard and Matthias Schoenaerts. I think, after a bevy of stunning performances in the past few years, audiences the world over have recognized how awesome -- and I do mean that in the 'awe-inspiring' sense -- Cotillard is... and this movie again underlines that. However, Schoenaerts keeps up with her in intensity and their combined beauty-and-the-beast brilliance is stunning.

As well, it should be mentioned that the special effects that render Cotillard a double-amputee (and there are a goodly number of scenes that unflinchingly show her legs) are flawless. The handling of her disability, by the script, is as well (see above, re: lack of false pity).

Special props, as well, for an exquisite use of Katy Perry's "Firework" (this scene really only makes sense in context, but I'm linking it anyway because I like it and it made me cry).

The Bad:
Rust and Bone is two hours long. The first 2/3 of it and the last 5 minutes are muscular and 100% worthwhile, but there's a chunk there in the third act that isn't bad... it's just not all that necessary. It's comparable to a large part of the third act of The Master, which had a very similar problem. We've established the relationship between the characters, we've seen them play through that relationship... and then we watch them do it over again. Some important developments DO come out of this sequence, but I feel like, given the strength of the plot before and after, this lull could have been handled more robustly.

It's 2013 -- do people REALLY still let their kids play on iced-over ponds? The poetic justice at the denouement kind of requires the set-up that occurs... but still, seriously?!

The Ugly:
It is one of the hardest things in the world to watch a man abuse a child. Be warned.

Points I Pondered:

• When you get punched in the face, can you really knock your tooth out root and all? Is this actually a thing or is it just a movie thing?

• I feel like certain scenes in this movie would have had more power if I knew more about the socio-economic striations in France. It's embarrassing how little I know about social issues in Europe. 

• Do amputees really spend a fair bit of time dragging themselves around on the floor? It makes sense, I suppose, but honestly, I'd never thought about it before. I realize that sounds insensitive, but I really don't know. 

• I find it exceptionally odd that I can find NO pictures on Google Images that show Cotillard as an amputee. 

• I know there's meaning in the juxtaposition between Ali's carrying of Stephanie and his carrying of his son, but I can't quite nail down why this image becomes so important (especially given the character of Ali):

Haiku: Dredd (2012) 4/10

Future-drugs are neat.
I just want to watch their trips.
The rest is sqiiiiiishy.

*

*Cersei hones her craft in the Game of Thrones off-season


Update: upon thinking about it, the major props I will give Dredd are for NOT having the wisecrack-joker dude. Most movies have that sidekick who has all the "witty" quips and "sassy" putdowns as he, forgive me, puts down his victims... I hate that trope. I hate it a lot. While a lot of people die, justly and unjustly, in this, it's played entirely straight. The action scenes are gratuitously gooshy, but at least none of the brutality is played for laughs. Life may be cheap, but at least the characters take it seriously, for what it is.That I did very much appreciate.

Haiku: Iron Sky 6/10

Nazis on the moon!
With this premise, could it be
bad? Oddly, it's not.

Bonus:
In 2018
Sarah Palin is our prez
This is real horror.

Point-by-Point: The Hobbit

Most of the time, I put the grade I want to give the movie in the title of the post. On this one, I feel like I need to do a little more explaining. As a one-time watch-on-a-big-screen movie, especially as someone who has loved Tolkein's work and Peter Jackson's creation of the world of the Lord of the Rings, I loved this. However, in terms of rewatchability, especially on a home TV, I can promise it's not going to be high on my list. Thus: initial experience: 8/10; rewatch capacity: 4/10.

The Good:
I love, love, love that the texture of the Lord of the Rings movies has been preserved here. I really cannot imagine another director taking over from Peter Jackson in order to helm this kind of prequel. I'd been severely concerned after seeing the ad, which makes The Hobbit look really cheesy, slapstick and juvenile, that the tone would not be preserved... but although this story is handled less weightily, the overall world is the same. Even the "Concerning Hobbits" theme comes back!

Martin Freeman is a much better a hobbit-protagonist than Elijah Wood ever was. To be fair, Bilbo is a stronger character than Frodo, but Freeman has an affable magnetism that just works. Also, Richard Armitage, as Thorin, is just ... kingly. All in all: good casting choices.

This:


The Bad:
The book has no shortage of existing baddies... but here with Azoth, as in Fellowship with Lurtz and the Uruk-Hai, Peter Jackson seems oddly attached to creating miniboss-type foes. Why? I would say that it feels lazy... but it actually seems like it'd take MORE work to add characters (actors, costumes, makeup) to a story.

I was not a fan of the goblin city fight scene (the bridge sequence) at all. It was messy, confusing, facilitated entirely by happenstance timing, and far, far too long. This is a very small part of the book (there is no Khazad-dum-reminiscent epic battle), thus making it into a set-piece feels forced and honestly unnecessary, especially with the "15 birds in five fir trees" scene so close at hand! Similarly, the set-piece with the stoney Transformers -- I mean rock giants -- throwing boulders at each other was pointless and served only to remind the audience how little respect movies can have for things like physics and the limitations of the human (well, dwarvish) body.

Basically, I felt like checking my watch -- and rearranging my sitting bones to prevent total butt-numb-athon-itis -- during most of the action scenes because it became obvious quite quickly that once one started, you could safely zone out for a few minutes while Special Effects Happened. I won't go as far as comparing it to Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon, but ...

The Ugly:
Can we all just agree that splitting The Hobbit into three movies was a terrible idea? I would actually have no problem with having split it into two, comparable to the handling of the final Harry Potter book or Twilight: Breaking Dawn, but three is excessive.

"Floater" joke. Really? We needed that? Answer: no, no we did not. Ditto for the weirdly awkward and over-emphasized "Old Toby" gag.

Patience has never been one of my virtues, and I want to see Smaug! (yes, this is more me being ugly than the movie... but I'm going to run with it)

Points I Pondered:

• Why, after proving an almost slavish devotion to the setup created in Fellowship (even going so far as setting up why Frodo is waiting for Gandalf, etc) do they entirely change how Bilbo finds the ring? It's shown in Fellowship, referred back to a few times, and is, in that movie, true to the book. Here, it's very much changed. Why was this not picked up in the script-review process?
• Did anyone else keep hearing "doggie door" when Gandalf talked about Dol Guldur? 
• Someone makes a reference to Bilbo's toilet. Hobbits have indoor plumbing? 

Haiku: Men in Black 3 7/10

90s nostalgia.

K and J: older, wiser

same gruff-snark banter.

... and because you know you still sing it, too, when you hear "men in black" mentioned:

Point-by-Point: Lincoln 9/10

I'd resisted going to see Spielberg's Lincoln for weeks for a few reasons, two of the most glaring being the director, who I loathe (I hold to my statement that War Horse is the worst movie thus far this century), and the lead actor. I know Daniel Day-Lewis is considered one of the most respected actors working today, but I just can't get into him the way everyone else seems to. Thus, this movie just seemed like a massive chore to have to sit through.

However, as I was composing my Top Movies of 2012 list, I was, naturally, reading real critics' lists and Lincoln consistently showed up at the top. The evidence was too overwhelming: I had to put aside my misgivings and give it a go, if only to ensure fairness.

The Good:
Spielberg keeps his meddling, emotionally-manipulative mitts (mostly) out of the way of the story. I've seen a few comparisons between this and his directorial style on Empire of the Sun and I really can't argue with that connection. In this, he puts his efforts into creating a fully immersive atmosphere and experience, but lets Tony Kushner's elegant, emotionally-restrained script do the heavy lifting. There are a few sweeping-score moments where you feel like it may devolve into treacle, but it manages to save itself.

More than anything, it seems to be the strength of the script that keeps Spielberg's more overbearing tendencies at bay. Kushner won the Pulitzer for Angels in America and he continues to have an incredible ear for political-but-not-preachy dialogue.

Daniel Day-Lewis, for as much as he may annoy me in most other recent roles (I'm looking at you, Gangs of New York), is incredible and now I get why everyone is raving about this movie, if only for his performance. I'm fascinated by the physical aspect of acting and easily my favorite thing in this movie is his embodiment of how an overly-tall, assured-yet-gawky older man moves. It's a little thing, but I love it.

The Bad:
Remember how I said Spielberg restrains himself, re: emotional masturbation? Well... he does. Until the very end scene/shot. If that shot had happened at the beginning of the movie instead of the end, I would have walked out.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt gets relatively high billing but is given almost nothing to do. It's odd, in a movie in which many actors/characters make strong impressions in seconds, to have someone who is just taking up space.

The Ugly:
When did beautiful, squirrelly James Spader turn into Jim Broadbent??? I did not even recognize him.

Points I Pondered:

• I realized how little I know about the Civil War, beyond the Big Events. I should probably rectify this at some point. Are movies supposed to make you want to do homework?
• It is entirely possible to jive the events of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and this. It could still work!