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!

Point-By-Point: Cabin in the Woods 7/10

I know this was critically acclaimed and my dear co-author on this blog called this is "favorite movie [not film] of 2012", but I have to say: I just didn't think it lived up to the hype. It was good, shiny and well-done; it just didn't didn't have the "wow" factor I was expecting.

The Good: 
Unicorns and mermen and neato fantasy baddies of all kinds! Really, I would watch an entire movie just based around exploring all the holding cages in the elevator cube scene. This would be a far prettier, trippier movie.

I also really liked most of the characters. Joss Whedon does a very good job of making douchey archetype characters at least marginally charming, and he had fun with a lot of the stereotypes in this. Not many of them were given much to work with, but they're fun while they last. Fran Kranz (who was really the adhesive who held Dollhouse together and who deserves more chewy roles) and Richard "Master of the Deadpan" Jenkins are wonderful.

I love movies without happy endings.

Mise en scene FTW!

The Bad:
It's very rare that I say this about a horror movie, but I actually wanted this to be longer. The whole thing just felt really perfunctory and edited-down. I feel like that was, perhaps, a dig at the cookie-cutter nature of horror movies. but even the denouement felt like there was something missing, something that got left on the cutting room floor, which ended up looking less like self-aware snark and more like a let-down.

Movies that take glee in causing pain give me a terrible taste in my mouth. It's a philosophical thing. I hated Kick-Ass and Dodgeball for the same reason. I realize that in this case, that's kind of the point of the movie -- turning torture and death into a corporate game too banal to even be looked on as sadistic; it's just hard to find it fun from an audience perspective. All the wink-wink, nudge-nudge generally makes me feel dirty and a little sick.

I wanted to see the Old Ones! The Lovecraft nerd in me was piqued!

I'm sure there's some super-deep meaning behind making the only non-white person in the movie the ONE person with a sense of morality/disgust... but honestly, I don't care enough to really tease that out.

The Ugly:

You're welcome.

Points Pondered: 

• Characters alternately talk about getting calls frum "upstairs" and "downstairs". The Old Ones are "downstairs", it's assumed, but I'd like to see this company's org structure! 
• Further, I feel like this movie was intended as some kind of veiled Office Space-esque take-down of corporate wickedness and consumer society: rich, bored fat-cats gambling on the fact that they have an endless supply of kids lining up to kill themselves for their product. Only the counterculture nerd sees through it. Is this a valid reading?
• If the whole idea is that you need a Scholar, Athlete, Slut, Fool and Virgin, what's up with the classroom of Japanese schoolgirls? 
• Who's Kevin?