"Django Unchained" Review: Mr. Tarantino--You Had My Curiosity. Now You Have My Attention!

God bless Quentin Tarantino. Now this, ladies and gentleman, is a director that's going to do whatever he wants to do, and does not give a crap what other people think every time. And because of that, the state of cinema is much better for it. 

As a hardcore Tarantino-fan, I feel a bit biased reviewing this one, simply because I figured I would like it anyway. But I honestly did not expect to love it as much as I did. Nevertheless, as bias probably comes into the picture, take my opinion here with a grain of salt.

"Django," much like "Inglorious Basterds" and "Kill Bill" is a revenge movie. As a revenge movie, it's a bit of a cross between the gritty tone of "Basterds" and the cartoon-like nature of "Kill Bill."The basic premise is simple: a slave named Django (Jaime Foxx) is recruited by a German bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to find a gang called the Brittle Brothers, who only Django has personally seen. Once they've killed the Brittle Brothers in a relatively short span of time, Schultz decides (being personally responsible for Django's freedom and feeling a strong opposition to the principles of slavery in general) to help Django rescue his wife from the clutches of nefarious plantation owner Calvin J. Candie (Leo DiCaprio).

The movie belongs to Waltz and DiCaprio. Both are incredibly charming, particularly Waltz, who acts a bit like Django's Obi Wan Kenobi. His earnest nature, and his affection for Django is something admirable in the film. Not to mention that watching how skilled he is as a bounty hunter is pure fun. It's really hard not to root for him, especially as his is the dominant voice of the White abolitionist in the film. Nevertheless the fact that he basically goes after and murders criminals still puts him in enough of a morally grey area, so he does not come off as a complete saint. On the "evil" side, DiCaprio does a magnificent job as the primary antagonist of the film, veering between charming, and completely bat-crap crazy and menacing (particularly during the climactic skull cracking scene). Jamie Foxx is, sadly, the weakest of the leads. That's not to say he isn't good, he's very good, he just loses his luster in the presence of such fantastic actors, like DiCaprio and Waltz. Foxx gets his moment to really shine in the last third of the movie, where his actual revenge is being conducted. But of course by then, Waltz and DiCaprio are out of the picture. Nevertheless, as far as gun-fu is concerned, Foxx's scenes are arguably the coolest, best-choreographed gun-fu scenes in cinema since Rodriguez's "Desperado" way back in 1995. So of course, given the fun action set pieces, you'll be rooting for Django every step of the way. On the supporting front, Kerry Washington plays our resident damsel in distress, which is a bit lacking in terms of character development, overall. But hey, at least she took the initiative to learn German for the role, so props to her on that. We also have a magnificently devilish turn from Samuel L. Jackson, who's role embodies the worst case scenario in a film like this: an African American servant who promotes and condones slavery because he, himself is not a slave, and is a friend and ever loyal ass-kisser to DiCaprio's Calvin Candie. This is no Nick Fury role, I assure you. We also have some fun scenes with Don Johnson and Jonah Hill as a pair of goofy KKK members (yes, ridiculous as that sounds, it actually works in the movie, trust me), and Tarantino himself has a fun little Looney Tunes-esque cameo sort of scene involving dynamite. 

One of the best things about Django is that it's actually a really funny movie. The humor is trademark offbeat dark/racist Tarantino, but there's a lot more of it in this film than a film like "Basterds." Nevertheless, I found myself cracking up out loud at various scenes. In fact, I had the pleasure of seeing the movie at the Tarantino-owned New Beverly. So prior to the film, we were treated to vintage trailers of spaghetti westerns, gladiator grindhouse films, and blaxploitation films, and even an off color Looney Tunes short about Southerners. And while watching the film, it made sense why--there are scenes that approach the realm of Looney Tunes cartoonishness that surprisingly just work in marvelously hilarious ways. But I assure you, as you'd expect from any film about slavery, or any film written by Tarantino, this is no light film. The same warped sense of explicit raw violence and tension filled, absorbing dialogue that we've come to expect in Tarantino films is present. The aforementioned skull cracking scene is the biggest standout for me, reminiscent of the Mexican standoff bar scene in "Basterds"--by the way, this scene belongs to DiCaprio, fully. A few other scenes that stood out were the training montage, where Shultz teaches Django to become "the fastest gun in the South." And the final third of the film where Django comes back to Candyland to take care of some unfinished business.

Now, surely, we cannot talk Tarantino films without referencing the music and the editing. As only expected, we're treated to an unusual mix of anachronistic musical choices with vintage scores, which perfectly fit key scenes. We get  rap songs like Rick Ross's "100 Black Coffins," and the James Brown/2Pac mashup "Unchained" mixed with traditional spaghetti western scores and original compositions like "Ancora Qui" by Ennio Morricone and Elisa. It's quite a brilliant mix of fresh and existing music tracks--in fact this may be the first time I've seen a Tarantino film with original music. But all of it works brilliantly in the service of the film, it's universe, and it's overall tone. As far as editing is concerned, we do very much miss the work of late, frequent Tarantino collaborator Sally Menke. But the film's editor, Fred Raskin (known for his work on the Fast and Furious franchise), still does a great job of slapping the movie's scenes together with enough explosive kinetic energy, that it honor's Menke's high-energy spirit.

In a nearly 3 hour movie, I was engrossed and engaged the whole time. Tarantino just has a gift for capturing and holding your attention for the entire length of a film, regardless of how long, and Django is surely no exception. I realize this is shorter than my other reviews, but the truth is, I honestly had zero problems with this movie. And the only thing I really had to say is, even though it's not as brilliant as Tarantino's magnum opus ("Pulp Fiction") or as daring as "Inglorious Basterds," it's still great! So much so that this completely belongs in my top 3 of the year. It's Tarantino being Tarantino, and dear god, we never want that to change.

Overall Grade: A

"This is 40" Review: This is 40 Minutes Too Long

While there's nothing horrendously wrong with "This is 40," I couldn't help but find myself wanting to leave the theatre 2/3 through the movie. I'm a huge fan of Judd Apatow, and I very much enjoyed "Knocked Up," so getting a chance to revisit the enjoyable characters from that enjoyable film when this project was announced was welcome news. Having said that, Apatow has missed the mark of the "Knocked Up" and "40-Year Old Virgin" standards. "This is 40" unfortunately skews towards the "Funny People" side of the Apatow spectrum, and that's not a good thing. Luckily, dear readers, it's not as turgid as "Funny People." Granted, I got what Apatow was trying to do with "Funny People," which is mostly NOT what he's trying to do with "This is 40." But it's just not nearly as good as Apatow's best, sadly.

The biggest problem for me with "This is 40" is that, while "Virgin" and "Knocked" had a story and trajectory to follow, "This is 40" just sort of meanders and rambles incoherently. There's a pseudo-story, which I suppose is fitting for a so-called pseudo-sequel, about Pete (Paul Rudd) being in debt after starting his own record company and struggling to promote an aging Graham Parker, while Deb (Leslie Mann) discovers she's pregnant, and the effects of these occurrences on their marriage/family/lifestyle. But for the most part, it's not concerned with really resolving this issue, so much as showcasing several vignettes of random circumstances in this couple's day-to-day lifestyle. The results are often funny, in ways only Apatow really excels at. And as such, it's a plus. Some standout scenes include Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd's hash-brownie-infused mini-break, Rudd asking Mann to basically give him a visual prostate exam, and a montage of Leslie Mann's visits to various doctors (including the really warped OBGYN from "Knocked Up"), and a few others. But it's really not enough to save the movie from completely dawdling on without an objective or real purpose. Funny vignettes are good, but I'd really like it better if the jokes paid service to an actual story.

The performances are fantastic overall. Mann and Rudd are game for another go, both keeping consistent with the characters established in "Knocked Up," while showing enough growth to reflect their attempts at making these characters a lot more realistic than your average comedy archetypes. The writing for Deb and Pete is also very real and sobering, so props to Apatow on that. But it wouldn't work out if not for Mann and Rudd. John Lithgow and Albert Brooks are also amazing as the fathers of Deb and Pete, respectively. Brooks really gets a chance to strut his comedic talents in ways we haven't seen in years. And Lithgow does a lot with a fairly limited role (which is the point of his character, as a neglectful father to Deb). Jason Segel and Charlyne Yi also both return as Jason and Jodi from "Knocked Up," but oddly enough, they're a lot less funny this time around. Charlyne honestly gets a little grating at times, doing her best to mug the camera with her "I'm so incoherently hopped up on substances it's supposed to be over-the-top funny" but a lot of her gags fall flat. As does Segel's, who fares better than Charlyne, but this certainly isn't his A-game, sadly. Oddly enough newcomers Megan Fox and Melissa McCarthy end up doing better. This might be Fox's best performance to date (not saying much, but it's like having an F-student son or daughter score a C+, so yay for her!) as Desi, the suspected crooked employee at Deb's boutique, who helps Deb realize her inner-fun side. And McCarthy doesn't have too much screen time as the mother of the teenage boy Deb's daughter has a crush on, but her scene in the principal's office with Mann and Rudd is one of the best written, hilarious scenes of the movie. And of course, one of the highlights of the movie, Apatow's own children, Maud and Iris, reprising their roles as Deb and Pete's daughters, who are quite good for young actors of their age. Iris in particular has some of the more adorable/heartwarming scenes in the movie, while Maud is hilarious, capturing the essence of the crazy, moody teenager, complete with "Lost" obsession and newly dropped F-bombs.

The writing, as stated before, tries to capture reality, and does a good job of it. And when it's funny, which is often, it's very very funny. But the lack of story and the dragging pace really affected my enjoyment so much, that regardless of how funny or real the movie was, I just sort of wanted it to end. I was on board for the first 90 minutes, but then it really just ended up continuing, but, ironically enough, it all led to a very rushed ending that felt like there was no resolution or proper conclusion for all the issues introduced in the film. And perhaps Apatow's point was that there are no easy answers or easy resolutions to things in life--particularly when you're 40. And I'm guessing his intention was to make things as realistic as possible rather than giving us a happy-go-lucky Hollywood ending. But why? Why couldn't we have that? It worked for "Knocked Up" and "40-Year Old Virgin."  So why couldn't we have it here? The movie just ends with Pete and Deb summarizing a game plan to fix their issues, and that's it. A long film with lack of real direction, that leads to nothing satisfying. To me that just wasn't good enough, sadly. And overall that's how I feel about the movie.

Now I can't outright hate the film, considering the movie's humor and great performances, but I think this could have been salvageable with a good, more focused story and a tighter running time. I mean "Virgin" and "Knocked" were long too, but with a real story objective we were invested in the length and the pacing. Since "40" has no real goals or story; we're just going through skit after skit, and all of it feels overly long. It's efforts like "Funny People" and "This is 40" that really make me miss Apatow from the "Freaks and Geeks" to "Knocked Up" days. Let's hope the next project becomes a return to form.

Overall Grade: B-

"Zero Dark Thirty" Review: Good Pseudo-Companion Piece to The Hurt Locker

When The Hurt Locker came out in 2009 and swept the Oscars, I found myself a bit puzzled as to why. I mean don't get me wrong, in its own right, it's a good enough movie. But to me it definitely wasn't deserving of the Best Picture title, and I felt like the praise it was getting was due to post-9/11, anti-terrorism sentiment.  I honestly also believe that this is the same reason ZDT is getting all the praise it's receiving. It's swept the Boston Society of Film Critics awards, the National Board of Review awards, and the New York Film Critics Circle awards so far, and I wouldn't necessarily say it's deserved. That's not to say it's not a good movie. It's perfectly fine. In fact, I'd say I'd place it in my top-5 of the year. But to call it the best movie of a year in which films like Looper and The Perks of Being a Wallflower have come out--well, let's just say I wouldn't honestly. I can give 2 very high forms of praise to ZDT, however--1) that I found it a lot more engaging than the Hurt Locker, and 2) Jessica Chastain gives one of the definitive performances of the year in the film.

Straight to the point, Zero Dark Thirty is essentially a revenge film--on a nationwide standpoint and on a personal level. On a national level, obviously, the movie is about Seal Team Six and the CIA's initiative to go after Osama Bin Laden. The film explicitly begins with pure audio--real calls made on September 11th, 2001, reminding the audience of our nation's greatest tragedy, and why this mission within the narrative matters. It's a nice artistic touch on Bigelow's part, if not a bit on the nose. However, as Americans, we understand why this was so important for us; why we needed to spend all this time, money, and resources on to find Bin Laden--essentially, revenge and closure for the world's biggest terrorist attack. This is the mission Maya is on for half the movie. However, the other half of the movie takes a very personal turn for Maya, as their mission ends up getting a few close people to her killed. From then, we understand completely, that Maya's motivations, as well as the film's tone, shifts to become a personal revenge story. From there we are completely with Maya, engrossed in her mission to find and kill Bin Laden, one part because of Maya's personal story, and the other because of Chastain's commanding tenacity on screen. Here is a character with one motive on her mind, but a million and a half emotions and internal conflicts. She's devoting several years of her life for this manhunt, to the point where at the end she doesn't know what to do with herself when the job is done--actually similar to Jeremy Renner's compelling character Sergeant James from The Hurt Locker. At this final moment, this is where the movie becomes a perfect companion piece to Hurt Locker. And Chastain pulls all of this off so well. We get the eager rookie. We get the obsessed professional. And we get the determined, damaged point person of the mission, fighting tooth and nail for what she believes in. The movie is driven by Maya's character. And it's benefited by Chastain's powerful performance embodying this character.

As for the story, overall the entire exercise is engaging, but there are serious moments where Kathryn Bigelow tends to dawdle. Yes, many of these scenes are necessary for the overall plot and the execution of the mission from this team led by Maya, but you can't help but want her to get to the point at times--much like The Hurt Locker as well. We get many scenes and are engaged with the detective work the team is doing to find all every single lead to Bin Laden. But a lot of times, some of these scenes tend to go nowhere or tend to go somewhere ridiculously slowly. However, when it all pays off, and when we finally get to the climax of the film, the full raid on the facility where the team believes Bin Laden is hiding at, the movie sucks you in completely. The tension is so high, your mouth drops. And Bigelow films all of this with stunning expertise. It's as if she logged in a million hours of Call of Duty, just to suck you into the action of the events taking place. It's tense, it's fun, it's poignant. Mark Boal's screenplay also never forgets to show the grittier, more despicable sides to this manhunt, as the first quarter of the film focuses exclusively on the "detain and torture" side of the mission. These scenes are incredibly realistic and conflicted, in some ways, both supporting and opposing the position of torturing prisoners to get results. However, per Boal during the post-screening interview, it was never his intention to insert his or Bigelow's personal opinions on the topic, but rather expose the intensity and desperation required to get this job done by all parties involved. And it's because of this that the conflicted nature of the scenes works so well. As stated before though, it's something of a chore to get from the torture scenes to the raid at the end. We get a lot of great acting, a lot of great strategizing, and a lot of emotion, which is fantastic, but it's on such a slow-burn kind of pace, that you get a bit impatient. However, again, it's fascinating and involving to watch as a whole, as the entire thing pays off gracefully and intensely.

Again though, as engrossing a film as it can be, it also feels as if the sole intention of the movie is to promote patriotism. I haven't seen a film with so much "Go America" sentimentality since Team America World Police (which I know was ironic--as is my comment obviously). Yeah we root for the good old U.S. of A, but does that mean this deserves to be the Best Picture of the year because of it? I somewhat think not. I simply can't get behind the idea of ZDT as the BEST picture of the year if the only thing driving that sentiment is in fact an overwhelming sense of patriotism. However, for its own merits as an engaging fact-based story, as well as Chastain's performance and her amazing character that drives the movie, I think I could definitely get behind it as ONE of the better films of the year.

Overall Grade: B+

"The Hobbit" Review: (Been) There, And (Glad to Be) Back Again

It feels good to be back in Middle Earth. It really does. 9 years ago, 2003's "Return of the King" was the last visit we took, and to this day, all of us still remember the trilogy with fond thoughts of sweeping landscapes, epic battles, out-of-this-world effects, and most of all amazing storytelling. I'm happy to say this "return" feels very welcome. 

To address the elephant in the room, I initially saw this movie at Hi-Def IMAX 3D at 48 FPS. For me, it sucked. It made the make up look hokey and obvious and the CG look like a PS3 version of Skyrim. To the movie (and Peter Jackson's) credit, it didn't kill the story for me as it did for more obsessed critics. However, it did prove to be distracting, rendering everything as if it were a PBS documentary (terrible). Nevertheless I enjoyed the movie overall--in spite of 48FPS. So much so that I felt the need to see it again in regular blurry 3D at 24 FPS. Much better. Some things still looked less convincing than they did with the original trilogy, but overall, it was much less obvious than when I saw the movie at 48FPS. Therefore, moral of that rant (at least my humble opinion): save your money, see it the way you saw the original trilogy. 

Now that that's out of the way, let's get to the fun part: the actual movie.

Jackson does what he does best--brings the world of Middle Earth to life. These settings and the feel of it all is familiar, but again, welcome. Visually, this is the same world we saw 9 years ago (albeit on perhaps a slightly smaller scale since this admittedly is a smaller story than the original), so we essentially keep consistent with the world we already know. This is very comforting since that's exactly what we expected when these movies were announced. It's a universe we love, one we're comfortable with, and one we always wanted to revisit since the credits rolled on the final film. 

Now the story. There's hardly enough material in the actual source material to fill 2 movies (at least as far as the 100+ page version I read in middle school goes), much less 3, as Jackson is intending to do. So naturally he padded it. Of course we get the "Dwarfs take back the Mountain from Smaug" central storyline from the book (complete with fun scenes like the troll BBQ, goblin battles, etc), but we also get a few new plotlines, such as the introduction of a Necromancer that ties heavily and cleverly into the original trilogy, and the less interesting introduction of an albino orc and his grudge-match with Thorin Oakenshield. These additions are actually good enough to watch, and never seemed forced in the context of their integration to the overall story established in the novel, even if the albino orc one is still a bit unnecessary and not as well established as the Necromancer plot. Additionally, the film takes its time getting to the better scenes, but it rarely ever feels dull or draggy. The overall romp still feels exciting enough--sweeping, and fun, with entertaining battles, action sequences, and Jackson's ability to immerse viewers into the story. Ironically enough, the 2 standout scenes for me were non-action sequences: The Necromancer council scene featuring old favorites, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman that establishes the potential connection to the original trilogy (one which I can't wait to see how it pans out in future movies), and, of course, the tense, funny, and fascinating Riddles in the Dark sequence (Andy Serkis is truly such a gem. Welcome back Smeagol). I think fans will get as much of a kick out of those scenes as I did. Granted the movie's not without flaws. More times than necessary we've had to follow the pattern of "new location, dwarfs battle random creatures, get captured, get saved in a deus-ex-machina fashion by Gandalf." It gets a bit repetitive and groan-inducing at times. I suppose that's more or less the flaw of The Hobbit as a story rather than the movie, considering that this is basically the pattern the book follows.

Now for performances. The movie hands down belongs to Martin Freeman. He is funny and charming as Bilbo. He gives us a lead that we easily have no problems rooting for. And that's difficult to do considering Ian Holmes' original performance was actually pretty creepy. Bilbo is adventurous, clumsy, self-conscious, unsure of himself, and determined to prove he belongs with this company. And Freeman pulls all of this off with complete ease. Next to that, of course, Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf. It's a performance we know, and one that's endearing to us. It's especially nice to see him reprise the humble charm of Gandalf the Grey, considering we really only had 1 movie with Gandalf the Grey prior to this (Remember, he becomes Gandalf the White for the remaining 2 movies in the LOTR trilogy--a character we can argue is completely different--almost godlike-- as he's been instilled with so much more power). McKellen probably gets the best and most quotable lines in the film--in an Obi-Wan/Yoda sort of way. Richard Armitage gives a good performance as Thorin Oakenshield, but it's really a difficult character to like overall, considering we only see the embittered side of Thorin. As a character, at least in this first part of The Hobbit trilogy, all Armitage is really allowed to do is act bossy and spit insults. It's a difficult, one-note character to like so far, especially considering he spends most of the movie resentful and rude to all races and Bilbo. And you get why he's this way, and you try to sympathize with the character, but at the end of it all, you're not much closer to warming up to him, which is a bit of a pity, because he's the man driving this quest.The pity of it all however is that out of a company of 13 dwarfs, Gandalf, and Bilbo, we really only get to know Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. We barely get to know the other dwarfs, much less learn anyone's names. They're essentially accessories to the 3 leads--unlike the original Fellowship, where all 9 members were known, had specific roles, and were appreciated for their own merits. Such a waste. However, on a more positive note, of course, the notable who's who of familiar faces is fantastic. It's good to see Hugo Weaving back as Elrond, in a happier mode than in the original trilogy (given that this is peace time). Blanchett is radient in all her 10 minutes as Galadriel. And of course, as I stated before, Andy Serkis is a gem. As Gollum, he's funnier, scarrier, and still every bit as sympathetic as he was in the original trilogy. His 20 minute performance on screen is better than the entirety of Armitage's complete 3 hours as Thorin, honestly. 

On a technical level, sadly the make up and VFX jobs are slightly underwhelming. On a lower budget and older tech, the original trilogy wipes the floor with the hokier FX we're seeing in Unexpected Journey. It sort of makes me question the technical decisions Jackson and team made for this project. We can see bald-cap makeup, contact lenses, and Hobbit feet prosthetics a lot more obviously this time around. And some of the CG orcs looked a lot worse than the big guys in full body makeup from the first trilogy. It really made things less intimidating sadly. 

Switching gears, the screenplay, at least, is fantastic--filled with lines that serve as a loving kiss to Tolkein's written text, and quotable words of wisdom at every scene. And again, the ties that Jackson forms with the original trilogy are pretty clever. The only downside is this one can be a bit sillier at times than the original (it's a children's story after all).

The sweeping score by Howard Shore uses familiar themes but introduces several new ones to add to the LOTR music cannon. My only gripes were some of the silly songs they had to include--yes they are in the text, and reveal how playful or reverent our dwarf-company can be, but from a filmmaking standpoint, it wouldn't have killed them to cut them out of the movie and save us some time. They honestly didn't serve any purpose to the story.

Overall, again, it feels good to be back in Middle Earth, even if this quest isn't as thrilling as the first 3 visits. This is a movie that by all means could have pulled a "Phantom Menace" but didn't, because Jackson (and Tolkein of course) is arguably a better storyteller than George Lucas. It's lighter in tone, yes, simply because the novel itself is for children, but we still get a poignant, heartwarming, and fun story out of it all, even if it's not as deep or intense. For my money, I'm hoping for more pleasant surprises in the final 2 visits to Middle Earth with The Desolation of Smaug next year, and There and Back Again in 2014. 

Overall Rating: B

"Skyfall" Review: With pleasure, M. With pleasure.

In all honesty we can thank 2 filmmaking masterminds for what a successful entry to the franchise Skyfall is: the genius behind American Beauty and Road to Perdition, Sam Mendes, and a man who was not even involved in the production, creation, or has anything really to do with Bond, Christopher Nolan. Now "Why Nolan?" you might ask. Because so far, Craig's Bond has been following the model set by Nolan's Batman franchise. If 2006's Casino Royale was the "Batman Begins" of Craig's Bond universe, Skyfall, in my humble opinion, is "The Dark Knight" of the series (er...for the sake of this example we won't mention anything about Quantum of Solace). And in following that model, Bond, as a series, is better for it.

This entry in the franchise seems to take place well after Bond's first 00 mission after Casino Royale, and presumably the continuing story (and technically Bond's second mission as a 00 agent) in Quantum of Solace. Bond is now more or less a veteran among his fellow agents, on a mission with Eve, a new field MI6 field agent, on pursuit of Patrice, an assassin with a hard drive containing a list of all undercover NATO operatives who have infiltrated terrorist cells around the country. Bond and Patrice get into a breathtaking hand to hand fight atop a moving train, as Eve sets up to take out Patrice sniper-style. With Bond in the way, and her opportunity about to pass, M (Judy Dench) orders "Take the bloody shot", and Bond is hit. The introduction, like in all Bond movies, is shot for shot relentless, breathtaking action, involving cars, bikes, trains, and construction equipment. However it's just the tip of the iceberg for Mendes and screenwriters John Logan, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade, as the hard drive subplot is really just part of an elaborate revenge scheme against M and MI6, set up by one of the creepiest Bond villains to ever grace the screen---Anton Chigurh...er sorry, I mean...Raoul Silva! 007, going from one exotic location to the next to hunt down the mad man, must then return to England to do everything possible to defend M at all cost from Silva and his army.

This particular Bond movie is refreshing and new, being one of the first entries in the franchise to not incorporate some elaborate scheme about world domination or a master weapon. This is a very personal story, centered deeply on M's relationship with Bond, as defined from Casino Royale to now, and in general her agents. Yes, the story for the entire film is essentially "keep M safe." But simple as that might seem, it's respectable because it's not about protecting the world, but protecting someone important to Bond, meaning everything about this story and its consequences resonates with Bond as a character personally. And as such, Mendes and the writers wisely and appropriately incorporate, for the first time in many movies, elements about Bond's childhood into the film. For a franchise that's had 23 movies in 50 years, between Casino Royale and Skyfall we are now finally getting a real character, not just some alcoholic womanizing stock character with gadgets. Yes movies like Goldeneye and Die Another Day have touched upon ideas like rogue agents, or MI6 abandoning Bond. But none of them have really gone as deeply into how any of those elements affect or reflect on Bond as a character. I'm happy to say Skyfall finally does.

Craig is brilliant as always. His brand of Bond--vulnerable and haunted yet strong, callus yet sympathetic--actually has a past, a present, and a future we are interested in, and one we get to finally explore. And Craig lets this past, present, and future dictate the character's emotions, who he is, and what he can become, in a very cool manner. For example, we understand why Bond's relationship with M is the way it is, and it's all in the performances; Craig's chemistry with Dench, and Craig's subtle reactions to how his past gave rise to the agent he is and always will be. We already know who Craig's Bond is between the former 2 movies, but what's amazing is we're still getting more information about the character and seeing him react to new situations in ways his established character would consistently react to them based on what we've seen since 2006, thereby giving us something we haven't seen before as the franchise continues. And given some pretty big shakeups at the end of this movie, I'm very eager to see how Craig's Bond character will progress as the series progresses after this entry.

And the beauty of all of this is that Bond's character is completely complemented by Silva as his foil, showing the audience everything M's fortunate Bond would never turn into. The differences in M's relationships with Bond and Silva are integral to defining these characters, and the implications of this are handled so well in the performances. We know Bond understands M because Daniel Craig allows us to believe this. But we equally know Silva never understood her because Bardem portrays him so beautifully unhinged. There are some scenes with Bardem that make your skin crawl--a beautifully delivered soliloquy about rats, a very uncomfortable homoerotic scene with Craig, a very creepy look at the effects of cyanide on the human mouth, and a final scene with Dench that's rooted in some incredibly unsettling maternal issues. All this is done by Bardem with smiles, flamboyancy, jokes, and incredible commanding menace--a performance that rivals, if not comes slightly short of, Heath Ledger's interpretation of The Joker.

Also, given that I've mentioned her already so much in this review, this is definitely Dench's finest hour in any Bond film, from the Brosnan-era to the Craig-era. We get an M who is bold, confident, scared, concerned. We feel the character's guilt during scenes without any lines to indicate her emotions--simply because Dench carries it. Yet we also understand her strength, as she carries on boldly sticking to her guns in a utilitarian way. Dench, her ability to collaborate so naturally with all of her costars, and her commanding presence make you care about whether the character is in danger or not. And since the whole story hinges on her safety, you're drawn and invested into the story more.

On the supporting performance side, we have some really great turns by Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw as Mallory and Q respectively. Whishaw is definitely a delight to watch. I loved the fact that this incarnation of Q is more of a genius hacker techie than a frustrated gadget dispenser. He provides a bit of comic relief, but overall his scenes with Bond are, for lack of a better term, pretty cool. Fiennes as Mallory gets a rockier introduction, initially clashing heads with M at first, but by the end of the movie, once MI6 has conveniently accepted what his role is, the audience does too. Looking forward to seeing both in future movies.

Granted, it's not without some plot holes. We never do find out how Bond survives the shot at the beginning, which is disappointing. And arguably Bond willingly accepts M's decision to pull the trigger a little too quickly  without much question. But as M states, "You know the rules of the bloody game. You've played it long enough." This is a Bond film after all, and after 23 movies, I understand suspension of disbelief, whether it's the most realistic Bond film ever or not, is required.

Nevertheless, as stated before, the comparisons to "The Dark Knight" are reasonable. There's one scene in particular that calls back to The Joker's excellent escape scene. And several thrilling moments of very tense, "cat-and-mouse" action set pieces, such as a race between Silva and Bond to get to M's hearing, and the final stand off between Bond and Silva's mini-army. And in both movies the heroes have very personal stakes in completing their missions. They're also both excellently executed, smart, and engaging, feature elevating performances from the entire ensemble overall, and slightly darker than their predecessors. And therefore I say, whether your a spy film, a superhero film, or an action thriller, if the formula you're following to craft your sequel is Nolan's "The Dark Knight", you're already doing something right.

Add to the mix some wonderful hat tips to the classics like Goldfinger or Goldeneye, and introduce some critical elements to Bond mythology as they fit in the Craig-era universe and you've got a movie that is faithful to its roots, but willing to innovate and evolve them for all eras. Skyfall is actually hands down my favorite Bond film, and in my opinion, solidifies Craig's status as my favorite Bond of all time. Bond will return. And that is going to be all sorts of awesome.

Overall Score: A-

"Wreck It Ralph" Review: Pixar Has Finally Been 1-Up'ed

For the past decade or so, the Mouse House has been struggling to hit the heights it once achieved during the Second Disney Animated Renaissance in the 90s (though in my opinion the last good traditionally animated Disney film was Lilo and Stitch way back in 2002). I mean c'mon Brother Bear? Home on the Range? Chicken Little? And does anyone actually remember Meet the Robinsons or Bolt? And their much-hyped return to traditional animation, The Princess and the Frog, did not ignite a Third Animated Renaissance, the way the studio hoped it would. All too often the films have been mediocre to decent, with Tangled being probably the best offering to independently come out of the studio for a while. But lo and behold, the seas have parted, the sky has lit up, and now Disney Animation is finally ready to play by Pixar's rules with, ironically enough, a loving kiss to video games of all generations--Wreck It Ralph!

So far, without a doubt, this is the most inventive and original animated movie of this year. The story is simple enough--In the world of video games unified by Game Central Station at Litwak's Arcade, Ralph, the villain of the game Fix-It Felix, is tired of his thankless role as the bad guy who wrecks things, and the lack of respects he gets from his fellow game "coworkers". Hoping to prove to himself and the cast in his game, that he's more than just the bad guy, Ralph, to the fear of all other characters in the arcade, "game jumps" to earn himself a hero's medal from a game called Hero's Duty. He ends up blasting off into a Mario Kart-esque game called Sugar Rush, where he meets precociously adorable Vanellope Von Schweetz, an outcast of her own game. And through sympathy and understanding of one another, they form a friendship that essentially changes the status quo of things at Litwik's Arcade.

Though similar themes have been explored in other movies, like Toy Story, the Nightmare Before Christmas, Shrek, and a few others, Ralph's journey as a character never feels stale or cliche. The writing in and of itself pops! We are treated to many clever jokes, both video game and snack related, and more importantly, we are sold on these characters through the hearts and souls fleshed out for them in the script. Ralph and Vanellope, unlike the typical templates for Disney characters, are broken. They aren't perfect. They are flawed, and therefore, dare I say, human. And we love them because, like a lot of us humans, they are determined to do whatever it takes to resolve these flaws, but are at the end able to accept themselves for everything they are--imperfections and all. Ralph, voiced perfectly by John C Reilly, hates his role in life. He's unhappy with this aspect of himself, which, per the rules of the arcade, he can't change, but forcibly tries to change it anyway. The same way, Vanellope, voiced by the initially grating, but eventually endearing, Sarah Silverman, wants to prove she's more than just a glitch in her game to all the bullies that reject her, and finally enter and win a Sugar Rush qualifying race. The two characters need each other to help themselves realize they can accept the things about themselves they can't change, something the writers intended of course, and therefore the relationship between them anchors the picture. By the end of it all, the flaws don't matter, because they have each other, and are finally happy with themselves.

Departing from the topic of Ralph and Vanellope, the supporting cast of characters is a LOT of fun to watch too, as they take us through the B-storylines of the movie. Jack McBrayer and Jane Lynch are amazing and hilarious to watch as Fix-It Felix and Sergeant Callhoun, whith some really funny dialogue and clever moments between them. Alan "I'm a jewel of the Whedon-verse" Tudyk is also very funny as King Candy, the goofy tyrant of Sugar Rush, determined to keep Vanellope down. There's a dark, unexepected, and clever twist that's revealed in the final act with his character. And of course, the amazing video game cameos that are a feast for the eyes of gamers everywhere, including Ken, Ryu, Cammie, Chun Li, M Bison, and Zangief from Street Fighter, the cast of Q-Bert, Pac-Man and the various Ghosts, Tapper, Sonic, Dr. Eggman, etc, all of which are just brilliant nods proving how truly geeky the creators of the film really are, and how much they cared about bringing this gamer-verse to life.

Rich "Futurama is the greatest TV show ever" Moore handles the story and the script much like many of the best episodes of Futurama or The Simpsons, with love, wit, snark, and enthusiasm, never forgetting that this movie is about video games and emotionally vulnerable characters, but also never forgetting that it's supposed to be fun. The colorful environments and action-packed set pieces are a blast to watch, particularly Ralph's first hilarious experience with combat during the Hero's Duty segment, and the well-animated vibrant gumdrop-world of Sugar Rush. These are probably the best, most colorful CG-rendered environments in an animated film since How To Train Your Dragon.

The overall package of Wreck It Ralph is definitely a surprisingly heartwarming, funny, well-animated, and clever gift for us--especially given that this was done without Pixar, who's star seems to be dimming between the very poorly received Cars 2 in 2011, and the less-than-enthusiastic reception of the disappointing Brave this summer. While we are of course still rooting for next summer's Monsters University to bring Pixar back on track, I'm just very happy that Walt Disney Feature Animation has given us a Pixar-level movie that we have been missing since the double whammy of Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 back in 2010. Here's hoping Ralph marks the beginning of the Third Animated Renaissance Disney's been hoping for a long long time.

Overall Rating: A
 

"Paranormal Activity 4" Review: The Activity Goes Full Hollywood

As an actual fan of the franchise (please don't judge me) I remember seeing the first Paranormal Activity film at a test screening months before the actual movie hit mainstream knowledge. And it actually scared the bejeezus out of me. Here was a movie I knew nothing about. It was low budget, starred unknowns, was created by an unknown, and did nothing special to win my affection as a genuinely good horror movie, other than tell a personal story with very clever mood-setting techniques. Everything we saw on screen seemed possible and real. There were no chainsaw wielding psychos with masks. No stupid death-traps. No impossible little Asian dead girls looking for vengeance and sadism. Through and through, it was a story that did what Hollywood typically doesn't do nowadays--fully immerse you into believing in a horrifying situation for 2 hours without the use of CGI or excessive gore. And it was that believability that made the movie scary. That's not to say that horror movies that do use Hollywood magic can't be good or great (this year's brilliant "The Cabin in the Woods" comes to mind as a successful horror film who's strength lies in the fact that it's excessive), but more often than not, with horror movies, the rule should be less is more. In my opinion the simpler the theatrical horror movie is, the scarier it has the potential to be because it has nothing to prove to the mainstream audiences except the strength and menace of its story (Think of such low budget gems like the first Evil Dead, the amazing works of Dario Argento, John Carpenter's Halloween, and other mockumentaries like Blair Witch or Cannibal Holocaust). And sadly through in the past 4 years, the very simple, personal story that was Paranormal Activity has become *sigh* a Hollywood franchise; a Halloween tentpole staple in Paramount's annual film slate--the new Saw essentially. That means bigger budget, cheaper scares, and less thought or care into the story. 

Now is the movie terrible? No. But I can safely say that of the entire series, this is the one film that literally does not contribute to the overall story constructively. In layman's terms--it's the most unnecessary. The story centers on 15-year old Alex and her family--her mother and father who have a great deal of real marital issues--and her 4 year old little brother Wyatt, and Alex's conveniently video tech-y boyfriend. When they meet their creepy 4-year old neighbor, Robbie, randomly and creepily playing in their backyard clubhouse one night, their quiet, normal, safe home ends up becoming a center of evil happenings, as they are unexpectedly forced to care for Robbie for a few days. Little by little, Robbie begins introducing Wyatt to contact with his "imaginary friend" Toby, and things go from bad to worse from there. Now the second movie acted as a mid-quel of sorts to the first movie, introducing us further into the mythology of why and what the situation was with Katie (Katie Featherson), and most importantly, introducing us to the character of Hunter, the first born male in Katie and Christy's families. The third movie was a prequel, introducing us to how the situation with the demon came to be, and what it has to do with Hunter from the second film. But this fourth movie tells us nothing, honestly. No shocking revelations that contribute to the mythology of the series. If this particular entry was never made, it honestly wouldn't affect the established series and its mythology in any way. Even worse, actually, we get a series that raises many more questions than it answers. For example (and trying my hardest to avoid spoilers), after a startling revelation is revealed about one of the characters, you end up wondering how he ended up switching families, but are given no explanation. And another example ends up being that we randomly end up losing an important character halfway through the movie, questioning the character's very existence and true identity--who exactly is that character and where did he ended up going? No answer there. Instead of a solid entry that expands the on ideas originally established in 3 other films, we simply get a confusing tangent story involving characters we've seen before with mostly the same techniques.

Additionally, being that said techniques have essentially happened twice before, the shocks and jumping points end up becoming super expected and predictable. Are some of them pretty effective? Sure. There are very eerie scenes involving silhouettes in motion under the glowing tracking dots of a Kinect system (for the record I'm happy I'm a PS3 man, and after this movie, that's not going to change ever), and a really fantastic scene involving a closed garage and a running car. But ultimately, this is everything we've seen before only more tame, more forced, and clearly professionally manufactured. A few scenes towards the end involving Katie end up going a little heavy with the CG effects. And a few cheap "invisible" attacks end up coming across as horror cliches we've seen in better movies (think sleeping girl floating above bed from the Exorcist, but much more pointless). Completely gone are the simple scares involving fishing line and baby powder. Now we have a fully manufactured, unrealistic soulless "Hollywood" franchise entry, like so many others before it. And sadly, considering that I wasn't sold on the manufactured "illusion" that was presented to me, I'll honestly be sleeping just fine tonight.

The performances overall are pretty solid. Kathryn Newton, who plays Alex, has some really challenging scenes compared to the rest of the cast, and she fares well throughout. And Brady Allen, who plays Robbie, is particularly chilling. But overall, one doesn't go to these movies expecting any sort of Oscar winning performances, so in this case they don't really matter.

In sum, it really ends up being disappointing getting a cash-cow entry into an otherwise consistently solid franchise that started with a mere hundred-thousand dollar story. Instead of saying "Oh! So that's why" for most scenes, I just ended up saying "why" throughout the entire film. Now Paramount can take my money for Paranormal 5 if the next entry (and that's most likely a given) in the franchise manages to move things forward. But until then, consider me underwhelmed, as the studio continues to flog the horse corpse that is Paranormal Activity.

Overall Rating: C

PS: My cover photo is a picture of the adorable actor who played Wyatt in the movie. He and his parents were at the screening I attended, and he completely got mobbed by people requesting to take photos. Enjoy! 

"Smashed" Review: One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Bored!

There have already been several movies about the subject matter of alcoholism and beating addiction in general. While not nearly as abundant as, say, superhero films, biopics, or tales of alien invasions, there have been more than enough to at least facilitate a template of sorts, spanning back to classics like "Days of Wine and Roses," to the more recent films like the turgid "28 Days" with everyone's favorite sweetheart, Sandy Bullock. And while the general consensus seems to more or less be that these films are often hit and miss, I think it's safe to say they all eventually at least follow convention at one point or another, no matter how much the filmmakers attempt to break it.

Consider said template:
Person A has an alcohol problem. Person A experiences a semi-traumatic event caused by their alcoholism. Person A takes measures, either forced or self-appointed, to get clean. There's a scene with an AA support group, the meeting of a sponsor. A scene with a relapse, and an emotional breakdown because of it, followed by a really huge cathartic confrontation with Person B, a person who plays a significant role in Person A's life, and keeps dragging them back into addiction. Then Person A takes measures to finally stay clean, leaving the audience to hope for the best.

Off the top of my head, I can name 2 movies in 1 second that follow that template, essentially beat-for-beat: The aforementioned "Wine and Roses" and "Smashed".

And therein lies the biggest weakness of "Smashed."

I was fortunate enough to attend a showing with a post-screening Q&A writers/director and the film's star, Mary Elizabeth Winstead. And while I am grateful they took the time to discuss the film with us, it actually made me dislike the movie a bit more. The films writers and director Susan Burke and James Ponsoldt emphasized how they had so much trouble relating to other films about alcohol addiction and decided to create a movie unconventional from other films about addiction. They stated they wanted to prioritize the romance over the message. However the film does not do this. And apart from a few attempts at humor, there is very little this film does to break convention. It is unfortunately play by play a predictable, melodramatic portrayal of the issue that beats you over the head with the issue. So if the writers/director were intending to do anything different here, mission failed. Story-wise, beat for beat, everything follows the above safe template, which is quite rudimentary at this point on the whole, and does so in a fashion that's actually overly safe and quite over-the-top.

Winstead, for instance, is getting a lot of awards-buzz for her portrayal of Kate. And while it perhaps is her best role to date given her resume (which includes a very bland performance in Scott Pilgrim and a few supporting roles in Die Hard 4 and horrible Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter), I can honestly say, that buzz is really not merited  In my opinion it was actually incredibly melodramatic and over-the-top. When she's drunk, she either acts overly irresponsible--portraying your stereotypical caricature of the drunk "whoo" girl you see at bars in plenty of comedies--or completely over-dramatic with emotions flaring at all extremes--not unlike any other actor who's ever portrayed a recovering alcoholic. When she's sober and attempting to recover, she excels a bit more, playing a very haunted performance of someone desperate to change. However, with both sides of the character, how it was written, and Winstead's portrayal, the audience is explicitly being told what the character is feeling and thinking. Rather than making the character realistic or making any attempts at a more nuanced, human performance to allow moviegoers to feel, emote, or relate to the character, we are explicitly told what to think because the character and role require Winstead to flail at the screen shouting, crying, etc. in very on-the-nose ways. Winstead's performance in her major catharsis scene with co-star Aaron Paul towards the final third of the movie, in particular, is something we've seen written so many times, portrayed in the exact same manner--such that the audience literally hears the conflict rather than feeling it--that it literally comes across as (for lack of a better term) hokey. By that point any connection I had with the character is lost because it all feels so artificial and textbook.

Paul comes across slightly better in the film, in my opinion, playing Kate's even more irresponsible husband, Charlie. Charlie's character is of course the Person B in the template. The bad influence who's presence makes Person A keep regressing from rehabilitation. His chemistry with Winstead is quietly sweet most of the time. And the worry Paul conveys when expressing his fears about losing his wife is much more subtle than even Winstead's more quiet somber moments of reflection. However, way the character was written--with the slacker, irresponsible, party-boy mentality--pretty much forces a talented actor like Paul to retain type, and play Jesse Pinkman from Breaking Bad. And while I love Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman, the truth is this is not Breaking Bad, and isn't supposed to be Breaking Bad. So while he may have been suited for this role, admittedly I feel it's a bit of a waste of an actor capable of more.

The rest of the supporting case does a serviceable job with the script that was given to them. Both Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman play more serious roles than we're used to seeing them play, and do a good job with both. While Octavia Spencer does an okay job of portraying a the necessary-to-every-addiction-story sponsor. Of course there are just so any times we can see the homely wise, maternal, African American lady on-screen before it comes off as a tired archetype we avidly expect to show up and dispense wisdom when convenient--particularly ideal when it's the role of an alcoholic's sponsor.

Performances and predictability aside, one of my biggest complaints about the film is also how preachy it comes across. And that might be due to the melodrama of it all. This is another thing Burke and Ponsoldt explicitly stated during the Q&A session that they were seeking to avoid, but something that they also ultimately fail at. The movie really does come across as an extended PSA-D.A.R.E ad on the dangers of alcohol addiction. Alcohol addiction is bad. We get that. Don't beat your audience over the head with the message. If you want the audience to accept the message, give us something real and human. Not something fabricated and, for lack of a better term, "Hollywood". Otherwise the lack of honesty is just going to end up alienating your audience with something that doesnt feel genuine or sincere in its message or the execution of your message. Ultimately, the saddest thing about "Smashed" is the fact that it contradicts everything the filmmakers sought out to accomplish. And at the end of the day, that's unfortunately just bad filmmaking.

Overall Grade: C