Zero Dark Thirty

Sometimes in the evolution of a director’s career it seems that one film acts as a résumé builder to land a more prestigious film in a similar genre. For example, Joss Whedon landed The Avengers years after he proved his sci-fi prowess with Serenity. Well Kathryn Bigelow’s warm up was the modern war drama The Hurt Locker, which happened to win Oscars for best picture and best director. The follow-up, one of the biggest news stories of the 21st century, the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. In Zero Dark Thirty, named for the military designation for 12:30 AM, Jessica Chastain stars as a fast rising CIA agent pursuing Bin Laden during a decade long manhunt. Showing the pressure to pursue such a large target while attempting to thwart additional terrorist attacks gives the audience some perspective on what really goes on behind the scenes with US federal agents.

The movie is clearly not a shot for shot adaptation of reality however. Bigelow and writer Mark Boal have done their research and blended actual developments with dramatic effect. Unless you join the CIA or become a Navy Seal this is probably the closest you’re going to get to how things really went down. Chastain is near flawless in her lead performance. Combining confidence, vulnerability and a social awkwardness that fits so perfectly with a character in her position, it’s impressive that one film could showcase such range. At times I couldn’t help but wonder if she was losing her touch with dialogue that sounds like she is just reading back her lines, but that’s the point. She’s talking to superiors who have the potential to take her off the job at any second. It’s supposed to sound rehearsed.

The manhunt scenes, which mainly consist of Chastain talking to other agents is as mesmerizing as when Seal Team Six storms the compound. The movie runs long, which is appropriate to get a sense of the magnitude of the plot. Visually appealing and structurally sound, Zero Dark Thirty is an accomplishment in modern film-making. Even if only half of the events on screen are true, millions of people were invested in the hunt for Bin Laden and the film is a chance to gain some closure. Culturally, it’s a very important film and will stay with you days after viewing.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Les Misérables

Another musical! They’re coming out of the woodwork. Okay I suppose three in on year isn’t that many. Les Misérables, the much anticipated film adaptation by director Tom Hooper, fills the story’s iconic roles with some of the biggest names in Hollywood. The plot follows Jean Valjean, played by Hugh Jackman, as he attempts to evade capture by a police officer (Russell Crowe) after he violates parole. When Valjean takes responsibility for the daughter of a dying woman, (Anne Hathaway) his situation becomes even more complicated. The film is an accessible version of the dense book for audiences who never brought themselves to read or view a play whose title translates to “The Miserable Ones.” That doesn’t really sound like much fun.

With Jackman’s extensive experience on stage and with big budget tent pole projects, it becomes clear very early in the film that this is a big moment in the actor’s career. He commits to the role of Valjean so completely that his past characters, which have gained him such a huge fan base, seem like a mere warm up. Hathaway’s vulnerability with the tragic character Fantine comes to a head with her performance of “I dreamed a dream.” Used heavily during advertising, the song is easily the film’s strongest moment and has earned Hathaway a real shot at an Oscar. An under the radar performance worth noting is Eddie Redmayne’s Marius, who like Hathaway delivers a tragic song in one continuous take. His “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” is tough to watch (in a good way.)

The story is episodic in nature following Valjean at different points in his adult life. This format often toys with a film’s pacing and this is no exception. Les Misérables is a long film and resetting the plot and characters every 45 minutes is a tough device to employ. But I dare a filmmaker to turn 1,500 pages worth of story into a 90 minute movie. Two and half hours seems much more realistic. Overall, the spectacle and visual impression of the film puts it near the top of the list with this year’s best. Maybe they should make more of these musical things. This one was pretty good.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Django Unchained

With a look through Quentin Tarantino’s recent directorial credits, it’s clear the guy is working to cover all the different genres that interest him. Django Unchained is his western entry, but it’s definitely not your typical John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie. Jamie Foxx plays the title character, a slave freed by a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) on a journey to find his wife, who was sold to a large plantation owned by a crazy person played by Leonardo DiCaprio. The movie fits with what one would expect from the eccentric filmmaker. His over-the-top style creates moments that are funny just because they are so out there. Obviously slavery is nothing to laugh at, but that conflict Tarantino presents between humor and horror is one of his trademarks.

The film’s actors are as strong as their star power would suggest. Foxx plays with a subdued anger throughout the movie that doesn’t always seem to fit as the right emotion. But he builds from a sympathetic character to a more feared personality. Waltz is able to combat his Academy Award winning villainy in Inglorious Basterds with this bounty hunter with a heart performance. He’s a perfect fit because Tarantino wrote the role for him, but beyond that, he has a range that can probably go further than what is asked of him in Django. DiCaprio’s rare turn as an antagonist is one of the film’s stand out aspects. The Creepy, sadistic slave owner brings the best out of those around him. A tense scene where he confronts Foxx and Waltz’s characters at the dinner table is gripping.

The film is probably a bit too long. There are two pretty well developed story arcs that may have benefited from being split into two different films. But the pace is by no means slow. The aesthetically impressive scenes that separate the action and gore from dialogue and story development are worth the audience’s attention from shot to shot. There’s no doubt Quentin Tarantino is crazy, crazy like a fox. This is his crazy western.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Silver Linings Playbook

Look at that Jennifer Lawrence. She has established herself as an award season regular while subsequently becoming a superstar by appearing in The Hunger Games and X-Men: First Class. Not many are able to do so as seamlessly as she is. This year’s Oscar entry for her is Silver Linings Playbook. The story follows Pat (Bradley Cooper) after he is released from a mental institution. Moving back in with his parents, (Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver) Pat tries to integrate back into society with the help of Tiffany, (Lawrence) a friend of a friend who is trying to deal with her own problems.

The film can be categorized as a romantic comedy, but the script never commits to the genre. Instead the movie balances an often light-hearted drama that deals with very real moments. With Lawrence getting a fair amount of attention for her role, it can be easy to forget that Cooper plays the lead and does very well in that position. He brings the wit audiences are familiar with from The Hangover and subtly tackles a mental illness without an ounce of caricature. Lawrence’s character is even more elusive as the audience has to look hard to figure out her mental state. On the surface, the performances are funny and overstated. Underneath, not so much.

The chemistry between the leads is quite clear, and their well-known status among audiences definitely helps. The film’s last act proves a quality resolution to a stressful film. The issues of the leads are far less frustrating than the OCD, gambling addicting father. De Niro has quite a history playing villains, but probably never one so strange. Some may not even consider him to be a villain. It’s like his role in Meet the Parents, but with less of a grip on reality. Silver Linings Playbook succeeds with the journey the characters take and the fundamental truth that you should never bet on the Eagles to beat the Giants.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Jack Reacher

The buzz from fans of the "Jack Reacher" novels before this first film adaptation was released was regarding the polarizing star Tom Cruise and how he’s too small to play the tough guy. After watching the film, that should be the least of their worries. Cruise’s turn as Reacher has him investigating a seemingly random shooting that leaves an ex-military sniper accused of the murders. But there is of course more to the crime than meets the eye. The film is equal parts action film and crime thriller, and both are done successfully. The mystery consists of twists and turns that expose characters we’ve already met. There’s nothing more frustrating in a mystery than when the villain turns out to be some random guy the viewer never seen before. Jack Reacher avoids that.

Even with a good performance by Cruise, the movie is not a showcase for star power like the Mission Impossible films. The (mostly) subtle development of Reacher is as much a mystery as the crime is. The character has no phone, no car and proves difficult to find. With Cruise’s signature soft spoken presence, the performance is the movie’s most memorable aspect. The supporting cast, led by Rosamund Pike’s lawyer, Helen does well even if they are a bit forgettable. That tends to happen when characters aren’t developed enough.

The odd car chase and beat down of bad guys proves very exciting among the criminal pursuit in the film. But at the end of the day, there aren’t enough unique moments for Jack Reacher. The books are successful because of consistency. The movie may not get the chance to build that kind of rapport with the movie going public, however. In the last few years Cruise has proven that he can still handily lead any film. The guy’s a good actor. That doesn’t necessarily translate to good box office numbers though.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

This is 40

Judd Apatow is so synonymous with successful comedy that his attachment to a project usually means a fair amount of hype. But if one were to exclusively look at his directing filmography and didn’t include his massive producer credits, the impression wouldn’t be so high. His latest, This is 40 brings back Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, who reprise their roles from the much funnier Knocked Up, as they deal with the trials and tribulations of turning 40. But a clearer description would be that a relatively vain wife and mother complains for two and a half hours, while her husband lies to her out of fear she’ll yell at him some more. Now surround those two with a cast of other unlikeable characters and you have This is 40.

It’s a pretty strange trend Apatow has been following lately. His last three directed feature films, This is 40, Funny People and Knocked Up are dense dramedies, where the comedy is outweighed by the drama. That’s fine, but eventually audiences are going to realize that this supposed comedic genius only directs downers. I know I have. Plus, the movie is so long that it’s a wonder that this script was green lit. How many rounds of arguing and eventual forgiving does the audience need before they get the point?

Rudd is an established nice guy of comedy, so the audience is conditioned to take his side in a pretty middle of the road performance. Mann’s character is so miserable to watch that it’s hard to root for her. I guess that means she gives an adequate performance, assuming she’s more likeable in real life. Chris O’Dowd and Jason Segel, who play two bit roles, provide probably the funniest exchange in the film when they both attempt to woo Megan Fox’s character. So, why aren’t they in the movie more? It’s really an odd film.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Hobbit: An Uxepected Journey

It was hard to imagine the Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy could come anywhere close to the epic nature of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. After all, The Hobbit is a prequel with a story that is much more adventure and much less impending doom. But with that in mind, the first installment, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hits theaters. The film follows a young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) as he joins a group of dwarves attempting to retake their homeland from a gold hungry dragon. But there is also a lot more information that casual fans of the book won’t be familiar with. Jackson and his team scoured through additional JRR Tolkien texts including appendices from “The Lord of the Rings” books to add depth and tie these movies to the other three titles.

Freeman brings a level of comedic timing to Bilbo that isn’t seen with the stoic lead of the previous films, Frodo, played by Elijah Wood. This allows for some great dialogue and physical comedy with the dwarves, who are mostly caricatures used as jokes. But with so many new characters, there are expanded roles to include ties to fan favorites like Gandalf (Ian McKellan), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). It’s also worth mentioning the film’s strongest scene where Bilbo tests his wit against Gollum, (Andy Serkis) a deformed ring obsessed creature. Jackson definitely knows what the fans want, complexity and continuity. The film is long and requires a level of commitment to enjoy, but we know from experience Jackson likes to make the audience earn the rewards that come at the end of an epic story like this.

The director also quenched his thirst for innovation by filming the trilogy in a higher frame rate of 48 fps (frames per-second). The industry standard is 24, so this provides a more life-like look to the scenes. I was able to screen the movie in one of these theaters. Most theaters aren’t capable of playing the High frame rate version at this time. But in the instance of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the format is tailor made for the stunning landscape imagery and top of the line CGI employed throughout. It’s pretty clear that any movie that doesn’t have a sky high budget will not benefit from the new procedure. It would just make it look cheap.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Playing for Keeps

I’m not going to claim that Playing for Keeps is some kind of cinematic gold. It really brings nothing new to an audience who has seen Gerard Butler’s career choices go from action royalty to rom-com regular. But it does work to avoid all of those expected romantic elements until it falls into its own trap. Butler plays a retired professional soccer star, who lives in Virginia to be close to his son and ex-wife (Jessica Biel). But since he’s down on his luck in his post playing career, he has the time to coach his son’s youth soccer team. Then the audience is thrust into this “Desperate Housewives” like struggle, where Butler’s character must fight off the advances of many local mothers played by overqualified actresses (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Uma Thurman, Judy Greer) and one father (Dennis Quaid), who is looking for a weird, non-sexual, friendship. Did I mention that the lead has unresolved feelings for his ex? Of course he does.

The described elements work well enough in context except for the fact that the audience never really gets a true sense of what kind of man Butler is playing. He succumbs to some of the female advances, but turns away others. He pursues a job that would move him away from his family, yet there is the impression that he passed on previous opportunities to be close to them. As for the impressive names that make up the supporting cast, all are flat, relatively uninteresting characters that could be played by any number of lesser, or cheaper, actors.

I list these weaknesses in Playing for Keeps with a complete understanding that the film is meant as a fun date night film that will likely have a very successful career playing on cable television. There is a balance of laughs, cringe worthy moments and rewards that put it on par with similarly appealing movies. There is just a large sense that the funny parts are meant to be funnier and the cringing is meant to be worse.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Life of Pi

I can’t have been the only one to watch the trailers for Life of Pi and wonder how this movie with some kid trapped on a lifeboat with a tiger was going to be so amazing, especially with its claims of being visually impressive. I even read the book and didn’t get it. But the film does deliver on both accounts, even if it isn’t quite the masterpiece it claims to be. Pi (Suraj Sharma) is the son of an Indian zookeeper who looks to move his business to Canada. But when the ship carrying them goes down in a storm, Pi is seemingly the only survivor with a handful of wild animals. Pi then must try to survive the elements and a Bengal tiger in a lifeboat.

As the entire story is told through flashbacks, the fact that the audience knows Pi will survive allows for hope among many of the sad and tough events that occur. Sharma, an essentially unknown commodity carries the film with a very descriptive performance that calls to mind Tom Hanks in Cast Away. He does so well blurring the line between metaphor and reality, which is essential. As for the film’s visual prowess, it definitely is impressive though some moments seem forced in order to present a cool shot. The glowing water and whale are one example of this.

Director Ang Lee presents a dramatic film in Life of Pi that is an impressive spectacle from the script to the editing. It could be shortened a bit, as is a frequent issue when adapting acclaimed novels to film. But a few hiccups in the pacing really go a long way in preventing the film from being accessible to a wider audience demographic. Life of Pi is interesting and unique, everything that is needed for an original movie. There’s always griping that Hollywood never does anything besides comic book movies and sequels. I suppose this is the fresh film those people are looking for.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Rise of the Guardians

I find my stance on big name actors contributing voices for animated features to be right down the middle. Sometimes I think it’s a nice touch and other times I wish the big-wigs would leave some work for the little old voice actor. But either way, Rise of the Guardians is an example of the former. The stars actually fit well with their animated counterparts. Billed as a Christmas movie, the story is centered on Jack Frost (Chris Pine) as he turns away from his life of mischief in order to join the Guardians, the elite team of holiday characters. The team, consisting of Santa Claus, (Alec Baldwin) the Easter Bunny, (Hugh Jackman) the Tooth Fairy, (Isla Fisher) and the Sandman, (who doesn’t speak) is needed when their old foe, the Boogey Man (Jude Law) returns to steal the hopes and dreams of the world’s children.

The film spends some time trying to set it apart from typical holiday fare with a tattooed Russian sounding Santa and a sass talking Australian Easter Bunny. Though these surface changes do little more than present a bit of context for the adventure format. The unique packaging doesn’t prevent the usual motifs from breaking though. They’re powered by children’s belief in them, the villain somehow doesn’t stand a chance against a few untrained, brave children, so on and so forth. But laughs and interesting moments are still brought about with funny touches on how the holidays are misinterpreted.

Possibly the most glaring question with Rise of the Guardians is why DreamWorks pushed it so heavily as a Christmas movie. Santa Claus is featured and Jack Frost is obviously winter related, but the holiday that is the target for the film is Easter. How disappointing for everyone who went to the theater to see a Christmas movie. For the most part, the film is fun and dramatic like must DreamWorks animation, if not a bit confused.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Killing Them Softly

When a movie starring Brad Pitt is released in late November, there’s a pretty good bet that it’s meant to draw the attention of award show voters. But it seems that those chances are slim this year. Killing Them Softly has Brad Pitt playing a hit man brought in to take care of those responsible for robbing a high stakes, mob connected card game. In reality, one of thieves, played by Scoot McNairy, is actually the film’s lead. McNairy’s performance is by far the most dynamic of the film, capturing emotion and the audience’s sympathy much more than his counterparts.

Pitt does well, but his character is completely flat. We know he’s a fairly nice guy… as far as hit men go. But the character is written to be an enigma of sorts, so it’s no fault of Pitt’s. James Gandolfini gives a really intriguing performance but only appearing in two scenes really limits the development. In fact, that can be said for a lot of the movie. It’s strangely organized with a ton of bit characters that come and go and a very forced backdrop of the 2008 Presidential election. Obviously the characters are suffering financially, but the connection that is made with Brad Pitt’s final monologue is weird. Are we meant to agree with him? It’s hard to tell.

Killing Them Softly has its moments visually. McNairy’s character enters the film in dramatic shadow, which seems like it will set the tone for the film. But most of the story has a more traditional look filled with the ugly realities of a poorer community. The realistic violence that is put on display is needlessly gruesome. Even with a hit man used as the film’s selling point, the violence is very often unnecessary. The “cool” guys sitting near me in the theater seemed to find it hysterical, but for the civilized world, it’s a bit much.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Wreck-It Ralph

Wreck-It Ralph may have the best concept we’ve seen in animation since Shrek came out in 2001. Ralph is a video game villain, who grows tired of his tedious job after 30 years. So he decides to break the trend and earn a medal, which is usually reserved for heroes. In order to do so, Ralph ventures to other video games to gain the respect of his peers. The presence of well-known video game entities like “Sonic the Hedgehog”, “Pac-Man” and “Street Fighter” adds significantly to the Disney project. While there are plenty of original games and characters, the fact that familiar faces are shown in the trailers and in the film’s opening scenes give the audience, and more specifically children, something to latch onto and get interested in. Sure, Ralph’s game, “Fix-It Felix Jr.” is almost exactly the same as the original “Donkey Kong,” but that’s okay.

The voice cast for the film does very well. John C. Reilly, who plays the title character, proves to be an absolutely perfect choice for the kind-hearted giant. Overall, the film doesn’t have much working against it. Visually, the movie fits into the holding patter CGI based animation has been dealing with recently. It looks good, but not any different than what we’ve been seeing from Disney’s competitors. The same goes with overall themes. It’s an “everyone’s special in their own way” kind of concept, which we see more in more in children’s fare.

It all comes down to the very well thought out concept behind Wreck-It Ralph. We’ve seen what toys do when no one is looking in Toy Story, so now we know how complex the lives of video game characters are. Gamers will appreciate the references to secret levels, glitch characters and the idea that all your video games interact with each other. Ralph’s attending of a villain support group is a great example of how successful the film is in executing a unique vision. And it’s surprisingly not very morbid by Disney standards.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Lincoln

As soon as the first promotional photo of Daniel Day-Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln was released, it became pretty clear he was the front runner for the Best Actor trophy at the Oscars. Now, I don’t believe I’ve ever met Lincoln, but from what I gather the resemblance is pretty uncanny. Directed by Steven Spielberg, Lincoln follows the final six months of the President’s life. During this time he deals with growing pressure to end the Civil War, along with his attempt to pass the Thirteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives. The amendment, which outlawed slavery, ends up being the film’s main conflict.

While I’m no Lincoln scholar, I know that the film presents the icon through a strictly supportive method. The issue that outlawing slavery was also important to collapse the Confederacy’s economy even in the face of their rejoining the Union is glossed over. Also, the use of corruption to secure the House votes is presented as a clever and positive way to do so. I understand Washington is a shifty place, but the flawed portrait of Honest Abe the film promises never comes to fruition. But what is presented is highly entertaining and dramatic. The audience has a built-in support for such an important figure, who was instrumental in freeing millions and is generally pretty likeable. The script takes advantage of that.

The film’s look continues where Spielberg’s last film, War Horse left off. With an eye on giving the gruesome conditions of war a bit of realism among highly stylized elements, the audience, which consists of more demographics than I’d expect, can handle seeing scenes such as the President riding through a field of soldier corpses. After this, Day-Lewis can probably make the best case for being the best actor in the world. While a look through his filmography may make one think otherwise, I believe that he will continue to win Oscars every time he takes on a role. Some of the other “contenders” seem plain silly compared to Day-Lewis. The supporting cast does very well also, led by Sally Field, David Strathairn and Tommy Lee Jones. But the difference is they give good performances, the actor with his name above the title gives one of the best performances ever.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Red Dawn

After years on the shelf due to MGM’s bankruptcy, Red Dawn has finally seen the light of day with a cast much more famous than when they filmed it. A remake of the 1984 film of the same name, the remake follows a group of Washington teenagers and 20 somethings as North Korea invades their community. With Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson seeing blockbuster success in the past few years, there should have been a newfound sense of optimism for the film. However its buzz was extremely limited and the overwhelming amount of male centered advertising spoke to the desperation in trying to prevent a flop. The jury is still out on that, but the film delivers as advertised.

With campy one-liners and a premise that takes a while to believe, it’s definitely not a classic war epic. But once things get going there is a down to Earth feel that can put the audience in the shoes of such a frightening concept, your home being invaded. When the characters begin fighting back with their guerilla tactics, it’s hard to imagine they’d make any progress against the no-nonsense soldiers they are supposedly out-witting. How dare I question the elite fighting force who calls themselves “Wolverines.” After all, they shot tin cans in the woods for practice.

Running close to two hours, Red Dawn is paced well keeping the audience’s attention from the foreboding opening credits through the heart-pumping final scene. The scale seems a bit small for such a seemingly massive event. After the initial airborne invasion, everything shrinks a bit too much. In terms of acting, Hemsworth falls a bit flat as Hutcherson gives a more emotional performance. Josh Peck, who plays the stubborn younger brother to Hemsworth’s soldier character, disappoints with a whiny performance that gets old fast. It’s likely how the character is written, but still annoying. Red Dawn definitely could be better with some significant fine tuning, but after expectations were set so low, its entertainment value is definitely higher than you’d think.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II

I don’t know if I’ve ever had such a drastic swing in interest mid-movie as I did during The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II. The film is the fifth and final installment in the supernatural love triangle series. This time around, Bella (Kristen Stewart) has been changed into a vampire in order to save her life and that of her half human half vampire daughter. Of course papa Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) is there to keep an eye on things and werewolf Jacob Black’s (Taylor Lautner) connection with the child is too complicated to explain in this short film review. But the real complication comes when the tyrannical Volturi mistake the girl for an “immortal child,” a child vampire, who are illegal. So the Cullens bring in friends from all over the world to bear witness to the girl and stand by them against the Volturi if it comes to that.

The first half of the movie, which focuses on Bella’s new abilities and the exhausted eternal love plot line between her and Edward, is completely cringe worthy. I can’t remember the last time I rolled my eyes this much. Probably last time I watched one of these movies. But then, imagine this, something actually happens. An external conflict is presented and interesting moments occur. The introduction of the new vampire characters, the Volturi, the changing of new werewolves, these are things that work in a fantasy film. The story reaches its peak with an epic fight scene that stands up against any other modern fantasy epic.

Now I don’t mean to hit Twi-Hards where it hurts, but the series’ leads, Bella and Edward are definitely the basis of the issues. It’s been well-documented in my reviews of the past Twilight films my thoughts on their acting abilities, but it goes deeper than that. Every character from Charlie to Rosalie to a random nameless werewolf comes across as more interesting than these duds. Ultimately the epic battle and a nice light hearted tribute to the series leave a pleasant taste in the mouths of the audience in the end. It’s so difficult to cast judgment on a movie that I both hated and really enjoyed. Oh Twilight, I’m going to miss you. But not enough for you to reboot. Please don’t do that.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Skyfall

James Bond is the star of the ultimate film franchise. 22 movies that have adapted with the times, unable to be killed when a poor film is released (or a series of poor films). What’s that, MGM? You don’t have the money to make the latest installment? That’s okay, we’ll wait. And now the wait is over. Skyfall has Daniel Craig return to the tuxedo for the third time to battle a cyber-terrorist (Javier Bardem) targeting MI-6 and more specifically, M (Judi Dench). Many of the classic Bond motifs are present for the die-hard fans. Ben Whishaw stars as a Q, a certain Aston Martin makes an appearance, and Bond is forced to introduce himself in the well-known format- Last name, first name, last name.

The film’s opening sequence results in Bond’s apparent death by gunshot, then falling off a bridge. I don’t entirely understand how he could have survived that, but there has never been a more obvious fake-out than this. Sure he “dies” in convincing fashion, but he’s James Bond. He obviously isn’t going to die, so why even pretend? I suppose it’s to blend into the stunning opening credits accompanied by Adele’s theme for the movie. But what the apparent death actually does is build some tension with Eve, (Naomi Harris) who shoots him and M, who gives the order. It’s possible there has never been a more layered Bond movie than Skyfall with the range of emotions and depth of characters presented.

Among all the old Bond references and updated excitement that is expected, the film actually gives the audience something very new, a look into Bond’s past. Avoiding any spoilers, the film’s title refers to an aspect of the spy’s past that proves very interesting. It amazes me that 50 years since the original incarnation, Dr. No, the audience is learning so much about the character, much more during these Daniel Craig chapters. Compared to its counterparts, Skyfall is possibly the best of the 23.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Argo

Last year when The Artist and Hugo took home tons of trophies on their way to big Oscar nights, it became clear that Hollywood is a big fan of movies about themselves. Sure both are quality movies, but since when does that get a movie Academy votes? If this trend continues this year, there is no doubt that Argo will have a full trophy case in its fake office. Both Directed by and starring Ben Affleck, Argo follows the true story of the CIA’s very stressful and odd maneuver to rescue six displaced American diplomats during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Staging a fake movie, the Americans are presented as a Canadian film crew looking for shooting locations. Only the slightest bit of research tells me the film is highly dramatized and fictionalized, but it still covers the basic facts.

I can’t recall another film that is able to cut between such intense drama and witty comedy like Argo does. Alan Arkin and John Goodman, who play Hollywood big shots, prove to be a great distraction from the rioting masses portrayed in the Iranian scenes. But when it is time for that drama, it’s done incredibly well. Affleck’s calm confidence in the role of leading the escape shows a cool restraint in his acting that not only comforts the characters but also the viewers looking for some type of reprieve.

Americans love watching movies about classified, behind the scenes sort of stuff and Argo fills that want. There is always that moment in espionage thrillers that presents the common citizen as gullible for believing the untrue reports, but now we’re in on the secret. If Argo teaches us anything it’s that the government definitely has weird stuff going on in secret. It’s as if this story is straight out of the President’s “Book of Secrets.” I’m not talking about the movie with Nicholas Cage. I’m talking about the REAL “Book of Secrets.”

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Flight

If the main focus of Flight was the dramatic plane crash where Denzel Washington’s character, a pilot, saves the lives of his passengers, then the movie would be accessible to wide-ranging audiences. However, after that very exciting sequence early in the film, the story unfolds as the tale of an alcoholic drug abuser, whose problems finally catch up with him. Of course during that miraculous plane crash he was under the influence, so he must try and find a way out of legal trouble. It’s all very stressful.

Washington gives a strong performance, but he’s one of those actors who have become so iconic that he always seems to be playing himself with a twist. He sounds like Denzel always sounds, moves like Denzel always moves, but he’s an alcoholic. The supporting cast offers a bit of reprieve. Kelly Reilly plays another drug abuser, who becomes a love interest for Washington’s character. But since she has an easier time making good choices than her counterpart, she becomes a more sympathetic character. Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood also add touches of responsibility that prove important to keep the audience from the constant cringing and disappointment.

Ultimately, Flight relies almost entirely on the talent and likability of Denzel Washington. His acting ability is very strong and he’s able to carry the movie squarely on his shoulders. But what often happens with movies like this, the attempt at depth restricts the audience from caring enough about the character. I suppose it’s meant to be a cautionary tale of the dangers of alcoholism, but the underlying theme of the drugs and alcohol complimenting each other to make the habit possible to live with is just odd. There is of course an attempt at the end to denounce the whole ordeal, but over two hours of chasing boos with cocaine isn’t quite resolved with the last 10 pages in the script.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Cloud Atlas

If one were to ask me what Cloud Atlas is like, the first word that comes to mind is dense. Based on the novel of the same name, the story follows a number of different timelines, which loosely intertwine and come back to themes of life, death, love and all that stuff. In order to better illustrate the connections, the film employs the use of the same actors as many of the leads spanning different lifetimes. It becomes an Easter egg hunt to find out who is playing who as the film goes on. The use of prosthesis often makes it difficult. Plus race, sex and age prove unimportant as the cast changes through all of them with ease. While I enjoyed this innovative move, it could be construed as gimmicky to distract impatient audiences from how long the film is.

In order to give each story its due, it makes sense that the length approaches three hours. I wonder if Cloud Atlas would have been more accessible as a mini-series. There are just too many story lines for a movie. Cutting one out would have gone a long way. But of course, which one would get cut? It’s impossible to choose. The Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer direct with pinpoint precision to the point where each arch could stand on its own. Trying to choose a favorite, I switched between three different stories before realizing I couldn’t decide.

Cloud Atlas reaches its political heights in Neo-Seoul, pulls on the audience’s emotions in 1936 Scotland, gains our sympathy in the 1849 South Pacific and gives some comic relief in modern day England. Each member of the cast is given their moment to shine as a lead, which is welcome allowing for strong players like Jim Broadbent and Ben Whishaw to get their moments in the spotlight opposite the better known stars like Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. The movie was definitely long and doesn’t have the tie together ending big Hollywood has led us to expect, but this is the kind of project that will push film making to the next level.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Alex Cross

I keep referring to this movie with different names. First I call it Alex Perry, then Tyler Cross. But those are wrong. It’s actually Alex Cross starring Tyler Perry. The film has Perry take over the lead role from Morgan Freeman who played the part in the 1997 film Kiss the Girls and 2001’s Along Came a Spider. This time the title character must track down an assassin (Matthew Fox) going after high ranking business people. But after a face to face encounter, Cross and his partners, played by Edward Burns and Rachel Nichols, become the killer’s target.

The film uses an interesting and extremely creepy villain, referred to as Picasso, in order to build tension. Fox went through a major physical transformation for the part and is rewarded by being the only memorable part of what appears on screen. Perry, who also lost weight, though in a less drastic way than Fox, for the film, falls flat as a predictable revenge driven cop. I don’t necessarily blame Perry for this. That’s the character in the script.

Trusty Wikipedia tells me there are 19 Alex Cross novels written by James Patterson. Fans of the series may discover some predictability in the books since there are so many, but there is no reason the first movie in a rebooted film series should be so obvious. The characters are mostly archetypes that are able to elicit the proper emotion from the audience, but very few are at all layered. For those looking for an exciting crime drama, Alex Cross fits. One problem (besides the script, which is definitely the main issue) may be the fall release of the film. Sandwiched between dense award-season films and fall/winter blockbusters, there really isn’t space for this kind of project. It would have done better in January or February.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Here Comes the Boom

When Kevin James made the jump from television to film, he actually did much better than you may have realized. His first four starring roles grossed north of $100 million. That impressive streak ended in 2011, but the actor has already been cemented as a viable lead for comedies and family movies, which is a good thing since he’s such a likeable guy. His latest, Here Comes the Boom seems destined to fall short of his box office’s high standards. The likely reason is the divisive presence of mixed martial arts in what could otherwise be categorized as a family film.

James plays a high school biology teacher who takes up mixed martial arts in order to make enough money to save the school’s extracurricular activities from budget cuts. Henry Winkler plays an unnaturally kind music teacher, who would lose his job, which is the reason the unlikely fighter gets in the octagon. As the second film in two years that has a teacher fighting MMA to make more money (Warrior), you’d think fighters at all levels of success were rolling in cash. But that’s obviously not the case. We’re meant to think that James has this amazing hidden talent for the sport, but it’s a bit difficult to buy that people who train full time wouldn’t get the opportunities over him. It is a movie though and when you get by the little issue of realism, it’s quite fun to watch.

The comedy in Here Comes the Boom outweighs the inspirational moments, which is important. The characters are written well with Bas Rutten and Mark DellaGrotte adding just enough MMA credibility next to the Hollywood regulars James and Winkler. Like previously mentioned, the movie is actually family friendly. The controlled MMA violence is less than many video games and is often meant to be funny. If we can’t laugh at Kevin James falling down and hurting himself, then the three stooges truly failed in their comedy innovations.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Fun Size

With each scene that passes in Fun Size it becomes less clear what demographic the movie is intended for. But that probably shouldn’t be such a surprise seeing that this notion is consistent with how Nickelodeon, who made the film, presents some of their television content. Is it for teenagers, who aren’t likely to watch the child based brand or pre-teens, who probably shouldn’t watch some of the material presented? I don’t know.

Fun Size stars Victoria Justice (from Nickelodeon TV fame) as a high school senior stuck with taking her young brother out trick or treating instead of going to a party where a popular boy wants to… sing a song to her. Yeah, weird. But when the brother ditches his escort, Justice’s character, her best friend (Jane Levy) and two “geeks” (Thomas Mann, Osric Chau) go on a crusade to find him. The results include a shootout, explosions, weird sexual tension and actually some pretty funny moments. The problem is I don’t know what ages would actually find these situations funny. I know mid-20’s male is not the target demographic.

The directorial debut for Josh Schwartz, known for his work on “The OC,” ”Chuck” and “Gossip Girl,” there is a strong sense of trying to achieve that epic teenage experience that John Hughes movies became famous for. This one isn’t actually that far off from that. The determining factor would be how famous these relatively unknown actors become and if teenagers like watching it. Chances are Fun Size doesn’t quite reach that status.

The young cast carries the film well, making the mom storyline with Chelsea Handler unnecessary and out of place. Justice is a pleasant enough lead for a movie of this genre balancing her perceived popularity with grounded likeability. Mann is the other standout following up the heavy R rated Project X with something that has much less binge drinking. It is funny though that in both films he incurs the wrath of his parents for wrecking their cars. What antics!

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Seven Psychopaths

It’s tough to diagnose a genre for movies like Seven Psychopaths. I can come up with similar titles that deal with the same sort of thing, but not a genre. Let’s call them shoot ‘em up comedies dealing with interweaving flawed characters. Ahh, problem solved. Seven Psychopaths follows Colin Farrell, a struggling screenwriter who accidentally finds himself in a conflict with a dangerous criminal (Woody Harrelson) after his friends (Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken) steal the criminal’s dog. This seems like a situation that could easily be remedied by returning the dog, but that doesn’t quite work because, you guessed it, many of the characters are psychotic.

Playing his usually seedy character in the film’s first half, Sam Rockwell emerges as the stand out performance of the movie. His quirky ticks lead to bigger issues that come out later, but to come across in a serious way while the majority of his lines are comic in nature, shows Rockwell’s understanding of the script and his ability to guide the film. Farrell plays the clueless common guy most of the time, which is a bit disappointing. He’s played crazy so well (Horrible Bosses) that it’s half expected that he show something before the end.

At times, the film’s dialogue reaches great heights with its thematic and witty nature. Though it does suffer at times due to a script that (excuse the critic cliché) insists upon itself. Ideas of vigilante justice and the sane battling the insane are so prominent that the concepts trip over themselves. Similar movies have weaved a better web in terms of the story coming full circle. Then when the audience learns that some of the characters are fictional ideas and not part of the film, I can’t help but feel a bit cheated. Seven Psychopaths is interesting, but falls short of the expectations of the” shoot ‘em up comedies dealing with interweaving flawed characters” genre. I need to trademark that.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Frankenweenie

When I was in college, my fiction writing professor told us that a good place to start writing was to take one of your favorite stories and change the setting. His example was writing Star Wars with a college campus subbed in for space. Well Tim Burton was obviously thinking something similar when he made his 1984 short, Frankenweenie. Now, in 2012, he resurrected the story with his signature stop motion animation as a full length feature. The story is a tweaked version of “Frankenstein.” A young Victor Frankenstein, heartbroken from the sudden death of his dog, Sparky, uses a lesson learned in science class to bring his dog back to life. Though when the other students hear of this, they fear Victor will now win the science fair. So they aim to repeat the experiment.

The film works with many of Burton’s common themes of loneliness, under-appreciated genius and a misguided public. The use of black and white ties Frankenweenie to the monster movie concepts it pays homage to, as well as acknowledging the home movie making aspect of childhood Burton has admitted to relishing. But even with the many themes, the film still runs under 90 minutes. That actually proves to be a positive in this case. Since both The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride follow similar suit, apparently the stop motion medium functions best in the 80 minute range. It doesn’t feel rushed, so there can’t really be any complaints in this area.

The voice cast is split with recognizable actors (Martin Short), Burton regulars (Wynona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara), and younger voices (Charlie Tahan, Robert Capron). The dynamic works well. Fans of the hybrid family/horror genre Tim Burton works in will find Frankenweenie to be fun and enjoyable. But others will think they’ve seen this before. The innovation that was paramount in works like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Alice in Wonderland hasn’t progressed in this instance, making it relatively predictable. Fun, but predictable.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Taken 2

When watching the trailer for the Liam Neeson action sequel, Taken 2, it’s difficult not to laugh when he forcefully delivers the line, “Your mother is going to be taken.” Come on, that’s just a lazy way to allude to the similar moment in the original film and try to give the title some relevance. Unfortunately that’s the way some of the movie goes, unintentionally funny. The plot follows Neeson’s character, Bryan Mills, on vacation in Istanbul with his ex-wife (Famke Janssen) and daughter (Maggie Grace.) But while there, family members of the killed villains from the first movie track Bryan down to enact their revenge.

The plot is actually less cut and dry than Taken. The viewer sees Neeson’s character in a peaceful setting to start and witnesses the types of characteristics that make him so strong in life threatening situations. He is always perfectly on time and doesn’t trust car wash employees to hand dry his car. These are minor events, but in the grand scheme of this (unforeseen) franchise, it’s important to learn something about these characters.

The most unanticipated development that occurs is the lack of fisticuffs. The whole draw of Taken 2 is the guarantee of ridiculous violence. Plus, sequels are supposed to be bigger and badder than originals, right? But contrary to that scientific stance on sequels, this film opts for car chases, foot chases and massive property damage. There’s less shooting and even less hand to hand combat. Neeson is a bona fide star these days, so there’s no question his presence carries the movie. But everything from the script to the characters needs to be better in order for an unexpected sequel to live up to its overachieving counterpart. Unfortunately, if this were the first in the series it would also have been the last.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.