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.