Friday The 13th (1980)

I recently re-watched the original Friday The 13th movie, in bits and pieces over the course of a couple of nights. While watching the last 20 to 30 minutes separated from the rest of the film, I realized something that I really like about this movie – the killer is a normal looking, older woman. Not supernatural or super-powerful or something that is obviously scary.

This gives the film a level of horror beyond just the slasher scares of the murders. She's a regular person who, through losing her son while attending Camp Crystal Lake, is pushed over the edge and lost her grasp on sanity. This could be anyone – through the right circumstances just about anyone could be driven to that sort of insanity. And there's no way to tell who could or who already has, they don't put on masks, aren't deformed, or horribly scarred – their scars are invisible. This underlying fear that anyone could decide to kill you is completely terrifying and grounds the terror in something very real and innate in us.

It's too bad they basically undo all of this at the very end just to get a cheap, quick, jump-scare. The movie has no supernatural elements to it but then, what we are to believe, the undead corpse of Jason Voorhees jumps out of the lake and grabs the lone survivor. Sure, it's a good scare you don't see coming, but it's out of place with everything else that happened so far, it's clear the filmmakers just felt the need to add one more thing at the end. If they didn't have this last bit, the film could have a very solid sense of existential fear to go with its slasher kills.

Ghostbusting Your Childhood

Nowadays it's pretty common to see the complaint, or worry, that something (TV show, movie sequel/reboot/remake/adaptation) will ruin or destroy a part of someone's childhood. This refrain is coming up again with men upset about the idea of a remake/reboot/sequel(?) of the movie Ghostbusters featuring female leads. I find this somewhat ironic.

In Ghostbusters, Ray Stantz is a man-child. I don't mean that in a negative sense, as a man stuck in a state of arrested development afraid of growing up and commitment and all that that's a fairly common characterization in movies in recent years. He's a grown man who has an almost childlike enthusiasm and excitement about what he does – when looking for a building for their business, he's sold on the place because it was a fire house and has a pole to slide from the top-floor to the bottom-floor.

In the end of the movie, Ray accidentally summons a Godzilla-sized Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, a beloved and nostalgic icon from his childhood, to destroy the city. To save the day, he has to kill Mr. Stay-Puft. The man-child kills his childhood, or a part of it, at least. The ultimate ghost (though it's not a ghost, I know this) is his own past.

In a small way, then, Ghostbusters is about being willing to let your childhood go. And now, men are crying over their childhoods. Take a lesson from Ray Stantz and let it go.

Or just admit you're a misogynist because that's the other option if it's not about your precious childhood.

King Kong (1976)

I watched the 1976 version of King Kong. I'd never seen it before. I'm generally very forgiving of special effects of the time a film was made and don't let them detract from the movie. However, there was just something about the special effects that just didn't sit well with me.

The problem is that I don't think there's a way to make a man in a monster suit smashing a model not look silly. No matter how good the model may be, no matter how good the suit may be, it still looks like an actor in a suit breaking bits of plastic and cardboard. It draws attention to itself and breaks the suspension of disbelief, not because it doesn't look realistic but because it looks ridiculous. If Kong destroying a train, with people in it, makes me want to laugh because I can't take the image seriously, what's the point? Not to mention a man in an ape-suit fighting a big, fake snake. It looks cheap and dumb.

I also couldn't help but think about how rather rudimentary the special effects are. I watched the original King Kong a couple of weeks ago. While the stop-motion puppets certainly don't look realistic, I can at least look at them and appreciate that, for the time, how the live-action actors and puppets were mixed and blended together was sophisticated and would have been spectacular. Then you go forward 40 years and the best they can do is put an actor into an ape suit to stamp around and toss models? It was a fine suit, capable of some decent expression (though it mostly seems to pull a creepy, rape-vibe expression) through mechanics – the effects team did a good job on it and the cinematographer did a good job complimenting it. Still, it's a man in a suit and hardly highlights the advances in special-effects filmmaking.

How else could they have done it? That's the question I then have to ask myself. I'm not sure. I'm not sure, exactly, of the limitations of the time. But I'd look at something such as the Rancor scene in Return of the Jedi, released 7 years later. They initially considered using a man in a suit for the Rancor, but decided, instead, to use a stop motion puppet. With the use of blue screen, projection, mechanical arm, and the puppet, they made something that looks good and holds up well. This should have all been available to the filmmakers in 1976. It's the same principles used in the original movie, but with the benefit of improved technology and techniques it looks so much better. If used in the 1976 King Kong, the film would be less silly and it'd better show how effects had improved since 1933. Don't try to make a man in an ape-suit carry a movie – it should be a small part and never made to standalone, so that it wouldn't have to bear the burden of close scrutiny.

Psycho

One of the things that I like most about the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is the last shot – the camera slowly spinning and pulling away from Marion Crane's open, lifeless eye. It's extremely unsettling. It's a great way to cap that sequence off.

When characters die in movies, they often close their eyes or we don't see their eyes. Or, someone will do the decent and respectable thing by closing their eyes rather quickly. Here, Hitchcock lingers on her eye, as it stares off into nothing, seeing nothing. Her eye doesn't move or twitch. He makes us actually, kind of, confront death. It's so uncomfortable sitting there, being forced to look at this blank eye. It doesn't feel as though it's a movie death, as it would if she had closed her eyes or if her eyes remained hidden from, and unacknowledged by, the camera. It adds a sense and feeling of realism to the scene.

It also adds to the shock of it. She doesn't get the time to breathe her last few breaths and, sort of, peacefully go. No, she's attacked, has her last few moments and just collapses – splat – onto the floor. It's violent and sudden and brutal.

I don't think the scene would work as well without this shot. It's creepy and unsettling and uncomfortable.

Poltergeist

There are, obviously, a lot of things to like about the film Poltergeist because it is a great, classic movie. But there is one thing that I especially like about it – there are no experts in it. There's no one who has all the answers. It's a bit of a trope that there's always some character around who has read up, and knows all about, all sorts of paranormal and supernatural phenomenon and can say 'this is what's going on, this is what we need to do.' Here, all of the characters are clearly in over their heads.

The most Dr. Lesh and her crew have seen before is a toy move a few feet over several hours – what they're greeted with is a room with several objects flying around it. The Freeling family has more experience than the paranormal investigators at that point, having seen furniture move in seconds. The investigators haven't seen anything like this - after seeing the room with things spinning and flying around they still look for tricks when they see a coffee pot move across the table, this is their job but they can't believe what they're seeing. All the investigators can really do from there is collect data and evidence of the paranormal activities going on. They won't know what to do about any of it though.

Tangina, the medium, takes it in stride and acts as though she knows what she's doing, but she doesn't – she's faking it. When Diane wants to go into the portal in the closet, Tangina tells her “You've never done this before,” to which Diane responds “Neither have you.” Tangina gets a look on her face as though she's thinking 'oh crap, that's right' then tells Diane to do it. She's prepared to tell the family what they want to hear and say a few words to the house, but when it comes to actually confronting a poltergeist? She's real quick to pass that off to someone else. Then when Diane reappears with Carol Anne, Tangina straightens her hair a bit, looks into the video camera Dr. Lesh's crew has, and declares, very self-satisfied, “this house is clean.” But we soon see that the house is not clean. So she doesn't know! She doesn't know what she's talking about – she just sees a chance at some glory, this will make her look good.

So what's my point? Well, it's much more frightening and unsettling when no one has the ready answers. This is added to the film being set in an average 1980s suburb development – there's probably houses and developments that resemble it in most areas. It's not some spooky looking house or area – it's brand-new, nice houses; nothing should go wrong or be out of the ordinary there. But things go very wrong and no one knows how to deal with it. In the end they don't defeat the poltergeist, they don't triumph over it – they escape, they run away from it. If it can happen there, to this average looking family, it can happen anywhere, to anyone – and there may be no one who knows what to do or has answers and the only thing you may be able to do is run. How frightening is that?

12 Years A Slave

12 Years A Slave is the true story of Solomon Northup, a free African-American man from New York. One day he comes across a friend who stops him and tells him he was just telling two gentlemen about him, as they are searching for a musician and he can play the violin well. After a discussion with them, he agrees to go to Washington, D.C. with them and play for their circus for a short time. At the end of his engagement with them, they all go out for a dinner and he has too much to drink. In the morning he wakes up chained in a room. From there he is transported to New Orleans where he is sold into slavery. He spends the next 12 years between three plantations before he is finally able to gain his freedom again.

The film can be tough to watch. It's good that it doesn't shy away from the violence visited upon the slaves, it's something that needs to be seen and dealt with. It doesn't get overly graphic though, which is also a good thing otherwise it could become unbearable to watch and/or diminish the film as possibly being sensationalized or over-the-top. It keeps a rather even-hand.

The grounding in Solomon makes the film easier to watch as his story is compelling. He learns quickly that speaking out will do no good, it will only bring worse treatment on himself. He struggles to keep himself from lashing out or speaking out, but he knows he has to in order to survive. There's a longing in him to say something that he must suppress. There are moments of hesitation as he has to consider what he's about to say and how much to say. He knows that revealing that he's educated and can read and write would be dangerous for him - for instance, he has to resist the instinct to read a grocery list he's given.

There's great joy when he is finally rescued and reunited with his family. Though it is tempered by the post-script that tells us that, though they were tried, the men who kidnapped him were not convicted as he was not able to testify against white men in Washington, D.C. The film remains grounded in this way. The film doesn't tread into sentimentality - it'd be easy to imagine this film with rousing speeches on the rights of man and denouncing slavery, slow-motion hugs as he sees his family, and a good 'they lived happily ever after' feeling and 'The End'. It doesn't do this because it acknowledges that it's just not that simple.

The film also doesn't turn the characters to stereotypes or cliches. Even Epps, the master Solomon spends the most time with, though he is a horrible person, is conflicted by feelings for his slave Patsey. His mistreatment of his slaves, in part at least, likely comes from him taking out that internal conflict on them. He's jealous. He's a bit trapped in his life. It certainly doesn't make him sympathetic, he's not, but it at least makes him a character with some depth where he could just be a mustache-twirling bad guy. Patsey attempts to keep her humanity by continuously crying and mourning the children that were taken away from her; Solomon tries to keep his humanity by trying to maintain a sort of professional attitude and doing the best he can at his work. Solomon's first master, Ford, who is much nicer to his slaves than Epps, is relatively kind to Solomon but refuses to listen to Solomon when he tries to explain that he is a free man who was abducted, because Ford is in debt to the slave trader he bought Solomon from and so cannot afford to set him free. It all creates realistic characters.

The film knows that it doesn't need to convince anyone that a wrong is being done, not only to Solomon but all of the slaves, so it doesn't grandstand or moralize. It keeps its feet firmly on the ground. And, really, any sentiment or grandstanding or moralizing would most likely undercut the impact of the film - it's more powerful because it feels more real. It's just concerned with telling the story.

The film is well-made, story is told well. The acting is, for the most part, very good. Hans Zimmer's score is, at times, perhaps a bit much or just doesn't quite fit the film as well as it could. It's clearly one of those 'important' films, but it's not pretentious or cloying. It doesn't try too hard to be something or make you feel something. It lets the story speak for itself. It's honest. It's an excellent film.

4 1/2 out of 5

Oz The Great And Powerful

Oz The Great and Powerful has a really good idea – how did the Wizard, of The Wizard of Oz, get to Oz? Who is the Wizard? And it starts well. But...well...

It starts, as the classic The Wizard of Oz, does – in sepia-toned Kansas. A nice visual touch, along with the sepia-tone, is using the Academy aspect ratio in this section (this is the more square picture films were shot in up until the early 1950s, like The Wizard of Oz). So, clearly, they're trying to connect it to the 1939 film. In this part we're introduced to a sideshow magician who dreams of being something greater. Cool. They establish the character. They set the table. It starts well.

They perhaps hit the notes here a little too hard, as though they don't trust that you can put the pieces together yourself on where this is going without hitting you with a “I want to be a great man” sledgehammer. In the 1939 film they show you Dorothy's motivation – she feels out of place and picked on, “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” suggests her desire to leave, she runs away but quickly comes back. Here, they tell you, then tell you again, and tell you again just in case you missed it.

Then the twister comes. Oz takes to his hot-air balloon in order to escape a jealous husband (Oz is a bit of a rake) only to get up caught up in the cyclone. And they started losing me here. The cyclone becomes an action scene with things flying at the camera (in the laziest, least inventive use of 3D – and if you see it in 2D, as I did, then it's just horribly out of place and annoying). No visions of his friends or people he's wronged by being a fraud. No, that'd be character – we need action! He's almost stabbed by flying posts! A hole is ripped in the carriage and he falls! But he's saved by the updraft of the cyclone! More flying stuff! Heaven forbid we're actually made to feel and sense something deeply.

When he gets to Oz, the film switches to color and the picture widens out to widescreen. It looks bright and beautiful. But it feels sort of hollow, as again they toss stuff at the camera for 3D, we don't get to so much take it in and be awed as we are cheaply distracted by 'woah, look at this! And this! Look out here comes this!' And, really, the whole rest of the film goes like this – action scenes and superficial spectacle with little focus on character and story. The story, for what it's worth, is essentially the same as the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland from a few years ago, which was produced by the same people as this movie – the people of this land need to be saved from a cruel ruler, and they can only be saved by this one person which leads to a big climatic battle.

As he makes his way through the Land of Oz, he is accompanied by a talking monkey and a china doll girl. The monkey is his assistant from his magic act and the china doll girl is a girl who was unable to walk and went to his act, believing him to be a real magician, to ask to heal her (in the way the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion were the men from the farm in The Wizard of Oz, except here done digitally, not with makeup). Yet, all they really provide is attitude and wisecracks. There's nothing deeper to their presence – I mean, his assistant wants to help and feels bound to, like the monkey is because Oz saved him, and when Oz finds the china doll girl her legs are broken off, so he fixes them so she can walk again, like he wanted to do with the girl at his show, but there doesn't seem to be any recognition of this by Oz.

They don't help him grow. The monkey knows he's not a real wizard, but aside from the first few scenes after Oz tells him, he doesn't really seem to have a problem with it – imagine if he felt conflicted about helping a man he knows is a fraud, imagine if he struggled with not telling people, it'd create conflict and drama and tension. The china doll girl doesn't know and so she joins him and helps and everything is fine – imagine, again, if Oz saw in her the little girl who he couldn't help, it'd create a deeper character as he tries to be a better man; imagine if she believed in him and found out he wasn't a real wizard, again it'd create drama and tension. But, alas, they keep everything superficial and light.

It's an entertaining and fun movie, no doubt. And, obviously, there's nothing wrong with being an entertaining and fun movie. But it stands in a pretty tall shadow. And they clearly took some measures to try and embrace it. Unfortunately, not much. I feel as though, knowing this, they'd take greater steps to live up to it by creating a great story and developing great characters. Those are the things that make the 1939 The Wizard of Oz one of the greatest and most-loved movies of all time – it's well-made with characters we care about and have genuine interest in plus it looks beautiful with great costumes and make-up (for the time) and sets and effects (for the time). Here they seem satisfied hitting the effects and beautiful-looking notes. And it really is beautiful looking; it's a gorgeous film. On my own personal note I would've liked greater use of actual sets (as opposed to what you know was likely just a bit of yellow road with a couple trees on a giant green set – it seems to be a lot harder, at least for me, to be wowed and blown-away by a CG-landscape as opposed to a real set) and practical make-up and effects.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did. It looked like it would be good. But, the best I can say is it's a beautiful-looking, superficial fun movie.

2 out of 5

Zero Dark Thirty

So, Zero Dark Thirty is the movie about the search for Osama bin Laden. Kathryn Bigelow had already been working on a film, they were ready to begin filming, when the news broke that Osama bin Laden had been found and killed, so she and screenwriter Mark Boal changed their focus and basically started over. It covers the 10 years from the attacks on September 11, 2001 to the raid that killed bin Laden.

I felt as though the first hour and a half went a bit slow. It's very procedural. While the work that goes on behind the scenes of something like this operation is very interesting, it just seemed to be presented without any sort of personality. It has a sort of journalistic detachment, where the filmmakers set out to simply present this story without interjecting themselves. And, that's fine, to a point – they're not trying to drum up drama unnecessarily, they're not trying to force a particular point-of-view or opinion on events. It's just that, for this first hour and a half, they don't make a lot of progress in their search. So it's 90 minutes of watching men get tortured and asked questions with no real answers and nothing really to break it up. For me, it made those 90 minutes drag.

The last hour, though, picks up and is really quite excellent. It's in this portion where they finally start to close in on bin Laden and then, finally, make the decision to do the raid and get him. Here the film was interesting as well as entertaining. And the raid section was absolutely outstanding filmmaking. It's tense and fascinating. That last half hour makes the film.

When it comes to the depiction of torture, I think this is where the detached, journalistic route they take works in its favor. I didn't feel as though they took a stance on torture, rather just acknowledged that it happened in the interest of being honest. What are they supposed to do? Pretend it didn't happen? Have a character grandstand and moralize and lecture about how torture is wrong? The film would become suspect then. You'd be aware that it's trying to make a point, not just tell a story in an honest manner. Likewise, when Barack Obama says he'll stop the use of torture, the characters acknowledge it'll change how they do things, but they don't lament it as the only way, or best way, for them to work or get info. I'll say this – in the film, they do not get any real or useful information from any one while torturing them. Just seemed to be something I noticed. I think, ultimately, whether it condones torture or not, or overplays its importance, is something that will depend on the person viewing it because I think they chose to not really take a stance.

The detached nature also works because the film never devolves into sentimental ploys. It doesn't prey on emotions. There's no patriotic chest-thumping. It never goes cheap. And I like that. There's no agenda but to tell the story. Though, of course, this is a dramatization, not the actual true story, so the detachment lends the story an air of creditability it, maybe, shouldn't have. And it also leads to the problems I mentioned above. So it has positives and negatives.

It's a very well-made film, though there are some issues with the way the story is presented. It's very interesting, but not necessarily always gripping or entertaining. It's definitely worth seeing, it's that type of film. The last 30 minutes are so well-done that it makes the film worth it.

3 1/2 out of 5

Jack Reacher

Gonna keep this quick and short. I was pleasantly surprised by Jack Reacher. The trailers and commercials made it look as though it were just some action movie – all car chase and butt-kicking. It was nice to see that there was actually more to it than that. It's not great cinema by any means, but it's a solid, entertaining flick.

A sniper sets up and shoots five people. The cops pull a fingerprint off a quarter in the parking meter where the gunman parked and arrest the suspect. While being interrogated, he tells the police to get Jack Reacher. No one can find Jack Reacher, he's gone way off the grid. But he sees a report on the news that they're looking for him in connection with this shooter, so he goes to them. Jack had investigated the alleged shooter in the Army for going on a shooting spree, which he got off for because the men he shot happened to be under investigation for major crimes. Jack doesn't want this guy to go free again. However, he becomes suspicious of the events when he sees how neat the evidence is and this man, having been trained for this, would know better and not leave that evidence. So he starts to dig deeper.

I've read that, in the books, the Jack Reacher character is supposed to be something like 6'6'' and 250 pounds, or something along those lines. Basically to be this intimidating figure, I guess. As we all know, Tom Cruise, who plays the character in the movie, does not fit that description. But, you know, I had no problem believing Tom Cruise in this role. So he doesn't tower over everyone. Big deal. He's somewhat unassuming rather than intimidating. For me, that works. Tom Cruise looks as though he can take care of himself, so this isn't a stretch to believe.

It's not a revolutionary story or anything – it's basically a pulp, genre story. But it's capably told. The action scenes are exciting – I dug the car chase. There's a good mix of drama and humor. There's not much to say or get into about it. It's a pretty good piece of entertainment.

3 out of 5

Les Miserables

To be honest, I feel conflicted about Les Miserables. Not that I have a vested interest in the musical, or even Victor Hugo's novel. I don't – I've not read the novel nor seen the musical or even heard most of the music. It's just that, as personal preference, this sort of story is not a type of which I'm particularly fond. And there were issues with the style which bothered me to the point of distraction.

As for the story, my problem is that it starts as one story then becomes a different one. At the beginning it's about Jean Valjean and Javert. Jean Valjean, released on parole, decides to start a new life, under a new identity, and skip out on his parole. Even though he becomes a respected, well-to-do, man, he must always be alert because he can still be found out and sent back to prison. Everywhere he goes, eventually Javert shows up and recognizes Jean Valjean, forcing him to run again. I really liked this portion of the movie.

But, then, the story becomes about Cosette, the young girl who Jean Valjean feels responsible for after discovering he had not come to the defense of her mother, Fantine, when she worked for him and then turned to selling herself – hair, teeth, and body – and finally dying. Not only does it become about her, it becomes about her and Marius, a young student involved in the uprising against the French government. Their romance and the building revolt dominate the latter half of the story. As it's own entity, I liked this portion also.

Jean Valjean and Javert are still there, but they're more or less reduced to secondary characters. So what's the story? Who are the main characters? What is the main conflict? I have no problem when a story eschews these conventions and doesn't really contain them at all, but when a story changes mid-course it feels sloppy and unfocused to me. I could deal with two storylines being told in unison, alongside each other, but this feels more like one usurping the other. Or as though the Jean Valjean/Javert story is really just the setup for the Cosette/Marius story. But it feels like an awfully long way to go for a set up. Of course, this is an issue between my tastes and the source material. How can I really hold that against the film when it's a part of not just a classic musical but also a classic piece of literature on which it's based? If these two stories were distinctly separate from each other, with one ending before the other begins, I'd not have a problem. But telling them as one bothers me.

For its part, I think the film tells this story (these stories?) well. It's very effective. Each time Javert shows up again in Jean Valjean's life you feel for him – he's become a good man, in the grand scheme of things he's more than made up for any sins he's committed, but it makes no difference in the eyes of the law. And while the Cosette/Marius romance is of the 'love at first sight/I don't know you but I love you/star-crossed lovers' type, it's not bad. It adds stakes to the revolt section (whether you – or rather, I – think it's necessary). Jean Valjean's turn to accepting Cosette's and Marius' love doesn't really add anything to me, it doesn't add anything to his character as we already see him as an honorable and caring man, which I think adds to my distaste for the change in direction of the story. It seems a way to force him into the revolt story.

In the end, I feel like Javert is the most interesting character. The others are, more or less, static, they don't really grow or change. But Javert, he spends his whole life chasing Jean Valjean, and when he finally has the chance to get Valjean, he saves Javert's life – Javert becomes struck by the conflict, then, that what is lawful (to arrest and bring in Valjean) is immoral (because Valjean could've just left Javert to die and been free once and for all, but didn't), but to act morally is to be unlawful and go against everything he stands for, so he commits suicide by jumping off a bridge.

As for the issues with the style, I felt as though an inordinate amount of the film was told in close-up, and often somewhat awkwardly framed with too much head room and with the faces too close to the edge of the frame. This would seem, to me, to be a result of them recording the actors singing the song live, on set, as opposed to pre-recorded in a studio with actors lip-synching to playback. That approach would seem to not really allow the flexibility of multiple takes, without the use of a multi-camera set up, because each take the actor might have a different tempo, different rhythm, different take on the meldoy, etc. With close-ups, when the actors are moving around, the frame will need the extra headroom and lead room in anticipation of them moving. But it doesn't really work well when you're not intercutting between wide or medium shots and just using the properly framed portions of the take. Plus, it seems the actors are looking straight into the camera a lot, which increases the awkwardness.

Also, we often end up not seeing the actors interacting with the other actors. You have, really, an excellent cast, but we don't get to see them working together as much as we, maybe, should. It's almost as though most of the movie was shot one actor at a time – that's the feeling I got. But when the frame opens up, such as with the “Master of the House” sequence, it's really fantastic. When we get to see two or more actors together on screen, it's good. It's just that nearly the whole movie is singing and nearly all the songs are shot in that close-up style. For me it got distracting when I realized most of it was just faces singing at me. That's a shame because it undermines the portions that were shot with fantastic style.

So, as you can see, I just don't know how quite to feel about this. I can't deny the story is big and grand and has power and weight to it. I can't deny that parts were shot really well. The music is excellent, though I thought perhaps the conversational nature the actors took with it occasionally didn't always serve it well (as though at times they weren't sure whether to say a line or sing it and kind of change their mind halfway through delivering it). Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, Russell Crowe as Javert, and especially Anne Hathaway as Fantine give fantastic performances – if there were no other reasons, they make the film worth seeing. I enjoyed the film, I truly did. I think it's a good film, all in all. There were just issues that I had that, at least upon this initial viewing, drove me to distraction. I suppose the best way I could put it is that I would definitely be willing to watch the film again and give it another chance because none of those issues were of the variety that make me not like it.

3 out of 5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Let's get this out of the way. Do you love the book, The Hobbit? Do you want a movie that is simply the book on film? Then you should stay home and read the book. If you got upset and distracted by the way Peter Jackson wasn't strictly faithful to the timelines and events of the Lord of the Rings books in his adaptations, then save yourself, and everyone else, the bother and read the freaking book again. You're not going to be happy. You're just not – you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Peter Jackson is taking the opportunity of telling The Hobbit to also fill out more of the Middle Earth story. He's including other material that Tolkien wrote to make a more complete Middle Earth story, together with the Lord of the Rings films, than would be possible with sticking only to what is in The Hobbit book. When this series of films is finished, it looks like the goal is to be able to watch these and the Lord of the Rings films as one singular tale, as opposed to two separate entities that are tied together only by Bilbo, who doesn't feature heavily in the latter story, and the ring, which doesn't feature heavily in this story.

And, so far, it looks like the two series will fit together quite well, at least as far as look and style are concerned. Unlike, say, the Star Wars films, where the original set of films and the prequels look and feel like very different entities. Although Jackson has switched to shooting on digital and can do more with CG now than before, he still uses a lot of the same techniques, and uses much of the same crew. The result is unity and consistency to both series.

I felt like there were some times where they forced thing a bit, particularly emotion. For instance, when Bilbo meets up with the rest of the group after escaping Gollum. They believe he has run away and so much the better, because all he's wanted to do is go home anyway. He hears them and after a few moments of doubt, he sneaks up on them, invisible because of the ring, takes it off, reappears, and makes a speech about why he wants to help them. And immediately everyone's happy and they believe in him, where a minute ago they didn't. It felt like a cheesy, forced moment. And there's a couple of them. It is something that Jackson indulged in with the Lord of the Rings series as well, with emotional, inspirational speeches.

The film is nearly 3 hours, but I didn't notice the length. Once they leave the Shire, the movie keeps a pretty good pace. So it moves along well. I think they incorporated the additional story elements well, bringing back story and more motivation to some of the characters than in the book. In the book, it's basically just that they want to get their ancestor's gold and treasure, because they like gold and treasure. But with the added story elements there's more about regaining their lost kingdom and home. It makes for a more fulfilling story with greater character depth.

I saw the film in 3D. It was filmed in 3D, not a post-conversion. I thought it looked very natural. I've given up on 3D actually adding anything, it doesn't and didn't here. It just looked good. But nothing will be missed by seeing it in 2D. I didn't see it in the 48 frames-per-second that Jackson shot it in, so I can't comment on that.

The film is cast well. It's a large cast because there's a lot of characters. And because there's so many characters, you don't really get to know most of them that well, aside from the real main ones. But that is the result of the source material. Like the Lord of the Rings series, the special effects, make-up, and costumes are all outstanding. The film is fun and exciting. I'm interested what they do with the story in the next two films.

3 1/2 out of 5

Anna Karenina

I've never read Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. I also have never seen any previous film versions of it. I've also not seen any of Joe Wright's previous films. I also hadn't really heard much about this film. I'm stating all this here to note that I can't comment on how this film treats the story, as compared to the novel; how effective it is in telling the story, as compared to previous film treatments; or how the director's style or tendencies come into play. Basically, I know nothing about anything to do with this film and can only speak from the vacuum of this film in and of itself. Why point this out?

Well, the film is very stylistic. The film has a theatric quality to it. Occasionally. Every once in a while they call back to a stage, as though it's a play being performed. And every once in a while the actors make their way through the 'backstage' area on their way from one scene to the next. And every once in a while the actors in a scene move as though choreographed. And I like this. It's very unique. The choreography sense makes it feel very musical in a way. They set this up in the opening minutes. And once it becomes clear, I totally bought into it.

But you may notice I used words like “occasionally” and “every once in a while” up there. And that's the rub. It sets up this feeling, it says 'here's what we're doing' and you go 'okay, I'm ready.' But then it doesn't really follow up that style of the first few minutes consistently throughout the rest of the film. This device didn't seem to be used for any particular characters specifically or for particular types of scenes. Just every once in a while 'oh look, there's the stage' or 'oh look, they're going backstage.' Everything else is done in a traditional film style on contained sets. And when he decides to show a scene or a character on this stage, it's not as though they're playing to anyone or that it is a play being put on.

There's a scene after Anna's husband, Count Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin, finds out she is in love with Count Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky where he leaves the room and goes into his study. We follow him into the room and he's sitting on a chair on the stage, the camera behind him looking out to an empty hall. Maybe he's going to soliloquize or put on an act in some way, you think. But no, he just sits there. On a stage. For what purpose? I don't know.

So, essentially, this effect is just there for show. It's there to be there. When it's there at all. Which is a shame because, as I said, I liked it. I just didn't feel it added anything or was implemented in a way which said something about the story or the characters. I thought 'maybe it's representing the artifice of their society,' but in that scene I described above, her husband is displaying no artifice, it's a display of honest emotion from him. So...what was it?

The film looks beautiful. The sets and costumes are outstanding. It's shot gorgeously. The camera work is superb. The cast is fantastic. The moments that seem choreographed have a musical energy (Stiva walking through his office, all the men stamping paperwork in unison, rising as he approaches and sitting as he passes like a wave rolling by, while his assistant puts a coat on him without him missing a step or having to stop, for instance) that just grabs you – though as I talked about, these moments seem to be there merely for stylistic points.

It's a good film. All in all, the story is told well. It's just that there seem to be poorly implemented stylistic touches from the director. It's disappointing to walk away from the film thinking more about what purpose these touches served than about the merits of the storytelling itself. And that's why my rating for this film is so low - it's better than might be suggested, but the distraction of the style is too much. That's the failure of the film.

2 1/2 out of 5

Skyfall

2012 marks 50 years of James Bond films, starting in 1962 with Dr. No. And the latest installment in the series, Skyfall, is one hell of a way to celebrate. Daniel Craig returns for his third go as Bond. Sam Mendes, director of films like American Beauty, Jarhead, and Revolutionary Road, takes over behind the camera. While the renewed series took a bit of a misstep with the last film, Quantum of Solace (a film hurt by the writer's strike, often having to work without a script and unable to get proper rewrites), after the magnificent Casino Royale, Skyfall gets the series back on the right track.

Bond starts on a mission to recover a hard drive which contains the identities of undercover NATO agents in terrorist organizations from a mercenary. He's shot and falls off a bridge. MI6 presumes him dead. Bond, of course, isn't dead. He uses his apparent death to retire, a bit upset that M gave the order for his partner, Eve, to take a shot though she didn't have a clear view and could easily hit Bond instead (which she did). However when MI6 headquarters is blown up, he makes the decision to return. He's reinstated though he performed poorly in the tests. He uses shrapnel he had been hit with in his fight with the mercenary to find him.

Bond tracks the mercenary to Shanghai, where he finds him in the middle of a job. They fight in a high rise, but before Bond can find out who he works for, the mercenary falls to his death. Bond searches through his kit and finds a chip for a Macau casino. Bond goes to the casino where he finds a woman whom he saw in the room with the mercenary's victim in Shanghai. She had seen him also and warns him that he is going to be killed. Bond disposes of his would-be dispatchers and joins her as she makes her way to her boss' island. They're captured and Bond is introduced to Raoul, the mastermind behind the attacks on MI6 and the undercover NATO agents. Raoul blames M for the torture he received when he was an MI6 agent. Bond is able to dispatch Raoul's henchmen and apprehend him, with MI6 having found them thanks to the radio transmitter Bond was given by Q.

So Raoul is captured and imprisoned in MI6's emergency headquarters. However, this was part of his plan. Knowing that they'd tried to access his hard drives to see what's on them, it instead hacks into the MI6 computer system when they crack it and opens all the doors, including his cell. Raoul kills his guards and escapes to go after M while she is at a public hearing over the stolen hard drive Bond was originally after. Raoul shoots up the hearing, Bond, who had been chasing him, shows up to save M. He arranges for Q to show a false computer trail of where they're heading, and takes her to his childhood home, Skyfall, in Scotland.

They know that Raoul will eventually find them, but they use the time to prepare. It almost becomes a grown-up version of Home Alone as they set up traps around the house. In the eventual fight, the house is destroyed and Bond kills Raoul (this is a very oversimplified summary as I don't feel like going over all of it because that's not why I'm writing this and I don't want to give everything away).

The film is exciting and interesting. They get back to making Bond a real character, like they did in Casino Royale. He's vulnerable and has actual emotions (he cries here. Bond cries!). The third act, at Skyfall, is very different to the rest of the film but very intense. You never know what's going to happen. Craig gives a great performance as Bond, again. Javier Bardem is extremely creepy, in the best possible way, as a Raoul. He makes you uncomfortable and isn't that what the best Bond villains often do?

I think the most striking thing about the film is how beautiful it is. It was shot by renowned cinematographer Roger Deakins (his other works include O, Brother Where Art Thou?, No Country For Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and The Shawshank Redemption, among many, many others, seriously, look up his filmography). I think it's safe to say that no Bond movie has ever looked as amazing as Skyfall does. The fight between Bond and the mercenary in the Shanghai high-rise, silhouetted against video screen advertisements on buildings across the way is just simply gorgeous. A wonderful sequence of shadow and lights reflecting off the glass walls. Bond's approach to the casino in Macau is also extremely striking. This isn't just an action movie, this is pure visual art.

Raoul's incredibly forethought plans in the middle of the film (to get captured, that they'd search his laptop so have it ready to hack their systems, have disguises, explosions ready, etc) stretches believability a little bit. I didn't find it particularly distracting though. It's more or less par-for-the-course for these types of movies (the Joker's plans in The Dark Knight come to mind) really. It wouldn't make a very interesting movie, or for a formidable opponent, if the villain's plans fell apart easily and the hero didn't feel and appear to always be a couple steps behind. But it's otherwise a really excellent film, with great story elements that build the Bond character, story, and legend, with some nice little call backs of the older films. A fantastic way to mark half a century of Bond films.

4 1/2 out of 5

Bonus! Because I really can't talk of Roger Deakins' cinematography enough, here's some screenshots:

Flight

Robert Zemeckis makes his return to directing live-action films with Flight (his last live-action film was 2000's Cast Away, he has a thing for plane crashes apparently). Denzel Washington stars as an alcoholic pilot, who deals with the aftermath of a plane crash in which he saved all but 6 people on board, but was drunk and high on cocaine at the time. With the investigation, he could go to jail for a few years for flying under the influence or for the rest of his life if they find his state was the cause of the crash and, thus, the 6 deaths. Or, with the help of his union's lawyer, he could go free.

The beginning of the film is fantastic. Whip wakes up from a night of drinking and sex with one of the flight attendants, Katerina. To wake himself up after the rough, late night, he snorts a couple lines of cocaine. He goes to the airport and prepares for the flight and shows no ill-effects. They take off in rough weather, experience severe turbulence but finally pull through it (an excellent fake-out when you know a crash is coming). The crash sequence is excellent. It's uncomfortable and hits at that innate fear of crashing that even people who are not afraid of flying must have. When they roll the plane it is absolutely terrifying. Finally, Whip lands the plane in a field by a church.

In the hospital, Whip makes the decision to quit drinking. His friend Harling (played by John Goodman) brings him supplies but he tells Harling to take away the alcohol he brought. In the hospital, he sneaks into a stairwell for a cigarette and meets Nicole, a former photographer in the hospital after overdosing on heroin.

When he's discharged from the hospital, Whip goes to his deceased father's farm instead of his own home to avoid the press. He's able to keep away from the press, however, there is the matter of the NTSB investigation into the crash he has to deal with. After a few days of successfully avoiding the temptation to drink, the pressure of the investigation drives him back to drinking. His drinking drives away Nicole, with whom he had a budding relationship, as she tries to deal with her addiction issues.

He spirals out of control and eventually shows up at the home of his union handler to keep him clean in the days leading up to his NTSB hearing. He's kept clean for a week and the night the before the hearing he's checked into a hotel with a guard and a mini-fridge stocked with non-alcoholic beverages. However, during the night, he discovers the door connecting the hotel room next door is ajar. And their mini-fridge is full of alcohol. The next morning, the morning of his hearing, he's found drunk, passed out on his bathroom floor. He's woken up and asks for Harling, who comes and peps Whip up with a few lines of cocaine. He gets through the hearing, his union lawyer was able to get his toxicology report thrown out for being done improperly and with out-of-calibration equipment. The NTSB knows that a couple bottles of vodka were consumed during the flight (which Whip drank), though there was no drink service on the flight, so they could only have been consumed by the crew. Katerina's toxicology report was the only one that was admissible that came back positive for intoxication. When he's asked if, in his opinion, she drank the bottles, he has a change of heart and admits that it was him and he was drunk.

The movie lost me here because what kind of a question is that? In his opinion, did she drink those bottles of vodka? Who would ask that? It just feels like a purely movie question meant to make a movie character have a change-of-heart movie moment. It didn't feel real in the slightest. And when the rest of the movie did a pretty good job of being realistic with emotions and motivations (though the union rep and union lawyer assenting to call Harling to drug Whip in order to protect him was a bit of a stretch, though humorous), that sort of thing is a real let down.

I also found the religious overtones a bit out of place. They seemed to go out of their way to have characters express religious beliefs and sentiments. For instance, when Whip meets Nicole in the stairway, they also meet a cancer patient who's sneaking out for a cigarette as well. He talks about how God gave him cancer, it's God's plan, it was God's plan for Whip to land the plane and save those people, it was God's plan for Whip and Nicole to meet. This guy is never seen again. Was God involved in any of it? I don't know. God is mentioned all throughout, it makes you think there's going to be something to it. But it's just, sort of...there. I can't even say that Whip's reversal at the hearing was some sort of divine epiphany – it seemed more as though Whip couldn't bring himself to tarnish the memory of someone he cared about (Katerina died in the plane crash, the result of helping a boy who fell out of his seat when the plane rolled and being unable to get herself back into her seat before the crash). He clearly cared for her, when he woke up after the crash he wanted to know if she survived. So why'd they make such a big point of that stuff if it didn't add anything or lead anywhere?

In the end, it felt like an uneven film. There's some good stuff to the story and there's some that didn't really work. The highlight is Denzel's performance. It's fantastic. A great performance, no doubt. John Goodman is also great as Harling, extremely funny, however it's somewhat disappointing how little he's in the film. He shows up in the beginning for a few minutes then disappears until another few minutes at the end. Don Cheadle also shines as the union lawyer. It's these performances and the crash sequence that carry the movie. Flight is a good film, I just wasn't sure what it was going for at times, so I'm not sure what it was aiming for or if it hit the mark.

3 out of 5

Argo

Argo is Ben Affleck's latest film, following Gone, Baby, Gone and The Town. It's based on the true story of what is referred to as the Canadian Caper – in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis, ex filtrating 6 embassy workers, who escaped as the students stormed the embassy and were in hiding at the residence of the Canadian ambassador to Iran, under the guise of being a Canadian film crew scouting locations.

The film starts with a brief history lesson on what led to the taking of the American embassy. The United States' involvement in overthrowing the Iranian leader and supporting a dictator before a revolt overthrew the American-backed government and replaced the shah with the Ayatollah Khomeini. The shah fled Iran, eventually seeking medical treatment in the United States. The Iranians wanted the shah sent back to Iran so that he could be tried for the abuses of his regime. The United States' refusal to send him back thus led to rising anger, demonstrations, and, finally, storming the American embassy and taking hostages.

As the students were taking over the embassy, six workers were in a part of the embassy that they could escape onto the streets. They managed to evade detection and get bounced from embassy to embassy looking for a place to hide. Finally, the Canadian ambassador agreed to let them stay in his residence. In Washington, D.C., when they get the news of the six escapees (from the Canadian government, the film underplays the role of the Canadians), the C.I.A. gets to work planning a way to get them out.

The best (best-bad) idea they have is to create a cover story of a film crew scouting locations for a science-fiction movie in need of exotic locations. With the help of a Hollywood make-up artist, who had worked with the C.I.A. previously, a script is purchased (titled Argo), production company set up, offices obtained, casting calls set up, script readings done, and press releases put out. All in order to create a convincing cover story.

The film moves from drama to comedy with ease. John Goodman as make-up artist John Chambers (Oscar winner for his work on Planet of the Apes) and Alan Arkin as Lester Siegel (a fictional producer) are great comic relief. They ease the tension inherent in trying to set up and execute a rescue plan in a hostile territory. When plans can fall apart and the ruse be discovered, with the possibility of death, at any moment, it's good to provide that release or else the movie could be unbearably dark and heavy.

The film is well-paced and plotted. The words “based on a true story” should let you know that the film takes liberties with the truth – it's drama, not docu-drama. But it's to create a compelling film-story. The story is focused and clear, despite having to bounce between Iran, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood. You don't get lost in it or confused about what's going on and what people are doing. Credit for this has to go to screenwriter Chris Terrio and Affleck as director, they handle it with skill and confidence.

The film is well-acted by Goodman, Arkin, Bryan Cranston, and, yes, Affleck. Affleck keeps everyone on point. It's well-shot by Rodrigo Prieto. The film is compelling and incredibly enjoyable. A tense, funny, dark political-thriller and Hollywood-send-up.

4 1/2 out of 5

Ruby Sparks

Ruby Sparks left me thinking about it for quite a while. I thought it was funny. I thought it was a little disturbing. It was an interesting take on this sort of romantic-comedy, manic-pixie-dream-girl story. But I couldn't quite figure out if it was trying to say something about that type of story; about the type of man who imagines and hopes for something like that. I'm not sure if I ever quite came to any conclusion about it.

Calvin Weir-Fields is a young author, struggling to follow-up his first, smash novel, published when he was just 19. He feels the weight of the expectations and celebrity, clearly uncomfortable at readings and parties for him. He chastises people who call him a genius. To top it all off, he's single and lonely.

Calvin's therapist gives him a writing assignment – write one page about someone who likes his dog, Scotty. Calvin got Scotty to try and help open himself up and meet people, but he finds Scotty slightly embarrassing because he pees like a girl dog. Calvin has a dream about a woman and uses it as inspiration for the assignment. He writes pages and pages.

One morning, Calvin wakes up to find the woman he was writing about, Ruby Sparks, making breakfast for him. He freaks out, naturally. Believing her to be a figment of his imagination, he calls a college girl, who gave him her number at his last reading, for lunch. He tries to walk down the street and act as though Ruby isn't there. He tells her to wait at a corner while he goes to lunch, which she doesn't know about. While talking with the college girl, Ruby finally comes up to see wait Calvin is doing and causes a scene upon seeing him with the college girl. And, of course, once he realizes other people see her he knows that she is, in fact, real. Following this they start going out. Ruby doesn't realize she's a creation of Calvin's; Calvin puts the pages he wrote away and swears to not write any more about her or change her.

Naturally, what happens, at first everything is great, but after a while he grows weary of her free-spirit and not being able to just enjoy some quiet time and read, and she longs for a life beyond Calvin. She starts taking classes and making friends away from him and he becomes worried that she's thinking about leaving him.

The fear of losing Ruby and being alone drives Calvin to change her. And when the changes are unsatisfactory, as she becomes clingy (to the point of crying because they got separated crossing the street as he answers his phone and has to let go of her hand), he changes her again. Eventually, as things come to a head, he reveals to her that she is his creation and that he can control her, in an incredibly disturbing scene. When he realizes that he's gone too far, he sets her free, when she leaves she will have no memory of him or what's happened.

The idea of the manic-pixie-dream-girl is attractive, but not realistic. It's an attractive idea because of the thought that they'll set you free, your life will become exciting and interesting. But if you're not that type of person to begin with, and you're not interested in embracing that sort of change, inevitably it won't work out. Calvin wanted that, but he wanted it to work into his routine and be controlled, which defeats the purpose. He was the one who needed to change most if he wanted their relationship to last, but all he could think to do was try and change her – but by doing so he changed what it was he liked about her. He was too self-absorbed to look within.

It sounds heavy but it is actually very funny. Paul Dano is very good as Calvin, always a layer of sweetness and insecurity covering a self-absorbed and controlling character. While Ruby is a creation of Calvin's imagination, Zoe Kazan plays her with depth and enthusiasm. Kazan also wrote the screenplay which is wonderfully original, creative, and well-done. Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris direct the movie well, not heavy handed or with the idea they must try to be as quirky or weird as the story might suggest, they keep it grounded. Ruby Sparks is an interesting story that will make you laugh and think about relationships, your expectations of them, and yourself and how you'd deal with the reality of them.

3 out of 5

The Dark Knight Rises

If you are reading this I will assume you are not concerned about spoilers, so let that serve as warning and turn back now if you don't want to know about things that happen in the film.

Christopher Nolan finishes up his Batman film series with The Dark Knight Rises (starting with Batman Begins in 2005 and The Dark Knight in 2008). And as is Nolan's wont, he does it in epic fashion – the film is nearly 3 hours long and just generally huge.

The film has much more in common in style, story, and tone with Batman Begins than The Dark Knight. Batman Begins introduced two threats to Gotham – organized crime and the League of Shadows, which had targeted Gotham for destruction. Ra's Al Ghul was killed in Batman Begins, which presumably took care of the League of Shadows as well. And with the organized crime of Gotham more or less taken care of in the aftermath of Harvey Dent's death, Gotham is now in a state a peace. Until Bane is brought into town by Bruce Wayne's business rival, John Daggett, who is looking to bring down Wayne Enterprises so that he can take it over.

However, Bane has plans of his own. Following Ra's Al Ghul's death, he assumed leadership of the League of Shadows (he had been trained, like Bruce Wayne, in the League of Shadows) and plans to finish what Ra's started – completely and utterly destroy Gotham.

In Batman Begins we see as Bruce Wayne learns the skills and, seeing the corruption rampant in the city, makes the decision to become a vigilante. Here, in The Dark Knight Rises, we see as Bruce Wayne makes the decision to come out of retirement as the Batman, after taking the fall for Harvey Dent's death so that he may become the symbol Gotham needed. After the punishment he put his body through in the first two films, and 8 years hiding out in Wayne Manor, Bruce is not quite in the shape he once was, and his skills no longer as sharp. This ends in Bane breaking Bruce's back in an absolutely brutal, punishing fight.

As Bruce watches what Bane does to Gotham, he finds a new determination within himself. He must recover, get back in shape, and reacquaint himself with his skills. The result is that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises act as bookends. Batman Begins is the setup and The Dark Knight Rises is the conclusion that pays it off.

Initially, I thought that the idea of using a giant bomb that threatens the whole city felt a little too old-school comic book-ish (am I the only one who had trouble shaking the image of Adam West's Batman running around carrying a giant bomb from the 1966 movie?). Especially for what Nolan has done with these movies. However, as I thought about it, it made sense, it worked, and actually is not out of character of what he had setup in Batman Begins. As we find out in the end, Bane is working for Talia Al Ghul, Ra's' daughter. And Talia has been posing as Miranda Tate, a business parter of Bruce's, backer of a fusion-energy project which Bruce had canceled after discovering that the fusion device could be modified into a nuclear bomb. Which is what happens. And that was her plan – make the company lose money on this idea that sounds good but she knew Bruce would nix once he found out what could be done with it, and thus the company becomes vulnerable. And given Ra's Al Ghul's plan of tainting Gotham's water supply with an aerosol toxin and a device to turn Gotham's water supply into steam to thus weaponize it on board Gotham's city rail system in Batman Begins, this bomb acts, again, as a bookend - a call back.

And don't take this to mean that they're just re-hashing what they did before. They're not. Like I said, they've setup, they've built, now they're paying off. They use these call backs to the first movie to bring the series full-circle. Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer did a very good job in creating the story for this. They've been careful and deliberate in creating a series of films that tells a full, complete story. A story of Bruce Wayne. A story of the Batman. A story of Gotham.

Is The Dark Knight Rises as good as The Dark Knight? No. But that's an unfair expectation to saddle the movie with. I'm glad that they didn't seem to go 'we need to do that again' though. What's most important is telling a good story which concludes this arc, not competing with themselves. Is Bane as good a villain as the Joker? He's not as dynamic and electric as the Joker, but he's the physical, and mental, match the Batman needs. The Joker was chaotic – he plotted in order to push people to the edge and make them unknowingly play into his hands. Bane is cold and calculating – he plots to outsmart, give you hope then snatch it away. The Joker is just simply more fun to watch - that's why the character is so iconic.

I like what they did with Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Her and Bruce work well together. But she's just doing what's best for her. If it helps her to help Bruce, she will. Until it helps her to help Bane. It's not personal, it's just what she has to do in order to get what she wants. And that is to wipe her identity and any trace of her in order so that she can start her life over. It gives her a good, believable story and justification.

The movie is long, but it never feels that way. It moves along quickly. It's just that the story is so big it requires the time. I like that the story isn't just a simple, straightforward setup that could be taken care of in closer to two hours – that sort of story isn't Nolan's style. It keeps you guessing, unsure of where it's going and what will happen next, which gives you the uneasy feeling that at any time something can go wrong as opposed to being sure everything will work out. And, most importantly, with something as expansive as this, it doesn't feel unwieldy, it doesn't get lost.

Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance as Bane, despite the fact his face is hidden the entire time by a mask. It's a performance of eyes and body language. Anne Hathaway is good as Selina Kyle. She's physical, sensual, and playful. Christian Bale does a good job portraying a character who has essentially given up on life. Gary Oldman is a man worn out by carrying the weight of a massive secret. Christopher Nolan, as always, keeps the film grounded – nothing feels superfluous or coincidental.

It's a fantastic film that closes out the series in a way that it deserves. It doesn't fall into the trap of doing the same thing as before because it worked or just treading water because they know they have an audience. It's the film the series needed as well as the film the series deserved.

4 out of 5

Safety Not Guaranteed

I didn't know what to expect from Safety Not Guaranteed. I didn't know much about it. I just knew it was about a man who put an ad in the paper for a partner for time travel and that it had been getting reviewed very well. As I said, not much.

At first I was curious to see how Aubrey Plaza works carrying a movie. I've only seen her in Parks & Recreation and her small part in Scott Pilgrim vs the World. While she's good in Parks & Rec, she doesn't exactly show much in it. So, does she have what it takes to be the lead? Yes. At least, for a movie such as this she does. All I've seen her do before is be sarcastic and misanthropic. I was quite pleasantly surprised to see her pull off a performance of subtlety, honesty, and tenderness. There actually is more to her than being the funny, sarcastic girl.

She plays a girl, Darius, who, since her mother died when she was young, has gone through life expecting the worst. She has no friends. She, as far as we can tell, has not gotten with anyone romantically. And you think “Aubrey Plaza is a cute girl, even if she was awkward or inept, she should be able to have gotten something.” But they do a good job, in the opening sequence, showing that that's not the issue, it's that she hasn't to get involved with people because she expects the worst from life. So she's gone through life choosing to avoid these things so she doesn't get hurt, which is what she expects.

Working as an intern at a local magazine in Seattle, living with her father, she's not happy. When the magazine has a idea meeting, one of the writers pitches the idea of doing an article about a classified ad that had been placed which read: "Wanted: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed." The ad interests her and she volunteers to join the writer, Jeff, on the trip to profile the man who placed it.

Kenneth is the man who placed it. He's a loner. Jeff attempts to contact him, but he believes Jeff is just attempting to make fun of him. Jeff sends Darius to try and contact Kenneth. They connect and Kenneth brings her in to his world – she doesn't tell him she's working for a magazine though. Kenneth starts training her and through this they bond and connect.

You're never sure of what to think of Kenneth. Is he crazy? Is he paranoid? Is he delusional? Does he honestly believe he can build a time machine? I think they do a good job of never revealing too much or trying too hard to make him come off as crazy to make us doubt him. They give just enough to make you think or feel what they want you to – building slowly to the reveal at the end.

Safety Not Guaranteed a unique movie. It's not science fiction. It's about looking forward, not backward – along with Darius and Kenneth wanting to change events in the past (Darius, her mother's death; Kenneth, the death of the only girl who treated him with kindness), the reporter Jeff suggested this story in order to travel to this town to find an old girlfriend; and the other intern to go on the trip, Arnau, learns to live while he can and enjoy his youth so he doesn't come to regret wasting it. It's a well done movie. Well written. Well acted. And quite enjoyable.

4 out of 5

Brave

I'll just be straightforward and say that Brave is good...for your typical, average movie. For a PIXAR movie? It's kind of a disappointment. It feels more like a Disney movie than PIXAR. So, while it's good and enjoyable (it is, don't get me wrong), it just seems like there should have been more to it.

The story is just underwhelming. It doesn't have the sort of daring or adventure you might expect from PIXAR. It feels ripped out of a book of stock Disney stories. You know – child unhappy with family runs away and through events that happen learns to appreciate and love their family, and the family them. It's nice. But it lacks anything deeper to it. PIXAR is a company that isn't afraid of telling unusual stories (Ratatouille makes us sympathize and like a rat in a kitchen) or touch on more serious themes (Toy Story 3 has the characters facing certain death, Wall-E touches on environmental issues, Up love and death), so when they do something that's just so...unremarkable, it's a bit of a let down.

It takes place in 10th century Scotland, but you could take the story and set it anywhere and any time period and not lose anything. It's a unique and specific setting, so you'd want something that really uses and takes advantage of it. Instead, it seems more an excuse to have funny accents, a couple kilt jokes, and very pretty landscapes (the visuals cannot be knocked, in any way, with this movie). So, aside from the landscapes, the setting is squandered because the story just doesn't utilize it.

The main character, Merida, isn't fully utilized, either. She's presented as a headstrong, independent young girl. And, she is. But, you know what? I want to see that character go on an adventure and kick some ass. There's potential that just isn't grabbed. She runs off, comes upon a witch, asks for a potion to change her fate so she's not forced to choose a suitor, the potion turns her mother (who is the one that is set on Merida being and acting like a proper princess) into a bear, and her and her mother must find the witch and the way to undo it and through this they learn to understand and accept each other. Of course, the problem is that the character that really needs to make a change is the mother. Merida isn't really changed, she's sorry for the argument they had, but she still wants the same thing at the end. The mother must make the change from being stuck in the old way to accepting Merida's wishes for something different. So...it's not Merida's story. But it's supposed to be and it should be. And that's the ultimate problem with the movie and what holds it back. Something that feels like it should be an adventure turns out to be two characters butting heads.

I mentioned it earlier, but I should bring it up again...the animation is beautiful. The visuals are beyond compare. The character design, the backgrounds, the detail – outstanding. I saw it in 3D, I'm not a fan of 3D in general because I don't feel that it really adds anything essential, and this didn't change my mind on the subject, but it did look great in 3D – it had great depth and fullness to it.

Also, it's really nice to see a strong female main character. A princess who doesn't want, or need, a man. She can take care of herself, and wants to. How many movies with princesses end with them unmarried or uncommitted to a man? None come to my mind. Merida is a character you can show young girls and they can look up to. And that's why I wanted more from the movie. As good as she is, the way the movie is, it'd have been so much better if they could have let her loose on her own.

So, as I said before, the movie is good, it's enjoyable, it's fun. For your typical animated kid's movie, it's good. It's just that PIXAR has set the bar higher for themselves in the past and Brave is perhaps just under it.

3 out of 5

Bernie

I didn't really know much about this movie going into it. I had read a brief synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. And it was. It was also extremely funny. And, in the end, a very pleasant surprise. Bernie is based on a true story about a murder in a small town in Texas and has the dramatized action interspersed with interviews of local people who knew those involved.

Bernie (played by Jack Black) is a mortician – sorry, assistant funeral director – in Carthage, Texas. He's very good at his job, he takes it seriously and goes that extra step to ease the pain of those grieving. He's also beloved by the people of Carthage, as he's active in the church, local theater, willing to help anyone out, and just generally a nice guy. Even though he's a little “light in the loafers” and there's speculation that he might be homosexual, the people of this small, conservative town love him.

After the death of a local businessman, Bernie befriends the widow, Marjorie (played by Shirley MacLaine), who is not well-liked in the town, described by one of the locals as 'she'll rip you a new, three bedroom, double-wide asshole.' It starts as him just being the nice guy he is and wanting to check up on her. They become friends – they go on trips together, there are rumors that they're intimate, and she convinces him to only work part-time at the funeral home and work for her full-time as her assistant/companion. As time goes on she becomes increasingly dependent on, and possessive of, him. He begins to feel trapped but he's too nice to say 'no' or stand up to her and tell her off.

Finally, one day, in a fit after having her trap him in her driveway as he tries to leave rather than argue with her, he shoots her four times in the back. For the next 9 months, he goes on as though nothing has happened. As she had no other friends, she wasn't really on speaking terms with any of her family, and she more or less had him do everything for her, he was able to convince people that she had suffered a stroke, wasn't well, and went somewhere to recuperate. In the 9 months he continues to spend her money...but not on himself. He donates to help build a new wing on the church. He buys cars or houses for local people who need them. He invests in local businesses. All in her name. Eventually her stock broker becomes suspicious of her absence, as Bernie has been smart enough to not try doing anything in her name with her investments. Her stock broker gets the sheriff to search her house, where they find her body in a freezer.

Bernie's arrested and confesses immediately. He's charged with first-degree murder. However, he's so loved by the locals, the D.A. (a fully-clothed Matthew McConaughey) realizes there's no way Bernie would be convicted. So he has the trial moved and Bernie is ultimately convicted and sentenced to life (I'd worry about spoilers but it's a true story).

The movie is surprisingly funny, especially the interviews with the locals. They're so funny that you start to think that it can't be real, they must be scripted. But they are real. And, really, those interviews and that humor is what makes the movie. If you were to take it away, the story wouldn't be that compelling or interesting – a nice guy befriends a mean old woman until she becomes so mean and unbearable he snaps for a moment, kills her, when caught he gives up, and there's no real drama during the trial. It's the perspective from the locals that does it.

It's an incredibly funny, enjoyable movie. Director Richard Linklater is able to make a compelling movie of a story that by itself is only interesting because it's somewhat quirky. Jack Black plays Bernie very well; he actually acts, he doesn't just do the typical Jack Black thing. At the end, you'll feel for Bernie because he is a genuinely nice man who just broke for a minute but still must pay the price. But you'll also be laughing.

3 1/2 out of 5