Trailer-Based Predictions for the 85th Oscars

February 21, 2013 by

oscarGet ready for some Oscar love!

The internet is positively brimming with predictions and opinions on who will/should win the coveted Oscar statuettes, so why should we at Walking Taco be any different? Although I’ve seen more of this year’s contenders than last year, I am still woefully behind. However, to keep the trend rolling, I shall once again attempt to predict this year’s winners based on their trailers. (A * denotes my vote for the competition with my film students.)

Want to go head to head with me? Copy and paste the ballot at the end into the comments to throw down with your own predictions!

UPDATE: I have added the Actual Winners as they are announced, and if different than my predictions, my response. Final tally – 19 out of 24, same as last year! Now to get to actually seeing all these films beyond what their trailers have to offer! Also, congratulations to Kaylee in 2nd Hour and Sam in 3rd Hour for scoring the highest number correct in the student competitions.

______________________________________________________________________________

Affleck checked and rechecked the nominees list to make sure there wasn't some sort of mistake that he wasn't nominated for Best Director.

Affleck checked and rechecked the nominees list to make sure there wasn’t some sort of mistake that he wasn’t nominated for Best Director. At the very least, his beard should have gotten an acting nom.

BEST PICTURE
Who Will Probably Win: Argo *
Actual Winner: Argo

It would take a veritable act of God to stop the wheels of award glory that Argo is riding on.  It’s won pretty much every best picture award from WGA to DGA to SAG to WTF. (That last one isn’t real, BTW.) Odds are the Academy, which is made up of many of the same members as these other organizations, will follow suit.

______________________________________________________________________________

Who knew a movie about math would be so popular? I figured people would stop watching after 3.14159.

Who knew a movie about math would be so popular? I figured people would stop watching after 3.14159.

BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Probably Win: Ang Lee – Life of Pi *
Who I Think Should Win: Ben Affleck – Argo
Actual Winner: Ang Lee – Life of Pi

Traditionally it’s rare for the Best Picture and Best Director awards to not go hand in hand. This year, that isn’t even an option for Affleck with Argo. Some are calling it a “snub”, I’m calling it a simple issue of math – with 9 nominees for Best Picture (all deserving in some regard) and only 5 nominees in Best Director, someone had to be left off the list. However, after seeing the veritable torrent of trophies raining down on Affleck this year, this looks to be a situation where the Academy has egg on its face for not even nominating him. So with Affleck out of the picture, it’s kind of anyone’s game. I really think this comes down to Spielberg for Lincoln and Lee for Life of Pi. As much as I love Sir Stevie, I’m going to predict Lee will take the prize, and be equally pleased if Spielberg takes home a third win.

______________________________________________________________________________

I had the strangest dream that suddenly my money started speaking to me. Then I realized it wasn't a dream, it was an Oscar-worthy performance.

I had the strangest dream that suddenly my money started speaking to me. Then I realized it wasn’t a dream, it was an Oscar-worthy performance.

BEST ACTOR
Who Will Probably Win: Daniel Day-Lewis – Lincoln *
Actual Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis

Really, watching this movie was like seeing a $5 bill come to life. (Oddly the film did not receive a nod for makeup and hair, despite so many of the actors being made up to resemble their real-life counterparts.) It’s nice to see Bradley Cooper recognized for something outside of the Hangover series, and great to acknowledge Hugh Jackman’s talented singing performance, but Denzel already has two Oscars, and Joaquin Phoenix alienated so much of the community with his “I’m retired to pursue my music career – psych! It was all part of a crazy mockumentary art film that none of you saw!” act that I can’t imagine he’ll be re-emerging as an award winner any time soon.

______________________________________________________________________________

J-La is confident in her win, while Cooper seems to be in disbelief over his inevitable loss.

J-La is confident in her win, while Cooper seems to be in disbelief over his inevitable loss.

BEST ACTRESS
Who Will Probably Win: Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook *
Actual Winner: Jennifer Lawrence

Chastain is definitely deserving, Amour seems too obscure for the 86 year old Riva, and Watts’ chances of winning for The Impossible seem to be just that. Although it’s cute to see Quvenzhané Wallis nominated, and she did give a lovely performance for an 8 year old, Keisha Castle-Hughes couldn’t do it for Whale Rider, and neither will she. Lawrence seems to be all the buzz, and she came close but missed with Winter’s Bone, so this might be the year the Academy seeks to make that up to her. I’m going to go with the flow and predict Lawrence to take it, although it would really tap into my soft spot for the elderly to see Riva up there accepting.

______________________________________________________________________________

Whether DeNiro or Jones takes it, it looks to be the year of the sour-faced old timer.

Whether De Niro or Jones takes it, it looks to be the year of the sour-faced old timer. (With all due respect Mr.(s) De Niro and Jones – since I’m pretty sure both of them could still kill me with their bare hands.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who Will Probably Win: Robert De Niro – Silver Linings Playbook *
Who I Think Should Win: Tommy Lee Jones – Lincoln
Actual Winner: Christopher Waltz

To be honest, I probably had the toughest time calling this category – especially since they’ve all won before. Although Waltz had a substantial role (based on screen time in the trailer that is), Arkin is kind of a crowd favorite since Little Miss Sunshine, but Tommy Lee Jones won the SAG, and was probably one of the more outstanding performances in Lincoln. (Even if it was just the usual sad, grizzled Tommy Lee Jones.) There’s also a decent amount of buzz around De Niro. About the only one that would surprise me is Hoffman, although I’m sure his performance was worthy of the nom. Between Jones and De Niro, I’ll flip the coin and go with De Niro.

My Response to the Winner: Fair enough. This category was a toss-up all around, with all five being previous winners. I don’t think anyone could have called it with extreme confidence. So, congrats Mr. Waltz!

______________________________________________________________________________

Don't look so sad Anne! You're about to win an Oscar!

Don’t look so sad Anne! You’re about to win an Oscar!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Who Will Probably Win: Anne Hathaway – Les Miserables *
Actual Winner: Anne Hathaway

Even in the trailer Hathaway steals the category with her performance, and she’s really only in the first portion of the film. Sally Field has had her day (yes we still like you), Helen Hunt too, and although Jacki Weaver completed the 4-acting category quadfecta (is that a word?) for Silver Linings Playbook none of them have much of a chance at this one. Amy Adams is definitely due after multiple noms with no wins, but I don’t think this is the one. It would be a terrible slight to Hathaway if the Academy did use this as a pity win for Adams. Look for Catwoman to take to the stage… and probably cry.

______________________________________________________________________________

Will Ralph wreck Pixar's chances at taking the Oscar?

Will Ralph wreck Pixar’s chances at taking the Oscar?

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Who Will Probably Win: Wreck-It Ralph *
Actual Winner: Brave

Although Brave could prove a strong showing in this category, and it’s a much better entry than Cars 2 for Pixar, I think Wreck-It Ralph has more promise this go round. The others are all worthy of mention, but Aardman’s work on Wallace and Gromit has already earned them a win, and Burton’s work is nothing all that different from his previous work, same with Selick.

My Response to the Winner: Well, as much as I like Pixar, it seems like Wreck-It Ralph was a solid entry from Disney that wasn’t connected to Pixar directly. On the other hand, I believe this was the first woman to win for direction of an animated feature, so… history!

______________________________________________________________________________

Little known fact, the art department based the visuals for this movie on source material by Bill Watterson. #untruefacts

Little known fact, the art department based the visuals for this movie on source material by Bill Watterson. #untruefacts

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Who Will Probably Win: Life of Pi *
Actual Winner: Life of Pi

Let’s not lie, the trailer has some stunning visuals of the story of a boy on his boat. For all of the other categories Pi will come up short, its visual appeal has to win it something, and this category is one way to make up that ground.

______________________________________________________________________________

Hopefully that train station has a sandwich shop, cause Keira needs to eat one.

Hopefully that train station has a sandwich shop, cause Keira needs to eat one.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Who Will Probably Win: Anna Karenina *
Actual Winner: Lincoln

Karenina really has some cool choices made in how scenes flow from one to the next, and the visual style of the sets is captivating. Again, having only seen the trailers, I’d say this film deserves some recognition for the visual choices made by the production staff, and this is the best place to do that figuring cinematography will go to Life of Pi.

My Response to the Winner: All the nominees had some very nicely done styles, I just think Karenina had a much bolder visual style than the others. Not sure I would have ever picked Lincoln out of that group, but there you have it.

______________________________________________________________________________

If nothing else, Karenina should win for Knightley's spot-on bear costume.

If nothing else, Karenina should win for Knightley’s spot-on bear costume.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Who Will Probably Win: Anna Karenina *
Actual Winner: Anna Karenina

Almost always goes to a period piece, problem is they’re pretty much all period pieces. Mirror, Mirror and Snow White cancel each other out, Lincoln doesn’t seem bold enough, and Les Mis has more gritty realism, but the lavishness of Karenina will probably give it the edge.

______________________________________________________________________________

Now, where's Waldo?

Now, where’s Waldo?

BEST MAKEUP
Who Will Probably Win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey *
Who I Think Should Win: Lincoln
Actual Winner: Les Miserables

Although Hitchcock did a remarkable job making Anthony Hopkins resemble the late filmmaker, Hobbit did their makeup work 13 times over. But really, I can’t get over how Lincoln and its spot-on likenesses is strangely MIA in this category. I mean, seriously, you can have five nominees, why stop at three? If Hitchcock can get the nod for making a handful of actors resemble people in history, Lincoln did that five times over. But, with Lincoln out of the running odds are in favor of Bilbo and company.

My Response to the Winner: Uh… well…. sure. Not gonna lie, that would have been my last selection. Maybe the Academy was wanting to throw some more love its way since most of the big awards will be going elsewhere – and there’s the fact that the LOTR stuff has been acknowledged in the past.

______________________________________________________________________________

Wait, wait, wait. Singing AND acting? At the same time?!? You're a madman, Hooper!

Wait, wait, wait. Singing AND acting? At the same time?!? You’re a madman, Hooper!

BEST SOUND MIXING
Who Will Probably Win: Les Miserables *
Actual Winner: Les Miserables

It’s a freaking musical. It requires a balance of the orchestra, the singing, the sound effects, the dialogue – it’s a mixer’s nightmare, but also potentially their golden ticket. Plus, with the bold move to do on-set recordings instead of the standard pre-recorded lipsyncing, this should win over the minds and ears of the Academy members.

______________________________________________________________________________

When asked if this whale of a tale was all true, Lee replied "I swear by my tattoo." (Name that movie reference!)

When asked if this whale of a tale was all true, Lee replied “I swear by my tattoo.” (Name that movie reference!)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Who Will Probably Win: Life of Pi *
Who I Think Should Win: Marvel’s The Avengers
Actual Winner: Life of Pi

This is a tough one. There are plenty of examples of good Visual Effects work this year, and some are far more subtle than others. Last year I thought the motion capture work on Caesar would lock the category for Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and the Hulk from Avengers is in that exact same boat, but (speaking of boats) Life of Pi was such an artsy-fartsy use of Visual Effects that it may sweep the Academy’s eyes off their feet. Although I’m predicting Life of Pi, this is one category I’d be okay with being wrong about.

______________________________________________________________________________

Sure, this whole story concept could have been simplified with the ol' Yawn-and-Stretch technique, but their version was so much better.

Sure, this whole story concept could have been simplified with the ol’ Yawn-and-Stretch technique, but their version was so much better.

BEST SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Who Will Probably Win: Paperman *
Actual Winner: Paperman

I actually made it out to see all of the animated short films this year, and all five really were deserving of the nod. Even the Simpsons crew represented well with their Maggie Simpson short. Interestingly, all of the animated shorts, including several of the runners up, contained no dialogue, which I thought was a nice demonstration of visual storytelling. As much as I want to root for the underdog (pun intended?) indie project like Adam and Dog, or the potential dark horse contender in the very clever Fresh Guacamole, Paperman was the most solid of the five. The classic Disney animation style is back, but with a unique charcoal-edged, black and white look to it, an emotionally investing yet concise visual story, and a musical score I couldn’t get out of my head. I probably watched it 10 times between all my classes and still loved it as much the 10th time as the first. Unless the Academy was in an anti-Disney mood, expect to see Paperman take the prize. (But all are definitely worth a view if you get the chance, and many are available online.)

______________________________________________________________________________

If nothing else, this song should win an Oscar for most uses of its own title in the lyrics... oh wait, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" already won in that category.

If nothing else, this song should win an Oscar for most uses of its own title in the lyrics… oh wait, “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” already won in that category.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Who Will Probably Win: “Skyfall” by Adele *
Actual Winner: “Skyfall” by Adele

Three things “Skyfall” has going for it – 1) It’s by far the most well-known of the songs, having a very public run on most pop radio stations, 2) The huge popularity of Adele these days, 3) It ties back into the roots of the Bond theme songs of yore, giving it an artsy connection to tie up the other spectrum of voters. That combination should prove to secure Adele an Oscar  to keep her Grammys company. Although “Chasing Ice” allowed Scarlett Johansson a chance to show off her singing chops, and Norah Jones’ “Everybody Needs a Best Friend” plays into the Academy’s love of friendship-themed songs with on-the-nose lyrics (I’m looking at you Randy Newman) neither hold the clout of “Skyfall”. “Pi’s Lullaby” doesn’t really stand out in this crowd, serving almost as more of a score contender. “Suddenly” seems more like a desperate attempt to win a music-related Oscar for a musical film with otherwise completely unoriginal (simply in that it already existed as a stage musical) music. Yes, they may have some explanation about how this ties in a long lost element of the original book, but this has Oscar grab written all over it. Sadly the song doesn’t hold up to the quality of the original Les Mis music, and in a film where the acting takes precedence over the singing, the auditory experience alone just doesn’t cut it.

______________________________________________________________________________

When I need to find calm, I go to my happy place, drifting serenely on an endless ocean with no one around but a... oh, dear lord it's a man-eating tiger!!!

When I need to find calm, I go to my happy place, drifting serenely on an endless ocean with no one around but a… oh, dear lord it’s a man-eating tiger!!!

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Who Will Probably Win: Life of Pi *
Who I Think Should Win: Lincoln
Actual Winner: Life of Pi

What can I say? I love me some John Williams. Sadly, I think he will be turned away again. Life of Pi was by far the most soothing soundtrack of the bunch, with both Skyfall and Argo having more edgy sounds to them, and Karenina is mostly ballroom music. Pi will take it, although I wouldn’t be disappointed if Williams whisked another trophy home to his massive collection.

______________________________________________________________________________

CATEGORIES I DON’T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON:

BEST SOUND EDITING – Life of Pi *
Actual Winner: Zero Dark Thirty AND Skyfall
I don’t even know, I was way off last year, and trailers aren’t much help in this category. It could be anyone’s game, but I’m going to say this is another one where Life of Pi gets some love because it’s the same people who did Hugo, and they took it last year. Maybe they’ll get the back-to-back wins.
My Response to the Winner: Well… one of the random times where I was not only wrong once, but twice in the same category. Didn’t have a strong feeling on this one, again, it’s hard to tell from the trailers, and I’m sure both were deserving.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY – Django Unchained *
Actual Winner: Django Unchained
Tarantino may be over-the-top in his use of language and violence, but let no one say his stuff isn’t original. I’m just not sure the others have what it takes to overshadow Tarantino’s style.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY – Argo *
Actual Winner: Argo
What can I say? People love them some Argo. Although Beasts of the Southern Wild or Life of Pi could get a surprise nod here.

BEST FOREIGN FILM – Amour *
Actual Winner: Amour
By far the most well-known of the nominees this year, although based on the trailers, most look interesting enough to watch.

BEST DOCUMENTARY – Searching for Sugar Man *
Actual Winner: Searching for Sugar Man
Although these all looked pretty powerful, Searching for Sugar Man seemed to be the only upbeat one in the pack, and that breath of fresh air may be enough to make the Academy thankful. Plus it’s been doing well on the other award circuits.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT – Inocente *
Actual Winner: Inocente
A film about a homeless kid who wants to be an artist, could have that heartwarming cheer-for-the-protagonist edge to win out the category, although the others really do tug at the heartstrings. Monday’s at Racine and Open Heart will make it a tough call. It’ll be close, but Inocente is my shot in the dark. King’s Point, despite my usual soft spot for the elderly in films, seems to portray mean, crotchety old people, so no vote in their favor.

BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION) – Curfew *
Actual Winner: Curfew
Let’s not lie, shot in the dark here. But the trailer was by far the most entertaining of the group. The shot of the little girl dancing down the bowling lane is pretty awesome. I could also see it going to Buzkashi Boys, but I’m going with the one that made me laugh, Curfew.

BEST FILM EDITING – Argo *
Actual Winner: Argo
Another hard one to gauge based on the trailer, but based on its momentum, this will probably be another pickup for Affleck and Co.

———————————————————

And that, as they say, is that! Last year I went 19 correct out of 24 – can I best my previous score? Can you beat my previous score? Feel free to make your own predictions in the comments section.

Don’t forget to tune in on Sunday to find out the actual winners!

Filed Under: Opinion Articles Tagged With: ,

Why JJ Abrams Will Save Star Wars

February 19, 2013 by

JJAbramsThe last few months have been interesting for Star Wars fans.  First we got news that George Lucas was retiring, and his longtime collaborator Kathleen Kennedy was stepping up to help Lucasfilm.  Then shockwaves were sent throughout the internet when it was announced that Lucasfilm would be sold to Disney. Millions of nerds around the world cried out in terror, while some welcomed the new mouse-eared overlords with open arms.  Even the writers here at Walking Taco chimed in.  It was a done deal though, and for better or for worse there was nothing anybody could do except clutch their action figures, re-watch their movie collections, and wait with bated breath to see what the future would hold.  And lo, it was not long until we found out exactly what the Disney deal would entail: new Star Wars movies, the first of which is now scheduled to come out in 2015. With the bloated Pirates of the Caribbean franchise showing its age, and non-starters like Prince of Persia failing to ignite the box office, this is certainly a win for Disney–a studio that has shown time and time again it has no qualms when it comes to milking franchises for all they’re worth.

That still left a few lingering questions, such as who would write the script for the new movie? What characters would return? Most importantly, who would direct? With rumors circulating the internet like virtual wildfire, and fanboys clogging message boards and twitter streams with their own ideas and critiques, one thing soon became clear: no director could be chosen that would satisfy everyone.  And lo, it soon came to pass that our new benevolent overlords at Disney soon made their bold pronouncement that JJ Abrams would be helming Star Wars Episode VII.

Of course this decision was met with a predictable mix of anger, outrage, along with scattered pockets of cautious optimism and even praise, from fans and non-fans around the world. The online chatter reached such a fever pitch that The Onion did one of their characteristically sardonic send-ups of it a few days later, which pretty much hit the hydrospanner right on the head.  And now that the space dust has settled somewhat, and people have actually come to grips with the fact that George Lucas’ beloved Star Wars universe will be in the hands of the guy who is directly responsible for Keri Russel’s career, I think this could very well be the best thing that has happened to Star Wars in a long time.

Kershner

Empire Strikes Back, widely regarded as the best Star Wars movie, wasn’t directed by George Lucas. Neither was Return of the Jedi.

Before we take a look at what Abrams will bring to the table, let’s step back in time to 1977. Star Wars (originally devoid of a subtitle) had just blown the lid clear off any and all box office predictions, and George Lucas was planning the next iterations of what would soon become the beloved classic trilogy.  But between his duties at his fledgling visual effects house Industrial Light and Magic and working with his longtime buddy Steven Spielberg on an archaeology film, he was simply unable to commit the time and energy required to direct a sequel to his original movie.  So he handed the reins to his former film school professor Irvin Kershner, best known for directing little-known character dramas.  (Even 35 years ago George Lucas knew the value in letting other talented filmmakers be the caretakers of his beloved vision.) Lucas didn’t even write the screenplay, instead passing those duties off to Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett.  He was of course intimately involved in the production of what is often cited as the greatest Star Wars film, but he had the wisdom to step back and let other talented individuals into the fold as well.  A few years later he repeated the same process, hiring a Welshman named Richard Marquand to helm the third and final entry in the evolving franchise-slash-merchandising juggernaut with Kasdan reprising his role as the screenwriter. Again Lucas was personally involved in virtually every aspect of the production, even replacing Wookies with Ewoks to be more kid-friendly. After all, who wants to play with Han Solo action figures if Han Solo gets killed off halfway through the movie? And while Jedi does not reach the lofty introspection and high drama of its immediate predecessor, it serves as a fitting and action-packed bookend to the series that began a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

And here we are, decades later, with the George Lucas’ space opera not only enduring but thriving despite his more limited role in the production of the second two films.  Clearly Star Wars did not suffer due to the inclusion of outside talent, and many would argue that the involvement of other creative minds only served to strengthen the movies as a whole.  I would argue that it is precisely because there was limited input from other individuals that the prequel trilogy fails on so many levels. Instead of bringing on board a team who would push and challenge each other, Lucas surrounded himself with yes-men who simply did his bidding and did not question whether the characters and storylines were actually any good.

Myriad characters? Check. Magical forces? Check. Star Wars references? Yah you betcha.

Lots of characters? Check. Magical forces? Check. Star Wars references? Yah you betcha.

All this is somewhat irrelevant though, as George Lucas simply had no interest in directing future Star Wars movies. The question instead revolves around the choice of JJ Abrams as the person on whose desk the buck will ultimately stop, at least for Episode VII.  But is Abrams really the right pick?  Yes.  In fact, he might very well be the ideal choice for director.  His oeuvre includes a swath of both drama and action, with a healthy dose of intelligence and depth mixed in as well. Abrams’ seminal work of the last decade is arguably the television show Lost which, despite a somewhat frustrating conclusion, was rife with compelling characters and myriad plot lines–something that fits right in with the ever-expanding Star Wars universe.  Lost was peppered with references to Star Wars, with a subplot in one episode revolving around the idea of one character writing the script for Empire Strikes Back and sending it through time to George Lucas.

One of the clearest examples of why Abrams is a fantastic choice for the Big Chair is his recent reboot of another science fiction stalwart, Star Trek. The franchise was a powerhouse in the 1990’s, but had lost a great deal of steam in recent years thanks to lackluster movies and a poorly-executed TV series whose incredible ambition far outstripped its reach.  Star Trek had been swept into the cultural dustbin by shows like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, whose powerful storylines and compelling characters outclassed anything stamped with the Star Trek moniker since Next Generation left the airwaves. And yet Abrams found a way to not only retool the series with the 2009 movie Star Trek, but thrust it to the forefront of the sci-fi zeitgeist once again. Though Star Trek was far and away an action piece first, supported by solid if somewhat shallow characters, it showed that there was plenty left to discover in the Final Frontier and it would be a fun ride along the way.

This lines up perfectly with the Star Wars franchise sits today.  While still a cultural and merchandising force to be reckoned with, the quality of Episodes I-III certainly leaves something to be desired.  Nostalgia-fueled fans are still content to flood the internet with memes and videos that hearken back to the classic trilogy, but the heart and soul of Luke Skywalker and his freewheeling compatriots has been hollowed out and replaced with a synthetic CGI-drenched toy-selling contraption that bears little resemblance to its parentage.  Given his track record, it’s likely that the involvement of Abrams will likely end up with a movie that lands somewhere between the the old and new trilogies.  An Abrams-directed Episode VII will be fertile ground for all the action and visual-effects wizardry that we have come to expect out of Star Wars, which will no doubt give birth to another onslaught of toys, video games, spinoffs, and the usual flotsam and jetsam for which the series has become synonymous. But Abrams also knows a thing or two about character development and dialog–two elements that were painfully lacking in Lucas’ trilogy–and so does screenwriter Michael Arndt, who will be penning the next movie.

Joss Wheedon, hero to sci-fi geeks around the world.

Joss Wheedon, hero to sci-fi geeks around the world.

But why not Sam Mendez, who went from directing the critically acclaimed American Beauty to helming one of the best James Bond movies ever?  Certainly he would seem like a great fit for Star Wars fans longing for a return to the introspective depths of Episode V.  Or Christopher Nolan, who changed the very concept of what a comic book movie could be when he directed Batman Begins by mixing heros, villains, action, suspense, tragedy, and cool gadgets into a cinematic powerhouse whose effects reverberate throughout the industry to this day. What about Joss Whedon, at whose altar nerds around the world worship thanks to his untouchable geek cred with productions like Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and a little indie film called The Avengers. Maybe you’ve heard of it? These, along with any number of other directors, would have been solid choices to take on Star Wars Episode VI.  But JJ Abrams’ track record demonstrates his unique ability to handle heady science fiction concepts but also make them (gasp!) enjoyable, while simultaneously balancing a complex cast of characters.

In 2011 JJ Abrams released a film called Super 8, which was in many respects an homage to E.T. and The Goonies.  In it a scrappy band of kids happen to witness a mysterious train crash and end up saving the world, and while the film had its share of action, suspense, aliens, and explosions, the core of the story was about a boy and his relationship with his buddies and his father.  This quaint tale, I humbly submit, is the prototype to which we ought to look for clues as to how Abrams will handle the biggest movie franchise in history.  Super 8 proved that Abrams, who was no stranger to blockbuster titles (his name appearing above the marquee for Mission: Impossible 3 and Star Trek), fully understands the importance of keeping a larger-than-life tale grounded in solid characters–people to whom we can relate on a basic level.  Luke Skywalker, the kid who whined about picking up power converters and complained about being blinded by his helmet’s blast shield, the boy who grew to become a man in the cockpit of his X-Wing fighter while facing some of his deepest fears, is a twentysomething version of Joe Lamb–the unlikely boy hero of Super 8.  It’s these basic elements–good vs. evil, the quest of a hero, the bond between friends, which form the foundation on which Star Wars was based, the fingerprints of which are all over Super 8 as well as other Abrams movies.  Before lunch boxes, action figures, video games, and questionable lollipops, Lucas inspired fans around the world by telling a simple tale with characters to whom anyone could relate.  Of all the directors who could pick up where he left off, JJ Abrams is ideally suited to continue that original legacy.

What Star Wars needs right now isn’t another Empire Strikes Back, but another Star Wars. We need a film that reminds us why we all love Luke Skywalker, the dashing Han Solo, the beautiful Princess Leia, the mysterious Obi-Wan Kenobi, and the fearsome Darth Vader, in their galaxy far, far away, so much in the first place. Bringing Abrams on board, with George Lucas sticking around to offer creative input, virtually guarantees that Episode VII will be all the things the Prequels were not, without getting too heavy and brooding (save that for Episode VIII) or blatantly kid-friendly (that’s what spinoffs are for). Will there be lens flares? Probably. Will there be more jump cuts and dolly shots than a Michael Bay film? Perhaps. But will also, in all likelihood, get a movie with enough action to appeal to casual moviegoers, while balancing all the characters we know and love from the classic trilogy, and throwing in a dash of mysticism and philosophy for good measure.  Not too dark, not too heavy, but also not too kid-friendly or overloaded with mindless action and explosions.  In Abrams’ hands, the Star Wars franchise is better off than it has been in a long time.

A long time.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Wreck-it Ralph

February 2, 2013 by

Wreck-It poster

The premise of Wreck-It Ralph is a digital-age version of Toy Story (1995). It all takes place in a happy little arcade, strangely free of graffiti, litter and juvenile delinquents. Every night, when the arcade closes down, the characters in the games are free to wander between consoles, socialize and goof around. Only one catch: if you die outside your own game you don’t regenerate. But I’m sure that won’t become an issue.

We are introduced to this world by Wreck-It Ralph himself (John C. Reilly), the miscast, wheel grinding, time-card punching “bad guy” of the game Fix-It Felix, Jr. He explains how, all day, he has to demolish a building with his comically big hands, so the hero, Fix-It Felix (Jack McBrayer), can save the day. After which, Felix is rewarded with a pie on the roof of the building, and the tenants throw Ralph off the roof, into a mud puddle. Ralph shares his frustration at seeing his contribution to the game go unrecognized while Felix is given pies and medals. Ralph is talking to a villain support group, whose members extol the value of being a villain. As Zangief, from Street Fighter II, says “If Zangeif was good, who would crush man’s head like sparrow’s egg between thighs?” They tell him that it’s a villain’s lot in life to get beat over and over, and watch the hero get the glory, and that his life will be happier if he excepts it.

And I just have to make a comment here. Don’t villains usually win in video games? Especially in arcade games, which are designed to keep you pumping quarters in. Realistically, it would be Felix getting thrown into the mud 99% of the time. Oh, well.

Ralph has his inevitable confrontation with the rest of the game’s cast (Nicelanders, they are called), in which Mayor Gene (Raymond Perci) tells Ralph that bad guys don’t get medals, and if Ralph ever won a medal (since he clearly never will) the Nicelanders would let him live at the top of the building in the penthouse. Ralph calls his bluff, and storms off to do just that. Something that’s amusing to watch here, and in certain other scenes, is the choppy, blocky way in which the characters move. It is, of course, intentional, and it does bring out the feel of a 1980s platform game, which is what this is supposed to be, but I’m sure it also saved Disney several tens of thousands of dollars.

Ralph’s quest for a medal leads him to steal the uniform of a space marine from the game Hero’s Duty, a fictitious game that is exactly like 10,000 real shoot’em up, blow’em up, throw-away first-person shooters that you find in arcades all over the world. Ralph’s misadventure in Hero’s Duty is certainly one of the best, possibly the best scene in the movie, and gives rise to a line every parent in the audience will love: “When did video games become so violent and scary??” It also introduces us to Sgt. Tamora Calhoun (Jane Lynch), the model-proportioned, yet tough-as-nails cliché who leads the marine troop. Calhoun’s spittle-throwing PG version of a potty mouth might just be the most entertaining part of the movie, but “It’s not her fault,” because “she’s programmed with the most tragic back story ever.” I won’t tell you what this back story is. Suffice to say, I laughed enough to shed tears when I saw it, because it’s so over the top, and yet just like what you see in video games today. Calhoun is awesome.

Tri-fold

Eventually, Ralph also lands in Sugar Rush, a candy-themed cart racing game. The landscapes in Sugar Rush are beautifully rendered, although, if you’re a salty snacker like me, you might get a little nauseous after a while. Here, Ralph meets Vanellopy Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a game character who wants to join the races, but is ostracized from the racing community because she is a glitch, the oppressed subculture of the video game world. Ralph is blackmailed by Vanellopy into joining her quest to buy or pry her way into a race so she can become part of the game, and the two start to become friends. Their relationship is similar to that of Sully and Boo in Monsters, Inc., except that Vanellopy talks. And boy does she ever. She could have gotten really annoying in the hands of a lesser director, but Rich Moore (who has directed voice acting for The Simpsons and Futurama) toned her down just enough that she’s lovable, if slightly eccentric. Ralph, Vanellopy, Calhoun and Felix eventually find themselves in a battle to save the arcade from a cataclysmic threat, and from one of the most subtle, surprising and effective villains I have seen in a long time. This leads to a lot of great chemistry between the characters, and a weird, yet strangely plausible romance between the pint-sized Felix and the arm-twisting, nose-breaking Calhoun (classic pick-up line: “Look at the high definition in your face! It’s beautiful.) I will say, I thought the ending was just a little too happy. There’s a point where it looks like victory is going to require a terrible sacrifice, and the movie would have been more powerful if it had. But, in typical Disney fashion, they had to have everything work out a little too perfect. Oh, well.

To help the reader fully appreciate the quality of Wreck-it Ralph, I thought it would be worth putting my encounter with it in context. My wife and I had previously driven 250 miles. We did this because, for the first time ever, we were going to leave our 2 1/2 year old daughter in the care of her grandparents overnight so we could spend a romantic evening together. On said evening, we dressed to the hilt and had a romantic dinner at one of the finer restaurants in town, then spent some time strolling around downtown under the lights. Finally, we checked into a hotel and got ready for bed. We had a bottle of champaign in a bucket of ice when we slid into bed. We were snuggling a little bit, when we decided  a movie wouldn’t hurt, so we charged some extra to our room to see Wreck-it Ralph. At the credits, we realized we could back the movie up in 30-second increments, so I spent about 10 minutes repeatedly pushing the button, and the ice in the bucket melted while we passed the champaign back and forth and watched Wreck-it Ralph a second time.

Yeah. It’s that  good.

[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Action, Animation, Comedy, Family, Movies Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

The Last Stand

January 20, 2013 by

thelaststandIf 2013 quickly begins to look like 1988, you’re not crazy.  The great triumvirate of action stars (and Expendables buddies) Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Bruce Willis return to cinemas laying the smackdown with their own respective starring films.  February kicks off with Sly’s Bullet to the Head, and V-Day brings the fifth(!) entry of the Die Hard franchise for Willis.

Schwarzenegger launches the retro time warp this weekend with his return to the big screen in leading man capacity after a 10-year absence.  He was busy governing a state or something and racking up a bevy of bad press.  The 65-year-old icon sets out to prove he’s still got the chops to be a seasoned action hero by headlining The Last Stand, a modern-day western set in southern western corner of Arizona, in the small town of Sommerton Junction which shares the border of Mexico.

Ahnuld plays the small-town sheriff Ray Owens looking forward to his day off when he spots two mysterious truckers in the local diner.  Something feels out of place, and it’s ironically not the senior citizen, Austrian-accented tree trunk in a sheriff’s uniform sitting at the breakfast bar.  Meanwhile, federal agent John Bannister (Forest Whitaker) attempts to a transport a highly dangerous incarcerated drug cartel leader, Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega) to a death row facility, but his team inevitably finds an intercepting band of assassins that snatch the criminal from the Feds’ slippery fingers.  Cortez escapes in a specially modified ZR1 Corvette—faster than any chopper, and utilizes his men to run off all law enforcement blockades.

Somehow the sleepy town of Sommerton and the 200 mph fugitive will cross paths, and Owens knows this after finding a local farmer murdered by a high-caliber weapon.  He exchanges a few words with Agent Bannister about how the events are connected, but Owens “has seen enough blood and death, and he knows what’s coming.”  The muscled sheriff locks down Sommerton and brings his lackluster team of three local cops (Luis Guzman, Jamie Alexander, Zach Gilford) and two appointed deputies together (Johnny Knoxville and Rodrigo Santoro) to stand in the way of the cartel before the evil Cortez can speed his way into Mexico and out of the hands of the law leading to a rough-and-tumble shootout of epic proportions.

Directed by the highly praised foreign filmmaker Jee-woon Kim, he brings Schwarzenegger to light like we’ve never seen him before.  The Last Stand is a slow boil, with more character and nuance than any of Arnold’s earlier shoot-em-ups.  As ballistic and violent as this film is, it is very much a good old fashioned western in a modern small town setting.  Even though this is the former governor’s show, the supporting characters actually have a great deal of development, and a surprising amount of humor spills over into nearly every scene.

TheLastStand2Knoxville and Guzman get the best laughs, as do a few random locals.  But Schwarzenegger gets the most applause, again commanding the action and even bringing some much needed vulnerability to the beady-eyed old-timer that is called upon to do the impossible.  The action in this film, in its limited scope, is some of the most impressively shot of Arnold’s career, updating the star’s fisticuffs and bullet-dodging to a gritty and current visual aesthetic impressively captured by the sharp eye of a wild-card choice for a director.

The Last Stand doesn’t do anything particularly original with its story, but the action set pieces are undeniably creative and impressive.  Sitting through this thriller, I realized how small of a film it really is, far from the excessive branding brought on by Arnold’s wildest adventures from the 90s like Eraser and True Lies.  This is a character-based slow burn Western that eventually bursts into a full-blown war zone.  I enjoyed Last Stand more than I thought I would, and for different reasons, even though I was predisposed to enjoy it as a Schwarzenegger fan.  This is likely his most out-of-place action film, but I think patient audiences will love it, and I for one welcome the return of Ahnuld who has most definitely still got a punch or two left in him.

[Rating:3.5/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

ParaNorman

January 12, 2013 by

ParaNorman posterThis movie is stupid. Worse than stupid, it is probably the most retched piece of filmth I have seen in a long time (and I have seen some doozies). It offends on all fronts. It’s badly written and badly directed. On top of that, the story is just plain stupid and it insults anyone who knows something about history (admittedly a minority). And finally, it perpetuates certain misconceptions that are very dangerous and damaging.

The movie opens with Norman sitting on the floor, watching a movie, while he talks to his grandma. Then his father enters the room and tells him to take out the garbage. Norman walks into the kitchen, and we meet his parents and teenage sister, Courtney. We immediately notice one thing: everyone in this family is butt-ugly. Both the mother, Sandra, and Courtney have hips in different time zones, Perry’s (the dad) gut fills up the room, and all their faces appear to have some deformity. Norman tells Perry that Grandma is requesting he turn up the heat, and we get the big surprise: Grandma is dead. Norman has the ability to see and talk to ghosts. (Why does a ghost

The ghost of Norman's mother, who's head was tragically crushed ... what? She's one of the living characters? Yikes.

The ghost of Norman’s mother, who’s head was tragically crushed … what? She’s one of the living characters? Yikes.

need the heat turned up?) So of course, his family encourages him to mourn the loss of his grandma in his own way, and gently directs him to some more constructive occupation of his time. No, I’m kidding. They’re total dicks to him and call him a freak.

As the movie goes on we see that everyone in town (Blythe Hollow, apparently someplace in Massachusetts) is the same way. There’s not a single attractive OR likable character in this whole movie. To be sure, Hollywood deserves criticism for being obsessed with appearance and filling its movies with impossibly beautiful people, but this movie goes to the opposite extreme. If they didn’t care how their movie looked, why didn’t they make it live action? Give some much-needed work to all the aspiring actors who don’t meet the usual standards of perfection? Almost every character looks like something I’ve seen dangling from a Q-tip, and has a voice to match. It makes the whole movie downright painful to look at and listen to, even before the dead start crawling out of their graves. Directors Chris Butler and Sam Fell seem to have a particular obsession with women with huge butts. One of the most (sigh) memorable scenes in the movie is of a black, female cop on a motorcycle, using her butt to force a van off the road.

Most of the first act revolves around Norman getting picked on by everyone in the world. We sit through a lot of bad dialogue and toilet humor, all delivered with painful awkwardness. Most of the scenes open with a close-up on the face of some hideous grown-up we are supposed to hate. Norman eventually learns from the ghost of his uncle that he is supposed to use his gift to avert a super-natural catastrophe. A young girl was hanged as a witch in 1712 in Blythe Hollow and at midnight that night, her ghost is going to wake up and reek a terrible vengeance upon the town. What is she going to do? Spread a plague? Set the town on fire? Nope. She’s going to raise the bodies of the six witnesses and judge who convicted her. And then … well, we never really get any explanation of why this is such a big deal. The zombies don’t really do anything but stagger around and moan for the whole movie. It’s about like a Scooby Doo cartoon; it’s all about running from the zombies, but there’s never any indication of what will happen if the zombies catch us. We’re just supposed to run because … they’re scary because … the script says so. Even if we grant that the zombies will perpetrate some standard zombie fare, the mention of which is omitted from a PG movie, we’re talking about seven dilapidated corpses versus the world. What’s the big threat? Sure there might be some casualties, but there’s not a single character in this movie I’d lament being rid of.

scooby doo

If you squint your eyes, you literally can’t tell this isn’t Scooby Doo.

And in fact, when Norman is finally cornered by the zombies, they don’t try to eat him but rather speak to him, asking him to read from a certain book, which will effectively send them back to the grave. This is supposed to be a big moment where we realize the zombies, now repentant for killing the girl, aren’t dangerous, after which Norman comes to their defense and berates a torch-bearing mob for being fearful and reactionary. But if the zombies are good guys, how do they serve the witch’s purpose of revenge?

As for the witch, a word needs to be said about the portrayals in popular culture of Puritan life and thought, and of so-called “witch hunts” (unlike a lot of mainstream movies that exploit the stereotype, this one actually accuses the Puritans by name). Unfortunately I don’t have the time or the space here to give a full treatment of Puritan history. It will have to suffice to say that, unless you have done serious independent research on the subject, you should forget everything you think you know about the Puritans, as they are probably the most unfairly maligned group of people in history. They possessed a truly rare understanding of the world and of human nature that allowed those that came to this continent to create stable and sustainable societies with very few resources. They were passionate about education and were one of the first groups to require by law that all children be literate. They eventually founded a number of the most venerated colleges in America, including Harvard. Alexis de Tocqueville would later write that Puritanism was the very thing that provided a firm foundation for democracy.

I bring this up because popular culture, when it mentions the Puritans, always tries to get us to laugh at them as superstitious nincompoops, and hate them as religious nuts whose zeal gave way to atrocities, the symbol of which in movies is usually an exaggerated version of the infamous Salem Witch Trials. But here’s the thing: in popular entertainment, they are always real witches. How many movies try to get us to believe that witches are real, and can do so many cool (if terrible) things? Movies like Sleepy Hollow, The Blair Witch Project, or this one always want us to scoff at the simple mindedness of colonial peasants, but their witches always turn out to be real witches, whose powers are indeed a great danger to everyone around them. In which case, why shouldn’t they be outlawed and eliminated?

The reaction of the audience, upon realizing they paid to watch ParaNorman.

The reaction of the audience, upon realizing they paid to watch ParaNorman.

Anyway, we get a cheesy climax, where Norman confronts the witch and she turns the landscape into a really blasé field of yellow smoke and floating islands that was probably easy and cheep to animate. He’s able to get her to stop by, I don’t know, being nice to her or something. The various dead characters all go back to their graves and the living get various trite comeuppances, good and bad, according to their sympatheticness.

I tried to find something good to say about this movie, I really did. I suppose the animation is okay, especially considering that they did it with models. In this age of computers, that deserves a nod just for being there. I think I did laugh at a line once or twice, maybe three times. But I couldn’t tell you now what the funny lines were, because the memory is buried under two hours of agony and regret of my wasted time and money (I only paid $1.28, but the movie sucked so much I’m still depressed about it). At least I can spare you from repeating my mistake. You owe me one.

[Rating:0/5]

Filed Under: Comedy, Family, Horror Tagged With: , ,

Jack Reacher

January 2, 2013 by

jack-reacher-poster-internationalThe film adaptation Jack Reacher is guilty of a lot of crimes, but perhaps its largest is that of bad timing.  This thriller looses the mystery of a mass shooting in which five innocent victims wind up the target of a deranged assassin one fateful morning.  How this eerie resemblance to real life of late hasn’t blown up bigger in reaction to the film boggles the cortex.

From the picture’s outset, the audience knows the identity of the real perpetrator, but investigators follow a concrete trail of breadcrumbs leading directly to a military sniper, James Barr (Joseph Sikora), complete with a mental history that resulted in the cold-blooded murders of four army cohorts.  Barr demands the feds find someone to assistant his defender, Helen (Rosamund Pike) in order to find the truth.  He calls on Jack Reacher, a military cop-drifter, living entirely off the grid.  The audience only views the back of Mr. Reacher’s noggin for his first few scenes.  Why is he so secretive?  Because he’s a hard-boiled limb-snapper with nothing to lose.  You think he’s a hero?  He is not a hero.  He doesn’t care about the law.  He doesn’t care about proof.  He only cares about what’s right.  Yes, you’ve seen the ads.  They might as well have said, “Dear bad guys: he will find you.  He will kill you.”

The noggin belongs to superstar Tom Cruise, whose career has bounced around the building blocks for the last eight years.  They love him.  They hate him.  They tolerate him.  They love him again.  They hate him again.  Luckily none of that matters as Cruise has always brought 100 percent to his work—even made-for-cable thrills such as Jack Reacher, which gloriously miscasts Cruise, drives through cliches with a snowplow, runs about twenty minutes too long, and somehow manages to still reward audiences with plenty of bang for their buck.

Even though Cruise would be considered pint-sized against author Lee Child’s hulking intimidator from his Reacher novel series, the actor still brings charisma and believability (as far as any believability can go in this film) to the part.  Did I believe he could lay waste to five perps bare-handed and single-handedly?  Absolutely.  Do I think he can take a baseball bat to the back of the skull and still maneuver?  Hmmm.

JACK REACHERBut let’s be honest here—Cruise blows up any action movie he touches in a good way, even when he doesn’t belong.  Jack Reacher is a prime fit for him if we didn’t already know this was a franchise originally intended for a Dwayne Johnson-type.  Once audiences get past that glare, they can settle into a grimy thriller from writer-director Christopher McQuarrie, a frequent collaborator with Director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie) and now of course Cruise (the upcoming All You Need is Kill and Mission Impossible 5).

McQuarrie lets Reacher settle in a placid violence.  The action often results in painfully brutal imagery.  The shooting.  The fisticuffs.  Then there’s the menace of his villains, Jai Courtney (the actual shooter) and the brilliant insanity of filmmaker Werner Herzog who steps in front of the camera as the maniacal, foggy-eyed embodiment of evil referred to as the Zec.  The performances throughout the film range from fair, to good, to wild.  It’s actually all quite fascinating.  Then McQuarrie underscores the events with unmistakable dread.  Somehow his movie escaped with a PG-13 rating probably because there’s little blood.  But the violence is blunt, brutal and lingering.  Think Taken and Bourne on a depressant, in which the action doesn’t cut and jump around to a head-spin.  Instead McQuarrie let’s the moments of violence build and linger.

This is where the writer-director somehow blends the formulaic proceedings of the plot with the odd dose of casting and mixes in his bitter penchant for the deep-rooted cold, making Jack Reacher an unexpected kick to the gut.  Is Reacher, the enforcer, a hero?  The question is never exactly answered, but I’m guessing as a potential franchise for Cruise, the powers that be will think so.

[Rating:3.5/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

December 19, 2012 by

HobbitPosterMy affinity for J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit goes back a long way. In elementary school I purchased a copy of White Fang from one of those Scholastic book order flyers that got sent home once a month, and thought it was the best book I had ever read. It was a gripping tale of adventure set amid a fantastic backdrop of otherworldly (to my midwestern self) locations with a main character for whom I could root wholeheartedly.  White Fang, as far as I knew at the time, was the epitome of literature.  That was, until my friend Joe showed me one of his favorite books-a 300-page tale with a funny-looking green cover about a three-foot-tall munchkin. I was skeptical about The Hobbit at first, but soon found that it had everything I adored about White Fang, but so much more. I became lost in the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and his traveling troupe of 13 tawdry dwarves. I wondered at the wisdom of the wizard Gandalf, and marveled at the beauty of Imladris. I began daydreaming of journeying through the black overgrowth of Mirkwood, exploring the halls of the Elven kingdom, and sneaking around inside Erebor, the lonely mountain which was home to the malevolent dragon Smaug.

I quickly devoured Tolkien’s other tales in the Lord of the Rings series, and though I never made it all the way through his other works like The Silmarillion, I remain an enthusiastic fan of his tales of Middle-Earth to this day. When Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001, I saw it twice on opening night clutching my copy of the book tight while trying to ward off an ill stomach after eating movie theater popcorn and Coke for dinner.  Peter Jackson’s interpretation of the fantasy realms Tolkien dreamed up while fighting in the trenches of World War I had me hooked, and to this day I don’t think I have seen another movie that has so thoroughly captivated me while engrossing me into an entirely different world.

It was, then, with a bit of nervousness that I went into the theater last weekend to see the first in The Hobbit trilogy, An Unexpected Journey. The trailers were amazing, but early reviews suggested some problems with run time and creative licenses taken by Peter Jackson and his film crew. Would The Hobbit live up to my expectations? Would it crumple under the weight of all the extra material from Tolkien’s other books that were appended to the storyline? Would it be anywhere near as good as its forebears released over a decade ago?

Soon I realized my fears were unfounded. Bilbo Baggins and his adventure were in fine hands, and after ten minutes of cautious trepidation I settled down and let myself become immersed once again in the beauty and majesty of Middle-Earth.

Thorin Woodenbow...I mean, Oakenshield

Thorin Woodenbow…I mean, Oakenshield

The Hobbit is not a perfect movie. It might not even be a great movie. But it is a thoroughly captivating fantasy tale, the likes of which you have probably not seen onscreen since Return of the King. The pacing is a bit off, with the first half burdened by a great deal of exposition and backstory, often told through flashback, that seems somewhat extraneous but is critically important for understanding the larger context in which Bilbo’s tale of mischief and burglary is set.  For a Lord of the Rings geek, these deviations do not serve as a distraction and in fact enhance an already familiar tale with nice flourishes that others might find extraneous.  I can understand why casual theater patrons might be somewhat put off by the many inclusions in this film that seem to have little bearing on the story at hand, but I say bring ’em on. Tolkien crafted a beautifully complicated world, and if showing a bit more of it means an extra ten minutes in a theater seat then I’m all for it.  Rest assured all the core elements from the book are present and accounted for, if altered slightly for the cinematic presentation.  The troll campfire, the visit to the Last Homely House, the passage through the mountains, the riddle scene…they’re all here and all very well done. While some might take issue with the changes Jackson made to some of these, particularly when Bilbo and Gollum (who looks even better and more expressive than he did in the previous trilogy) match wits to determine Bilbo’s fate, I mostly just sat there with a stupid grin on my face enjoying the fact that I was getting to watch all of this on the big screen.  Picking nits about changes from the source material here is kind of irrelevant for me, when the resulting film is so engrossing.

Even Frodo shows up, though his character wasn't born yet. Don't worry, it all makes sense when you see the movie.

Even Frodo shows up, though his character wasn’t born yet. Don’t worry, it all makes sense when you see the movie.

However, there are a few structural issues that did bother me and detract from the film as a whole.  There are essentially two main characters in the film, even though the book focuses almost entirely on Bilbo.  The titular hobbit is the one with whom we spend the most time, as is to be expected. But Thorin, the leader of the company of dwarves, receive almost equal billing.  He is essentially this film’s Aragorn, and a somewhat obscure enemy named Azog is brought out from the depths of Tolkien’s extended materials in order to give Thorin a mortal enemy with whom to do battle. His inclusion is somewhat of a dumbing down of the main storyline, and his pursuit of the band of treasure-seekers is rather unnecessary given the many perils the company encounters along their journey already.  I can understand this from a storytelling perspective, as the Thorin/Azog battle helps propel Jackson’s version of Tolkien’s story and leads to a climax absolutely dripping with gratuitous cinematic clichés that probably appeal to the casual moviegoing types or significant others dragged to the theater against their will, but it’s something that this film could have done without.

I have read more than a few complaints about the length of The Hobbit, and I must admit that this type of criticism puzzles me. I tend to doubt that few moviegoers who are even remotely familiar with Jackson’s previous Lord of the Rings movies would go in to The Hobbit expecting a 90-minute cartoon. This is heady stuff, and Jackson’s vision of Tolkien’s world is one that I enjoy letting wash over me and consume my senses. I enjoyed the almost three-hour run time, and it was filled with such fantastic scenery and interesting characters that I almost wish it were longer (and will no doubt be when it is released on Blu-Ray).  As far as I’m concerned, the longer run time simply meant more movie to enjoy.

The Hobbit is not the epitome of literature, and the movie is not the apex of film. But it is a good book, and this is a genuinely good adaptation. For anyone even remotely interested in fantasy movies, this is certainly one to see.  For those on the fence, it’s worth a shot and you might find yourself pleasantly surprised.

Rating:[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Action, Science Fiction Tagged With: ,

Life of Pi

December 9, 2012 by

The durability of the human spirit comes into focus under the expanded eye of Ang Lee’s ambitious opus Life of Pi.  Think the attempted magnificent reach of this year’s earlier tanker Cloud Atlas molded down into Cast Away.  I won’t say Ang Lee, an auteur of his own making, entirely succeeds in his gargantuan spiritual quest, but his film is such a visual and magical triumph that I can’t discount it because of its under-compensating grasp.

Like its Cloud Atlas brethren, Pi is based on a so-called un-filmable novel penned by Yann Martel.  Perhaps he sorted out the details a tad better than screenwriter David Magee (Finding Neverland).  The story involves a 13-year-old dreamer boy from India named Pi forced to leave his homeland with his family and the animals of the zoo they own.  They board a vessel and voyage out to sea for the United States where the father has earned newfound employment.  A late night’s early rumblings and flashes of lightning awaken Pi and he takes to the deck to experience the powerful storm’s beauty.  Eventually the roaring waters overtake the ship and flood every level, drowning Pi’s family and most of the animals.

Pi is loaded onto a lifeboat and finds himself caught on a mini-ark with a wounded zebra, a ferocious hyena, a wise primate, and a dangerous bangle tiger.  The hyena soon attacks the zebra and monkey, leaving the tiger, named Richard Parker, to end the hyena’s life.  Pi faces the entrapping vastness of the sea while simultaneously fending off Richard Parker until they both come to an understanding with each other.  Pi takes to catching fish for himself and his new companion in order to keep each other alive until they can be rescued.

The film is filled with outstretched symbolism to the point where Pi is forced to interpret most of the symbolism for later characters in the story.  An adult version of Pi (Irrfan Khan) narrates the fantastical journey to a young reporter (Rafe Spall).  “You will believe in God,” Pi tells him.  The entire odyssey consists of Pi’s relationship to God throughout the catastrophic tests he faces.  We learn young Pi becomes fascinated with religion early on as a child, first acquiring his parents’ Hindu roots before becoming enraptured in Catholicism where he grapples with the impossible love of God sacrificing his innocent son for the sins of the world.  Later, Pi finds Islam literally in passing.  His father instructs him that he cannot follow three religions at once and to either pick one to follow, or simply look to science to answer the majority of his questions about existence.

Pi isn’t quick to lean into his father’s request, just as Pi isn’t quick to see the carnivorous tiger as a simple wild animal.  “In his eyes, there is a soul.”  Throughout his journey, Pi cannot explain why God has placed him under the weight of such loss and misery.  But Pi never loses hope and never accepts that God has abandoned him.  He also may not be able to narrow down the ‘correct’ version of God, but he never loses faith that God loves him and is consistently carrying him through every obstacle.

Life of Pi is Ang Lee’s quest of faith for the audience.  The film reaches a wobbly conclusion that lessens a bit of the fantastical impact of the themes blooming to life, but the film is so majestic and ambitious that I couldn’t help but be captured by the spirit of it.  While many may view this as an opportunity to shoehorn the incarnation of God into a catch-all for every religion and belief system, I viewed it more as a thoughtful exploration of sorting out the attributes of God rather than the versions.

The film also works largely due to the lavish spectacle it is wrapped in.  The production values are top-notch.  You will not see better special effects all year.  This is the first time that I can truly say the CGI effects used to create living creatures had me 100 percent convinced I was watching real animals.  Lee also utilized impressive 3D technology to enhance the experience in the same way Avatar used it.  The images have a crisp and life-like depth.  I can’t recommend the film’s visual aesthetic enough.  If you choose to take a leap of faith on this film, see it on the big screen in 3D.

Life of Pi is certainly not a perfect film, but I think it examines a dedication of faith along with all of faith’s questions and doubts—and does it well for a major studio production.  In a world trying desperately to erase any and all versions of a Creator-based faith by replacing it with a faith in unprecedented and foolish chance of existence, Life of Pi, despite its shortcomings, is somewhat of a miracle.  The pacing and conclusion may test some viewers’ patience, but I think those willing to invest in the story will still find the film plenty worth their while.

A quick note to parents: the film pushes the limits of its PG rating with some very intense moments of animals attacking other animals.  None of the shots are particularly ‘graphic’ or bloody, but there are scary instances for young kids.

[Rating:4/5]

Filed Under: Drama Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »