Academy Award Nominations Thoughts and Picks

So, it's that time again, guys! Oscar nominations are upon us and once again there are a number of surprises and snubs and things that make me both giddy and disappointed. But enough of building it up. Let's just get right to it! 

Best Director: 

Michael Haneke for AMOUR

Benh Zeitlin for BEAST OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

Ang Lee for LIFE OF PI

Stephen Spielberg for LINCOLN

David O. Russell for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Wow! Perhaps the most surprising of all the categories. First, the fact that neither Ben Affleck, who was considered a shoe-in for ARGO before the nominations were announced, Kathryn Bigelow for ZERO DARK THIRTY, and Quentin Tarantino for DJANGO UNCHAINED, were all snubbed. I get why Tarantino didn't get the nomination given the nature of his film, but the other two were considered virtual locks in most pre-nomination predictions. Equally surprising is the fact that 30 year-old Benh Zeitlin was nominated for the indie darling BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD. I wasn't really that hot on the film, preferring both DJANGO AND ARGO over it (and probably ZDT as well), but it's nice to see the Academy actually recognize some new talent as well as Michael Haneke for the uber-depressing and equally powerful foreign film AMOUR. 

My pick: Stephen Spielberg for LINCOLN. Even though I didn't care for the film personally, it's Oscar-bait through and through and I'll be surprised if LINCOLN doesn't sweep this year. Though I would like to see Haneke or O. Russell take it. It's just depressing that there were so many great directors that came out with such amazing movies that are going unrecognized. The category could have, in my opinion, been completely different. A Best Director category with nominees Quentin Tarantino, Kathryn Bigelow, Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Ben Affleck? Now THAT'S a "can't go wrong" situation.

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams for THE MASTER

Sally Field for LINCOLN

Anne Hathaway for LES MISERABLES 

Helen Hunt for THE SESSIONS

Jackie Weaver for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Not too many surprises here. While I have not seen THE SESSIONS, the praise I've heard for Helen Hunt seemed like it was obviously leading to a nomination. The biggest surprise has to be Jackie Weaver for her performance in SLP. While the film featured tons of strong performances, I thought Weaver felt the most out of place, like an Edith Bunker clone. Is that to say she was bad? No way. I just don't know if it was Oscar worthy.

My pick: Anne Hathway for LES MIS. I loved Amy Adams in THE MASTER. I thought she played the wife of P.S. Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd with such a quiet intensity and bubbling rage that somehow allowed her to not be swallowed up by the mammoth performances of Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. That being said, this is Hathway's to lose. Although I felt like she spent her entire 15 minutes of screen time chewing the scenery, it was a super-emotional (she made sure that you knew how had she was) performance that will land her the gold. 

Best Supporting Actor:

Alan Arkin for ARGO

Robert De Niro for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Phillip Seymour Hoffman for THE MASTER

Tommy Lee Jones for LINCOLN

Christoph Waltz for DJANGO UNCHAINED

Two things on DJANGO UNCHAINED. One, despite the title, Christoph Waltz is the main character, not supporting. He is the emotional center of the film and whenever he's not there and Jamie Foxx must take over, there is a definite lull in the entire feel of the movie. Two, NO DICAPRIO for Calvin Candie?! What is that?! He and Waltz were easily the best parts of an amazing movie. Other than that, it's nice to see Alan Arkin get a nod for his work in ARGO and this is Robert De Niro's first nomination since 1991! 

My pick: Tommy Lee Jones for LINCOLN. This is easily the hardest race to call. All of these men have won before and all of them gave fantastic performances. In my personal opinion, Phillip Seymour Hoffman should win and I want him to. I also think either he or De Niro could steal it from Jones, but I think the fact that Jones played a real, historical character (and one that was incredibly complex) will sway the odds in his favor. 

Best Actress: 

Jessica Chastain for ZERO DARK THIRY

Jennifer Lawrence for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Emmanuelle Riva for AMOUR 

Quvenzhane Wallis for BEAST OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

Naomi Watts for THE IMPOSSIBLE

This category is awesome! I really don't have any complaints except maybe no Marion Cotillard for RUST AND BONE. But back to the nominees! Seeing Wallis and Riva both on here, the youngest and oldest nominees ever, is fantastic! And they're both really great. Though I haven't seen ZERO DARK THIRTY, from what I hear the film rests greatly on the shoulders of Chastain and that she more than pulls it off. And Jennifer Lawrence? Best part of SLP easily. Note: Haven't seen THE IMPOSSIBLE but I'm sure Naomi Watts is fine.

My pick: Jessica Chastain for ZERO DARK THIRTY. This is a two woman race between Chastain and Lawrence. Though I'm basing this on seeing one movie and reading in depth about the other, it just seems that while both are amazing, for what Chastain is asked to do and for how her character commands a screen populated with such disturbing subject matter as ZDT has, I think she just edges Lawrence out for this one. But you honestly can't go wrong with this category (except maybe Watts). 

Best Actor: 

Bradley Cooper for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Daniel Day-Lewis for LINCOLN

Hugh Jackman for LES MISERABLES

Joaquin Phoenix for THE MASTER

Denzel Washington for FLIGHT

Not too many surprises here either. Actually the only possible snub from what I can gather is  John Hawkes for his performance in THE SESSIONS which again I haven't seen, but have heard he and Helen Hunt were magnificent. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix here is also mildly surprising after his comments calling the Academy Awards "bullshit." While I don't expect Phoenix to actually show up to the event, it would be awesome to see him make an appearance. Perhaps punch a photog or take a leak on the red carpet? Up to you, my friend.

My pick: Daniel Day-Lewis for LINCOLN. Easiest category to pick. There's a College Humor version of the LINCOLN poster which renames the movie, DANIEL DAY-LEWIS WANTS AN OSCAR. That's pretty much it. Day-Lewis again puts on the performance of the year and another all-time classic. I may have not liked the movie, but he was amazing. The only other actor who could possibly take it away from him would be Phoenix who admittedly gives Day-Lewis a run for his money, completely transforming himself into Freddie Quell, down to his gait and speech pattern. If Phoenix pulls the upset I would be surprised, but not at all unhappy. 

Best Picture:

AMOUR

ARGO 

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

DJANGO UNCHAINED

LES MISERABLES

LIFE OF PI

LINCOLN

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

ZERO DARK THIRTY

For the first time in a long time I will actually be able to say that I've seen every film nominated for Best Picture. And as such, I feel able to voice my disdain for some of the choices. Movies like ARGO, DJANGO, ZERO DARK THIRTY, AMOUR, and perhaps LIFE OF PI are understandable. And of course I see why the others were chosen -- LINCOLN is pure old people Academy bait and SLP is the rom-com that seems to always make it but that never wins -- and I guess it's cool to see an indie film like BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD get such love, but I mean come on. No love for THE MASTER? Not P.T. Anderson's best, but still amazing. No MOONRISE KINGDOM? One of Wes Anderson's best, easily better than SLP and one of the most believable portrayals of a romance in some time. Of course, those are just my opinions man, and it's all about what the Academy likes. But with 9 spots, how hard would it have been to add a 10th?

My pick: LINCOLN. For those of you who read my review, you know that I didn't care much for the film. However, as I've stated again and again, it's exactly what the Academy loves. Going in, I gave both ZERO DARK THIRTY and ARGO good chances of taking the category, but seeing as how the Academy rarely chooses a film whose director isn't nominated for Best Director (a completely ridiculous practice), they are now highly unlikely. That leaves SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK which got tons of nominations, but which I still feel doesn't have the weight to unseat Spielberg's presidential drama, and an outside chance for AMOUR which is gaining steam as we head into full-on award season. What would I like to see happen? Well, I would personally love to see DJANGO UNCHAINED take it, but that will never happen. ARGO or AMOUR are both fantastic and I would be happy to see either of them win as well. And while I haven't yet seen ZERO DARK THIRTY, I can say that if it's anything like, or on the level of, Bigelow's last film, THE HURT LOCKER, I will be in love with it and ecstatic to see it get the win. Sadly, it's LINCOLN's year.

Final Quick Thoughts: 

I haven't been able to see all the animated films nominated, but from the list I believe either BRAVE will take it on Pixar's reputation or WRECK-IT RALPH will take it deservingly. I also hear that PARANORMAN is very good and could have an outside chance of taking the category. 

It's also stunningly confusing seeing ANNA KARENINA nominated for Best Cinematography instead of THE MASTER which is one of the most beautiful films of the year. It's just unfathomable how that decision came about. However, it is fantastic to see Roger Deakins nominated for SKYFALL, which is who I want and hope will win because it is, for my money, the most gorgeous film of the year. Plus Deakins, arguably one of the best cinematographers of all time, has never won an Oscar for his work. That's criminal.

Finally, it's great to see that one of my favorite (if not my favorite) film of the year, MOONRISE KINGDOM get nominated for Best Original Screenplay. I really hope Anderson and Roman Coppola can take this, of if not, then I'd be equally happy with Quentin Tarantino. Will Mark Boal win for ZERO DARK THIRTY? Probably. I just hope one of the more off-kilter nominees can take it. 

So, there you have it! My thoughts on the Academy Awards nominations for 2013 and my picks for the most of the major categories. The Awards are still quite far away and things could certainly change one way or another, but regardless it's going to be another fun, exciting, and incredibly infuriating awards season. And while none of it really means anything, I can't wait! 

Emancipate This!: Review of LINCOLN

"Steven Spielberg is directing a movie about Lincoln?!" "Who's playing Lincoln? DANIEL DAY-LEWIS!? Whaaaaaaaat?!" -- Me on hearing about LINCOLN

Going into Steven Spielberg's LINCOLN, I couldn't have been more excited. One of the most successful directors of all time directing one the greatest, most intense actors in the history of film as one of America's most heralded presidents in what was said to be a gritty and realistic depiction of Lincoln's final months on Earth? Who wouldn't be excited?! However, when LINCOLN was first released in America I didn't happen to be in the country and by the time I got back, it had made its way out of most cinemas. But I have finally seen it! And seeing as it is now a frontrunner for most major categories in this year's award season and seeing as it is going to be finally released at the local cinema here in Martin County, I thought I might share my (hopefully) brief thoughts. 

As I said above, LINCOLN portrays the final months of Lincoln's life. To quote Rotten Tomatoes, "In a nation divided by war and the strong wings of change, Lincoln pursues a course of action designed to end the war, unite the country and abolish slavery." Essentially, however, the film is focused on the passing of a single piece of legislation, particularly the 13th amendment (the one that abolished slavery)... and it lasts two and half hours. 

Now, I'm not saying LINCOLN is overly long, but it's totally too long. Much of this has to do with the family elements in the film. Any scene involving Sally Field (as Mary Todd Lincoln) or Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as Lincoln's son Robert) fall with a dramatic thud and just lie there. Spielberg has a bad habit of shoving family drama into his films and it constantly does them a disservice. It's not that Sally Field and JGL are bad actors. They're fantastic. It's just that this isn't what the film is truly concerned with. The only purpose these scenes serve is to show a different side to Lincoln. "Oh, look, he isn't the perfect, mythical figure we've made him out to be! He has family problems like everybody else!" And in theory this would have worked. However, because the film in fact does mythologize the man, these scenes feel out of place and, to be blunt, boring. All of these scenes, adding up to about 30 minutes of screen time, could have easily been cut and the result would be a more concise, entertaining film.

But speaking of the man himself, we obviously need to talk about Daniel Day-Lewis as the titular president. In a word, he's amazing. Many people have already penciled him in for the Academy Award for Best Actor and after seeing the film I concur. The way he is able to wholly embody the mythical figure of Lincoln is uncanny. The walk, the voice, the look, it's all perfect. When you see still photos of Day-Lewis, you say to yourself, "Yeah, looks like what'd I'd expect after hearing Daniel Day-Lewis is playing Lincoln." But on film, when he is commanding the room, he's unrecognizable. It's not Daniel Day-Lewis you're looking at, it's Lincoln incarnate. 

The only problem is the script. Lincoln was a good speaker, I get it. His nickname was the GREAT ORATOR for god's sake. But basically every scene with Lincoln is of him and his conspirators around a table, there's some dissension, Lincoln is quiet, and then he speaks, tells some sort of small, usually funny anecdote until suddenly he gets all serious, captivating the room and solving whatever discourse there was (or at least making them forget there was a discourse for a while). The first couple of times this is completely engaging. However, by the 11th time it happens you are just wishing for the entire room to get up, mutter, "Oh, bullshit, Lincoln," and shuffle out of the room to have an ale or a duel or something. 

This is not the gritty, realistic depiction of Lincoln's life that we were promised. In fact, it borders on the ridiculous. From the wigs to the muttonchops to random famous actor after random famous actor popping up to play bit-part senators and representatives, there is a definite comedic feel to the film apart from the explicit comedy of Lincoln's stories and James Spader's Three Stooges-esque slapstick. Lee Pace (PUSHING DAISES) in particular plays such a cartoonishly evil character that it makes you question nearly every character choice in the film. Do we mythologize Lincoln's life? Of course we do. And while I suppose it could be argued that this was Spielberg's point in making the world of his film so ridiculous, the mise-en-scene and tone of film hint at anything but. 

Don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike the film. Not entirely. Apart from Daniel Day-Lewis's amazing performance, seeing Tommy Lee Jones actually bring his A-game to a film again was a nice surprise. His Thaddeus Stevens is a very complex and conflicted character, grappling with his own personal beliefs and whether or not he should go against those beliefs and do whatever it takes in order to get this greatly important amendment passed. And while a lot of the film feels ridiculous, what Spielberg is trying to show -- Lincoln's struggle to get this amendment passed while having the even more important specter of the civil war and thousands of lives hanging over his head and the backward dealings that needed to be done to accomplish this feat -- is fascinating. Equally fascinating and enrapturing are the scenes in which the representatives are arguing over and finally voting on the amendment. As a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the political system in action (a la THE WEST WING or IN THE LOOP), LINCOLN truly shines. 

Basically, LINCOLN is an average film with a few above average performances. While this would often be considered a success, with Spielberg it just isn't so. The film is overly long, confused, and filled with far too much family drama (complete with manipulative John Williams musical swells) and scenes that, while perhaps historically accurate, do nothing for the film (I'm looking at you, opening scene with Emancipation Proclamation recitation). However, a beautifully crafted and shot civil-war era world (cinematography by Janusz Kaminski) and some great performances including Jones and a for-the-ages performance by Daniel Day-Lewis save the film from being a complete wash. I just expected more from a collaboration between Spielberg and Tony Kushner (writer of the amazing ANGELS IN AMERICA). But hey, it's still ten thousand times better than WAR HORSE. 

6.5 out of 10

I'm Probably "On My Own": Review of LES MISÉRABLES

Courtesy of Vogue (via Movieline) 

Tom Hooper's newest film, an adaptation of the classic musical LES MISÉRABLES based on the novel by Victor Hugo, is innovative. Having the actors sing the iconic songs live during the filming as opposed to matching their performances up to a prerecorded cast album was a daring and risky venture for Hooper. Not only this, but choosing to film the action and performances with an extreme wide-angle lens and getting right up into the actors' faces instead of going with a more classic method of shooting musicals like with such films as CHICAGO and NINE was a bold decision that easily sets his film apart from any musical adaptation that has come before it. I respect Tom Hooper immensely for trying to advance the way we look at and go about creating movies and can appreciate LES MISÉRABLES for these risks. Unfortunately, none of this can make up for the fact that this is a terrible film. 

The idea of having actors sing their songs live works so well on paper. Not having to tailor performances to what has already been recorded not only would seem to give the actors more time to actually dig deep into what they're singing really means, but would consequently allow for much more freedom and visceral emotion to come forth. What results, however, are weak performances throughout with even weaker renditions of these classic songs. Throughout the film, the performances are constantly polluted with the actors gasping for breath, struggling to stay on key and hit those powerful high notes. That's what the film lacks as a whole -- power. Listening or watching the on-stage musical is such a powerful and emotional experience that you can't helped but be thrown into these characters' world. Here, on the other hand, we constantly see actors struggling to even get their songs out. While I suppose it could be argued that this adaptation was trying to be a more gritty, realistic depiction, it's still a musical. And what's the main focus of a musical? That's right, boys and girls, the music! 

Don't get me wrong, some actors take full advantage of the options that this form of filming opens up. In particular, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as a couple of filthy, painted-up rapscallions (mother and father of Eponine and momentary guardians of Cosette) are fantastic. Their brilliant mix of constantly switching between singing and dialogue works perfectly and the hilarity the imbues are some of the only moments of real emotion in the film. Eddie Redmayne also surprises and brings a similar mix of singing and acting to his scenes that is refreshing opposite the lackluster quality of the performances given by brothers in resistance and his bride (Amanda Seyfried) and father-in-law to be (Hugh Jackman). Though Jackman is perfect for the way Tom Hooper chose to film (no one does big, red, teary eyes better), and clearly has musical chops (just look at his Tony!), he consistently falls flat, unable to find his true voice or even the appropriate key. Anne Hathaway, who has received much praise for her brief turn as Fantine, is dreadful; spending most of her time chewing the scenery, demanding the audience look at how sad she is, lapping up the tears that are forced from the viewers' collective eyes. And Russell Crowe? I'm not even going to take the time to explain how bad Russell Crowe is. He can't sing and he should have never been in this movie. Although admittedly he does make for the funniest scene in the whole film, albeit unintentional. What I keep coming back to, though, is emotion. Aside from Carter, Cohen, and Redmayne, there just isn't any.

It's this lack of real emotion is the reason for the film's ultimate downfall. In many interviews, Hooper has stated that his decision to film the movie almost entirely in wide-angle closeups was to show the imperfection of the characters. The crooked teeth, the scars and blemishes, the flowing tears that go unwiped, staining the cheeks of the lower-class French. Again, in theory, this is a brilliant idea. But in practice it is but another failure in a long list. While on stage (or when filmed at a far enough distance) action can be much more easily taken in. You don't have to struggle to understand exactly what the characters are doing or where they are and when multiple actors are singing you can take them all in at once. However, filming almost exclusively with closeups forces the camera to quickly move back and forth between actors and what could have ultimately been a very emotionally charged moment becomes comedic in its execution. If the film was able to convey the emotion that is inherent in Hugo's novel and in good productions of the on-stage musical, being so close to the actors could have produced a raw energy that would have been near unbearable. However, the unbearableness instead comes from the fact that the film is unable to convey any type of real energy (perhaps due to the fact that the abundance of these closeups removes any kind of uniqueness that might have otherwise made them, I don't know, special and poignant?) and results to shoving you into the faces of the characters, showing the audience their watery eyes and quivering lips in an attempt to force them to feel.

And ultimately, I just didn't. Though the music, composed by a 72 piece orchestra, is beautiful and though I appreciate what Hooper tried to do with this film and while hope that it inspires more directors to try to change and improve not only the musical genre but every genre of film, this particular movie just didn't work. Maybe with a different method of filming it could have been something special? Maybe with better actors or some kind of balance between prerecording and live? Maybe so. However, the one thing it needed above all else was emotion, passion, life. Sadly, with all its ambition and innovation, that's one thing Tom Hooper forgot. And LES MISÉRABLES pays dearly for it. 

3 out of 10 

"The 'D' is Silent, Hillbilly": Review of DJANGO UNCHAINED

The quote I chose for the title of this week's review is nonchalantly uttered about 3/4 of the way through the film by Jamie Foxx as he shoots a particularly nasty plantation worker repeatedly amid various shrieks and moans. It's just one of the many hilarious things about Quentin Tarantino's (PULP FICTION, RESERVOIR DOGS, like you weren't aware) newest film, DJANGO UNCHAINED. It also has the distinction of being one of the only subtle things about this blaxploitation spaghetti western.

Set two years before the Civil War in various southern states (primarily Texas and Mississippi), DJANGO UNCHAINED tells the story of a slave (Foxx) who is recruited by a German dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz of INGLORIOUS BASTERDS fame), to help identify three of the good doctor's targets. After seeing that this slave actually might have some talent for this stuff, "The kid's a natural," Dr. Schultz agrees to help Django rescue his wife, Broomhilda, from a dastardly plantation known as Candyland in exchange for Django's services through the winter. 

Like I said earlier, nothing about this film is subtle -- and it's wonderful. While the film is called DJANGO UNCHAINED, the titular character could easily replaced with "Tarantino." Sure, the director of PULP FICTION and KILL BILL has never really been one for downplaying things, but with this film no stone is left unturned (or shot, or exploded, or ripped apart and eaten by dogs). This is Tarantino unleashed (much like those dogs from earlier) and the film is savagely violent, insanely extravagant, and most of all exorbitantly entertaining. 

Many critics and casual movie-goers alike have criticized the film for its extreme violence and pervasive use of a certain racial epithet beginning with the letter "n." Takes like this, much like that of long-time Tarantino hater, Spike Lee, make me wonder if these people have actually seen the film (Spike Lee has admittedly not). Are they wrong? Of course not, DJANGO has all of these things in spades. But does this do anything but add to the atmosphere and overall message? Absolutely not. Apart from providing historical accuracy (yes, slave owners were horrible people and they used that word... a lot), the sheer absurdity that the film portrays in its violence is a remarkably poignant and effecting commentary on the outright lunacy of racism and the stomach-churning horrors of slavery. 

What's more amazing is the fact that Tarantino manages to do all of this while creating one of the most uproariously funny films of the year. With every actor on top of their games (Foxx, DiCaprio and Waltz obviously deserving particular acknowledgment), including quick and rib-splitting turns by Jonah Hill (SUPERBAD, 21 JUMP STREET) and Don Johnson (MIAMI VICE) as dim-witted KKK members, Tarantino's script pops and sizzles with with the wit and obscure pop-culture references that have made him one of the best living directors. His soundtrack, which combines songs from classic Italian spaghetti westerns and modern day rap music, is just another example of how this movie sounds ridiculous written out but works beautifully. Even when he's telling a story about the sickening brutality of slavery, Tarantino can't help but entertain. Never once did I think a movie about a slave and a German bounty hunter killing dozens of people to collect bounties and then rising up against an insanely cruel plantation owner to rescue the slave's abused wife would be the funniest film of the year, but it is -- by far. 

Granted the film is not perfect. Kerry Washington as Django's wife, Broomhilda, does little besides stand around in random fields during Django's hallucinations and get abused physically and emotionally. I get that women had little to no power during this time and women that also happened to be black and enslaved had even less, but it's Kerry Washington! Give her SOMETHING! In addition, the Norse mythological elements also feel just sort of shoved in to a picture that doesn't really need them. Why does Broomhilda speak German? Well, if she didn't then Tarantino's attempt to add a Siegfried and Brunhilde narrative into his story would be impossible and then how could he show the ironic parallel between Candyland and Valhalla? It doesn't serve any real purpose other than that endgame parallel and does nothing but take away from the already amazing Candyland portion of the film, including DiCaprio's menacing and deliciously evil Calvin J. Candie and the true runner of the house, Stephen, a faithful and shrewd house slave played by Samuel L. Jackson, who clearly relished the role and couldn't have played the character more perfectly. The film also has not one, but two over-the-top end sequences where all hell breaks loose. Both are works of bloody and explosive brilliance, but during the gap between the two, the film lags a bit. It's a long movie (near 3 hours), and while the film's length is not a downside like the recently released AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY and while I was more than willing to stay in this world as long as possible, the film does lose energy on its way to the final showdown.

DJANGO UNCHAINED, however, is a seriously insane comedy that is also an insanely serious disquisition on enslavement and how it has been portrayed by Hollywood over the past decades. With its superb cast, brilliant script, eclectic soundtrack, countless references, and beautiful cinematography by Tarantino regular, Robert Richardson, DJANGO UNCHAINED is a film that challenges audiences and is as hilarious as it is entertaining. It's also one of the best films of the year. If DJANGO UNCHAINED had your curiosity, it should now have your attention.

9 out of 10 

A Guy Who Has Never Seen a Full Episode of Any STAR TREK Series Reviews J.J. Abrams's STAR TREK

Recently the first trailer for J.J. Abrams's newest film (and one of the most ludacriously named films in history), STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS came out and I was all, "Hey, that looks pretty awesome! Hey, Benedict Cumberbatch! Awesome!" But admittedly I know very little about the STAR TREK universe and had never seen Abrams's first film. Needless to say, when I recently saw the three disc collectors edition for cheap at my local f.y.e., I jumped on it. And even more recently I actually watched it. And since it's a movie, here are my thoughts on it: 

It's interesting to come to a film with an already dedicated fanbase and not be a part of that fanbase. I love STAR WARS, I love LORD OF THE RINGS, and I especially loved comic book movies. But STAR TREK was something different altogether. "I don't know these characters! I don't know their backstories! What's going on!?!" Actually, I did know these characters... sort of. All I really had to go on was their names and their general attitudes/personalities. And did this ever work against me. What I never noticed in any of the movies from the franchises I listed above was the blatant pandering to fanboys and girls. "What should we name him?" Jennifer Morrison playing Captain Kirk's mother says to Chris Hemsworth (Kirk's father) as he pilots his ship to its demise. They proceed to have a touching moment where we learn that he was named after his paternal and maternal grandparents. What should have been one of the most heartwrenching moments of the film was instead filled with  valley girl eye-rolling and scoffing. And it doesn't stop there. Throughout he film we see various characters revealing themselves in ways that feel like terribly unnecessary pandering. It's an interesting element that made me wonder about other "geek franchises" and whether or not they also employ similar tactics. Though I did recently watched THE AVENGERS which is noticeably devoid of such moments. Could it be a product of the fact that one film is written by Kurtzman and Orci while the other was written by Joss Whedon? Probably. 

Apart from that though, the film is pretty fantastic! Let's get the stuff you could already assume right away: For one, the film is gorgeous. The colors and angles Abrams's makes use of through the film are breathtaking (apart from an egregious use of lens flares that I'll get to later). Taking place nearly 100% in space, the environment Abrams's and his DP Daniel Mindel (who does a lot of work for Ridley and Tony Scott -- commonly known as visual directors) feels real enough while still having that air of "Wow! Why don't we have that stuff yet!?" Obviously I'm not sure how the original series with Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner looked, but the set designs seems like, especially when it comes to the U.S.S. Enterprise, something that could have just been an updated version of what they had back then. For two, the villain is pretty great. A nearly unrecognizable Eric Bana plays Nero, a Romulan (which may or may not be the race of creatures that Mitt comes from) who vows to take revenge on Spock and all man and Vulcankind after the former was unable to save Nero's homeplanet from being destroyed. One of the scenes I am most familiar with from the original series is one in which Shatner battles (if you can call it that) what is clearly a slightly pudgy man in a green alien (if you can call it that) upon a rocky, barren planet. It's wonderful in the saddest way possible. Thankfully, a sadness filled Shatner fist-fight this movie is not. The warfare between Nero and Spock and his constituents is more a psychological one, Nero waging war with actions that are physically devastating but even more so emotionally scarring. 

That's probably what I like most about STAR TREK. From what I can gather, the series have always had a hint (a dash, a cup, or a gallon) of kitsch and camp. It's, like with DOCTOR WHO, what makes it great! It's an aspect I love in almost everything and the balance Abrams is able to strike between sci-fi camp and serious drama is perfect. I wasn't exactly sure what I was expecting, all I know is that I wasn't expecting the movie to be as funny as it was. I was aware that the character Scotty (played by the magnificently cast Simon Pegg) was always, at least for my money, a constant source of comedy with his, "I'm givin' her all she's got Cap'n!" or his "I cannot do that Cap'n!" I wasn't aware, however, of the character of James Tiberius Kirk. 

Captain Kirk (played by the ever charming Chris Pine who must take after his even charming-er on-screen dad, Chris Hemsworth) is imbued with the perfect ratio of rebellious, outside-the-lines cocky jokester and serious, "I actually know what I'm doing" skill. It's something the film shows us has been with him from an early age, stealing his uncle's vintage convertible and taking for a test spin off the side of a cliff, and it is particularly brought to life in his interactions with Spock (played by Zachary Quinto). While I'm not sure how STAR TREK fans felt about the casting, Quinto's Spock was everything I wanted from the character. He has the steely, emotionless demeanor in front of his superiors and his crew, but we also get to see how he was bullied as a child for having a human mother. The way the film plays upon this idea of his human-side being a hindrance versus an actual benefit is one of my favorite aspects of the movie. He is constantly stuck in this dichotomy of having to be and act like that a Vulcan is supposed to be and act like while still trying to deal with some of the hardest and most joyfullest things a person can go through -- losing one's mother and finding true love. 

Both Spock and Kirk are struggling with two separate halves of themselves. It makes them incredible deep and complex characters and infuses their interactions with palpable magnetism. Whenever the two are together, everything else vanishes. It is only these two men (well, a man and a half-man) as they war with each other while another war is raging inside themselves. It's to Abrams's everlasting credit that he is able to create such fully fleshed out stories for his main characters. Even though I knew little about any of these characters, other than the things everyone knows them for, as the credits were rolling I felt as if I had an intimate knowledge of what made each of these unique and interesting people tick (obviously apart from some of the more minor characters, who I would've liked to have seen more of but understand why that wasn't possible). 

And while we're on the topic of the story, let me again praise (I know I'm doing a ton of this) Abrams (and begrudgingly Kurtzman and Orci) for how they justified this completely new take on the classic STAR TREK. The alternate universe plot device is so simple and so perfect that it just left me saying, "Well, of course it's an alternate universe. How could it be anything else?" Inevitably when Hollywood decides to reboot a franchise, there will always naysayers who question why it's happening, why we need new stories and new actors playing characters that are so identifiable with the actors playing them. I mean, years after STAR TREK it was not William Shatner playing T. J. Hooker, it was Captain Kirk, beamed down to be a police officer for a while. "SH!T MY DAD SAYS? More like SH!T CAPTAIN KIRK SAYS, amiright?!" But by not only writing in an alternate universe plot that plays perfectly into the story they're trying to tell and feels perfectly believable in this world, Abrams and company erase all that. These aren't the crew you knew from long ago. This isn't your U.S.S. Enterprise. This is a whole new world. Plus, it allows for splendidly portrayed interactions with Enterprise crew old and new -- and Leonard Nimoy is spectacular. Though his dialogue is filled with many pander-quotes, his conversations with Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock are some of the best scenes in the movie that really help build Kirk and Spock's relationship into what it will ultimately be with Shatner and Nimoy. Plus he has one of the most hilarious long-running jokes where he plays on the classically held sci-fi nerd believes that meeting your future self will cause some space-time continuum-ripping paradox that would destroy the universe as we know it. It's those subtle moments of genre subverting humor that really set STAR TREK apart from its predecessors. 

Although the film is pretty fantastic, I do have one final quibble with it. The lens flares. Good god, the lens flares. For those of you who don't know, a lens flare is when light is shined directly into the camera lens modifying the image in a variety of ways and patterns. Now, don't get me wrong, lens flares can and have been used to great dramatic effect and can create a sense of realism -- giving the image a quality of being an unedited and original depiction of actual events. In the case of STAR TREK, however, J.J. Abrams goes off the deep end. In nearly every single scene of the film there is at least one intruding lens flare. While Abrams has gone record as saying that he used these flares to create a unique visual system as well as to hide some of the more CGI elements of the film. And while I can see that, Abrams also admits that he watches the film sometimes and in some scenes says to himself, "Oh that's ridiculous. That was too many" and that I can see even more. The unique visual system creates ends up being more distracting and eventually maddening than anything. Many times I found myself getting completely immersed in a scene only to have the movie slap me out of it like Cher in MOONSTRUCK with a particularly egregious lens flare. The same thing happens again in Abrams's last film, SUPER 8. I don't know why he has such an obsession with these flares, but from me to you, J.J. -- Notch it back, chief. 

All in all, though, J.J. Abrams's STAR TREK is absolutely fantastic. It reboots a beloved franchise in a way that I have never seen done before and it does it amazingly well. The possibilities that the film opens up for future movies in endless. Not only can they do a riff on literally any story that has ever been done in the STAR TREK universe, they are also able to, as Fleetwood Mac might say, go their own way and create new and exciting stories for grizzled fanboys/girls and newcomers like me alike because of sweet, sweet alternate universes. They also are left in the enviable position of being able to write a part for any of the stars of the 60s series (and perhaps the other series? I don't know exactly how the universes of NEXT GENERATION and the other series work) with relative ease, though if this happens I hope they find other creative methods to do instead of rehashing the black hole plot line. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay to Abrams's film is that it made me a fan of not only the movie, but of the idea of STAR TREK. It made me want to do back and connect the proverbial dots. It made me want to find out if and how this story connects to the overarching plot of this unknown franchise. It made me want to boldly go where I have never gone before. 

9 out of 10

Back Again: Review of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

On Thursday night I was lying in bed, jealously reading all the Facebook statuses of my friends either on their way or already in the theater to see Peter Jackson's latest trip to Middle Earth, THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY. "Well," I thought," at least I'll get to see all their review updates tomorrow morning!" I was excited at the prospect of having some of my trepidation about the film quelled by what I hoped to be singing praises and much rejoicing. However, what I woke up to was nothing of the sort. 

What greeted me as I logged on mere hours before Elizabeth and I were about to make the journey to Huntington for a day of shopping and movie-going, was instead a resounding silence. I looked and looked, but none of my friends who were so jubilant about seeing the film at midnight had posted any reaction statuses. "Oh, God," I though to myself, "My worst fears have been realized! It must be a tragedy of a film!" But I am a hardy cinema-goer and on Elizabeth and I marched to Huntington, me trying to keep my excitement up despite the extreme nervousness I felt that my return to Middle Earth might be a treacherous one.

For those of you not familiar, Peter Jackson's eventual trilogy of films, THE HOBBIT, is an adapation of J. R. R. Tolkien's 1937 fantasy children's novel of the same title. It tells the story of a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins who is recruited by the wizard Gandalf the Grey to assist (and share in the treasure should they be successful) in helping a group of dwarves led by King Thorin Oakenshield to retake the dwarf city of Erebor and the treasure guarded there by the usurper and malevolent dragon, Smaug. 

Leaving the film I was relieved that the echoing silence of Facebook feedback was just a fluke. Though the film was not as good as I had hoped, it wasn't as bad as I feared. All of the actors embody their characters perfectly with particular note going to Martin Freeman's Bilbo being both nervous and courageous, serious and funny -- his talent for mannerisms used to its utmost potential. The dwarves also collectively and effectively translate and further the humor that Gimli brought to the three LORD OF THE RINGS films (one of my favorite touches) and the film as a whole (like the book) is much more fun and lighthearted than the more serious LORD OF THE RINGS and had me openly chuckling throughout. That being said, for the most part the film also manages to capture the most intense moments appropriately -- perhaps the most noteworthy example being the handling of the dwarves essential homelessness. 

The film also reinforces Peter Jackson's status as technical wizard. Though we were regrettably unable to see the film in 48 fps, we did see it in 3D (getting Elizabeth to agree to it was no small feat). That being said, the film has some of the best and subtle uses of 3D I've seen in quite some time and I can only imagine what they would be like with a higher frame rate. Also, though the film has a much higher quantity of CGI landscapes and effects, Jackson does not shy away from them. In one particular instance with the Goblin King, the camera lingers on a closeup of the disgusting visage of the festering ruler. Jackson wants you to see every boil and pustular, scar and pock mark. And it looks frighteningly and nauseatingly gorgeous and realistic. There are a few scenes with landscapes that appear flat and lifeless, but for the most part all of the myth and wonder is there (complete with another wonderful score by Howard Shore).

That being said, this film is no LORD OF THE RINGS. Going in, I (as most people did) knew that Jackson's task would be a difficult one. When THE HOBBIT was originally two films it seemed more manageable. However, when Jackson changed it to construct another trilogy, it worried many people. A trilogy for LORD OF THE RINGS made sense. Three films for three books. Even I can do that math! THE HOBBIT, on the other hand, is one book and is shorter than any of the LORD OF THE RINGS books. Attempting to stretch that amount of material across three films is nearly impossible. And you really feel it. At almost 3 hours, the runtime for AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is nearly unforgivable. Though I (who am fairly well versed in the lore) and Elizabeth (who is not) felt that what was presented was enough to keep the audience interested for the most part, little happens. The film is (as it has to be) mostly exposition. And when it is not setting up what will occur later in the story, it reverts to a pattern of brief fight, run away, brief fight, run away. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

Many things could have easily been cut from the film and it would have not only been stronger, it would have accomplished the same purpose in far less time. At one point I had to run to the restroom and chose a particularly uninteresting (to me) scene between Gandalf and Saruman. When I returned a few minutes later, the two were still talking and remained talking for what seemed like a while after. Nothing in this film is quick or concise. Even down to the names. It is always Thorin, son of Thrain, son of Thror, King Under the Mountain, which is interesting the first couple of times, but at a certain point the lineage is established. And although I am not necessarily complaining as he was one of the better parts of the film, adding elements from the SILMARILLION (in this case a story arc with Radagast the Brown) though fun, seem like padding more than anything else. 

All of this being said, I think it's important to note the one thing that the film did that I believe is its strongest point. Earlier yesterday, an indescribably horrible tragedy occurred in Connecticut. No matter whether you were connected directly to the event or not, it made you think and reconsider what kind of world we live in and it really affected both Elizabeth and I throughout the day. However, for the 169 minutes that I sat in the theater in Huntington, WV, I wasn't in the United States. I didn't have to deal with tragedies or ask any deep and unnerving questions about my fellow men. No, for 169 minutes I was in Middle Earth, watching a group of dwarves and a hobbit and a wizard that I know all too well. For 169 minutes I was with them as they banded together, supported one another, and fought the forces of evil. And for 169 minutes I got to witness the start of a journey that will span the next three years of my life. It's a world where good inevitably triumphs over evil. Where even the smallest of creatures can makes an enormous difference. Despite the problems it may have, Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY does what makes cinema one of the major loves of my life. And it did it at a time I needed it most. 

7 out of 10

It's Always Mental in Philadelphia: Review of SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

The first thing that popped into my mind after the leaving the cinema having just watched David O. Russell's newest film, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, was, "Wow, that has got to be one of the worst movie names in a long, long time!" And it's true, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is such a frustratingly awkward and textually insignificant title that it makes me a little crazy. Which, appropriately enough, is kind of what BOOK THAT COACHES USE TO HOLD ALL THEIR TEAMS FORMATIONS AND MOVEMENTS THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE AN INNER COATING OF ARGENTUM 47 is all about. 

The film tells the story of Pat (Bradley Cooper) a substitute history teacher from Philadelphia who has spent the last 8 months in a mental institution after finding his wife Nikki in the shower with another history teacher at their school and subsequently beating him into oblivion to Stevie Wonder's MY CHERIE AMOUR. Turns out Pat has bi-polar disorder and after 8 months he is released into the custody of his parents (Jackie Weaver and Robert De Niro). 

After arriving home, Pat commits to getting fit and reading books from Nikki's syllabus in an attempt to win her back. Needless to say, he has trouble adjusting. He rages at his parents, he rages at his doctor, he even rages at Ernest Hemingway for writing such depressing endings (a mode the film does not emulate)! That is until he meets his best friend Ronnie's wife's sister Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). Tiffany is a young, sultry, and equally screwed up individual who just recently lost her police officer husband. The two immediately clash due to their direct and inappropriate personalities. However, as time progresses they realize how they can be mutually beneficial to one another. Tiffany can get a letter from Pat to Nikki so that he can begin trying to piece his marriage back together without having to worry about that silly restraining order. Tiffany, on the other hand, needs a dance partner for this couples event and who better to get as a partner than this bi-polar fella with no filter and a Narcissus Complex?! Hey, at least you know he's been working out! 

This film is not the significant diversion from the classic romantic comedy that David O. Russell and all the advertising and publicity would have you believe. It is, however, a pretty good film. Despite having most of the same contrived plot points and predictable action as other romcoms, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK does the one thing that romantic comedies have to do right really well -- the chemistry between the two leads. Despite the rather large gap between ages (Cooper being 36 at the time of shooting, Lawrence 21), the relationship between the two works much better than it should. This is most likely a product of the Jennifer Lawrence's acting chops. Although Cooper is good, he ends up playing the the kind of arrogant narcissist character that he seems to play in all the comedies he stars in (more on this later). Lawrence on the other hand continues to show that she is one of the most talented actresses of our generation. With this role she completely melts all thoughts of Katniss Everdeen away from her persona and it's often hard to even fathom that the two characters are played by the same actress. It may be (it is) too early to say this, but given her natural ability (She has had zero professional training) it is possible to see her as our generation's Meryl Streep. She is that good. 

Speaking of good acting, there is so much of it in this movie! Chris Tucker is incredibly funny in a rare, relatively subdued performance, as is John Ortiz as Pat's internally raging best-friend. But the most pleasant surprise (and perhaps my favorite thing in the film) is the reemergence of Robert De Niro. For so many years he has settled on roles in which is plays basically a parody of himself. Here, however, as Pat's OCD-affected father he shows why people consider he is one of the greatest living actors, and it's wonderful to see him finally again in a role that he actually cares about. 

All in all, the film is a good one. The acting is great, the music which combines a Danny Elfman score with classic rock is pitch perfect as is the norm with  Elfman, and the cinematography is amazing. The way O. Russell moves the camera really reflects his work on THE FIGHTER. As Pat's family verbally spars with one another, the camera bobs and weaves between them, getting close, sweeping around, pulling back, and moving back in again. It gives each altercation the feel of a boxing match and really adds intensity to an otherwise really funny film. 

But while the film is really well done, it's not the something special that it would like to be. Looking through David O. Russell's filmography (and his life in general), it's clear he's really interested in two things -- fighting and mental illness. And while SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK does the former really well, the latter is more problematic. While the mental illness of Pat, his father, and Tiffany is billed as a big plot point and major crux of the film, it quickly fades into the background. After the 30 minutes or so, Pat becomes less of a tortured soul, and more of just another cocky asshole trying to get his wife back (I told you I'd get back to it!). It becomes clear that instead of actually creating a romantic comedy that deals with this really dark subject, SILVER LININGS simply uses the mental illness as the way to get Pat and Tiffany together (Look, they're both mentally ill! It's a perfect match!). 

But despite its problems, including tonal problems and extremely contrived drama and a gambling/sports fan plot that only ends of being really confusing (and, in the case of the gambling, a completely incorrect depiction of how things actually work), it's still a well done romantic comedy. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence have amazing chemistry and the supporting cast is filled with strong actors who are all amazing in their own right. I was just expecting something more innovative and fresh, something more risky.

And a better title. I would have really liked a better title.

7.5 out of 10