Promised Land

Matt Damon reteams with Gus Van Sant, this time partnering with pal John Krasinski in writing a simple Brockovitchian tale about corporate greed destroying small towns. It's a noble effort on their part, and has plenty of character development, but it is a bit unsatisfying in its ending, despite a small unexpected turn.

Damon is a newly appointed executive for a multi-billion dollar energy company, and he's sent to a small town in the Midwest to lease land for fracking, or using high pressure water to break up rock underground and release gas deposits. An environmentally concerned Krasinski shows up with his own agenda and puts Damon's efforts at risk once the townfolk are given the information that might sway their otherwise obvious decision to accept the lease money.

Damon is no Will Hunting, and Krasinski is no Affleck. The lack of Bostonian influence almost seems blasphemous, and the story is unoriginal, and intentionally unsatisfying, which is the most unsatisfying thing about it. Ponderous ethical dilemmas and the David and Goliath hopelessness are themes that are a bit too pervasive in this otherwise quaint film about relationships.

Driven mostly by Americana scenic beauty and witty dialogue, Van Sant is obviously doing Damon a favor, and this is clearly a passion of both he and Krasinski.

There are cliche characters, such as the gorgeous single schoolteacher who is just a bit too sophisticated to be living in the town, played by Rosemarie DeWitt, who I find incredibly attractive in that Lauren Graham/Mary Louise Parker kind of way. Then there's Hal Holbrook, a high school science teacher who is far too educated with engineering PhD's and an aerospace career behind him. He's the voice of intelligence for the town, and they seem to rally behind his "googling" efforts. There's Lucas Black, who plays ignorant redneck better than about anyone around, and he plays... the ignorant redneck who you just have a soft spot for because he's just so clueless. Finally, there's one of my favorite character actors; Titus Welliver who is the guy who owns the local gas/gun/guitar/grocery store and who doesn't quite fit in with the rest of his townies.

The bright spot falls on Frances McDormand, who is endearing and witty as always. She's Damon's assistant who seems to be more qualified and professional than he is, but who is loyal and supportive, even when the chips are down.

The problem with this film is that none of the relationships really go anywhere, and none of the characters ever really develop, save Damon. He puts himself into the limelight, and we see his confidence fade in lieu of a change of conscience, but for him to be a hotshot executive in a new position of power, I just had a hard time believing that he never had all the information in the first place, or could have as much of a conscience as he does considering what he does for a living.

The intent is great, and the message is clear. Unfortunately, this would make a better PSA than a film. I just didn't feel invested and maybe that's the pessimist in me, but it was just kind of a fizzle.

Don't expect to be wowed on this one. It's We Bought a Zoo Matt Damon, not Jason Bourne or Will Hunting. Krasinski's character is weakly established, and the more I think about it, the less important any of the supporting cast seem to be. With the exception of McDormand. I see this as an Oscar hopeful from Damon/Krasinski/Van Sant's eyes, but it will unfortunately come up short of a single nomination. It won two prizes at the National Board of Review Awards including the coveted "Freedom of Expression" award. That's about all it deserves. 5/10.

Zero Dark Thirty

As it happened, I was in New York city over winter break, and the most anticipated film of the season was open in limited release, so I thought I would drop in to Times Square on Christmas night and watch it a few weeks before it comes to Seattle.

Kathryn Bigelow has made a name for herself in a big way as the director in the realistic fiction war genre, but she tackles a controversial story with the accurate (or is it?) events chronicling the manhunt of Osama Bin Laden in detail, down to the graphic interrogation techniques by the CIA. The film has its detractors, saying that it is based on fabricated events and speculation, and has even been decried by member of Congress who declare that the United States does not torture its detainees! Let's be honest, it may not be happening now, but from 2001-2009 or so? Absolutely there were CIA interrogators waterboarding suspected terrorists with ties to Al Quaeda.

Half based on the current NY Times bestseller titled No Easy Day by a Seal Team Six member who claims he was there for the operation ironically titled Neptune Spear (SEALS?), Bigelow and her trusty writer, Mark Boal fill the screen with rising tension from the darkness of the opening scene all the way to the satisfying ending, keeping very much in line with the reports and the literature that is out there. Obviously characters have to be dramatized, and dialogue concocted, but for my money, it seemed right on. There is no sensationalization and I'm not sure why anyone would question the integrity of the information, it is solidly done.

The film opens with a series of audio clips played over a black screen. 911 calls, confused air traffic controllers, and other chaotic noise that we all know too well from that tragic day eleven years ago. It was much more viceral for me, being in the heart of New York city, surrounded in a movie theatre by people who were actually there, and as the woman cried on the phone, telling the 911 operator that she didn't want to die, I felt a chill run down my spine and knew I was in for an emotional ride.

The film progresses from 9/11/01 up until the night that Bin Laden was finally executed, on 5/2/11. It is a ten year manhunt that cost billions of dollars in military operations and economic aftershock.

Jessica Chastain plays Maya, the CIA analyst who makes it her personal goal to find the clever terrorist, often going beyond the call of her own duty. She dauntlessly accepts the task, and impresses everyone she encounters with her tenacity and poise. She has been receiving acclaim for her performance, and rightfully so. She is the anti-hero in the middle of a testosterone-fueled military black-ops world, yet she earns the respect of the men who give her orders. If this film makes the same kind of run that The Hurt Locker did a few years back, she will likely win Best Actress. I still like Jennifer Lawrence, but Chastain is tremendous.

Supporting cast members include two factions; the suits, and the SEALs. Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, and James Gandolfini are terrific on the screen, particularly Jason Clarke. He plays the CIA interrogator who is merciless in the confines of a dark cell, but conflicted on the outside. I give him an outside shot at an Oscar nomination. His performance is incredible. Chandler plays Joseph Bradley, and Gandolfini is Leon Panetta in a short, but memorable role. Jennifer Ehle is a CIA operative who befriends Chastain's Maya and shows the true danger of the business they are in.

By the time the SEALs finally enter the screen, we are entering the final act. Although heavily advertised, Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt are only on the screen for a handful of minutes, and Pratt shucks his normal funny guy routine (Parks and Recreation) for an unexpected, yet refreshing action role. He does provide the small bits of comic relief in an otherwise heart-stopping sequence of events, but those expecting Edgerton screen time will be disappointed.

That's about the only disappointing thing about the film. The raid sequence brings us to the heightened climax of the hunt, with a pressuring feel of urgency. Although everyone in the Western world knows what happened on May 2nd, Bigelow manages to keep you on the edge of your seat with stealthy movements, darkness, and an appropriate absence of musical score at just the right moments.

Meticulously recreated, the actions mirror that from the book No Easy Day, which leads me to believe that accuracy was her foremost priority. That's what makes the film so resonating. It is reality on the screen.

On paper, an eleven year investigation to find a man may seem to be a bit trivial and even banal, but Bigelow and especially writer Mark Boal make it accessible even to someone without a clue of military or CIA protocol, and they make it interesting. There are a few very brief lulls in the action, but they are short lived through explosive and unexpected jolts of action thrown in to maintain adequate pacing.

From start to finish, it is a thrill ride worthy of Oscar gold, and is my favorite film of 2012, but I'm thinking it is a bit too heavy and close to home for a lot of people, and I still like Argo as Best Picture and would recommend it to the masses. I think Bigelow will edge out Ang Lee for Director due to the sheer heaviness of the subject, despite the lack of special effects. Bigelow has a vision and follow-through that manipulates emotion, and has zeroed in and locked on the modern warfare genre. Expect more than adequate nominations, and is definitely worth watching if you can stomach the torture. Not too graphic, but absolutely stays with you long after viewing. 10/10.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A word about the experience before the review. I went to one of the select theatres that showed The Hobbit in 3D and IMAX, and also ran a 9 minute (seemed like 20) preview of 2013's Star Trek: Into Darkness. I can't recommend this option enough. Star Trek looks absolutely phenomenal. J.J. Abrams has found his niche and now has an endless supply of storylines in the Trek universe and beyond. Spectacular effects and will truly be one of the biggest hits of the summer blockbuster season.

Peter Jackson brings us back to the magical world of Middle Earth after a nine year absence and multiple denials that he would attach himself to this project in any capacity beyond writer and executive producer. Guillermo Del Toro was going to take on the film for awhile, but settled for a writing credit when the job got too daunting. With a production budget of nearly half a billion dollars, the single story has been broken into three films, much like Lord of the Rings, and the investment will certainly prove profitable, as opening weekend projections look north of $100 million for domestic shows.

Between 2001 and 2003, Jackson took us on a nine hour, three film journey that won 17 Oscars out of a staggering 30 nominations. It was an epic trilogy unlike anything since the original Star Wars, and will likely not be eclipsed anytime soon (the one exception being James Cameron's little project). Jackson has the opportunity to take us on an equally intoxicating journey with a few key differences.

There has been some grumbling among the masses about the decision to draw out the story into three movies, but I need to tell you, anyone who takes offense to the single story being made into a nine hour trilogy needs to watch the first installment and then re-evaluate where their complaint is coming from. It's not from a profit-driven perspective, it's that there is just that much rich material that Peter Jackson and his writing team need to put onto the screen. There isn't any filler, and there is more than enough action to sustain the first movement.

We return to Middle Earth for the J.R.R. Tolkien classic which introduces us to a young Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of the Shire. Among the top five selling fiction novels of all time (Lord of the Rings being on that list as well), the story is well known and adored by millions. Bilbo takes up with a dozen dwarves on a journey to reclaim their homeland and treasures. The enigmatic dragon, Smaug stands in their way, and they encounter various creatures, foes, allies, and obstacles in the magical realm of Middle Earth. Elves, orcs, goblins, trolls, rock monsters, and giant eagles all play a role in this fantastical adventure written for men, women, and children alike.

Those of you who are expecting Lord of the Rings, Part IV should brace yourselves. This one is better. The internal and external pressure seems to have been lifted, and although it is a mammoth task to put together a film of this scope, it seems a bit more effortless, and the digital effects are familiar, so a bit easier to pull off. Additionally, seeing this in 3D and IMAX add an additional element of depth and immersion that the first trilogy would have definitely benefited from.

The first difference between Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit is that LOTR introduced us to the world of Middle Earth, and the evils and creatures that stir in its realms. The Hobbit is much more of a character-driven story. Bilbo Baggins is the protagonist that was missing from the first trilogy (although ensemble worked). Played by Martin Freeman, he is the perfect actor to play the anxious little Hobbit who is out of place on this dangerous adventure. Bilbo is the heart of this journey, and he's a character with heart. I can't imagine anyone seeing this film without having seen (or at least being familiar with) LOTR so the back story is less necessary, and we can jump right into chapter one, so to speak.

The second noticeable difference is that the tone is much lighter. It's almost as if Peter Jackson decided not to be quite so serious, and to enjoy the dialogue a bit more than in his past films. There is humor and the characters seem more at ease with themselves, and less wooden. It's hard to describe but the characters seem more genuine and soulful (even the ones who appeared in the other films).

Shot in 48 frames per second instead of the traditional 24, and released in 3D, The Hobbit is a more progressive film-making approach. Pushing the envelope like some of his contemporaries, Jackson didn't make a poor decision, and to be honest, I really only noticed a difference during fast-paced action sequences, which even a decade ago would have been very cheesy looking. The visual effects team did a tremendous job integrating set with animation, and characters.

Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is a much more relatable and likeable Hobbit than his nephew, Frodo (sorry, Elijah Wood). Additionally, the star of the previous installments, Gollum (played spectacularly by Andy Serkis), steals the show for the fifteen minutes or so of screen time that he receives. An absolutely brilliant acting job with motion-capture and voice work by a man who is repeatedly robbed of Oscar nominations. His compensation this time around? Second Unit Director title. Nice work, Serkis. I still think Gollum is a magical character, and we'll see more of him in the next two films. The rest of the cast are unknowns (the dwarves), or characters returning to their roles from the original films (Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, and of course, Ian McKellen).

I read this book this past summer with my wife in anticipation of this film, and my prediction of how and when it would end lined up perfectly with what appeared on the screen. There is satisfaction from the steady barrage of battle and action sequences, but the ending seems to be a natural spot. The three hours seemed like they took forever, but in a good way. As a viewer, you are sucked back into this magical world, and you are patiently going to wait for the next part. December of 2013 brings us The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and December of 2014 brings us The Hobbit: There and Back Again. I personally can't wait for either.

The score is hands down the best of the year, and the effects are undeniably state of the art. I predict a Best Picture nomination, numerous technical categories (and wins), and music gold. It's a great film worth watching, but please, see it in 3D. It's the best since Avatar. 9/10.

Adam's Academy Ballot

There is no shortage of great films and performances this year, and unfortunately, some of the best probably won't be nominated, so I am going to make my list of the most deserving for the big categories.

Keep in mind, I haven't seen Hobbit or Zero Dark Thirty yet, but I'm confident that they will make my cut given my mercurial taste in film (sarcasm). Additionally, I don't believe that foreign films should cross over from foreign film categories, as that would be double-dipping, ergo, no nomination for Amour.

I also tend to shy away from period pieces for the most part (I did love Atonement), so Les Miserables, and Anna Karenina are off my radar. That said, here is my ballot.

These are the best of the best this past year.

Best Picture Nominees

Argo
Zero Dark Thirty
Cabin in the Woods
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Silver Linings Playbook
The Dark Knight Rises
The Hobbit
Looper
Skyfall

Who should win? Despite my affinity for realistic military films, and I'm sure Zero Dark Thirty will make Hurt Locker look like Rambo, I have to say that Argo was the most well done all-around film of the year. Affleck did a wonderful job packaging a stellar cast in a too crazy to be true story with suspense and a satisfying ending. I felt the same way about Moneyball last year, and although it didn't win, it should have. That's Argo. Who will win? Lincoln. Possible spoiler? Zero Dark Thirty.

Best Director Nominees

Ang Lee
Steven Spielberg
Ben Affleck
Kathryn Bigelow
Christopher Nolan

Who should win? Ang Lee. He took a clever and original story and did the unthinkable; he translated it to the screen. Despite the sea-sickness effect, you felt that Suraj Sharma was actually in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. beautiful direction and cinematography worthy of an award. Who will win? Steven Spielberg. Possible spoiler? Kathryn Bigelow.

Best Actor Nominees

Daniel Day-Lewis
Joaquin Phoenix
Bradley Cooper
John Hawkes
Denzel Washington

Who should win? Daniel Day-Lewis. His portrayal of Lincoln was nothing short of breath-taking. Who will win? Day-Lewis. Possible spoiler? Joaquin Phoenix. If buzz builds back up for his outstanding performance in the Master, he might blindside Day-Lewis.

Best Actress Nominees

Jennifer Lawrence
Quvenzhane Wallis
Jessica Chastain
Marion Cotillard
Naomi Watts

Who should win? Jennifer Lawrence. Who will win? Jennifer Lawrence. Possible spoiler? Jessica Chastain.

Best Supporting Actor

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Alan Arkin
Tommy Lee Jones
Andy Serkis
Leonardo DiCaprio

Who should win? Tommy Lee Jones. Who will win? Tommy Lee Jones. Possible spoiler? Philip Seymour Hoffman. Should be a tighter race than it will be.

Best Supporting Actress

Anne Hathaway
Helen Hunt
Sally Field
Amy Adams
Judi Dench

Who should win? Anne Hathaway. Who will win? Anne Hathaway. Possible spoiler? Helen Hunt. Too bad the Sessions was released to such a small audience.

Original Screenplay

Zero Dark Thirty
The Master
Django Unchained
Moonrise Kingdom
Looper

Who should win? Zero Dark Thirty. Who will win? Zero Dark Thirty. Possible spoiler? Moonrise Kingdom. The academy has a soft spot for the quirky Wes Anderson.

Adapted Screenplay

Lincoln
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Hobbit
Silver Linings Playbook

Who should win? Argo. Great ending, great cast. You can't write a better story. Who will win? Lincoln. Possible spoiler? Silver Linings Playbook.

Recap for my picks for Oscar gold:

Picture - Argo
Director - Ang Lee
Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis
Actress - Jennifer Lawrence
Supporting Actor - Tommy Lee Jones
Supporting Actress - Anne Hathaway
Original Screenplay - Zero Dark Thirty
Adapted Screenplay - Argo

There you have it, feel free to comment away.

Silver Linings Playbook

David O. Russell received considerable flack from Mark Wahlberg when he cast Bradley Cooper in the lead role of his follow-up to The Fighter, as the former wanted to reunite with the director, and earn an Oscar nomination. I wholeheartedly agree with Russell's choice. Bradley Cooper gives the performance of his career, and shows his depth and range escaping his Hangover character, or wannabe action star status.

Cooper plays Pat Solitano, Jr. and he is attempting to regain his grasp on his life as he leaves an 8 month term in a mental institution. He has lost his wife, his job, and has a tenuous relationship with his father and brother. He suffers with bipolar disorder, but Silver Linings Playbook offers a refreshing perspective on the topic of mental illness. Cooper plays it very straight forward, no false character pretenses, or clauses that impact your thoughts of him. He's a genuine nice guy dealing with his own demons. He has had questionable judgement, but at the same time, has been dealt a bad hand in life.

Silver Linings Playbook is a story about redemption and a fresh start. Pat tries to reconcile with his wife, working on all of the flaws that she pointed out to him prior to his institutionalization, with the last obstacle being the restraining order. Along the way, he makes an unusual friend named Tiffany, played brilliantly by Jennifer Lawrence, who has demons of her own. Together the two form a unique bond that grows, but ultimately proves therapeutic for both.

The background players are what round out the cast, particularly Robert DeNiro, John Ortiz, and surprisingly, Chris Tucker. DeNiro is the caring, yet frustrated father of Pat, and he is struggling to open a restaurant, becoming a bookmaker as a stopgap and financial safety net. Ortiz is Pat's best friend and liason to his estranged wife. Tucker on the other hand, provides some much welcome comic relief as a mentally unstable friend of Pat's who gives some sage advice and reinforces the idea that family and friends are the most important thing in life. Jacki Weaver plays the sympathetic mother who never gives up on her boy.

This may be DeNiro's best performance since The Good Shepherd. He channels the emotion that has been absent from his films for decades, and confidently plays a very complicated character. There are a couple of emotionally intense scenes, and DeNiro is always in the middle.

Chris Tucker may be coming back, ditching his goofy comic character, and performing in his first non-Rush Hour film in over 15 years. I am curious if he receives some work in the very near future based on his performance in this film.

Finally, John Ortiz is building quite a resume, acting alongside some of the best in the business and quietly becoming a supporting stalwart. An interesting thought - the role of Tony Mendez in Argo would have been a great leading man coming out party for Ortiz, but Affleck decided to bogart it and play the 40 year old Hispanic man himself. If only I were a casting director.

set in middle-class Philadelphia. Much like The Fighter, the daily lives of the working man are part of the story. Surrounded by friends, family, and fellow Eagles fans, dysfunction seems almost normal, and you can't help but feel the love that these people have for each other. I'm a sucker for stories where people use sports as a coping mechanism for the difficulties of their lives, and it's a very natural vehicle for bonding. Well done, Russell.

I like this film because it toes the line between drama and comedy. The acting is top notch, and will score Oscar nominations for Cooper, Lawrence, and DeNiro. The film will be recognized in Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, and I would say Russell is on the fringe for Best Director. It's a very honest look at mental illness, but does so respectfully and with integrity. 9/10.

Life of Pi

Yann Martel published the Life of Pi in 2001, and it received critical acclaim from the start. It is one of those stories that resonates with you long after you read it due to its originality and pure beauty. Ang Lee captures this beauty and bottles it in one of the most effective 3D films since Avatar. The story however, doesn't quite translate to the screen as easily.

The story follows a young Indian boy named Pi as he struggles to find his religious orientation, and his true path in life. His family owns a zoo, and during a move from India to Canada, their ship sinks and he finds himself in a life boat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and a Bengal tiger.

It appears to be an impossible task to bring this eclectic grouping to life on the screen, but Ang Lee does so with grace and originality. The special and visual effects are nothing short of astonishing, and his choice of which details to include, and which seem trivial is remarkable. I was a huge fan of this book when I read it (because I heard Ang Lee was making it into a movie), and I was not let down at all. It stayed true to the story, and more specifically, to the author's intent.

It is rated PG, which suggests that it is appropriate for all audiences, but my wife and I agree that it should probably be PG-13. This is not a film or a story for children. Survival on the high seas with animals eating each other is not something that children need to see. The twist at the end is also for a much more mature audience, as the story without a good amount of reflection is lost.

Ang Lee did it justice. He added a few bits of his own flare, and will certainly reap the award benefits for his troubles. Life of Pi is the most beautiful film of the year with the most intoxicating visuals. I put him down as Best Director, but the film isn't quite good enough to take the big prize. Not for a lack of trying, I don't think anyone could have done a better job. Painstaking details were put into many of the animal CGI effects, and it is amazing.

As I said, Avatar was the last time that the colors and effects moved me using the 3D technology, but in this case, the movement was a bit too much. If you are one who gets seasick or who has any trouble with the 3D format, you might want to wait for DVD on this one. There were a few times I had to remove my glasses and rub my eyes, and the movement of the ocean was at times a bit too realistic.

I liked this movie quite a bit. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it was mesmerizing and beautiful in its presentation. Danny Elfman provides a great score, but it's really the effects that win the audience over. A Zebra swimming or jumping from a ship, or a Bengal tiger emoting his frustration or hunger to his survival companion. Simply beautiful. 8/10.

Red Dawn

After nearly a year on the back burner, moviegoers everywhere finally got to see the North Korean invasion of Spokane, Washington. The rewrites had to be done, as the original remake (is that an oxymoron?) pitted the rural high school kids against the Chinese, which is a much more believable plot. However, with geopolitical alliances and Hollywood economic projections, China makes a much better customer than they do a... villain? So, let's pick on the one kid on the playground without anyone to protect them. North Korea. And let's be honest, there is no sleep being lost on this choice.

The original film, circa 1984, preyed on the cold war fears of the Reagan era. Russians invading Colorado seems absurd until you have Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze fight back in letterman jackets. They make it look cool, and with girlfriends Jennifer Grey and Lea Thompson, you have a regular Brat Pack at war with the Reds.

This film is fun for many reasons. The first is that everyone likes an underdog story. The second is patriotism. The third is America. Could it get better than this? Entertaining? Yes. Great filmmaking? No.

The Eckert brothers are living the American Dream in Spokane, WA. One has returned home from the Marine Corps, and the other is the high school quarterback with the cheerleader girlfriend. Their dad is the sheriff of the town. There is a faint hint of tension within the household, but that's back story gibberish. The real take away is that all of them are at least 25 years old. Think 90210, only modernized.

Anyway, we get to know a couple of the characters enough to know that the older brother (Hemsworth) is patriotic, but ran away when his mom died, and the younger brother (Peck) has a chip on his shoulder and doesn't ever listen to advice. Are these traits that will guide their actions over the course of the film? Maybe...

Anyway, the North Koreans attack by setting off an EMP, and then parachuting into Spokane. Let me tell you, I've been to Spokane, and there's nothing militarily strategic about that place. Anyway, the US military is nowhere to be found and the boys have to round up their motley crew of friends and stragglers and go on the offensive.

The original was full of action and intrigue, but the plot just doesn't work today. First of all, the North Koreans could never penetrate North America except through Alaska. Second, Russia would never ally with them. Third, Spokane would not be chosen as a strategic site for any foreign power. Finally, they would not allow citizens to go about their daily lives under "occupied territory". This was my biggest gripe. How better for guerrillas to disrupt operations than by being allowed to walk around town, pretending to not be a revolutionary? The answer is that there isn't a better way.

The original had a darkness to the story. An impetus of mortality. I remember more than one of the main characters falling to a stray Russian bullet. The remake casts them as much more untouchable, and much better looking. It just didn't jive for me, and I never legitimately feared for their safety. Then again, I was nine or ten when I saw the original. Interesting fact; The 1984 Red Dawn was the most violent film ever made at the time. It recorded a violence rate of 134 per hour. Impressive, even by today's standards.

The film is ridiculous, and yet, it is a fun idea. Everyone has a dark fantasy of how they would respond in the event of a catastrophic change in their life. Usually this takes the form of Zombie apocalypse, political meltdown, or airborne virus. This rendition happens to be North Korean invasion. I like that the kids learned how to mobilize and use military grade weapons in an afternoon, and nobody really caves to their nerves, but it made it implausible within a ball of impossible.

The 17 year old I was with said it was one of the best movies he'd ever seen. Enough said. The actors should have been more unknown (and younger), and more of them should have died. The remake follows the original nicely, but I really feel the film makers had a ripe idea and if done in a clever and original way, it could have really been a well made movie. 6/10.

Lincoln

The anticipation for the 16th president's biopic based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's

Team of Rivals

has two conveniently divisive camps: Those who are Spielberg war drama disciples, and those who will follow Daniel Day-Lewis to the ends of the earth. I happen to fall into both categories. I would have to say however, that for this film, Daniel Day-Lewis wins.

I could imagine this film being created by another team, and perhaps with a different supporting cast, or another director, but after viewing, I simply cannot imagine any other actor, living or dead, who could channel Abraham Lincoln in the way that Day-Lewis did. Perhaps it's because he's the perfect age for the role, or maybe it's because he's just that damn good.

I was in awe of his screen presence from start to finish, and found myself imagining what his preparations must entail. He is surrounded by A-list actors in various roles, and I kept wondering "what must they be thinking, being in the presence of cinematic greatness?" There are a handful of exceptional actors in the world today, but Day-Lewis is in a class all his own. And deservedly so. He will become the first actor ever to receive 3 Best Actor Oscars, joining Jack Nicholson (2 Best, 1 Supporting) and Walter Brennan (3 Supporting Actor Oscars) as the only triple winners.

Premature you say? Not really. Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are amazing in The Master. Denzel Washington shined in Flight, and I'm very much looking forward to Silver Linings Playbook (Bradley Cooper) and The Sessions (John Hawkes). None of them however has the gift that Day-Lewis displayed as the great emancipator.

The film centers not around the life of the legendary leader, but around his desire to pass the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution before the Civil War is won. He knows that if it were to wait, the Southern delegations wouldn't vote to pass it, and there is already barely enough Republican support to pass it in the House of Representatives as is, so he digs deep in his bag of tricks, calling out favors to all of his constituents, and makes a pivotal play to the most Democrats just before the war ends at Appomattox.

Tony Kushner (Munich) deserves a great deal of credit for the success of this film. The dialogue and action, including introduction of characters and plot progression, hinge on his masterful writing. The other part is the brilliant supporting cast, but I'll hit on that in the next paragraph. Kushner makes the drama behind the Civil War accessible even to those who don't teach American History to middle schoolers, and creates tension in a mainstream, and family friendly way. However, from start to finish, the film never loses sight of the whole point. Progress and equal rights, which by today's standards seem obvious, but through Spielberg's lens is beautiful and poignant.

The supporting cast must have been clambering to work for Spielberg, and with Day-Lewis. In all, attached to this film, there are 8 Oscar wins, and an additional 17 nominations (my math may be a little off), but my point is, the cast is absolutely loaded with talent. Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in a pointless role), John Hawkes, Bruce McGill, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Jared Harris, Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, etc. You get the point. They all get to wear ridiculous facial hair, and generally all contribute to the movie magic with each recognizable face that enters the frame.

You get a concise history lesson in the span of 2 hours and 20 minutes, but it is so much more than that. It's a tribute to the greatest American President in history, and an acknowledgement of the decisions he made that shaped our country to be what it is today.

The film may surprise a few because it isn't a comprehensive biography by any means. It glosses over the early years, the rise to political power, and even his initial reactions to the Civil War. Spielberg was also wise to avoid a dramatic assassination scene. Everyone knows how the story ends (spoiler?) - Lincoln is killed, and the North wins the war. Slavery has been abolished forever changing the southern economy. Spielberg does a nice, subtle job with this one. Not the Oscar fodder of years past, but instead, a film that stands on its own legitimacy. Mostly by the brute strength of Daniel Day-Lewis.

Skip this if you hate movies, but see it if you want a clinic on what it means to be an actor. Best performance, film, adapted screenplay, and probably director of the year. 10/10.

Skyfall

James Bond is back with a new attitude and a new director. Superfan (and Oscar winner) Sam Mendes takes the helm of the 23rd incarnation of the agent provocateur, 007. Daniel Craig is back as the secret agent, and his image is becoming the gold standard for Ian Fleming's iconic character. Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and even Sean Connery just don't seem to fill the suit after Craig has taken over as the "blunt instrument" as Dame Judi Dench's M so eloquently put it.

No, this is Bond 2.0. The James Bond that doesn't just get the girl and save the day using badass technology, he's the Alpha male of the pack. He's tough and knows how to get the job done. He's let off his leash to do the dirty work of MI6, and is often the scapegoat in the process.

That said, I have been expecting a lot out of this film. Ever since Sam Mendes was revealed as the new director, I had high hopes. Mendes is probably best known for American Beauty in 1999, but he also did a remarkable job with Road to Perdition, Jarhead, and Revolutionary Road (huge critical disappointment, but a beautiful portrayal of the Yates classic). I honestly can't imagine why a director wouldn't want to do a Bond film, especially considering what is possible with technology today; special effects, geopolitical maelstroms, economic collapse, etc. The jams that James could get in are innumerable. The love for the character is practically universal. It's no wonder that Mendes took the bait.

The plot plays out conservatively; following the formula that has been successful for 22 other films. the opening sequence sets us up for the drama. In this case, Bond is "killed" while trying to rescue a computer drive containing the names of all NATO secret agents embedded with terrorist organizations. A terrifying thought if such a list truly exists.

Upon his resurrection, he hunts the man responsible, who is conveniently independently wealthy, with intricate knowledge of his opponents, who has a specific grudge that will dictate his insane actions. Along the way, Bond beds a beautiful exotic woman who is later killed, and he ends up setting the record straight about himself, and in the process saves the world. I couldn't have written it simpler myself.

And that's the problem. Daniel Craig is a superb Bond. He is charismatic, violent, rugged but confident, and unassuming. He fits the mold perfectly for a realistic incarnation of a British secret agent. The problem is that he seemingly does the same song and dance every time and it doesn't ever change. It doesn't ever get old either though. It's just plain fun. Seeing what the writing team comes up with for gadgets, capers, and special effects-laden action scenes is half the experience.

The other half is the bad guy. Javier Bardem brings his No Country for Old Men game as Silva, the gay, computer genius, former spy villain. He has terrible hair, a creepy set of dentures, and a peaceful yet vindictive agenda that makes him even more terrifying than if he were just plain mean. Of course he spends exorbitant amounts of resources on the most miniscule of plans, but he wouldn't be a James Bond baddie without that, so you can't fault the guy.

In my opinion, this may be the best Bond ever, and there are several reasons, all of which I invite debate. First of all, Daniel Craig portrays the character in the most effective way of all the actors who have held the title (and I am so glad that Clive Owen wasn't chosen). Javier Bardem brings a depth to the bad guy that is usually glossed over by the antagonist. He is frightening while being unassuming at the same time. A rare feat for any villain in any film (or story). You're never thinking that he's actually going to go full psycho, but you secretly know that he could at any time. Kind of like Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, but to a lesser degree. Thirdly, Mendes is subtle with the cliches. He stays away from fun gadgets, Aston Martins (mostly) and womanizing. Instead, he sets the table for subsequent films that no doubt are in the works (Craig has signed on for 2 more - next out in 2014. No official word on Mendes' involvement).

Newcomers Albert Finney and Ralph Fiennes also add to the star power and story-building core. In many of Bond films past, actors are one and done. I have a feeling we will see some of these guys for the next 2 films as well. I'm just hoping for an appearance by Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter in the next ones as well. The girl is less of a factor in the film (and honestly, not supermodel caliber), but she is more believable as the type of woman who would jump right in bed with a stranger, so it fits with the storyline more flawlessly as a sidebar and less of a plot point. Hey, at least it isn't Denise Richards.

What it lacks in excitement, it makes up for in familiar comfort. It's a safe action film that gets the job done. I can't say I wasn't a bit disappointed, but I may have been setting the bar too high. You know you're going to see it, it's James Bond. 8/10.

Flight

Denzel Washington throws his hat in the ring for the title of Best Actor in this year's Oscar race. He plays William "Whip" Whitaker, a commercial airline pilot with a nasty drinking problem. He executes a miraculous crash landing, saving nearly everyone on board, but the subsequent investigation finds him doing more soul-searching than he bargains for.

The story is less about Whip's heroic tale as it is about his dark demons, and the emotionally manipulative setup that makes the audience feel morally claustrophobic, needing to choose between drunken hero, or ethically-challenged villain. It's really compelling on paper, and has brilliant snippets in the previews, making it seem almost Best Picture-worthy. Almost.

The film unfolds much too quickly, with a 16-minute crash sequence within the first 25 minutes of the movie. It's too much, too fast. Let me say however, that the 16 minute sequence is absolutely enthralling. Edge-of-your-seat, nail-biting tension that is masterfully crafted by Robert Zemeckis, and brilliantly portrayed by the veteran Denzel Washington.

Once the opening sequence is over, the film stalls much like the plane gliding gently to its resting place on the ground, after performing a jaw-dropping roll that is stabilized by none other than Mr. Washington. Denzel is simply amazing. I envisioned a variety of other actors in the role, and it is true, many could have done it, but there is something about Denzel in his pilot's uniform that seals the deal. It was a great choice, and there were times that he was so convincing as the drunk, that I could almost smell the booze on his breath. Unfortunately, his character just wasn't very likeable, and his prideful denial of his problem tortured the story until the very end.

It's been nearly 20 years since Zemeckis won the Best Director statue for Forrest Gump, and this film was definitely his best since Cast Away in 2000. I couldn't help thinking that it was trying to be too many things at once though, and consequently disappointed in all of them. The story isn't about the crash, or the heroic anecdote. It isn't about the resolution of the investigation, or the investigators. It isn't about the victims, or about the perils of flying commercially. No, it's about alcoholism. A seemingly subtle tribute to Leaving Las Vegas. A clear Oscar hopeful that just goes too far with this theme and doesn't satisfy the promise made in the preview in the process.

The writer, John Gatins, who is a veteran of underdog feel-good stories, goes way out of his comfort zone here and finds himself in unfamiliar territory. After seeing the film, a conversation with friends brought up half a dozen ideas that would have provided a more satisfying conclusion. It's unfortunate that such a ripe tale was wasted by a lack of creative writing.

The supporting cast is just alright. Bruce Greenwood is the friendly face, playing the pilot's union rep who walks with Whip after the incident, and Don Cheadle goes through the motions as the unscrupulous lawyer who represents Whip. John Goodman overacts as the friendly neighborhood drug dealer, and the relatively unknown British actress Kelly Reilly conjures up an annoying southern accent to play the unnecessary drug addicted companion of Whip. I guess nobody was truly impressive save Washington. I was impressed to see James Badge Dale in a brief appearance as a cancer patient in the hospital, but this is primarily a one-man vehicle.

What would have given this film the little boost that it needed was if it held something back. 25 minutes into the film, you've seen the entire sequence of events unfold that lead to the crash. If there was something missing that we as an audience were to discover later, not even a twist, but a piece that adds suspense or changes the perception of the situation, then the end would have rivaled the beginning. There was a lot that Zemeckis and Gatins could have done, but they simply let the story unfold on the screen.

The film is worth seeing for the crash sequence, and Denzel's performance, but it's certainly not a feel-good story, or even a morality tale. And there is frankly quite a bit of disappointment in how it all plays out. 7/10.

Argo

In Greek mythology, Argo was the name of the ship that Jason used to retrieve the Golden Fleece, and was considered the first seagoing war vessel by many historians. How this translates to the title of a fictitious sci-fi film from the early 1980's, I honestly have no idea other than it's the vehicle that Ben Affleck uses to retrieve his 2012 Oscar nominations.

Ben Affleck's follow-up to 2010's The Town is a remarkable true story set in Iran, circa 1980. Affleck plays CIA ex-filtration specialist Tony Mendez, who has the idea to use a terrible pre-production film called Argo as a ploy to rescue six Americans who are hiding in the Canadian ambassador's home following the collapse of the US embassy.

The film has been getting considerable Oscar buzz, and rightfully so. The preposterous nature of the story propels it forward, and a great ensemble cast delivers subtle performances that are made authentic by the terrible hair and fashion of the late 70's. Couple that with the civil unrest and anti-American sentiment in Iran during the time, and the tension is palpable, right from the opening credits. A very poignant film in our current climate as well.

Affleck interestingly casts himself in the lead role for the second straight movie, which is an interesting move. Not that he does badly, just his reputation and performance as a director is moving out of a pretty face with a lucky break and into that of a truly respectable auteur. He is a damn good director.

His acting is mostly emotionless, and he gives himself some good lines, but he is mostly an introspective professional who drinks to bury the idea that he might fail, and that it would get innocent American killed if he does. There is a minor subplot about his failing marriage and the somewhat estranged relationship with his son, which isn't completely unnecessary, but doesn't have any real traction.

The true draw here is the predicament. These six Americans are trapped, and the Iranian Guard is searching for them, closing in with each passing day. It's a game of beat the clock, and Affleck's Mendez is racing against time to get his plan rolling before the Iranians figure it out. The suspense boils over in the final act as they make their way to the airport. This kind of breathless edge-of-your-seat tension is the stuff good films are made of. Affleck crushes the pacing and the authenticity of suspense.

Supporting Affleck are a trio of veterans; John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston. Each gives exactly what is necessary to garner just enough attention. I particularly enjoyed Arkin's cavalier attitude as a movie producer past his twilight who's brought in the loop to make Argo seem as real as possible. Cranston is very quickly becoming one of my favorite actors around, and Goodman is great as usual. Also commendable are Tate Donovan, who looks more and more like Tim Robbins every day (and has aged 30 years in the past decade), and Victor Garber as the Canadian ambassador. True, he doesn't have much screen time, and has very little dialogue, but he has screen presence and commands authority with each scene he's in.

Carter gives a nice take on the events during the closing credits and there are some side by side photos that make you wonder which are from the actual people and events and which are from the film. The similarities and attention to detail are shockingly uncanny, and Affleck obviously wanted the viewer to see his painstaking process. Part of it was surely homage to the man, Tony Mendez, and the people who were involved in the ordeal.

Argo is a great film, and deserving of all of the Oscar praise. Expect writing, directing, and picture nominations for sure. It is something different, and the contrast of the Argo sci-fi ruse with the Argo CIA operation is a fun balance act that adds an unexpected dimension to what would otherwise be a terse political work of non-fiction storytelling.

Go see this film if you like a good story. You won't be disappointed. 9/10.

Looper

This mindbending time travel sci-fi singularity comes from breakout writer and director, Rian Johnson. He's best known for his remarkable indy film, Brick, and he has directed a couple of episodes of Breaking Bad, including the very memorable episode titled "fly". Now, I'm not going to tell you that time travel films are easy. Quite the contrary actually, they seem to be one of the most difficult genres to create seamlessly. I found myself questioning the logistics and the space/time continuum, but after a few minutes, I caught myself and asked the pivotal question, "who cares." Rian Johnson clearly didn't, as shown in a great diner scene between Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the young Joe, and Bruce Willis, the old Joe. It is made pretty clear that there are no tricky "rules" to the game of time travel.

Young Joe is a Looper, a hitman in present day 2044 who kills mob hits who are sent back 30 years from 2077. It's a bit complicated, but becomes very clear after about 10 minutes. The thing about being a Looper however, is that it is an expectation that you will do what they call "close the loop" sometime in your career which means killing your older self. In doing so, you are resigning yourself to living another 30 years, and are compensated with a generous retirement package.

Johnson creates a nice future that isn't too clever. Gas is at a premium, so cars are old and dilapidated. Poverty is rampant and people carry guns to protect themselves. Other than that, it's pretty tastefully done as a futuristic thriller. You are immersed into the world, which changes scenery beautifully between the urban decay and rural Kansas farmland.

The film essentially has two very distinct parts that are tied together through necessity. There is the gritty, dark city where excess of drugs, guns, and sex is a common part of life, and the Loopers trade in their silver bars for a liquid drug that keeps them high. Then there is the quiet, sunny, peaceful farmland. Johnson does a fantastic job of diverging the two to make the film seem almost epic.

Young Joe messes up his hit on his older self, and as he chases him down, the plot thickens with a very clever sub-plot that reveals old Joe's hidden agenda. It's really nicely sequenced with a satisfying ending, and legitimately isn't too confusing, especially for a time travel film.

As you may have noticed from the previews, one of the interesting decisions that Johnson made was to apply makeup to Gordon-Levitt for 3 hours each day to make him look more like a younger Bruce Willis. You get used to it very quickly, but for my money, I don't think they looked especially alike, except for the eye color match. That said, both actors were great choices for their respective roles, and the rumor is that Rian Johnson wrote the film with Gordon-Levitt in mind for the lead role. The allure of having Bruce Willis, a sci-fi veteran, on board was probably too enticing to pass up.

Bruce Willis is typical Bruce Willis with some great lines, and kick-ass action that we haven't seen since... The Expendables 2. OK, so it hasn't been that long, but he's in prime form as old Joe. A shooting rampage at the end is reminiscent of the Fifth Element, and seeing him go back in time is 12 Monkeys deja vu. He makes it fun, like early 2000's Bruce.

Jeff Daniels and Emily Blunt are the supporting characters, along with a short appearance by Paul Dano, who is turning into a great actor, albeit a bit strange looking. He will find a niche very soon and will be in Hollywood for a long time. The scene-stealer of the film however, is Pierce Gagnon, who can't be more than 8 years old. He's precocious and given an integral role, but his poise and screen presence is captivating.

My only complaint is that after the climax, the film just ends. I truly think that one more scene to kind of put an exclamation point on it and give the viewer some reassurance of the outcome would have bumped up the value of this already great film. The story is fantastic, the acting and casting is great, and it's just a fun action film all around. I hereby forgive Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Premium Rush. Go see this film. It's the best sci-fi action one of the year. 9/10.

End of Watch

End of Watch is the latest LAPD drama by David Ayer, taking a unique look at two young patrolmen mostly through the eyes of a camcorder. A veteran of the genre, this is the 5th film in a row Ayer has written about the boys in blue, and the third he's directed. Trying to capitalize on the success of his first foray, Training Day, this time he follows the formula down a slightly different path.

Each of his previous four films pitted good cops against the pressures of the job, ultimately leading to their corruption or death. End of Watch is a cliche take on the genre, but it's refreshing as these two cops face the daily struggles of the job, but they keep their moral compasses straight up until the bitter end.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena are the two hotshot patrolmen who form a bond stronger than family, forged through the chases, shootings, close calls, and glimpses of humanity at its most deplorable. There is realism to their characters, and that adds to the intensity and emotional investment. These two guys are good cops, and they are good people. It's a juxtaposition to see them functioning with sincerity and pride with the ordeals of the people living in the seediest part of Los Angeles. They love their jobs, and are good at them. They border on arrogant, but never cross the line into unlikeable. That's where Ayer did a nice job.

From the opening credits where we follow a speeding vehicle down back alleys and side streets from the perspective of the dashboard camera, the action doesn't let up. There are just enough sequences to keep the viewer on the edge of his seat, and although the plot gets a bit lofty and unreasonable, it remains grounded in its execution.

What separates End of Watch from other cop films is the use of POV cameras, conveniently thrown into the plot as Gyllenhaal's Officer Brian Taylor claims to be filming for his class. We never see him actually use the footage or go to class, and the film spans over a year, but that's a minor and forgivable hole in the plot. The camera adds to the authenticity as we see and hear them running after perps, raising their guns, busting down doors and making routine (or not so routine) traffic stops.

What I like about the film is that their actions follow a realistic approach. The profession is not glamorized like it is in so many other films, but it's also not patronized. They follow procedure and make decisions based on their knowledge, constantly trying to do what they think is the right thing to do. Sometimes to their own detriment.

There are some shocking scenes, and the pacing is nicely created with just enough building tension that then erupts into an action-packed moment. Ayer likes to use gang life as a crutch, and that's one of my concerns; his gang members are a bit too contrived. In this case, the cops earn the respect of the local Blood member by treating him "gangster" instead of sending him to prison for life. They also piss off the 13's by interrupting their drug and human trafficking enterprise. The Mexican gang members are made to be simpletons with no conscience or thoughts of their own. This is a recurring theme in Ayer films, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or subconscious, but they bring down the quality and authenticity of the film.

Aside from that, Pena and Gyllenhaal have great buddy cop chemistry. They make the viewer believe that they are best friends, and they both bring something to the partnership that makes them a strong team. There is a bit too much banter for my liking, but I suppose it makes them appear more human, and it does improve the likeability.

The supporting cast has a few glimmers. There is the female partnership of Cody Horn and America Ferrera who are the tough as nails women on duty. There's Anna Kendrick who plays Gyllenhaal's better half, and she really plays her part well. Innocent, funny, and fearless. But the best member of the cast is the gruff expressionless Officer, Van Hauser, played by David Harbour. He is given a great personality as a jaded veteran who seems almost annoyed by the success of his younger fellow Officers. He shows a deep respect for his profession, but is cynical and even gives them some helpful advice during a break.

This film succeeds where others in the genre fail in that this one doesn't go down the rabbit hole of corruption or conspiracy. It keeps its head above water and stays true to its original intent. That of realism.

You can tell that Ayer has a healthy respect for the profession and I'd be curious to learn more about his background and why he is fixated on the LAPD. I read somewhere that he grew up in a bad part of LA, but I'd also like to see what he can do beyond cop dramas (he also wrote U-571 and The Fast and the Furious). This is a better film than I was expecting, and great job acting all around. The ending is a bit cliche and predictable, but other than that, it's a fun action flick. 8/10.

The Master

The Master has left me conflicted. This highly (and I stress highly) anticipated film from independent film royalty Paul Thomas Anderson follows a young troubled drifter shortly after World War II as he falls in with "The Cause". It's not like Scientology, but has an enigmatic leader and spiritual philosophies that deal with space and time travel, past lives, and other esoteric ideas. So it's basically Scientology.

PT Anderson blew expectations out of the water with 2008's There Will Be Blood which introduced us to what Daniel Day-Lewis could do if given the right role, surrounded by music by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, and an absolutely masterful film making team. Anderson proved on the spot that his cinema verite was so pure and beautiful, it was almost unbelievable. Had it not been for No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood would have swept the Oscars.

Anderson has taken an interesting path to get to this point, and has essentially created two kinds of films; masterpieces, and oddities. Stepping back in time to 1997, he created an underrated film called Boogie Nights. It rivaled 1994's Pulp Fiction in its impact on the independent film circuit, introducing us to a plethora of incredible actors who have since dominated Hollywood. It was a dark gem with such smart and original emotional appeal that it resonated long after watching it.

Fast forward a couple of years, and PT offered up Magnolia, a disjointed and misunderstood ensemble drama that showed us a side of Tom Cruise that we hadn't seen before. It was not a great film on first viewing, but it grew on me over the years, and after seeing it again a couple of years ago, I gained a new appreciation like one that you would develop for an incontinent pet. Good, but not great. Unusual, and the style grows on you so you begin to know what to expect.

2002 introduced us to Punch Drunk Love, which was definitely an oddity. It failed on so many levels, and just never really made sense. Adam Sandler tried his darnedest to break free from his goofy reputation, but it didn't work. Punch Drunk Love brought PT back down a few rungs on his ladder to the pantheon of filmmaking gods.

Then came There Will be Blood in 2007. Beautiful. Spot on. Daniel Day-Lewis at his absolute best. If it were possible, he should have received the Best Actor of the Decade Oscar.

PT Anderson's Modus Operandi is clear. He is a visionary that plays by nobody's rules in the film world, and he creates original works exactly the way that he wants to. That said, The Master is a complicated and confusing piece of work that has too much ethereal pondering, I felt a little bit like I was watching a Terrence Malick film. Throw in the gratuitous nudity, and I could imagine Stanley Kubrick rolling over in his grave.

There was a row of elderly folks in the theatre with me, and one by one, they walked out due to the discomfort that the film evoked. Be it the language, the confusion, or the nudity, there were a total of eight women who couldn't stick with the film. That sums it up nicely. It's just strange.

That said, this film will give us two Best Actor Oscar nominees in Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Joaquin Phoenix. This will be the first time since 1984's Amadeus that it will have happened. If either of them isn't nominated, it will be a crime and I may boycott the Oscars. OK, I won't, but I'll rant about it. Ironically, Hoffman won his Best Actor Oscar for Capote in 2005, beating out a deserving Phoenix for his portrayal of Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. The two of them are mesmerizing.

Phoenix is the true lead as Freddy Quell, a misguided young man who finds comfort in various forms of liquid intoxicants, and who is portrayed as a sexual deviant although PT Anderson doesn't quite explore this angle as deeply as he should. Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the self-proclaimed "Writer, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, and man." Their characters are rich in flaws and strengths, but they are never quite given the time to fully actualize their potential. I'm not sure any length of film could, they are that compelling on the screen. The acting alone makes this film worth seeing, and the premise of a religious cult is the perfect backdrop for hypnotic conversations and prolonged scenes of discomfort. They play off each other in a way that is so rare and authentic that you forget that you're watching a movie at times. It is magical.

The other side of the coin however, is the plot, which has just too many unanswered and irrelevant turns. The conclusion is anti-climactic and strange, trying to be a bit too mysterious and artful. I was expecting a bit more from the final few scenes, which is probably my own fault. This film needed a conclusion to quench my cinematic thirst.

That said, I am still conflicted on how to rate this film. Kudos to PT Anderson for assembling a wonderful cast and creating a slow boiling controversy (tastefully and respectfully done) around Scientology, but he could have put more into the story and thrown a little bone to the mainstream audience. The direction and cinematography is remarkable. The best I've seen all year so far, and this film will garner numerous Oscar nominations, but I'm not convinced at this point that it will have enough overall support to earn any victories. Two actors pinned against each other in the same film and the same category will polarize some voters, as a very strong case could be made for either one of them. It is for this reason that sadly, neither will win (Unless Seymour Hoffman somehow ends up in the Supporting Actor category, which would be interesting).

I can't recommend this film. It's not as bad as the elderly women made it seem, and I would never walk out of a PT Anderson film, no matter how bad it may be. The two lead performances can't be complimented enough, and this is a very worthy effort on the part of the writer/director. I look forward to every piece of work he does, but this one is more in line with Punch Drunk Love than There Will be Blood. 7/10.

Ten Worst Films of All Time

A lot of things make a film bad. There's the acting, the story, the special effects, even the direction or editing. Mostly though, there is a magic that fills the screen and you just know that you're in the presence of something special. I have had the displeasure of seeing two such movies recently, which has inspired me to reflect on my long and distinguished list of cinematic treasures in my chest, and pull out the stinkiest ones I can think of. a lot of lists have been made, and there are plenty of films that perhaps deserve to be on this list. Not at all inclusive, here are the ten that I came up with in no particular order.

The Room.

A personal favorite from the pantheon of awful. The Room is written, directed, and stars the indescribably odd Tommy Wiseau. A man who seems to be into bodybuilding and has what could either be a Eastern European accent, or some sort of Bells Palsy side effect, he created a gem. Bad story? Check. Horrendous acting? Check. Nonsensical scenes? Check. Memorable lines? Check. It has everything a movie needs to be on this list. It's so bad, I own it. That's right, and Tommy Wiseau himself sent me the movie with an autographed message on the DVD case. Jealous?

Superman III.

I found this one on Encore a couple of weeks ago and thought "I vaguely remember this one, but I need a refresher." Fast forward two hours, and to my surprise, this is my current worst film of all time. Gene Hackman is brilliant for passing, and Richard Pryor is clearly working for a paycheck and nothing more. The opening credits sequence will probably remain the champion of regret for everyone involved in the film until the day they die. It's just confusing and offensive. The film also makes a strong case for the most laughable misunderstanding of the capabilities of computer technology of all time. Excusable since it was 1983, but nonetheless, terrible. Also worth watching for the experience.

Premium Rush.

I recently saw this in the theatre and almost walked out. I wrote a review a few weeks back, but as it marinades in my memory, it gets worse and worse. Dialogue, characters, absurdity, and a bike messenger flash mob. It's just plain bad. Gordon-Levitt lost some points in my book.

Flash Gordon.

Recently brought back from obscurity by Seth MacFarlane, Flash Gordon is 80's sci-fi action at its worst. Max Von Sydow plays a Chinese wizard or something, and Queen provides the soundtrack. Could it get any worse?

Leonard Part 6.

When I was 9 years old, I was one of the hundred or so people who saw this film. I remember thinking, "I don't recall the first five movies." And since then, until I did a little research, I hadn't thought about this Bill Cosby project at all. He plays an aging secret agent, and beyond that, all I remember are bad jokes and a bad fitting high tech suit. To clarify, there are no parts 1-5.

Garbage Pail Kids: The Movie.

I am not too proud to admit I bought Garbage Pail Kids. It was between the ages of 7 and 10, and they had funny names, like Adam Bomb, or Potty Scotty, or Acne Amy. They were truly offensive, but for a kid, were hilarious. The film on the other hand was absolutely frightening. The creatures were played by people in suits, and their inflated heads and creepy movements would scar any child. Nevermind that it was a bad idea in the first place, this film was unintentionally and inexcusably horrendous.

Battlefield: Earth.

How can anything Scientology be taken seriously? With the exception of the upcoming Paul Thomas Anderson film which "isn't about L. Ron Hubbard!", the entire cult is a joke. This film was John Travolta's baby, and lost a load of money and remains one of the worst film in my book. I don't often share my religious beliefs or pass judgment on others, but Scientology is insanity.

Superbabies 2.

The only thing worse than a movie about talking babies is a sequel to a movie about talking babies. A poorly made sequel. Ridiculous. This is another film that's worth watching if you want pure entertainment of the bad variety. To clarify, no talking baby movie has ever been good.

Plan 9 From Outer Space.

This is a special film for a few reasons: Ed Wood, sci-fi from the 50's, and an appearance in MST3K, one of the best shows to lampoon bad movies. I would love to see MST3K make a resurrection and do some work on some more modern films, but I'm sure there would be copyright infringement and hurt feelings among studios. The idea is genius, and a man can dream, can't he?

Joe Versus the Volcano.

Even as a young movie critic, people would ask me about the worst film I'd ever seen, and for the longest time, this Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan film would be my answer. It's just plain bad. Meg Ryan takes on dual roles, and Tom Hanks is a depressed man who finds himself involved in an adventure to stop the appeasement of an angry volcano and save the woman he loves. This film holds a special place in my heart, and will always be on my worst films list.

There you have it, there are hundreds of other films out there, but these are ten of my worst films of all time.

The Hardest Working Man in Hollywood

For those of you who haven't seen Breaking Bad, Bryan Cranston has transformed the meek chemistry teacher, Walt White into a drug kingpin, murdering, lying, fearless monster over the course of the show's five seasons. His portrayal has earned him three Emmys, and three Golden Globe nominations. He's likely to earn another one of each for the final season of one of the best dramas that TV has seen in years.

As much of a chameleon as he is physically, he also demonstrates considerable range in his acting as well. He started out mainly in the comedy arena, and broke out as the goofy father of Malcolm in the Middle from 2000 to 2006. Before that, since the early 1980's, he has had a role in nearly every sitcom or drama that you can think of ranging from CHiPS to Seinfeld to Chicago Hope to 3rd Rock from the Sun. He had constant employment over the first 30 years of his career, and then it was 2011, 3 years into his stint as Walter White.

Cranston appeared in 6 films in 2011, and 4 television shows not counting his "regular" gig. Not bad for any actor, and although none of his roles were more than a supporting actor, Detachment, Drive, and Contagion showed his abilities as a serious film threat.

Here we are, 8 months into 2012, and he has appeared in 6 films and 3 additional television shows besides Breaking Bad. You can see where I'm going with this. We can expect a hosting gig on Saturday Night Live this year if Lorne Michaels knows what's good for him. His profile couldn't get any higher for someone trying to pad his resume. Cartoons, sitcoms, dramas, comedic cameos in film, serious roles in film. There's virtually nothing that Bryan Cranston doesn't have his hands in right now. I'd be curious to see what his W2 says for 2011 and 2012, but that's another story.

If you're new to the name, and you've had your head in a paper bag for the last few years, watch Breaking Bad. It's on the verge of becoming the best drama of all time, and AMC has become the go-to station for original programming. Walt has some big shoes to fill, and although there is still Don Draper to keep AMC afloat, the station needs to pull something epic off once Walt's legacy comes to an end.

His turn as Shannon in last year's surprise hit, Drive, is outstanding. As is his brief cameo as Mike Whitmore in this past summer's Rock of Ages. Perhaps his strongest potential for film stardom is in this October's Oscar contender, Argo where he plays opposite Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, and Kyle Chandler, among others.

My point is that Bryan Cranston is doing something that most actors can only dream about, and although he is now 56 years old, he's just now coming into his prime. He has a place in the pantheon of television as one of the most loved and hated protagonists ever. I put him up there with Tony Soprano and Vic Mackey. Someone who might be considered a villain at times, but you just can't hate the guy because he is just so damn good at what he does. Shout out to Vince Gilligan who has created a gem. Let's just hope he ends it respectably.

I am expecting some critical acclaim for his performance in Argo, and some parting gifts for Breaking Bad, but don't be surprised if he takes a little bit of time off after such a busy past few years. One thing is for sure, we will see him again soon.

Nice work, Bryan Cranston for being the hardest working man in Hollywood today.

Deconstructing Crash

2004's Crash won the Best Picture Oscar in 2005 amid a sudden barrage of buzz for its edgy racial issues and spiraling and intertwining storylines. It catapulted Paul Haggis into the stratosphere as Hollywood's new it writer, and following on the heels of 2004's Million Dollar Baby, he found himself the script writer of two consecutive Best Pictures. Not bad for a guy who started his career writing Richie Rich and Scooby Doo cartoons. His career continues, but his critical and box office reputation is in decline. His name is no longer synonymous with highly anticipated dramatic fodder, and I'm going to tell you why.

You may be wondering why I'm deconstructing a film that was made 8 years ago. I'm making a claim that Crash is the worst film ever to win the Best Picture Oscar. Two films were decidedly more deserving of the award in that particular year; Brokeback Mountain, and the vastly underrated Munich.

1998's Shakespeare in Love is a close contender, in a year when Saving Private Ryan was robbed. A bit further behind is 1996's The English Patient, who should have been backseat to Fargo, and going further back, I'm not judging because the relative quality deteriorates with time, and frankly I haven't seen enough of the films pre-1970 that hover in that "good, but not great" range.

Crash gave us Matt Dillon's most compelling role, and showed us a side of Sandra Bullock and Brendan Frasier that we hadn't seen before. It introduced us to the talented and under appreciated Michael Pena. It showed us a surprisingly strong performance by Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, and most importantly, it signaled the era of stars lowering their asking prices to appear in what they think is a surefire critical success. Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, William Fichtner, a young Thandie Newton, Ryan Phillipe, Larenz Tate, and even cameos by Tony Danza and Keith David.

The setup was somewhat innovative at the time, abandoning the standard film template in favor of a more emotionally manipulative humanity-themed ensemble. The main characters trade screen time, ensuring that everyone has a completely different back story, but live in the same jaded and prejudiced world.

Matt Dillon is the bitter cop trying to get proper medical care for his ailing father. Don Cheadle is a detective trying to make sense of the concrete jungle. Ludacris is a thug pretending to be angry about racial stereotypes, while embodying exactly what he is angry about, and Bullock and Fraser are a wealthy political couple whose life is interrupted by a carjacking.

Each of the individual characters' struggles are over the top prejudice. Whatever the worst case scenario could be, happens and everyone's preconceptions are turned on their heads, leading some to a better place, and others to flounder in their existence, or in some cases, a tough life lesson. Where the film goes wrong is that the preconceptions are contrived and exactly what one would expect. Ironically, as original an idea as Crash is, it brings up the most unoriginal situations imaginable. A cop molests a woman and then saves her life. A racist woman is attacked by a black man. A Hispanic man with tattoos happens to be the nicest character in the film. A non-English speaking shop owner is taken advantage of. The list really goes on and on, and it's almost as if Paul Haggis rummaged through his personal collection of taboo racial issues and threw them all on a storyboard.

I didn't catch this the first time I saw the film, and neither did the critics apparently, but if you go back and watch it again, it appears wildly outdated and almost eye-rolling cliche. It's only been 8 years since the film came out, but the film industry has changed dramatically both technologically and what constitutes a great film. Sure, there are still bad movies made, and the intent is well and good, often motivated by financial gains if not a stepping stone to something better, but the fact is, a movie like Crash made today is not Oscar nominated.

Race relations has been done to death as a genre, and when contorted into such stereotypical scenarios, it is just plain gratuitous. We all know that there is a cultural divide that is uncomfortable, but that is what you get when you live in a "melting pot" such as the United States. In no other country in the world will you find such a mix of races, religions, ethnic groups, sexuality, and even nationalities. America is the cutting edge place for acceptance and integration no matter how you argue, because we are the third most populated country in the world, behind only China and India, and those are both very homogenous. Think about the ethnic breakdown of our citizens (and illegal aliens); White is still the dominant race, but that is a collection of origins from an entire continent (and Russia). If you go to Germany, the vast majority of the population is of German heritage. Black also is a collection from an entire continent. Next time someone says they are African-American, ask them which African country, and you'll probably get an incredibly diverse collection of answers. Likewise with Asian. Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, etc.

My point is that America in the 21st century has no need to beat around the race bush anymore. Back to Crash. Each of the character portrayals is flat and racially cynical, suggesting a norm in society when in fact I think it's the exaggerated view of the deteriorating stereotype.

I see film as one of the most opportunistic forms of art, which is beautiful and magical. It's the most accessible form of storytelling, and can be done in great detail or in a sweeping broad stroke. Thinking about the hundreds of thousands of films that have been filmed since Muybridge's Horse in Motion in 1878, stories are created and told, adapted and interpreted, remade and modified. It goes to figure that the audience scrutiny and expectation bar has to constantly be raised. Patronizing the public's perception in the way that Crash ultimately does (especially after another viewing) is nothing more than an attempt at emotional manipulation, which many other films do. The difference is that Crash isn't without a sort of transparent agenda.

Paul Haggis is a talented writer and director, but I hope he can restore the luster and magic that he once had, and come up with something new and as charged as Crash, but without the obvious overtones. Crash stands in my book as the worst selection of a Best Picture of all time.

Hit and Run

The surprise comedy hit of the summer, Hit and Run is a refreshing film which is fueled by my low expectations, but kept afloat by the witty dialogue, great supporting cast, and the fun car chases.

Dax Shepard wrote, directed, and starred in this light and manly romantic comedy, and he more than holds his own as Charlie Bronson, a getaway driver in the Witness Protection program. Kristen Bell is his girlfriend, Annie, who needs to go to Los Angeles for an interview of a lifetime. He decides her love is worth the risk, and off they go.

The story is simplistic, but it's the constant barrage of supporting characters who introduce themselves that makes the film move at a quick pace, and never lose steam. Tom Arnold plays the Witness Protection chaperone, and he's a bumbling ball of stress who can't handle his own gun much less supervision. Bronson treats him like a little brother, patiently taking care of him while completely disregarding his directions. David Koechner is a truck stop redneck with about three minutes of screen time, but does his best ham since The Goods. Michael Rosenbaum delivers strong comedy as Annie's ex-boyfriend, who is trying so hard to get her back, but is just such a wimp that nobody takes him seriously. Kristen Chenoweth probably has the best lines, as Annie's dirty-talking boss who sends her on her way to the LA interview. Jess Rowland plays an openly gay police officer and although the gay jokes are rattled off a bit too thick, he's very funny. Finally, Bradley Cooper makes what I would call an extended cameo as Bronson's former partner in crime. It's not what I would consider to be his typical character, but he owns it. Additional uncredited cameos by Jason Bateman and Greg Germann are timely and efficient as well.

The ensemble is amazing, and best of all, Dax Shepard shows he's no lightweight. He's been a regular on Parenthood for the past few years, and honestly is one of the more annoying characters. He really hasn't shown much potential beyond a smooth-talking goofball since he began working in Hollywood, but Hit and Run is a step up in his maturity. He creates characters and dialogue that stick and doesn't overdo any aspect of the film.

Kristen Bell shows a bit of her personality, but it seems that this is really a more natural role than anything else she's done. She looks like she's having fun riding shotgun, doing 90, kicking dust up everywhere as tires spin, Dukes of Hazzard style. She's a very funny (and hot) actress who is climbing in both notoriety and reputation. Don't be surprised if she makes some major comedic waves in the coming years, much like Mila Kunis.

There are a few jokes that go just far enough, but not excessively. The prison rape conversation and the geriatric orgy scenes gets things a little uncomfortable, but that can be overlooked. It isn't as dirty as I was expecting it to be aside from those two scenes, and I just feel that each scene was optimized by the characters in it.

The other side of the film is the action. Dax uses his love of cars to create some great chase scenes in some beautiful American cars with a lot of muscle. Dax admits that this film is his version of Smokey and the Bandit and really just wanted to make a fun movie with his friends (he's dating Bell and is best friends with Cooper). Well done, Dax.

If you're looking for something light and fun, look no further. This is a surefire hit, and was much better than I had expected. I look forward to the return of Tom Arnold! Okay, maybe that won't happen, but this movie is fun. 9/10.