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.