For Geek Eyes Only: Patton Oswalt's Star Wars Filibuster - Animated

Iron Man 3 - Review (2013)

Tony Stark's newest suit, Mark 42, is a work in progress.  It possesses all the luster and gadgetry of the original suit, even more so - this one can locate, fly in separate pieces to and assemble itself around Tony.  The problem is it needs some more tinkering.  Once it finally does assemble it does not function as smoothly as Tony would have had hoped.  The Mark 42, is a great metaphor for this film - it has some of the classic elements you loved from the original, it has some great new features - each section of it great alone, but together something just doesn't feel right.

The latest entry in the Tony Stark/Iron Man saga takes place after the often referenced The Battle in New York as seen in the blockbuster, The Avengers.  The whole incident has affected Tony (Robert Downey Jr.,) causing him to suffer through anxiety attacks that, as a result, have negative effects not only on his superhero duties, but also on his relationship with Pepper (Gwenyth Paltrow.)  The timing could not be worse as a new super villain known as The Mandarin (Ben Kinglsey) has started to terrorize the citizens of the United States with a series of untraceable bombings.  Each one is followed by a televised message threatening more violence.  When the bombings strike to close to home Stark opens the flood gates by challenging The Mandarin, putting himself, his wife and the country in danger.


At first glance this looks like quite the setup for some popcorn escapism.  As the film progressed the weakness, like those in the suit, become a bit more obvious.  Much of my criticism revolves around the lack of Iron Man in a film named after him.  There are plenty of variations on the Iron Man suit, but as Tony Stark says. "I am Iron Man."  The suit is an incredibly high-tech piece of equipment, but without Tony Stark inside it is really not that interesting - just a hallow piece of machinery.  You root for the man, not the equipment.  And, for quite a good amount of IM3, Stark is not even in the suit doing the fighting.  Being that there is no human in the suit to suffer the consequences of a battle gone awry, the action offers suffers from a hallow feeling.  It often feels remote - a bit of a cheat.  This may explain the lack of excitement during the later action scenes - empty suits combined with some rule bending just did not deliver the exhilaration I was hoping for.

Which leads me to my next complaint, the villains.  Without providing too much information, the villains lack a definitive set of rules, part of the reason the action (for lack of a better word) is kind of stupid.  Watching unmanned suits engage in combat is bad enough - to have them battling villains that at times are indestructible die so quickly and effortlessly other times strips them of any foundation.  For example, if one vampire (there are no vampires in IM3) is killed by a stake to the heart, they should all die that way.  Not here.  It cheapens the villains and prevents the combat from being as engaging as it can be.  The master plan of the villain is also a bit convoluted.  It may not match the lame agenda of Lex Luthor in "Superman Returns" (something about giant kryptonite crystals and real estate - ugh) but, when all is said and done you would have to think there are more interesting and intelligible ways to use your power.  There are some great elements of a villain at play here, spoiled only by some lazy execution.
 
At times the whole tone of the film comes across as almost too smug or at least too comfortable with its own success.  We are overloaded with a barrage of snarky, cocky Tony Stark comments that are associated with the character.  Sure they are often a hell of a lot of fun, but you can have too much of a good thing.   A little more focus on developing the villain's agenda would have been nice.

Finally, many of the relationships on screen felt forced - Rhodes/Iron Partiot (Don Cheadle, formerly played by Terrance Howard) and Happy Hogan (Jon Farvareau) make appearances that felt more like contractually obligated extended cameos than part of the actual story.  They could easily be removed from the film in their entirety with little or no sacrifice.

Then there is the relationship between Stark and a smart kid with parental issues - ugh.  Spoiler alert - the kid is wise beyond his years, good at building things and at one point is held in the air by a villain as a hostage.   Oh wait, that's not a spoiler, you have seen this character many times before.  Why can't they make kids in film to possess characteristics more fitting of modern times - one whose attention is completely on his smartphone, a victim of our declining educational system, uninterested in anything adults (even Iron Man) has to say, and mildly obese?  I know many kids and they can't hack a computer network, don't know how to pick a lock and can barely climb a fence... oh yeah, suspension of disbelief.

One thing the filmmakers do nail is the Stark/Pepper Potts relationship.  Since the first film, Paltrow and Downey have had surprisingly great chemistry.  When he apologizes to her or she shows her disappointment in him, I believe it - when they flirtatiously exchange barbs I believe even more.  The love the characters have for each other adds needed weight to situations that lost some of it due to previously mentioned mistakes.

Much of the film fails to deliver the pop you would expect - perhaps it has to do with the willingness of the studio to reveal every "cool" moment in the trailers.  I really cannot understand why they must show "all the cool parts" in the trailer.  This film would have made hundreds of millions even if they called it "Iron Man 3: Mall Cop."  Why the hell were some moments that would have been real buzz makers shown in a 2-minute trailer?  Jerks.  If you have not seen the trailer, avoid it. 

I cannot put my finger on why, but something about the film made it feel almost like a TV series to me.  Anyone else have that sensation?

As the film moved along I was hoping for some cohesion between its parts.  It never came.  There is no deeper message, there is no great character arch and not much is added to the character lore.  Was this film fun?  A reasonable yes.  Was it good?  Meh.  It passed the time nicely, but like a hallow piece of Easter candy, there is little to digest here. 

6 out of 10 stars

Not to judge but....

 

Thanks SL for the submission.

Final Destination 5 - review (2011)

When I chose this film to watch I had to admit I could not get the idea out of my head that something was going to go wrong.  The idea haunted me - no matter how I tried to set aside the fear it kept creeping into my consciousness.  What could be the reason behind this feeling?  Then I figured it out - since I did not see the fourth entry in the series I would be completely lost, playing catchup the whole way through.  That is not a good way to watch a film.  Wait, that couldn't be the source of my fear since every single one of these films was a carbon copy of the previous, if you have seen one you have seen them all.   Phew!  Maybe this terrible feeling was baseless and  I can lay my fears to rest and watch the film without worrying about being completely lost because of intricate plot lines.  All is well.  Oh no!  That is when it came to me.  I remembered exactly what it was that had planted this fear in me - the rest of the series was terrible.   Queue the dramatic music, camera pushes in tight, I scream, blood sprays on the wall - end scene.  Movie fate caught up with me for abusing this site over recent weeks.

It is true, this series completely lacks originality, but it must have something going for it to have made four sequels, right?  I wish the answer was yes.  The film's premise is (as it always is in the series) a group of teenagers survive a tragic accident which was supposed to have taken their lives.  Since they survive, since they cheated death, Death must come knocking and collect on the debt, killing them one by one in bizarrely creative ways.  You simply watch as one after the other meets their demise.  I wish there was more to it.  That's all.

The draw of the film, in its own sadistic way, is always the first sequence showing the tragedy that the cast has avoided.  This time around it is a suspension bridge that begins to self destruct around them - kind of freaky if you are not a fan of bridges.  Besides that, nothing memorable or even worthy of deconstruction.  The acting and plot are both quite shallow.  More time was put into creating just one of the bloody, outrageous deaths than was spent on then entire dialogue.

If you have a 3D set and you are still consider watching this film after reading this you may get a kick out of some of the effects - often cheesy, but a fitting use of the 3D effect for this type of schlock.  The opening credits are quite incredible.

3.5 out of 10

Little Caeser - review (1931)

Perhaps the movie that set the mold for gangster pictures for decades to follow.  Edward G. Robinson plays Rico "Little Caeser" Bandelli whose need to be the top mob boss is only only topped by his ego.  Nothing stands in his way.  Friend, foe, policeman or politician, if you are on the bad side of Rico expect some hot lead heading in your direction.

Surprisingly ruthless, at least based on my expectations, the film offers a dark look at a man with one thing on his mind, himself.  Robinson is fantastic in the lead, the quintessential gangster of the era.  There is a reason 80 years later people still mimic his delivery.  The classic story about one man's rise to power is supported with the side stories of those that helped Rico on his quest and the man determined to stop him.  Old school awesome.

7.5 out of 10

Thor: The Dark World trailer

Just like all the other super heroes, Thor is back.  The next chapter in the story of the god with a hammer looks like exactly what you would expect with one acceptation,  a twist so original, so outlandish that you will guess it before the trailer even starts. 

The Queen of Versailles - Review (2012)

Meet Virgina Siegel, a former beauty queen with a hoarding problem, who just happens to be married to one of the richest men in the country.  She enjoys the little things in life, namely here 90,000 square foot home designed after the Palace of Versailles which she has filled with every luxury item and impulse purchase known to man.  Her children are hand delivered everything they could possibly want, or not want - sometimes multiples.  At the same time their servants are holed up in dorm size living quarters.  Every stop at Costco ends with truck loads of loot, more than enough items to provide for a family, better yet a football team.  What's not to like?  Is this the American Dream or the American Nightmare.

It is impossible to not be bowled over by the money spent and the junk acquired.  The wealth on display here is absolutely shocking.  Be it luxurious or gaudy it can be found in the walls of the humble abode.  I am sure many people will secretly or openly be waiting for a wake up call, something to shake these people to the core and hopefully change their ways.  No sooner than you can close your eyes and make the wish, it happens, the economic meltdown of 2008.  A global economic crisis that took the housing market tumbling, bringing the Seigel family to their knees.  The irony is, the same economy that provided them the finances to build their "palace," was inflated by selling property to people that could not afford it.  What destroyed the economy and threatened to take away their massive estate was people defaulting on loans that they pushed on others.
What surprised me was, when it the meltdown does occur it is not the moment of joy that you may have hoped for.  The threat of financial failure does something magical, it strips through the materialism and reveals that there are humans underneath.  Is this change permanent or temporary?  Either way it does allow us to relate and feel some compassion for this family in turmoil.  It is tough at times, like the scene where the mother fears she will have to tell her kids they may one day need to go to college to earn their own money.  Some people pray they will one day be able to go to college and this family fears it.  Oh brother.

You may enjoy their tales of  riches and lavish loving, or watching their fall from grace (you sick person) or just witnessing their infuriating disconnect from reality.  Anyway you watch it be it as a character study or a cautionary tale, it is quite an interesting tale, an American tale.

7.5 out of 10

Flight - Review (2012)

Nothing like a few drinks before a flight to put you at ease, unless you're the captain.

Getting through life is often about being in control.  The more control you have easier it can be to deal with.  In this film we watch Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) whose life is out of control, what's ironic is that being out of control is where he is most comfortable.  This may be a great trait to possess when you are an airline pilot whose every work day deals with putting hundreds of people's lives in your hands.  That is, unless it is an addiction to drugs and alcohol that aide him through the day.

The film starts with one of the most  harrowing flights in the history of film.  Beware, if you do not like flying you may think twice (or even three times) about watching this.  This flight is what you will be talking about for days, but it is Whip's struggles with control that will resonate.  There is one shot in this film that I still have engrained in my head weeks after viewing the film and it has nothing to do with a plane - let me know if you can figure out which one it is.

Besides the unforgettable flight scene most of the film takes place on the land.  Although the level of intensity drops off, the performances will keep you engaged - namely that of Denzel.  He turns of his auto-Denzel acting and delivers a nuanced performance that provides you a realistic, gripping portrayal of internal struggle. 

It is nice to see Robert Zemeckis step away from the creepy 3D models and return to telling stories in live-action where he belongs.  If this is what we have been missing out on, it is a shame he was sidetracked for the last decade.

8 out of 10

Man of Steel Final Trailer

The Man of Steel is back, just don't call him Superman. In the latest trailer the upcoming release shows a lot of promise. My biggest concern are the words, "From the Director of Watchmen and 300." I will be there opening day... even without the classic Superman theme. Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon are inspired castings.

Side by Side (2012) - Review

If you love film and you love technology, then this is a movie for you.  Side by Side is a documentary by master filmmaker Keanu Reeves (yes, Bill and Ted's Keanu Reeves) that delves into the debate over the future of film, specifically the conversion from traditional photochemical film and the impact of digital film as its replacement.  Dozens of well-known directors, actors and cinematographers speak passionately about cinema as a whole, revealing emotional,connection to  for the .  Movies

The film goes into great detail exploring the technological advances that made digital film possible, why traditional film is so beloved  and the reasons many are excited about the digital future.  The conservative in me is scared that one day film as we knew it will completely disappear, taking with it 100 years of film tradition.  The more inquisitive side of me is excited to see where this leads and what creative opportunities it will create for filmmakers of the future

This film was right up my alley.  If you are a student of film history or just curious I recommend it.  For others that love film you can watch just to watch shot after shot of some of beautifully shot films as well as learn a little something.

8 out of 10 stars


Currently streaming on Netflix and Amazon Prime.

The Balcony Is Now Closed - Roger Ebert 1942-2013

With a very heavy heart I post this story about a hero of mine, the last story I will most likely post about him.  He was man I have watched, read and listened to for over thirty years.  Roger Ebert died today at 70 years old.  A legend in the business he shaped the face of film criticism.  He was one of a kind.  He had no equal.  His love of film was evident in his articles, reviews, books, interviews, blogs and TV shows. 


After battling disfiguring cancer he returned to action, stronger than ever.  Writing reviews, starting blogs, twitter accounts, producing a new film critique show and even continuing to run a film festival that bared his name.  Just one day before he died Roger announced he had discovered he had new cancer in his bones, but STILL would not quit.  He announced he would be taking a "leave of presence."  He wrote, "What in the world is a leave of presence? It means I am not going away. My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers handpicked and greatly admired by me. What's more, I'll be able at last to do what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review."

I remember watching him on a 13-inch black and white TV with rabbit ears in my bedroom as a kid. Years later I met him at the Toronto Film Festival and was lucky enough to shake hands with him. He has been a role model for me as a movie fan and writer.  We lost a great mind and a great man.

Rest in peace, Roger.  I will miss you.



Just a few great Roger Ebert quotes:

“No good film is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”

“She fills my horizon, she is the great fact of my life, she has my love, she saved me from the fate of living out my life alone, which is where I seemed to be heading,” he wrote about wife Chaz Hammelsmith.

“Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community.”

“My newspaper job … is my identity.”

“Kindness covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.”

“Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you.”

“Years from now it is quite possible that ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ will be seen as the definitive film of the 1960s.”

“Every great film should seem new every time you see it.”

“No matter what they're charging to get in, it's worth more to get out.”

“To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.”

“If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't.”

“I've been around a long time, and young men, if there is one thing I know, it is that the only way to kiss a girl for the first time is to look like you want to and intend to, and move in fast enough to seem eager but slow enough to give her a chance to say ‘So anyway ...’ and look up as if she's trying to remember your name.”

"…thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."


Roger's last article posted on the Sun Times website just two days before he died

Thank you. Forty-six years ago on April 3, 1967, I became the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. Some of you have read my reviews and columns and even written to me since that time. Others were introduced to my film criticism through the television show, my books, the website, the film festival, or the Ebert Club and newsletter.  However you came to know me, I'm glad you did and thank you for being the best readers any film critic could ask for.

Typically, I write over 200 reviews a year for the Sun-Times that are carried by Universal Press Syndicate in some 200 newspapers. Last year, I wrote the most of my career, including 306 movie reviews, a blog post or two a week, and assorted other articles. I must slow down now, which is why I'm taking what I like to call "a leave of presence."

What in the world is a leave of presence? It means I am not going away. My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers handpicked and greatly admired by me. What's more, I'll be able at last to do what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review.

At the same time, I am re-launching the new and improved Rogerebert.com and taking ownership of the site under a separate entity, Ebert Digital, run by me, my beloved wife, Chaz, and our brilliant friend, Josh Golden of Table XI. Stepping away from the day-to-day grind will enable me to continue as a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and roll out other projects under the Ebert brand in the coming year.

Ebertfest, my annual film festival, celebrating its 15th year, will continue at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, my alma mater and home town, April 17-21. In response to your repeated requests to bring back the TV show "At the Movies," I am launching a fundraising campaign via Kickstarter in the next couple of weeks. And gamers beware, I am even thinking about a movie version of a video game or mobile app. Once completed, you can engage me in debate on whether you think it is art.

And I continue to cooperate with the talented filmmaker Steve James on the bio-documentary he, Steve Zaillian and Martin Scorsese are making about my life. I am humbled that anyone would even think to do it, but I am also grateful.

Of course, there will be some changes. The immediate reason for my "leave of presence" is my health. The "painful fracture" that made it difficult for me to walk has recently been revealed to be a cancer. It is being treated with radiation, which has made it impossible for me to attend as many movies as I used to. I have been watching more of them on screener copies that the studios have been kind enough to send to me. My friend and colleague Richard Roeper and other critics have stepped up and kept the newspaper and website current with reviews of all the major releases. So we have and will continue to go on.

At this point in my life, in addition to writing about movies, I may write about what it's like to cope with health challenges and the limitations they can force upon you. It really stinks that the cancer has returned and that I have spent too many days in the hospital. So on bad days I may write about the vulnerability that accompanies illness. On good days, I may wax ecstatic about a movie so good it transports me beyond illness.

I'll also be able to review classics for my "Great Movies" collection, which has produced three books and could justify a fourth.

For now, I am throwing myself into Ebert Digital and the redesigned, highly interactive and searchable Rogerebert.com. You'll learn more about its exciting new features on April 9 when the site is launched. In addition to housing an archive of more than 10,000 of my reviews dating back to 1967 we will also feature reviews written by other critics. You may disagree with them like you have with me, but will nonetheless appreciate what they bring to the party. Some I recruited from the ranks of my Far Flung Correspondents, an inspiration I had four years ago when I noticed how many of the comments on my blog came from foreign lands and how knowledgeable they were about cinema.

We'll be recruiting more critics and it is my hope that some of the writers I have admired over the years will be among them. We'll offer many more reviews of Indie, foreign, documentary and restored classic revivals. As the space between broadcast television, cable and the internet morph into a hybrid of content, we will continue to spotlight the musings of Pulitzer Prize-winning TV critic Tom Shales, as well as the blog "Scanners" by Jim Emerson, who I first met at Microsoft when he edited Cinemania. The Ebert Club newsletter, under editor Marie Haws of Vancouver, will be expanded to give its thousands of subscribers even bigger and better benefits.

For years I devoutly took every one of my tear sheets, folded them and added them to a pile on my desk. The photo above shows the height of that pile in 1985 as it appeared on the cover of my first book about the movies published by my old friends John McMeel and Donna Martin of Andrews & McMeel. Today, because of technology, the opportunities to become bigger, better and reach more people are piling up too. The fact that we're re-launching the site now, in the midst of other challenges, should give you an idea how important Rogerebert.com and Ebert Digital are to Chaz and me. I hope you'll stop by, and look for me. I'll be there.

So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies.

Red Band Trailer for "Kick-Ass 2" - watch only if you are an irresponsible adult

The Hangover Part III Trailer - the conclusion to a trilogy you never asked for

The trailer to The Hangover Part III is here.  It is the follow up to The Hangover Part II or as anyone who saw the carbon copy of the original would call it The Hangover Part I, Again or maybe The Hangover 1.5, or The Hangover Re-imagined or best yet, Crap.  No matter what you thought of Part II, you can't kill a cash cow unless you decide to do a prequel, that usually ends the flow of money.

The Final IRON MAN 3 Trailer - HD

With the summer blockbuster season around the corner get ready for the typical onslaught of sequels and reboots - starting with Tony Stark. Coming out May 3rd.

And I only own one suit.

"Shining" - The Best Trailer Ever for a Film That Doesn't Exist

If you think this looks familiar, think again.

My Official Oscar Picks and Analysis

No matter what people are telling you, don't believe the hype this was not a great year for film.  What it lacked in films worthy of being labeled excellent we were hit up with a multitude of good, very good and near misses releases.  The Best Picture category exemplifies this best, with only one film cracking the FilmSnork 9-star threshold.  Most nominees for best picture will, for numerous reasons, not earn repeat viewings... not a good sign. 

Below are my ratings for all nine nominees:

• Silver Linings Playbook                 9.0
• Django Unchained                        8.5
• Amour                                         8.0
• Life of Pi                                      8.0
• Lincoln                                        7.5
• Zero Dark Thirty                           7.5 
• Argo                                           7.0
• Beasts of the Southern Wild         6.5
• Les Miserables                            5.5 

Read my full review for each film here.

BEST PICTURE
Amour
Argo    WILL WIN
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings PlayBook  SHOULD WIN
Zero Dark Thirty


With great sadness I make my first prediction.  Argo wins Best Picture.  There was a movement that gained great momentum after the suspicious snubbing of Ben Affleck for director (conspiracy theorists* believe this was done purposely to push the film the frontrunner slot to make amends for a director done "wrong.")  As some of you know, I liked this film - LIKED it, not much more than that.  It is full of moments that feel like typical Hollywood concoctions... it turns out all the moments in this story that we are told over and over  (to paraphrase) "is just so crazy that people will have a tough time believing it really happened," turn out to be bullshit.   They felt like it in the theater and turns out they are.  If I did not walk out thinking how Hollywood some of these moments felt, only to have it revealed they were just that I would not be so let down with the almost certain fact that Argo will take home the big trophy.  And before you go saying, you are just a hater, you obviously have an issue with Affleck.  WRONG.  I cheered on his comeback, I even saw Daredevil in the theater.  I loved Gone Baby Gone.  The Town was my drive-in movie of trip for that year.  I DO NOT hate Ben Affleck.  The movie just does not deserve the praise it has garnished.   Django would be my frontrunner if someone told QT to wrap it up earlier.  The winner should be either Amour or Silver Linings Playbook.... I'd even accept Lincoln.    If Argo does not win the big one, that news report about the seismic action in the NYC region should not alarm you, that will just be jumping out of my seat and hitting the ceiling out of joy that the universe set things right.
*me


Best Supporting Actor:
Christoph Waltz, "Django Unchained"   SHOULD WIN, WILL WIN
Philip Seymour Hoffman, "The Master"
Robert De Niro, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Alan Arkin, "Argo"
Tommy Lee Jones, "Lincoln" 

I am torn here, do I vote with my heart or with my head?  Christoph Waltz delivers one of my favorite and one of the best performances I can recall.  Out of all the candidates in all categories, he is the one I want most to win (I have others I want to see lose with more vigor, but I want him to win most.)  This is a pretty solid category - the only light work here goes to Arkin.  The reason I am most likely not picking Waltz is he is the most recent winner and I fear that will work against him.



Best Supporting Actress:
Sally Field, "Lincoln"
Anne Hathaway, "Les Miserables"   WILL WIN
Jacki Weaver, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Helen Hunt, "The Sessions"   SHOULD WIN
Amy Adams, "The Master"

Who's not sick of watching Anne Hathaway overact, on-stage, while picking up a trophy?  No hands.  The only thing that will stop her from walking away with gold is that sentiment.  The long MIA Helen Hunt is my pick for most deserving and my dark horse for the night.  It would be great to see her take the trophy.  Another great field of candidates.





Best Director:
David O. Russell, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Ang Lee, "Life of Pi"
Steven Spielberg, "Lincoln"  WILL WIN
Michael Haneke, "Amour"   SHOULD WIN
Benh Zeitlin, "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

The bigger story about this category are the omissions more than the actual nominees.  Experts were shocked that Bigelow and Affleck did not make the list.  Not me, I would have omitted them as well and replaced Zeitlin with Tarantino.  It is a tough call, would like to see Haneke or Russell win.  I really think this is anybody's trophy to win.



Best Actor:
Daniel Day Lewis, "Lincoln"   WILL WIN,  SHOULD WIN
Denzel Washington, "Flight"
Hugh Jackman, "Les Miserables"
Bradley Cooper, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Joaquin Phoenix, "The Master"


Cooper had his breath through performance,  Washington his best in years, but Daniel Day Lewis will win.  Enough said. 

Best Actress:
Naomi Watts, "The Impossible"
Jessica Chastain, "Zero Dark Thirty"
Jennifer Lawrence, "Silver Linings Playbook"   WILL WIN, SHOULD WIN
Emmanuelle Riva, "Amour"  
Quvenzhané Wallis, "Beasts of the Southern Wild"





I would be happy with several of these nominees winning.  Lawrence for me was the most present and made me take notice.  Watts and Riva are deserving as well it is just that most their performances were in hospital beds... more fitting for a Supporting nod.

Best Original Screenplay:
"Zero Dark Thirty"
"Django Unchained"   WILL WIN, SHOULD WIN
"Moonrise Kingdom"
"Amour"
"Flight"



A great category.  Moonrise Kingdom is one film I expected to see with numerous nominations including best picture, instead this is its soul nomination.  I think QT walks with this one for the lines he delivered for Mr. Waltz alone. 

Best Adapted Screenplay:
"Lincoln"
"Silver Linings Playbook"  SHOULD WIN
"Argo"   WILL WIN
"Life of Pi"
"Beasts of the Southern Wild"



I think the Ben Affleck was not nominated so let's vote Argo train will make a stop in this category as well.  The two most impressive screenplays for me were SLP and Lincoln.  I hope I am wrong on my prediction. 

Best Animated Feature:
"Frankenweenie"
"The Pirates! Band of Misfits"
"Wreck-It Ralph"   WILL WIN
"Paranorman"
"Brave"

Best Foreign Feature:
"Amour"  WILL WIN
"A Royal Affair"
"Kon-Tiki"
"No"
"War Witch"

Best Visual Effects:
"Life of Pi"   WILL WIN
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
"The Avengers"
"Prometheus"
"Snow White and the Huntsman"

Best Cinematography:
"Skyfall"
"Anna Karenina"
"Django Unchained"
 "Life of Pi"   WILL WIN
"Lincoln"

Best Costume Design:
"Anna Karenina"   WILL WIN
"Les Miserables"
"Lincoln"
"Mirror Mirror"
"Snow White and the Huntsman"

Best Documentary Feature:
"Searching for Sugar Man"   WILL WIN
"How to Survive a Plague"
"The Gatekeepers"
"5 Broken Cameras"
"The Invisible War"

Best Documentary Short:
"Open Heart"  WILL WIN
"Inocente"  
"Redemption"
"Kings Point"
"Mondays at Racine"
"Snow White and the Huntsman"

Best Film Editing:
"Lincoln"  
"Silver Linings Playbook"
"Life of Pi"
"Argo"  WILL WIN
"Zero Dark Thirty"

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:
"Hitchcock"
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"   WILL WIN
"Les Miserables"

Best Music (Original Score):
"Anna Karenina"  
"Argo"
"Life of Pi"  WILL WIN
"Lincoln"
"Skyfall"

Best Music (Original Song):
"Before My Time" from "Chasing Ice"
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" from "Ted"
"Pi's Lullaby" from "Life of Pi"
"Skyfall" from "Skyfall"   WILL WIN
"Suddenly" from "Les Misérables"

Best Production Design:
"Anna Karenina"
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
"Les Misérables"   WILL WIN
"Life of Pi"
"Lincoln"

Best Short Film, Animated:
"Adam and Dog"
"Fresh Guacamole"
"Head over Heels"
"Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare'"
"Paperman"  WILL WIN


Paperman if only because my girls thought the stars looked like Mommy and Daddy.

Best Short Film, Live Action:
"Asad"
"Buzkashi Boys"
"Curfew"  WILL WIN
"Death of a Shadow (Dood van een Schaduw)"
"Henry"

Best Sound Editing:
"Argo"
"Django Unchained"
"Life of Pi"
"Skyfall"
"Zero Dark Thirty"  WILL WIN

Best Sound Mixing:
"Argo"
"Les Misérables"   WILL WIN
"Life of Pi"
"Lincoln"
"Skyfall"

Outguess FilmSnork Oscar Contest: PART 2 (2013)

UPDATE:  WE HAVE A WINNER!

And it is NOT me.  

This year's winner is Sarah Martin.  You will be contacted in the next few days.

It was a close one, but I played it safe for one pick and had a brain fart on another.  Either way Sarah proved to be the worthy challenger.  Thank you to all that participated.  Please continue to utilize the site.  Your comments, "likes," and participation keep it going.

-FilmSnork  (02/25/2013)



It is that time of year again, time for The Oscars.  And the question on everybody's mind is, how the hell is this website still running?  And, who will take home the Oscar gold.

For the second time we are offering a chance to share in the excitement of the night.  All you need to do is outguess FilmSnork's Oscar predictions (which will be posted the morning of The Oscars.)

If you can get more correct Oscar picks you will be in the running to win the $25 Amazon OR iTunes GiftCard.  

Simply Pick ONE winner for EACH category.  Post your answers in the comment section below (you can register in seconds with numerous accounts, easy and beneficial.)

ONCE YOU SUBMIT YOUR PICKS ARE DOCUMENTED AND ARE FINAL.
 
To be eligible you MUST follow the FilmSnork Facebook and/or Twitter page.
Please notify in your entry what your username is on the site you follow.

Anyone that outguesses (and is a follower of one or both the required pages) will be entered into a drawing where ONE person will randomly be selected to win the GRAND PRIZE - the gift card.  Second place:  wins the opportunity to choose a topic for an upcoming FilmSnork story or review - you pick the topic, we write about it - you will not be disappointed.

All picks must be in by the time Seth Macfarlane's first unnecessary use of Family Guy voices or before the first award nominees are read... whatever comes first (I am banking on the Family Guy voices.)

Make your guesses and share the link with others.

Here are my reviews of all nine best Picture nominees:

Silver Linings Playbook  (2012)  9 
Django Unchained  (2012)  8.5 
Amour  (2012)  8
Life of Pi  (2012)  8
Lincoln  (2012)  7.5 
Zero Dark Thirty  (2012)  7.5   
Argo  (2012) 7
Beasts of the Southern Wild  (2012)  6.5 
Les Miserables  (2012)  5.5  

Find over 100 reviews in our every expanding REVIEW ARCHIVE.

Good luck.
FilmSnork

And the nominees are...
IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLES POSTING YOUR ANSWERS, EMAIL THEM TO filmsnork@gmail.com  - thanks.


BEST PICTURE
Amour
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings PlayBook
Zero Dark Thirty

Best Supporting Actor:
Christoph Waltz, "Django Unchained"
Philip Seymour Hoffman, "The Master"
Robert De Niro, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Alan Arkin, "Argo"
Tommy Lee Jones, "Lincoln"

Best Supporting Actress:
Sally Field, "Lincoln"
Anne Hathaway, "Les Miserables"
Jacki Weaver, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Helen Hunt, "The Sessions"
Amy Adams, "The Master"


Best Director:
David O. Russell, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Ang Lee, "Life of Pi"
Steven Spielberg, "Lincoln"
Michael Haneke, "Amour"
Benh Zeitlin, "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Best Actor:
Daniel Day Lewis, "Lincoln"
Denzel Washington, "Flight"
Hugh Jackman, "Les Miserables"
Bradley Cooper, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Joaquin Phoenix, "The Master"

Best Actress:
Naomi Watts, "The Impossible"
Jessica Chastain, "Zero Dark Thirty"
Jennifer Lawrence, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Emmanuelle Riva, "Amour"
Quvenzhané Wallis, "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Best Original Screenplay:
"Zero Dark Thirty"
"Django Unchained"
"Moonrise Kingdom"
"Amour"
"Flight"

Best Adapted Screenplay:
"Lincoln"
"Silver Linings Playbook"
"Argo"
"Life of Pi"
"Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Best Animated Feature:
"Frankenweenie"
"The Pirates! Band of Misfits"
"Wreck-It Ralph"
"Paranorman"
"Brave"

Best Foreign Feature:
"Amour"
"A Royal Affair"
"Kon-Tiki"
"No"
"War Witch"

Best Visual Effects:
"Life of Pi"
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
"The Avengers"
"Prometheus"
"Snow White and the Huntsman"

Best Cinematography:
"Skyfall"
"Anna Karenina"
"Django Unchained"
"Life of Pi"
"Lincoln"

Best Costume Design:
"Anna Karenina"
"Les Miserables"
"Lincoln"
"Mirror Mirror"
"Snow White and the Huntsman"

Best Documentary Feature:
"Searching for Sugar Man"
"How to Survive a Plague"
"The Gatekeepers"
"5 Broken Cameras"
"The Invisible War"

Best Documentary Short:
"Open Heart"
"Inocente"
"Redemption"
"Kings Point"
"Mondays at Racine"
"Snow White and the Huntsman"

Best Film Editing:
"Lincoln"
"Silver Linings Playbook"
"Life of Pi"
"Argo"
"Zero Dark Thirty"

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:
"Hitchcock"
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
"Les Miserables"

Best Music (Original Score):
"Anna Karenina"
"Argo"
"Life of Pi"
"Lincoln"
"Skyfall"

Best Music (Original Song):
"Before My Time" from "Chasing Ice"
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" from "Ted"
"Pi's Lullaby" from "Life of Pi"
"Skyfall" from "Skyfall"
"Suddenly" from "Les Misérables"

Best Production Design:
"Anna Karenina"
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
"Les Misérables"
"Life of Pi"
"Lincoln"

Best Short Film, Animated:
"Adam and Dog"
"Fresh Guacamole"
"Head over Heels"
"Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare'"
"Paperman"

Best Short Film, Live Action:
"Asad"
"Buzkashi Boys"
"Curfew"
"Death of a Shadow (Dood van een Schaduw)"
"Henry"

Best Sound Editing:
"Argo"
"Django Unchained"
"Life of Pi"
"Skyfall"
"Zero Dark Thirty"

Best Sound Mixing:
"Argo"
"Les Misérables"
"Life of Pi"
"Lincoln"
"Skyfall" 

Beasts of the Southern Wild - Review (2012)

Hushpuppy's story is one of those magical little kids whose life experiences make here wise beyond her years.  Living in extreme poverty in part of the bayou cut off from the rest of the world called "the Bathtub, her mother has been gone for years leaving her alone with her tough love, constantly verbally abusive father who teaches her to be stronger as he grows weaker, oh yeah, there are also bizarre awkward fitting cameos giant prehistoric horned boar-beasts.

As a storm of epic proportions approaches life goes on as usual for the citizens of The Bathtub who are too proud, too stubborn or too stupid to get out of harms way.  Instead, they spend their times drinking, telling mystical tales and partying.  For a portion of the film I was captivated by the film; a slice of life I was unfamiliar with, a strong-willed little girl surviving in conditions mast of us could only have nightmares about, anticipating where it was all going what would we see, what would we learn.  Around halfway through I realized this was not going to happen.  No matter what I anticipated or hoped for the film was not going to provide these answers, instead of a journey we follow along an bunch of aimless wanderings.  It is overreaching on its too many themes, not providing the focus it needed to make it a more satisfying tale.  At the same time the film almost drops narrative with long stretches of aimless walking and time spent in makeshift floating devices that make their point then becoming repetitive.  

People will make the case that this is the world as seen through the eyes of a six year old on her own personal journey, but I really think that would just be an excuse.  My guess is the first time director, Benh Zeitlin, had a lose narrative in mind and then followed around Wallis through numerous photogenic environments hoping to capture some beautiful imagery then put some pseudo-enlightened narrative over it to try tie it together.  Maybe I am being a little dense and , but the metaphor for the giants beasts never quite made sense for me and seemed underdeveloped and unnecessary, taking away from the time that would have better spent with additional scenes between the father and daughter.

I understand this film was made for about $2 million,  that is not an excuse to jack up the score.  While the film is deserving of some praise for certain elements, little Quvenzhane Wallis' performance as Hushpuppy is admirable for a girl her age even if her delivery is monotone for the most part she is a great starer and the cinematography is beautiful - the story, although beautiful and emotional at times never uses its parts to form a cohesive whole.   It feels like a short film stretched out to feature film length, a wandering poem rather than a tale.  After all is said and done you can't help but wonder, what did we just watch, was there anything profound or just a bunch of mumble jumble mysticism of a storyteller looking to piece together some interesting, yet hollow elements.

6.0 out of 10

Lincoln - Review (2012)

Four score and seven minutes ago, we, your forefathers, were brought forth upon a most excellent adventure. Conceived by our new friends, Bill and Ted.   Wait, wrong movie.  Yes, Lincoln appears in this one as well but there is no sign of Bill S. Preston Esq. or Ted "Theodore" Logan.  Sorry.  Even without the two righteous dudes this film can be an excellent adventure and for some a bogus journey. 

How can this film deliver two completely opposite experiences?  That's easy, it is both a well crafted, stunningly acted, informative film with one of best ensembles to share a screen.  That's the excellent.  At the same time, it is a hell of a lot of talking in dimly lit rooms with almost completely no action and only a few raised voices that is sure to bore the life out of some audiences - that's the bogus.

The story of Lincoln's fight for the thirteenth amendment is a much deeper, richer story than you learn about in school.  If you enjoy history or more so the U.S. history the tug of war over the interpretation of equality will be more than enough to keep you riveted.  Even more so will Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Lincoln himself.  I think most people believe Abe only delivered historic speeches (i.e. the one quoted above from San Dimas High School Auditorium circa 1989.)  DDL breathes life into the man, no longer is he a tall guy with a beard and a certain Address in PA, he becomes is fleshed out, becoming for the first time for me, a real person - one that is funny, intelligent and passionate.  At the same time the war over slavery became much more just gunfights and cannons on Civil War battlefields, it was transformed into a battle of intellect, between politicians, rivals and neighbors where words were used to do the fighting. 

On the other side of the coin, this film will definitely not please all audiences. It is set during the Civil War, one of the bloodiest battle of all time and we literally see seconds of warfare - sure to be a disappointment to many.  Those going in expecting massive reenactments of the bloody battles will be greatly disappointed, but if they can get past that there is a good deal to appreciate here. 

Keep an eye on the cast, one of the best ensembles in recent memory, chock full of great actors - many faces you may recognize even if you don't know their names.  Solid performances all the way through.  And as stated everywhere, after receiving every award know to man Daniel Day Lewis is amazing - to be fair though, the hair and makeup at least deserve an assist.

No matter how you view this, as a captivating slice of American history or a long, talky bore Spielberg brings history to life, the question is, are you interested?

7.5 out of 10

Amour - Review (2012)

The opening scene says it all - there is no happy ending.  From there we taken back to better times with Anna and George returning home from a show and saying goodnight.  The last truly good night of their lives together. The next day at breakfast Anna sits down and mid-conversation goes quiet for an extended period of time, then the lights go back on she is completely normal.  An appointment with the doctor reveals she is not normal and the long steady road of declining health is right in front of them.

Maybe I am not the right person to review this film.  Perhaps it all just hits too close to home for me to feel good about telling anyone to see this film.  It is a technically sound film, with a script and performances worthy of recognition, but watching the final days of a long loving relationship is just not my idea of fun.

I have just too recently had to bare witness to much of what took place on screen - the conversations, the looks, the physical decline are all things that have been part of my life.  For the first time, I am not sure what to say.  This film felt like a reminder telling me, "hey buddy, no matter how good life is, it ends and it often ain't pretty."

The film is beautifully acted, directed and shot, everything comes across as completely natural - never do you feel like you are watching a movie, more like the inside look at the intimate and inevitable notion of one's death.  The director Michael Haneke does not try to play your emotions like a fiddle through music and sappy dialogue meant to bring about water works (though they may occur.)

If I took anything away from this film besides a two hour reminder of less pleasant days in my life, it would be that I need continue to embrace everyday of life and make the most of it.  The simple conversations, going for a walk, sharing breakfast and talking about the latest headline are mundane parts of the day until one day you can't share them with the one you love.  Sounds hokey, but it is true.  That is what is so amazing about film, it does not need to be all car chases and explosions, it does not have to be happy endings you can see miles away, it can be much more. 

Just over the course of writing this review I have begun to work out my thoughts and from my first keystroke until now my opinion of the film has improved.  I have been able to set aside (somewhat) the personal connections and issues came across while watching and am more able to see through death there is a celebration of life.

Still, can I recommend this for you to watch?  Not really.  If I do you will come back and slap me in the face or worse - this is not an easy film to watch.  So, no matter what I rate it, remember this is something you will need to come to terms with seeing.  This is not the sequel to a blockbuster, this is the last few pages of the novel of life.

8.0 out of 10

Paranormal Activity 4 - Review (2012)

The first Paranormal Activity worked so well because it played on fears even the bravest of us have, things that go bump in the night.  A door closing, a sheet moving, a strange sound in the the night all had me scared and waiting for the film to hopefully return safety of a lighted room.  The second film did quite a good job of copying the format and keeping the fright factor very high.

Then came the third film, that's when it all went wrong.  Someone had the idea to answer questions.  If we have not learned from so many movie franchises before it, don't answer questions you don't want answered.  The third film (SPOILER AHEAD at least for the 3rd film) put a face to the evil, or better yet faces with what I am assuming is a coven of witches.  The less effective 3rd film went from a letdown to disaster in just a few shots.

Well luckily, the filmmakers saw their mistakes and fixed the problems, saving the franchise with an supremely scary fourth entry.  Ummmm.   At least that is what I was hoping I could tell you right now.  That is not the case.  The fourth film not only continues the downward spiral, it accelerates it.  Replacing scares with unwanted, laughably bad mythology the series has lost the found footage feel that made its predecessors effective.  Has no one seen the Blair Witch Project 2?   When a found footage film starts to feel so self-important that it abandons what made it work in the first place, fans tend not to like that.

Oh yeah, here's a tip for the producers from ole FilmSnork himself, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR RECURRING CHARACTERS!  We do not want to learn whatever happened to little Hunter, especially when your casting director decided to cast him with the standard creepy little kid actor (think The Omen's Damien, but more hammed up.)  Just another poor decision that further reminds the audience this is not a real story, just another slick Hollywood film and as usual, when Hollywood tries to be slick it fails.  There is also a bizarre Xbox Kinect tie-in (product placement in Paranormal Activity, really??) that provides incredibly annoying green dot covered scenes that wear out their welcome the first of the several dozen times it is used.

The film is not a complete failure, Alex, the lead, played by Kathryn Newton is very natural and if not hampered down by other poor casting and other poor decisions could have been a successful lead.  There are also a couple of mild scare, but they only serve as a reminder of what they films could be.  Let's hope we have seen the last of this series.

3.5 out of 10

Les Misérables - A Review Set to Music (2012)

From the minds that brought you FilmSnork.com comes one of the world's most beloved songs, stripped of all its sensitive lyrics and replaced with our review.  Simply click play and sing along, enter a majestic world of review enchantment - the world of FilmSnork.com, America's #1 self-referential website. 

And now, I Dreamed a Dream  (watch it in HD)

If you would like to further discuss my feelings about Les Miserables, please do so in the comments section below.  You can register in literally seconds, but the benefits last at least 47 weeks, maybe even a lifetime.

Also, if you can sing and want to provide us with your rendition of our lyrics set to this timing, please do.  We will substitute you into the video and give you full credit.

Lyrics 

There was a time when hopes were high
When the buzz was good
And the trailer inviting
There was a time when I wouldn’t mind
that every word spoke a song
And the songs looked exciting
There was a time
Then it all went wrong

I dream of a time when shots were blocked
When cinematographers
seemed to be trying
I dreamed of more than close up shots
Is the art of shot composition dying
When every shot is tight and blurred
The camera operator seemed wasted
Has he heard of the rule of thirds
Shots came undone
An opportunity wasted

And all the casting wasn’t right
The weaker voice of Gladiator
As he tore the music notes apart
Anne’s overacting put him to shame

Wolverine performed just fine
Although some of his songs an endless blunder
Borat really hit his stride (great success)
But he was gone as quick he came

And still I dream it'll come to me...
that this film was somehow better
From the guy that brought us The King’s Speech
Thought he’d be a better director
I had a dream what this film would be
So different from this hell I'm seeing
So different now from what it seemed
Tom Looper has killed the dream I dreamed

6 out of 10 stars

Silver Linings Playbook - Review (2012)

When it comes to romantic comedies you can usually predict the majority of the plot just by looking at the movie poster.   Full of complex, interesting characters, family drama, emotion and unique approach to storytelling, Silver Linings Playbook is a breath of fresh air in a stale genre.  A film that is much more than a movie poster.

The story centers around Pat (Bradley Cooper), a young man that has just finished an eight month treatment for a bi-polar disorder, that hopes improving himself will be enough to repair his damaged relationship with his wife.  His caring mother (Jacki Weaver) cautiously brings him home to get him back on his feet.  His father (Robert DeNiro), a die-hard Philadelphia sports fan with some OCD tendencies, seems more interested in having his good luck charm back to help ensure a Philly victory.  During a hilarious dinner with his friend he meets (Jennifer Lawrence) a widow with dealing with her own set of issue, namely depression.  From the minute they are on screen together the chemistry is undeniable.  From that point on the film focuses on their unorthodox relationships as they unknowingly lean on each other to work through their problems. 

And the film is full of problems, problems based in reality, which is part of its draw.  We are not given the typical rom-com full of perfectly colorful, quirky characters, in a mystical Hollywood made world where everything works out in the end and we all learn a wonderful lesson just before the latest Kenny Loggins tune plays over the credits.  Behind the walls of the home of this all-American home there is family that is dealing with adversity, one that fights, that has made mistakes and doesn't always have the answers.  Not only are none of the characters perfect, most are flawed and at first difficult to embrace.  Each one comes with their own list of shortcomings - they are not bad people, they just take patience to understand.  Instead of caricatures we get characters.  Pretty early on you get the feeling that no matter what the outcome of the film it is not going to be resolved perfectly with a bow on it.  David O. Russell exposes these less than attractive parts of family life and balances it with comedy and romance, the film's greatest feat.


As I mentioned there is magic on screen between Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.  They both provide award worthy performances, taking two characters I would hesitate about inviting into my home and turning them into two characters for with whom you empathize.  DeNiro has one of his best performances in years - not one of his typical straight off the rack characters.  Welcome back, Bobby.   Jacki Weaver, is not given as showy of a part, but delivers on what she has - there were a couple of times her acting with her eyes choked me up.  And the surprise statement of the young year, Chris Tucker even does well, delivering (for him) a restrained performance - not gunning for laughs, therefore he earning some.  This is one of the better ensambles casts of the year, helping me to connect to characters that could easily have been repellant.

At times, caught up in the whimsy of what is unfolding on screen I may have been a little to eager to overlook some flaws, including a predictable (but likable third act.)  The film, like its characters, has its flaws.  But, isn't that why we go to the movies, to escape the real world and for an hour or two, find the silver lining in life and embrace it?  I did just that, ran with it and had a great time doing so.

9 out of 10

Searching For Sugar Man - Review (2012)

Tells the true story of a mysterious musician from the several decades ago that put out music that was virtually unheard by American ears only to be adopted by the youth of South Africa as anthems for change.  When it is revealed that people know little about the artist and that he may have even committed suicide on stage, some fans go in search of the man behind the music.

It is an interesting tale, unfortunately one that I had already had revealed to me on a news magazine show.  With most the details already revealed this felt like a more detailed recap.  It was interesting, but I am sure much of the appeal of following the trail of the mysterious Sugar Man was lost for me.  If you are a fan of music, particularly Bob Dylan-esque music, then check it out.  It is an interesting tale and in the very least his music is actually quite good.


7.0  out of 10

Looper - Review (2012)

Looper is a time travel story, starring Bruce Willis, set in the not so distant future.  

Let me guess, from that line alone you are imagining a film full of incredible futuristic devices, AI robots run amok, run-ins with historical figures or maybe a grim dystopian society where our every move is watched by an out of control, omnipotent government.  These are just a few of the film conventions that are commonly used during time travel movies, of which I am a big fan.  Although some of these conventions can be a great deal of fun they often draw the majority of the filmmaker’s focus, as an end result what’s sacrificed are intriguing characters.  

What if I told you Looper was a time travel film about regret, redemption, loss and what you will do for love?  Doesn't sound like the sci-fi the typical time travel film, does it?  And lucky for us it isn’t just another film about time travel, but rather, a film about people.  The story is complex, at times confusing but rewards you for sticking through it and applying a little extra brain power.
Looper is set in 2044, a time not much unlike our own.  Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is a looper, whose job is killing people from the future, closing the loop. You see, thirty years into the future, 2074, time travel exists, but it is illegal.  The mob sends back those they need to dispose of and the looper takes them down - no questions, no talking, no chase - the target appears out of thin air, just shoot, kill and collect the bounty.  The catch, they eventually send back the older version of yourself in order to close your own loop.  This is what happens with Joe, his older self (Bruce Willis) appears but has other plans in mind.  Older Joe tries to escape, putting younger Joe’s life threatened by his bosses and the need to hunt down and kill older Joe.  The problem for younger Joe is older Joe came back with a purpose, he is not going down easily.

Director, Rian Johnson (Brick), does not get lost in the need to sell us his vision of the future.  He delivers a minimalistic version - no hi-tech futuristic skyline full of flying cars, no hoverboards or hologram assistants, there's not even a sunglass-wearing, trench coat sporting George Carlin.... instead we see a very identifiable America.  Sure, there are a few futuristic automobiles and weapons, they are countered with an almost rustic feeling version of middle America circa 1990s even though the film is set 5 years from then.  Our focus is not on gadgets and hi-tech mumble jumble, is it on allowing us to invest in the characters.  

An exclusive FilmSnork confession.  I HATE most films that use paper thin plots to string together chase/action scenes - they just aren't my thing.  There I said it.  My fear going into this film was just another exercise in just that -  action packed chase scenes, highly choreographed fights and gun battles.  That is why Looper is a breath of fresh air, the actions scenes are not the major draw of the film.  The action progresses logically from an engaging story - it is part of the story, not the other way around.

As usual, Joseph Gorden Levitt (the actor I STILL have trouble believing was the son on Third Rock from the Sun) delivers another impressive performance.  He has become one of the most reliable actors out there.  And Bruce Willis steps up his game with a couple of very emotional, gut wrenching scenes.   Round out the cast with Jeff Daniels and Emily Blunt and you have a very solid cast whose performances lead to some real impactful scenes.

To get the most out of this film you cannot be a passive viewer.  You will need to be prepared not only twists, turns and mind-bending time travel concepts, but also ready to put yourself in the characters’ shoes, thinking through every ethical decision they must make.  This film does not provide all the answers, it proposes some great questions though.  And honestly, days later I am still thinking about it, flip-flopping on what I saw, what I believe and how I would handle that.  This is not your uncle’s mindless time travel film.  San Dimas High Schhool Football RULES!

8.5 out of 10 stars

Zero Dark Thirty - Review (2012)

Every once in awhile when writing a review I find myself in this situation.  A film, that I enjoyed while watching defies a conventional rating and/or review.  This is the case with this film - a technically sound film, often intense film that lets us in on a previously undisclosed secret world of tracking down the most wanted man in the world (and not in a good way.)  

Maya (Jessica Chastain) is a CIA agent that has trailed Bin Ladin since the day she joined the CIA is an engaging character.  She is a driven woman with some spunk who will not let anything get in her way as she pushes forward on the hunt to capture bin Ladin.  Her story is the thread that holds the film together, the human element that makes this more than just a military procedural.  

Anyone that lived through those terrible events back in September of 2001 hoping that one day justice would be served, will want to see great effort put into making that wish come true.  This film delivers answers (accurate or not) that we yearned for.  I believe it fills a hole in our being left there by the uncontrollable, unthinkable tragedy.  In a way, this film completes us, relieving us of some of the emotional baggage we have lugged around for over a decade.  The last 30 minutes of the film lead to the obvious climax is the killing of Bin Laden, something we all know is coming (even I will reveal that “spoiler.”)  No more questions.  No more wondering.  

But, as a cinema piece it is much less successful.  The reason we become so involved with the film is due to our vested in the subject matter, not because of the characters on screen.  Maya serves, more or less, as a guide throughout this tale.  Her story and that of those around her does not provide cinematic weight needed to elevate the film much beyond the glorified reenactment that it is.  The emotional response to the film falls almost completely on our connection to the real events, not to the characters/story put on screen.  Although there are some displays of good and even great acting (Chastain being the great) the actors are never given much to do.  I am not saying the film is devoid of human emotion, there are a couple moments of humanity that salvage the film.

Although Bigelow crafts some intense scenes, they never reach the same level as the hold-your-breath moments of her Oscar winning “The Hurt Locker.”  There was never a moment during the film that I was restless or bored, it simply lacked the emotional connectivity, preventing it from grabbing hold of me and resonating that way I had hoped.  Who these people are and what happens after all this meant little to me, they were just cogs in the wheel of the master plan.   

The whole experience of seeing this film was like going to see a magician.  Instead of watching him perform an amazing trick, he shows you how he did an older trick you have seen before.  Sure, it is interesting to learn the secrets behind the magic, but it will never be as exhilarating as watching a new trick.  After the thrill of discovery is gone there is not much more to digest.  As I left the theater I had nothing left to think about, nothing left to discuss.  That was minutes after the film, how will the film hold up upon on a second viewing or, better yet, years down the line?  Should I rate the film based only on my actual time viewing?  Should I even ask myself these questions?

My rating for the film 7.5 out of 10.
(a margin of error of .5 depending on how I am feeling that minute.)



The following are a couple of thoughts I had while writing this review that in no way affected my rating, but are worth noting and can be discussed in the comments section.

The film has become controversial because of the graphic displays of torture.  It the film pro-torture, is it anti-torture?   Who cares???  I think that is a very subjective question.  I personally don’t like torture.  Do I condone the torturing of those that are looking to kill countless others to protect the innocent?  The answer to that is something I struggle to come up with a definitive answer for.  If this film accurately portrays what happened during the event preceding the death of Bin Ladin, then shouldn’t they be shown for what they are.  If you going so far as to make this film, then don’t sugar coat it.  

Which brings me to my next internal conflict.  I have to question the fact they made this film at all.  If anything, it seems kind of irresponsible.  Sure Americans are curious what exactly happened.   We are always curious.  That does not mean we deserve all the answer to our questions.  Look what happened when we wanted more answers to the mysteries of the Star Wars universe... we got the prequels, we learned about midi chlorians... we were introduced to Jar Jar.  Having your questions answered does not always end well.  Not only does this film reveal a lot of the techniques used by our government, it also can be used as a tool to breed hatred for our country.