The All-New, All-Awesome Adventures of Danny Baram

CHUCK VS. THE BLOG: A Final Tribute To CHUCK!

2012-01-27T13:40:00.000-08:00

Chuck vs. The All-New, All-Awesome Adventures of Danny Baram

- In 2007, I was still a relative rookie at NBC Universal. I was already working in Digital Distribution at that point, though I still had a lot of contacts at NBC Development, where in late 2005 and early 2006 I was the resident NBC Page on assignment. So I pulled every string I could to get my hands on new pilot scripts. I got a huge thrill (and still do) from reading these, even though you had to wade through a lot of so-so scripts to get to the good stuff. In early April 2007 (I checked my old email logs to verify), I read the pilot script for Chuck and was blown away. I liked it so much that I wrote an email to some contacts in Development to tell them. It reminded me of Y: The Last Man meets Alias meets The O.C. It was probably the first TV script I've ever read that actually felt like it was meant for Gen Y. It wasn't like anything else on TV. It was a genre mashup - comedy, action, adventure, sci-fi, and romance. If it actually made it on the air, man, it was going to be awesome.

At that time, NBC would typically do early pilot screenings for employees, where we gave feedback and got an early glimpse of what was in development. As it happened, I was in a screening session with a lot of older people. At the time, I was only 24. Most had no idea what to make of the Chuck pilot, and certainly, it didn't go over particularly well with that crowd. People wondered who would watch it. They were confused - was it a drama or a comedy? Mostly, I think the fast-paced, self-aware mix of pop culture references, geek speak, and 20-something angst just went over the heads of the 40, 50, and 60-somethings in the room.

Flash-forward to the San Diego Comic-Con, 2007. Somehow, Chuck had been picked up for NBC's Fall schedule. The network had decided to take a risk on a show that was clearly different, unique, and younger-skewing. Heroes had become a smash the previous Fall, so there was a desire to do more high-concept, younger-skewing shows. But man, it was at that Comic-Con that Chuck cemented itself - before it had even aired - as a fan-favorite. My friends and I went to the show's panel in San Diego, and the place was electric. Josh Schwartz and Zachary Levi were given thunderous ovations. And as the pilot played, people laughed, cheered, and clapped. It went over like gangbusters, and Chuck was one of *the* breakout hits at Comic-Con. And rarely have I had such a gratifying experience as an entertainment industry professional. Not that I had any involvement whatsoever in the show - it was just that, there at Comic-Con, it was a victory for us, the fans, and I felt proud to be involved with this paradigm-smashing show even tangentially. It felt like a win for everyone who was sick of shows about white-collar yuppies and shows about young people that felt written by middle-aged writers who didn't have a clue. Chuck felt for us, by us. And maybe people who wear suits to work were never going to get it. But for the rest of us - those of us in our 20's, those of us who grew up with comic books and videogames and movies and pop-culture, this was a TV show that spoke to us - that was, nearly instantly, near and dear to our hearts.

Of course, this same group of geeky twenty-somethings is the same group that inspires all these articles about cord-cutting and the death of traditional TV. So the same people that were so passionate about Chuck from the get-go were the same people least apt to watch it on its regular NBC timeslot. It made Chuck one in a long line of shows with intensely passionate, loyal fans but relatively miniscule ratings. And yet, Chuck persisted, despite the odds. It seemed to face down cancellation two or three times each year, and always, it rallied. Sure, some of that was due to NBC's overall situation over the last few years. But a lot of it was the fact that the fans refused to let their show go quietly into that good night. Subway sandwiches were bought, the internets were swarmed with petitions and protests, and over and over again, the fans got behind this little show that could.

Chuck had its ups and downs creatively, but its heart was always, always in the right place. Even when the plotlines weren't totally clicking, the show worked because the characters were so great. Over the years, Chuck became one of those shows that was just nice to have around. You looked forward to checking in with old friends - Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Morgan, Jeff, Lester, and Big Mike. The show was overflowing with heart, and for that reason, it was deceptively heartstring-tugging. Despite an over-the-top sci-fi premise, the friendships of the characters felt so authentic that some of the big moments - like Chuck finally revealing to Morgan that he was a spy - were as impactful as on any, more serious drama.

Part of the reason for the authenticity, I think, is that stars like Zachary Levi and Joshua Gomez were the real deal - true blue geeks who used their newfound starpower to do things like attend E3, become kings of Comic-Con, and in Levi's case, to start a company called The Nerd Machine. When you mix those guys with the all-around badassery of an Adam Baldwin, and the beautiful/dangerous combo that is the smokin' Yvonne Strahovski, well, it's that rare kind of TV chemistry that makes for something special. And I can attest - these guys are among the nicest bunch you'll find in showbiz. I'll never forget the night that I got to hang out with the cast at Comic-Con. Levi, Gomez, Ryan McPartlin (aka Captain Awesome), and the rest couldn't have been cooler.

If you needed further proof that Chuck's showrunners were themselves fanboys, recall the list of guest stars that the show's utilized over the years. Scott Bakula was brought in to play Chuck's estranged dad, and Linda Hamilton appeared as his mom. Superman himself, Brandon Routh, had perhaps his best role to date as the villainous Daniel Shaw. Carrie-Ann Moss was great this past season as superspy Gertrude Verbansky. We've seen everyone from Timothy Dalton to Chevy Chase to Gary Cole to Stone Cold Steve Austin to Stan Lee grace the show. And that's just barely scratching the surface.

I will miss Chuck, but it's one of those shows that will live on forever. A world was created that people will go back to, that people will revisit, even if only by popping in a DVD and sharing it with their friends. And I think that Chuck is going to have a major influence. Chuck was a show that brought a unique sensibility to TV. During a time when series like Lost, Veronica Mars, and others were playing around with multiple genres and high-concept premises, Chuck showed that there is a way to do a show that's funny and goofy and nerdy yet also action-packed and that has heart. Personally, as a writer, I find myself brainstorming new TV pilot ideas and thinking that it'd be fun to do something in the spirit of Chuck. I think in the years to come, we'll see a lot of shows come down the pike that get compared to Chuck. And when we look back, we'll look at Chuck as a key pop-cultural touchstone of an era when geek culture became mainstream culture. When Comic-Con became the center of the pop-cultural universe. When a mainstream NBC show like Chuck could make obscure references to things like Dune and the music of Rush and get away with it. Maybe Chuck was even ahead of its time. Maybe in a few years, we'll look back and laugh at the dark ages when a show like Chuck lived and died by an antiquated system of Nielsen ratings that didn't even measure the show's target audience and/or its preferred viewing methods in its sampling.

Most of all, I look at CHUCK and, as cheesy as it is to say, I see myself. Chuck Bartowski started out as a just-graduated geek who underachieved and looked for meaning, as his potential was wasted at a boring Buy More job. When fate (and Bryce Larkin) intervened and bestowed upon Chuck the Intersect - a vast database of information, knowledge, and skills downloaded directly into his brain - it gave Chuck a purpose, a mission, and a wake-up call that he was, indeed, meant for great things. As Chuck has grown, figured things out, and approached the big 3-0, well ... so have I. Chuck and I even share the same city - Burbank, CA. And yeah, anytime I head over to the local Best Buy, a part of me will be looking for Jeff and Lester and the rest of the Buy More crew. Now, I can only imagine where Chuck, Sarah, Morgan, and the rest go from here. But I like that. I like that what we've seen is, really, only Chapter 1. Somewhere out there in the metaverse, Chuck will grow old, maybe settle down, but probably have at least a few more great adventures. Isn't that the case for all the best heroes?

Thank you Josh Schwartz, Chris Fedak, and everyone behind the scenes at Chuck. It's been an awesome ride, and even when I wasn't loving the show, it felt like its mere existence was a victory for the good guys, the geeks, the fanboys, and really, anyone who was sick of the same old crap on TV. Chuck fought the good fight, and was a success despite the odds against it. Its kung-fu was strong. And it taught us all to never, ever - under any circumstances - underestimate the power of the Nerd Herd. So here's to CHUCK. It's been a great run.

RED TAILS Is Pulpy, Cheesy Fun From George Lucas and Co.

2012-01-26T12:11:00.000-08:00

RED TAILS Review:

- If you go in to Red Tails expecting a serious drama about the story of the fabled Tuskegee airmen, well, you'll probably be a bit disappointed. Clearly, executive producer George Lucas - who worked for decades to help get this movie made - has no real interest in serious drama. What has always interested Lucas is, of course, pulp fiction - and that's exactly what Red Tails is. Like Star Wars, Red Tails owes its storytelling lineage to old movie serials, pulp novels, and comic books.

That can be pretty jarring, to be honest. Given the fact that this is one of the first high-profile films made about the Tuskegee airmen, some might go in with certain expectations, and feel there's a responsibility on the part of Lucas and his team to give this story a certain dramatic weight and gravitas. For those people, Red Tails is going to feel off, and probably unintentionally funny at many moments. The film will, I think, feel most familiar to those who've ever perused an old war comic - Sgt. Rock, Nick Fury, or the old EC war comics from the 50's. As in those stories, the characters in Red Tails are all outlandishly nicknamed soldiers - with monikers like Lightning, Easy, Joker, and Neon - most with one or two defining personality traits. Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character is - quite cartoonishly - never without his trusty pipe. The dialogue is seemingly lifted from one of those same old comics - you'll either find it charmingly simple or just plain bad.

And I think that's true of a lot of Red Tails. The movie as a whole walks a very fine line, and sometimes its hard to tell what is intended to be intentionally pulpy and campy and what is simply poor creative decision-making. I don't know, I sense that maybe there were some conflicting voices that went into the making of this one. I mean, you can't create a tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink movie about the Tuskegee airmen ... can you? And yet, you can only hope that some parts of the film are meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Like, there's a moment towards the end of the movie, where a soldier who had been kidnapped, taken as a P.O.W. by the Germans, and then helped pull off a daring escape, returns to his army base - miraculously alive after having been presumed dead by his fellow soldiers. We never really saw *how* he got off the base, exactly, or how he made it across enemy lines to get back to his base. In fact, his storyline is given barely any screentime once he's captured. And so when he returns to base at a dramatic moment - at the exact moment that a funeral is occurring for one of his fallen squad-mates - he says something like "hey everyone, I just got back from a crazy adventure where I escaped a P.O.W. camp, and now I'm back!" You almost have to laugh at the absurdity. But was this moment even meant to be funny? There's a lot of stuff like that in Red Tails.

And yet ... Red Tails has an infectious, boyish enthusiasm that makes it hard for me to hate on it too much. The dialogue feels cheesy and like something a 12-year-old would write (think the Star Wars prequels). The editing is choppy, and has a Star Wars-esque style that's, again, likely an homage to old serials - but too often just feels inelegant. And the acting - whoah boy, there's not a note of subtlety in the film. But like I said, it's a comic book come to life - an old, 1950's-era WWII comic book. Take a look at the photo above - I really do think it's emblematic of what this movie is. And for that reason, I enjoyed it. It's simple, over-the-top storytelling that oddly suits the subject matter. It doesn't suit it if you want a mature, nuanced telling of the Tuskegee story. But it works if Red Tails is - as Lucas has said - a modern-day fable for young boys - a live-action version of those old ra-ra comic books that made kids want to march down to Berlin and sock Hitler in the jaw. This is that sort of film. And while a lot of discerning adults are going to be able to nitpick it to hell, this is clearly a movie that looks to communicate a simple, patriotic story to kids about some of World War II's overlooked heroes. Suffice it to say, if you took this movie and made it animated, it probably would lose nothing in translation.

What Red Tails has though are plenty of big, bombastic moments that are undoubtedly crowd-pleasers. The Nazis in this film are sheer evil and utter supervillain-esque exclamations of doom. The heroes have their flaws (too much drinking, too much womanizing), but are all ultimately fun to root for as they zoom around performing death-defying aerial feats and saying things like "take that, Mistuh Hitluh!" In one of the movie's most laugh-getting gags, one of the Tuskegee pilots continually directs his prayers to Black Jesus in the midst of battle. Lots of cheese, but a lot of it is in good fun.

The acting is similarly campy, but I was impressed by the charisma and screen presence of a lot of the actors here. My favorite was Terrence Howard as Colonel A.J. Bullard. Howard is an awesome actor, but here he chews up every scene and hams things up to perfection. It's just a fun performance. I'm not sure if I feel the same about Cuba Gooding Jr. - he just looks sort of ridiculous with a Sherlock Holmes-esque pipe jutting out of his mouth - and he's still got that boyish face that makes it hard for him to pull off the part of a grizzled army major. The real star here though is David Oyelowo as Joe "Lightning" Little. Oyelowo is fed some of the lamest dialogue in the history of cinema. His romantic subplot, in which he magically falls in love with an Italian woman who doesn't speak English - is one of *the* stupidest romance subplots that I've ever seen in a major movie. And yet, Oyelowo is a scene stealer, and he makes a lot of the movie's lamer moments somehow watchable due to sheer charisma and force of will. Similarly good is Nate Parker as Martin "Easy" Julian (a reference to Sgt. Rock's Easy Co.?). Parker helps make squad leader Easy into a fun character, even though his battle with the bottle is seemingly lifted from a "The More You Know" segment on old Saturday Morning TV.

Red Tails also gets a little lift from two small but effective performances from awesome actors. For one, the great Bryan Cranston shows up as an army official whose racism causes him to underestimate the Tuskegee airmen. Meanwhile, Gerald McRaney (from Deadwood and many other things), is great as an army major sympathetic to the cause and a proponent of the Tuskegee soldiers.

It's certainly worth noting that Red Tails is directed by Anthony Hemingway and written by John Ridley and Aaron McGruder (after many, many years in development with various writers). But it's also inevitable that the name George Lucas gets thrown around a lot, because the movie feels so much like a Lucas film. There's a bright, digital sheen over the whole movie that makes it feel very Lucas-y, and everything from the campiness to the stilted dialogue to the editing style feels like the work of the Jedi Master.

It's good and bad. There are some really great scenes in the film - some fantastic, visceral action, and a handful of surprisingly poignant moments that show the sort of racism that the Tuskegee airmen had to battle in addition to the Nazis. There are some big action beats that really work well and get the heart racing. There are moments here that just flat-out pump you up, and make you proud to be an American. I mean, I'll admit it - as I watched this movie in a packed theater, surrounded by a multiracial audience of all ages and creeds, I couldn't help but look around as I watched the movie and think "man, this is sort of awesome - only in America!" It was easy to get caught up in the audience's feeling of pride for this story, for these Tuskegee airmen and the pivotal role they played in America's WWII victory. It was easy to forget about the movie's flaws and just enjoy the fact that here was a great American story, up on the big screen, being presented with all the flair and good vs. evil melodrama of Star Wars. At the same time, there were moments of the film that were so eye-rollingly lame that they just broke the suspension of disbelief and took me out of the movie completely. Even if the film is going for a campy, pulpy vibe, that's still a huge knock against it.

Red Tails isn't really a good movie in any conventional sense. But it's fun, and uplifting, and spectacularly cheesy in a way that just might appeal to your inner ten-year-old - the kid who still believed that America was the greatest country on by-god earth and that anything was possible. If you have it in you to appreciate a movie on that level - if the picture at the top of this post gets your adrenaline pumping - then by all means, go check out Red Tails.

My Grade: B

HAYWIRE: Brutal and Bone-Crunching

2012-01-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

HAYWIRE Review:

Steven Soderbergh is a hard director to love, but an easy one to be intrigued by. Few if any directors relish experimentation as much as him - he's a guy who is always pushing boundaries, testing his own creative limits, and challenging himself to explore different genres and styles. You never quite know what you're going to get with Soderbergh, and that's to his credit - but it also means that, sometimes, his films feel like test tube concoctions rather than fully-formed movies. HAYWIRE is a really cool, interesting action-flick, though I think it does suffer a little from being a sort of offbeat experiment.

As the story goes, Soderbergh saw female MMA fighter Gina Carano in action, and thought she'd be perfect as an action star to build a movie around. And as it turns out, Soderbergh's instincts were 100% right on that front - Carano kicks ass and takes names in Haywire. Her acting is decent, but she has the kind of screen presence and charisma that all the great action stars have. And man, when she puts a beating on someone, the results are realistic, brutal, and positively bone-crunching. After seeing Haywire, I am 100% ready and willing to see Carano in more action roles - and I'd love to see her mix it up with some of her peers (male and female), from Sly Stallone to Jason Statham to Zoe Saldana.

Now the thing with Haywire is that, well, you might expect it to be a balls-to-the-wall style throwdown. But it isn't. It's actually a hyper-stylized throwback of sorts to 70's and 80's-era B-movies. It's a far cry from a sleek action-thriller like Salt, a comic book actioner like Underworld, or a Euro-style woman-on-a-mission movie like Colombiana. Instead, it's like a modern-day version of Foxy Brown or other such proto-grindhouse action cinema. In between the action, there's a lot of convoluted dialogue and plot setup. The movie feels stark, bare-bones - with a straightforward, unflashy cinematic style - the kind of thing that Tarantino paid homage to when he did Deathproof.

This style works well for Haywire in the sense that the fight scenes - shot straight-on without modern conventions like shaky-cam or rapid cuts - feel all the more brutal and wince-inducing. It also makes for some riveting chase scenes, which are allowed to run uninterrupted without unnecessary cuts or flashiness. At the same time, it's admittedly a big jarring to see a movie like this - one that delivers such satisfying, kickass action - deliver said action so sparingly, amidst some very slow bouts of exposition and stripped-down, bare-bones cinematography.

But if you can get past all that, and sit back, and allow yourself to get caught up in Haywire's B-movie trappings, you'll be in for a really cool ride. Some other recent movies (say, Tinker Tailor) frustrated me with their hard-to-penetrate plotlines. But I think the story in Haywire is sort of secondary. It's more about establishing a mood of intrigue and and motive of revenge. Despite some convoluted ins and outs and a multitude of characters woven into the narrative, the basic plotline of Haywire is fairly simple: Carano's character, Mallory - a spy-for-hire - has been set up to take a fall for her employer after a botched job. Mallory is a loose end, and therefore, she's now a target. It may occasionally be tough to figure out how all the various players fit into the story ... but one thing is clear: this is a story about Mallory's revenge.

One thing Sodenbergh does is that he surrounds Carano with a number of highly-regarded actors to play off of. While Carano does the bulk of the ass-kicking, most of the acting load is carried by the likes of Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglass, Bill Paxton, the omnipresent Michael Fassbender, Antonio Banderes (sporting a super-badass beard) and, to a lesser extent, Channing Tatum. It's an interesting strategy - surround this amateur actress with a cast of experienced and award-winning actors. And it mostly pays off, as everyone does a nice job of giving the movie some added gravitas and dramatic heft. That said, you do sort of wish that Carano had some real physical equals to play off of. I mean, do you want a Bruce Lee movie where he's teamed with Sir Laurence Olivier? The result is a movie that has pretty jarring transitions between its more dramatic, dialogue-heavy scenes and its action scenes. Only Fassbender among the cast gets to do some solid acting as well as ass-kicking, and his appearance in the movie is sadly a fairly brief one.

On one level, there's a degree of frustration that HAYWIRE isn't an over the top, Kill Bill-style cinematic action tour de force, or even an Expendables-style frag-'em-up. With someone as awesome and as legit deadly as Carano, that's sort of what you want. And yet, there is a very interesting, quasi-arthouse style at play in Haywire that pulsates with retro-grindhouse-cool. And it's at its best when it embraces the absurdity of it all and just gets a little crazy. When it deliberately tries to be drab, Haywire can get a bit boring. But when it dares to be as badass as it can be - as in the highly entertaining final encounter between Carano and McGregor - Haywire is a stylistically-risky but still-satisfying action pic.

My Grade: B+

CONTRABAND Is Contrabland

2012-01-13T17:29:00.000-08:00

CONTRABAND Review:

One thing that's always frustrating to me when talking movies: how hard it can be to talk about what separates a great action or genre film from a merely-decent or mediocre one. Sometimes, I feel like I'll complain about an action movie and get the response of "well, not every movie has to be intellectual." True, very true. But even within the confines of the action genre, there is good and there is bad. There is badass and there is weaksauce. There is awesomeness and there is epic fail. Seeing a movie like Contraband that's, overall, okay but just pretty unremarkable and bland, it's hard for me to just give it a pass. I mean, as I recently blogged about, I just attended a Badass Movie Night where I took in action classics like Rolling Thunder and Hard Boiled - movies that reeked of awesome and that positively kicked my ass.

I don't ask that an action movie be overly cerebral - I just want awesomeness. And on that front, CONTRABAND only marginally delivers. It's got a bland plot, boring characters, and few if any moments that really wowed me. Is it terrible? No, it's okay - and it's got an admittedly great cast. But the cast deserves better material. You can sense the likes of Ben Foster and Kate Beckinsale and Giovanni Ribisi straining to make something out of their parts. They do their best - and they make the movie watchable. But good god - if you set out to make a movie like this, set out to make it kick all kinds of ass. Come up with a sweet main character, a memorable villain, jaw-dropping twists. Go for broke. Contraband feels totally "meh" for most of its runtime.

Contraband stars Mark "Say hello to your mother for me" Wahlberg as Chris Farraday, an ex-smuggler who's gone straight, and now makes a living running a home security company. He's settled into a peaceful, domesticated life with his wife (Kate Beckinsale) and kids. But things go bad when Farraday's screw-up brother-in-law botches a smuggling job for Briggs (Ribisi), a ruthless, unhinged crime boss. The mistake could endanger the lives of Farraday and his family, so the onetime master-smuggler must go on one last run - a trip to Panama to bring back counterfeit money - to pay back Briggs and keep his family safe.

It's a classic story of the reformed criminal who's got to do "one last job." But there's nothing really classic about it as told here. The biggest problem is probably that Wahlberg's character feels so underdeveloped. We never find out what exactly turned him to the straight-and-narrow. And we never really understand why he was once the best in the biz at smuggling, except that people tell us so. Wahlberg is okay, but just bland in this. And another issue is that we never really are made to understand the world of smuggling. I never got why Wahlberg had to travel all the way to Panama to secure the counterfeit money. And I thought there was almost a comical obviousness to the fact that, hey, Farraday owes this crime boss money, so hey - let's do this massively complicated smuggling run to get it! It just struck me as funny that he never even talked about just robbing a bank or something. At the least, I wish the movie had explained why this was the best method to get the payload, Farraday's background notwithstanding. Also - I never quite got the dynamics of him and his crew, or how they worked with the captain of their ship. Speaking of which, JK Simmons plays said Captain, and it's a frustrating character - the dude goes on some random trip to Panama with a bunch of known criminals onboard, and yet he's constantly weary that they might be up to something fishy. Ya' think?

As mentioned though, the cast helps to give the movie what little spark it has. One standout is Giovanni Ribisi. He plays Briggs like a character from a much cooler, much crazier B-movie - he reminded me a bit of T-Bag from one of my favorite TV-shows, Prison Break. He has those snake-like mannerisms that make him a bad-guy you love to hate. But Ribisi is sort of in the background for a lot of the movie. When he does appear, business definitely picks up though. Same can be said for Ben Foster as Sebastion, Farraday's longtime friend and partner. The movie's one good twist revolves around Sebastion, and it's not that it's that clever or that it even makes sense, but more so that it gives Foster a chance to do what he does best: be a mean, creepy sonofabitch. When Foster is given the chance to really shine, that's when Contraband is at its best. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that the movie was really losing me for a while, but I finally got re-invested when Foster emerges as a key player in the drama. I also liked Kate Beckinsale as Farraday's wife. My only issue is that the character feels a bit too much like a victim. When you've got a kickass actress like KB in a role, it's hard to watch her get pushed around and made into a damsel-in-distress. One last shout-out goes to William Lucking who makes a brief cameo as Farraday's incarcerated father, who himself was a smuggler. Lucking manages to be the most badass person in the movie, by far, despite only a few minutes of screentime. It made me wonder how much more cool this flick could have been if it was a story of father-son joint ass-kicking. Ah well.

But again, there just isn't a cool enough story or well-defined enough characters for these talented actors to sink their collective teeth into. The script seems intent on trying to make its characters cool through lots of tough-guy dude-bro dialogue, but it rarely if ever pops. Setting never plays any real role in the movie - the film is set mainly in New Orleans, but you'd barely know it. And the segments in Panama are bland. Director Baltasar Kormakur seems to be going for some sort of slick Michael Mann-style mood here, but I began rolling my eyes when I realized that *every* scene is punctuated by a kewl overhead, nighttime shot of either a.) a ship barreling through the ocean, or b.) a helicopter flying over said ship. We get it, big vehicles at night are cool - we don't need to see that same shot every minute.

Basically, the only signs of life in Contraband come from a stacked cast that is clearly doing their best to make this movie work. Nothing else about the movie gives you reason to care though. It's generic and bland through-and-through.

My Grade: C

PARIAH Rises Above

2012-01-13T15:13:00.000-08:00

PARIAH Review:

- Pariah is a striking, powerful, emotion-packed film. It's also a hugely impressive debut from writer/director Dee Rees. The movie is a character piece, an examination of a young, African-American girl's struggle to embrace the fact that she is a lesbian. But, the film is shot in a way that's both naturalistic yet also heightened. There's a real feel of authenticity at work here (perhaps stemming from the autobiographical elements that Rees imbued the film with). And that feeling of peering into this world and living with these characters made Pariah moving and entertaining and also attention-grabbing. Even if you've had your fill of serious message movies in recent months, I'd say make room for one more, as Pariah is well worth checking out.

Pariah tells the story of Alike, a high schooler who has dipped her toes into the water of living a lesbian lifestyle. She's by no means openly gay - and is guarded about things in front of her concerned parents. But she hangs out with a lesbian clique outside of school, and is beginning to express herself in a way that's more true to who she really is. This manifests in everything from the poetry she composes for school to the way she dresses. Her parents are her biggest source of stress and self-doubt. Her mother in particular suspects that her daughter might be gay, but would be devastated if it were so. Church-going and rather close-minded, Alike's mother feels that her life is coming apart at the seams. Aside from Alike, her younger daughter is becoming a teenager and becoming older, sassier, and more rebellious. And her husband - a cop - is quite possibly having an affair with another woman. Alike's father is actually one of the film's more interesting characters. On one hand, he is more supportive of Alike and open-minded about her identity. On the other hand, he is helping to facilitate a miserable atmosphere in his home - sneaking out late at night, endlessly engaged in shouting matches with his wife. Meanwhile, Alike's friend Laura is even worse off - her mother kicked her out of the home when she discovered that her daughter was a lesbian. So now, Laura is living with her older sister and trying to get her G.E.D. Her mom won't acknowledge her existence. All this, plus: Laura may harbor a crush on Alike - and their relationship becomes increasingly strained when Alike meets someone else (a girl who, ironically, her mother introduced her to in an effort to set her straight).

Actress Adepero Oduye is a revelation as Alike. Her acting feels incredibly naturalistic, to the point where sometimes you almost feel like you're watching a documentary. That said, Oduye also shines when the script calls upon her to deliver some big, emotional moments. Oduye has an infectious smile that makes us happy when Alike succeeds, and she also renders certain scenes as incredibly heart-breaking - especially those that highlight her fractured relationship with her mother.

Speaking of which - whoah - Kim Wayans is pretty amazing as Audrey, Alike's mom. Best known for her comedic roles on shows like In Living Color, the Wayans sister shows some real dramatic range as a woman who teeters on the edge of breakdown. Charles Parnell is also fantastic as Alike's father, Arthur. Arthur is a really interesting character as well - a cop who is concerned for his daughter but also accepting of her. We also are left to wonder a bit about his infidelity - yes, he's hurting his family, but we can also see that his marriage to Audrey hasn't been an easy one. Pernell Walker as the rough-around-the-edges Laura is also really, really good. I also liked Aasha Davis as Bina, the pixie-ish girl who Alike falls for. It's a great cast overall - everyone is really doing A-level work here.

I guess my one qualm with the movie is that it's just too straightforward and by-the-numbers. There are very few surprises here, and the film never really deviates from its basic coming-of-age template. I kept waiting for some twists or turns that would shake up the story and make it a bit more memorable or distinct, but just about every trope here is standard-issue for this type of film. Now, few films are able to tell this kind of story with such a great cast and such a feeling of authenticity. But I guess I just wanted the film to truly take things to that next level. As is, Pariah is sort of a jolt of a movie - brisk, powerful, and then ... that's it. The narrative doesn't really go to any particularly unexpected places.

Overall though, Pariah is a really good film. It shines a light on a particular subculture in America that's got it really tough, and is only now starting to emerge from the shadows. It's an inspiring story about a girl who's able to rise above intolerance and forge a path for herself. To some extent, anyone can relate to the idea of breaking free of expectations and finding your own way, and that's what Pariah is all about. Like I said, even if it's now 2012, I think we've got to make room for one more excellent film in the 2011 cannon.

My Grade: B+

The Art of the B-Movie: Hobo With a Shotgun, Rolling Thunder, Primitive, and More!

2012-01-06T17:48:00.000-08:00

The Art of the B-Movie:

- Why is it that certain movies that are, on one level, sort of ridiculous, still resonate with viewers and find a cult following? What separates a great B-movie from a terrible "regular" movie? Oftentimes, it's a fine line. Just an ounce too much self-awareness, and you get a trying-too-hard wannabe like Snakes on a Plane. And yet - if there's no self-awareness whatsoever, not even the slightest wink, then you might have yourself a movie that's only "B" as in bad. But something magical happens when a movie dares to be weird, out-there, or insane, yet doesn't feel the need to explain or justify itself to anyone who doesn't immediately "get" what it's going for. That's when a movie becomes transcendentally entertaining. And that's when we get into the world inhabited by the John Carpenters and Sam Raimis and W.D. Richters of the world - movies like Escape From New York, They Live, Evil Dead, and The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai. These are movies that - like the pulp novels and comic books that are their spiritual forefathers, are gloriously self-assured visions of highly-stylized adventure.

Nowadays, we get a lot of movies that are self-consciously "B." And that can be problematic, because as I said, one hallmark of a great B-movie is that, while watching, you can only detect the slightest sense of self-awareness. And yet, movies like Planet Terror, Deathproof (together comprising GRINDHOUSE), and Machete are self-styled B-movies. They all have metatextual elements that scream "hey, we're making a B-movie here!" And yet, they still work, because the script, direction, and acting so perfectly mimic the genuine articles. With Snakes on a Plane, what you saw was a movie that started out just being bad. At some point, people realized it was bad, and tried to turn it around to being ironically-bad. Insert a few jokes, crank up the absurdity, and wink at the audience a few times, and suddenly, your bad movie becomes a B-movie cult classic ... in theory. But in practice, it was obvious that Snakes came less from the genuine place of passion that all great B-movies come from, and more from a cynical, cash-grabbing place from which legitimately terrible movies tend to originate.

At the same time, movies like Machete have done a fantastic job of paying homage to B-movie/grindhouse cinema. Machete is a winking tribute, but also functions as a great grindhouse movie in and of itself - just with perhaps a little bit more self-awareness than is typical. Which brings me to ...

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN Review:

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN, a movie that started as a trailer and evolved into a full-length feature. HOBO is a movie that, like Machete, knows exactly what it's trying to be, but is a bit more of an authentic grindhouse experience in that it rarely winks, or goes for self-aware humor. In Machete, star Danny Trejo plays things broad, almost like he's in a comedy (which he basically is). But in Hobo, star Rutger Hauer is deadly serious. Even though his character and the film are completely over-the-top, Hauer - in classic B-movie fashion - plays it all straight. Part of that may come from Hauer's Europeon roots - over there, action movies tend to be over-the-top and crazy without ever being ironic about it. Think of the movies of Luc Besson or Paul Verhoeven. Satirical? Sometimes. But there's also a straightforward sincerity to movies like Leon The Professional and Robocop that may even make them, at times, unintentionally funny to American audiences. HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN captures that sort of vibe - there's some very dark, satirical humor at its core, but it presents the social commentary with about the same degree of sincerity as the insane ultraviolence.

That makes for a movie that took me a little while to warm up to, but that ultimately won me over with its gleefully over-the-top insanity. The movie is flat-out nuts, but like I said, it presents just about everything at face value. The central premise - Rutger Hauer as a grizzled old homeless man who decides to clean up his city's dirty streets, one despicable criminal at a time - is a lot to take in by itself. But that premise may actually be the most banal thing about the film. Hauer's badass bum soon finds himself teamed with a gun-toting hooker with a heart of gold, pitted against an insanely evil and sadistic crime family, and, inexplicably, facing unstoppable, armor-clad demons summoned from the fiery pits of hell. Yes, you heard me. This movie starts out as being crazy, and very soon becomes *certifiable.*

Shot in extreme color and utilizing all sorts of classic B-movie camera techniques, Hobo looks like an old 70's grindhouse film with a modern, acid-washed twist. As it goes on, the action heats up and becomes increasingly, awesomely over-the-top. But the whole thing is anchored by Hauer's captivating performance. Hauer is one of those great, underutilized actors - but perhaps it's partly because he's at his best in these sorts of larger-than-life roles, aka, the kind that haven't been there in mainstream cinema over the last few decades. But man, does Hauer ever get stuff to chew (more like gnaw) on in this one.

Hobo With a Shotgun take a little while to get going, and at times, it does have the aura of a movie that's trying a little too hard to be shocking. In its quest to extend a premise tailor-made for a cool trailer into a full feature, the movie keeps throwing weird $%&# at you to keep you in a constant state of shock and awe. And some if it - because of spotty acting, off-kilter direction, iffy writing, etc. - doesn't work, and is more eye-rolling than jaw-dropping. But ultimately, the movie is a fun, freakish film that I found to be quite enjoyable.

My Grade: B+

Now, while I'm talkin' B-movies, a couple of other things that I'll mention:

- This past weekend, some friends and I gathered for our first-ever BADASS MOVIE NIGHT. A couple of incredibly badass films were watched that night, but I want to talk about one in particular: ROLLING THUNDER. This was a movie that we had been introduced to via a special screening of Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair that we attended several months back at the New Beverly theater in LA. Prior to unveiling his re-cut version of Kill Bill Parts 1 and 2, the great Quentin Tarantino set the proper mood by showing us a trailer reel of revenge films that helped to inspire the creation of the Kill Bill saga. All of the films looked awesome, but one in particular stood out for its sheer badassery. And that film was Rolling Thunder.

Now, here's the insane thing. Rolling Thunder should be considered a classic, held in the same regard as movies like Taxi Driver (it's from the same writer, for one thing). It's an incredibly awesome 70's-era revenge film, starring William Devane (Sec. Heller on 24), and Tommy Lee Jones. The movie has kickass action, but it's also a fantastic character piece - a look at a man who comes back from imprisonment as a P.O.W. in 'Nam, only to find out that the America he's returned to is in some ways just as brutal and unforgiving as the war. This is a movie that any film fan should check out asap. BUT ... it's NOT AVAILABLE ON DVD. Yes, as of last year, you can order the film via MGM's pressed-to-order DVD purchase program. Okay, that's a decent first step. But this is a movie that needs the deluxe treatment. It's a movie that anyone should easily be able to check out, that should be a perennial best-seller at Best Buy or on iTunes. But, for some reason, it's been relegated to obscurity. Rolling Thunder - which I can now vouch for as one of THE most badass films of all time - is a movie that MGM, Criterion, Shout Factory, Kino - someone - needs to give a proper release to asap!

But since I'm talking about B-movies, I'll say that Rolling Thunder is one of those movies that's legit a great film, but also has some of the hallmarks of a B-movie classic. Whereas a more straight-laced action film might keep things less violent and more banal, RT is downright brutal and disturbing. It dares to go to places that other movies wouldn't. I mean, it gives Devane's psychologically-scarred Vietnam vet a hook for a hand! The movie just goes for broke, and never feels compromised or watered-down in any way possible. The people behind Rolling Thunder just give you the most badass movie they could imagine, and they aren't worried about keeping things sanitized or even 100% realistic, necessarily. It exists in a heightened reality, a dark, messed-up place - the same place as a movie like Taxi Driver. And that willingness to go outside what is realistic to make a point is what B-movies are usually willing to do. All I can say is, if you are able to find a way to see Rolling Thunder, it's a must-watch for any movie geek.

- The other movies we watched as part of our Badass Movie Night are more widely-known, but both were films I had, somehow, yet to see. Those movies were THE WARRIORS and HARD BOILED.

- Now, THE WARRIORS has a pretty huge cult following, and it's still sort of prominent in pop-culture. The movie recently enjoyed a re-released director's cut version, and Rockstar Games even did a videogame based off the film a couple of years back. Suffice it to say, it's a cheesy-yet-awesome film that I sort of laughed at while watching, but has 100% stuck with me in the days since. The idea of the film is just so far-out, and the characters so weird and imaginative, that it's been rattling around in my brain. But what makes it a B-movie classic is exactly that - the movie takes place in a strange world that is never really explained. It's a neon-lit version of New York City that's overrun with street gangs - colorfully-clad clans that come off more like teams of comic book supervillains. Is this the future? The present? Some kind of post-apocalyptic dystopia? Who knows. But The Warriors doesn't bother to explain - it just exists and asks us to accept its outlandish premise and world. "Can you dig it?"

- HARD BOILED, on the other hand, is less a B-movie. It's more of a true epic - a Hong Kong police saga of crime, corruption, and double-crosses. But what makes Hard Boiled truly pop is the ultra-stylized direction of action movie maestro John Woo. Woo frames his action scenes as blood-spattered ballet, an orgiastic opera of bullets and badassery. I would say this is less a B-movie, because of its sheer epicness, big-budget production, and fully-formed characters and storyline. So ... B-movie? Not quite. Badass movie? Hells yeah.

- Now, one thing about the great B-movie classics is that there tends to be a sort of home-made, do-it-yourself spirit that makes them endearing. Even when they have a bigger budget, B-movies still tend to feel less like corporate products and more like singular passion-projects of filmmakers. Sometimes a B-movie might fall within the narrative confines of a particular genre (horror, fantasy, etc.), but sometimes, the slice n' dice mashup of genres is exactly what makes certain B-movies so cool. It's why they're the movie equivalent of rock n' roll - they're messy, weird, unpredictable, and dangerous. Hobo With a Shotgun is sort of Sex Pistols. Evil Dead is Alice Cooper-esque. Rolling Thunder is, I suppose, kind of a Neil Young. But getting back to my earlier point, the cool thing is that these are exactly the kinds of movies that a fledgling writer or director can have fun with. These are the kinds of movies that a small crew can go out and shoot, even with a low-budget. In fact, these are movies where low-budget is part of the equation - where creativity and imagination is key.

PRIMITIVE:

- And with that in mind, I'd like to close things out by giving a well-deserved shout-out to a little movie called PRIMITIVE. Directed by friend-of-the-blog Benjamin Cooper, Primitive is exactly what I was talking about above - a low-budget horror movie that was essentially made because all parties involved love horror flicks and creature features.

Essentially, Primitive is your classic story of a man with a monstrous id lurking inside him - a man whose subconscious rage forces him to, well, unleash the beast. It's the kind of thing that perhaps owes a tip o' the old hat to stories like Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Incredible Hulk, etc. But what's cool about Primitive is that our hero doesn't *become* the beast, but actually unleashes this monstrous entity whenever even a small part of him feels a bit of resentment or hatred towards someone else. This twist on an old legend is particularly compelling, because it means that anyone could unwittingly become the target of the beast's wrath. One moment of jealousy between friends, one small spat with the girlfriend - any of these seemingly trivial incidents could lead to the monster materializing and doing the only thing it knows how - wreaking havoc and exacting deadly vengeance.

Primitive features a solid cast of up-and-comers, but the real bonus for horror fans is the presence of genre stalwart Reggie Bannister, who's appeared in countless horror flicks, from Phantasm to Bubba Ho-Tep. As the eccentric doctor who diagnoses the protagonist's rather strange condition, Bannister is a fun presence and, certainly, a scene-stealer.

The movie also features some really fun creature f/x and makeup. Again, this isn't cutting-edge CGI, but good old-fashioned man-in-suit action. The fun is in seeing the hand-crafted creature costumes, and the creativity that clearly went into making them.

Finally, I'll just mention that Primitive features several entertainingly gruesome kills - and as the movie approaches its climax, there's some pretty cool confrontations between man, woman, and monster.

In any case, it's definitely cool to look at a movie like Primitive and see what some talented and passionate horror-movie fans were able to do with relatively limited resources. It's the kind of film that will make you want to go out and shoot your own B-horror movie ... and sometimes, that's the best kind. If you want to find out more info about PRIMITIVE, check out this site: http://www.PrimitiveTheMovie.net/.

- And there you have it, a special post dedicated to the B-movie, the most rock n' roll of all movie genres, and the type of film that perhaps best encapsulates the can-do spirit of independent cinema. Because really, without these films, we wouldn't have the Indiana Jones, the Dark Knights, or the Aliens of the world. Those movies take the raw imagination of B-movies and refine them - smooth out the rough edges. But for a look at what unbridled creativity and unfiltered imagination can do when put to film - this, my friends, is the good stuff.

2012: The Year Ahead in Politics

2012-01-05T10:54:00.000-08:00

2012 - it's going to be one heck of a year. A lot of jokes will be made about the impending end-of-the-world (or so the end of the Mayan calendar would have you believe). A lot of nerding-out will occur by people (like me), frothing at the mouth thinking about all of the hugely-anticipated movies headed our way this year (The Dark Knight Rises! The Avengers! The Hobbit!). But, throughout 2011, I talked a lot about getting out of our bubbles and doing a better job of being active, aware, and engaged towards the world around us. And what that means is this: 2012 should be - has GOT to be - the year that my generation is a - maybe THE - force for influence and change in the world. WE have got to step it up in 2012.

One of the biggest - yet easiest - things we can do in 2012 is ... VOTE. Now, I've had several debates with people who think that voting is a waste of time. One line of thought is that the vote of the individual means nothing. True - on 6 pm of Election Day, more than likely, your vote isn't going to be a game-changer. But right now, we're not talking about your vote as one singular, isolated thing. We're talking about your vote as a granular piece of sand in a giant sandbox of people with potentially similar views. Let me put this in more real-world terms: This coming November, we've got a presidential election on our hands. On one hand, we've got a sitting President who's been imperfect, yes - but he's also a level-headed guy who has been at times moderate, at times progressive - though severely hampered in his ability to enact his agenda by a Congress that's controlled by the opposing party. Nonetheless, President Obama is a guy who has it in him to steer us in the right direction. He's a person who's open to listening to different opinions, who is in many ways a pragmatist, who's not driven by ideology or dogma. On the other end of the spectrum, we've currently got a lineup of Republican candidates who would take our country *backwards* in many ways. Back to the Bush years. But they'll take us even farther than that. Guys like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum want to take us back to before the days of the Scopes trial. They want a country in which religious law is national law. They want a place where science is tossed out the window, where our economy is driven by war, pollution, and massive corporate agendas, where programs are cut so that the rich get richer and the poor never stand a chance.

Most people I talk to get this. Most people - particularly those of my generation - see through the absurdity of the Republican agenda and cringe at the thought of President Romney, Newt, or (shudder) Santorum. But if that's the case, then why haven't we been THE major voting block in recent elections? Who knows. I think, one thing, is that too many of us don't separate reality from Reality TV. We treat the presidential candidates like reality show contestants - only paying attention when there's a foible or gaff or scandal. But the fact is, these are the people that are going to lead our country for four years. And people - we don't have time to mess around.

We need to get out of this economic crisis - and it's not just about the short-term fix, either. It's about setting the tone for what kind of country we are. Are all attempts to help people simply to be dismissed as "socialist?" Is universal health care something that we take pride in, or something we attribute to some kind of subversive radical politics? Do we tax the ultra-rich their fair share? Do we balance military spending to get it to realistic levels? Do we spend on important things like education and infrastructure, or fall behind the rest of the world? Do we figure out now how to preserve social security for our generation, or do we just throw our hands up and concede that we're screwed?

We need to think long and hard about what's going on with climate change. Forget politics, it's just science, and it can be seen every month in the form of increasingly harsh environmental conditions. We have to act on this ... now. We can't mess around with projects like the Keystone Pipeline. Job creation is important, but not if the cost is literally destroying our planet. And we absolutely cannot let our agenda here be driven by Big Oil. Too much is at stake. Realistically, we're not going to get off of oil in the next several years. But, we need to be headed in that direction. Is the party of "drill, baby, drill" going to get us there? Oh hells no. To be honest, this is an area where I'd really like to see Obama step up to a much larger degree than he has. But he has shown signs - vetoing the Keystone Pipeline contsruction, for example, that he too wants to get the country on the right track when it comes to the environment.

We also need to look at foreign policy. Obama has been both tough on our enemies (Osama Bin Laden says "hi"), but also willing to let natural revolutions take form and aid them smartly and strategically. Once, the Republicans used toughness on security as their calling card, but Obama has smartly made it a non-issue. That said, the Republicans are all chomping at the bit for more war. Not because it's necessary, but because they simply like the idea of it - "us vs. them," "good vs. evil." There's nothing wrong with being critical of our allies while also being tough on our enemies. At the same time, there's something to be said for approaching other parts of the world with intelligence, open-mindedness, and respect. We all know that we're engaged more so in a war of ideas than anything else - so let's continue to change hearts and minds, and give the world reason to look up to us, not despise us.

Finally, we need to look at our social values. Are we getting more progressive and inclusive, or less? Ironically, the same party - The GOP - that purports to idolize America's founders, tends to forget perhaps the most basic principle that our nation was founded on - SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. America is a place where no one religion or belief system is law. Guys like Santorum and Perry don't understand this - they think they have some kind of mandate to impose Christian-specific values on everyone. It's a joke. And it affects everything from how holidays are celebrated in schools, to acceptance of climate change, to gay rights. Again, are we going forwards or backwards?

So to get back to my earlier point - to those who have a defeatist attitude, who simply think that all candidates and parties are the same - WAKE UP. Obama isn't perfect, and the Democratic party isn't either. In fact, there are elements of the system that are pretty broken. The influence of corporate campaign contributions, lobbyists, etc. on our candidates is out of hand. And yes, to some degree, every presidential and congressional candidate is in someone or other's pocket. But please, don't fall into the trap of uniformly dismissing everyone. At the end of the day, the biggest lobby is still WE THE PEOPLE. Look at a guy like Rick Perry. We all know the kind of big corporate dollars that have gone into his campaign thus far. But ultimately, it's all for naught, because people saw through his B.S. and his poll numbers went way down. So yes, we ultimately wield more influence than any corporation or lobbyist. Part of the problem is that we haven't been vocal - or specific - enough. It's like Occupy Wall Street - it's awesome that people are vocal, active, and engaged. But what is Obama supposed to take away from this? It's fine to have a general sense of what you want, but the world we live in is complicated. We've got to come out in favor of or against specific legislation, or propose specific legislation ideas of our own. By the same token, it frustrates me to see people and peers who blindly throw their support behind someone like Ron Paul. They perceive him as being the alternative candidate, the guy who's removed from the usual party politics. That's fine, in theory. But ultimately, this is NOT a guy we want running our country - he's crazy, and most of his ideas are ridiculous. He's got a long history of bigotry. His foreign policy ideas are completely crackpot. All I can say is, please don't endorse Ron Paul until you've very carefully read up on his positions and past statements.

I started this post as a pretty general statement about getting involved and engaged in 2012. But I'm ending it with a much more specific call to action: Gen Y, forward-thinking individuals, progressives, all who want to see our country and our world headed in the right direction - let's do two things in 2012. One: let's re-elect Obama by an overwhelming margin, and let's prove that we as a people are too smart to let any of the current, whack-job Republican candidates emerge as a serious hopeful for the presidency. Let's prove that, though we may not alway 100% agree with Obama, that good lord, we'd take him any day over the current GOP freakshow. Let's mobilize and get out and vote. The election is not the time to mope, or wallow, or wonder if it's all worth it. The election is the one day where it is us vs. them, a simple yes or no choice. The day after the election, we can go back to being self-critical and critical of the president. But on that Tuesday, we make a clear and simple statement, and we re-elect Obama. But that brings me to the second point. Two: it doesn't stop - or start - there. Right now, we get engaged and we push Obama and Congress to act in our and the country's and the world's interests. And then after the election, we push even harder, and we never stop being heard again.

2012 is going to be a big year. An epic year. History is going to be made. So let us be the ones to make it.

Happy New Year!

2011-12-31T15:00:00.000-08:00

- Well, it's been quite a year. In 2011, I moved into a new apartment, travelled to Connecticut, NYC, Seattle, and San Diego, went to Disneyland (thrice!), saw Ozzy Osbourne, Slash, Heart, Def Leppard, Weird Al, and Cheap Trick in concert, saw the Clippers play, wrote one new TV pilot script and started another, went to E3, went to Sony's E3 afterparty, attended Comic-Con for the sixth-year-straight-year and had an amazing time, I stuffed myself silly at The OC Fair, sat live at the Staples Center for Summerslam, and saw 4th of July fireworks with my family at the Starlight Bowl.

I celebrated my 29th birthday at Knotts' Scary Farm, held my annual Horror Movie Marathon, played a lot of basketball, gave a speech on Rosh Hashana, worked like a madman at NBC Universal, saw friends and family that visited me in LA, visited friends on the east coast, made new friends and spent quality time with old ones.

I saw a ton of movies, saw great live comedy, read a lot, wrote a lot, blogged a lot (particularly in December), went to parts of LA I'd never been to, and went to places that have now become favorite haunts. I went to birthday parties, went to party-parties, and sadly ... went to a funeral - I had late nights, early nights (mostly late though), and unintentionally fell asleep on my couch more than a few times.

I had wins and had losses, had good times, not-so-good times, times when I felt ready to take on the world and times when all I wanted to do was sleep -- but mostly ... it was a year filled with lots of fun, some personal and professional progression, and one in which a solid foundation was (hopefully) built for even bigger and better things to come in 2012.

There's a lot to look forward to in 2012, though it's going to take a lot of willpower and luck to get to where I want to be and make all the things happen that I want to happen. There are things coming up in 2012 that I don't want to think about (turning 30, the impending apocalypse ... in that order), and there are things coming that I can't anticipate.

But for now, I'll simply take a second to wish everyone a Happy New Year, and thanks for reading. Stay tuned - 2012 is going to be epic.

THE BEST OF 2011 - The Best MOVIES Of The Year

2011-12-29T23:27:00.000-08:00

THE YEAR IN FILM, 2011:

- At some point this Fall, I had a feeling ... as far as movies go, this was going to be one of those years. This was going to be a year where my personal picks for the year's best films didn't necessarily conform to what other critics picked. This was going to be a year where a lot of my favorite films were, inevitably, going to be ignored come awards season. Without any unanimously-praised new-classics, this was going to be a year where people were sharply divided as to the year's best. 2011 saw many fantastic films, but few that were truly titanic. I don't think there was any one film this year that was on the same level of greatness as recent Best-Of picks like The Social Network, The Hurt Locker, or No Country For Old Men. And yet, I still rank 2011 as a great year for movies because, over and over again, I found myself surprised by just how much I enjoyed any number of movies that, over the course of the year, seemed to come out of nowhere and make a huge impression.

Who would have thought, going into this Summer, for example, that of all the big blockbusters set to hit theaters ... who would have ever thought that RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES would be far and away the best? Not only did Apes shock me with just how awesome it was, but it now, in my mind, stands as one of the best overall action-blockbusters of the last several years.

Who expected, earlier this year, that a little movie called ATTACK THE BLOCK would be the cult-favorite, word-of-mouth sensation of the Summer? Before this Summer, I had never heard of Joe Cornish. Now, after his directorial debut with Attack The Block and co-writing credit on THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, I can't wait to see what he does next.

Who knew that there was another Olsen sister who was a phenomenal actress and breakout star in the making? Regardless of her last name, Elizabeth Olsen blew me away in MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE.

Speaking of breakout performances, I had never heard of Demian Bechir before this year. After reading a glowing review of A BETTER LIFE, I looked him up and saw that he was primarily known for a supporting role on the TV show Weeds. But in A Better Life, Bechir delivered an absolutely stunning turn as an illegal immigrant forced to track down his stolen truck, his only possession in the world of any value.

Who could have guessed that at the end of the year, we'd be talking about a silent movie throwback as one of the year's best and most beloved films? Up to the moment that the movie began to play in the theater, I was skeptical about THE ARTIST and its ability to keep me entertained. But by the time the credits rolled, I had been completely won over.

However, if I had to point to one overwhelming trend at the movies this year, it's that 2011 was a year in which pure cinema was celebrated. Many of the year's best films were primarily visual - reminding us of the very basic joys of the motion picture. THE ARTIST took us back to the days before spoken dialogue. HUGO was also, in its own way, a tribute to the silent era, and the way in which the movies of that time evoked such a raw feeling of wonder and imagination. THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN was Steven Spielberg using motion-capture animation to create a living, breathing cartoon world in three dimensions. Even the much-maligned SUCKER PUNCH was, in my opinion, a visual tour de force - a next-level dreamscape that brought videogame-like aesthetics to the movies. Most of all, there was DRIVE. I think that Drive is going to remain a divisive movie, because its sensibilities are just so different from what we're used to seeing in mainstream films. Everything about it is big, larger-than-life, and hyper-stylized. It's a visual, ultra-cinematic movie. It's less about weaving an intricate plot than it is about creating a particular mood, a certain, intangible feeling of pure, cinematic cool. That might not be everyone's cup of tea, but for me, well, it left me floored. In a way, it reminded me of some of the great 80's-era genre movies like Blade Runner or Raiders of the Lost Ark - in addition to the classic film noirs, those movies were the spiritual forebearers of Drive - they too were visual films, all about creating a particular feeling. Today, a lot of movies have lost that ability - f/x look increasingly generic, movies increasingly feel cookie-cutter and created by committee. But from moment one of Drive, Nicholas Winding Refn declares that this movie had style, this movie had atmosphere, this movie was something different.

In past years, there were movies like The Hurt Locker or The Social Network that I felt could and should be recognized come Oscar time. I advocated both films as Best Picture picks, and both were in the running to win Oscar gold, with The Hurt Locker surprising some and receiving top honors. This year though, I feel like there's little chance that a lot of my favorite films will have that opportunity. Many of my favorite movies of 2011 probably just aren't Oscar material. Even DRIVE ... it's probably too hyper-stylized, too pulpy, too rock n' roll for Oscar. A BETTER LIFE probably should be right up there in the conversation about the year's best films - and it's actually the kind of socially-relevant, emotionally-charged movie that in other years might be an awards-season frontrunner. Unfortunately, the movie never gained traction at the box office, and ended up staying under many people's radars. Who knows, maybe the movie will make a late-in-the-game rally and it or star Demian Bichir will get a much-deserved Oscar nomination. But it goes to show how much politics and campaigning can play a part come awards-season.

But you know what? 2011 was a reminder that sometimes, you have to just say "screw it," go against the grain a little, and support the movies that you're passionate about. I've always defended great blockbuster movies as worthy of recognition, and I'll argue that RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES is right up there in the conversation of the year's best. Maybe some won't take it seriously. But there were few moments at the movies this year that gave me chills like APE's climactic scene where Ceaser - amazingly played by Andy Serkis - finally speaks, well, screams: "Nooooo!" That was a movie moment for the ages. And here's another opinion that more pretentious critics may not agree with: CAPTAIN AMERICA was one of the best superhero movies ever made - a fun, action-packed, inspiring adventure. Few other movies in 2011 left me smiling and pumped-up like this one did as I exited the theater. I felt similarly joyful after seeing KUNG-FU PANDA 2. Sure, the name sounds silly, but the movie is gorgeously animated, funny, tells a good story, and features spectacular action. Same goes for the kickass WARRIOR. Perhaps its MMA subject matter turned off some, but this was a classic fight movie as good as any we've seen in recent years.

I'll give one more shout-out here, to a movie that I've actually seen pop up on a couple of critics' Worst-of-the-Year lists - YOUR HIGHNESS. To that I say, are these critics high? Okay, maybe it wasn't for everyone, but Your Highness had me laughing hysterically from beginning to end. It was the rare high-concept comedy that expertly parodied the source material on which it was based. It kills me, because critics are so quick to trash a movie like Your Highness and lavish praise on something like Bridesmaids. In her Entertainment Weekly column on the year's best movies, critic Lisa Schwarzbaum went so far as to call Bridesmaids the #2 movie of the year, and went on the explain why. She said that comedies should be judged by the same criteria as other movies - essentially saying that the qualities of a great comedy are the same as in a great drama. I couldn't disagree more. A hilarious movie is a great comedy - period. And movies from Monty Python and the Holy Grail to Young Frankenstein to Airplane to Anchorman help to prove that theory. Comedies can have great character development, or strong emotional components, or social satire - and those are elements that can contribute to a comedy being good or great. But they're not necessary at all. I'm sick of attitudes that say otherwise, but that's what we see as the conventional wisdom from critics and awards shows over and over again. Bridesmaids was a very good, very funny movie. But in my opinion, Your Highness was funnier. So was the amazingly funny and frenetic 30 MINUTES OR LESS. There's another one that seemed to be graded more on the merits of its premise and less on the quality of its jokes. This is why the great comedies - from Wayne's World to Wet Hot American Summer - have year after year been terminally underrated by the establishment. They just don't get it.

By the same token, I won't pretend to love certain movies just because they have a certain arthouse appeal. I think you'll find that my Best-Of list is pretty eclectic and diverse. I love all kinds of movies, from big-budget blockbusters to quirky indie flicks to oddball foreign films. But try as I might, I just can't include TREE OF LIFE in my Top 10 list. I actually really enjoyed the film, and I'm glad I took the time to see it in theaters. But it also never 100% worked for me. As thematically ambitious as it was, I don't know that it ever all came together in a truly meaningful way. And sometimes, that's just a judgement call and a personal opinion. Maybe there was something about Tree of Life that really resonated with you, and that's cool. But I also wonder if there's a certain level of dishonesty in reviews of the movie, where some critics call it Film of the Year just because it seems like a movie that had ambitions of being Film of the Year. Personally, I'm more inclined to rave about a film like MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE, a film so intense that it took my breath away with its absorbing intensity. I feel similarly about a movie I really wanted to love - TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. I keep seeing it pop up on Best-Of lists and part of me totally gets it - it's got an amazing cast, great atmosphere ... but it just didn't work for me as a narrative. Conversely, the spy movie that did really knock me out this year was the intricately-plotted, amazingly-acted, tension-filled THE DEBT, which seems to be getting overlooked by many.

So here are my picks for the best movies of the year. On this list, you'll find likely Oscar nominees as well as movies that many would dismiss. There's action, comedy, drama, and animation. There are badass B-movies and highbrow critical darlings. But ultimately, these are the movies that resonated with me most in 2011.

DANNY'S BEST MOVIES OF 2011:

1.) Drive

- A cinematic tour de force from director Nicholas Winding Refn, Drive marks the emergence of a major new voice in film. With a pulsating 80's-synth soundtrack driving the action, Drive is dripping with atmosphere and style. It's a big, pulpy, larger-than-life movie, with an iconic lead performance from Ryan Gosling and memorably villainous turns from Albert Brooks and Ron Pearlman. Drive was one of the few movies this year that just flat-out blew me away - a beautifully-shot symphony of violence, sadness, and neo-noir fatalism.

2.) A Better Life

- Talk about powerful, A Better Life packs an emotional punch like few other films I've ever seen. On one level, this film is about the very real plight of illegal immigrants in America. It doesn't take sides, it just shows a stark depiction of these families living in poverty, in constant fear of deportation, hoping that, somehow, there's something better ahead for their children and children's children. But more than that, A Better Life is a story about a father and son, and the adventure that the two go on together to fight for their family. This movie made me misty-eyed, it made me want to stand up and cheer, and it kept me on the edge of my seat. And Demian Bichir knocks it out of the park, in what I think is the best performance by an actor in a movie this year.

3.) Rise of the Planet of the Apes

- Scoff if you like, but Apes to me was a truly awesome blockbuster event - a movie that thrilled me with its incredible action, gave me an emotional punch to the gut, and provoked my imagination with its high-concept sci-fi premise. Director Rupert Wyatt - where did he come from? - delivered absolutely amazing action, gradually ramping up the scale and the stakes until the movie became all-out mayhem. And Andy Serkis - what he did with his work as Ceaser the ape - it's mind-blowing. This was the surprise smash of the Summer, and deservedly so - all hail Ceaser!

4.) The Artist

- It took me a little while to adjust to the wordless rhythms of The Artist, but soon enough, I was totally absorbed in its black-and-white world. The Artist is an homage to the silent movies of old, but it's also a wryly funny meta-commentary on the history of film. More than that though, it just has an old-school sense of movie magic. It makes us appreciate the sheer wonder of the moving picture, absorbing us in a classic tale of a man fallen from grace and the love that brings him back from the abyss. A unique gem of a movie, The Artist is a crowd-pleaser of the highest order.

5.) Martha Marcy May Marlene

- What a debut for writer-director Sean Durkin, and for actress Elizabeth Olsen. This harrowing psychological-thriller about a girl who manages to escape from a cult was ultra-intense, uber-creepy, and just plain disturbing. Durkin creates an atmosphere of near-oppressive tension as we flash between Olsen's time in the cult - where she's brainwashed to complete emotional numbness - and her time post-escape, where she lives in constant fear that she might be dragged back to that horrible place. But even more scary is the third possibility - that Olsen is so damaged that she might go back of her own volition. Gripping and thought-provoking, this movie left me breathless.

6.) Young Adult

- What an encore for the writer-director team of Diablo Cody and Jason Reitman. I loved Juno, but Young Adult is in some ways more impressive - less stylized, more raw, it's a movie that will absolutely hit home for anyone who's ever hoped that they could go forth from their humble origins and make something of themselves in this world. Young Adult is, for one thing, hilarious. Charlize Theron kills it as Mavis Gary, a former high school mean girl who returns to her hometown to win back her old teenage flame. But Young Adult, even as it's making you laugh, will also have you wincing in recognition at the various characters that populate the film. There's an air of lived-in authenticity here that very few movies achieve. So many films that try to tell authentic human stories end up feeling to polished and distant. There's no distance here - Cody and Reitman cut right to the heart of Mavis Gary, and the results are both funny and poignant.

7.) Warrior

- Blame the marketing. The promos for Warrior made it look like the first Spike TV original movie. But in fact, Warrior is an emotion-packed fight film that channels the energy, spirit, gravitas, grittiness, and adrenaline-packed-action of films like Rocky and The Wrestler. This tale of two estranged brothers who each enter an MMA tournament as underdogs, only to come face to face with each other, just goes for broke - tossing everything plus the kitchen sink at you in order to build up its characters. By the time we reach the movie's climactic fight, we truly feel like we've been on an epic journey, and that we now have ringside seats to a grudge match of near-biblical proportions. But give credit to the trio of top-notch performances that really make this movie sing - Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, and Nick Nolte each tear the house down to create a film of true championship caliber.

8.) Hugo

- Martin Scorsese might not be the director you'd expect to create a living, breathing 3D storybook with an inspiring message about creativity and imagination. But that's exactly what he does with Hugo - a visually-stunning film that also serves as a surprising lesson on the history of film. But the educational aspect of Hugo is also its most entertaining, and that's because of Scorsese's passion for the subject matter, which emanates from every frame of the film. What starts out as the simple tale of a boy and a mysterious robot soon spirals into a love-letter to cinema. By the film's end, Scorsese seems to be speaking directly to us through the words of the figure at the center of the movie, the real-life movie pioneer George Melies: "I address you all tonight, as you truly are. Wizards, mermaids, travelers, adventurers ... Magicians!" "Come ..." says Scorsese through Melies, "... and dream with me." And so we do.

9.) The Ides of March

- Here was a political thriller that truly thrilled, a twisty, purposeful film that crackled with sharp dialogue and an absorbing plot, all the while holding up a funhouse mirror to the very real absurdities and tragedies of modern political theater. Ides of March popped thanks to a star-studded, perfectly chosen cast. Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Evan Rachel Wood, Marissa Tomei, Paul Giamatti, and Philip Seymour Hoffman all delivered fantastic performances. Clooney's direction was sure-footed and gave the story of election-year scandal a constant sense of driving, forward momentum. And the script was one of the year's best - brilliantly structured and elegantly constructed. A great cautionary tale about how hubris can bring down even the most promising of political prospects.

10.) 13 Assassins

- 13 Assassins, a Japanese import directed by the prolific Takashi Miike, is a period-piece samurai flick that just plain kicks ass. One one hand, the movie tells a fascinating historical parable about the waning days of the samurai - torn between a sense of honor and justice, and a still-strong loyalty to their country's increasingly corrupt rulers. On the other hand, this is a movie that just delivers complete and total ownage - after its first half expertly builds up the movie's team of assassins and the evil threat they face, its second half erupts into all-out carnage - a massive, epic battle for the ages. Miike proves a master at giving gravitas the movie's quieter moments while bringing jaw-dropping brutality to its action sequences. Seek this one out (hint: it's on Netflix) and bask in the badassery.

THE NEXT BEST:

11.) Captain America: The First Avenger

- Filled with old-school adventure, two-fisted action, and heroes and villains that leap off the screen, Captain America stands as perhaps my favorite Marvel Comics movie adaptation to date. Chris Evans shines as Steve Rogers, and Hugo Weaving is fantastic as The Red Skull. Perfectly capturing the fun and pulpy sensibilities of the original comics, Joe Johnston and co. have crafted a superhero story that does Simon and Kirby proud.

12.) Attack the Block

- "Allow it!" Attack the Block is an awesome debut film from Joe Cornish, who channels the visual inventiveness, irreverent humor, and biting satirical edge of his friend and producer Edgar Wright to create a hugely entertaining action-horror-comedy. When aliens invade a poor London neighborhood, a ragtag gang of scrappy street kids band together to defend their turf. The result is a movie filled with action, humor, and a surprising amount of heart.

13.) The Adventures of Tintin

- Steven Spielberg cuts loose in this visually-dynamic animated film. Working off of a fun, funny script from Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish, Spielberg mastefully channels the pulpy spirit of adventure of the Belgian comics on which the film is based. Tintin is simply a rollercoaster ride from start to finish, and it once again proves that nobody does action/adventure quite like Mr. Spielberg.

14.) The Debt

- The Debt is a thematically-rich and completely riveting thriller about a botched attempt by a covert Israeli spy team to assassinate a former Nazi. Flashing back and forth between the 60's and the 90's, we see the spies' attempt to carry out their mission, and then, thirty years later, the realization that old mistakes, long swept under the rug, might come back to haunt them. The Debt is packed with tension and action, but it's also a haunting reflection on the emotional scars of the Holocaust that still reverberated for decades after the fact. With killer peformances from actors like Jessica Chastain, Helen Mirren, and Tom Wilkinson, The Debt is a must-see.

15.) 30 Minutes or Less

- A crazy, kinetic action-comedy from the director of Zombieland, 30 Minutes Or Less stands as one of the most underrated movies of 2011. The story of an aimless 20-something slacker who suddenly finds purpose when two crooks strap a bomb to his chest and force him to do their bidding, the movie goes to some pretty dark places, but also keeps the laughs coming. Jessie Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari make for a hilariously neurotic comedic duo, and Danny McBride and Nick Kroll kill it as the pair of bumbling thugs and would-be badasses who torment them. With some of the craziest humor I've seen in any comedy in a while, 30 Minutes Or Less is a twisted and frenetic comedy that may just be a cult classic in the making.

16.) Beginners

- Christopher Plummer delivers an incredible performance in this lyrical, moving dramedy. Plummer plays an elderly man who finally comes out of the closet after years of self-repression and finally begins living his life as he's always wanted, only to find out that he's been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Meanwhile, his son, played by Ewan McGregor, does what he can to support his dad, even as he grapples with his own relationship issues. Beginners is a sad, funny, slightly surreal film about making the most of the time we have.

17.) My Week With Marilyn

- Michelle Williams is a knockout as Marilyn Monroe, in this entertaining and fascinating look at Hollywood history. William's performance is transcendent - she makes Monroe at once larger than life but also human and vulnerable. We see the legendary icon's ability to turn on the charm and become this goddess-like symbol, but we also see the emotional and physical toll that this unprecedented level of fame takes on her. This isn't a Marilyn biopic though - what sold it for me was the fact that, really, it's a story about a wide-eyed kid, an average Joe, who gets to hang out and hook up with the world's most famous woman. It's a great little story about big Hollywood dreams come true.

18.) The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

- While there's a lot of plot packed-in to David Fincher's moody adaptation of the popular crime novel, the real power of this movie is that it's a stunning, rock n' roll intro to Rooney Mara as goth-punk savant Lisbeth Salander. With style and aplomb, we meet perhaps the definitive version of the new queen of the badasses, and with her as our guide we get taken on a dark and grimy journey into her world of killers and crooks and men who do bad things.

19.) Kung Fu Panda 2

- Featuring eye-popping animation and incredible action scenes, Kung Fu Panda 2 improves on the original film in every way. It delves into the mysterious background of our lovable hero Po, but even as the movie's mythology expands, it takes the time to deliver a heartwarming story about the importance of family and friends. But make no mistake, this is no mere cuddly kids movie - the kung fu is strong in this one, with a bevy of legitimately badass action set-pieces that are among the year's best, animated or otherwise.

20.) A Dangerous Method

- David Cronenberg has always specialized in the psychological thriller, so it makes sense that his latest film explores the relationship between two of the iconic innovators of psychological study, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. Cronenberg shoots the film in a straightforward, clinical manner, which makes the increasingly deviant behavior of Michael Fassbender's Carl Jung all the more eyebrow-raising. Fassbender delivers a great performance here in what has, clearly, been a breakout year for him. So too does Kiera Knightly as the traumatized patient that gets entangled with Jung. And of course, Viggo Mortensen - Cronenberg's go-to great actor - is reliably fantastic as Freud.

21.) The Descendants

- In Alexander Payne's sweet and funny film, the director ponders the way in which one generation inherits the world from the one before it. What lessons have we learned from our parents, and how does that shape us, and in turn cause us to shape those who come after? That sounds like a lot of headiness for a quirky little film about a father and his kids who go off in search of the man who his comatose wife had an affair with ... but hey, that's sort of what I took from it. Regardless, The Descendants is a movie with thematic depth, but also with a lot of great little moments of humor and heart. George Clooney does his best to play a schlubby dad, but the breakout here is likely young actress Shailene Woodley, who does a great job playing his teenaged daughter - whose bad attitude and rebellious nature slowly gives way to a more adult understanding of the world.

22.) Sucker Punch

- Okay, here's a film that many hated, that was a box-office flop, and that inspired a lot of heated discussion and debate upon its release. I guess I am part of a small and semi-vocal minority that really dug this movie. To me, this film works purely as a visual showpiece for directory Zack Snyder. It's sensory overload, delivering future-shock dreamscape visuals that combine the aesthetics of videogames, comics, and Japanese anime that mesh into a sort of geek nirvana. I think too many people tried to watch this movie as a more traditional narrative, and got too caught up in deciphering the plot and decoding the subtext, questioning whether it was more about empowered girls kicking ass, or just arrested-development male fantasy brought to life. To me, Sucker Punch wowed me as, quite simply, an awesome piece of fantasy-art-in-motion.

23.) Your Highness

- Sure, perhaps Your Highness is only a great comedy if, like me, you grew up on a steady diet of cheesy-yet-amazing 80's sword n' sorcery movies. Maybe if the likes of Krull and Beastmaster aren't a part of your cinematic vocabulary, then you won't fully appreciate the sheer levels of comedic awesome that Your Highness reaches. And yes, perhaps parts of the movie are just too ridiculous, and maybe some of the jokes occasionally fall flat. But mostly, this one had me rolling in laughter. The inherent absurdity of Danny McBride's blue-collar inflection in a high fantasy world straight out of Conan cracks me up just thinking about it. The stoner-hero over-the-topness of James Franco in this one results in numerous moments of hilarity. And with Natalie Portman as a warrior princess, and Zooey Daschenel as a medieval maiden, I think the real question might be: how is this *not* on more people's Best-Of lists?

24.) Tree of Life

- Here's the thing about Tree of Life ... to me, if it was just a movie about a family in the 50's, a film about how the idyllic facade of suburbia often disguised lives of trauma and tragedy - well, maybe then it could have been a great film. Certainly, Bradd Pitt is great as the stern, slightly unbalanced father, and Jessica Chastain is similarly excellent as his repressed dreamer of a wife. In those small-town-America scenes of postwar angst, Terence Malick crafts a story that is, in-and-of-itself, a powerful and nostalgia-swept coming-of-age story. But I just couldn't make the connection between this - the bulk of the movie - and the maddeningly disconnected scenes of cosmic odyssey. They are, taken on their own, awe-inspiring. But I don't feel that Malick effectively connects them to his main story. Same goes for the bookends with Sean Penn - I had to really stretch to imagine how Malick intended the movie to come together as a cohesive whole. But as I've said before, Tree of Life is impressively ambitious, and it was indeed one of the more absorbing, thought-provoking, and beautifully-shot movies I saw this year. It's essential viewing, I think, but I just can't bring myself to rank it higher on this list.

25.) Drive Angry 3D

- And finally, here's my wild-card pick - a B-movie, instant-cult classic that is just pure, unadulterated, completely ridiculous insanity. Nicholas Cage is in full-on madman mode here, as a back-from-the-dead dad determined to wreak unholy vengeance on the evil cult leader who killed his daughter. William Fichtner is endlessly entertaining as Satan's too-cool accountant, intent on dragging Cage back to the underworld. And Amber Heard shows bonafide B-movie chops, kicking ass with style as a blonde bombshell who gets caught up in Cage's revenge-quest. Is Drive Angry in any way a conventionally good movie? I suppose not. But is it all kinds of awesome? Hells yes.

Runners Up: Rango, Colombiana, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Thor, X-Men: First Class, Paul, J. Edgar, War Horse, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Bridesmaids, Super 8, Cars 2, Source Code, Midnight In Paris, Super, Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame, The Muppets, Moneyball, The Sitter, Real Steel, Hanna, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Pariah

INDIVIDUAL AWARDS:

BEST LEAD ACTOR:

1.) Demian Bichir - A Better Life

2.) Jean Dujardin - The Artist

3.) Ryan Gosling - Drive

4.) Michael Fassbender - A Dangerous Method

5.) Tie: Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy - Warrior

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

1.) Christopher Plummer - Beginners

2.) Nick Nolte - Warrior

3.) Ben Kingsley - Hugo

4.) Kenneth Branaugh - My Week With Marilyn

5.) Viggo Mortensen - A Dangerous Method

BEST LEADING ACTRESS:

1.) Charlize Theron - Young Adult

2.) Michelle Williams - My Week With Marilyn

3.) Elizabeth Olsen - Martha Marcy May Marlene

4.) Rooney Mara - The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

5.) Jessica Chastain - The Debt

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

1.) Berenice Bejo - The Artist

2.) Evan Rachel Wood - The Ides of March

3.) Carey Mulligan - Drive

4.) Shailene Woodley - The Descendents

5.) Helen Mirren - The Debt

BEST DIRECTOR:

1.) Nicolas Winding Refn - Drive

2.) Michael Hazanavicus - The Artist

3.) Martin Scorsese - Hugo

4.) Sean Durkin - Martha Marcy May Marlene

5.) Chris Weitz - A Better Life

Runners Up: Rupert Wyatt - Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Steven Spielberg - The Adventures of Tintin

BEST SCREENPLAY:

1.) Young Adult

2.) The Ides of March

3.) A Better Life

4.) Martha Marcy May Marlene

5.) Rise of the Planet of the Apes

6.) A Dangerous Method

7.) Attack the Block

8.) The Descendants

9.) Beginners

10.) 30 Minutes or Less

So, what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Personal favorites, disappointments, or surprises? Already, it's looking like 2012 is going to be an absolutely stacked year for great movies. January alone is looking jam-packed with potentially cool films, and looming on the horizon are, among others, The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, and The Hobbit. So here's to another great year at the movies.

THE BEST OF 2011 - The Best GAMES Of The Year

2011-12-29T14:38:00.000-08:00

THE YEAR IN GAMING, 2011:

- Oh, to be young again. I know, I say that at the ripe old age of 29, but in the world of videogames, that's practically ancient. Here I am, a guy who grew up in a long-ago age of 8-bit sidescrollers and fancy pixel-based graphics, and it's a new era of motion-control, open-world gameplay, downloadable games, and online competition. Whatever happened to the days when games were about the simple act of avoiding falling into bottomless pits? Who am I kidding though ... I'm jealous of the kids who have all the time in the world to play and master the new generation of kickass games. These days, I tend to avoid playing games sometimes, if only because I get frustrated when I get really into one and then don't have time to just immerse myself in it for days on end. Over my short-but-sweet Christmas break, I finally had a couple of days to devote to some quality alone-time with my PS3 and XBOX 360, and man, I felt like a kid in a candy store, getting lost in games like The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and Batman: Arkham City. The way things are now, these big-budget, blockbuster games clearly are massive undertakings to create, and so the market often seems devoid of big, new games - and then, suddenly, flooded with 'em. And that's how it was this year - with only a trickle of must-play games in the front-end of 2011, suddenly, the holiday season saw an onslaught of marquee releases. Who can play 'em all? And when will the game companies learn to spread things out a bit? Spread the love, guys. In any case, this ended up being an absolutely huge year for games, in more ways than one.

Most importantly, this was just a great year for gaming in terms of quality releases. The amount of triple-A titles that came out is pretty staggering - Batman: Arkham City, Skyrim, Uncharted 3 ... and those are just the tip of the iceberg. There were also a ton of cool, innovative downloadable games this year as well. Whatever other issues or challenges the industry faces, it always, always comes down to the games, and so regardless of anything else, it was a great year to be a gamer.

That said, there's no question - the gaming industry is at a crossroads, and things are going to get interesting. For Sony and Microsoft, it's going to be business as usual for another year or two - until the next console cycle comes along. But for now, the XBOX 360 and PS3 have plenty of life left in them. XBOX continues to sell well, and Sony is catching up - thanks to a stacked lineup of exclusive, first-party games and a reduced price point for the console. Now, both Sony and MS are facing challenges with their attempts to launch motion-gaming and make it a major part of their console ecosystem. Kinect is doing better than Move, but Microsoft clearly has more at stake here. They've positioned Kinect as a major part of their XBOX strategy going-forward, and are heavily invested in its success. Sony less so with Move, where it's being positioned as a fun but non-essential peripheral. But in both instances, there's so far been a lack of killer apps, or games that have convinced the core gamer to embrace motion control. With Wii, that wasn't necessary - plenty of families and kids enjoyed the Wii on its own merits, and it sold like hotcakes because of it. But the XBOX and PS3 historically cater to a different audience, an audience that tends to be more interested in games like Skyrim than Just Dance. But I will say this: I bought a Kinect as an impulse-buy recently, and the thing is pretty darn cool. No, I'd never pick a random Kinect party game over an Uncharted, but still ... it is what it is. I don't know that Kinect needs to have hardcore action games to be worthwhile, but to rack up big sales with the XBOX crowd, it might. In any case, MS's focus on the Kinect may actually have seriously hurt it in 2011, as a lack of exclusive core games caused XBOX to lose some valuable ground to the PS3. It's something that could come back to bite MS in 2012. We'll see.

Sony has its own challenges though. The big one in early 2012 will be the launch of the portable successor to the PSP, the Playstation Vita. The Vita looks amazing - a portable system packing the power of a PS3. But the question is - is that something we want or need in today's market? I know for me, I love my DS and PSP, but ultimately, for big, complex games, I'd rather play them at home and on a big TV. The Vita has a definite cool-factor, but if I only have so many opportunities to play it on the go, then is it essentially like buying a second PS3? Plus, there's the Apple factor, and that might be the biggest one of all. Apple has not-so-quietly become a major presence in the world of gaming in the last year or two. The iPhone is the #1 platform by which people play games on the go these days, and the iPad is becoming sort of a powerhouse in its own right. When you've got exclusive franchises like Infinity Blade on your platform, then yes, you are a legitimate force in gaming. And that's a huge problem for Sony, and also for Nintendo. It's ironic, too, because Apple is sort of doing the reverse of what Sony did with the PS2 and PS3. With those consoles, Sony sold people on the gaming, but used them as trojan horses to get people invested in DVD and blu-ray. And it worked like gangbusters. Now, Apple is doing something similar - selling people on the iPhone and iPad for all sorts of things not having to do with gaming, but then sneakily becoming a major player in games because of the gaming capabilities of those devices. Personally, a touch screen is never going to be my ideal way to play a game. But plenty of people are happy to get their gaming fix - particularly their portable gaming fix - from an iPhone or iPad. It will be interesting to see the impact of this on the Vita. Sony is coming out of the gates with a stellar lineup of launch titles - but will that be enough?

Already, the impact of Apple has been felt in a big way by Nintendo, especially since there's a lot of crossover between the two company's more casual gaming demos. The launch of the 3DS this year was supposed to be a no-brainer win for Nintendo. For years now, they've dominated the portable market with the DS and been virtually unchallenged, selling millions and millions of units worldwide. But the times, they are a-changin'. The failure to launch of the 3DS can be blamed on a lot of things - a lack of killer launch titles, too high of a pricepoint, initially - but still, the Apple factor is undeniable. For longtime gamers, this is troubling. Nintendo has given us years of great games and consoles - no one wants to see them fail. Apple, conversely, has not really embraced the core gamer, except for the fact that they've secured some big, exclusive titles like Infinity Blade. But Apple doesn't go to E3 (and on a personal sidenote: I did once again get to go to E3 this year, and it was awesome!), Apple doesn't have a first-party game development studio, Apple doesn't design its devices to be optimized for gaming (no buttons!), and Apple doesn't set up pricing structures that really make sense for the gaming business. At some point, Apple will have to decide: do they go all-in, or do they remain a disruptive but ultimately peripheral player?

Either way, Nintendo is in some trouble. The Wii's sales are slowing down drastically, and Nintendo's support for the console has been weak. There's been one great game for the Wii in recent months - Zelda: Skyward Sword - and that, frankly, isn't enough. Nintendo already seems to have turned its focus to its next console, the Wii U. But that is still a long ways away - what happens between now and then? Inevitably, Wii users will migrate over to the PS3 and XBOX 360, which is not good for Nintendo's longterm prospects. In the past, Nintendo could count on strong portable sales to offset slow periods for its home consoles, but now, that's not necessarilly true. The 3DS, even with some big titles finally seeing the light of day, still has an uphill battle ahead of it.

So are games as we know them all-but-dead? Will triple-A, big budget console games become an endangered species, supplanted by $5 iPhone games and free-to-play Facebook games? Good lord, let's hope not. But the good news is, games like Arkham City and Uncharted are still out there to remind us what great games are capable of, and to show us that it's still worth it to march forward and not look back. I want the games of 2012 to look and play like, well, what I dreamed the games of 2012 might look and play like circa 1992. I want the future to be filled with even more mind-blowing graphics, even more innovative gameplay, and more games that live up to the full potential of the medium. Back to basics is good, sometimes. But I only need so many wordgames, retro arcade games, and HD remakes. Gaming has always been about the new, the boundary-pushing, the future. I say let's keep it that way.

THE BEST GAMES OF 2011:

Note: As I hinted at above, it's impossible for me to play everything, and there are dozens of games I wish I'd gotten the chance to play this past year. So the list below is by no means definitive - just my personal picks for the year's best games.

1.) The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

- Skyrim is powered by gorgeous graphics, cutting-edge technology, and an expansive open-world. But in many ways, it feels like a throwback to the old days, when games were less story-driven and more about simply getting lost in a huge fantasy world. It took me a little while to warm up to the game. At first, I got bogged down in the controls, the combat mechanics, and the camera - but as I played more, those things became less important. Because Skyrim has a lot of little issues, bugs, and quirks - but the sum is much greater than the parts. At the end of the day, Skyrim is simply awesome because everything comes together to the point where you just feel like you're a warrior on an epic quest in a giant and far-away kingdom filled with caves, castles, villages, and monsters - and that's a great feeling. Few other games have managed this level of total immersion.

2.) Batman: Arkham City

- Batman: Arkham Asylum was awesome, but it just needed that extra little layer of polish to become truly great. Enter Arkham City, which elevates the franchise to true triple-A status, creating an amazing, immersive world for you to play around in. In this game, you simply are Batman. And that, my friends, is pretty freakin' badass. The gameplay is tighter, the world is bigger, the graphics sharper. And the storytelling is about as good as it gets. With a superlative voice cast (does it get any better than Kevin Conroy as Batman, Mark Hamill as The Joker, and Arleen Sorkin as Harley Quinn?), the story of Arkham city is legitimately one of the best-told Batman stories in recent memory, in any medium. That's a testament to where we're at now with this franchise and with games in general.

3.) Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

- Uncharted might just be the best franchise in gaming of this generation, and Uncharted 3 seals the deal. Nobody does blockbuster, set-piece action in gaming like Naughty Dog, the geniuses behind the Uncharted games. And no game series better matches great original characters - like the already-iconic Nathan Drake - with phenomenal gameplay that makes you feel like you're controlling the best Summer adventure movie that's not actually a movie, but something better. Uncharted 3 is another masterpiece from Sony and Naughty Dog.

4.) Tie: Bastion / Rayman Origins

- I had a hard time choosing between these two titles, because both wowed me with a blend of classic gameplay and eye-popping, hand-drawn visuals. Of the two, Bastion is the more original - an isometric adventure that matches a Zelda-like adventure with a mysterious and surprisingly somber tone. A haunting, unseen voice narrates your every move, and it's a unique addition to the gameplay. It makes it feel like you're playing through a fairy-tale, and there's a sense of urgency as you try to urge the hero on to a happy ending. A super-innovative and beautifully-crafted downloadable game on XBOX. Meanwhile, Rayman Origins is a cartoon come to life. It's incredibly vibrant, and the gameplay flows like a dream. This is just a classic take on the old-school 2D platformer that's a must-play for those who still appreciate the genre.

5.) L.A. Noire

- Finally, Rockstar's open-world detective title L.A. Noire is a little rough-around-the-edges at times, but I give it huge points for innovation and uniqueness. For one thing, the graphics are incredible - particularly with regards to the facial muscle-capturing techniques used, to sculpt characters who have the most realistic and naturalistic faces and expressions I've ever seen in a game. Secondly, the game just does a great job of immersing you in a classic film noir storyline. Even when the gameplay is a bit slow or awkward, the overall world created here is amazingly rendered and realized.

And there you have it, my games of the year. I know that there are a ton of great games I didn't talk about here, so be sure to let me know your personal picks. Happy gaming.

THE BEST OF 2011 - The Best COMICS Of The Year

2011-12-28T15:57:00.000-08:00

THE YEAR IN COMICS, 2011:

- 2011 was, for comics, the real-world equivalent of the Crisis On Infinite Earths. For those not well-versed in geek-speak, this was a year where things got shaken up in a big, big way. For one thing, the digital revolution is happening in comics right now. Faster than a speeding bullet, comics have gone day-and-date digital, and suddenly, getting new comics each week is a simple matter of a few taps on one's iPad or Kindle Fire. That, to me, is awesome. Like I've said before, nothing can beat reading comics the old-fashioned way. But - there's also definitely something to be said for the benefits of digital. Digital comics means saving space. It means that comics - even more obscure ones - are available to people without easy access to a comic shop. It means that those with a curiosity about the medium have the ability to quickly and easily sample a title or two. In short, digital comics means that more people can read more comics. I'd even go so far as to say that digital could be the way in which comics finally go mainstream.

Now, do us true-blue fanboys even want comics to go mainstream - that's another question entirely. Personally, I think any paradigm change that gives the medium a little bit of a kick in the pants is a good thing. For too long, comics were just catering to an increasingly small, rapidly aging demo - and that was not good for anyone. It meant that comics companies like DC and Marvel could bleed the fanboys dry with thirty-five-part-crossovers that took advantage of the collector's completist tendencies. It meant that, rather than giving us new ideas and new characters, DC and Marvel would just constantly go back to the well, reviving concepts from the 60's, 70's, and 80's ad nauseum. I was lucky - I was a comics-reading kid during the last time that the biz was really experimenting with game-changing storylines and all-new characters - the 90's. Love 'em or hate 'em, the 90's birthed a new generation of characters that felt like "our" versions of the classic heroes.

In theory, DC's relaunch that occurred this past September was supposed to bring back that same level of creativity and newness - a fresh jumping-on point for new readers, and a lineup of reimagined characters that a new generation would take ownership of. Sales-wise, DC's New 52 has been an undeniable success story ... so far. It will be very interesting to see if sales hold up, and to what extent DC's been successful in hooking new readers, and not just getting the core comics market to snatch up a bunch of new #1's. Creatively, I think the New 52 has been a decidedly mixed bag. What's frustrating is that the titles that tend to be telling the best stories are the ones that are building off of past continuity - Batman, Green Lantern, etc. - or, the ones that could just as easily have launched pre-reboot - Swamp Thing and Animal Man come to mind. Less successful have been the titles that have done a hard reboot and started over from scratch - Superman, Teen Titans, Justice League International, Green Arrow, and more. It makes you wonder if the way in which DC went about things was slightly misguided. Instead of ditching continuity, why not embrace it and utilize it in a way that makes sense for new readers, but rewards longtime ones as well? Look at how successful writers like Geoff Johns have been with soft reboots of properties like Green Lantern and The Flash - instead of erasing those characters' histories, Johns made those histories seem cool, and rich, and fascinating.

And that's why I wonder - do we really need to read Superman's origin for the upteenth time? Do we really need to erase the history of the Teen Titans for no good reason? Was it really necessary to revert Barbara Gordon, a great character as Oracle, back to a version of Batgirl who was most popular almost 50 years ago? I think that continuity reboots are overrated - you're just back to where you started from within a few years anyway. But I think that what DC is learning from fan reaction is that there's something else at work in the comics-reading community that's much bigger than a desire for reboots - it's a desire for new characters, for diverse characters, for strong female characters, and for a universe that better reflects our modern world and the modern comics fanbase. Most of DC and Marvel's most famous characters were created in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's. Most of the heroes are square-jawed white guys who were distinguishable more for their powers and costume colors than for their personalities. That's why younger fans expressed frustration as newer characters like Wally West and Stephanie Brown were discarded as part of DC's reboot - Wally West had become and awesome character, so had Stephanie Brown. In turn, they made The Flash and Batgirl, respectively, into better characters. To see them tossed aside in favor of more generic versions of those heroes - why would anyone want that, other than out of some sense of nostalgia?

At this year's San Diego Comic-Con - the modern mecca for all things comics and pop-culture - the outcries of the fans were clear: it's time for a new generation of heroes. That doesn't mean that you need to mess with Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent - those guys are classics. What it does mean is new female characters defined by more than skimpy costumes. It means racially diverse characters who can stand toe to toe with Superman or Batman. It means comics that are written for a wide audience, without losing the intelligence, imagination, and sense of infinite possibility that makes the medium unique.

Of course, the comics medium is capable of so many diverse types of storytelling. It's cool to think that, with the advent of digital, whole new masses of people can discover the classics like Y: The Last Man, Preacher, and Watchmen. In terms of new stuff, there is plenty of fantastic non-superhero stuff out there for all kinds of readers. Personal favorites include Sweet Tooth, Fables, All-Star Western, and of course, The Walking Dead.

Honestly, the DC reboot has been kind of jarring for me. I've been reading DC Comics since I was a kid, and the DC Universe has always been sort of a comfort for me. It was a place whose history I'd read about for years. I'd collected back issues and trade paperbacks of old stories to fill in the gaps. I knew all of its ins and outs and characters and contradictions. To pick up a book like the new Action Comics, or Justice League, and see all of those years of history suddenly erased? Well, it was definitely a weird feeling. I think, for better or worse, that feeling of detachment is making me more picky in the books I'm buying on a regular basis. Before, I might pick up a new Superman book just because, like I said, it was comfort food. It was a new chapter in a story I'd followed in some capacity for years. Now, if a new comics isn't grabbing me - even if it's a story about a character I might previously have had some attachment to - then I'm not wasting my money. Suffice it to say, I sampled the first issue or two of a large portion of DC's New 52, but very quickly, I dumped any books that didn't completely hook me - just as I would with a new TV show during the Fall season.

I think that, ultimately, the new accessibility of comics will make the medium better. Already, new fans are asking the questions that longtime fans took for granted. Why aren't there more great female and racially diverse characters? Why aren't there more *new* characters in general? Do we really need *so* many superheroes? And if we do, then can we at least get stories featuring characters with distinct personalities, interesting supporting casts, and plotlines that keep us coming back each month? Luckily, a new crop of writers seems to get it, and it's been awesome to see the speedy rise of great talents like Scott Snyder and Jeff Lemire to the top of the heap in the last year, joining the top-tier that includes writers like Robert Kirkman, Ed Brubaker, Grant Morrison, Geoff Johns, and Gail Simone. But these guys can only write so many books - there's still a need for more like them.

2012 should be a huge year for comics. We'll see how DC's New 52 pans out, and which books keep up the momentum from 2011. Brian K. Vaughan is set to return to comics with a new book at Image. A new Fables spin-off is coming. More comics than ever will be available digitally, and tablets will be more numerous and less expensive.

The good news is this: if you're new to comics, you're in luck -- there's a whole universe of amazing characters and fantastic stories awaiting you.

- Before I move on to talking about the the best comics of the year, I do want to take a minute to mention some of the great creators that passed away this year, as unfortunately the comics industry lost some true titans in 2011. The legendary Joe Simon - co-creator of Captain America and many other heroes of the Golden Age. The equally legendary Jerry Robinson, one of the defining Batman artists, and the creator of The Joker. This one was especially sad since I got to meet Mr. Robinson two years ago at Comic-Con, where he signed a drawing of Batman and Robin for me. Gene Colan, the great horror artist of books like Tomb of Dracula. And maybe the one that hit me the hardest - Dwayne McDuffie - who died way too young, only in his forties. One of the premiere writers of this generation, McDuffie helped usher in a new age of diversity in comics with the creation of the Milestone universe - a new world of ethnically-diverse characters, including the popular Static Shock. He also penned some of the great episodes of DC's animated universe, writing classic episodes of Justice League Unlimited, as well as animated movies like Batman: Under the Red Hood.

Comics have a rich and amazing history, so even as we enter a new era for the medium, let's remember those who helped build the foundation.

- And now, my picks for the BEST in comics from this past year ...

THE BEST COMIC BOOKS OF 2011:

THE BEST SINGLE ISSUES:

1.) Jonah Hex #69

- Before the DC Reboot, Jonah Hex was one of my favorite books month-in, month-out. Every issue, writers Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray delivered great, gritty tales of the Old West, starring the scarred bounty hunter Jonah Hex. But with issue #69, the second-to-last issue of the series before it was rebooted as All-Star Western, the writing pair delivered an absolute classic, a haunting, intense standalone tale in which Jonah Hex finally comes face to face with his father, who lies dying. Illustrated by Jeff Lemire, of Sweet Tooth and Animal Man fame, the issue is one of the most powerful single issues of a comic I've ever read - an emotional, dark, tale of a scarred man confronting his past and the sins of the father.

2.) Secret Six #36 (series finale)

- The shame of the DC reboot was that it seemed to happen so suddenly, that most books didn't bother with a true ending or finale before wrapping up. But writer Gail Simone, it seems, knew the end was approaching for cult-favorite book Secret Six, and holy crap, did she go out with a bang. In the epic two part series-ender, Batman villain Bane, determined to reclaim his status as a premiere force of evil and destruction, recruits the Six to launch an all-out assault on Batman and his allies. With one swift stroke, Bane aims to once-and-for-all take down the Bat. But, it turns out that the heroes of the DC Universe have been tipped off to Bane's plan, and so they come to the aid of Batman against the Six. What transpires is all-out war - The Six vs. Everyone Else. The Six know they're doomed, but they'll be damned if they don't go down fighting. My god, what a way to close out one of the best series of the last decade.

3.) Batgirl #24 (final issue)

- The end of the old DC meant the end of some beloved series, and the potential ending for some beloved characters. One of the saddest endings was for the Stephanie Brown version of Batgirl, who would be written out of the DC Universe during the reboot, replaced by original Batgirl Barbara Gordon. What I - and I think others - liked about Stephanie was that she was a character who seemed to scrape and claw her way into the limelight. Introduced years ago as The Spoiler, an ally of Robin, Stephanie was the daughter of a two-bit criminal who decided to defy her father by becoming a hero. Even though DC continually tried to write her out of the storylines and keep her sidelined - even killing her off at one point - Stephanie kept coming back, seemingly only because fans really dug her. She was the girl-next-door as superhero, and who doesn't love that. Anyways, Bryan Q. Miller, against all odds, crafted a great series around the idea that Stephanie had now graduated to the role of Batgirl. It was a fantastic series, and the final issue was amazing and heartbreaking -a glimpse at the future that we'll never see - a series of flashforwards that posited what might have happened to Stephanie had she enjoyed a long career in the cape and cowl. The finale seemed to directly address the fans upset with the impending reboot. "It's only the end if you want it to be," Stephanie told us. And with those words, a great run and a great character rode off into the sunset.

4.) Detective Comics #881 (final issue)

- To make a long story short, for the past couple of years, pre-DC reboot, Dick Grayson, the original Robin, had become the new Batman. A lot of good stories were told with Dick as Batman, but the best was in the pages of Detective Comics, where writer Scott Snyder wrote an arc called "The Black Mirror," in which Dick was confronted with a Gotham City that seemed to be going to hell in a handbasket. What started out as a standard mystery soon became a personal case for Dick - it turned out that Gotham's newest murderer was in fact a key member of the Batman supporting cast. This revelation was shocking, disturbing, and downright creepy. And the finale of this arc, in 'Tec 881, was a doozy - a page-turner of the highest order, and a worthy finale to one of the longest-running and most legendary comic books of all time. With this storyline, Scott Snyder cemented himself as the new, premiere writer of Batman.

5.) Animal Man #1

- The issues above are all pre-DC reboot, but here's one that was probably *the* defining moment of the New 52 relaunch, the moment where fans stood up and said "hey, there may be some damn good comics to come out of this whole shebang." With one issue, writer Jeff Lemire and artist Travel Foreman established a mood of unsettling horror and creeping dread. Because, from the get-go, we could see the contrast forming between Buddy Baker - family man, activist, and part-time superhero - and the world of horror that he was about to enter. Even as Buddy spent quality time with his wife and kids, a terrible evil lurked around him. With one issue, Lemire declared that Animal Manm perhaps unexpectedly, was the must-read book of the New 52.

THE BEST ONGOING SERIES:

1.) Sweet Tooth

- I didn't mention Sweet Tooth in my best single-issues list only because the series reads like the weirdest, most awesome HBO TV series you'll ever see, with one storyline flowing seamlessly into the next. Sure, the series had some truly standout issues in 2011, like one surreal chapter where the title character goes on a dream-quest in which he remembers his own origins - beautifully-painted by writer-artist Jeff Lemire. I've also absolutely loved the recent flashback arc where we see the backstory of the virus that brought about the apocalyptic plague that set up the premise of the book. But Sweet Tooth is just this amazing tapestry of ideas, characters, and ongoing plot developments - it's always my #1 must-read comic book these days. For those not in-the-know, Sweet Tooth is an ongoing book from DC's mature-readers Vertigo imprint, written and drawn by one of the rising stars of the comics industry, Jeff Lemire. The book takes place in a near-future where the world's been decimated by a plague. Humanity has been all-but-decimated, and the remaining people live in a world ravaged by violence and chaos, just trying to survive. In the aftermath of this plague though, a strange thing has happened - a wave of babies born since the plague have been mutants - strange human-animal hybrids, who are immune to the still-spreading plague virus. One of these hybrids, Sweet Tooth, is seen by some as the key to curing the plague, as he's the first known hybrid to have been discovered. And so began a mystery in which Sweet Tooth, accompanied by his badass guardian Jeppard, travels the globe in search of answers as to his origins. It's an epic, sprawling tale filled with action, mystery, and horror - and to me, it's the best book out there right now.

2.) Animal Man

- I talked earlier about what Jeff Lemire (there's that name again) has done with Animal Man, but I'll add this: even though he's a lesser-known character in the mainstream, Animal Man has quite the legacy in comics. Back in the day, Grant Morrison had a legendary run on the character. Even recently, there was a really good miniseries - The Last Days of Animal Man - that looked at the character as a middle-aged hero facing retirement. So for Lemire to come in and do a new take on the character that a.) incorporates what's gone before, but b.) feels totally new and unique ... it's quite an accomplishment. What's more, the book really set the bar for the New 52 - it showed that whatever issues people might have with how some of the more high-profile titles were handled, at the least, the new DC would be home to titles like this one - the kind of offbeat, dark, edgier stuff that DC was known for in the 80's and 90's, but that it had gotten away from in recent years. If there's one great thing about the new DC, it's that books like Animal Man now have a home there.

3.) Invincible

- One of my big reading endeavors of 2011 was to finally catch up on Invincible - you know, that *other* book from Robert Kirkman that isn't The Walking Dead. I did a marathon reading session through the various volumes that collect the comic's run to-date. From what I can gather, this is the way to go to catch up on the book, because there've been some delays in its monthly output. But reading it in trade format, man, I found myself totally hooked on Kirkman's funny-yet-epic superhero story. Kirkman just keeps upping the ante for Mark Grayson, aka Invincible, and as with The Walking Dead, he's never afraid to shake things up or throw us some major curveballs. And it doesn't get more major than The Viltrumite War, an star-spanning saga that began in 2010 and raced towards its blockbuster conclusion in 2011. It was in many ways the ultimate Invincible epic - Mark and his morally-questionable dad defending the earth from their own alien race, who are intent on enslaving earth. But what makes Invincible so addicting is the way that Kirkman writes it as both a traditional superhero story but also as something that feels 100% different from the books at DC or Marvel. The characters feel modern and well-defined, there's quirky humor, there's lots of imagination, and there are bouts of brutal violence that remind you that yes, this is a book where serious $%&% goes down. If you haven't jumped onboard yet, be sure to check out Invincible.

4.) Detective Comics and Batman - by Scott Snyder

- After writing one of the best Batman arcs in recent years during his run on Detective Comics, Scott Snyder picked up right where he left off, quality-wise, on the New 52 relaunch of Batman. A lot of people were worried about the fact that the reboot was prematurely ending Snyder's 'Tec run, starring Dick Grayson as the new Batman. But as it turns out, Snyder proved equally adept at writing Bruce Wayne. His Batman run kicked off with a bang, pitting Bruce against a secret cabal of Gothamites with a longstanding vendetta against the Wayne family (a thread that also ties nicely into Snyder's earlier Batman: Gates of Gotham series). Snyder's also had the help of some kickass artists i bringing his Bat-books to life. The dark, moody art of Jock helped make Detective as good as it was, and the lighter, more kinetic art of Greg Capullo has been a huge part of making the latest Batman arc feel like a big-budget blockbuster put to page. In short, 2011 was the year where Snyder became DC's MVP - especially when it comes to Batman.

5.) The Walking Dead

- I just recently caught up on the latest volume of The Walking Dead, and the same thing happened to me that always does with this book - I sat down intending to read just a portion of the story, and before I knew it, I read the whole thing in one sitting. The Walking Dead has a sense of forward momentum like no other comic out there, and it's also more unpredictable - I never know what Robert Kirkman has in store for these characters. That said, I felt like the latest batch of issues played things a little safe. After the shocking events of the previous volume, we got a lot of character stuff that was a little repetitive at times. It's funny, because I also definitely recognized some elements of the TV show beginning to find their way into the comics - which is both good and bad. One of the key romantic developments has probably been a long-time coming now, so that was cool to finally see happen. I just hope that the book doesn't tone itself down at all to be accessible to fans of the show. The Walking Dead grabbed me because it was intense, violent, dark, and often, just plain #%&$'ed-up. Let's hope it stays that way. Still, this remains one of the true modern-classics, and I'm always curious to see what happens next.

6.) Swamp Thing

- Scott Snyder does it again. Much like Lemire did with Animal Man, Snyder took a character that enjoyed a legendary run in the 80's (courtesy of Alan Moore), and brought him back into DC proper with a take that felt familiar yet fresh. What I'm loving about the new Swamp Thing is that Snyder is bringing back the weird horror and gothic romance of the Alan Moore run, but also delivering some great new twists. Most noticeably, the book so far has featured Alec Holland back to being a normal guy, with only vague memories as his time as the Swamp Thing. This makes for a strange relationship with his former love Abby Arcane, who's grown cold and hardened since we last saw her. I also love the lush, bold artwork from Yanick Paquette. And by the way, one cool thing about the new Swamp Thing and Animal Man books - both are working in tandem to plant seeds for an upcoming, epic crossover storyline. In some cases, that might be annoying, but with guys like Lemire and Snyder at the helm, you know you're in for an amazing story.

7.) Batgirl - by Bryan Q. Miller

- There's a certain kind of comic that tends to get underrated, and Batgirl was of that type. It was a comic where, sure, some big storylines would happen once in a while, and we'd get some big action and epic heroics. But month to month, the thing that made the book so endearing was simply that Bryan Q. Miller made Stephanie Brown feel like a friend that we'd check in with and just hang out with for a bit. The fact that I felt sort of buddy-buddy with (okay, and maybe had a slight crush on) a costumed adventurer sounds weird, maybe, but that's a testament to the writing of Miller. When his run on Batgirl ended, it felt like an old friend had gone away. But this was a book that was just really enjoyable - cool, clean art, fun adventures, fleshed-out characters, and a spunky, likable protagonist who was the rare (relatively) well-adjusted person in the always-dysfunctional Bat-family. It's only the end if you want it to be, Miller wrote, and this was an end that I definitely did not want. Let's hope that Ms. Brown resurfaces sooner rather than later in the new DCU.

8.) Secret Six

- Secret Six was one of the great comics of the last several years - a twisted take on supervillains where, somehow, writer Gail Simone made us root for a group of some of comicdom's darkest souls. Simone combined fan-favorites like Deadshot and Bane with also-rans like Catman and new characters like Scandal Savage. Somehow, she made those also-rans into awesome characters, those new characters into great ones, and made us remember why we loved those fan-favorites in the first place. This book was the place where Simone's writing was at its best - darkly funny, delightfully twisted, and action-packed. The two-part finale that I talked about above was a mini-epic for the ages. And, in the New 52, this book's absence left a huge void - a testament to its status as one of the best books on the stands from start to finish.

9.) Batman, Inc.

- Part of me cringes when I read Grant Morrison's psychedelic acid-trip take on Batman. My preferred Batman is a dark, grim character who lives in a neo-noir world. But Morrison's take on Batman-as-James Bond-on-crack was so entertainingly weird that I couldn't help but enjoy it, and his unique style and dense, cryptic narratives made Batman, Inc. a must-read for me each month. Yes, I sometimes read this stuff and wonder if you have to be on mind-altering drugs to fully comprehend what Morrison's going for. But that's also what makes these stories so mind-bendingly cool. Morrison just seemed to be in his own little corner of the universe - with near-indifference towards what was going on elsewhere in the DC Universe, Morrison was just doing his thing, telling his own sprawling, acid-washed epic in which Batman forms Batman, Inc. - franchising the war on crime so as to fight a global war against a terrorist organization known as Leviathan. Somehow, Leviathan is linked to the last several years' worth of Morrison-penned Bat-stories, and the various web of plot threads and crazy characters practically requires an encyclopedia to decipher (and in the recent Batman: Leviathan special, there actually is a giant appendix that tries to make sense of the story so far!). But that's the fun of it. Who else is doing comics like this these days. Morrison is basically saying screw accessibility, and screw mainstream interpretations of Batman - here's a Batman story that's insane, near-incomprehensible, and completely off-the-wall. In other words, god bless Grant Morrison for daring to be different.

10.) Batwoman

- First thing's first - there's no better artist working in comics today than J.H. Williams III. Each month, he makes new issues of Batgirl into works of modern art, crafting gorgeous pages full of beautifully-painted panels. His work is, quite simply, mind-blowing. What other artist changes style completely depending on whether the title's crimson-haired hero is in costume or in civilian garb? Williams is operating on a higher plane these days - it's crazy. But, we knew that Williams was a phenomenal artist. What we didn't know was that he could write - continuing the adventures of Kate Kane - the new Batwoman - that were so elegantly penned by Greg Rucka previously, and doing so without missing a beat. Williams' stories have a more surreal, dreamlike quality than Rucka's more hard-boiled crime stories, but Batwoman is still a great read. And it's one of the must-read books of DC's New 52 - buy it for the art, stay for the cool characters and intriguing plotlines.

Runners Up: Fables, Jack of Fables, Red Robin, Frankenstein: Agent of S.H.A.D.E., Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, All-Star Western

THE BEST MINISERIES AND SPECIALS:

1.) Flashpoint: Batman - Knight of Vengeance

- This summer's Flashpoint event was billed as a huge, universe-altering storyline designed to bridge the gap between the old DCU and the new. As it turns out, the series itself was only okay, but some of the surrounding, spin-off series were, in fact, excellent. The best of the bunch, by far, was Batman: Knight of Vengeance. In this twisted series from noir writer Brian Azzarello and his frequent collaborator Eduardo Risso, we enter a world where Bruce Wayne is dead. Instead of Bruce's parents being shot on that fateful night, a young Bruce was tragically killed, and in response, a traumatized Thomas Wayne becomes the Batman. The story is a fascinating what-if scenario, and the reveal regarding who, exactly, is the Joker of this world is one of this year's great shockers.

2.) Unexpected

- Every so often, you'll see these giant short-story compilations come out, and you're never quite sure what you're going to get in these comic book equivalents of a box of chocolates. But this one-shot special from Vertigo was an awesome surprise, packed to the brim with cool sci-fi and horror stories that were the kind of wonderfully weird tales that made me love Vertigo in the first place. A strange story of zombie love and a cautionary tale of climate-change-gone-apocalyptic are just two of the highlights of this unexpectedly awesome special.

3.) Tie: Superior / Kick-Ass 2

- Give Mark Millar credit, the bombastic writer of Kick-Ass knows how to write comics that get people talking. Unfortunately, some of that talk inevitably revolves around the delays that his books tend to suffer, with several months sometimes passing between issues. But, towards the end of the year, Millar seemed to get his books back on track, scheduling-wise, and they also picked up some narrative momentum as well. Kick-Ass 2, for me, sometimes walked a fine line between entertainingly over-the-top and just plain offensive. But at the end of the day, I have to admit that I've been thoroughly enjoying the sequel to Kick-Ass for its sheer, brazen audacity and ridiculousness. Meanwhile, Superior has been an interesting read - a story about a disabled kid who is suddenly granted the powers of his favorite fictional superhero, but only gets to keep them by paying a steep price. Both books have their flaws, but Millar nonetheless makes them feel like must-read events.

4.) Batman: Gates of Gotham

- Here was a cool, clockwork mystery from Scott Snyder and Kyle Higgins - a story that delved into the history of Gotham City, and how it reflects back on the modern day. The story flashes between the past and present, with a villain terrorizing Gotham whose roots go back to the city's founding. And so we learn about how the city was built, with its five most prominent families (including the Waynes, of course), making decisions that would forever alter the foundations of Gotham - literally and figuratively. Great writing by Snyder and Higgins, this was the rare must-read Batman miniseries, and it helped set the stage for Snyder's later run on Batman proper.

5.) Spaceman

- Spaceman is still in the middle of its 9-part story, but I feel confident that, by the time it wraps up, it will end up as one of the more intriguing and memorable series to come out of Vertigo in a long while. This dystopian sci-fi story from Brian Azzarello and Eduardo Risso (of 100 Bullets fame) is an atmospheric story of a future in which an environmentally-ruined earth is now breeding genetically-engineered, neanderthal-like grunts to do all of the dirty work that regular people don't want to have to deal with. Spaceman is the story of one such grunt who somehow gets caught up in a web of lies, crime, and scandal - far more than he usually deals with in his simple, blue-collar existence. Azzarello infuses the book with rhythmic future-slang that makes this dstopian world feel alien-yet-familiar, and Risso delivers his usual simple-yet-suggestive art. A highlight of late 2011, and certainly a book to keep an eye on in 2012.

Runners Up: Jimmy Olsen One-Shot, Flashpoint: Grodd of War

THE BEST SUPERHERO MOVIES OF 2011:

1.) Captain America
2.) X-Men: First Class
3.) Thor

BOOKS ON MY READING LIST FOR 2012:

- There's more good comics than one person can possibly read in one year, so there are a lot of books on my radar that I hope to get around to soon. One such book is LOCKE & KEY, which I've heard great things about. All I can say is, the first trade paperback has been purchased, and it's ready to be read. I've also heard amazing things about Ed Brubaker's crime book CRIMINAL. Since I'm a huge Brubaker fan, that is another one on my short-list.

- I also want to mention a long-time-coming book that just came out - a trade paperback that, finally, collects perhaps my favorite comic book of the 90's - CHASE - into one handy volume. Chase was the story of Cameron Chase, a dogged agent at the D.E.O. - the Department of Extranormal Operations. Chase's job sees her investigating the true motives and identities of heroes like Batman on behalf of the government, and in doing so, finding out a lot about her own intrigue-filled past. Chase was an amazing but tragically short-lived comic, but its influence is still felt today. In fact, Cameron Chase and the D.E.O. have been popping up of late in Batwoman, whose writer/artist J.H. Williams III cut his teeth as the artist of Chase back in the day.

- One other shout-out, in terms of great books I caught up on this year. If you have any interest in World War II, I can't recommend Garth Ennis' WAR STORIES highly enough. Collected in two volumes, these are short stories that cover all aspects of the war, with a mix of humor, horror, and extensively-researched historical detail. Check 'em out.

THE BEST WRITERS OF 2011:

1.) Jeff Lemire (Sweet Tooth, Animal Man, Frankenstein: Agent of S.H.A.D.E.)
2.) Scott Snyder (Detective Comics, Batman, Swamp Thing)
3.) Robert Kirkman (The Walking Dead, Invincible)
4.) Geoff Johns (Green Lantern, The Flash, Flashpoint, Justice League, Aquaman)
5.) Brian Azzarello (Batman: Knight of Vengeance, Spaceman)
6.) Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray (Jonah Hex, All-Star Western)
7.) Grant Morrison (Batman, Inc.)
8.) Bryan Q. Miller (Batgirl)
9.) Gail Simone (Secret Six, Birds of Prey)
10.) Kyle Higgins (Batman: Gates of Gotham, Nightwing, Deathstroke)

THE BEST ARTISTS OF 2011:

1.) J.H. Williams III (Batwoman)
2.) Jim Lee (Justice League)
3.) Ryan Ottley (Invincible)
4.) Andy Kubert (Flashpoint)
5.) Yanick Paquette (Batman Inc., Swamp Thing)
6.) Marcus To (Red Robin, Huntress)
7.) Eduardo Risso (Batman: Knight of Vengeance, Spaceman)
8.) Travel Foreman (Animal Man)
9.) Charlie Adlard (The Walking Dead)
10.) David Finch (Batman: Dark Knight)

And that's it for the Best Comics of 2011. Excelsior and happy reading!

THE BEST OF 2011 - The Best ROCK Of The Year

2011-12-28T14:07:00.000-08:00

THE YEAR IN ROCK, 2011:

- The state of rock n' roll in 2011 can, sadly, be summed up by what's been happening to the legendary KROQ here in Los Angeles. When I first moved to LA, one of the things that I immediately loved about the city was that I had a great rock radio station to listen to, something I'd been lacking since my days in Boston. I discovered a lot of great music and a lot of great bands by listening to KROQ. And sure, the station tended to become overly trendy - overplaying whatever rock fad was hot in a given year. But hey, at least hey played new music. In 2011, tune into KROQ at any given moment and you're much more likely to hear a 90's-era song from Nirvana, Alice in Chains, or the Chili Peppers than anything new. It's 2011 - I love 90's rock, but it's now, officially, classic rock, and there are other stations for that. Now, it's a rarity to find new music on the station. Sadly, LA is probably lucky at this point to have a couple of stations that play any sort of new rock music (and in LA's defense, a couple of scrappier stations have risen up to try to fill the void now left by KROQ). In many places in the country, however, new rock is totally absent from the airwaves. And man, that sucks.

This means that in order to find the good stuff, you have to seek it out. And when you seek it out, you run into platforms like iTunes that filter content and only promote a limited number of bands. Take a look at the iTunes rock charts - bands like Journey and Bon Jovi top the Top 100, and nary a new rock song ranks highly. Things get even more bleak when you look at the general music Top 100, where rock is a minimal presence these days.

So why do we no longer seem to want to rock? I don't know, it sort of baffles me. I see my peers into the likes of Adele and Coldplay and I wonder ... what happened? Did Gen Y just mellow out to the point of being lamer than our Baby Boomer parents? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with, say, Adele - she seems uber-talented and I give her credit, she's an original. But I also see her popularity as a sign of the times ... a time where, sadly, we're a country of Adele-loving, American Idol-watching, Dancing With the Stars-obsessed wimps. Has America forgotten how to rock and/or roll?

Maybe it's the lack of new music on KROQ, or maybe it's the fact that Guitar Hero and Rock Band seem to have faded out of the mainstream, replaced by the likes of Dance Central and Just Dance in the world of party games. Maybe it's the fact that Steven Tyler is hosting Idol even as it's been almost a decade since Aerosmith put out a new album, or that Nickelback is somehow a top rock act. Maybe it's that The White Stripes broke up way too soon or that R.E.M. called it quits and didn't get the mainstream accolades they deserved. But something is in the air. "The End of the World as We Know It" ...? Still, despite the doom and gloom, there were, of course, plenty of reasons to feel fine.

For one thing, the void in rock discoverability was partly filled by shows like Late Night With Jimmy Fallon - where not only are The Roots the house band, but all manner of new and legendary rock acts found a place to play. Other late night shows - from Letterman to Conan to SNL, seemingly sensed the void as well, and jumped to fill in the gap. Some of the best moments I saw in rock this year were on late night TV - from Foster the People tearing the house down on SNL, to the Foo Fighters and Joan Jett tag-teaming on "Bad Reputation" on Letterman. For another, new music services like Spotify have risen up to help the music fans find the good stuff. While the initial wave of uber-annoying Facebook updates about what people were listening to helped to turn me off from the service for a bit, Spotify is definitely on my list of things to explore in 2012.

As for me, 2011 was a year where I was lucky to attend a couple of awesome live shows. In February, I saw Ozzy Osbourne live in concert for the first time ever. Lucky for us, the gods of rock smiled down on the Prince of Darkness that night, and infused Ozzy with moments where he seemed to be channeling his younger self. Seeing the Ozzman, backed by an awesome band, play his legendary tunes was a night I'll always remember. Not to mention, the opener was the legendary Slash, with singer Myles Kennedy. The two rocked the house, playing a mix of excellent new songs and classic GnR rockers. In March, I saw the 80's-rock-themed musical Rock of Ages live at the Pantages theater in Hollywood - my first visit there. It was a great time, and I couldn't help but get caught up in the nonstop barrage of 80's mash-ups and classic power ballads. In April, I visited Seattle for the first time ever, on a work trip. But while there, I got to visit the Museum of Pop Culture, where an awesome exhibit on Kurt Cobain and Nirvana was on display. Even though I was in the city for work, in a way, my trip to the birthplace of Grunge felt like a pilgrimage years in the making. Then, in the Summer, my friends and I once again visited the OC Fair-grounds, where for the second time, we saw the man, the myth, the legend - "Weird" Al Yankovic, in concert. Al once again put on an amazing show that had fans young and old singing along to Al's hilarious parodies and original jams. I've had "CNR" (Charles Nelson Reilly) in my head ever since. Then, in September, my brother and I saw two legendary bands in a double-bill at Universal's Gibson amphitheater - Def Leppard and Heart. I had seen Def Leppard before, and once again, they were a ton of fun. But man, Heart was the real surprise - the first ladies of rock n' roll were in top form - blowing the audience away with soul-rattling renditions of their top songs. Finally, I was fortunate enough to snag a pair of free, VIP tickets to see none other than Cheap Trick at the famous Greek Theater. I got myself to the Greek and enjoyed up-close seats to see the classic rockers rip through one song after another as part of their Dream Police tour - backed, no less, by a full orchestra. Epic barely describes it. So yeah, all that stuff I said before about rock n' roll fading away? After thinking back to all of the great music I saw in 2011, I'm tempted to take that back, and declare that rock is very much alive and kicking.

As for new music released this past year, well, the album of the year for me was - similar to last year - a return-to-form tour de force from a legendary classic rocker. This year, that rocker was ALICE COOPER, and the album was WELCOME 2 MY NIGHTMARE, a sequel of sorts to the 70's album that first declared Cooper as the fearsome king of shock-rock. Last year, I saw Cooper live for the first time, and after that I really began studying up on his history and back catalogue of lesser-known records. It was fascinating to see how the band had evolved over the years - at various periods, they dabbled in Frank Zappa-esque weirdness, New Wave, and hair-metal. But to me, it was fitting that in 2011, the same year that the original Alice Cooper band was inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame, Cooper released probably his best album in years - appropriately enough, a wildly eclectic mix of styles. Welcome 2 My Nightmare has classic rockers, dark symphonic ballads, Vaudevillian-novelty songs, and even a pop-rock mash-up with Ke$ha. And yet somehow, it works, and plays as an awesome medley of ghoulish music to get down to.

Otherwise, there were definitely a number of tracks from more modern rockers that grabbed me. I thought the Foo Fighters put out one of their best-ever albums this year. Rise Against had a pretty strong album with a couple of great songs on it. The Black Keys had another excellent showing as well. A couple of new groups like Grouplove and Foster the People struck it big out of the gate, and had some of the year's most instantly-catchy rock songs ... we'll see if these guys stick around. I'll also give a shout-out to some of the great music that came from the movies this year. From Karen O's searing cover of Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, to the pulsating, 80's-style soundtrack of Drive, a lot of my favorite movies this year were made all the more awesome by being not just great films, but rock n' roll films.

Sadly, as mentioned, 2011 also marked the end (or so it seems) of one of my favorite bands of the last decade, The White Stripes. This to me was sort of a tragedy, because all indications were that the band was still at the top of their game, and had years if not decades of great music still to come. Jack White is clearly not going to just retire or go away or anything, but to me, none of his side projects have ever enjoyed quite the same alchemy as he and bandmate Meg had. Maybe the Stripes will reunite someday, but man, their absence leaves a huge, potentially irreplaceable void in the modern rock scene.

Speaking of which, 2011 also marked the breakup of one of the great modern rock bands, R.E.M. Like just about anyone who grew up in the 80's and 90's and was plugged in to MTV at that time, R.E.M. was a huge, huge influence on me. I still remember buying the single to "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" and just playing it over and over on my tape-deck back in the day. R.E.M. was, for me, the soundtrack of the transition from kid to teen, from innocence to angst (not to sound melodramatic or anything, but let's face it - is there any more defining moment of 90's pre-teen/teen angst than Angela from "My So-Called Life" walking through the street as "Everybody Hurts" plays?"). Sure, the band seemed to fade from relevance a bit as the years went on, but for me, albums like "Green," "Out of Time," "Automatic For the People," "Monster," and "New Adventures in Hi-Fi" are all undisputed classics that stand the test of time. I'm glad that the band was able to put out a very solid final album in 2011. While I didn't love the album as a whole, there were one or two songs that felt like classic R.E.M. - my favorite of which, "Discoverer," was a rockin' rallying cry that was vintage R.E.M.

So yes, despite some of the grim overtones in my intro, I do think that there are signs of life yet in the world of rock, and I have a lot of hope for what's to come in 2012. Already, I'm psyched that one of my favorite bands of the last several years - The Darkness - has reunited, is touring, and has a new album in the works. I've got my tickets to see them in LA in February. And who knows what else is to come in the new year. All I know is, may 2012 be a year of rock n' roll rebirth!

DANNY'S TOP ROCK SONGS OF 2011:

1.) "Walk" - Foo Fighters

- I think I first heard this song over the closing credits of the movie Thor. I remember thinking, "okay, this is an instant-classic." To me, this is one of the Foo's best songs in years - a catchy yet emotionally-charged ballad that might just be their best since the days of Everlong.

2. ) "I'll Bite Your Face Off" - Alice Cooper

- I love this song - it's twisted, funny, and yet has the sound of a classic rock relic in the style of The Rolling Stones. The song lulls you into thinking it's a typical love-story, with the twist being that the object of Cooper's affection is actually one of the living dead - a ravenous woman who wants nothing more than to, well, bite his face off!

3.) "Discoverer" - R.E.M.

- I've always liked R.E.M.'s more upbeat rock tracks, and this one spoke to me with its rallying-cry call and piercing vocals by the great Michael Stipe. This was one final great rock song from one of the all-time great bands.

4.) "A Real Hero" - Drive soundtrack - College feat. Electric Youth

- As soon as I heard this song in Drive, I knew I had to buy the soundtrack. Ultra-moody, the song's pulsating 80's beat perfectly captures the feeling of driving at night in a neon-lit cityscape, and also evokes the movie's themes of a lone-wolf hero struggling with his own humanity. Music to drive to, to be sure.

5.) "Help Is On the Way" - Rise Against

- I said this a while back, but I'll say it again - this song would be perfect to accompany the new Superman movie trailer. It's a rousing rocker from Rise Against, who can't help but make each of their songs a tale of epic proportions.

6.) "Lonely Boy" - The Black Keys

- The Black Keys are the current standard-bearers for stripped-down funk-rock, and this is another great jam from them, perfect to boogie down to. Great guitars and a cool vibe make this another great one from the Keys.

7.) "What Baby Wants" - Alice Cooper feat. Ke$ha

- It shouldn't work, but it does - the original Shock Rocker teamed with the current queen of ironically-detached pop-princess sleaze. But the interplay between old and new makes for a funny and super-catchy collaboration, with Ke$ha becoming the object of Cooper's been-there, done-her disdain.

8.) "Make It Stop (September's Children)" - Rise Against

- Another epic from Rise Against, this melodramatic fist-pumper is just a soaring, sweeping power ballad that gets your heart pumping. In an age where so much rock is stripped-down, I love that Rise Against always goes big and bombastic.

9.) "Colours" - Grouplove

- Here's a catchy, fun tune that took a little of the pain away from the White Stripes break-up, as it's a Stripes-esque garage rocker that gets in your head and doesn't go away, with clever wordplay to boot. Very curious to see where the group goes from here.

10.) "Pumped-Up Kicks" - Foster The People

- The surprise pop-rock anthem of the year, this song seems upbeat at first, but it's actually a pretty dark song about schoolyard violence. In any case, what sold me on it was the band's rockin' performance earlier this year on SNL, where I saw that, perhaps, Foster the People might be the real deal.

And that's it for 2011. What were your favorite songs of the year? Let me know, and as always: for those about to rock, I salute you!

THE BEST OF 2011 - The Best TV Of The Year

2011-12-28T13:03:00.000-08:00

THE YEAR IN TV - 2011

- There was a lot of great television in 2011, but you had to know where to look to find it. More than ever, the quality offerings on the major networks were few and far between, with cable increasingly becoming the home for top-tier scripted content. Perhaps not everyone agrees, but to me, Fall 2011 was one of the weakest Fall seasons - in terms of great new shows - that I can remember. But a mix of great Spring and Summer TV, and returning hits hitting their stride, ensured that I was glued to the tube just as much as ever. That said, this was also a year in which I found myself watching way too many middle-of-the-road series. I'm usually an optimist when it comes to certain sorts of TV, and if I see a spark of potential, it's hard to give up on a show early in its run. At the same time, with so many legitimately great series on the air, I realized that I no longer had the time or patience for shows that were only okay. I began dropping series midway through the Fall, and never looked back. Between new and old favorites, TV on DVD, blu-ray, Netflix, and Hulu, and competition from movies, videogames, books, and the interwebs, I just wasn't going to waste time on TV that I didn't feel passionately about. But 2011 was a year of new TV discoveries, new insights into what I do and don't like, new ways of watching my favorite shows, and a year in which - for me - the very bar of what great TV can be was raised. So here's what the year in TV was to me:

- The Year Of Breaking Bad: Late last year, I finally dove in to Breaking Bad, and I've never looked back. This year, I powered through the entirety of the series to date in preparation for the then-upcoming Season 4. It was almost a come down, to watch only one episode per week and not be able to marathon the show as I had with the past seasons. But Breaking Bad was so good, so incredible, that I actually felt sort of embarrassed that I hadn't begun watching it earlier. Breaking Bad was THE event television of 2011, and I suspect the same will be true of 2012. Quite simply, the show raised the bar for what I want out of a TV show. The writing is so unpredictable, the acting so good, the production so lush, that I began looking at other, lesser shows with a more critical eye. Not every show is going to be as good as Breaking Bad, but now, the standard has been set, and any new TV drama in development had better take notes.

- The Year of Summer TV: TV got a kick in the pants this past Summer when Game of Thrones debuted and promptly redefined the TV landscape. TV had never been this epic, and the show, I think, may just usher in a new era of genre TV, along with other high-concept series like The Walking Dead. But overall, this Summer had nearly as much good TV as the Fall. With shows like Game of Thrones, Louie, Futurama, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Children's Hospital - my DVR was pretty much filled to capacity.

- The Year I Dropped Glee and Gave Up On American Horror Story: Confession time, people - for a few years now, I've watched Glee. And in its first season, despite the show's ups and downs, I looked forward to each new episode. The show had an entertaining, unpredictable mix of subversive humor and teen melodrama, and I thought it was a fascinating example of how a hit TV show can offer up something new and different in a landscape of sameness. Glee was something totally unique, and for that, I kept watching. But this year, I got fed up. I was sick of the show's overbearing angst and preachy lessons, it's weird sensibilities and lack of likable characters. Once, the fact that the show was so different week to week was a strength - now, that just translated to no plot or character consistency, and no compelling plots to latch on to. The show had simply settled into a pattern of trying to have each episode top the last in terms of randomness, shock-value, and grating moralizing. Interestingly, the exact same thing happened to Ryan Murphy and Brad Fulchuk's other show, American Horror Story - only at a much more rapid rate. After a weird but intriguing pilot episode, the show just became a freakshow of absurd moments and nonsensical plotlines. I had learned my lesson - there would be no reward for investing in the show for the long haul - no payoffs, no justification to keep watching except to be part of the conversation of "what weird, random, obnoxiously stupid stuff is going to happen *this* week?" Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather be watching legitimately great shows like Breaking Bad and Justified.

- The Year of Going Out With a Bang: It's funny, this past Summer, if you had asked me about the state of two of my favorite shows - Chuck and The Simpsons - I would have not been very kind to either. Chuck had a boring, plodding Season 4, and The Simpsons was in the midst of an extended streak of mediocrity that really and truly made me want to see the show receive a mercy killing. Much to my surprise, both shows have managed a turnaround in recent months. Chuck's fifth and final season has been fantastic so far, with a winter finale that ranks among the show's best-ever episodes. The Simpsons has, remarkably, strung together several great episodes, something the show hasn't done in years. It's nice to be reminded of why I loved these shows in the first place.

- The Year of Don't Call It a Comeback: Who would have ever, ever thought that Beavis & Butthead would be on the air with new - and hilarious! - episodes in 2011? Not I. Even for me, someone who grew up with the show, the show now only existed to me as a hazy memory from back when I lived and breathed all things MTV. But lo and behold, Mike Judge's crude cartoon creations are back, and man, has it been fun to watch their triumphant return. Funny as ever, it' a blast to see Beavis & Butthead riff on the latest and not-so-greatest in pop-culture.

- The Year of High-Concept Fall Failures: Trust me, I had enough TV shows to watch that part of me was hoping that there wouldn't be a lot to like in this year's Fall TV offerings. But I never expected that, when all was said and done, when the smoke cleared, there wouldn't be a single new Fall TV show that 100% won me over. I had been excited by several new shows, but almost all turned out to be creative flops, if not also ratings flops. Terra Nova was the one I couldn't wait for, but after watching three episodes, I quickly realized that watching this sci-fi dinosaur series would be an excercise in pain. I tried to watch Once Upon a Time, but it just didn't measure up to the level of quality I look for if I'm going to commit to a weekly serialized show. On the comedy front, I liked Suburgatory at first, but it quickly fizzled into standard sitcom fare. 2 Broke Girls intrigued me thanks to Kat Dennings, but I was rapidly turned off by its lowest-common-denominator laugh track-infused attempts at humor. The only new Fall TV show I'm still watching? New Girl. I don't yet love it, but there's some smart writing, a good cast, and it seems to be slowly but surely finding its comedy legs.

- The Year TV Went Full-On Geek: Game of Thrones solidified it: TV can now do just about any genre, and in some ways, it can do 'em better than the movies. I mean, movies have their limitations. They're one-and-done. Even with an ongoing franchise like Harry Potter or The Dark Knight, you miss out on a lot of the richness and detail of the books or comics. But Game of Thrones showed that longform storytelling is often where it's at for geek-friendly adaptations. Walking Dead also made a compelling case. And both proved that we no longer have to talk about TV geres in terms of boring old cliches like medical drama, law drama, cop drama, etc. - now, add zombie apocalypse and high fantasy to the list.

- The Year That Steve Carrell Left The Office: There were some great episodes of The Office in 2011, but overall, the show felt all-over-the-place as it struggled to figure out how to handle the departure of Michael Scott. The send-off episodes were a mixed-bag, with a guest stint from Will Ferrell disappointing. So far, this season has felt directionless, with Ed Helms' Andy character still trying to find a consistent voice. There are still glimmers of the old Office hilarity here and there, but time will tell if the show still has one last great run ahead of it.

- The Year That The Friday Night Death-Slot Kills and Kills Again: Fringe is one of the best shows on TV, but it's been relegated to an obscure Friday night timeslot where few watch it, and even fewer watch it live. Some might say that the lowered expectations of Friday nights actually help the show to survive, but to me, it's just sort of a shame. Even as FOX pushed the heck out of new show Terra Nova, it continued to all but ignore its best drama, and one of the best series on network TV. I don't know what the future holds for Fringe, but I do know that it deserves better than Friday nights.

- The Year That Smallville Ended: I wrote a long retrospective peice about Smallville over the summer following the series finale, so I won't go into too much depth about the show here - but certainly, the end of Smallville was the end of an era. Though the show never matched the potential of its best episodes with any degree of consistency, it still opened the door for more high concept series that would follow in its footsteps. What will the next big superhero TV show be? 2012 may hold the answer.

- The Year That Cable TV Takes Over: The best shows on TV in 2011 were inarguably on cable. AMC, FX, HBO, Cartoon Network, and other nets housed the best shows of the year, by and large. But therein lies a problem. Cable TV is pricier than ever, with premium networks like HBO and Showtime adding even more heft to absurd cable bills. Something has to be done, whether it's a la carte channel packages, over-the-top subscription services, or shortened windows for DVD and blu-ray release. Cable TV has never been more creative, but it's also never been less consumer-friendly. Something's gotta give.

- The Year That FX Cancelled Great Shows: It's hard to fault FX for cancelling a terminally low-rated show, but man, it was a double-dose of pain early this year when, only months after unceremonously axing the great Terriers, a similar fate awaited Lights Out - yet another critically-acclaimed but low-rated FX drama. FX is to be credited for developing high quality shows, but man, what can they do to get people to watch? And on that note, this was ...

- The Year That Comedy Kicked Ass, And Nobody Watched: What is with you people? Sorry, don't mean to be accusatory, but it just hurts me that amazing comedies like Community and Parks and Recreation garner such relatively low ratings, even as every pile-o'-crap show with a laugh track or celebrity dancing proves to be a hit. In 2011, these two network comedies were so good that they vaulted into the upper-echelons of the all-time greats. But their ratings stagnation proves a couple of points: a.) people are stupid, b.) older people are stuck in their comedy ways, and won't watch shows that don't feature a chorus of fake, annoying laughter that follows every overly-telegraphed joke, and c.) the younger people who like shows like Community aren't watching it on the air, which means lower Nielsen ratings. Interestingly, Community was just the recipient of a first-of-its-kind deal with Hulu, who paid a hefty sum for the rights to make available past seasons of the show - which shows the value of the show in the world of online streaming. This whole phenomena is nothing new this year - we've seen young-skewing shows like Family Guy, Arrested Development, Veronica Mars, and more all get the axe due to low ratings, only to find post-mortem success in other mediums. And this is a trend that stretches across all genres. Shows like Breaking Bad, Justified ... these are modern classics, but they are watched only by niche audiences. It's all part of the fragmentation of modern TV, I know, and it's probably only going to get worst from here. But dammit, it's still sad to me that a show like Community doesn't get the recognition it deserves in the here and now - except from bitter critics and bloggers like me.

- The Year Where The Fall Felt Like Only a Prelude to The Winter of 2012: Like I said, this Fall's crop of ne shows was mostly underwhelming, but more and more, it felt like the Fall TV season was only a warm-up to mid-season, when a lot of the big-guns will be unleashed. Not only are great shows like 30 Rock, Justified and Eastbound & Down set to return, but high profile new series like Alcatraz, Touch, The River, and Smash are all set to debut in the new year.

- The Year When The Next Big Thing Was Right Around The Corner: We've already seen a lot of changes to the way we consume TV - and now, for many of us, things like DVR, Netflix, and Hulu are a regular part of our television diet. But still, there is a sense that these services are in some ways a prelude to the next major paradigm shift. That shift may involve the a la carte cable packages I mentioned earlier. It may involve a company like Apple or Microsoft circumventing the cable companies and offering some kind of competitive service (already, we're seeing the seeds planted for that with some of the new services available on XBOX). Or it may be the cable companies reestablishing some relevance with things like TV Everywhere (see: Comcast Xfinity as an example). Who knows. And it may not happen in 2012. But soon enough, the other shoe will have to drop.

It was a year of highs and lows to be sure, but now it's time to honor the year's best. I didn't see everything of course (I hear great things about Homeland, and I'm behind on True Blood!), but I did see a lot, and I think that's reflected here. So here they are ...

DANNY'S TOP SCRIPTED TV SHOWS OF 2011:

1.) Breaking Bad

- Season 3 of Breaking Bad ended on one of the most intense, nail-biting cliffhangers I've ever seen, and Season 4 picked right back up and never lost an ounce of narrative momentum. Season 4 was a giant chess game, between Walter White and Gus Fring, between Fring and Walter's brother-in-law Hank, between Skyler and her scheming boss Ted, between on-edge Jesse and the hard-to-read Mike The Cleaner. Everything eventually came to a head in one of the most amazing season finales I've ever seen, with Walter finally getting the best of Gus. In this season, Walter in fact became "the man who knocks," and in witnessing his transformation, we're witnessing one of the great American stories of a good man gone bad. Funny, action-packed, completely unpredictable, and intense-as-hell, Breaking Bad this year was the best thing on TV, bar none. We already knew it was great - in 2011, it became legendary.

2.) Community

- Explosively funny, mind-bendingly clever, and unfailingly ambitious, Community will do anything and everything in the name of comedy. This year, the show parodied everything from Apocalypse Now to Glee, and in between it packed in more gags, references, and witty asides than I could count. This was also the year where each and every member of the Community cast finally felt fully formed. Jeff, Britta, Annie, Piere, Troy, Abed, Chang, and The Dean - joined by a calvacade of great side characters and bit players. There hasn't been a world this full of awesome concepts and characters - or a show this sharply and smartly funny - since the heyday of The Simpsons. If you're not watching Community, then you're not watching the best comedy currently on TV.

3.) Louie

- As good as Community is, Louie is so fresh and unique that it was close to coming in at #2. Louie isn't always laugh-out-loud funny, but when it is, it's gut-bustingly hilarious. Louie isn't always poignant and dramatic, but when it is, it's as powerful as any drama on the air. What Louie is, always, is a gloriously unfiltered look into the mind of comedian Louis CK, and it just keeps getting better and more must-see as it goes on. In a world where so many TV shows feel processed and created-by-committe, it's amazing to see a show that is this raw and the product of so singular a voice. And what a voice it is.

4.) Justified

- Justified was great in Season 1, but man, did business pick up in Season 2. The show's sophomore season upped the ante by pitting hero Raylan Givens against the veangeful Bennett clan, led by the formidable villainy of Mags Bennett (brought to life by a phenomenal performance from Margo Martindale). Jeremy Davies was a standout as Mags' loose-cannon son Dickie, and Walton Goggins continued to be a scene-stealer as the unpredictable Boyd Crowder. This was an awesome season of TV - 100% certified badass.

5.) Boardwalk Empire

- Boardwalk Empire has a deep, deep bench of talented actors that comprise its sprawling cast, but it wisely ended its second season by refocusing on the central conflict between its two leads - Steve Buscemi's bootlegging kingpin Nucky Thompson, and Michael Pitt's emotionally-scarred prodigal son Jimmy Darmody. To that end, the final few episodes of Season 2 were so good that I had to reevaluate my thoughts on the show. To me, the exploration of Jimmy's tortured past in S2's penultimate episode, followed by his shocking confrontation with Nucky in the finale, put this show over the edge for me. Boardwalk Empire is now, officially, one hell of a show. The standout performances on the series are simply too numerous to mention, the characters too uniformly great to single out just one or two favorites (though I'll echo others and say that Richard Harrow is the man). I can't wait to see where the show goes from here.

6.) Fringe

- Fringe ended last season with a total shocker: in an effort to bridge the gaps between two parallel earths, Peter Bishop somehow blinked himself out of existence, becoming unstuck in time and space. Now, after having seen numerous alternate worlds and realities, we were confronted with yet another - a world where an adult Peter never existed. At times, learning all the ins and outs of yet another reality became a bit tiring, but even when the overall mytharc faltered, Fringe was still awesome sci-fi drama. John Noble remains underrated - in Walter Bishop he continues to create one of the best-ever characters on TV - funny, tragic, and entertainingly insane. Anna Torv continues to impress, playing multiple iterations of Olivia Dunham without missing a beat. And Fringe is still capable of delivering amazing standalone episodes that are pure sci-fi goodness: witness this past November's memorable ep "And Those We've Left Behind," guest starring Stephen Root in a time-travel mind-bender. It was proof that Fringe is still on top of its game.

7.) Parks and Recreation

- Parks is another show that, to me ... well, it's crazy that more people aren't watching. What they're missing is a show that's clever, hilarious, filled with great characters, and that even has plenty of heart mixed in with the irreverant humor. The cast of Parks & Rec continues to amaze me, and it feels like each week I have a new favorite character. The show smartly has evolved to take full advantage of its ensemble. Sure, Amy Poehler's Leslie Knope is still front and center, but she's surrounded with the best group of funny people on TV - Nick Offerman, Aziz Ansari, Adam Scott, Rob Lowe, Chris Pratt, Aubrey Plaza, Rashida Jones ... the talent here is insane, and the writing is up to the level of the talent. A modern-day comedy classic.

8.) Game of Thrones

- It took me a little while to learn to love Game of Thrones. After watching the pilot, I was literally on Wikipedia trying to figure out who all the characters were. But the show's creators had faith that, in time, the show's sprawling storylines would start to gel into a cohesive whole ... and gel they did. By the second half of the season, GoT became must-watch TV, a fantasy epic marked by several fantastic performances. By the time we got to the amazing finale, I was 100% hooked and dying for Season 2. This show simply felt epic. From the amazing production value to the huge scope of the storylines, this show was not only awesome, but redefined kinds of stories are possible on TV.

9.) Children's Hospital

- I've always hated the notion that comedy can only be great if it incorporates the elements of conventional drama. I don't buy the idea that comedy has to adhere to traditional notions of plot or character to be great. I love absurdist humor - to me, when done right, it's as praiseworthy as any other type of comedy - and no one is doing it better than the mad geniuses behind Children's Hospital. In short, fifteen minute episodes, Rob Cordry and co. pack in more crazy gags and jokes than most shows do in twice the time. Anything can happen, and usually does. And the comic timing of the cast is the best in the biz. Rob Cordry, Megan Mullally, Ken Marino, Rob Huebel, Erinn Hayes, Lake Bell, Malin Ackermann, Henry Winkler, and a parade of guest stars make for a veritable comedy dream team.

10.) 30 Rock

- 30 Rock has been off the air since early this Summer, but man, the second half of Season 5 was so good that I had to put the show in my Top 10. For a while there, it seemed like perhaps 30 Rock had lost some of its comedic mojo. But Season 5 was a return to form, and the show absolutely nailed it with a strong of classic eps to close out the season. Even with tough competition from shows like Parks and Community, 30 Rock remains perhaps the most quotable show on TV - when the show is on its A-game, there's no better written comedy out there. And the cast remains amazing - there are few people on TV who reliably crack me up more so than Alec Baldwin and Tracy Morgan.

THE NEXT BEST:

11.) Lights Out

- Here's one that I'm sure is going to fly under-the-radar of a lot of Best-Of-2011 lists, as it premiered way back in January and ran through the Spring. But man, Lights Out evolved over the course of its single season into one heck of a show - the first time I've ever seen a TV show that encapsulated the big-fight feel of the Rocky movies, but with the story expanded to a season's worth of drama and build-up. For whatever reason, this FX show failed to pick up a big audience, and it was a little slow coming out of the gate. But man, once Eamonn Walker joined the cast as an ultra-intense trainer, the show began firing on all cylinders, and it rode that wave of momentum all the way up to its awesome series finale. Holt McCallany was fantastic as our hero, "Lights" Leary as well. This was a show that deserved a bigger audience.

12.) Curb Your Enthusiasm

- I love Curb - it's one of the best comedies of all time, but I have to admit it had something of an inconsistent season. When it was up, it was really up - witness the instant classic "Palestinian Chicken" episode. But even when it was only okay, there are always little gems - conversations, one-off jokes, musings, and Larry David-isms - that make Curb one-of-a-kind. More, please.

13.) Beavis & Butthead

- As I said earlier, it's a complete trip to have this show back on TV and on an MTV that is a universe away from what it was during the duo's 90's heyday. But while MTV has changed, B&B haven't, and thankfully so. Mike Judge's playground to mock culture and society remains as sharp and hilarious as ever.

14.) The Walking Dead

- Season 2 of The Walking Dead struggled at times, and though there were moments of awesomeness, certain plotlines dragged, and the show had a hard time making its characters truly pop. The same characters that I loved from the comics too often felt boring or annoying on the show. But there were signs ... as the season went on, the show picked up some serious steam, all culminating in a legit-awesome mid-season finale that gave me hope for what's to come. Can't wait to see where things go from here.

15.) Chuck

- Chuck is almost at its end, so as a longtime fan of the show and its endearingly geeky world, it pleases me greatly to say that Season 5, so far, has been pretty great. Season 4 was often a struggle to get through, no question. But Season 5 has been getting better with each episode, and the recent Christmas episode, which saw the return of Brandon Rough as arch-villain Shaw, was absolutely awesome - a reminder of just how great Chuck can be. It also reminded me that, man, I am going to be sad when this show is done. Even through the rough patches, Chuck's got some of the best characters on TV, and I've always been happy to spend time with them through thick and thin.

16.) Tie: Futurama / The Simpsons

- Okay, I decided to double up on this one, but I'm happy to do so given how cool it is to see these shows putting out great episodes here in 2011. Futurama continues to have a great run following its return to TV, and The Simpsons is in the middle of its best season in years. Craziness! Futurama has some duds this past Summer, but it had several awesome episodes as well. As for The Simpsons ... okay, so the first couple of episodes of the seasons weren't that great, and the Halloween episode was a mess ... but over the last several weeks, the string of "The Food Wife," "The Book Job," "The Man in the Blue Flannel Pants," "The Ten-Per-Cent Solution," and "Holidays of Future Past" were each legitimately great episodes. How did this happen? Is it a fluke? Will the rest of the season go back to nu-Simpsons mediocrity? I don't know, and I'm trying not to question it. For now, I'm just happy that the greatest TV show of all time still has a little gas left in the tank.

17.) Modern Family

- Modern Family has slid a bit in my estimation since it's breakthrough first season, but it's still one of the best comfort-food shows on the air - a show with great characters and an always-awesome cast. I think the show is getting repetitive in its storylines (how much bickering do we need between Mitch and Cam?), but the brilliance of Ty Burell as Phil Dunphy always makes the show reliably funny and entertaining.

18.) Eagleheart

- If you haven't seen Adult Swim's oddball action-show parody starring Chris Elliott, then it's time you tune in to one of the most delightfully wacky shows on the air. From a team of former Conan O'Brien writers, this show puts its Walker, Texas Ranger-esque lead in all sorts of insane situations, and gets a ton of laughs from the always-great Elliott and a very funny supporting cast.

19.) New Girl

- New Girl has been the one new comedy of 2011 that's been reliably funny and that shows a lot of potential. So far, the cast is strong, the writing has glimmers of real wit, and the show seems to be finding its legs after a bumpy first couple of episodes. This could definitely be one to watch in 2012.

20.) Mildred Pierce

- Okay, so it was a miniseries and not an ongoing show, but I wanted to give a shout-out to this HBO drama. It featured some fantastic performances from the likes of Kate Winselt, Guy Pierce, and Evan Rachel Wood, and it morphed from conventional period drama into a truly twisted tale of love and revenge. Certainly, a memorable miniseries from HBO.

OTHER TOP TV:

- A lot of what I make a point to watch on television is scripted, but every so often, something off the beaten path catches my eye. One show that was a total must-watch for me in early 2011 was AN IDIOT ABROAD. The brainchild of Office creators Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, An Idiot Abroad sees the pair send their beleaguered buddy Karl Pilkington off on one globetrotting adventure after another. Karl, a man who barely likes to leave his house, is totally out of his element, and his reactions as he visits each of the fables Seven Wonders of the World are always hilarious. Karl's everyman insights are often boneheaded, yet at times oddly brilliant in some strange, simplistic way. The great thing about Karl is that he has no pretentions of culture whatsoever. He'll never be in awe of something just because - and sometimes, that makes him a moron, yet sometimes, you can't help but admire his simplistic worldview. The cool thing about An Idiot Abroad is that, even though it's hilarious, it also functions as a fantastic travelogue, with great scenes of world culture and historic sites. Mostly though, there are few things that crack me up more than the idiot-savant mad genius of Karl Pilkington. A second season of An Idiot Abroad premieres on the Science Channel in early '12, and personally, I can't wait.

- I thought that CONAN had a pretty darn good year, particulary this past winter when he really brought his A-game. His series of shows in New York were consistently hilarious, and he finished out the year with some strong new comedy bits (the Human Centipede Menorah, anyone?) and the return of some old favorites (Clutch Cargo!). Conan is still my go-to choice for late-night hilarity.

- That said, I've also got to hand it to LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON. Jimmy's show has been getting better and better. He's got the best band on TV in The Roots, and his comedy sketches, musical parodies, and guest bands are increasingly becoming the best in late night. The writing on the show is very, very strong, and Jimmy keeps getting better as a host. Mostly though, Late Night has, in the last year, become the source of more buzzworthy comedy clips than any of its competitors.

- Of course, even if I don't watch them as much as I'd like, I once again have to hand it to John Stewart and THE DAILY SHOW, as well as Stephen Colbert and THE COLBERT REPORT. In these tumultuous political times, Stewart and Colbert are the one-two-punch that helps to bring some sanity back into the national political discussion. There is so much absurdity in national politics at the moment, it's nice to know that Stewart and Colbert are there to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.

- I still feel like SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE can be wildly inconsistent, but I will say that I've enjoyed seeing a new wave of talent slowly but surely take over the show, even as old hands like Bill Hader continue to impress. Hader's Stephon is probably the best and most consistently hilarious recurring SNL character in years, and few other things on TV in 2011 made me laugh harder than the always-awesome club recommendations of Stephon.

- Finally, here's the Best Show I Watched on DVD/Blu-Ray This Year: DEADWOOD. In 2011, an episode or two of Deadwood became a weekly tradition, and I came to admire the show's Shakespearean drama and Old West grit. The cast of the show - maybe even more so in retrospect - was absolutely stellar. And Ian McShane's Al Swearengen has quickly shot to the top of my list of all-time great TV characters. Okay, I'll admit - sometimes a few minutes of Deadwood go by and I'll realize I have no idea what the characters just said (even if I can tell their mood from some strategically-placed expletives). But in general, it's been a pleasure to immerse myself in David Milch's Old West epic.

INDIVIDUAL AWARDS:

The Best TV Heroes of 2011:

1.) Hank Shrader - Breaking Bad

2.) Raylan Givens - Justified

3.) Ned Stark - Game of Thrones

4.) Olivia Dunham - Fringe

5.) Patrick "Lights" Leary - Lights Out

The Best TV Villains of 2011:

1.) Gus Fring - Breaking Bad

2.) Mags Bennett - Justified

3.) Dickie Bennett - Justified

4.) Walternate - Fringe

5.) Gillian Darmody - Boardwalk Empire

The Best TV Anti-Heroes of 2011:

1.) Walter White and Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

2.) Nucky Thomspon, Jimmy Darmody, Richard Harrow - Boardwalk Empire

3.) Boyd Crowder - Justified

4.) Tyrion Lannister - Game of Thrones

5.) Daenerys Targaryen - Game of Thrones

Best Actress in a Comedy:

1.) Gillian Jacobs - Community

Runners Up: Alison Brie - Community, Amy Poehler - Parks and Recreation

Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy:

1.) Jane Krakowski - 30 Rock

Runners Up: Aubrey Plaza - Parks and Recreation, Erin Hayes, Malin Ackermann, and Lake Bell - Children's Hospital

Best Actor in a Comedy:

1.) Joel McHale - Community

Runners Up: Alec Baldwin - 30 Rock, Louie CK - Louie

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy:

1.) Donald Glover - Community

Runners Up: Danny Pudi - Community, Nick Offerman - Parks and Recreation, Adam Baldwin - Chuck

Best Actress in a Drama:

1.) Kelly MacDonald - Boardwalk Empire

Runners Up: Anna Torv - Fringe, Emilia Clarke - Game of Thrones

Best Supporting Actress in a Drama:

1.) Margo Martindale - Justified

Runners Up: Anna Gunn - Breaking Bad, Gretchen Mol - Boardwalk Empire

Best Actor in a Drama:

1.) Bryan Cranston - Breaking Bad

Runners Up: Sean Bean - Game of Thrones, Steve Buscemi - Boardwalk Empire, Holt McCallany - Lights Out

Best Supporting Actor in a Drama:

1.) John Noble - Fringe

Runners Up: Dean Norris - Breaking Bad, Giancarlo Esposito - Breaking Bad, Aaron Paul - Breaking Bad, Peter Dinklage - Game of Thrones, Mark Addy - Game of Thrones, Michael Shannon - Boardwalk Empire, Michael Pitt - Boardwalk Empire, Jack Huston - Boardwalk Empire, Eamonn Walker - Lights Out

- And that wraps up my coverage of the best in television of 2011. Thoughts? Comments? Critiques? Hit me up - and stay tuned for further coverage of the Best of 2011!

Riding Into Battle With WAR HORSE

2011-12-27T22:48:00.000-08:00

WAR HORSE Review:

- I'll admit, I feel a little torn about War Horse. Spielberg's latest war epic is beautifully shot, occasionally poignant, and has a handful of scenes that were among my favorites of any movie this year. And yet ... it's a Spielberg movie about a horse. My inner sentimentalist couldn't help but get caught up in the bombast of it all. My inner cynic couldn't stop groaning at the cheese-factor. Regardless, War Horse is a well-told story that is pretty much as advertised: a Hallmark card of a WWI movie. Spielberg knows, more than any other director, how to tug at heart strings. But when Spielberg is at his best, he also goes the extra mile. When he made E.T., Spielberg struck a nerve because he told a great story, filled with awe and wonder, and also captured the feeling of loneliness and isolation that can oftentimes be inherent in childhood. With War Horse, Spielberg strikes at an important and heartfelt message - the futility and tragedy of war - but he does so through the perspective of ... a horse. Not to undermine some of the film's genuinely powerful moments, I just think that it's a very, very tricky balancing act. A horse is not a person - it doesn't take sides in a war, and it would have the same attachments, fears, and reflexes whether it was on the side of the English or the Germans. With that in mind, WAR HORSE, to me, has moments where it truly shines - but it is also limited by its non-human protagonist.

The story of War Horse is simple but effective, particularly in the way that the plot goes around in a satisfying and elegantly-structured circle. We begin the film in the rural village of Devon, England, just prior to the start of World War I. A farmer by the name of Ted is in need of a new horse to plough his farm. At a horse auction, Ted goes against his better judgement, and rather than spending wisely on a work horse or mule, he spends a large sum of money on a thoroughbred - swift and graceful, but not exactly built for ploughing a farm. The purchase actually has the potential to be a huge mistake for Ted and his family, as, if they can't properly farm their land, then they can't pay off their rather cruel landlord, and stand to lose their farm. Luckily, Ted's teenaged son Albert takes to the horse - he names it Joey - and, against all odds, he teaches it to plough. Just as the boy and horse have formed a special bond, however, the war is on, and the British army offers to buy the horse for military use. Ted obliges despite his son's protests, and Joey is shipped off to war.

As War Horse progresses, we see Joey go on an odyssey through some of the various battlefields of World War I. He rides into battle as part of the British cavalry, gets commandeered by German forces, gets used in an escape attempt by two young German deserters, and finds temporary respite on a French farm, where he's cared for by a precocious young girl and her grandfather. In the film's climactic showpiece scene, Joey finds himself caught in a devastating, apocalyptic battle between British and German forces.

For me, the movie took a little while to get going. The opening scenes with Albert bonding with his horse struck me as the movie at its cheesiest. With John Williams' sweeping score blasting, we're treated to scene after scene of this 16 or 17 year old boy who inexplicably loves this horse with all his heart. It was all a bit much, but I thought the movie picked up a good deal when the scene shifts to the battlefields of World War I, and the film's focus moves to Tom Hiddleston as a courageous British officer, who's sworn to Albert that he'll keep his horse safe. Hiddleston brings some much-needed gravitas to the film, helping in the transition from boy-and-his-horse theater-of-the-aw-shucks to legit war movie.

Spielberg knows how to craft epic and horrific scenes of wartime combat, and such scenes are where War Horse really soars. When the bullets are flying and the threat of death is real, that's when I began to sit up and get 100% absorbed in the goings-on. And that too is when the central message of War Horse shines through. The somewhat manufactured relationship between a boy and his horse? Only went so far with me. But what did get to me was the idea that this war was destroying the beauty of the world bit by bit, that it was devouring up the land, and turning the earth's most majestic creatures (not to mention us humans) into cannon fodder. When the movie sticks to this sort of big idea, I think it really works. There's one phenomenal scene, for example, in which, during a lull in the fighting between the British and Germans, two soldiers - one from each side - have an unusually cordial encounter in the middle of the battlefield. It turns out that both want to help Joey, who's been caught by barbed wire in the middle of the combat zone. For a moment, the enemy combatants are just two people - but the absurdity and tragedy of the scene is that despite their friendliness, they're about to go back to trying to kill each other. Spielberg handles the scene with a deft, light touch - and though it's perhaps something we've seen before, few other directors could do so with such grace.

Where the movie lost me though was in the moments where it walks the line between following this horse's journey and actually making the horse into a person - a real character. To me, that's cheating. In an otherwise realistic movie, I felt that War Horse had too many instances where Joey acts less like a horse and more like a human. To me, those moments actually took me out of the movie and to some extent undermine its message.

As for the acting, I thought it was pretty good all around. Newcomer Jeremy Irvine is decent as Albert, but he is also probably the most guilty of anyone in the movie of laying on the schmaltz a bit too thickly. Tom Hiddleston is a standout, as mentioned. And generally, the cast is solid, though there's also a lack of truly commanding performances. In terms of the score, I actually think there are some fantastic themes here by John Williams - certainly, some of the more memorable work he's done in a while. I think the only issue is that the score is so bombastic and sweepingly sentimental - sometimes the action on screen doesn't quite live up to it. The effect is that the score, good as it is, can seem a little overbearing at times.

I will reiterate, however, that the film looks incredible. It was only days ago that Spielberg wowed me with the visuals of Tintin, and now he's wowed me again, but in a much different manner. With War Horse, much of the film has the classic quality of an old-school Hollywood epic. There are sprawling shots of the pastoral countryside, screen-filling sunsets that frame everything in lush, golden hues. As per usual, Spielberg infuses scenes with the maximum levels of awe and wonder. At the same time, there are a handful of scenes where the director cuts loose. One battle scene brings to mind the chaotic combat of Saving Private Ryan. And the previously-mentioned showpiece scene, in which the camera tracks Joey's desperate gallop through a hellish battlefield, is one for the ages. It's the one scene in the film where my jaw was truly on the floor.

Ultimately, I don't know that War Horse will be placed at the top tier of the Spielberg cannon. It's an excellent family film, and a simple yet effective cautionary tale about the horrors and futility of war. But Spielberg can be prone to diluting his films with too much sentimentality, and I think that's the case here. It's not that War Horse should have been devoid of sentimentality, it's just that the manufactured throughline of the boy and his horse never hit me as hard as the real-life horrors that both were witness to. It's nice that the two shared this bond, but it seems hard to get too caught up in it given the horrific backdrop. And let's face it, a horse is never going to be as effective of a character as a human being. I don't want to harp on that too much though. If you can get past all that, War Horse is a rewarding film in many ways. It's cheesy at times, sure - but it's also a classically-composed, stunningly-shot epic, and if you watch it, well, maybe - just maybe - a heartstring or two will be tugged.

My Grade: B+

RED STATE: Swing and a Miss

2011-12-27T10:26:00.000-08:00

RED STATE Review:

Note: Red State was released for a short theatrical run earlier this year, and was also screened as part of a travelling roadshow shepharded by writer/director Kevin Smith. It's been available for rental, download, and via Netflix Instant Streaming for the last few months. I was recently able to catch the film via Netflix.

- I'm a longtime fan of Kevin Smith, and I'll defend his earlier works (and even a couple of his later works - Clerks 2, anyone?) any time I hear them come under critical attack. Clerks was a life-changing film for me - when I saw it in college, it opened my eyes to what was possible in independent film. Smith's films made many like me realize the power of low-budget, dialogue driven movies - movies that were as effective as anything that Hollywood was churning out, because they came from a very real, very authentic place. Not only that, but Smith's films like Clerks and Mallrats spoke to me - the characters in these movies were some of the first I remember seeing who were part of the new breed of geek - pop-culture obsessed, fluent in the worlds of comics and videogames, but not nerds of the glasses and hiked-up-pants variery. For a while there, Kevin Smith felt like one of us - the fanboy who had made it in movies, who was now making cool films for his people.

To this day, I enjoy hearing Smith speak, and the guy is often hilarious. But one thing that's evident from hearing Smith talk is that he's lost some of his passion for the movie biz. He's talked for a long time now about calling it quits following his next (and purportedly last) film. And much of his time is spent on podcasting and other non-movie-making pursuits. I have to wonder if some of that indifference seeped through to RED STATE. I've heard Smith talk about the movie at length, and he seems very passionate about some of the underlying ideas behind the movie - he can talk all day about the Westboro Baptist Church and how they inspired the film and how he can't stand (and rightfully so) their particular brand of religiously-justified intolerance. He also seems particularly passionate about the way in which the film was distributed. And again, I think he has a right to take some pride in this. Smith bucked the typical system for putting out a film. He distributed it independently, circumvented traditional theatrical release windows, and he took it around the country via his roadshow, where he accompanied the sceenings with speaking engagements. And I have no doubt that Smith speaking - hilarious as he usually is - was a highlight of those screenings. I think both of these things - Smith taking on intolerance, and innovating in terms of distribution, are admirable in their own ways.

Of course, all of this admiration has to do with the stuff surrounding Red State. At the end of the day though, the question remains: how is Red State as a film? Short answer: well, it's sort of a mess. It's one of Smith's more ambitious and out-there efforts, sure, but it's not one of his better films. I say this as someone who wanted to like this one, as someone who's fascinated by the subject matter, and as someone who's liked a lot of Smith's more recent stuff - I loved Clerks 2, I thought Zack & Miri was hilarious. But Red State, to me, mostly fell flat.

The first thing you might notice about Red State, if you're a Smith fan, is that it looks nothing like most of Smith's other films. The movie is shot in distinctly horror-movie tones, with the green-brown textures of a modern-day grindhouse flick. There's a videogame-like HD slickness to the film that's a far cry from the primitive-by-comparison look of movies like Clerks or Chasing Amy. Even the movie poster gives the impression that this is a game adaptation or something. Smith is clearly trying something new and different here, and that's commendable. At the same time, I felt like I was watching Smith learning-on-the-fly how to shoot a horror movie. There are all sorts of random shots, camera angles, and editing tricks used that just don't really add up to much, in terms of effectiveness. There are awkward camera-placements that obstruct the action, choppy editing that feels pretty pointless given what Smith is trying to accomplish, and action that lacks the proper oomph.

Still, Smith has a great cast to work with, and the interesting germ of a story to base his premise around. Basically, we follow three sadsack teen boys as they giddily journey to meet up with a woman they've been in contact with via an online sex site. What the boys don't realize is that they're actually being lured into a trap - a trap set up by the followers of a bugnuts insane fundamentalist church group. The group, led by their charismatic leader Abin Cooper, routinely snatches up people they consider to be deviants so as to inflict punishment, torture, and death on the gorunds of their hidden-away compound. As it happens, the same night that the boys are kidnapped by the church, local law enforcement is tipped off to shady activity at the compound. Given that the church is comprised of family members by blood or marriage, outsiders have never been ableto infiltrate its ranks to get proof of their misdeeds. But police and government officials have had enough of the church - they decide to stage a full-on raid of the compound, even though odds are it's going to be a bloodbath.

It's a cool setup, no doubt. And there are some great actors here who really do good work. Michael Parks, for example, is really good as church leader Abin Cooper. He talks with a soothing yet half-crazed Southern drawl, and alternates between kindly old grandfather and evil sonofabitch. At one point, Smith gives Abin a long, long monologue, and it could have been interminable, except for the fact that Parks' delivery makes it entertaining. John Goodman is the other real standout as the ATF agent assigned to lead the raid on the church compound. Goodman is rarely not awesome, and he brings a great intensity, mixed with world-weary resignation, to the role. Finally, Melissa Leo is scary and crazy as Abin's daughter, the woman who lures the teens to the compound. A couple of other really good actors are in the movie - Stephen Root, Anna Gun (and Matt Jones, Badger on Breaking Bad - a BB reunion!), but they're both underutilized. The actors who play the three teens are decent, but the characters are pretty half-baked, not quite up there in the pantheon of great Kevin Smith slackers.

But let's face it, Kevin Smith movies have always been scrappy affairs, and we watch them for the characters, the dialogue, and the humor - not for mind-blowing cinematography. Here though, Smith stumbles when it comes to story and characters, and that's surprising. The script jumps all over the place. We spend a ton of time with Abin at his church, but most of that time is just Abin monologuing about his hatred of deviants and homosexuals. It's scary stuff, but it's also standard-issue, and after a while, it feels like we're just listening to the same hate-filled rants over and over again. The problem is that while the film revolves around Abin, everything else on the periphery feels thrown together. The three teen boys are introduced as potential protagonists, but none of them have much personality, and they quickly fade into the movie's background. Stephen Root is introduced as a potentially fascinating character - a local sherrif with a secret - but he is ultimately a non-factor in the movie. Late in the film, Abin's teenage niece suddenly becomes a key player in the drama, but it all happens too suddenly, and it feels forced. Characters pop in and out of the movie with reckless abandon, and there's never any one throughline. And I also felt like a lot of the conflict in the film felt manufactured. Smith sets up a situation where, as it turns out, the ATF agents raiding the compound are ruthless killers who, by movie's end, are almost as bad as the church members they're taking down. But why? It feels pointless to make John Goodman's crew so unsympathetic and malicious in the way that they take down the church. I'm not sure what Smith was going for here at all -whatever point he's trying to make is lost in the movie's haphazard plotting and nonsensical storytelling.

Now, there is a moment towards the end of the film - and I won't spoil it - where I really thought that Smith was going to throw us a curveball and take the movie into really weird, Dogma-esque territory. But instead, it's all a red herring, and we end in a baffling debriefing where Goodman's character is being grilled by his superiors. Smith seems to be going for some sort of No Country For Old Men thing here, abruptly cutting away from the action to end on a sombering bit of narration. But man, it does not work. In general, there are all sorts of fragments of interesting ideas and notions and social commentary scattered about this movie, but none of them are ever fully realized. It feels like Smith got lost after making his main point, which is simply that fundamentalists are crazy and scary. True, but no big revelation there. Meanwhile, any deeper insight or satire or commentary is totally drowned out. I hate to say it, but the storytelling here has the rambling characteristics of the kind of story you might hear from a high-as-a-kite stoner. Even the dialogue - always a strength of Smith's work, is only so-so. There are little nuggets of goodness to be found in the film, to be sure - many courtesy of Parks as Abin - but the dialogue just doesn't feel as sharp as what we're used to from Smith. But speaking of high-as-a-kite, it makes you wonder if perhaps Smith's heavy pot habit is taking a toll on the quality and coherance of his creative output (judging by this and his recent Batman comics work, the answer may well be yes).

I think there is some really fertile ground here for a great movie to spring out from. Smith toys with a number of tantalizing ideas that a better movie would have more fully fleshed-out. There are some good moments of creepiness, and some interesting attempts at social commentary. But Red State ultimately has little to say that makes sense or makes you think. As a fan of Smith, I hope that he can rebound from this miss before he hangs it up.

My Grade: C

Slicing and Dicing With 13 ASSASSINS ...!

2011-12-25T23:52:00.000-08:00

13 ASSASSINS Review:

- Sometimes, a movie comes around that is quite simply 110% pure and total badassery. And 13 Assassins is one of those movies. This is one that I had intended to see in theaters earlier this year, but somehow never ended up getting to see. Eventually, I spotted the blu-ray on sale on Amazon.com and very quickly ordered myself a copy. Of course, somehow, the movie that I had eagerly waited to see ended up getting lost in the mail ... I was frustrated, but the good folks at Amazon were pretty awesome about the whole thing - they agreed to re-send the blu-ray to me free of charge, with two-day shipping thrown in at no cost. So, finally, 13 ASSASSINS arrived in my mailbox, in glorious HD, and man, it was worth the wait. This is a kickass samurai flick of the highest order.

Directed by prolific Japanese genre-specialist Takashi Miike (best known in America for Ichi the Killer), 13 Assassins tells the tale of the waning days of Japan's feudal system, during the mid 1800's, where the once-proud Samurai had been largely reduced to bureaucratic peace-keepers, either part of the Shogun's army, or else essentially living in early retirement, given that this was a time of relative peace. There was no great war to fight, but there was still a lot of death, violence, and suffering - in this film, largely courtesy of Lord Naritsugu, the sadistic brother of the Shogun, poised to eventually be handed the keys to the kingdom. Given that Naritsugu is prone to wanton murder, rape, pillaging, and general evilness, even his closest advisors worry what would happen to the kingdom should he be allowed to rule. And so, one of his lieutenants, Sir Doi, secretly recruits the famed samurai Shinzaemon to lead an assassination attempt against Naritsugu. Though there is a growing rebel faction in the kingdom, even those who despise Naritsugu are weary that an uprising would lead to all-out war that would tear the country apart. So assassination carried out by a small group of mercenaries is deemed the best way to go. And so Shinzaemon, the legendary warrior, basically unretires after a long period of inaction, and recruits a team of 13 assassins to bring down Naritsugu and his entourage of loyal samurai.

The movie is basically split into two distinct halves. The first part of the film is slower-paced and more character-driven. The threat of Naritsugu is established, and we see Shinzaemon gather his team and plan his strategy. The team-gathering part of the film is a lot of fun though. While we don't necessarily get a lot of insight into all 13 assassins, several of them are given pretty intriguing backstories. There's Shinzaemon's playboy nephew who decides to quit gambling and womanizing so as to follow his uncle's footsteps and become a real samurai. There's Shinzaemon's former student - a master swordsmen - who has now taken on a teenaged student of his own. There's even a non-samurai who joins the team after they save him from a trap - he helps them elude Naritisugu with his tracking skills, and turns out to be handy in a fight as well thanks to his trusty sling. Meanwhile, the movie does great job of building up Naritsugu as one hell of a villain. We see flashbacks to some of his most vile deeds, and, as played by Goro Inagaki, Naritsugu is almost completely devoid of emotion or remorse while committing all manner of horrifying acts. In short, you can't wait to see Shinzaemon and co send him straight to hell. And by the way, actor Koji Yokusho is awesome and super badass as Shinzaemon.

After the slow build of the first half, the second half of the film is just pure, unadulterated samurai mayhem, as the 13 assassins collide with Naritsugu's small army. Holy lord, do things get crazy - it's just one hour of balls-to-the-wall craziness. Insane sword battles, last-minute heroics, dramatic death scenes, and a final mano-e-mano confrontation that just ripples with blood-drenched intensity. Miike doesn't let up for a second, and he gives most of the characters a chance to shine and have their moment of awesomeness.

All the while, however, Miike also uses the carnage to comment on the changing state of Japan at that time. Where once the samurai fought with honor and purpose, now, things were not quite so clear. On one hand, Shinzaemon and his men were fighting against their ruler - a clear violation of the traditional samurai code. On the other hand, those loyal to Naritsugu were putting their lives on the line for a man who was clearly evil and insane. There's definitely some interesting stuff to think about when all is said and done - even if the tropes might be familiar to viewers of other samurai films, there's enough of a fresh twist here to make 13 Assassins stand out.

With so many characters to juggle, it's inevitable that some get the short shrift, and also that some character arcs aren't quite as satisfying as they might have been if the movie had less elements to juggle. Still, Mikke packs in a lot of cool little moments for many of the characters, even if some of the deaths - and the final tally of who's still standing vs. who isn't - at times feels a little bit random.

All in all though, this movie kicked ass like few others I've seen this year. Despite the language barrier, I was still completely caught up in the carnage, and on many occasions my jaw was on the floor in disbelief due to the sheer level of badassery on display. Elegantly brutal and gorgeously violent, 13 Assassins is one sick samurai flick.

My Grade: A-

Werner Herzog is the Captain of the Cavemen, With CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS

2011-12-25T17:53:00.000-08:00

CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS Review:

Note: This film was released theatrically earlier this year, but I recently watched it via Netflix.

- In the Chauvet Caves in France, archaeologists have recently found paintings dating back 37,000 years, made by primitive man. They are the oldest man-made drawings yet discovered. Sealed off for untold ages following a rock collapse, the caves and their secrets have been remarkably preserved. Now, they are sealed off for scientific research, with toxins in the caves preventing anyone from entering for more than a few hours at a time. Few people will ever see the caves and their ancient drawings in person, but thanks to Werner Herzog, we have the next best thing - a fascinating documentary that takes us inside the Chauvet Caves and lets us have a look at this relic of our primitive forefathers.

What I love about Werner Herzog is that he is a filmmaker who is also a philosopher of sorts. When confronted with phenomena like the drawings in the Chauvet Caves, Herzog is interested not just in the scientific and cultural findings, but also in the wider implications of this discovery. Sometimes, you don't know whether to nod in agreement at Herzog's musings or chuckle at their grim sincerity, but regardless, there's no one you'd rather have as your guide on this journey. Werner himself, I suspect, is half-mad (and I say that in the most endearing way possible), and so he has a way of tapping into the madness of others. He turns his camera on all manner of eccentrics and questions them sans irony or judgement, only with genuine curiosity. Herzog is accompanied to the caves by a motley crew of scientists and researchers, but in addition to his more factual questions, he asks them things like "what is human-ness?", and probes for the spiritual connection between the primitive cave artists and modern man. Herzog's distinct narration only pops up occasionally in the film, but his calming, questioning voice combined with the film's evocative, moody score makes the entire film itself into a sort of soothing, quasi-spiritual experience. Herzog will often simply let his cameras sit on the ancient paintings, slowly guiding our view, inviting us to ponder the works and their implications.

To that end, I do wish that there was a little more science to accompany the spirituality. As various subjects were brought up - the various, now-extinct animals depicted in the caves, for example - I found myself wishing that we were given a bit more context. I was eager to know more about the broader background here - what was the age that these men lived in like? At what points were some of these species killed off or driven to extinction? Herzog however isn't as interested in creating a true science doc, however. Instead, he is more interested in recreating the experience of descending down into these caves, and of recreating the awe and wonder that he felt as he visits this primordial world.

Overall, it's somewhat of a bare-bones production, rarely diverging from the caves and the drawings, with little attempt to recreate the time or place of the art, except via the experience of the caves. It's funny though, because Herzog can't seem to help himself from, almost by accident, making some of the scientists and researchers the unintentional stars of the film. There's the former circus performer, now an archaeologist, who ruminates on the spiritual nature of drawings. There's the doddering scientist who awkwardly tries to show us how ancient man used throwing spears to kill their pray. There's a crazy old cave-hunter who literally sniffs out caves with his nose, proudly sharing with us that he is the former president of France's national association of perfumers. Somehow, all of these oddballs are drawn to the equally eccentric Herzog, and vice versa.

And don't worry, if the movie proves too straightforward for you for most of its runtime, Herzog also includes a whacked-out postscript in which he visits a nature preserve nearby to the caves, where various species of animals are bred. With his camera focused on a group of "mutant" albino alligators, Herzog wonders what they would think should they happen into the Cave of Forgotten Dreams. It's all pretty insane, but wonderfully so. Who else but Herzog would close a documentary on ancient cave drawings with eerie, lingering shots of the eyes of an albino gator? God bless this man, he really is one of a kind.

In any case, while I don't think this film can hope to supplant the Planet Earths of the world as any sort of definitive science/nature doc, this is the history of ancient man as only Werner Herzog could deliver it. It's a glimpse into some truly thought-provoking paintings, that, indeed, stir the imagination and make you wonder about the life and times of prehistoric man. All this, of course, with a distinctly Herzogian twist.

My Grade: B+

MARGIN CALL: A Call To Action For the 99% ...?

2011-12-24T22:24:00.001-08:00

MARGIN CALL Review:

Note: Margin Call received a limited theatrical release this past Fall, but was also released day-and-date digitally, and is currently available as a digital download, rental, or via video-on-demand.

- Want to be depressed? Then check out MARGIN CALL ... a bleak, soul-sapping look at some of the events that led to Wall Street's catastrophic meltdown a few years back. That's not to say that Margin Call isn't a well-done, smartly-written film. On the contrary, it has some very interesting things to say about the Wall Street culture that helped get the big banks into the sort of apocalyptic states that led to the crisis. But man, this movie offers a lot of cynicism and little in the way of hope - and it's all so straightforwardly presented that it almost feels like a docudrama, cooly chronicling our age of greed. This movie reinforced some of the anger I've felt towards the big banks in light of the collapse, but it also made me wonder if part of the problem is something larger and less tangible - a widespread plague of greed and moral bankruptcy. In any case, Margin Call feels like it sort of gets halfway towards making its point. It does a good job of identifying some of these broader problems, but seems content to stop there. There's no real twist, no other shoe that drops. That means that in my book, it lands as a good but not great film.

Certainly, this is a film that, if nothing else, can boast of a well-pedigreed and star-studded cast. Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Zachary Quinto, Penn Badgely, Paul Bettany, Stanley Tucci, and Demi Moore all turn in some great work, and help elevate a lot of the otherwise dreary boardroom scenes to occasional high drama. The direction, from J.C. Chandor, has a moody, into-the-night darkness, to some extent evoking classics like Glengarry Glenross. The entire film takes place over the course of one night and early morning, and so there is a sort of symbolic weightiness to the darkness. In some ways, these Wall Street bankers are like real-life vampires - sucking the "ordinary people" dry, okay with it, as long as they themselves survive. And that, they will say, is simply the natural order of things.

The story here is a relatively simple one, although it deals with an extraordinarily complex world that not even those involved in it day-to-day seem to fully understand. Oftentimes, characters in the film - like Jeremy Irons' head honcho - insist that the particulars of the problems facing his company are explained simply, in plain English. But that proves difficult. The loopholes that the banks used to bleed the public were labyrinthine, but it boils down to this: Iron's company is on the verge of going belly up - they're about to lose far more money than they're going to make, and the only option is to sell all holdings in a last-minute ploy to essentially liquidate - commit corporate suicide so as to have a slim chance of surviving - even if it means screwing everyone who they've unloaded their assets to under false pretenses.

Margin Call can be commended for painting all of its characters in varying shades of gray, but this also means that there are no real good guys here. Zachary Quinto is the young risk management analyst who sounds the alarm on the whole situation. We eventually find out that he's a rocket scientist who left for Wall Street for a bigger paycheck. His even younger colleague, played by Penn Badgely, is 23 and making a quarter of a million a year. He has no real vested interest in his work, but is oddly obsessed with the rat race and what others are making in his office. The most intriguing character here might be Paul Bettany as a middle-manager who, though he makes millions, has sort of seen through the whole sick joke of it all, and seems just a tad unbalanced because of it. Bettany does a great job here as a guy who sees all of this for what it is, but also finds himself lacking the will or conviction to really do anything about it. At least he has no pretensions of moral superiority, like Kevin Spacey's weary VP. Spacey voices all kinds of objections to Irons about the company's plans to liquidate, but ultimately, he's a survivor -a company man of 30+ years who knows when to be obedient, even if it costs him his soul. Stanley Tucci is also excellent as Quinto's boss, the man who started the risk management report that Quinto takes over after Tucci is unceremoniously laid off. Tucci seems glad in some ways to be free of the whole mess, but ultimately, he comes crawling back as a consultant rather than risk his severance package. Demi Moore is a corporate lawyer who's set up as a fall-guy for the whole implosion.

It's a sad, sorry group of individuals we're presented with in this film, with the sneering Irons presiding over everyone with a sinister, "let 'em burn" attitude. There are no heroes here, no rebels, and few voices of reason. Well, I suppose there *is* reason, but the reason presented by the likes of Irons - through dramatic monologuing - sounds more like the ravings of a megalomaniac supervillain than of a rational member of society. Margin Call isn't approving of these guys - on the contrary, it condemns them - but it does so in a manner that feels defeatist and, frankly, dramatically unsatisfying. Maybe there's a certain realism inherent in the all-encompassing coldness and sterility of this corporate hell, but the drama just isn't heightened enough to make an impression beyond a chill of recognition. I think of the aforementioned Glengarry Glenross, and its brilliant characters, dialogue, and pacing that heighten office drama to great theater. Margin Call lacks that same sort of intensity, and its characters all seem cut from the same overpriced, designer cloth.

Some standout performances help to make this one watchable and give it some meat, and the moody direction sets an appropriately ominous tone. But I just was left wanting something a little more from this movie. I wanted some sort of greater insight into the Wall Street meltdown, some better understanding of these people, of this system, of how all the pieces fit together. I wanted a story that went beyond the headlines. Margin Call takes a stab at the men behind the meltdown, but to me, it doesn't quite cut deep enough.

My Grade: B

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN: Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, and Andy Serkis = Adventure Movie Dream Team

2011-12-24T18:58:00.000-08:00

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN Review:

- The Adventures of Tintin is a geek-out-worthy movie of the highest order. It's got Steven Spielberg returning to Indiana Jones-style pulp adventure. It's got Peter Jackson producing and Andy Serkis starring and doing motion-capture. It's got a script written by Edgar Wright (Shawn of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). Nick Frost and Simon Pegg co-star as bumbling inspectors. It's got gorgeous motion-captured animation, and some of the best, most rollicking action scenes that Spielberg's ever put to film. In short: awesomeness.

Based on the classic comics of Belgian writer-artist Herge, The Adventures of Tintin is the stuff that boyhood dreams are made of. I was only vaguely familiar with the character going in, but I quickly discovered that Tintin is sort of like a European version of Jimmy Olsen - a boy-reporter whose investigations take him on all kinds of weird and wild adventures. Clashes with criminals, thieves, pirates, and saboteurs are common for Tintin, but he usually manages to scrape by with a combination of smarts, wits, resourcefulness, and luck. And of course, the everpresent help of his faithful dog Snowy.

This new take on Tintin very quickly sees our dogged young hero wrapped up in a classic mystery that sends him on a globe-spanning adventure, involving treachery on the high seas, buried treasure, exotic locales, and a centuries-old feud between warring families. Along the way, Tintin crosses paths with a sinister character by the name of Sakharine, who's after a model ship that Tintin happened to acquire at the local market. As it turns out, the sip holds the key to a great treasure, and Sakhrine is determined to discover its secret. But Tintin soon finds out that the ship has ties to one Captain Haddock, as the ship was crafted by his ancestor, the pirate Sir Francis Haddock. Tintin and Haddock (with Snowy in tow) set off to unravel the mystery of the model ship, pursued on air, land, and sea by Sakharine and his crew.

All of the voice-acting is excellent, with Jamie Bell bringing a boyish exuberance to the wise-beyond-his-years Tintin, and Daniel Craig turning Sakharine into an enjoyably devious adversary. Meanwhile, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are hilarious as the mustachioed, bowler-hat-sporting crime-fighting team of Thomson and Thompson, two lookalike inspectors who bumble their way to the heart of the movie's mysteries. The standout though - no surprise - is the great Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock, who in many ways is the movie's main character. Serkis, so phenomenally good in Planet of the Apes earlier this year, makes Haddock into a hilarious, lovable, all-around awesome character. He's a past-his-prime sea captain who long ago lost himself in a bottle, but who still has a fierce temper and is handy in a brawl. What's amazing though is how Serkis makes Haddock's character arc so genuinely involving and exciting. Yes, this is a pulpy adventure story that's heavy on action, but by god, when Haddock fights for his family's legacy and for his own well-being, well, you can't help but smile, cheer him on, and root for the old captain to kick some ass.

And speaking of kicking ass, Spielberg just directs the hell out of this movie, once again showing why he's the unchallenged master when it comes to crafting set-piece action scenes that tell a story all while keeping you on the edge of your seat. The entire movie is essentially a roller-coaster ride from start to finish, with a couple of action scenes in particular that are simply astounding. One climactic sequence that sees Tintin, Haddock, and Snowy being chased through a North African village is, in all honesty, one of the coolest action scenes I've ever seen. It's kind of funny, in a way, because Spielberg movies like Raiders of the Lost Arc were so, so influential on movies, videogames, etc. - and now you're seeing Spielberg not only top himself, but also show up all those who have followed in his wake. I definitely felt like there were nods to things like Uncharted and Tomb Raider in Tintin - even as those franchises have, of course, borrowed heavily from the Spielberg playbook.

Now, what frees up Spielberg to just go balls-to-the-wall visually here is the fact that Tintin utilizes state-of-the-art motion capture animation. So, unrestricted by the physical confines of real-world sets and cameras, Spielberg can really get crazy and go for broke. I've seen some criticize the use of motion-capture for a variety of reasons: it betrays the clean, simplistic look of the original comics, it crosses the "uncanny valley" so characters look real but not quite completely real, it's too stiff as compared to traditional animation and not as satisfying as live-action. To all those criticisms, I say: whatever. I'm not saying mo-cap should be used for every movie, but to me, it can offer an eye-popping blend of stylized animation with stunningly-detailed and ultra-immersive environments. And as for Tintin, well, to me the movie just looks amazing - great character design, gorgeous locations, amazing detail, and a fluidity and dynamism in the animation and cinematography that can't be beat. I think that Spielberg and Jackson made a good choice here. This is one that's worth seeing on a huge screen and in 3D - it's immersive, stunning to look at, and like I said, a complete roller-coaster ride.

The movie has a great script as well though courtesy of Wright and Cornish. There's lots of their trademark humor, and their gift for imbuing frenetic action scenes with both humor and heart is equally evident. There's something pretty amazing when you realize you're watching an Edgar Wright/Joe Cornish movie directed by Spielberg. It's one heck of a one-two punch.

The Adventures of Tintin isn't a movie about deep plot or complex themes - it's pure adventure, and it's very much in the spirit of imagination-filled, larger-than-life stories that Spielberg has, clearly, always loved - and this is him getting back into that Indiana Jones mode of pure fun and two-fisted action. Maybe not everyone will get this movie - and certainly, we here in America don't have the same attachment to or familiarity with Tintin as they do over in Europe. But if you share Spielberg's love for classic, old-time pulp adventure - and I do - and if your thirst for said adventure is, as Capt. Haddock says, unquenchable, then by all means run out and see Tintin immediately.

My Grade: A-

Going Dark With THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

2011-12-24T17:23:00.000-08:00

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO Review:

- Being only mildly familiar with the "Millennium Trilogy" of books and with the earlier Swedish adaptations, I went into the new David Fincher version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO with an open mind and a genuine curiosity about the material. I'd heard so much hype about the series - I even read a fairly fascinating article in Rolling Stone a while back, about the life and times of author Stieg Larson - but I still didn't quite understand what it was about this series that seemed to captivate so many people. Now that I've seen the new film, I get it, and I am onboard. Not so much because the particulars of the mystery here are that interesting, or because of some sort of overarching mythology that is particularly gripping - but because of this fact: Lisbeth Salander is one hell of a character. The #1 reason to check out this film, even more so than the typically-great direction from Fincher, is that Rooney Mara as Lisbeth is, in my mind, a revelation. True, I went into this a blank slate, so I can't compare with the novels or with Noomi Rapace from the Euro-version. But I came away from this one fairly blown away by Mara and excited to see more of the adventures of Lisbeth. So yeah, as a self-contained movie, I can see some flaws here. But as an intro to this character and the dark world she inhabits, Fincher and Mara knock it out of the park.

Overall, this is definitely a movie that ebbs and flows. The whole epic affair kicks off with an incredible bang, with Fincher cutting loose with a mood-setting intro set to a Karen O. cover of Led Zepellin's "Immigrant Song," that absolutely shreds. From the get-go, Fincher sets the tone for the movie - it's dark, dangerous, and 100% rock n' roll. After the mind-blowing credits sequence, however, the movie slows down a great deal. Much of our time is spent with Daniel Craig's Mikael Blomkvist - a journalist and co-publisher of Millenium, a magazine that investigates crime and vice. Craig is very solid as Blomkvist, and he does a good job of mixing his usual intensity with a bit of intellectualism and dorkiness. But, there's also a bit of a disconnect between Craig - he is James Bond, afterall - and this character who, as I understand it, is usually portrayed as a bit shaggier and frumpier. Ultimately though, the main issue is just that Mikael just isn't as interesting as Lisbeth, and so the main mystery story only truly begins to crackle with real consistency once the two of them are united. Unfortunately, it takes a good hour or so for that to happen. To get to that point, we alternate between Mikael's exposition-filled segments, and Lisbeth's much-more-compelling storylines.

Mikael, as it turns out, has been recruited by a billionaire industrialist, Henrik Vanger, to help solve a forty-year-old mystery. Decades ago, Henrik's daughter went missing - presumed dead. Henrik always suspected murder, but since his entire extended family lived on a small, isolated private island, that meant that one of the family members had to have done the deed. Mikael -whose magazine is having financial problems after a libel suit from a scheming competitor - decides to take Henrik up on his generous financial offer. He takes up residence on Henrik's island - an increasingly dangerous place given that one of the Vanger clan is potentially the killer.

Meanwhile, the young, sullen, goth-punk girl Lisbeth scrapes by as a researcher for a large investigative firm. Even though she's technically just a gopher, she's considered a secret weapon by the firm due to her genius-level computer skills and photographic memory. As it turns out, this firm is hired by Henrick Vanger to investigate Mikael. Before Henrik hires him, he wants to make sure that he can be trusted to work this secret case. We see Lisbeth's resourcefulness and cold bluntness in action as she digs up dirt on Mikael (her assessment of his sex life is particularly amusing as a callous critique). But we also see that Lisbeth is dealing with some very serious baggage. Her father is a near-vegetable. She's on her own, essentially, with no friends or confidantes. Her job is just barely keeping her from being institutionalized following her past indiscretions. And one state worker in particular is intent on abusing his position of power, with Lisbeth as his unwitting victim.

That to me is where the film suddenly kicks into overdrive - when Lisbeth is confronted with this horrible man who reveals himself as a monster, a rapist. Suddenly, we see that Lisbeth isn't just some goth poseur, but something entirely different. She is the monster that men like this created - a new-age girl who is a reaction to and reflection of the worst that society has to offer. Fincher and Mara take us to some very, very dark places with Lisbeth, but they do so in a way that makes the character that much stronger and more resilient. This is an antihero who has suffered, and now, we want to see her make others suffer.

When Lisbeth and Mikael finally meet and begin working together on the Vanger mystery, the build-up of Lisbeth's character has been so strong that it's a thrill to now see her in this other, bigger situation. The strange relationship she has with Mikael is a little hard to get a handle on, but the two of them slowly but doggedly putting the puzzle pieces together is thrilling. Once the killer is revealed, well, that's when Fincher seems to really start having fun, taking the movie into delightfully twisted, Silence of the Lambs-style territory. By this point, I was on the edge of my seat.

Finally, though, the film continues with an extended epilogue that goes on long after the Vanger mystery has been solved. It feels like a bit of a comedown after such an exciting resolution and hero vs. villain face-off. If this were a TV show, then things might feel more organic. But Fincher is constrained to some extent by the structure of the novel, and so there is, ultimately, A LOT crammed into this film. A sprawling mystery involving dozens of Vanger family members and possible suspects, the ongoing personal issues of Mikael and Lisbeth, and then, a long final sequence that addresses the fate of the Millennium magazine.

The movie has its ups and downs, but I felt like when it was firing on all cylinders, it really and truly kicked ass. There are some fantastic, applause-worthy scenes - most of them coming via Rooney Mara, who again, just owns it as Lisbeth, mixing droll humor with genuine pathos and pain and a good, old-fashioned dose of sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. That said, there is some stellar work here from actors like Craig, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, and more. I'll also give credit to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who turn in another moody, ominous score. Not quite as strong as their work in The Social Network, perhaps, but very good nonetheless. I will say though, there is some great use of music in this movie. The aforementioned "Immigrant Song"-infused opening, for example - and, one of the most ingenious and whacked-out uses of Enya probably ever in a movie.

As for Fincher, I think his work here is strong. I think we've gotten so used to him outdoing himself that it's, almost, strangely disappointing to see him here relying on his old bag of tricks to a large extent. There are shades of movies like Zodiac and The Social Network in the direction (though this one again proves that no one can make computer-research cool like Fincher). But generally, the direction is pretty straightforward. Other than the opening credits, there aren't many scenes where Fincher really stretches much or lets loose. Still, few could tell this story as well as Fincher, and one thing you've got to give the guy is that he can do dark, cold, dank, and ominous better than anyone. The frosty Swedish landscape is made all the more foreboding due to Fincher's directorial prowess.

At the end of the day, I came away from this one a believer in the awesomeness of Lisbeth Salander, and am now eager to see her further adventures. While I do think the film's pacing was at times lagging, and its mystery plot at times confusing, as an introduction to these characters and this franchise, I felt that this was really strong, absorbing, stuff. At a certain point, I was simply won over by the movie's formidable badass-quotient and, eventually, I found myself totally sucked in to its dark world. What can I say, Mara-as-Lisabeth is a new punk rock princess for the ages.

My Grade: A-

So You Got Yourself a Kindle Fire: aka, The Must-Read New and Classic Comics for Your Brand-New Tablet! Plus: The 10 Best Books In DC Comics' New 52!

2011-12-21T16:12:00.000-08:00

- Well, first off, I'd like to take a second to say "Happy Hanukkah!" to all of my fellow members of The Tribe. After a long couple of weeks at work, post-Thanksgiving, it's nice to be able to celebrate Hanukkah and look forward to a couple of days of R&R. Over Thanksgiving, I flew back home to Connecticut to see friends and family. It was a fun trip - I had a lot of great food (east coast pizza and bagels!), caught up with old friends, and even got to spend a couple of days in NYC. With that behind me though, I'm now looking forward to staying put in LA for the rest of the year, laying low, maybe even catching up with my much-neglected PS3 (I've got Uncharted 3, Arkham City, and Skyrim all begging to be played). And of course, I plan to continue blogging with more movie reviews, and yes, my annual Best-Of-The-Year year-end columns.

Now, speaking of the holidays, I'm sure that many of you have or will be unwrapping (or possibly purchasing) new tablet devices for Hanukkah or Christmas. I know that I myself have been seriously considering the iPad and Kindle Fire. Both appeal to me for for a variety of reasons, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that one of the key reasons I want a tablet is so that I can dive into the world of digital comics. The fact is, as much as I am a traditionalist and love reading comic books the old-fashioned way, comics can be a pain to store and organize. Some people may have the means to devote large spaces to a comic book collection, but for many of us with limited storage space, it just gets to be too much. I'm not saying that I'd ever 100% abandon traditional comics - nothing will ever beat the tactile feel of holding and paging through a comic book. But I could see myself transitioning a sizable chunk of my comic reading to digital within the next year or two.

Two key factors make now the time to make the jump. One is the devices themselves. Reading comics on a laptop or desktop PC was never ideal, and never felt right. But tablets like the iPad have a near-perfect form factor for comics. The art looks fantastic, and the reading experience is intuitive. Sure, there are still some things you can't quite replicate on a tablet (double-paged spreads, for instance), but the experience is really starting to get good. And I'm sure that, going forward, comics will become increasingly tailored for digital reading, and more and more devices will be optimized for comics. Secondly, 2011 was the year that many if not most comics are finally starting to go day-and-date digital. This means that the same day that new issues are released in comic shops, they're also available for digital download, via apps from DC, Marvel, and Comixology - which aggregates comics from a variety of major publishers into one digital comics mega-store. Not only are individual issues finally available in a timely manner, but digital versions of trade-paperbacks - the volumes that collect storyarcs into one handy book (you've probably seen 'em at Barnes & Noble, etc.) are also starting to become widely available for digital consumption. This means that, through digital distribution, you can not only keep up on the latest monthly comic books, but also get caught up on classic stories, from Watchmen to Y: The Last Man.

Finally, there's a third reason that now might be the time to jump into digital comics - or comics in general. You may have heard that, this past September, DC Comics rebooted their entire line of books, restarting legendary franchises like Action Comics, Detective Comics, and Green Lantern with new issue #1's. So if movies or TV shows have got you interested in the ongoing adventures of Batman or The Flash, you've now got a perfect jumping-on point, with minimal catch-up to do. Now, some of the comics were rebooted more cleanly than others. Meaning: while you can pick up the new adventures of Superman in Action Comics with absolutely no past knowledge under your belt, you may want to brush up on some pre-reboot stories of Batman or Green Lantern before sampling the new stuff.

All in all though, the new DC reboot has yielded some awesome new comics that are very much worth checking out. In some cases, the cream of the crop includes mainstream superhero stuff like Batman, but there are also some slightly less-mainstream books that are also must-reads. There are already a whopping 52 DC Universe comics and counting, so you may be wondering: "hey, I've got my new Fire or iPad, which of the New 52 should I check out?" Well, I am here to help. So here is my guide to ...

THE BEST 10 COMICS OF DC COMICS' NEW 52:

1.) Animal Man

- Written by one of comics' rising superstars in Jeff Lemire, Animal Man is a strange, atmospheric tale of a man who's trying to raise a family and live a normal life, but who keeps finding himself at the center of some major weirdness. This comic is a gripping read, mixing horror with adventure. And Lemire is absolutely knocking it out of the park, telling the story of Buddy Baker - a man who can tap into something called the Morphonogenic Field, channelling the power of earth's animal kingdom. But what Lemire is revealing is that there's a lot more to Buddy's strange powers than meets the eye. In fact, Buddy and his family may very well be at the center of a war that determines the fate of earth itself.

Recommended Reading: Not necessary to enjoy this new series, but to get more of the backstory on Animal Man, you may want to check out Grant Morrison's 80's/90's-era run on the previous iteration of this series - it's a modern classic that establishes the weird, surreal tone that Lemire picks up on here.

2.) Swamp Thing

- Like Animal Man, Swamp Thing is another character who had a legendary run in the 80's, and who's now being revitalized by one of today's best writers (in this case, Scott Snyder). Snyder is crafting a gothic-horror adventure in which Alec Holland - the man who once was Swamp Thing - has reverted back to human form, even as he discovers new insight into the origins of the creature he once was. Another creepy, atmospheric, and ultra-compelling read - this latest version of Swamp Thing continues the older title's tradition of looking at the dark underbelly of American through horror and sci-fi storytelling. Think Stephen King, only greener.

Recommended Reading: Again, similar to Animal Man in that there's nothing you *have* to read to understand the new Swamp Thing, but it can't hurt to check out the acclaimed run that writer Alan Moore had on Swamp Thing in the mid-80's. All off those issues are collected in a series of several volumes, and they're awesome. Also, it's worth noting that Scott Snyder and Jeff Lemire are planning, at some point, to weave together threads from Animal Man and Swamp Thing, and it looks like they may be setting up something pretty epic. Read both of 'em, I say!

3.) Batman

- That Scott Snyder, he can do no wrong. Even as he kicks ass on Swamp Thing, he's also doing a bang-up job on Batman. Snyder's been setting up a fascinating mystery, in which a secret society that's long had an association with Gotham City has come out of the shadows to wage war on Bruce Wayne and his makeshift family. Snyder brings his knack for great characterization, fantastic mystery-writing, and atmospheric prose to this rebooted Batman title, and the art from Greg Capullo is super-dynamic. There are several Bat-titles that are part of the New 52, but this one is, so far, far and away the best.

Recommended Reading: The Bat-books actually maintained a lot of their pre-reboot continuity, so it doesn't hurt to check out recent Bat stories from the last few years while checking out the new books. Most relevant though is Scott Snyder's run on Detective Comics from just prior to the reboot, in which Dick Grayson temporarily takes over for Bruce Wayne as Batman. Snyder wrote some amazing stories as part of that run, and there is some thematic and story carryover into his new run on Batman. As far as the other New 52 Bat-books go, Batman & Robin is very solid stuff (Bruce Wayne teaming with his son Damien, who's now Robin), and the new Nightwing book is also very good so far (for those who don't know, Nightwing is the first Robin, Dick Grayson, all grown up). Batgirl, starring a recently-healed-from-crippling-injury Barbara Gordon, is also showing some signs. But other than Batman, the best new Bat-title is ...

4.) Batwoman

- If you want to see the most stunningly gorgeous art in comics, all you need to do is take a look at the new Batwoman comic. Written and illustrated by JH Williams, Batwoman is jaw-dropping in terms of the sheer awesomeness of Williams' artwork. If you have preconceptions about what comic book art looks like, please, look at this. But, Williams is also crafting a great story that is unfolding with the pacing of a great HBO drama. And Kate Kane, the new Batwoman, is a fascinating character - a crimson-haired Jewish lesbian who kicks ass with style.

Recommended Reading: While the new Batwoman is fairly accessible on its own, I highly, highly recommend that you check out the Batwoman: Elegy trade paperback which collects the first Kate Kane storyarc that ran a few years back in Detective Comics. It's an amazing story that tells Kate's origins - her family history, her stuggles in the military, and her first adventures as a costumed hero. It's well worth tracking down.

5.) Justice League

- I'll admit, with all the hype around the dream-team pairing of writer Geoff Johns and artist Jim Lee, the new Justice League hasn't quite been the must-read blockbuster I was hoping for. But, as an introduction to the new DC Universe, this is essentially ground zero. This one takes place five years in the past, showing the first meetings of DC's biggest heroes, like Superman, Batman, and The Flash. So this is definitely one that will make you feel like you got in the ground floor of the new DC. Also, if you're not familiar with Jim Lee, you're in for a treat. This book is a perfect showcase for the legendary artist's bleeding-cool style, and he is at the top of his game here, drawing the heck out of DC's biggest superhero icons.

Recommended Reading: None necessary. But if you want to see more of Jim Lee drawing DC's heroes, you may want to check out Batman: Hush, which saw Lee tackling Batman and his rogues gallery in a rollercoaster ride of a story that first saw print several years back.

6.) Frankenstein: Agent of S.H.A.D.E.

- Here's another left-of-center comic that may go under some people's radars, but trust me, it's badass. I mean, who doesn't want to read about Frankenstein's Monster leading an army of creature-feature soldiers in a secret war against supernatural threats? Plus, this one is written by Jeff Lemire (same writer as Animal Man), so you know it's from a guy who knows how to write awesomely weird adventure stories.

Recommended Reading: This particular version of Frankenstein - a sword-swinging, poetry-reciting badass who works for the top-secret government group called S.H.A.D.E. - was first introduced several years ago by writer Grant Morrison in an epic story called 7 Soldiers. It's well worth tracking down if you want a good read.

7.) Green Lantern

- For several years now, writer Geoff Johns has taken Green Lantern and recast him as an epic, cosmic hero engaged in Star Wars-esque space opera. The recent movie adopted certain elements of John's run, but trust me, the comics are much more awesome. With the DC reboot, Johns kept most of his past GL stories intact, but added a new wrinkle to coincide with the comic's new #1 - a new storyline in which Hal Jordan has been stripped of his GL ring, and his most evil of enemies, Sinestro, has iexplicably been chosen as Hal's replacement in the Corps. Johns continues to make Green Lantern one of DC's most riveting, epic titles, and the new focus on a morally-conflicted Sinestro is the perfect way to breathe some new life into the franchise.

Recommended Reading: Okay, you *could* dive into the new GL series sight unseen, but because the title's pree-rebbot continuity is mostly still intact, you may also want to catch up on the major story-arcs since Geoff Johns began writing Green Lantern in the mid-00's. Key collections include Rebirth, The Sinestro Corps War, Secret Origins, Blackest Night, and War of the Green Lanterns. I'd also say that, overall, the entire line of New 52 GL titles has been pretty solid. GL Corps - focusing on the intergalactic adventures of Lanterns John Stewart and Guy Gardner - has been enjoyable so far. As has GL: New Guardians, focusing on Kyle Rayner, who replaced Hal Jordan during the 90's. Red Lanterns, focusing on the rage-filledRed Lantern Corps, has also been interesting thus far.

8.) All-Star Western

- If you only know Jonah Hex from the movie of the same name, well, you might think that Jonah Hex sort of sucks. Not so, says I, or any fans of the character from his long history in comics. In recent years, for example, writers Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray have penned many awesome stories featuring the badass bounty hunter of the Old West. Now, they continue that run with All-Star Western, which kicked off with a multipart arc in which Hex finds himself in Gotham City circa the late 1800's. As it turns out, even then, Gotham was a scary place. All-Star Western is just great, gritty, pulpy Western adventure.

Recommended Reading: The dynamic-duo writing team of Palmiotti and Gray had a long, pre-reboot run on a comic called Jonah Hex, featuring kickass Old West adventures of the title-hero. Not necessary to read All-Star Western, but if you want to read some amazing Jonah Hex stories, then look no further than these recent comics.

9.) Action Comics

- Comic's longest-running title (dating back to the 1930's) got a reboot just like every other DC book this past September. And the new Action, which re-introduces Superman to the DC Universe, had a lot of hype going in. Afterall, writer Grant Morrison had previously written one of the best Superman stories ever - All-Star Superman. Now, Morrison was reinterpreting Superman as the superhero equivalent of Bruce Springsteen - a crusader who fights for the working class and takes on society's bullies (and, you know, alien invasions and stuff). Like Justice League, this title takes place in the new DC Universe's past, so this is a Superman who's just starting out - he doesn't even have a proper superhero outfit yet. To date, I feel like this one's been a little shaky, but I remain curious as to what Morrison has planned. If nothing else, this is a must-read just to see this semi-radical new take on the Man of Steel play out.

Recommended Reading: None necessary, though if you want to see Grant Morrison, at the top of his game, writing Superman, then by all means, read the collected editions of All-Star Superman.

10.) Birds of Prey

- There's been some criticism already that DC's New 52 hasn't had enough strong female characters feaured in prominent titles. There may be some truth in such criticism, but one title that stands as a shining display of girl-power done right is the new Birds of Prey. I was definitely weary of this one going in, as pre-reboot, BoP was one of my all-time favorite titles. I was nervous about the new lineup of characters and new take on a modern-classic concept. But fear not, crime writer Duane Swierczynski is crafting a rollicking espionage-adventure story, teaming fan favorite femme-fatales like Black Canary and Kitana with a super-cool new character named Starling, who's quickly become a breakout Bird.

Recommended Reading: If you want to know more about the history of the Birds, check out the classic runs on the previous incarnation of the title by writers Chuck Dixon and Gail Simone. Otherwise, no prior reading necessary.

So that's my round-up of, in my opinion, the best of the New 52 from DC. Thoughts? Comments? Any titles you're eager to try? Any additional recommendations? Let's hear 'em.

Now, say you're not just interested in what's new and current, but also in catching up on the classics. Well, the Recommended Reading bullets above should point you towards some legendary comics like Grant Morrison's Animal Man or Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, but, you may be wondering, what are some of the other all-time classic, must-read comics. Well, ask and I shall answer. Below, here is a quick sampler of what I consider to the major works in the modern comic book cannon. Many of these you can download, some you may have to (gasp!) visit a store or hit up Amazon in order to purchase. But here they are ...

10 MUST-READ MODERN COMIC BOOK CLASSICS (FOR THE COMIC BOOK NEWBIE):

1.) Y: The Last Man

- A funny, harrowing, thought-provoking journey into a world where all men - save one - have been killed by a mysterious plague, Brian K. Vaughan's modern-classic series, about a world where women rule, is a must-read piece of comic book literature.

2.) The Walking Dead

- Even if you've seen the TV show, you may not be prepared for the sheer intensity of The Walking Dead comic. Completely gripping and unpredictable, this zombie-apocalypse series from Robert Kirkman gets maximum shock value by placing characters-first. This is comic-book crack, and one hell of a horror adventure.

3.) Watchmen

- Again, you may have seen the movie, but you have to read this groundbreaking comic that forever changed the face of the medium. With Watchmen, writer Alan Moore deconstructed the superhero myth to craft a world where it was hard to tell the heroes from the villains. Moore's uber-detailed writing paired with Dave Gibbons' meticulously drafted artwork combines to form a comic book for the ages.

4.) The Dark Knight Returns

- Perhaps Frank Miller's defining work, this dystopian vision of a future Gotham City from the writer/artist is also one of the best Batman stories ever told. In fact, Miller's vision of an aging, grizzled Bruce Wayne changed how the character was written forever after. Along with Watchmen, DKR helped to usher in the modern age of comics in the 80's.

5.) Fables

- This long running comic has been oft-imitated in pop-culture in recent years, but it remains singlularly unique. In Fables, Bill Willingham imagined a world in which fairy-tale characters have fled their homelands after an all-consuming war, and, in exile, secretly taken up residence in New York City. As it progressed, Fables veered away from that premise, getting bigger and more fantastical and larger-scaled each year. But the thing that made Fables so great remains intact - Willingham's ability to find fresh, funny, subversive takes on these classic characters.

6.) The Sandman

- Speaking of modern takes on classic stories, that's exactly what Neil Gaiman's seminal Sandman series was all about. Crafting a new mythology of dreams and nightmares, the story of Dream and the Endless became Gaiman's forum for tellng all kinds of modern-day myths. There are whimsical fairy-tales, dark horror stories, and epic adventures. It's hard not to get caught up in Gaiman's gothic vision.

7.) Preacher

- Talk about subversive and balls-to-the-wall. Garth Ennis' all-American adventure of a pissed-off preacher named Jesse Custer and his quest to kill God, well, it's about as ballsy as comics get. Ennis shocks, enlightens, and entertains in this landmark series, which adopted brought the storytelling conventions and maturity of great serialized TV to comics in the 90's, and was hugely influential.

8.) Kingdom Come

- Want to read what is basically the ultimate superhero epic? Look no further than Kingdom Come, which imagines a near-future in which Superman, Batman, and the rest of DC's legendary heroes have been replaced by violent, attitude-infused antiheroes. When Magog, the leader of the new breed, goes too far, Superman and the rest must come out of retirement to wage war on the young guns. This is epic, biblical stuff - made even more so by the realistic, painted art from Alex Ross, and the gravitas-laden prose by Mark Waid.

9.) All-Star Superman

- A few years ago, Grant Morrison wrote a standalone Superman story that blew readers away with its visionairy, ultra-imaginative take on the Man of Tomorrow. In this far-out tale, Superman finds out that he is dying. But before he goes, he must complete a series of challenges that will test his mettle like nothing has before. This is like the 2001 of Superman comics - a trippy, mind-bending epic that takes you through time, space, and reality itself.

10.) Ex Machina

- I wanted to limit this list to one entry per writer, but I just couldn't leave off this amazing book from Brian K. Vaughan, who also did Y: The Last Man. If you're at all a political junkie, Ex Machina is a must-read, as it blends sci-fi, superheroes, and politics in a completely compelling and intellgent manner. This one tells the story of Mitchell Hundred, who was elected mayor of New York City when, after using his strange powers to prevent the attacks of September 11th, 2001, he became a national hero. Ex Machina tackles major social and political issues, all while weaving an intriguing sci-fi mythology around Mayor Hundred and his unique origins.

And there it is - now get to reading. And Happy Holidays!

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES: Why It Might Rock, and Why It Might Not ...!

2011-12-19T14:55:00.000-08:00

- This weekend, like many of you, I finally saw the trailer for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and, like many of you, I promptly needed a change of pants. The trailer is amazing, no question - the sheer anticipation for the movie, mixed with the ridiculous amounts of geek-out-worthy gravitas that Christopher Nolan and co. bring to to table - make for an absolutely jaw-dropping, chill-inducing first look at next year's most anticipated movie.

And already, the fanboys and fangirls are out in full force analyzing the trailer, the prologue (playing only in select theaters prior to Mission Impossible in IMAX), and the movie in general. One thing about Nolan is - he is a man who takes risks and who does things his way. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight raised eyebrows with unusual aesthetics, curious casting, and stylistic choices that didn't always press the right fanboy buttons upon first glance. I think with Nolan, his movies come at you with such force, with such dramatic intensity, that it ultimately becomes pretty easy to forget about any flaws and just get swept away in the awesomeness. I mean, with The Dark Knight, I could list out dozens of individual moments, plot points, or acting choices that I wasn't a huge fan of. But I still consider the movie to be a tour de force - an amazing cinematic achievement - because on the whole it's just that badass of a film.

And yet ... take away the once-in-a-lifetime performance from Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and you wonder if some of those nagging flaws might begin to overpower the movie's strengths. And therein lies the source of trepidation going into RISES ... what if it's not great?

I know, I know, it seems impossible. But once upon a time, it seemed impossible that Spiderman 3 could be anything but awesome. And the thing is, to me The Dark Knight is sort of like a great sports team that wins the championship. Even though they were great and succeeded, everyone's already picking them apart, finding their flaws, and wondering about their chances for next season.

So let me break it down this way: here are 5 reasons why THE DARK KNIGHT RISES might kick ass, and 5 reasons why, well, maybe not so much.

FIVE REASONS THE DARK KNIGHT RISES MIGHT BE AMAZING:

1.) Christopher Nolan

- Nolan is the #1 commodity that this franchise has. In his relatively short career, he's yet to direct a bad movie. He has an uncanny ability to take crazy-ass source material and give it weight, heft, grittiness, and a sense of real-world authenticity. He doesn't know how to make a non-epic movie, and his movies, to the last, always manage to possess a thematic depth that goes above and beyond what we typically see in big Hollywood blockbusters. Part of what made Batman Begins and The Dark Knight work so well were the layers of psychological depth and social commentary that Nolan infused them with. Nolan's also got something to prove here - that he can go 3-for-3 and avoid the problems of other big action franchises. Rest assured, Nolan wants to go out with a bang.

2.) Tom Hardy

- Very, very quickly, Tom Hardy has become a rising star in Hollywood, and it's to the point now where the thought of him facing off against Christian Bale in an epic war of hero vs. villain is enough to make film fans excited. Between his roles in Inception, Warrior, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I am now fully onboard the Hardy bandwagon. In Warrior in particular, we got a glimpse of what Hardy-as-Bane might be like. In that film, the actor played an ultra-intense, ultra-violent fighter who overpowered opponents with sheer, unchecked brutality. Sound familiar? Hardy as Bane could very well be a villain for the ages.

3.) An Epic Conclusion

- Expanding on a point I made above, Nolan, Bale, and others have all very strongly, likely definitively, stated that this will be their last Batman flick. Now, never say never, I suppose, but in all likelihood this is the last entry in this particular iteration of Batman. With that in mind, we might get something we rarely see in superhero movies, or in the comics for that matter - closure. Batman by necessity has always starred in open-ended adventures. The villains are always captured, only to escape again. Batman is injured, but never killed. And Gotham remains as plagued by crime as ever. Little changes in the world of Batman. But what if that wasn't the case? What if Nolan's third film does change things up in a big way? Knowing that this is his last run with Batman, maybe Nolan rids Gotham of crime, or maybe he makes it into a true hell on earth. Maybe Batman is killed, replaced, retired, or maimed? Maybe, as in the comics, Bane breaks the Bat, but this time, the damage is permanent. The fact that this is likely a conclusion to this particular Batman story leaves open some exciting and unpredictable story possibilities.

4.) Surprises

- I said this movie could be unpredictable, and it's true. We still know remarkably little about the actual plot of the film, or how the various characters fit together. We don't yet know Bane's backstory - is it the same as in the comics, or altered? How about Selina Kyle / Catwoman? Will we see something similar to Frank Miller's Year One, or something totally new? Most intriguing are the story elements we still know absolutely nothing about. There's all sorts of rumors - Talia Al Ghul, for one - but it will be fascinating to see how the movie plays out. Will there be unexpected links to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises? Will villains other than Bane and Catwoman cameo? Those are the obvious questions, but then there are the more subtle surprises that pop up in these films, because Nolan tends to tell his stories in such unconventional ways. I mean, I was shocked and awed when I first saw the prologue to The Dark Knight. I thought I had some idea of what to expect, but never in a million years did I expect one of the film's most riveting sequences to not even involve Batman, instead pitting the ultra-badass William Fichtner against an army of The Joker's goons. My god.

5.) Batman vs. Bane

- One thing that excites me about this film is that it presents something we haven't really seen in a Batman movie to date - Batman vs. a villain who coud kick his ass in a fight. Sure, Ras Al Ghul and The Joker were physical threats to some degree, but Bane, presumably, is going to be a guy who forces Batman to show why he is the best at what he does. To date, we haven't really seen that. I want to see a Batman who, as in the comics, is a master martial-artist, a master strategist, and "the world's greatest detective." I am hoping that all of those elements come into play in The Dark Knight Rises, but at the least, we're more than likely in for one hell of a smackdown.

FIVE REASONS THE DARK KNIGHT RISES MIGHT BE ... NOT SO AMAZING.

1.) Nolan, Women, and Catwoman

- If you had to point to one glaring weakness of Nolan's Bat-films so far, it would have to be their relatively weak female characters. Part of the problem was the casting - neither Katie Holmes nor Maggie Gyllenhaal really felt like they fit in the universe of Nolan's films, and neither had much if any chemistry with Christian Bale. But more so than the iffy casting, the inherent problem is that Batman has never been a character that works with a conventional love interest. He's a lone-wolf, and he's too driven and obsessed to hold down a normal relationship. That's why Catwoman has always been a fun foil for Batman in the comics - she represents everything that's messed-up about his love life, in that the one woman who really gets him and who gets his Bat-signals a-twitchin' is a semi-villainous, morally-challenged criminal. I pray that Nolan gets that, and doesn't turn Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle into a more conventional love interest. Already, I'm a little concerned with the casting of Hathaway - she seems way too girl-next-door to play a kick-ass femme fatale. But even if Hathaway nails the part and is physically-convincing, it's still going to take a very skillful script to make Catwoman work as a character. Based on Nolan's track-record with female leads, I'm a little worried.

2.) The Costumes and The Voices

- Okay, some might consider this one relatively minor, but I'm a Batman nerd, so I pay attention to this stuff. But costume issues could be a very noticeable distraction from the story and action if they are egregious. If Anne Hathaway ends up looking like a biker with a bluetooth headset (as she did in the production stills), then it's going to be a lot harder for me to get behind her as Catwoman. Similarly, I'm a little concerned about Bane. Okay, in the comics he looked like a roided-up Mexican wrestler, but to my 12-year-old self he still looked super-badass. I'm a little worried that Bane now looks, well, off. And I'm also a little worried about the whole voice issue. Let's face it, Bale's Batman voice has always been a little silly, but I was able to get past it most of the time. But if he's squaring off against a similarly strangely-voiced Bane, it could just be too much. I'm really hoping that Nolan and Hardy know what they're doing in making Bane sound incomprehensibly raspy.

3.) The Arkham City Factor

- In the years since The Dark Knight, a number of new takes on Batman have surfaced in other mediums. There's Grant Morrison's comic book reimagining as Batman as a sci-fi superhero James Bond, Scott Snyder's uber-dark detective version, the goofy Brave & the Bold cartoon show, and, perhaps most prominently, the Arkham Asylum and Arkham City videogames. Those games - penned by Animated Series co-creator Paul Dini - feel like the 90's Animated Series on acid. Its reinterpretations of Batman and his villains feel classic-yet-warped, and the neon-lit, grim n' gritty aesthetic is uber-cool. Most interestingly, Arkham City places Batman firmly in a dark but fantastical comic book universe where anything goes, and it's in stark contrast to the more real-world vision of Nolan and co. And I have to say, a big part of me is sort of over Nolan's take, and wants to see a more stylized, neo-noir Batman that's more in the spirit of the comics. I'm very curious if The Dark Knight Rises may suffer a bit in comparison to the smash-hit games that have very quickly become the defining version of Batman for the masses.

4.) Choppy Editing

- It's another element of the first two Bat-flicks that people griped about, but that most were able to ultimately overlook. But it still holds true that a lot of Nolan's action and fight scenes suffered from editng issues. Nolan is great with individual images, and with creating an overall sense of epic intensity. But there's yet to be a truly standout fight scene in his Batman films. For some reason, Nolan tends to shoot most scenes in a very bold, classical manner, but his fight scenes suffer from shaky-cam overload. In a movie that promises Batman's most physical challenge yet, I'm really hoping that Nolan creates elegant, kickass fight scenes that pack emotion and drama into every hit.

5.) The Studio Pressure

- Nolan is one of the few directors that tends to have free reign to do what he wants, even in a mega-budget action film like The Dark Knight Rises. But still, with so much riding on this film, and with so much pressure to match the box-office success of The Dark Knight, you've got to figure that there were plenty of suits in Nolan's ear during pre-production and production on this one. And so you've got to wonder: to what extent will this film be purely Nolan's vision? Already, you've got to wonder a bit when you look at some of the casting. I mean, nothing against Anne Hathaway, but was she really Nolan's top choice to be Catwoman, or was it studio pressure to get a big-name female lead into the film? And we've all seen what happens in superhero films when multiple villains are shoehorned into the story - it very rarely is ideal. All I know is, we've seen plenty of big franchises derailed by misguided casting choices, studio interference, and a system in which sequels get made more because it makes sense financially than because all involved are passionate about it. And that goes both ways. For example, I'm sure that Warners and DC sense the positive fan response to what Marvel is doing with The Avengers and their interlocked movie continuity. And I'm sure they'd love to use The Dark Knight Rises as a platform to build up a true DC movie universe. But Nolan and Bale have both expressed a lack of interest in that sort of interconnectivity. So like I said, these things can go both ways. At the end of the day, you just hope that the best vision wins out and makes it up on screen. It's a minor miracle that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight turned out so great. Can lighting strike three times? We shall have to wait and see.

- So what do you think? Are you unconditionally excited for DKR? Do you have some trepidation? Are you already thinking about a new trilogy inspired by Arkham City, or Batman as an HBO series that could do a 12-part Knightfall arc straight from the comics? Or are you still cleaning up the mess you made after seeing the trailer?

THE ARTIST: Nostalgia, Cinema, and Art

2011-12-18T21:51:00.000-08:00

THE ARTIST Review:

- Once upon a time, Hollywood was a true dream factory. In those early days of cinema, stories were told that were simple, bold, and larger than life. Movies have evolved much since the era of silent cinema, and there's no doubt that movies have gotten deeper, more complex, and more textured, as the medium constantly grows in its sophistication. Of course, the downside of that evolution is that so many movies today are sheer sensory assault. The building blocks of film - ideas, characters, emotions - often get lost amidst a sea of CGI-enhanced sound and fury. Every so often, it's nice to be reminded of the very basic magic that lies at the core of the movies - the simple pleasures that were derived from the mere act of seeing a story play out on a big screen - the magic inherent in the fact that, somehow, we find ourselves invested in these people and stories projected before us. A few weeks ago, I saw Hugo, and it was a poignant reminder of the history and magic of the movies. And now, I can attest to the fact that THE ARTIST holds within it a similar magic. This is a modern film that harkens back to the Silent Era - an homage and love letter to those old movies, but with a distinctly modern and slightly meta spin. Like many of you, I was a bit skeptical about my ability to enjoy this movie. A silent movie? Really? And as the film began, it was bit jarring, I'll admit, to readjust to this very different style of storytelling. As the movie went on though, I realized that something strange had happened - I was totally absorbed, completely invested in these characters. The Artist had worked its spell - I felt transported to another time. The movie, like those old silent films, was big, unsubtle ... and yet, I felt like The Artist was an argument for the primal power of the films of that bygone era. What was old was new again, and somehow, some way, The Artist stands as one of the best films I've seen this year.

French actor Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a star of silent films of the 1920's. When we first meet George, he's on top of the world - beloved by all, the king of Hollywood (or Hollywoodland, as the sign said back then). However, as the years go by, silent films give way to talkies, and George finds himself a relic of a quickly fading era. He's been supplanted by a new wave of movie stars - chief among them the vivacious Peppy Miller - played by Berenice Bejo. Peppy actually got her start in the movies when she met George as a young fan. In fact, when she was photographed planting an enthusiastic kiss on him, it set off a minor scandal that didn't sit well with George's cold fish of a wife. But Peppy's brush with fame inspired her to try her luck in Hollywood, and she landed her first role as a backup dancer in one of George's films. Soon enough, the charismatic actress was headlining early talkie films, even as George's career was dying a slow and ugly death. Refusing to change with the times, George begins a downward spiral. Will the legendary actor reclaim his mojo and shine again? And is the era of silent films, the era that George embodies, lost forever? These are the questions that The Artist poses, and the answers are funny, heartfelt, and endlessly entertaining.

Director Michel Hazanavicius has crafted a movie that is simply gorgeous to look at. The black-and-white cinematography is unbelievably done, and the artistry of many of the shots evokes an earlier time when more care was given to how every scene in a movie was framed. The Artist evokes the movies of the 1920's so completely that it really is like a time-machine, and there's something about the world that Hazanavicius creates that's just completely immersive. I was also impressed with how well he effortlessly switches from moments of bombastic drama to moments of lighthearted comedy. There really is a little of everything here - moments of true darkness, of lightness, of romance, humor, and even some action. There's also a really fascinating, subversively meta streak to the film, where Hazanavicius gets to have fun with the silent movie conceit and throw in a few curveballs, breaking the fourth wall a bit. Without spoiling anything, let's just say that yes, spoken dialogue and audible sound-effects *are* used sparingly in a way that makes sense in the context of the story - but it's done in a way that's totally surprising and clever, and even a little surreal. But one thing I'll say about The Artist, there is some kind of crazy magic to it. I can't count how many times I've rolled my eyes at cheesy Hollwood romance in films ... but something about this unabashed bigness and boldness of the relationship between George and Peppy really worked for me and had me rooting for them. Trust me, you probably don't think that, here in 2011, a silent film could get you this emotionally invested, but The Artist pulls it off.

And man, the cast here is just superb. Like most of you, I wasn't familiar at all with the two leads - but both completely shine. Jean Dujardin has so much charisma and charm that you can't help but pull for the guy. He comes off like he really is some lost film star from the 20's or 30's - he completely gets how to act in a silent film and get maximum reaction. It's a stunning performance, and in many ways it sort of blew me away. Nearly as good in my mind was Berenice Bejo as Peppy. She feels a little more modern than Dujardin's George, but she still has charisma to spare and a true million-dollar smile. There's a chemistry between them that really works, and I'm sure the comparisons will be made to the great screen pairs of days gone by. Interestingly, the supporting cast contains some very familiar faces, each of whom does a fantastic job. John Goodman is awesome as Al Zimmer, the Hollywood mogul who dumps George for Peppy. But I expected Goodman to nail it. I was more surprised by the fact that James Cromwell totally kills it as Clifton, George's loyal butler, the stalwart Alfred to George's Bruce Wayne. Who knew?

Like I said, it took me a little while to get used to the rhythms and style of the film, but soon enough I found myself lost in its black-and-white world. It must also be said that the orchestral score is absolutely phenomenal, and is practically a character in the film. The music syncs perfectly with the on-screen action to create a very different dynamic than what you see in modern movies. It's a return to the very basic building blocks of cinema, and it's a reminder at how a great story can be told simply yet still get us emotionally involved and invested. Yes, one can make comparisons between The Artist and certain classic silent films, but to me this is not simply one more silent film. More than just a relic of another time, The Artist wryly comments on the silent film era, mixing history with nostalgia and throwing in a metatextual sense of self-awareness for good measure.

The Artist is a wholly unique film that, I guarantee, is completely different than anything else you've seen in a theater this year. And yet, despite seeming like an oddity, it's got all the classic ingredients that, even today, are what make movies great - stunning visuals, fascinating characters, pathos, romance, danger, tragedy, comedy, and emotion. Some things, I guess, are simply timeless.

My Grade: A

Flying High With MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL

2011-12-18T01:48:00.000-08:00

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL Review:

- If there's one big takeaway from the new MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, it's this: Brad Bird is one hell of an action director, and he's made the leap from animation to live-action seamlessly and impressively. This is a guy that can clearly handle huge-scale action-adventure and do so with a potent mix of modern slickness and old-school grandeur. It's been a while since I've seen an action movie that really wowed me with the sheer awesomeness of its stunt-work, and MI4 is often breathtaking in that regard - especially on an IMAX screen. All in all, this is a super-solid action flick, with a great cast and a lot of fun set pieces. It's not a movie with any sort of mind-blowing plot or ultra-high intensity, but as a visually-stunning popcorn flick, it's aces.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol finds Ethan Hunt and his team on the hunt for a rogue villain known as Cobalt - a man who feels it is his duty to cause a new extinction event by instigating nuclear war. To do that, he's commandeered Russian nuclear launch codes, and is planning an elaborate series of incidents engineered to re-escalate old hostilities between the US and Russia. The endgame, of course, is to spark an all-out nuclear war that would "thin the herd" of humanity.

So yes, the plot, and much of the movie for that matter, is fairly implausible. But the movie is well-paced and so action-packed that it never really pauses to dwell on the politics of it all. Instead, the thrust here is how Ethan Hunt must learn to work with his makeshift squad of IMF agents, who - after being framed for an attack on the Kremlin - are now working under "ghost protocol" - aka, they've gone dark and officially, they don't exist. Hunt (Tom Cruise) must re-team with his old tech-guy, Benji (the always-great Simon Pegg), as well as with new team addition Jane (the formidable - and curvaceous - Paula Patton), and agent-turned-analyst-turned-agent-again, Brandt (Jeremy Renner). Brandt has a somewhat mysterious past with Ethan, and that's a source of tension throughout the film. But the other thing with Brandt is that he's got to re-learn how to kick ass in the field after trading in his guns for a suit-and-tie.

As far as action-movie chemistry goes, this is one hell of a team of actors that's been assembled. Tom Cruise brings his blockbuster A-game, attacking every scene and action-sequence with total intensity. Cruise infuses the film with a sense of nonstop momentum, and believably fashions Ethan Hunt as a guy who won't stop moving, attacking, chasing, or fighting until his last breath. Pegg is always perfect as a source of comic relief, and he gets off some good lines and is, as always, a scene stealer. And Paula Patton seems so at home here that it seems crazy that she hasn't been in more action films. She effortlessly kicks ass, takes names, and looks good doing it, and feels totally credible as a badass agent of the Impossible Mission Force. Jeremy Renner, of course, has very quickly become a top action star - always intense, charismatic, and with a level of psychological edge that makes him fun to watch. In this one, Renner gets to tackle some more humorous scenes as well, and he impresses with how well he adapts to the movie's lighter tone.

All that being said though, I do feel like the movie coasts a bit on the strength of these actors. I am a huge fan of all of these guys as action-movie stars, but as for the *characters* they play? I have to admit, most of these characters are pretty forgettable. Ethan Hunt has always been somewhat of a cypher - he's intense and driven, but beyond that, I don't know that he's ever had much of a personality or backstory. There's some story in this film having to do with his wife, but honestly, I'd forgotten that the character even had a wife. Patton's Jane, Pegg's Benji - neither one really has much depth for us to sink our teeth into. And Brandt - though Renner does a great job - also comes off as sort of a blank slate. Like, maybe it was just driven by the presence of 24's Anil Kapoor as a wealthy Indian playboy, but I kept wondering what this movie would be like if an iconic hero like, say, Jack Bauer was driving the action. Similarly, as a villain, I found Cobalt a bit lacking - his motives were suitably sinister, but he was also pretty bland as a Big Bad. One other thing that nagged at me a little: the fact that some awesome actors like Lost's Josh Halloway and the great Tom Wilkinson showed up for what amounted to just brief cameos. I think fans of Lost have been waiting a while to see what Halloway could do in a huge action film like this one, so it's too bad he plays such a small role. And Wilkinson - as the head of IMF, The Secretary - does little beyond utter the classic "... your mission, should you choose to accept it ..." line. Overall, what little characterization is given to us isn't anything all that interesting - there's just enough bits and pieces to give the characters something to talk about other than the particulars of their mission.

So the characters are pretty thin, and the plot a little convoluted and implausible ... but again, the reason to check this one out is the positively awesome action. Brad Bird steers the action from Russia to Dubai to India, and in each location there are one or two big highlights. Three or four of the big set-pieces in the film are just phenomenally done. The big showpiece is, of course, a crazy-ass scene in which Tom Cruise scales the sheer metallic side of the world's tallest building in Dubai, clinging to its side via a pair of experimental gecko-gloves that threaten to malfunction at any moment. The sense of size, scale, and vertigo-inducing height in this scene is incredible, and credit goes to Bird for shooting it so elegantly. And speaking of those gecko-gloves, MI4 uses gadgets and near-future tech in an often brilliant manner, with some of the coolest and most fun gadget geek-out moments I've seen in the movies in a while. Sure, the plot may at times feel implausible, but the gadgets all actually feel very plausible, and there's a huge gee-whiz factor at play here. One ultra-cool scene in which Cruise and Peg utilize a sheet-thin projection screen to play optical tricks on a guard at the Kremlin is fairly jaw-dropping, for example.

This is one that will be remembered for its stunning action. It's a nice return to giant-sized blockbuster films for Tom Cruise, and also firmly establishes Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton - I think - as mainstream action stars. Even more so, it announces that Brad Bird is the real deal when it comes to live-action action. I don't think there's enough depth here to push the film from the level of very good to great, but I do think there's plenty of reasons to run out and see this on the biggest big screen possible.

My Grade: B+

Getting to the Bottom of the SHERLOCK HOLMES Sequel

2011-12-17T02:12:00.000-08:00

SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS Review:

- The first film of this revamped Sherlock Holmes franchise was a cool, energetic flick that breathed some new life into a classic character. Director Guy Ritchie's slick sensibilities made for an odd-but-interesting match with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary creations, and the charisma and chemistry of Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson made for a truly dynamic duo. However, a lot of what worked in the first film feels strained and stretched thin in the sequel. There's still some great interplay between RDJ and Law, and Ritchie still impresses with some cool action scenes. But everything seems so self-consciously dialed-up to 11 that it all gets to be a bit much. From moment one in this film, Downey's Holmes races through every scene at full speed, overwhelming every other character and never pausing to infuse the action with much in the way of dramatic weight or gravitas. And Ritchie, well ... I'm not sure what he's going for here, but he seems to be riding the high of getting away with being edgy and experimental in the first movie. Because, here, he just cuts loose, and that's not necessarily a good thing. The editing is frantic, and the action all-over-the-place, and it's hard to say how, exactly, the ADD-addled style fits with these characters or this story. There are, as I said, some really cool things layered into the film. But I also think that some stylistic lines are crossed that only serve to undermine the movie's potential.

A Game of Shadows follows the pattern of the Batman franchise, in that the Big Bad hinted at in Part 1 now takes center stage in Part 2. And that major threat is, of course, the nefarious Professor Moriarty. In the original Conan Doyle stories, Moriarty was ultimately introduced as an archnemesis to Holmes - he was Holmes' intellectual equal, and Holmes, recognizing the threat posed by Moriarty, vowed to hunt him down and put an end to his schemes no matter the cost. In this film, Moriarty - as played by Jared Harris - is sort of Lex Luthor-ish. To the public, he's an esteemed scholar and intellectual - and he's actually traveling around Europe under the guise of a book tour. Of course, there's a much more sinister reason for the Professor to be roaming around the continent, and the movie deals with Holmes' dogged quest to unravel and foil the professor's master plan. Here's the thing - I like the premise behind Moriarty's evil scheme, but at the end of the day, it's not that complicated, and there's not much mystery or ambiguity to it. The movie tries to keep up a pretense that this is all a mystery where Holmes has to connect all these dots and make these crazy connections. But really, it's less a mystery and more a Bond Villain-esque master plan with all the subtlety of a lead pipe to the face. Now, the film tries to get some mileage out of the involvement of a mysterious gypsy woman and her brother who find themselves entangles with Moriarty, but that whole angle never really goes anywhere and is mostly forgettable. Noomi Rapace, best known as the star of the Euro-versions of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo films, plays the gypsy Madam Simza. But it's a hollow character that is hard to care much about, and Rapace is given little to nothing to work with - and, surprisingly, not even a hint of romance with Holmes/RDJ. The only other prominent female character in the film is Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler, who I was surprised to see return after co-starring in the first film. Unfortunately, Adler's role is strictly to serve as a plot device that sets up Moriarty's evil agenda.

As for Moriarty, I have mixed feelings about Harris in the role. The guy is a fantastic actor - I'm mostly familiar with him via his work on the TV show Fringe, and I'm a big fan. But there is also sort of a mismatch in styles with him and RDJ. RDJ is just such a whirlwind in this movie that he overpowers just about everyone else, including the much subtler and less over-the-top Harris. Moriarty is supposed to be Holmes' equal but opposite number, but here it feels like the two are circling around two completely different orbits. That said, Harris' performance is excellent in and of itself. And when he's finally given a chance to go toe-to-toe with RDJ in the characters' climactic showdown, it's a pretty awesome clash of the intellectual titans. It just feels, though, like Harris belongs in a more serious, less silly version of this movie.

To me though, the character dynamic that's still strongest in the film is the relationship between Holmes and Watson. RDJ and Jude Law do witty banter like nobody's business, and many of the movie's highlights - and much of its humor - comes from the rapid-fire repartee between these two. I really enjoyed - especially at the beginning of the film - the angle that Watson is set to be married, and Holmes is worried that he's losing his partner in crime to the shackled existence of domestic responsibility. Law is in many ways the MVP of the film - he makes Watson into the movie's most interesting and multidimensional character, and the moments of subtlety he brings to the mix are welcome.

Meanwhile, the best new element of this sequel is, by far, the introduction of the great Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes, brother to Sherlock. Whereas Sherlock is a tightly-wound ball-of-neurotic energy, Mycroft is wryly funny, sarcastic, laid-back, and uncomfortably comfortable in his own skin (as evidenced by an extended nearly-nude scene for Fry). Fry is certainly a scene stealer, and is a hugely welcome addition to the cast.

Getting back to Guy Ritchie though ... I'm just not sure what was going on sometimes with the direction and editing in this one. There's frankly a messy and uneven quality at work here. On one hand, the scope of this movie - with Holmes and co. on a sprawling quest across Europe - demands that the movie capture a "bigness" you might not normally expect from a film about Sherlock Holmes. But big and epic is not really Ritchie's forte, and whereas the script seems to want things to go big, the visuals never quite capture that feeling in an effective or suitably awe-inspiring way. Then again, this is Sherlock Holmes and not Indiana Jones. So I'm not sure if Ritchie is trying to reign in the script or what, but it ends up feeling off somehow. At the same time, Ritchie is trying things here in the editing and directing that I just don't think work like he might have wanted. There's one sequence in particular - where our heroes are being pursued and shot at while running through a forest - that seemed to exemplify that feeling of "um, WTF, isn't this Sherlock Holmes, and not Transformers or The Matrix?" In this sequence, there's crazy, stop-and-start freeze frames, slo-mo bullet-time, crazy whirring sound effects that seem lifted from an alien-invasion movie, and, overall, an aesthetic that just doesn't fit. And I have to question why these choices were made. In the first film, it seemed like a novel idea to have these slickly-edited flash-forward montages that showed how Holmes thought through a plan before acting on it. But what was novel then seems overused and tiresome now, and I don't see why the quick-cut visual overload used in those scenes had to be utilized throughout the entire film. It all just smacks of trying too hard, and a lot of the scenes feel less polished and also less comprehensible than in the first film. Not every movie - particularly one about a Victorian-era detective - needs to look and feel like a next-gen videogame. Point being that, while Ritchie's stylistic flourishes were appreciated and mostly effective in the first film, here it's not so much flourishes as it is the entire film being directed in overdrive-mode.

I'll say this: much of this film is carried by the still-strong, often hilarious back-and-forth between Law and RDJ. Even as things drag in the middle section, even as other characters come and go without making much of an impression, these two together are always well worth watching. And eventually, the movie rallies after slumping for a bit, and delivers a fairly kickass final showdown between Holmes and Moriarty. There's enough here that's fun and entertaining to keep the movie watchable. But honestly, after this film I'm not sure if the franchise has legs. This one spirals into too much cartoonishness and craziness, and it made me want to see things get toned down and reigned in. Back to basics. In other words, elementary, my dear.

My Grade: B-

The Truth on YOUNG ADULT, Honest to Blog.

2011-12-15T15:12:00.000-08:00

YOUNG ADULT Review:

- The sweet irony of YOUNG ADULT is that, even as it deals with a profoundly immature protagonist, it feels, in many ways, like the most mature movie to date from director Jason Reitman and writer Diablo Cody. I loved Juno, and never understood the backlash that surrounded it. But I did worry a bit, after seeing the Cody-penned Jennifer's Body. I actually liked it a lot, but it seemed like it might be sending the divisive screenwriter down a slippery slope. Would each of her scripts become more self-conciously quirky than the last? Would her movies become so jam-packed with non-sequitar catch-phrases so as to become mere self-parody? Well, worry not. Because the script to Young Adult is fantastic - it's quirky, but in a darkly comic, painfully authentic manner. The quirk here doesn't feel invented at all - but rooted in a very stark, wonderfully cynical reality that I think a lot of people will be able to relate to. Mavis Gary - brilliantly played by Charlize Theron - is both That Girl You Know, and that little voice in all of us (well, those of us who packed up from the suburbs and moved to the big city)that says we're better than our hometown and the people we grew up with. We all try to brainwash ourselves to some extent - tell ourselves that we're special, that we have great destinies, that we're meant for big things. And Mavis Gary is here to demonstrate the flipside of that equation. That maybe the ones who settled actually got it right. Maybe there's something to be said for happy contentment versus the sort of prolonged teen angst that someone like Mavis subjects herself to. It's all there in Young Adult, and it makes for a hilarious, smart, dark, deeply authentic and lived-in movie.

Young Adult follows the aformentioned Mavis Gray as she returns to her small hometown - the fictional Mercury, Minnesota - possessed by the notion that she can somehow win back Buddy, her old high school flame. This is, of course, paying little regard to the fact that Buddy is happily married and the father of a newborn baby. But Mavis is overcome with self-delusion. She sees herself as a conquering hero who was the queen of her high school, who's since gone out to the big city (er, Minneapolis) and become a successful author, living the sort of glamorous lifestlye that her old highschool pals could only dream of. In reality, she's a mere ghost writer on a series of young adult novels well past the peak of their popularity. She lives in a small, messy, high rise apartment. She binges on fast food and drinks Diet Coke from the bottle. She frequently passes out on her bed while watching bad reality TV. She's almost 40, divorced, no dating prospects, and pining for her high school days when she was queen-bitch, dating the most popular guy in school, and generally on top of the world (here is where me and Mavis greatly diverge, FYI).

Now, it would have been very easy to fill Young Adult with stock characters, and manipulate us to root for Mavis despite her issues. But that sort of cliche-driven stuff that's typical of most movies of this sort never happens. We see multiple facets of these characters. In some ways, Mavis does have it pretty good, and in some ways, she's right to think that her hometown is pretty depressing and worth escaping. And yet, Mavis has serious moral deficiencies, among other issues. Similarly, Buddy is a pretty cool dude who legitimately loves his wife, and his wife is a legitimately cool chick who loves Buddy. Again, it would have been easy to make one or both of them a cartoon character, but Cody and Reitman wisely avoid that temptation. Patrick Wilson also does a great job as Buddy, never overplaying the part. Buddy isn't a dramatic guy, and it makes sense that Buddy reacts to Mavis with a sense of puzzlement and bemusement. Only late in the story does she act out enough to get a real rise out of him, and by that point, it feels earned.

Charlize Theron though - I think this is my favorite performance by her ever. There's something so real-feeling about it. I never felt like I was watching a glamorous Hollywood actress playing a part. Like, with The Descendents, I always felt aware that George Clooney was, sure, playing an average guy, but he never fully shed his movie-starness. Here, Charlize 100% feels like she is Mavis and always has been. It's a phenomenal acting job, one of the year's best. And one thing I was not expecting: this movie is hilarious - it's got more big laughs than almost any other movie I've seen this year. And a lot of that is made possible by the absolutely awesome comedic timing that Charlize Theron brings to the table. Who knew? Meanwhile, the other huge standout here is Patton Oswalt. Patton plays Matt, a former high-school loser who was once the victim of a brutal beatdown from a bunch of asshole jocks that left him with permanent damage to his leg and other extremities. Matt is a good source of comedy in the film, but he's also a pretty sad and tragic character. And he's a nice contrast to Mavis - she wants to go back to her high school days, he wishes he could forget them. Now I knew Patton could act - I'm a huge fan of the movie Big Fan and his work there - but this is another big, big feather in his cap. He does a great job here, and the relationship between Matt and Mavis is suitably twisted. Mavis runs into Matt upon arriving back in Mercury, and somehow, they become unlikely friends and drinking buddies. This in spite of the fact that, in all the time in high school when Matt's locker was right next to Mavis', she never once acknowledged his existence.

The direction here by Jason Reitman is understated and naturalistic. But he includes a ton of little details that really make the movie. From the Diet Coke cans scattered around Mavis' apartment to the depressing genericness of Mercury and its endless strip malls, the movie pulses with a vibe of genuine Americana. The same is true of Diablo Cody's script - it's much subtler and more grounded than what she's done before, and filled with great little character moments and details. Even the song selection, 90's references, etc. - it adds up to a movie that has a unique voice and feels fresh and original (sidenote: best use of 4 Non Blondes in a movie in some time). But everything is also keenly-observed. Going back to The Descendents comparison, the rawness here made me reevaluate that movie's glossiness a bit. This is writing what you know, that is writing one layer removed from the characters. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that I felt like that rawness meant that, for me, Young Adult really packed a punch.

Sure, I had some minor quibbles ... I felt like something was just a little off with Patrick Wilson's character, where he seemed a little too oblivious at times to Mavis' intentions. I also wish we had seen a little more of Matt's perspective on Mavis. It was hard to tell, I think, to what extent Matt really cared for her, or was just excited that a real-live-woman was giving him the time of day. Overall though, I loved the characters in the film, the dialogue, the vibe.

I feel that YOUNG ADULT is right up there with the year's best. It dares to be edgy and dark and subversive, but what's cool is that it's all of those things without feeling forced. Instead, the whole film feels perfectly natural and real on just about every level. That to me is an accomplishment worth writing home about.

My Grade: A-

Never Sit a Sitter: A Look At THE SITTER

2011-12-12T11:09:00.000-08:00

THE SITTER Review:

- What's going on with the state of comedy-film criticism these days? Even as various other genres slowly gain critical respectability, good comedies still get thrown into the bottom of the barrell. It's a bit different in TV, where great comedies like Community and Louie are heralded, and where even middling comedies like 2 Broke Girls receive praise. But for some reason, comedies on the big screen continually get the shaft. Unless it's a whimsical Woody Allen farce or a highbrow British film, critics don't seem to know how to talk about comedy - and so they simply dismiss it. Case in point: the recent work of David Gordon Green. Movies like Pineapple Express and Your Highness have cracked me up, and yet every time you read a review of one of Green's films, it's always some critic on his or her high horse waxing nostalgic for his days as a director of Very Serious indie dramas. Personally, I've found Green to be one of the freshest voices in comedy of the last few years. He knows how to combine hilarious dialogue with high production value - crafting comedies that contain exciting action and suspense, even as they keep the laughs coming. I also like that his comedies aren't necessarilly worried about sentimentality, or romance, or whatever. They're about being funny first, and if sentimentality fits, then fine, if it doesn't, then hey, who needs it?

Now, I'm not here calling THE SITTER a masterpiece or anything. But I am calling it a funny film with some sharp writing, fun characters, a good premise, and a fun take on the whole "into the night" genre of comedy. It's a nice little mashup of Adventures in Babysitting and Superbad, and, though not without its flaws, I'd still probably rank it as one of the better comedies I've seen in 2011.

In The Sitter, Jonah Hill plays Noah Griffith - a college dropout who's currently slumming it at home with his mom - no job, no real prospects. He likes to think that a girl he's been seeing - Marisa (Ari Graynor)- is his girlfriend, but in fact the two have yet to, really, um, consummate the relationship (you might say it's a bit one-sided), and clearly, she's still hung up on her ex, a buff kickboxing champion. Meanwhile, Noah's financially-struggling mom faces self-doubt as she looks to get back into the dating pool herself. His dad, a wealthy jewerly store owner, has long since left after an affair with (ironically) a babysitter. One night, Noah's mom asks him for a favor. Her friend wants to take her to a fundraiser, where she hopes to set her up with a guy. Only problem is, the friend needs a babysitter to look after her three kids. Despite his reluctance to babysit, Noah agrees so as to help out his mom. And that's when things get pretty crazy. After meeting the three kids who he'll be looking after, Noah gets a call from Marisa, who finally seems ready to go the distance with her increasingly-desperate not-quite-boyfriend. Only catch is that Marisa is at a big party in the city, and she wants Noah to go pick up some drugs from her (ex?) dealer in exchange for the chance to do the horizontal tango. Clearly, she's a psycho-bitch. But Noah is Jonah Hill (at the apex of his overwightness, prior to his recent slimming down), and he's got a chance - against all odds, to do the deed with Ari Graynor. And so into the night he goes, three crazy kids in tow. And as you might expect, many a hijink ensues.

Hill is one of those guys who probably gets knocked a bit for being overexposed. But the fact is, he's great at delivering a funny line, and in The Sitter, he's got a lot of good material to work with. Not only that, but he gets to play off a talented bunch of kids, as well as guys like Sam Rockwell, JB Smoove, and Method Man. Hill really carries the movie, and does a nice job of balancing the smart-ass humor with some moments that are more genuine and heartfelt. The kids are all really good though. You've got a 13 year-old boy struggling with anxiety issues, a ten year-old girl who thinks she's Paris Hilton, and an adopted anarchist-in-training from El Salvador, who may very well end running a drug cartel in his not-so-distant-future. The kid actors each play these parts to perfection, and do a nice job of working with Hill. On the other hand, Sam Rockwell is great, but his character - an oddball drug-dealer - was a little too random and ill-defined for my tastes. Similarly, JB Smoove gets in a couple of hilarious lines, but feels underused overall. I guess that after seeing the super-hilarious (and tonally-similar) 30 Minutes Or Less this past summer, it would be hard for the villains here to compare to that film's incredibly entertaining antagonists (and let's be honest, I was secretly hoping for some sort of Danny McBride cameo here that, sadly, never came).

Anyways, I felt like The Sitter maintained a really good, brisk pace, and the action and momentum rarely let up. As per usual, Green knows how to pull off some really funny, wacky, set-piece action scenes - and this one has a couple of particularly well-done car chases. I also loved the rivalry between Noah and an old high school classmate who still holds a grudge due to a long-ago incident where Noah defiled her grandmother's ashes. Some great scenes transpire between them.

I felt like a couple of things held the movie back from being 100% awesome. One thing was simply that the jokes weren't always there. There are some great bits of dialogue and some really inspired scenes, but overall I thought the movie needed a few more gut-bustingly hilarious, uber-memorable moments to really make it pop. Some moments that should have been barnburners were ultimately more worthy of a chuckle than a guffaw. As I mentioned, one of the bigger issues is that Sam Rockwell's villain doesn't always work - he feels like a hodgepodge of comic ideas thrown together, rather than one really good premise for an antagonist. I also thought the script felt a little all-over-the-place in terms of the nuts and bolts of it. Characters pop up a little too conveniently, and things tend to get resolved a little too neatly. You need some element of randomness in this genre, but sometimes it was a little less than clear why Noah was going to the places he was going. And that brings me to tone - I think this is where the movie ultimately tries a little too hard to please everyone, but suffers a bit for it. What I mean is - the film has a bit of an odd mix of crude, R-rated humor and sweet sentimentality that feels like it might belong more in a PG film. Now, I think the movie pulls it off - mostly. At the same time though, you do sort of wish that the movie had stayed consistently subversive and gone a little darker, instead of eventually becoming a more predictable "everyone learns their lessons" style of comedy.

With that said, I think back to the other comedies I've seen this year. Movies like Horrible Bosses, Bad Teacher ... The Sitter is much smarter and funnier than either, and is, to me, up there with Bridesmaids, Your Highness, and 30 Minutes Or Less as one of the year's funniest films. So sure, maybe David Gordon Green has some more somber dramas left in him. But personally, I would love to see him keep cranking out the comedy.

My Grade: B+

A DANGEROUS METHOD: Movies As Therapy

2011-12-09T16:10:00.000-08:00

A DANGEROUS METHOD Review:

- Has there been any better director-actor one-two punch in the last several years than the pairing of David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen? A History of Violence, Eastern Promises - together, the two have mined the depths of psychological drama, crafting thought-provoking films that are never generic, never cut-and-dried. Now, the two have reteamed again for the cerebral, strange, and captivating A DANGEROUS METHOD, and they're joined by Michael Fassbender, Kiera Knightly, and Vincent Cassell. The result is a fascinating look at the real-life relationship between Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and a sexually-disturbed patient that caused the two titans of psychotherapy to have their first meeting-of-the-minds.

A Dangerous Method is, surprisingly, a much more straightforward and less-stylized movie than what we often get from Cronenberg. And yet, I think the style of the film suits it. Because the whole movie is about the repressed desires, the hidden madness, that lurks within otherwise civilized men and women. The film explores the very thin line between doctor and patient, between scientist and subject. This is a film where Freud, Jung, and Jung's patient - Sabina Spielrein - are all obstensibly circling each other like hawks, each one gaining and losing the psychological advantage over the other under various circumstances. And it is in the conversations and exchanges and debates between them that we are made to really think about the human psyche. It's a fragile thing, and for men like Freud and Jung who thought long and hard about madness, well ... could they themselves be that far removed from it?

Still, you know this is no regular old period piece when the movie begins with a writhing, screaming Sabina being hauled off the Carl Young's stately manor to be treated for her psychoses. From the get-go, Cronenberg forces us to confront the reality of a smart, attractive woman who's gone totally crazy. And in a long, almost hard-to-watch sequence at the movie's beginning, we watch as Sabina sits in a chair, in a small, bare room, as Jung sits behind her, questioning her, observing her reactions. And Knightly as Sabina - she looks like a woman in need of an excorcism - screaming, flailing, jaw-jutted out to almost cartoonish extremes. It's an out-there, disturbing scene, but as performed by Knightly, it's pretty powerful. We're here at the very beginnings of serious psychoanalysis, and it's fascinating to see a woman who, before, might have just been tossed into an asylum, now get mentally dissected by Jung, analyzed via the "talking cure" popularized by Freud. The effect that (what would now be routine) therapy had on her is remarkable. But of course, the converse there is ... if Sabina can be helped through her madness with such relative ease, then doesn't it stand to reason that Jung could be driven to madness just as easily?

Eventually, Jung uses Sabina as an excuse to consult with the greatest luminary of psychotherapy of the time, Sigmund Freud - and Freud becomes a mentor to his younger counterpart. Freud by this time had amassed a school of eager, devout students and followers, and so while he liked and admired Jung, their relationship became prickly as Freud became annoyed with Jung's more out-there ideas. Jung was more of an idealist than Freud, hoping to cure people rather than simply analyze them. Jung also dabbled in parapsychology - telephathy, psychic abilities, etc. - and Freud felt strongly that those were flights of fancy that undermined the seriousness and credibility of their work. At the same time, Freud had a certain coldness and distance to him - he viewed anyone he met, Jung included, as a prospective subject to be analayzed, but saw himself as mostly above analysis. Jung, meanwhile, begins to realize that he is not necessarilly so far removed from his patience. He's learned to repress things and appear normal and civilized, but he recognizes that he and Sabina may not be that different. When Jung meets Otto Gross, a psychologist who believes in hedonism and acting without restraint, he's begins to question a lot of things that he formerly held as sacred truths.

Certainly, this has been a hell of a year for Michael Fassbender, who's very quickly established himself as one of the best actors out there. Indeed, his performance in A Dangerous Method as Carl Jung is absolutely outstanding. Jung is a tightly-wound man of principle who, at the same time, is brimming with barely-contained emotion. You can see this constant inner-struggle play out on Fassbender's face - he plays Jung as a man who, it seems, the gears in his head are constantly turning. There's a gravitas and power that Fassbender brings to this role that few others could have, and he effortlessly embodies the character - the accent, the mannerisms, the mentality. The same can be said for the always-great Viggo Mortensen as Freud. Viggo disappears into the role - one that's totally different from any I've seen him play before. Often Viggo plays men of action and destiny, but here he's wizened, prickly, intellectual. Knightly is also very, very good as Sabina, the Russian-Jewish patient whose childhood abuse at the hands of her father led her to develop severe phobias and anxieties and sexual disfunctions. Vincent Cassel provides an added spark as the free-thinking Otto - I mean, is there anyone better at playing smarmy and deviant?

As I said, the movie is very dialogue heavy, but the cool thing is that the conversations between Freud, Jung, Sabina, and Otto are fascinating, and even when they go on at length, you don't mind, because Cronenberg creates that feeling of eavesdropping on the conversations of two of the 20th century's great thinkers. Perhaps some of the more academic discussions can get a bit dry at times, but hey, this is Cronenberg, so the movie has a weird, perverse side to counterbalance the talking heads. Cronenberg doesn't really judge his characters - but the juxtapositions are what make the movie so interesting. He shoots crazy sadomasochistic sex scenes with a steady, clinical eye - the sex scenes are shot essentially the same as the psychoanalysis scenes in Jung's office. It all reinforces the idea that the lines between sex, life, death, doctor, patient, pleasure, and pain are all pretty blurry sometimes. And certainly, for Freud and Jung, all of these things were interrelated.

Cronenberg is one of the most interesting directors working today, and what I like about him is that his movies always leave you a little bit unsettled, even as they get you thinking about big ideas. And he's never afraid to get weird, offbeat, or disturbing to make his point. A Dangerous Method is fascinating because it's about these men of reason and logic dealing with craziness, psychosis, and madness. Making sense out of the abstract - out of dreams and visions. Cronenberg, Viggo, and Fassbender deliver another winning film.

My Grade: A-

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY: Spy Game as Chess Game

2011-12-07T22:52:00.000-08:00

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY Review:

- There's a truly great movie buried somewhere in this one. Certainly, there's enough intrigue here to make me curious about the book on which the film is based, and the 70's-era TV miniseries (starring Alec Guinness) that received much acclaim at the time. But, frustratingly, a potentially badass spy story is muddled by some head-scratching directorial choices and an incredibly confusing narrative. As much style and atmosphere as this movie exudes, there's a real disconnect between the film's story and its storytelling style. It's a story that would likely have worked best as a precisely-told potboiler - a mystery that slowly but surely connects the dots and fits everything together like clockwork. All the ingredients are there for one hell of a Cold War spy story. But director Tomas Alfredson (the man behind the superb Let The Right One In), strangely, chooses to tell this complex story in an incredibly hard-to-follow manner. Abrupt flashbacks, sudden scene cuts, and a bare minimum of exposition creates a situation where the nuances of the story are near-impossible to follow via a single viewing.

Luckily, even though Alfredson's narrative flounders, the sense of atmosphere and tension he manages to create is extremely strong. As he did with Let The Right One In, the director sets an immersive tone, creating a constant, palpable sense of coldness, dreariness, and looming dread. The bulk of the film takes place in London in the early 70's, and the period and place is captured effortlessly - the hair, the fashions, the details all establish a particular mood and era, from moment one.

And the cast is just jam-packed with powerhouse actors. Honestly, I give all the credit in the world to the cast, because though individual scenes tend not to gel into a cohesive whole, there are, still, some damn good individual scenes. And again, a lot of that is due to how much badassery and gravitas the main players have. Gary Oldman, for one, is in fine form as our lead - George Smiley. In short, Smiley is a recently-retired British intelligence agent who's been brought back into the fold to expose an alleged mole in the highest ranks of British Intelligence (or "The Circus," as it's referred to here). A recent mission in Budapest has gone horribly wrong, resulting in the kidnapping and interrogation of a top agent (played by Mark Strong), and the death of a head intelligence officer known as Control (John Hurt). As it turns out, the botched mission led to the discovery that someone in power was in fact playing for the other team (namely, the Soviets). And so Smiley is brought in as an impartial observer, and his investigation begins, leading him down a rabbit's hole of lies, corruption, and double-crosses. But as I was saying, Oldman is a commanding presence here. Oldman tends to play crazy characters, but here his M.O. is that he's cool, calm, and collected - mostly unfazed by those out to get him, methodically going about his investigation like a great chess player slowly setting up his opponent for defeat. Oldman is joined by a veritable who's who of great British actors. John Hurt, Toby Jones (second movie I've seen him in in a week!), Colin Firth, Mark Strong, and Thomas Hardy - among others. Firth is very good as usual as a smarmy intelligence agent. Hardy is excellent as a double-crossed agent who's now on-the-lamb. And Strong is a scene stealer - as the agent who was kidnapped in Budapest, and who, after being psychologically damaged by torture at the hands of his captors, is now laying low as a schoolteacher somewhere in the countryside.

Still, with a cast this awesome, I kept waiting for some moments of true intensity to come ... but they never really did. The movie is so subdued, so methodically-paced, and so narratively all-over-the-place, that it becomes hard to really latch on to any of these characters. It just feels like this movie is underwater sometimes - like you're catching glimpses of plot, of character, of story, but never seeing things clearly. This is evident in the way that Alfredson tends to have long, lingering shots of his actors' faces, begging us to read into their slightest change in expression, and yet when key plot points are revealed, he'll jarringly cut away, just as we're beginning to process what it is that we're seeing. I sort of get what he's aiming for - and actors like Oldman and Strong excel working in this stlye - both are masters of the subtle gesture, the slight shift in expression - and it is, indeed, fun to observe them and watch and wait for clues or tells. That said, I'm all for films that don't talk down to an audience, that make us do some mental aerobics in order to put the puzzle pieces together - but this was just too much in my opinion. I mean, the movie is essentially set up as a mystery - we know that, barring some game-changing twist, one of the key officials at The Circus has to be the mole. But we're never really given clues one way or another as to who it might be. Until the very end of the film, we have no guesses as to anyone's motivations, their backstories, or the likelihood of their guilt. Meanwhile, seemingly major plot points - Smiley's fractured relationship with his ex-wife, the sexuality of his younger partner Peter, the background between Firth and Strong's characters - all are touched on but, in my mind, never addressed or explored in a way that's at all narratively satisfying. It's one thing to be subtle, but it's another to sabotage the power of your own narrative. Again, I'm not sure why Alfredson chose to tell the story in a manner that was so detrimental to the narrative flow of the film.

I express this frustration because I really wanted to love this movie, and there are things about it that really are fantastically done. I can't argue that, aesthetically, this is one of the most thick-with-atmosphere movies of the year. And the cast is just loaded with great talent that makes every utterance interesting, every exchange compelling. And yet, the cast is so strong, and the story so rife with potential, that you want to see it told in a way that 100% delivers on the promise of the film. As it is, I sort of kept waiting for the other shoe to drop from a narrative standpoint. Ultimately, few of the major revelations had as much of an impact on me as I thought they should have - it was all just too muddy and confusing. At the same time, there is undoubtedly a certain pleasure to be had just taking the movie in scene by scene, watching great actors like Oldman, Strong, Hardy, Hurt, and Firth interacting, all while wearing sweet 70's clothes and haircuts. There is a lot to like and appreciate here, a lot to drink in - but I also wonder if this could have been a real knockout, had the movie told its story in a more cohesive, coherant manner.

My Grade: B

HUGO: Scorsese Goes Storybook

2011-12-07T14:05:00.000-08:00

HUGO Review:

- I think it's safe to say: Martin Scorsese has never made a movie like Hugo. From the director who's brought us acclaimed tales of gangsters, lowlifes, and criminals comes a film that is, in most ways, a complete departure: a family-friendly, 3D film that plays out like a storybook come to life. If you're a Scorsese fan, then what is recognizable about Hugo is its visual flair, it's gorgeous cinematography, and its epic and ambitious storytelling. But what's also conveyed in Hugo is the legendary director's deep and abiding love of movies. This is Scorsese's love-letter to cinema - a lesson about the history of - and importance of - the movies. Hugo is an ode to imagination and wonder - a stunningly-realized movie that reminds us why we love movies in the first place. Somehow, Martin Scorsese has defied expectations and created one of the year's most pleasant surprises.

The first thing I'll say about Hugo is that it's a visual marvel. Without question, I'd rank it as one of the top two or three live-action movies in terms of use of 3D. Scorsese shot Hugo with 3D 100% top of mind, and it shows - it's immersive in the way that, so far, only animated 3D films have managed. Part of that is due to Hugo's highly stylized rendering of 1930's Paris - filled with deep colors and ultra-detail, it's a sprawling cityscape less based in reality and more in dreams. But part of the power of the visuals - and of the 3D - lies in the way that Scorsese manipulates the camera - soaring, swooping, climbing, diving, floating and flying through this world. There are shots in this film - including a stunning opening tracking shot - that are quite simply breathtaking. At the same time, the framing of many individual shots is outstanding - Hugo stays true to its storybook roots, presenting us with any number of evocative scenes suitable for framing. Hugo's world, indeed, is a technicolor dreamscape that you won't soon forget.

The story here is fairly simple, but contains a number of interesting twists. Based on the book "The Invention of Hugo Cabret," the film begins as the story of the orphan Hugo's ( Asa Butterfield) quest to complete the work of his deceased father. Before he died, Hugo's father (Jude Law) was a clockmaker and mechanical expert. A pet project of his, that he worked on with Hugo, was to repair and restore an old, mechanical robot - an automaton - that he'd gotten from a museum auction. Essentially an elaborate, human-like wind-up toy, the automaton was designed to write or draw messages once activated. And so, when Hugo's father is killed, Hugo is determined to finish the restoration of the machine, because he's convinced that, once wound-up, it will write out for him a final message from his dad. Hugo just needs some odds and ends - gears, cogs, springs, etc. - as well as one, more mysterious item - a heart-shaped key that fits into the automaton's chest.

Hugo's mission causes him to cross paths with Georges (Ben Kingsley) - a cranky old toymaker - whose toys Hugo steals for spare parts. Eventually, however, we learn that there's much more to Georges than meets the eye, and his connection to the mystery of the automaton is much deeper than originally suspected. Hugo makes this discovery with the help of Georges' adopted daughter, Isabella (Chloë Grace Moretz), as the two orphan children connect as kindred spirits. All the while, however, Hugo must elude the fiendish Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), a bumbling but dogged lawman who is constantly on the hunt for any wayward orphans to round up and send off to some presumably horrible orphanage.

Without spoiling anything, the eventual revelations about Georges take the film in a fascinating and unexpected direction. What starts off as a simple story about a boy and his robot soon becomes a movie about the history of movies - and about movie magic. Scorcese incorporates a mix of fiction and real-life cinema history - but even with the narrative embellishments, you'll come away from Hugo wanting to know more about the real-life genius that was Georges Méliès and his many lasting creations.

I loved the cast of this film. Asa Butterfield - wide-eyed and bright-eyed - is very good in the lead role, and it helps that he's paired with the always great Chloe Moretz. I know she's still barely a teenager, but I've already come to think of her as a great actress. In this film, Moretz impresses again, showing that she can play a more toned-down character who isn't a vampire or pint-sized assassin. The kid actors are exceptional, but the real treat here is the veterans. Ben Kingsley is titanic in this one as Georges Méliès. As we learn more about him and his story, Kingsley really gets a chance to shine. It all culminates in a thrilling final act that sees Sir Ben deliver a performance for the ages. Some of Georges' words of wisdom will stick with me - "we are all wizards," he says - and by god, I thought, so we are. I also got a thrill, and a chill, from a small but impactful role played by the legendary Christopher Lee. As Monsieur Labisse, a wizened librarian and lover of literature, Lee has some wonderful moments in the film. Talk about presence, gravitas, and presence - it doesn't get any better in movies than Christopher Lee. Ray Winstone is also excellent in a smallish role as Hugo's nasty uncle, and Michael Stuhlbarg is very good as an academic who takes an interest in Hugo's quest. Finally, Sasha Baron Cohen has a lot of great moments of comic relief. His Inspector is a lot of fun - very funny, and classic Cohen.

I guess the one knock against Hugo is that, at times, the pacing feels a bit off. The movie feels a little too ponderous at times, stretching out scenes and dialogue to the point where the storytelling can feel a bit slow. This is particularly evident in the middle of the film, where it feels like there's a lot of treading water before the big reveals and gear-shifting in the third act. Now, Hugo is so visually stunning that I found it easy to just sit back and drink in the scenery and let myself get lost in the picturesque 3D world. But, I also acknowledge that, for a good chunk of the movie, Scorsese leaves you to wonder just where, exactly, all of this is going. It doesn't help that the movie meanders into tangential subplots around its peripheral characters. The conflict between a local Parisian and an antagonistic dog. The Inspector's awkward attempts to court a local shopgirl. These scenes are amusing, but I also felt that the movie could have used some editing and streamlining. As is, it feels a bit unfocused at times.

Overall though, I found HUGO to be one of the most entrancing, captivating, and yes, inspiring movies I've seen all year. The central themes at its core - emphasizing the importance of art, imagination, invention, and creativity - are communicated with flair, whimsy, and lots of heart. The visuals are amazing - this is quite simply a master-class in visual style and imagination from Martin Scorsese. HUGO is a must-see for all ages, a unique and surprising addition to the Scorsese cannon.

My Grade: A-

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN - A Slice of Hollywood History

2011-12-06T13:14:00.000-08:00

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN Review:

- As a small town kid that moved out to Hollywood, I won't lie, I often did - and do - fantasize a bit about meeting and befriending stars. And when I have, on occasion, rubbed elbows with a celebrity, there is always that brief moment where you wonder if you could possibly form some sort of connection beyond that of lofty star and lowly fan. Now, let's take this scenario to the ultimate extreme: it's 1953, you're a 23-year-old nobody, a proto-movie-geek living outside of London (okay, sure, your family is pretty well-connected and well-to-do, but that's mostly irrelevant if you're trying to break into showbiz). You get a job as a glorified gopher working on a film set - Sir Laurence Olivier is shooting his latest movie at the famous Pinewood studios in London, and it's co-starring none other than Marilyn Monroe. Imagine that you meet Olivier, you meet Marilyn. And somehow, someway, she takes a liking to you. She starts hanging out with you. She maybe, just maybe, FALLS IN LOVE WITH YOU. Preposterous, right? Afterall, this kid is a geeky, gawky nobody, and Marilyn Monroe is the biggest star in the world, the most gorgeous woman in the world. But, she's also a lost soul, a pill-addicted, anxiety-ridden girl pining for any semblance of a normal life. And so maybe this kid, who doesn't know any better than to talk to her like a high school crush, is exactly what she's looking for. And that's the true-life premise of MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. Well, allegedly. 100% true or not though, it makes for a great story, and for a thoroughly entertaining film.

A lot of the talk about this one has centered around Michelle Williams' turn as Marilyn. And rightfully so. It's an absolutely fantastic performance, and a surefire Oscar nominee. The physical transformation alone is pretty remarkable. Makeup and wigs and prosthetics do some of the work, but Williams captures Marilyn's mannerisms, her voice, her walk, her moves. But that's only the surface level. Beyond just the mimicry and whatnot, there's also a ton going on beneath the surface. We see the depression, angst, and volatility of the iconic star - how she would succumb to her fans and be "Marilyn Monroe," even when she didn't want to be "on." We see how she was getting to that insane level of stardom where it's hard to even be a human being, and the toll it was taking on her. We see her role as a star, as opposed to Olivier, who was an *actor.* Since this is a story told from the perspective of our young gopher - Colin (Eddie Redmayne), William's Marilyn still comes off, for all her faults and problems, like some kind of luminescent angel recently fallen from heaven. Maybe she didn't always *want* to be a star, but she just is one, innately. And again, I think that's what makes this film so fascinating - it's not a biopic of Monroe, but a look at a very specific moment in her life, as told through the perspective of an ordinary guy who happened to come into her orbit.

It's fascinating to see this moment in Monroe's life, and it's equally fascinating to see this moment in pop-culture play out on screen. The movie does a fantastic job of showing all the benhind-the-scenes drama that existed on the set of "The Prince and the Showgirl," the movie that Marilyn Monroe travelled to London to make with Olivier. She saw is as a chance to establish herself as a more legitimate actress, he saw it as a shot to be more of a Hollywood star - and the results, it seems, were often disasterous. Olivier had little patience for Marilyn's lateness, her oversensitivity, and her reliance on an everpresent acting coach to guide her through each scene of the film. Marilyn, meanwhile, felt intimidated by what she perceived to be a hostile set, and had little tolerance for Olivier's prickliness. And yet, Olivier, like every other man on the planet at that time, found himself entranced by his platinum-blonde costar, even as she infuriated him.

Speaking of Olivier, Kenneth Branagh is superb as the legendary thespian. Branagh makes Olivier into a larger-than-life character almost as fascinating as Monroe. He's a Shakespeare-quoting, tempermental, refined actor of the stage and screen who finds himself aging, still not having achieved the widespread recognition and acclaim he feels he deserves. Since Branagh himself is cut from a similar cloth (instead of making The Prince and the Showgirl, he directed THOR), there's a pretty interesting dynamic at play in his portrayal. And remember - Michelle Williams started out on Dawson's Creek, so there are some parallels there as well. Another huge standout is Judi Dench, who gets in some great lines as veteran actress Dame Sybil Thorndike, who plays a supporting role in Olivier's film. Dominic Cooper, continuing a year in which he's apparently in every other movie released, is also characteristically great as Marilyn's manager, Milton Greene (and his Captain America cohort, Toby Jones, shows up as well - this movie has quite the Marvel comics connection). I also really liked Dougray Scott (never thought I'd say that!) in his small role as Marilyn's husband at the time, the famous playwright Arthur Miller. Harry Potter's Emma Watson also has a nice supporting role as a costumer who Colin passes over in favor for a chance with Marilyn.

If there's any weak point to the film, it might be, oddly, its main character - who in many ways is a suporting character in his own story. Really, the chief role of Colin is to be our eyes and ears - through his everyman perspective, we get a unique glimpse at Marylin Monroe, at Laurence Olivier. But Colin himself ... I never found him particularly endearing. I liked him at first, when he was the wide-eyed newbie on the set of his first big film production. But there's also a certain, slightly-irritating smugness to his character. I think part of this might be the fault of Eddie Redmayne. He's good, but he just seems a little too much like British royalty or something to function as a true everyman. There's an air of entitlement to Redmayne that doesn't do the story any favors. Of course, it's a true story - based on a memoir anyways - so the movie has certain boundaries it has to work within. At the same time though, there's something a little less appealling about a preppy, sort-of-smug British kid - wide-eyed film fan or not - as being the one who somehow manages to win the heart of Marilyn by-god Monroe. This is the sort of one-in-a-million story you'd want to happen to someone truly likable and unassuming, and Colin is likable enough, but you also never *really* root for him or feel elated for him.

Nonetheless, the movie really does a great job of capturing the initial rush of being on a film set and of this kid meeting directors and actors and stars. I couldn't help but think back to my own early days as an NBC Page, and the rush of adrenaline I got realizing that here I was - a kid who months earlier had been sitting around in suburban CT - working on The Tonight Show and interacting with stars I'd grown up watching.

My Week With Marilyn really surprised me. Far from being a dreary biopic, it's a funny, affecting, excellently-acted snapshot of a particular moment in movie history - and film fans and cinephiles and dreamers everywhere should get a huge kick out of it. Michelle Williams knocks it out of the park, Kenneth Branagh is terrific, and who knows, after watching this ... maybe you'll feel like you just might have a shot with Scarlett Johansson afterall.

My Grade: A-

Danny Says Aloha to THE DESCENDANTS

2011-12-05T15:03:00.000-08:00

THE DESCENDANTS Review:

- I think Alexander Payne is one of those directors who's easy to like but hard to love. His movies are often ambitious blends of comedy and tragedy, humor and sadness. The man has a knack for telling small-scale stories that nonetheless address the Big themes. At the same time, his films often have the glossed-over feel of a best-selling airport novel. There's not quite the same style or uniqueness that you'd get from the likes of the Coen Bros. or Wes Anderson - creatives who's movies are similar thematically, but who are much quirkier - perhaps, you might say, more visionary. So part of me wasn't quite sure what to make of The Descendants - would this be the movie equivalent of a breezy beach read with literary pretensions? Was this simply yet another attempt by star George Clooney to get an Oscar by playing an average schlub? And what's more, would this - an easy Oscar-bait sort of movie - end up stealing critical thunder from more innovative and unique fare. At the end of the day though, I was mostly pretty won over by this one. It's a well-acted, well-told tale that benefits from Payne's naturalistic style. George Clooney delivers one of his best performances to date, coming at a time when he only just recently impressed in The Ides of March (which he also directed). I think The Descendents is more than just Oscar-bait, but an emotional, funny film with something to say.

So what is the movie about? It's about a well-to-do guy, Matt King (Clooney) living in Hawaii, whose family has inherited a large swath of unspoiled beachfront land. Matt is a lawyer, and so he's been able to make a nice living for himself without depending on the money that's to be made from the sale of the family land to a developer, with plans to turn it into a resort. The same can't be said for the rest of King's large extended family, many of whom are down-on-their-luck and eagerly awaiting the profits from the sale of the land. Matt can afford to be idealistic and sentimental about the land - some of the others can't. While Matt is dealing with the family infighting, a much worse problem befalls him. His wife and mother to his two daughters gets into a boating accident, and falls into a coma, with little chance of recovery. Work and travel often kept Matt away from his wife and kids, so he naturally feels a lot of guilt about the whole thing, even as he struggles to be a good dad to his daughters - the younger Scottie and the teenaged Alex, in the absence of their mom. But all of Matt's complicated feelings about his wife and family are made exponentially more complicated when he learns that his comatose wife had been engaged in a long affair with another man, and had planned to leave him before the accident. Driven towards anger, self-doubt, and confusion by these revelations, Matt takes his daughters (and Alex's dimwitted boyfriend, Sid) on an unusual family trip - a quest to find his wife's secret lover so as to let him know about her condition, to gain some closure, and, just possibly, to sock him in the jaw.

The journey taken by Matt and his family is captivating on a number of levels. Most immediately it is, if nothing else, a pretty breathtaking tour of Hawaii. Payne takes care to depict Hawaii as not entirely glamorous - we see the congested, overdeveloped suburbs, the chintzy tourist traps, and the comically bad fashion sense of the locals (even the usually suave Clooney is dressed down in khaki shorts, sandalls, and ill-fitting polo shirts). But, we also see gorgeous beaches, stunning island vistas, and bright blue oceans. Payne directs it all with a keen eye for capturing the richness of the landscapes, and adds all sorts of interesting local color. There's a very, very strong sense of place in this film, and it adds a lot to the story. Suffice it to say, you'll be hard-pressed not to utter "I want to go to there" at some point while watching the film.

On another level, Matt's journey is a great little story about family, and about how values are passed on from one generation to another. I was thinking about the title of the film for a while after viewing, and wondering what, exactly, it meant. What, for that matter, was this movie getting at - what did it all mean? The more I thought about it, the more I gained an appreciation for the story being told here. Because what I realized was that this is a story about setting an example for the next generation. We meet Matt King at a pivotal moment. Up until now, he and his wife have not exactly set a great example for their kids. When we first meet Alex, she's drunk at boarding school, depressed, and bitter at her mother and father. Scottie is still young, but already, she's a bit of a brat - getting into trouble at school and - quite hilariously - cursing up a storm. You can see the sort of chain of negative influece at play here. With a mostly absent father and a mother who was a liar and a cheater, is it any wonder that these kids are headed down the wrong path? That's where the disparate stories seem to tie together - Matt's decision about what to do with his family's land takes on a larger meaning - it's about what sort of future he's creating for his kids, what sort of example he's giving to them. Is his the generation that ruins paradise, that creates broken homes? Or can he transcend that, and get a second chance at doing right by his home and his family? Like I said, the story is at once small-scale yet thematically ambitious.

Payne gets a lot of mileage out of a great cast. Not only does the movie feature a standout performance from Clooney, but it's also got a potentially career-making turn from ABC Family star Shailene Woodley as older daughter Alex. Woodley does a fantastic job portraying a girl in her rebellious, cynical, smart-assed teenage phase who very quickly is forced to do some growing up and gain some maturity and perspective. But Payne also makes a good call in casting some very funny actors, known primarily for their comedy work, in key roles. Rob Huebel is hilarious as Matt's whipped brother-in-law, for example. And Judy Greer - always so great on various sitcoms - is a scene-stealer as the guilt-stricken woman married to the guy who had the affair with Matt's wife. Another standout is Nick Krause as Sid, Alex's boyfriend who tags along with her and her family. Probably the movie's most cartoonish character, Sid, oddly, works because Krause's comic timing is so good. Seeing Krause's braindead teen go mano e mano with Clooney's middle-aged Matt is a lot of fun, and their interactions produce some of the movie's best scenes. Beau Bridges is also very funny as Cousin Hugh - channelling the Bridges family's innate Dudeness, Bridges is great as the stoned-out surfer who is desperate to cash-in on the impending land-sale.

At times, you can't help but wonder: "why these characters?" What is Payne's fascination with making melodrama out of the problems of the upper-middle-class? And I think that, at times, it makes his characters, and his movies, hard to love. Without the protective, ironic distance of the Coens or Wes Anderson, you sometimes think that, sure, these people have problems, but are they really all that important? Where The Descendents at times struggles is when it's trying to convince us of one of its central themes - that even in paradise, there can be trouble. Yes, Hawaii has suburban sprawl, but still ... it's Hawaii,and it's pretty amazing. Yes, Matt King's got issues, but he's still wealthy, lives in Hawaii, and he's George Clooney. And while Clooney does a fine job in the role, he still at times has that movie-star look in his eye that indicates that sure, he's playing an ordinary Joe in this movie, but at any time his character might reveal a hidden second career as an international super-spy or covert assassin. It's a tightrope that this movie walks on.

It is a tightrope, but I think THE DESCENDANTS mostly manages to pull it off. Payne ultimately does manage to find the genuine pathos, humor, and poignancy in the story of these characters, and crafts a film - filled with excellent performances - that manages to stick with you and make you think. Does he 100% nail it with an exclamation point at the end? Not sure I'd go that far. But I do feel confident in calling this a very, very good film that will likely end up as a highlight of the 2011 holiday moviegoing season. Even if you're feeling skeptical, I'd highly recommend giving this one a shot.

My Grade: A-

Investigating J. EDGAR

2011-12-01T14:41:00.000-08:00

J. EDGAR Review:

- The big, important films of Clint Eastwood have certainly been a mixed bag. The man has a knack for finding intriguing subject matter to adapt for the screen, but Eastwood's somber, serious side can at times produce some pretty dull and boring movies. Personally, I love Eastwood as an actor in and director of pulpy Western, action and crime films. In terms of his directorial efforts, I'm partial to the contemplative yet rugged badassery of films like Unforgiven and Gran Torino. On the other end of the spectrum, I've found movies like Invictus to be dry and plodding. Luckily, Eastwood's latest effort - J. EDGAR - is an intriguing, sprawling tale that has some very interesting insights into America's recent past. It works as a fascinating look at the formation of the FBI and the rise of national law enforcement. At the same time, it's also an insightful look at the man behind the curtain - J. Edgar Hoover. Featuring a number of strong performances from an all-star cast, this one is definitely worth checking out if you have an interest in Cold War-era American history.

The film follows J. Edgar Hoover from the time he was a young twenty-something in the late 1910's, paranoid about what he believed was the impending Bolshevik invasion, to his final days, coinciding with the beginnings of the Nixon administration. The film flashes back between two primary periods - Hoover as a younger man, in the early days of the FBI in the 20's and 30's, and as an older man in the 60's and early 70's.

Anchoring the film - and having to sell Hoover as both a younger and older man - is Leonardo DiCaprio. At first, DiCaprio's take on the legendary figure is a bit jarring - with a thick, old-timey accent and a puffed-up, hangdog demeanor, DiCaprio comes off as a bit cartoonish and over-the-top. Plus, Eastwood is shooting the film in his usual minimalist, straightforward manner - making the movie's larger-than-life performances stand out a bit more than they might have in a more stylized film. Sadly, the old-age makeup used here is a bit of a distraction, in that in a couple of cases it just doesn't look natural at all. Hoover-as-old-man is workable, even if it definitely feels a bit "off" from a visual standpoint. But some of the other key characters - most notably Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, Hoover's right-hand-man and confidante - look downright grotesque in their old-age makeup. Indeed, many portions of the movie take on a seemingly unintentionally campy - and like I said, grotesque - quality, because of just how odd the make-up looks.

But, the performances are so strong overall that I was able to look past the wax-figure makeup and still find a lot of enjoyment from the stellar work of DiCaprio, Hammer, Naomi Watts, and the rest of the film's superb cast. DiCaprio is outwardly a bit goofy as Hoover, but inwardly, there's some real depth to his portrayal. He paints Hoover as an obsessed crusader hellbent on protecting the United States from communists, insurgents, and subversives. He's also a man who prides himself on having all the information, and therefore all the power. He maintains extensive files on those who he perceives as potential threats - including every sitting president in the Oval Office during his tenure as head of the FBI. He brings science, criminology, and forensics into law enforcement in a way that they'd never been utilized before. He builds up the FBI, from nothing, into a force to be reckoned with. And yet, Hoover is a man who has secrets of his own. Underneath his outwardly rigid, puritanical personality, Hoover struggles with his identity. As a grown man, he lives with his aging mother (Judi Dench), and has a strange, codependent relationship with her. Some of that overlaps with his struggles with sexual identity. Hoover shares an unspoken bond with his FBI hire Clyde Tolson, but the two continually dance around their shared attraction for each other. Their relationship is never acknowledged publicly, and even privately the two can barely put their feelings into words - but over time, it seems, people caught on to the fact that there was a bond between the two men that went beyond friendship. All of this adds up to quite the character study, and DiCaprio does a fine job of exploring all of the different aspects of Hoover. Hammer is excellent as Tolson. And Naomi Watts is also very good as Hoover's loyal secretary Helen. The film is a great showcase for its actors. If only they didn't look so silly in their makeup.

Most fascinating, however, may be the fact that Hoover's longevity makes him a great focal point for a sprawling look at America in the 20th century. J. Edgar does a great job of showing us America's evolution as it progressed from World War I and into a new era of spies, conspiracy, and perceived threat from within. We see the rise of organized crime, the birth of national celebrities like Charles Lindbergh, and the different facets of the Civil Rights movement. And it's there in the 60's, a time we think of as a boon for social change and progressivism, that we see how far gone Hoover was - stuck in a world of black and white, good and evil. Indeed, he viewed Martin Luthor King Jr. less as an agent of cultural change and more as a dangerous radical. And again, viewing Hoover's paranoia through the lense of his own issues - the fact that he himself was sort of a self-hating "subversive" - well, it's a fascinating study of both psychology and American cultural history.

I thought the movie featured a smart, well-structured script (though it perhaps goes on a little too long), and some outstanding performances. I loved the character study and the insightful, eye-opening look at American history and the formation of the FBI. Though the film skips over some key periods of Hoover's life, the flashback/flashforward structure is utilized well. I did feel that Eastwood's directorial style sometimes felt like a mismatch for the scope and tone of the script - sometimes causing that grotesque, theater-of-the-absurd effect during some of the movie's more out-there scenes. I also have to call out the makeup as being unnecessarilly distracting in the case of key characters. All that said, J. Edgar is one of Eastwood's better movies in a while, and it's well worth checking out for anyone who's had an interest in the subject matter.

My Grade: B+

THE MUPPETS - It's Time To Get Things Started

2011-11-29T17:27:00.000-08:00

THE MUPPETS Review:

- For as long as I can remember, I've been a fan of The Muppets. I grew up watching The Muppet Show in syndication every day after school. Muppet Babies was my absolute favorite Saturday morning cartoon as a young kid - I hopped out of bed and ran downstairs to watch it - I even remember going to see the live stage version of the cartoon at one point. I never missed The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper, or The Muppets Take Manhattan if any of them came on TV. And I religiously watched every Muppet special that aired, from childhood and into adulthood. From the time I was a young kid, I counted Jim Henson as one of my heroes and inspirations, and even though I was very young when he died, it was one of the first "celebrity" deaths I was aware of that completely threw me for a loop. Jim Henson and The Muppets were all about imagination, entertainment, wry yet silly humor, and an overall spirit of optimism - tinged with darkness - that was and is infectious and inspiring. Jim Henson and The Muppets made me want to tell my own stories, to create. "When your room looks kind of weird, and you wish that you weren't there, just close your eyes and make believe, and you can be anywhere." For a kid growing up in small-town suburbia, that simple statement was surprisingly powerful.

I don't know that The Muppets ever really left pop-culture, but THE MUPPETS is nonetheless being billed as their big comeback. And certainly, it's been a long time since the characters were this omnipresent. And the vibe of the new movie is that of a tribute to beloved characters that have been unearthed after years - even decades - of being relegated to the cultural scrap-heap. That's both good and bad. The good is that this is a movie that, clearly, is trying to do right by these characters. It's trying to make them feel big and important and special. It's not taking anything for granted. The bad? Well, the bad is that the movie sometimes feels too much like a fan-film - and I think it's fair to say that it's a movie that's less about plot, less about doing something new - and more about creating a sort of "greatest hits" package of all that we love about The Muppets.

But for those of us who grew up with the characters, well, the script by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller is designed to push all of our nostalgia buttons. It's a classic "getting the gang back together" sort of story, and this means that the Muppet crew gets torn down so that Segel and Stoller can build them back up again. Most of the character stuff works, although I had a couple of issues. Certainly, I never saw what the legendary Frank Oz saw when he criticized the film for not keeping with the spirit of the characters. The spirit, I thought, was definitely there. The humor was definitely there. There are even those moments where, dammit all, you just may find yourself reaching for a hankie. This is definitely the Muppets, no doubt about it.

I guess my issue with the script is that a lot of it feels either arbitrary or like a retread of stuff we've seen before. For instance, while a lot of the "gathering the team" bits are great for some laughs (Fozzie is a highlight), the big plot point that drives a lot of the script - revolving around Kermit and Ms. Piggy and their fractured relationship - is lacking. And yes, I realize how semi-absurd that sounds as a I type it. But I just found it odd that the movie makes this huge deal out of separating and reuniting the couple in such melodramatic fashion, without much in the way of explanation as to why they separated in the first place. It just felt a bit rushed, contrived. And a lot of the storylines around the familiar Muppets felt similar, like Segel and Stoller had thought up some decent siutations for them, but not exactly the *best* situations, the ones that would feel perfect. Like, Gonzo running a factory that makes toilets. Sort of funny, but also random to the point of not 100% clicking. It's funny, but it didn't make me smile and say "that's perfect, that's exactly what a retired-from-showbiz Gonzo *would* be doing." And yeah, talking about the Muppets like that, again, it might sound weird. But these are beloved characters, deep characters, characters that, through the magic of the performers who bring them to life - they practically are living, breathing creatures. Maybe it was just that the backstories weren't very fleshed-out. Why would Kermit and Piggy split and not talk for years? I mean, geez, that's pretty harsh. Why would Animal go to therapy to quit drumming? Did someone force him to? Why would Statler and Waldorff sell out the Muppets to the movie's villain - we know they like to rag on stuff, but I never realized that they actually hate their Muppet companions (although later in the movie they're a part of the revitalized Muppet Show, so who knows).

But like I said, this is a movie that makes the most out of the sheer iconography and lovableness of the characters. The way it's constructed, it's awesome when the gang finally does get back together, and cleans up the old Muppet theater and sings "We Built This City (On Rock & Roll)." When we first meet Kermit, it's not just, "oh yeah, and here's Kermit." It's "and here's Kermit T. By-God Frog, the most beloved fictional character of all time, and one legendary amphibian." Segel and Stoller's Muppet fandom is palpable. The movie is, basically, one giant geek-out.

To that end, a lot of parts of the movie sort of faded in awesomeness for me the more I thought about them. Because a lot of the thrill of the movie is in the geeking-out and nostalgia. "OMG, Kermit! Fozzy! Sweetums! Rizzo! The Swedish Chef!" But what I think people will remember about the film are Jason Segel, Amy Adams, and new Muppet, Walter. Through Walter and Segel, we sort of get beyond the greatest hits and get, I think, the movie's most interest twist on the Muppet mythos - a Muppet who wants to be a Muppet but is living in the human world. And a Man who spends all his time with a Muppet, and in doing so neglects the real world - i.e. his fiance. That's why the "Man or Muppet" song in the film is perhaps it's most memorable. Here, the movie dares to posit that we're all a little bit Muppet, and in turn, the Muppets are pretty darn human. It's a neat little meta-commentary on the fiction of this world. And of course, Segel and Adams pull off their parts extremely well.

At the same time though, THE MUPPETS also transcends tribute via its hipster-cool Flight of the Conchords influence. Director James Bobin, who cut his teeth on Conchords, infuses the film with quirky energy and a slight surrealist bent that will be familiar to anyone who was a fan of FOTC. Similarly, the original songs in the film feel very, very Conchords-ish, and that's no coincidence, as they were crafted by Bret McKenzie himself. The fusion of Conchords and Muppets sensibilities proves to be a great match, as the songs are funny, clever, quirky, and catchy. Occasionally, they're even pretty out there, like when Chris Cooper - playing the movie's vile villain - bursts out in a spontaneous old-school rap session. The songs aren't necessarilly as instantly memorable and timeless as other Muppet classics, but they give the movie a fun, bouncy energy. The movie also establishes its hipster cred - and reestablishes the Muppets as alt-comedy icons - thanks to its long list of cameos. Donald Glover, Sarah Silverman, Neil Patrick Harris, Kristin Schaal, and many more show up, and stars like Rashida Jones and Jack Black play very prominent roles. The casting overall is pretty great. And certainly, while the movie will play well to kids, there's a metric ton packed in specifically designed to appeal to the Gen X and Y fans of the franchise.

And yet, I also give the movie credit for remembering to have heart. Yes, I complained a bit earlier about some of the script issues, but the movie does have a lot of little moments that tug on the heartstrings, whether it's Kermit reprising "The Rainbow Connection," or his somber song about the pictures in his head of his old Muppet pals. There's even a moment - nicely understated - where we see a photo of Jim Henson that will give some chills to any longtime Muppet fan. And really, what THE MUPPETS is ... is a great collection of fun and entertaining little moments. From Piggy karate-chopping a two-bit imitator to Animal rediscovering his love for bangin' on the drums. That's why I agree with a sentiment I've seen elsewhere, which is that THE MUPPETS almost works better as a prelude to a new Muppet Show variety show than as an argument for a new series of feature films. The connective tissue here is mostly stuff we've seen before - evil oil baron wants to tear down the Muppet Theater, and Kermit and co. have to put on a show to raise the money to stop him. As a big, big-screen-worthy movie, this isn't in the same league as The Muppet Movie or The Great Muppet Caper. But what it does a great job with is having the zany, anything-can-happen feel of The Muppet Show.

At the end of the day, this is simply one of the happiest, most fun, most feel-good movies we've seen in theaters in a long time. It's a noble effort, and its heart is in the right place. I think kids of all ages will be more than happy to share in this love letter to Jim Henson and the gifts that he gave us.

My Grade: B+

IMMORTALS: Does Tarsem Singh's Epic Achieve Glory?

2011-11-14T12:04:00.001-08:00

IMMORTALS Review:

- A few years ago, a friend of mine gave me a copy of The Fall on blu-ray. The move came highly recommended - a visual tour de force from director Tarsem Singh. I found a lot to like in the film - the movie's fantasy sequences were, visually, absolutely stunning. The movie flashed back and forth between these fantasy scenes and a more somber real-world setting, and a large part of me wished that this had just been an entire film set in that eye-popping mythological world. While the real-world elements dragged, and felt awkward - even tone-deaf - at times, the fantasy scenes showed that Tarsem was someone to watch. This was a guy who had an incredible eye for color, costumes, and perspective - a unique, new voice in film. To that end, I knew going in that IMMORTALS was going to be more than just a 300 or Clash of the Titans clone. With Tarsem at the helm, the movie would look and feel unique and special. And after seeing the movie, that is certainly the case. IMMORTALS is, once again, a visual tour de force - with psychedelic action, stunning cinematography, and an overall look and feel that is gaudy, extreme, and definitely not generic. By the same token, while Tarsem excels with visuals, he is still developing as a storyteller. Like The Fall, the pacing and overall narrative structure of Immortals feels somewhat off, and the movie rarely feels 100% cohesive. Still, these issues are not enough to totally derail the film. As sheer action-movie spectacle, Immortals delivers.

IMMORTALS is a highly-stylized take on ancient Greek myth, with an epic yet very simple story driving the action. Our hero is Theseus, a peasant whose homeland is invaded by the ruthless, conquering armies of King Hyperion. Hyperion's plan is to find and utilize a legendary bow that would make him unstoppable on the battlefield, and that also has a secondary purpose - to help free the long-imprisoned Titans of myth - fearsome demigods who once waged war with Zeus and the rest of the Olympians. So while Theseus leads a rebel faction (including a thief, a monk, and the fabled, prophetic vision-having Oracle) against Hyperion, the Olympians sit atop Olympus and wonder whether they should interfere, so as to avoid another heavenly war with their old rivals.

At least, this is sort of what I gathered to be the plot, as the movie doesn't dwell a lot on story, and even when it does, it's more about giving us melodramatic speeches and monologues than a cohesive plot. For the first several minutes of Immortals, expect to feel a bit lost. Eventually, things fall more into place - or at the least, the action picks up so we don't need to worry as much about the particulars of the plot. But this is one of those movies where I guess you sort of just have to go with the flow. A lot of things don't always make sense.

But, what does stand out is the charismatic cast, who more than ably steps up to make these heroes of myth larger than life. A couple of things stood out to me about this cast. One is that Mickey Rourke steals the show as the sadistic King Hyperion. We never find out much about the character's backstory or anything, but as played by Rourke, we do know that he's one badass sonofabitch. Rourke gives Hyperion a low, somber dialect that's brimming with barely-contained rage, and it makes all of his hate-filled speechifying that much more riveting. In short, he's awesome. The second thing that really was cool about this film was that, in my view, Henry Cavill did a great job in the lead role of Theseus. Sure, Cavill was saddled with some clunky dialogue, but he really showed some good intensity and yes, gravitas. I think fanboys will take note, because the impression I got from Immortals is that Cavill may just make for one hell of a Superman. In this film alone, he shows he's got the acting chops, the physicality, and the screen presence to be the Man of Steel.

The movie is rounded out by a pretty good supporting cast as well. Frieda Pinto for one, well, please just cast her as every exotic fantasy film female from now on, and I'll be happy. Pinto has the presence to pull off these sorts of roles with ease, and as the Oracle, she does a fine job - again, even if she's not given much to work with and is saddled with some groan-worthy dialogue. But Pinto's natural talent shines through (and no, I won't make a joke about her other, um, "assets" ... suffice it to say - men, there's your reason to see this one in 3D). The great John Hurt also turns in a nice performance as the mysterious and unnamed Old Man who materializes to give Theseus advice. I also enjoyed the performance of Luke Evans as Zeus - appropriately theatrical and melodramatic, it was an effective portrayal. A little less great? Stephen Dorff as a thief who acts a defacto sidekick for Theseus. Dorff is supposed to be the comic relief, but most of his one-liners are groan instead of laugh-inducing.

Now, Tarsem has filled his movie with some quality, larger-than-life actors, and the movie really sings when he's got them engaged in some crazy-ass action. The film's action scenes unfold in a videogame-like manner, seeming to take a lot of cues from the God of War series - replicating those games' chained attacks and elegantly-choreographed brutality. In fact, a lot of Immortals seems to follow a videogame-style logic structure. Like I said, the plot is a bit all-over-the-place and fairly bare bones, and in that respect, the movie follows some of the pacing of a game like God of War - swift, chaotic action quickly tempered by character-building "cut scenes" that serve as a brief respite between battles. Now, in a game, cut scenes provide cruscial storybuilding moments, as well as a break for your fingers. But this style of pacing is a bit awkward in a movie like this. It makes the film feel very jumpy - crazy-ass action often - and almost always awkwardly - transitioning into quieter, more dialogue-heavy scenes. Like I said though, so much of the movie is that videgame-y "find the weapon, beat the baddie - pull the crank, open the door" style of storytelling. It becomes less jarring as the movie goes along, and you realize that you're essentially watching a live-action Playstation game. At the same time though, there's a disjointedness that the movie never truly overcomes. Even simple things like "how did the characters get from Point A to Point B?" ... the movie lacks a sense of flow that ties its disaparate scenes together.

But man, even if this is just a live-action Playstation game, well, what a beautiful Playstation game it is. Tarsem colors his mythological world with gorgeous scenes of mountains, oceans, waterfalls, and fortresses. And the costume and character design is very cool - a mix of Greek myth, Eastern aesthetics, and Conan the Barbarian-style fantasy-adventure grittiness. The battles are all choreographed extremely well, and have plenty of bone-crunchingly-satisfying carnage.

Overall, there are glimpses of greatness in IMMORTALS. Mickey Rourke's memorable, villainous turn. The glimmers of action-hero awesomeness shown by Henry Cavill. And the painterly, eye-popping, brutal-yet-beautiful visuals of Tarsem Singh. If only the film had the drama, plot, and characterization to match, it could have been truly epic. So far, Tarsem Singh has proven that he is a visionary director when it comes to visuals - now he needs to match those amazing visuals with equally amazing ideas.

My Grade: B

A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS - Goodbye Whitecastle, Hello Wafflebot.

2011-11-11T16:41:00.001-08:00

A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS Review:

- You've got to love the Harold & Kumar movies. They're just inherently goofy and good-natured. So keeping with tradition, this latest H&K flick is good for some quality laughs. And it's in 3D to boot - shamelessly, hilariously in 3D, throwing all manner of cheerful ludeness right in your face. I wouldn't call this a great movie - or even necessarilly a must-see - but if you're in the mood for some lighthearted holiday silliness, you can't go wrong with this entertaining - and incredibly random - third adventure starring everyone's favorite minority stoners.

The movie opens with a tried-and-true setup. It seems that while Kumar, now pushing 30, continues to live the carefree life of the stoned-out slacker, Harold - now married and working at a high-paying Wallstreet job - has grown up and moved past his old, Whitecastle-craving ways. In the years since their last adventure, the dynamic duo has increasingly grown apart, and are no longer on the best of terms. But when a mysterious package shows up at Kumar's apartment, addressed to Harold, Kumar ventures to Harold's stately manor to drop it off, and possibly reconnect with his old buddy.

Harold is having problems of his own. His wife's huge Mexican family is staying over for Christmas, and it turns out that his father-in-law is an easily-peeved Danny friggin' Trejo. Trejo likes his Christmas celebrations to be just right, and anything less will unleash his presumably fearsome wrath (he is, afterall, Machete!). So when Kumar's visit leads to an accident that destroys Trejo's special, one-of-a-kind Christmas Tree, Harold and Kumar must once again venture out into the night together on an epic quest - a quest to save Christmas. Along the way, Kumar must struggle to prove that he can grow up and be a man. Harold tries to rediscover his inner manchild. Eventually, Neil Patrick Harris shows up, a baby tries crack, a Russian gangster tries to kill our heroes, and generally, much hilarity ensues.

Oftentimes, the movie is so all over the place and random that it feels less like a cohesive film and more like a thrown-together collection of short comedy bits. That's not necessarilly a bad thing, but it sometimes gives the film a made-for-TV movie sort of feel. The movie throws a ton of stuff against the wall just to see what sticks. This leads to some great gags (Wafflebot!), and some that are, well, not so great (Harold and Kumar's awkwardly unfunny dinner with Jewish friends). And some moments are just plain random - like a trippy claymation sequence that parodies the old-school holiday specials of yore.

But the movie has its share of memorable jokes. Neil Patrick Harris has some hilarious riffs on his status as an out-and-proud gay man. Danny Trejo and his humongous Mexican clan are the targets of some on-the-money jokes. And a scene where our heroes take on a bunch of bratty teens in a spirited game of beer-pong is a highlight, even if only for the amazing Jaden Smith joke that had me in stitches. Oh, and did I mention that there's a Wafflebot, and that it's awesome (want!)?

Kal Penn and John Cho slip easily back into their signature roles, and don't seem to have missed a beat (and the movie even playfully jabs at Penn's recent foray into politics). They've got a good supporting cast, too. There's the aforementioned Trejo, who does deadpan badassery like noone else. There's also Thomas Lennon as Harold's whitebread friend, Amir Blumenfeld as Kumar's dorky pal, and of course NPH, are all very funny. Lennon and Blumenfeld get a little lost in the shuffle once Harold and Kumar reunite, but NPH gives the movie some much-needed spark, right as it's starting to drag a bit around the 3/4 mark.

The 3D is gimmicky, but blatantly so. The movie even jokes about the fact that 3D has jumped the shark, but at least it has fun with the tech. Still, it may not be quite enough to justify the high ticket prices that 3D commands these days at the theater.

All in all, Harold & Kumar feels like a reunion with a bunch of old college buddies. Maybe not quite as awesome as you'd hoped, but it's still fun to hang out, laugh, and have some good times. The movie is hit and miss, but it's definitely filled with enough solid laughs to justify one (hopefully) last go-round.

My Grade: B

TOWER HEIST - Occupy This Movie?

2011-11-11T14:11:00.000-08:00

TOWER HEIST Review:

- Tower Heist isn't terrible - it's mildly entertaining and plenty watchable. But it's also just numbingly average, never particulary clever, funny, or exciting. It's a thoroughly average effort from a cast that deserves better, and from a director - the now-infamous Brett Ratner - whose films tend to be workmanlike and serviceable - but devoid of personality or depth.

Often, Ratner has been able to sit back and rely on talent or f/x to make his movies work. I'm an unabashed fan of the Rush Hour movies, but those were just a great showcase for Jackie Chan and his incredible martial arts maneuvers. I'm even a huge defender of X-Men 3. I enjoyed the more comic-bookish tone, outlandish characters, and over-the-top action. In both the Rush Hour and X-Men flicks, Ratner to me displayed a real knack for staging exciting action set-pieces. But Tower Heist, lacking the awesomeness of a Jackie Chan or the visual pyrotechnics of the X-movies, is just sort of bland. In a heist movie, you need to have great characters, an intriguing setup, and a well-thought-out scheme. Tower Heist never really offers a compelling heist. And the action never really escalates to Rush Hour-levels of bigness. In short, the excitement-level just isn't there. Plus, this is a heist movie *and* a comedy - featuring big name talent like Eddie Murphy, Ben Stiller, and Matthew Broderick. You need jokes and setups to match that level of comedic prowess. And sadly, Tower Heist just isn't that funny.

I put a lot of blame on the script. This is one of those movies that just never really crackles or pops. The few laughs seem to come from sheer force of will, with guys like Murphy giving their all to make the mostly weaksauce jokes zing. I know a lot of people are calling this film the return of the old-school Eddie Murphy, but this feels like a warmed-over version of the guy from so many 80's-era comedy classics. The PG13 limitations of the movie keep Murphy from ever truly cutting loose. And overall, his character here has little that's distinguishing. He's a street criminal who's been in and out of jail, who somehow grew up with Ben Stiller's character, and who knows a thing or two about pulling off a robbery. Inherently, of course, Murphy's character makes little sense in the context of the story - how is a low-level crook going to be of service in breaking into a high-security safe that's hidden away in a Trump Towers-like complex? But that could have been overlooked if Murphy was given more to do, or more memorable moments. As is, I hate to say it, but he comes off less like the Eddie Murphy of old and more like a ripoff of Leon on Curb Your Enthusiasm.

The rest of the cast is similarly overqualified and underutilized. Ben Stiller helps to anchor the movie, but he also feels a bit too reigned in. He goes from mild-mannered Hotel Manager to eager thief all too quickly. And I couldn't help but be distracted by the exaggerated New York accent he tries to pull off here. Matthew Broderick's character - a down-on-his-luck ex-Wallstreet banker - is just sort of a wet blanket here - he does his best with it, but it's just not that interesting of a character. Actually, the standout might be Casey Affleck as one of Stiller's underlings at the hotel. Affleck is always good in dramatic roles, but he shows some good comedic timing and has a lot of the movie's best scenes. Again though, it's crazy how much talent is squandered in this movie - and yet it's that level of talent that keeps the movie from being far worse. Alan Alda is the villain - a corrupt tycoon who, after roping the hotel employees into a money-absorbing investment scheme, becomes the target of Stiller's Robin Hood-esque robbery plan. And Alan Alda is awesome, as per usual. He single-handedly gives us a reason to root for Stiller and co., as he creates a delightfully slimy and hateable villain. But it's all Alda. The script gives him very few great lines or moments. But at least Alda has a lot of screentime. Meanwhile, you've got the great Judd Hirsch playing a barely-there side character. It's craziness. Michael Pena, so awesome in 30 Minutes or Less, does almost nothing. Tea Leoni is pretty good as an FBI agent investigating Alda, who takes a liking to Stiller. But after she steals a few scenes, it's disappointing that she is ultimately such a nonfactor. How about Gabourey Sidibe of Precious fame? Her character had a lot of potential to bring the funny, but those scenes you saw of her in the trailer? Yeah, those are basically her best moments in the film.

Getting back to the overall heist aspect of the film - it's just not very well constructed. We never feel like we quite know what the plan is - things just happen. There are so many plot holes that you begin to lose track. At the least though, I thought the movie might be redeemed by a great action scene or two. But there's really nothing to get excited about - no cool car chases, no intense shootouts, no big, exclamation-point moments. Eddie Murphy is a walking quip machine, but he's never given any of that great, action-movie dialogue that made movies like 48 Hours so fun. Hell, even Rush Hour had some fun back-and-forth between Chan and Chris Tucker. In Tower Heist, the witty banter is scarce, to say the least.

There's one key thing that Tower Heist has going for it (other than the stacked cast). And that one thing is that it's incredibly, surprisingly timely in terms of its overall plot and sentiment. There's definitely an initial rush that comes with the realization that the film is taking on the same themes and tropes of the whole Occupy Wall St. movement. And there's a thrill to seeing a sort of revenge story play out where it's essentially the screwed-over 99% vs. the money-grubbing 1%. And the movie is at its strongest when it's playing off of those emotions and giving us that underdog story, Stiller-as-everyman vs. Alda-as-fatcat. If the movie had taken things a step further and really played up that conflict in the script, then maybe it could have been more effective. But as is, it's a strong element of the film, but one that's hampered by this being an action-comedy. And it's too bad, because the film gets interesting when it's an underdog comedy about class warfare, but a lot less so when it's doing action, or heist stuff, or more over-the-top comedy.

TOWER HEIST is never offensively bad or anything, and it's intriguing in that it's one of the first movies I've seen that seems to directly address some of the current economic tensions going on. But, it's also just not that great of a film. Lots of good, funny actors essentially wasted thanks to a bland script (suffice it to say, it was definitely premature to call this any sort of a return-to-comedy-form for Eddie Murphy). Not much in the way of fun action. And the plotpoint at the heart of the movie - the big heist - feels rushed, slapped together, and not well thought-out by the writers or director. To use Ratner-speak, it's more of a whimper, not so much a "bang."

My Grade: C

IN TIME is Timely Sci-Fi

2011-11-01T15:28:00.000-07:00

IN TIME Review:

- There are so few hard sci-fi movies made these days, that when one comes along my interest is most definitely piqued. What do I mean by "hard' sci-fi, you might ask? I mean films that use sci-fi concepts as more than just a backdrop or setting for a story, but that, instead, actually go in-depth to explore scientific concepts beyond what exists today. Hard sci-fi is as much about *ideas* - logical ones, plausible ones - ideas spun out of real science, politics, and society - as it is plot, characters, and setting. Now, in recent years we've gotten some great entries in the genre. Moon. District 9. And now, along comes IN TIME - but is it worthy of being put into that same category of modern sci-fi classic? The film certainly can't be faulted for lack of ambition - it seems to aspire to match the high-concept sci-fi adventure of classics like Logan's Run and Blade Runner. It comes to us from writer-director Andrew Niccol, who perhaps crafted his masterpiece when he wrote the screenplay for The Truman Show, and who made 90's sci-fi flick Gattaca into a mostly well-regarded cult favorite.

In Time is very similar to Gattaca in many ways - it's got a dystopian conceit at its core, one that creates an oppressive future-world where one man is trying to buck the system. In the world of IN TIME, time itself is used as currency. The good part is that, thanks to genetic engineering - beginning at 25, your body no longer ages. You'll look and feel 25 for the rest of your life. But here's the bad news: once you turn 25, a countdown clock appears on your arm. From that point on, you have one year to live - unless you earn time like we, now, earn money. Working earns you time. You can get time at the bank, even take out a loan. But you also spend time to buy goods and services. So every cup of coffee that you buy is hours off your life. That is, unless you're one of this world's time-rich elite. In this future, you see, there is a staggering divide between rich and poor. The rich - blessed with so much time that they are essentially immortal, live leisurely lives of excess and luxury. The poor, confined to ghetto-like "zones" are separated by armed guards and fences from the rich. Most live day to day - literally. They have only one day's worth of time saved up, and if they don't get their next paycheck ... they're dead. Crime and time-theft is rampant. The poor steal, gamble, scrap, and fight to make extra time.

It's a far-fetched but incredibly intriguing concept. And the movie gives enough thought to this premise that all the in's and outs of this world are, in my mind, enough to make the film worth checking out. Even when I wasn't enthralled with the movie's plot or characters, I was fascinated with the rules and inner-workings of this crazy world that Andrew Niccol had devised.

So yeah, the core concept here is strong enough that it carries the movie, and the setup for the plot is also rife with potential. Justin Timberlake plays our hero, Will Salas. Basically, Will lives in the ghetto and lives day-to-day, making end's meat to keep himself and his mom (Olivia Wilde - singlehandedly redefining the meaning of the Oedipul Complex) afloat. One day, however, he meets a mysterious and wealthy man (Matt Bomer) who has ventured away from his home. The man, replete with time, has lived well past his natural expiration date and is looking to call it a day. But before he does, he's decided to give his time to one worthy pauper. When Timberlake's Will comes to his aid in a scrape with some devious gang members (a dapper group of rogues known as the Minutemen ...), the mysterious benefactor deems Will worthy to inherit his fortune. And so Will, long confined to a life of poverty - essentially living on borrowed time - now has all the time in the world. But his newfound time-wealth also makes Will a target of the law (the Timekeepers), who suspect him of murder. On the run, Will decides to infiltrate society's upper classes, and play the role of a futuristic Robin Hood. Will seeks out Phillipe Weiss - the man who runs the banks that control time and are responsible for its highly uneven distribution. With Phillipe's rebellious daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) in tow, Will aims to topple the oppressive class system that's left so many in this world constantly facing down death.

Again, it's a super-intriguing setup, and it's definitely a scenario that greatly reflects some of our current economic disparities. You can't help but watch this movie and think of the whole "99%" movement. Where IN TIME struggles a bit though is in making its characters more than just props in this futuristic allegory. In the last few years, Timberlake has proven that he's a capable actor - in certain types of roles. But here, because there's so much going on, the film really needed a leading actor who could convey a lot of natural intensity and gravitas. And unfortunately, Timberlake doesn't quite pull it off. This is a character who's living day-to-day, always on the edge of death, in a race for his life and full of long-simmering anger - and I just don't know that that is all conveyed in Timberlake's acting. To be fair, the script doesn't always give Will a lot of real inner motivation or depth. The plot demands that he become driven to the point where he'll risk it all to take down Weiss and become a revolutionary, but we don't get to see much of that character arc play out on screen - it just sort of happens. Same goes for Amanda Seyfried's Sylvia - her arc is a little more fleshed-out (so to speak), but still, we don't quite feel like she's playing a fully-formed character. Nor are she or Timberlake playing iconic, archetypal characters like you might see in, say, Blade Runner. That said, the guy who does sort of elevate things is Cillian Murphy as Raymond - the Timekeeper who's in dogged pursuit of Will and Sylvia. As written, the character is your typical cop who's so by-the-book that he loses sight of his moral compass. But as played by the always-great Murphy, there's a depth and cool-factor to Raymond not present in some of the film's other characters. Although, I will say that another standout is Vincent Kartheiser as Phillipe Weiss, the rich, world-weary mogul whose boyish facade belies his age and status. Like Murphy, Kartheiser gives his character depth by playing up the fact that these characters look young, but they are in fact old and have lived long lives.

The other problem with the film is the script. While the underlying premise is strong, Niccol gets too heavy-handed with all of his time-talk. Minutemen, Timekeepers, the endless array of time-related quips ... the cheesiness of it all betrays the intended seriousness of the film, and leads to a number of eye-rolling exchanges. In general, the dialogue is just awkward and stilted at times. Coupled with the rather generic-looking direction, you wonder if the movie could have benefitted from a more dynamic and stylized look and feel. You can't help but wonder what a visual master like a Ridley Scott might have done with this, because as is, the movie could use a little injection of awe and wonder. Everything is presented in such a straightforward manner visually - the world is convincing, but also kind of bland.

At the same time, I definitely enjoyed the movie overall, and it kept me guessing about where, exactly, this was all going. While Timberlake isn't a standout in the lead, he's decent enough, and the strong supporting cast helps keep things interesting. There's some exciting action, and some intriguing twists in the plot. Most of all, the movie presents to us a really cool, well-thought-out sci-fi world that is fascinating and thought-provoking. It's too bad that things couldn't have been tightened up and tweaked, that the movie couldn't have been imbued with a tad more style, drama, and gravitas. As is, this is a good movie that could have been great.

My Grade: B

A HALLOWEEN TREAT: Danny's Ultimate Horror Movie Marathon!

2011-10-31T15:13:00.000-07:00

Darkness falls across the land ... the midnight hour is close at hand ...

... and it's HALLOWEEN ...!

Hope everyone has had a great Halloween weekend and is primed and ready for a spooky All Hallow's Eve. Since Halloween is on a Monday this year, I'm sure many people will spend the night at home on the couch, possibly with a scary movie or two - or three - to set the proper mood for the evening. To that end, and because I am a veteran of several consecutive Halloween Horror Movie Marathons, I thought I'd share some of my favorite scary movies, divided into different categories for your convenience.

DANNY'S ULTIMATE HALLOWEEN HORROR MOVIE MARATHON:

OVER-THE-TOP GOREFESTS:

- EVIL DEAD 2 is, to me, the ultimate entry in this category - the perfect blend of scares, comedy, over-the-top insanity, and endlessly quotable dialogue. 2 is preferable to 1, as it's essentially a remake but with better visuals, better pacing, and sharper set pieces. And is there any better Halloween horror hero than Bruce Campbell's Ash? Nope - hail to the king, baby.

- DEAD ALIVE was a huge hit at this year's Horrorthon. It's Peter Jackson in full-on insane mode, creating jaw-dropping scenes of mass carnage coupled with Evil Dead-style wackiness and wit. the movie starts off a little slow, but just hold tight ... it soon escalates the mayhem and evolves into one of the craziest, most unbelievable massacres ever put to film.

INSANE WEIRDNESS:

- SPLICE has to be one of the most bat$#&% insane movies I've ever seen. A modern day Frankenstein fable of science-gone-wrong, the places this movie goes will have you in shock and disbelief.

- Many will claim that DONNIE DARKO is played out, but it's still an awesome Halloween-themed sci-fi mind-bender that's creepy as hell (guy in rabbit costume, anyone?). This is a great film to watch late at night and engage in some spirited post-film conversation.

- And of course, there's no better midnight movie than THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. Insanely entertaining and rewatchable, the movie is the very definition of cult classic. There's no better way to set the mood for Halloween mischief than by doing the Time Warp.

HORROR-COMEDY:

- Like peanut butter and chocolate, horror and comedy are two great genres that go together perfectly. I've already talked about Evil Dead above, but another film that's synonomous with the genre mashup is SHAWN OF THE DEAD. This whacked-out zom-com from Edgar Wright gives you hilarity, horror, and even a little pointed social commentary thrown in for good measure.

- To get a little more old-school though, you can't go wrong with GREMLINS, or even its sequel, GREMLINS 2. Both are darkly-funny 80's classics.

- Speaking of 80's classics, GHOSTBUSTERS anyone? You know who to call.

- For a slightly more overlooked 80's horror-comedy though, how about THE MONSTER SQUAD? An insanely fun kids vs. monsters romp, The Monster Squad is essentially Goonies with monsters, but is not to be missed.

- And while I'm talking about kid-friendly 80's cult-classics, I've got to mention THE LOST BOYS. Back when teenage vampires were less emo and more rock n' roll.

- YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is arguably Mel Brooks' funniest movie - a pitch-perfect parody of the old Universal horror film, with an astounding cast and more quotable quotes than you can shake a stick at.

- Finally, for inspired, possibly life-changing comedy, you must see TROLL 2. Sheer glory, this is indeed the Best Worst Movie. It's so bad, it's amazing. It must be seen to be believed. If you have not seen Troll 2, then please, watch it immediately.

ACTION-HORROR:

- If you're feeling nostalgic for the 90's, then by all means, pop in THE CROW. This goth-avenger tale of an undead superhero is still badass, and Brandon Lee still owns it. It can't rain all the time, but The Crow, for me, never gets old.

- Prequels be damned, the 80's, John Carpenter version of THE THING is another movie that mixes horror with sheer badassery. It's creepy, sure, but it's also got Kurt Russell as a grizzled ass-kicker. And an awesome score to boot.

- The sequel really ratcheted up the action quotient, but I'll also throw the original ALIEN into this category. It's one of the all-time scariest movies, but it's also a great sci-fi thriller and one of the all-time genre-defining films.

- A few years back, DAYBREAKERS really suprised me with its sci-fi take on a society run by vampires. The film goes in some pretty insane directions, and by the time it ended, I was shocked at just how far it went with its dystopian premise.

- Finally, Zack Snyder's 00's remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD is kinetic, action-packed, and a surprisingly effective update of the classic zombie franchise.

ANIMATED TREATS:

- Of course, I've got to mention NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. The classic stop-motion film is essentially Halloween-in-a-box - a gleeful celebration of all things spooky and strange.

- Similarly creepy is the more recent CORALINE. A children's fable with surprisingly sinister undertones, the kid-friendly film with a hint of goth might just leave you a little unsettled.

OLD-SCHOOL CLASSICS:

- Scariest movie ever? There's a good argument to be made for THE EXCORCIST. It's just plain scary as hell, and still works wonders decades after its release date. I still remember watching this in college, where the sheer fear factor caused people to leave the room in terror!

- You've also got to love Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING. Sure, it's a departure from the source material, but Jack Nicholson is in fine form as a deranged killer. Heeeere's Johnny!

- ROSEMARY'S BABY is a little slow, sure, but it's also incredibly creepy. Still works at eliciting a sense of sheer dread.

MODERN CLASSICS:

- Few films get an audience tensed-up like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. If you still haven't gotten onboard with these films, start with part one and prepare to be creeped-the-freak-out.

- Neil Marshall's THE DESCENT is just astonishingly well-made and scary as hell. It elicited genuine screams of terror at this year's Horrorthon, and instantly entered my cannon of stone-cold horror classics. This story of scared spelunkers confronted with horrifying cave-monsters is crazy-good.

- HOUSE OF THE DEVIL is one of my personal faves. This instant cult-classic from director Ty West creates an insane amount of tension, until eventually, all hell breaks loose. And it's also an awesome homage to 80's horror movies, complete with funky soundtrack. But don't let the retro trappings lull you into thinking this is some cheesy throwback. Far from it, this film shall scare you silly.

- Finally, Sam Raimi's DRAG ME TO HELL takes his Evil Dead formula and gives it a great new twist. Mixing comedy with scares, Drag Me to Hell is one of the best horror movies of recent years.

So what are your personal favorites? Feel free to comment with picks of your own.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN, everyone!