Movies: 2013 "Cinema & Stadium" Film Year-in-Review

2013 "Cinema & Stadium" Film Year-in-Review

It's time for my favorite blog post of the year!  I get to wrap up another great year of movie watching - this year, with an added component of what I saw on Netflix (which increased substantially).  I had planned to release my awards post last week (acting, directing, etc.) but it ended up taking longer to write than I had anticipated.  So I'm releasing both today (so the awards post here).

Once again, I'll start with my top 10 of the year, my fourth edition.  I'll then post some "miscellaneous" awards, again as I've done before.  Then I'll give brief recaps of the films that I got to see on Netflix (those that were released in theaters in 2013).  Without further ado, here's 2013 in film (enjoy!).


Top 10 of 2013:

10.  The Heat (dir. by Paul Feig; starring Melissa McCarthy, Sandra Bullock, et. al.)

This marks the first time I have a film that I didn't see in theaters in my top 10.  However, I wish that I had seen it on the big screen; The Heat is one of the funniest films in years.  McCarthy and Bullock have great chemistry, and they clearly boosted each other's performances.  While there is a good bit of improv, as is typical in recent comedies, it's well done and the writing is much, much, much better than its contemporaries (see: Anchorman 2).  Add an interesting story, good pacing and running time, and I definitely hope we see these two actresses team up for another comedy soon.

9.  12 Years a Slave (dir. by Steve McQueen; starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lupita Nyong'o, et. al.)

You're probably surprised to see this film so low on the list; it's #1 for probably a majority of critics, but my feelings have not changed much since I first reviewed it.  It does have a lot going for it, most significantly a number of powerful scenes that portray the horror of slavery as I've never seen before, and several outstanding performances (Fassbender, Nyong'o).  However, the script and directing are bizarrely disjointed and, to be honest, felt almost amateurish.  Also, though the general life of a slave is well-explored, Northup's character was strangely distant so that there's shockingly little emotion by the end.  Important film - but could have been much, much better.

8.  The Wolverine (dir. by James Mangold; starring Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, et. al.)

I had low expectations for this film, which may have added to my positive reaction to this newest solo outing for the X-Men's most popular character.  But they knocked this one out of the park.  Instead of giving us enormous yet bland stakes (no cities, let alone the world, at threat here), The Wolverine is very personal.  Instead of placing the action in another U.S. city, this is set in Japan, something they don't try to show off yet is a pleasant change of scenery.  I've seen better action, but add in a good script and tone (plus Jackman solidifying himself as one of film's superhero icons) and this was by far the best superhero film of the year.

7.  Don Jon (dir. by Joseph Gordon-Levitt; starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, et. al.)

I went to see this because I thought the premise was interesting, but this film is in no way a one-trick pony.  Gordon-Levitt may not yet be an elite actor, but he is one of the most creative and energetic forces in Hollywood today.  He wrote the script, which is quite blunt but also very funny (if you can handle the subject matter) and even pretty touching at times.  JGL could have turned this into a standard rom-com, but it doesn't turn out that way at all.  Supported by outstanding performances from Johansson and Moore, Gordon-Levitt's film is a great success and I eagerly await his next.

6.  The Great Gatsby (dir. by Baz Luhrmann; starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, et. al.)

Consider me still astounded that this latest film adaptation of Fitzgerald's classic got such mediocre (49% on RT!) reviews.  The style of this film still jumps out at me, months after I saw it, and it just fits the story - which itself gives the film a leg up to start, anyway - perfectly.  2013 was a great year for DiCaprio, and while the intensity and dominance of his Wolf on Wall Street role gives it the attention, his range is even greater here, inspiring both disgust and sympathy.  The supporting players are all well-cast, and this film is just a joy that dazzles, shocks, and even touches the heart.

5.  The World's End (dir. by Edgar Wright; starring Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, et. al.)

And a second film that I only saw on Netflix makes the list, earning a solid "A" score.  I enjoyed Hot Fuzz but wasn't astounded, so after going back and forth, decided not to see it in the theater - big mistake.  This, the last in an comedy-action trilogy, is hilarious and a pure joy, a classic film success in the form of a modern sci-fi comedy.  The writing is brilliant, and I've never seen better from the always impressive Pegg.  The World's End gets the concept of friendship better than I've seen for years, and when it turns gonzo it keeps that theme as well as its humor.  Sign me up for a fourth!

4.  Gravity (dir. by Alfonso Cuaron; starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney)

My admiration for this film has grown extensively in the months since I've seen it.  Hopefully a theater near me will show it again in 3D as the Oscars get closer.  The term gets thrown around a lot, but Gravity truly is a game-changer and an extraordinary accomplishment.  First and foremost, this movie really puts you into space (where 99.9% of the film takes place) and that setting goes from awe-inspiring to terrifying in the blink of an eye.  Bullock's physical acting is incredible; although the film's flimsy backstory falls short, she makes it easy for the audience to experience her struggle along with her.  Bravo.

3.  Prisoners (dir. by Denis Villeneuve; starring Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Dano, et. al.)

This under-the-radar (and Oscar-snubbed) film brings us right back down to Earth with a story that takes our breath away in a completely different way.  When I think about it, not a lot actually happens in this film, and the film doesn't overdramatize the main character's crucial decision, either.  But my God, is this film tense.  Just phenomenal writing, directing and acting; Jackman and Gyllenhaal's performances are the best I've seen from them.  Prisoners raises interesting questions but doesn't force feed any answers.  It's just chilling - in its subject matter and how good it is.

2.  The Butler (dir. by Lee Daniels; starring Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, et. al.)

Nearly twenty years later, Forest Gump II arrived in theaters.  That is a huge compliment - from me, at least (it's one of my top 5 films of all-time).  It's not just the structure, which follows the life story of one humble yet extraordinary man, and catches glimpses of history in the making all around him.  It is also a Hollywood drama - in the best sense - that grips your heart and won't let go.  But The Butler is no clone or remake; it has its own voice and perspective on life.  Maybe I'm just a sucker for these, but if a film can unpatronizingly portray life in a positive way, I'm in.  Also, in terms of directing:  take some notes, Steve McQueen.

1.  Zero Dark Thirty (dir. by Kathryn Bigelow; starring Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, et. al.)

Well, it was the first film I saw in 2013, but it was also the best.  Featuring the best actress of the year, Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty is an outstanding film throughout.  You really can't pigeonhole this film; yes, it's about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, as the surface (and riveting) plot.  But it's also about the struggle, courage, and determination of Maya (Chastain) who is even more compelling to follow.  It's also funny at times, chilling at others (torture),  and always interesting.  Really, though, the film just speaks for itself as the most flawless and watchable film from start to finish in 2013.  If you haven't seen it yet, do so at your earliest convenience.

Honorable mentions:  The Wolf of Wall Street; Star Trek Into Darkness; World War Z


Miscellaneous Awards

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  This Is the End (runner-up:  American Hustle)
Sadly, 2013 had many films that either disappointed (get to those in a minute) or the critics way overpraised.  12 Years a Slave was a contender but it still made my top 10 list.  David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook is quite a bit better than this year's hyped American Hustle; I think critics just automatically give the guy a pass now.  The set up was great but it just spun out of control.  This Is the End, however, takes the cake.  I would add ... of Good Comedy to the title.  There are some funny bits near the beginning, sure.  But The World's End was the only apocalypse comedy we needed this year.  If you haven't seen This Is the End yet, don't bother.

Most Underrated Film of the Year:  Monster's University (runner-up:  Oz the Great and Powerful)
You can find several severely underrated films in my top 10, but I've already gone over those.  While Oz doesn't have a bad score on RT (59%), it was a pretty impressive family film.  Monster's University also did well on RT (78%) but it seems likely Pixar is being taken for granted.  Everyone (see the box office) went gaga over Despicable Me 2, but Monster's was the better film.

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  Ender's Game (runner-up:  Anchorman 2)
Again, a distressing number of viable candidates for this award.  I also expected big things from director Blomkamp's Elysium but it was "meh".  I really need to see Anchorman 2 again because I was floored by how disappointing it was; thinking back, I probably overreacted, but its "C+" still stands and is an agonizing result for what I thought would be the savior of contemporary comedy (instead, The Heat and The World's End stepped up).  Ender's Game had phenomenal material to work with, and the visuals were the only thing it got right.  The kid who played Ender sucked, Ford phoned it in, and the screenplay was terrible.  Will be trying to erase it from my memory.

Most Surprisingly Good Film of the Year:  World War Z (runner-up:  Pain and Gain)
Fortunately, there were several of these to try to balance out the disappointing; see my top 10, again, for more (The Wolverine, etc.).  I'd also add that I wish I'd seen Pacific Rim in theaters - the effects are pretty awesome.  I got Pain and Gain on Netflix; I'm not sure why, but I'm glad I did.  Wahlberg plays himself - an asshole - and Dwayne Johnson is really impressive.  Unlike the year's worst film, it does not condone the character's abhorrent behavior, but still makes it pretty funny.  Oh, and World War Z rose from development hell to be one of the year's most exciting films, a scary sugar rush of a ride.

drum roll, please...
Worst Film of the Year:  Spring Breakers (runner-up:  Now You See Me)
I'd also like to give a (negative) shout-out to We're the Millers and A Good Day to Die Hard, neither of which I paid money to see in the theater, fortunately.  I did shell out cash for Now You See Me, and I feel robbed.  The premise sounded so cool, the actors involved so good... and then the execution was the worst I've seen in years.  To call it amateurish would be too complimentary.  But taking the cake is Spring Breakers - another that I fortunately only saw on Netflix.  Why, why, why did I watch this.  The question will haunt me for some time.  The execution, strictly speaking, is not the problem.  The problem is that it is a truly despicable (eat your heart out, Gru) film.  It basically takes many of the worst elements of today's society and says... this is so cool!  This movie made me feel sick.  Please, please avoid it at all costs.


Netflix Summary:

(from best to worst; not including the two films that are in my top 10):
42 (B+):  good historical film with solid performances from Boseman and Ford.
The Way, Way Back (B+):  slow to get going, but some great performances (Rockwell, Carell) and touching moments.
Pain and Gain (B):  this movie just kept surprising me.  It's over the top, but the tone is right.  It's also funny, and Dwayne Johnson shows some actual acting ability.
Pacific Rim (B):  solid action film.  Plot and concept are ludicrous, but the visuals are stunning and the fights actually tense.
Despicable Me 2 (B):  overrated, but it's fun.  Gee, do you think the minions tested well in their focus groups?
The Last Stand (B):  I wanted to see how well Ah-nold could still play the action hero, and he's still got it.  The story is even kind of interesting.
Admission (B-):  sloooooow, but then, it ended up not being my type of movie.  I enjoy both Fey and Rudd but they can be so much funnier than this.
The To-Do List (C+):  I like the people involved in this, and it has some funny moments, but it's very forgettable (I almost did for this post!).
The Internship (C+):  wait, was this supposed to be... funny?  Interesting premise, but there didn't seem to be much effort put into it.
White House Down (C+):  it's fun but I'm glad audiences didn't make it a hit at the box office.  We need more creativity from blockbusters (Olympus Has Fallen did the same concept much better).
We're the Millers (C-):  overly crude and it isn't even funny.
A Good Day to Die Hard (C-):  it is a good time for this series to die.
Spring Breakers (F-):  see explanation above.


Another year in the books!  I hope you enjoyed this post and hopefully have some ideas of which movies to rent/Netflix (and which to avoid).  Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree with my opinions here.  I've got a few 2014 films already lined up, so check back again next week!

Movies: 2013 "Cinema & Stadium" Awards

2013 "Cinema & Stadium" Movie Awards

Last year, I went back through the movies I had seen in 2012 and picked out my own "awards" like the Oscars.  I'm doing it again this year, for movies I saw in 2013, organized a little differently.  I have another post where I just focus on the movies themselves (top 10, miscellaneous awards, Netflix recap) but this week is about specific elements of film - acting, directing, visual effects, and so on.  I hope to be able to see many of the Oscar nominated films before the ceremony in early March, but I have some catching up to do.  I'll post who I think should win based on those nominees, a week or two before the ceremony itself.  For now, presenting various awards on the achievements and performances in 2013 films I saw (theater and Netflix; winners in bold, runners-up underlined):


Acting Awards:

Best Actor
Christian Bale (American Hustle)
Leonardo DiCaprio (The Great Gatsby)
Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf of Wall Street)
Hugh Jackman (Prisoners)
Simon Pegg (The World's End)
Forest Whitaker (The Butler)

A very strong selection to choose from this year, although many not quite as good as last year's absolutely bonkers line up (Day Lincoln, Denzel, etc.).  DiCaprio earns two spots, both wealthy New Yorkers with problems abiding the law; Leo is the (flawed) heart and soul of both his films.  Bale is physically reserved (but amusing) as a con-man, while expressing both the mind of a genius and the heart of an average Joe.  Hugh Jackman emotion and agony is so powerful it spills through the screen at you, whether in intensely quiet or startlingly violent moments.  Simon Pegg gives one of the best comedic performances in years, while somehow also making his alcoholic loser deeply sympathetic.

But it was Forest Whitaker as White House butler Cecil Gaines who topped them all.  Giving a masterfully subtle performance, Whitaker played the subdued butler (polar opposite of a glamorous, showy Hollywood role) perfectly.  Through him we felt both humility and pride in duty, joy and sorrow in family.  We wanted to yell at him (as some characters did) at times and bow to his quiet dignity at others.  Forest Whitaker was the Best Actor of 2013.


Best Actress
Amy Adams (American Hustle)
Sandra Bullock (Gravity)
Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty)
Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire)
Rooney Mara (Side Effects)
Melissa McCarthy (The Heat)

Once again, the combination of Hollywood not making many female-centered films and my not going to see many of them made for a rather small selection - but among them were great performances.  Amy Adams hypnotized us - with her cunning intelligence, irresistible seduction and fierce defensiveness - then effortlessly turned it upside down in moments of poignance and vulnerability.  Bullock brought us into bleak, unforgiving space with her, but her strength and courage kept the film - and audience - positive.  Jennifer Lawrence may need more time to grow, but she already has a commanding presence on screen and is a natural heroine.  Rooney gave us a sympathetic victim to the huge, invincible pharma industry - and then flipped the script with scandalous glee.  And Melissa McCarthy cemented her spot on top of the comedic acting world with her no-nonsense, potty-mouthed yet warm cop.

Number one among all the actresses, though, was Jessica Chastain, portraying the bin Laden hunter, Maya.  Absolutely honed into her character - just as Maya was to her mission - Chastain was more CIA analyst then actress on the screen.  While the script gave us all kinds of juicy twists and turns in the hunt for Osama, if it weren't for Maya's compelling development from hesitant, quiet analyst to determined, courageous heroine, the film wouldn't have touched the heart.  But Chastain pulls it off, and she's the best actress of 2013.


Best Supporting Actor
Paul Dano (Prisoners)
Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave)
Jake Gyllenhaal (Prisoners)
Tom Hiddleston (Thor 2 The Dark World)
Jonah Hill (The Wolf of Wall Street)
Sam Rockwell (The Way, Way Back)

There is typically an abundance of savory roles for actors each year, and 2013 proved to be no aberration.  A few actors separated themselves from the pack, though.  Paul Dano was both very, very creepy as well as incredibly pitiful as the mentally-handicapped subject of abuse.  His costar, Gyllenhaal, was also great as a proficient cop who is nonetheless tested by a dead-end case and extreme emotional pressure - spot on.  Tom Hiddleston did his best to seize the "best comic book villain" crown from the late Heath Ledger as he continues to develop as the charismatic, forgotten son, evil-to-the-core Loki.  Jonah Hill proved once again that, given a nice dramatic role, he can not only pull it off but be much funnier than he is in his traditional comedies.  And Sam Rockwell, one of the most expressive, malleable actors working today, gave an incredibly warm and funny performance in a - compared to his other characters - standard role.

There's little question, though, that the year's best supporting actor was Michael Fassbender as the brutal, damaged slave owner, Epps.  Even by the standards of a slave owner, Epps does horrible, horrible things in the film - Fassbender could easily have just been Evil and been done with it.  But Michael makes Epp human:  we gradually realize that he is mentally handicapped to some degree, and does what he does more from habit, from breeding, than by choice.  Fassbender doesn't allow us to forgive him for his actions, but he makes us think of him as a person.


Best Supporting Actress
Sandra Bullock (The Heat)
Scarlett Johansson (Don Jon)
Julianne Moore (Don Jon)
Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave)
Sarah Paulson (12 Years a Slave)
Oprah Winfrey (The Butler)

While I didn't see many films featuring a female character, there were plenty of intriguing smaller roles for actresses, including a few dynamic duos.  Sandra Bullock's comedic role this year as McCarthy's partner showed that she is capable of simultaneously backing out of the spotlight while creating a well-developed character.  Oprah Winfrey was great as Cecil's wife, Gloria; it is not easy to show the arc of a life-long relationship in a little more than two hours, but she hits the mark all along.  Moore has to be the voice of reason, while playing a strange, middle-aged widow; with little screen time, she does so.  Sarah Paulson is married to Fassbender's Epps in 12 Years a Slave, and produces perhaps even more venomous evil than her husband; thanks to circumstances, it's personal for her, and scary for us.

I couldn't decide on just one winner, so I'm giving a tie to two very different supporting roles.  Lupita Nyong'o, in her first feature film appearance, delivers a devastating performance as brutalized slave Patsey.  She carries the full weight of slavery's hell on her small shoulders, and it's one of the most lasting impressions in a film full of powerful imagery.  On the other side we have Scarlett Johansson, who pulls off the exceedingly tricky task of realistically portraying a truly empty, superficial airhead.  Many actors make their mark by showing how their characters change - Scarlett does by not changing.  Both actresses deserve heaps of praise for their disparate roles.


Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty)
Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity)
Lee Daniels (The Butler)
Paul Feig (The Heat)
Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners)
Edgar Wright (The World's End)

As I'm not sure precisely what tangible effect the director has on a film apart from others' work (actors, writers, artists, etc.), I consider excellence in this category to be those that succeed despite a high degree of difficulty, or those that make the most of the work of others (actors, writers, etc.).  Thus, Bigelow makes the grade for turning a relatively confrontation- and dialogue-light investigative film into a thrilling epic; focusing on Maya was brilliant, and the tone and pace are brilliant.  Lee Daniels takes a script that covers a man's entire life - who, by the way, worked in the White House! - and his family, along with some occasionally corny and/or melodramatic writing into a powerful, moving and sweet film.  Paul Feig realized that he had an incredible duo in McCarthy and Bullock and just let them go to work; nothing felt forced ("we have to have A, B, and C in there!") and it glides to tremendous success.  Villeneuve takes a fairly simple premise (disappearance of a child), molds the perfect tone around it and guides the performances into realistic and unsettling territory.  Wright's The World's End is just as funny as The Heat, but he seems to take a more choreographed approach - amazing, considering how bonkers the film is.

The best director of 2013, though, is Alfonso Cuaron, for his work on Gravity.  Forget Avatar - if you want game-changing cinema, this is what we're talking about.  The degree of difficulty was enormous:  no dialogue after the first ten or fifteen minutes; there's just one character for most of the film; and the whole thing takes place in space (Star Trek doesn't count - they can walk).  There is no "bad guy" - the danger isn't some awe-inspiring disaster, it's the simple black, cold of space.  But Cuaron - especially in the first half of Gravity - makes it into one of the most visually spectacular and scary/thrilling movies in years.  Bravo, Mr. Cuaron.


Best Screenplay
Mark Boal (Zero Dark Thirty)
Mark Bomback, Scott Frank (The Wolverine)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Don Jon)
Aaron Guzikowski (Prisoners)
Terence Winter (The Wolf of Wall Street)
Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg (The World's End)

A great screenplay goes a long way toward making a great film; these screenplays all prove that.  Bomback and Frank had a big challenge:  come up with yet another solo mission for the Wolverine, the most popular X-Men character yet one dragged down by his 2008 "origin" flop.  By setting it in Japan, lowering the stakes and raising the personal aspects, they succeeded brilliantly.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt not only directed and starred in Don Jon - he also wrote it.  While it's not especially complex, it's structurally very solid and puts forth its intriguing questions thoughtfully and humorously.  Guzikowski may have benefitted from having some great actors play out his script, but he did a wonderful job setting the stage for them with realistic dialogue and slow-boil suspense.  Terence Winter took the story of a Wall Street crook and played it out just like the memoir it's based on - all the highs are really high, the lows really low, and the three hour film moves along at a nice pace with great humor.  Wright and actor Pegg started out with a pretty ordinary story: old friends reunited, trying to bring back memories that just aren't the same.  And then all the shit hits the fan, yet they don't lose us in silliness, rather keep the laughs coming and the human themes as strong as ever.

The best screenplay of the year was written by Mark Boal, for Zero Dark Thirty.  He manages to accomplish so much in the script:  riveting trackdown of bin Laden; personal focus and development on the fascinating character, Maya; and a look at the front lines of the modern day "battlefield".  Boal starts the film by shocking us with the torture scene; Maya is as shaken as we are, and must choose - as we as citizens must do - what we are prepared to do to stop the bad guys lurking in the shadows.  With that question presented, the focus shifts to Maya and her amazing journey to catch the most wanted man in the world.  Think it's all mind games and theory?  Boal serves up a final surprise, an extended re-enactment of the SEAL team that got bin Laden.  An entertaining, challenging and exhilarating film, thanks largely to Boal's efforts.


Best Visual Effects
Gravity
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Pacific Rim
Oblivion
Man of Steel

Good special effects have become so common today that you need to either come up with something really amazing (Pacific Rim, Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel) or use the effects to further the story - or even be part of the story (Gravity, Oblivion, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug).  For its pioneering work and amazing 3D experience, Gravity wins the award.

Movies: Lone Survivor

Score:  **** (A-) out of *****

Long Story Short:  Lone Survivor is about Operation Red Wings, a Navy SEAL mission in Afghanistan in 2005, as described by one of those SEALs, Marcus Luttrell.  The film pursues the middle ground in the war genre, between realism (slanted this direction) and Hollywood drama.  It largely succeeds in this mission.  While the SEALs aren't fleshed out in great detail, the action is riveting, realistic, and appropriately but not simplistically patriotic.  One of the best war films in years.


Now for the first review of a 2014 film (note:  I actually wrote this on January 18, but wanted to post my 2013 year-in-reviews first - see also my review of Her).  After skimming through a few lists of most anticipated films of the year, I'm a little underwhelmed to start - but often the best films come from the least expected places.  As for Lone Survivor, I heard a few things here and there about an Afghanistan battle re-enactment film coming out the last few months, then read an article about the lone survivor himself, Marcus Luttrell.  Intrigued by these, and encouraged by a good score on Rotten Tomatoes, I went to see it.  Lone Survivor was directed by Peter Berg (Friday Night Lights, Hancock) and stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster.

Lone Survivor kicks off with a documentary-like overview of the extremely rigorous Navy SEAL training process.  Then we're taken to Afghanistan, 2005, where we meet a squad (sorry, don't know the official military term) of SEALs.  Most of them have been deployed for some time, are almost as familiar with their surroundings as they are with each other, and they let the new guys know it.  The team's commander, LCDR Kristensen, receives mission details for four of the SEALS - Lt. Mike Murphy (Kitsch), the ranking officer; SO2 Danny Dietz (Hirsch), engaged to be married; Marcus Luttrell (Wahlberg); and Matthew Axelson (Foster).  Their mission is to get to a small town in rural, mountainous Afghanistan and take out a top Taliban leader there.

As you can tell from the title of the film, not all goes as planned.  The team is forced to make a difficult, crucial decision early on and the SEALs soon find themselves isolated on a treacherous mountainside, surrounded by foes.  While brutal, relentless violence commences, mercy and humanity still have a huge role to play before the story is over.

The four SEALs of Operation Red Wings form the core of Lone Survivor's cast.  Mark Wahlberg takes the part of Marcus Luttrell.  As I've said before, Wahlberg is one of my least favorite actors, but I have to give him credit here for doing a decent job, one of his best performances I've seen.  His role gets bigger as the movie goes along, as you might imagine, and Wahlberg above all is convincing as a strong man in physical, mental and emotional distress.  To be honest, Emile Hirsch and Taylor Kitsch looked so similar in their beards that it took me a while to tell them apart.  Both actors also do well - Hirsch's Dietz has the only real backstory (his engagement), while Kitsch is the leader of the group.  Foster has the smallest role; as tough as he was in 3:10 to Yuma, it makes sense that he'd do well in this type of role, too.  A few notable supporting roles include Eric Bana, a good fit as the SEAL squad commander; Yousuf Azami, playing the fearsome Taliban leader; and Ali Suliman as an Afghan whose role I will not spoil if you haven't seen the film yet.  Overall, a strong cast; maybe nothing Oscar-caliber, but there aren't any weak links, either.

Lone Survivor is a brutal, realistic-seeming re-enactment of a true story - also one that respects the roles of all those involved, and adds a little Hollywood flourish sprinkled in as well.  What hit me first, without showing off about it, was how authentic all the details felt.  Yes, there's the battle which I'll get to, but also everything from the banter of the SEALs at the beginning - while they spoke English, the jargon used made it difficult to understand for a civilian, apart from their tone and body language - to the beautiful yet harsh landscape (if they used any green-screen, I sure couldn't tell), to the equipment, and so on.  The main battle - which must last 30 minutes, although it's hard to tell because you're gripping your chair so tightly - is harrowing and, again, seemingly realistic, yet also filmed in a way that is much easier to follow than other similar movie sequences.  You definitely get the message that these guys are elite warriors, using strength, speed, training, intelligence, high-tech gear - and, yes, a little Hollywood exaggeration - but while there's some feeling of hope to start, there's also a growing sense of doom as the battle goes along.  The Taliban may not be as strong, well-trained or well-armed, but they had the numbers and knowledge of the terrain.  The ending was of the type easily botched by many Hollywood films, but to everyone's credit (director, writer, actors, etc.), it holds up just fine.

***

As with many film genres, war movies are tricky to make so that they both appeal to a mass audience and hold together.  There are some that go more for the ultra-realistic take, popular appeal be damned, and are good, like Black Hawk Down.  Then those that go the "Hollwood-ized" route, some good (The Patriot), some not so good (We Were Soldiers).  Some dare for a balance, and Saving Private Ryan is the gold standard here.  Lone Survivor is more grim and at times realistic than SPR, but it still achieves a similar kind of success.  It isn't right - or particularly accurate - to say LS is entertaining, but it is riveting and watchable for a pretty large audience (plenty of violence, yes, but the gore is kept to a reasonable level).  We don't get to know the characters all that well, which keeps it from an "A" score (something SPR did brilliantly, plus Tom Hanks >>>>>>> Mark Wahlberg).  On the other hand, Lone Survivor is a nice tribute to the Afghanistan conflict overall, showing the bravery and good intentions (if not always results) of American forces and the complexity and wide range of reactions to the occupying force by the Afghans.  One of the best war films I've seen, and highly recommended.

Movies: The Wolf of Wall Street

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Martin Scorsese's latest collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio hits theaters, a wild ride through the life of a Wall Street bandit.  DiCaprio puts you right in the thick of Belfort's explosive life, fully earning the film's R-rating with plenty of sex, drugs and language.  In addition to serving as a look at the man's life, though, these aspects actually generate quite a bit of humor, using a somewhat light-hearted tone.  If you can handle it, go see it and let DiCaprio's performance knock your socks off.


Here it is:  my last review of a movie released in 2013.  There were some films that I was tempted to see in the theater but decided not to; many of them I have now seen via Netflix, but not all.  It was a record year of filmgoing for me, which I'll get into more detail in another post.  Next week I'll have my own nominations for various awards (mostly acting), and the following week will be my top 10 of 2013, along with brief reviews of what I caught on Netflix and some miscellaneous awards (underrated, overrated, etc.).  I already have my eye on a few new 2014 releases, but first, The Wolf of Wall Street.  This went under the radar for me until recently, despite being a Scorsese film.  I've enjoyed other Wall Street/financial industry films, and I've enjoyed DiCaprio-Scorsese collaborations, so the decision was made.  The Wolf of Wall Street was directed by the aforementioned Martin Scorsese, and stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill.

Narrated by the main character, Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), the "Wolf" is introduced at the height of his power for a few minutes at the beginning.  The rest of the film shows his rise, reign, and trials.  An eager, earnest youngster, Belfort shows up in New York City in the mid-1980s hoping to strike it rich on Wall Street.  He starts at the bottom, working for broker Mark Hanna (McConaughey), a man Belfort soon aspires to emulate.  Belfort works his way up fast thanks to hard work and natural sales man skills - but the firm he's working for goes under due to 1987's "Black Monday".

Belfort is almost resigned to letting his old dream of riches die when he finds a little office selling penny stocks.  At first scornful, Belfort begins to realize that there is an even easier way to the riches he so desires.  Working with neighbor Donnie Azoff (Hill), a fellow salesman, and a few others, Belfort begins to live his dream and shows all the decadence, lust, abuse, power, control - and yes, even humor - that went with it.

The Wolf of Wall Street has an impressive cast list - but make no mistake, this is Leonardo DiCaprio's movie.  Since this film is about his character's life, there's only one substantial scene, and less than ten minutes overall, that I can remember without him in it.  So if he stunk, the movie would, too.  Fortunately, Leo knocks it out of the park as scumbag Jordan Belfort.  He really throws himself into everything, from the business aspects to Jordan's personal life to his seedy - OK, immoral - leisure activities (the joy seemed so genuine, in fact, that I started to get a little worried about the actor's own personal life).  A good bit of his performance is showy - but remember, he's playing one of the most arrogant, power- and wealth-hungry individuals in the country.  He gives stirring speeches, gut-busting comic scenes, and even some moving emotional parts.  Bravo, Mr. DiCaprio.

The next biggest part (which is much, much, much smaller) is Belfort's friend and business partner, Donnie (Jonah Hill).  As with Moneyball, Hill shows some real acting chops - and he's also much funnier here than in his recent straightforward comedies like This Is the End.  I'm not sure Hill is a good choice for many leads, but in this kind of supporting role, he is dynamite.  The parts start to get quite small here on out, so here are some brief notes:  Kyle Chandler is likable and believable as Belfort's FBI hound (especially in a scene on a yacht)... Margot Robbie, besides being stunning to look at, does a nice job acting as Belfort's trophy wife... Rob Reiner is excellent and, unsurprisingly, hilarious as Belfort's dad... and McConaughey has basically one scene but it's a powerful one.

Wow, I was not prepared for what this film would be like.  If you find lots of graphic sexual content (much of it pretty crude), copious drug use, and/or lots of swearing (broke the record for number of F-bombs in a mainstream non-documentary film, according to Wikipedia) to be deal breakers... well, you should probably skip this.  In Wolf's defense, the tone is similar to American Hustle:  if they aren't going for a laugh every time, it at least doesn't get too dark or gritty.  Beyond the R-rated nature of the film, it seems to have two main objectives:  to show the audience the mindset of a self-made gajiollionaire and to make you laugh.  It succeeds on both levels.  I've already told you about DiCaprio's great performance but there are a lot of other interesting aspects from the way people around him act to the financial industry culture.  I don't believe every Wall Streeter is a Belfort in hiding, but it is easy (and scary) to believe that many succumb to what Belfort (the film is based on his memoir) did.  Even though some of the humor was a little too crude even for me, most of it was hilarious, even funnier than American Hustle.  Scorsese's trademark soundtrack also is present, but here Russell out-Scorseses the man himself in Hustle.

***

As I've already hinted at, there are plenty of comparisons between The Wolf of Wall Street (WWS) and American Hustle (AH).  While I prefer this film to AH, there are also some things that keep it from an "A" score.  The plot details of WWS and AH are significantly different, but both boil down to main characters making a living from cheating other people.  WWS is able to focus on just one man, where AH gets diluted by four main parts (two of which eventually spin out of control).  Both have a similar "let's have fun!" tone, although AH, especially by the end, is certainly the more optimistic/positive of the two.  WWS's superior script and more even performances are ultimately what put it ahead for me.  Still, I should mention that, while WWS is gripping throughout, it's also long:  a full three hours.  There aren't any particularly weak spots that needed to be cut, but for the good of the whole it should have been 2.5 hours at most.  And while I commend WWS's focus on Belfort's rise and fall, it nevertheless kept the film somewhat limited in its results (i.e.: the brain over the heart).  Those caveats aside, The Wolf of Wall Street is a great film.  If you can tolerate the R-rated stuff, I highly recommend it.

Sports: NFL Playoffs Divisional Round

NFL Playoffs:  Divisional Round

Well, it wasn't a great weekend for my predictions - but more importantly, it was a great weekend to watch the games.  Two of the games were decided by field goals at the very end, and the Chiefs-Colts game was the most entertaining I've seen in years (possibly top 5 all-time).  Really, only the 49ers-Packers game went as I thought it would.  Chiefs-Colts was just bonkers and defied everyone's expectations.  The Saints showed great patience and resilience while the Eagles were ineffective and went away somewhat meekly.  And the Bengals were snake-bitten by a few crucial plays (esp. RB Bernard's fumble) that went against them, plus the miserable play of QB Andy Dalton.

Hopefully we'll get a similarly entertaining weekend for this round.  Although as long as the evil TTSNBN is vanquished, I will be happy.


AFC:

Indianapolis Colts @ TTSNBN
Saturday, 8:15 PM ET

Talking about TTSNBN makes me feel ill, unless it's about how they've just lost, so let's try to jinx them and move on.

Prediction:  TTSNBN - 34; Colts - 20

San Diego Chargers @ Denver Broncos
Sunday, 4:40 PM ET

Ooh, here's a doozy to pick.  There are perfectly rational arguments to be made for either team to win.  On the one hand are the underdog Chargers - they've already beaten the Broncos in Denver this year, and only lost by 8 in their other meeting.  Plus, the Chargers have won five straight including last week's convincing defeat of the Bengals.  On the other hand, the Broncos are the highest scoring team in regular season history, and their QB has broken the single-season yard and TD records.  They went 13-3 in the regular season, and consistently looked dominant.  So which of these arguments prevails?  Since it's almost a tie in my head, I'm going to go with my gut and say the Chargers; I think people are more likely to ignore their advantages and be shocked if/when the upset occurs.  (But I'm rooting for the Broncos!)

Prediction:  Chargers - 28; Broncos - 24


NFC:

New Orleans Saints @ Seattle Seahawks
Saturday, 4:35 PM ET

These teams have already played this year, and it was NOT pretty for New Orleans, a 34-7 beat down. The Saints didn't even get 200 total yards on offense; they had as many rushing yards last week as they did in that game.  Of course, the Saints probably shouldn't count on Brees having one of his usual 300-400 yard passing games because the Seahawks have the #1 pass defense in the league.  On the other hand, the Seahawks' offense seems to be in need of some WD-40 recently, especially after their final home game, a 17-10 loss to the Cardinals.  I would be surprised if either team (particularly the Saints) won big in this one.  We know the Saints have a great offense and the Seahawks a great defense; but what will happen in the reverse roles?  That's where the game will be decided.  With an amped up Seattle crowd cheering them on, I'm betting (only figuratively) the Seahawks here.

Prediction:  Seahawks - 23; Saints - 17

San Francisco 49ers @ Carolina Panthers
Sunday, 1:05 PM ET

When these teams played in week 10, both were on a roll.  The difference was that the 49ers were a proven squad, having made the Super Bowl last year, and the Panthers were still being questioned due to their 7-9 record in 2012.  Well, the Panthers went on the road and slugged it out in a defensive battle, coming out on top, 10-9.  It ended up being huge not only in helping them win the NFC South but also preventing the 49ers from winning the NFC West.  As the week 10 meeting revealed, the teams have a lot of similarities.  Both have athletic QBs who are capable of brilliance, but also of long streaks of 3-and-outs and turnovers.  Both have physical, aggressive defenses.  I think the 49ers win, primarily because of experience but also, strangely, because they got to play last week.  San Francisco got to keep its momentum going last week (its 7th straight win), while the Panthers rested but also maybe had too much time to think about its first year of relevance in a while - and as the home "favorite".

Prediction:  49ers - 27; Panthers - 13


Let's hope for another good weekend of football, and above all else... GO COLTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Movies: Anchorman 2

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (C+)

Long Story Short:  Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell and co. return for the highly anticipated - and highly marketed - Anchorman 2.  All the old friends are back plus some new ones, but unfortunately the film serves to prove the saying that you can have too much of (and try too hard to make) a good thing.  Ron and co. are fun, but it's over the top in an overly scripted way, lacking the original's cleverness and spontaneity.  Disappointing.


The review for the last of my highly-anticipated 2013 films arrives this week, and there will be at least one, possibly two more new reviews before my annual movie review.  I've started to get a peak at what's coming in 2014, and so far I haven't seen a lot that gets me too excited - now 2015, that's another story.  We'll get there when we get there, though.  Anyway, when I first saw Anchorman nearly 10 years ago, I liked it a lot.  It wasn't my favorite Will Ferrell (probably my favorite contemporary comedian) film, but it was in the top tier.  As most of you reading this surely know, the film developed a cult status that far surpassed its box office success - "The Legend of Ron Burgundy" was fulfilled.  Of course, I was excited to see what they could come up with when I heard a sequel was coming out.  Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues was directed by Adam McKay and stars Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Christina Applegate, et. al.

You want a plot overview?  Go back and watch the first, then substitute gender competition with adaptation to a new media landscape (aka 24-hour news).  I don't say this in a negative way, but rather because A) it's Anchorman and the plot really doesn't matter and B) I want to give away as little as possible since surprise is such a key ingredient in comedy.

In addition to bringing all the major players back from the first, Anchorman 2 invites a small army of new supporting players and cameos.  Reprising his role as the lead, Ron Burgundy, is of course Will Ferrell.  As much as I like Will, and as much as I like him playing Ron... his performance kind of encapsulates what I felt about the movie as a whole.  He wasn't bad, but the unique energy, spontaneity, and excitement he brought to the first are strangely suppressed if not absent.  He's still fun but rather than being "the Ron Burgundy", he feels more like an ordinary comic lead in the sequel.  Steve Carell, playing the idiot Brick, has a significantly bigger role this time.  Carell/Brick was hilarious in the first, but seeing this perhaps it was better to keep him a fringe player.  The parts focusing on him are some of the funniest in this film, but they contribute to making the film too off the wall.  To complete the old News Team, Paul Rudd is once again great, although his role is as small as in the first; and David Koechner is still pretty funny, but they make his character a little too loony.

Christina Applegate returns as Ron's wife Veronica and fellow news anchor.  She gets a much, much smaller role here to make room for the new people; she's really here for the plot (such as it is) rather than for comedy.  Most of the new roles are those from the new 24-hour broadcast network ("GNN").  Best is Kristen Wiig; she's my favorite female comedian right now.  All I will say about her role is that she has the good fortune to meet Brick.  Also featured are Meagan Good as GNN manager Linda and James Marsden as hot-shot news host Jack.  Meagan is quite good, and goes toe-to-toe with Ferrell several times during the film; her part is one of the film's strongest elements.  Marsden's Jack, however, is a fairly lazy part primarily used for one big but not particularly funny joke.  Finally, there are a lot - a shocking number, really - of cameos.  I hope you haven't spoiled them for yourself if you haven't seen it yet, but I won't be giving them away here.

Anchorman 2 is about as blunt a movie as I've seen in the last several years.  I don't mean that as a positive or a negative, but it has just one goal for every second of its run time:  to make you laugh.  Thanks to that determined, relentless mission, it did make me laugh a decent number of times.  The problem is that Anchorman 2 was not made as a smart bomb in addition to the carpet bomb.  The sequel recycles some of the most famous scenes from the original, and it also comes up with a few clever new ideas of its own.  None of that is necessarily problematic - unfortunately, Anchorman 2 completely whiffs on the tone of the original - a pleasantly spontaneous, generally good-natured but tastefully potty-mouthed (is that possible?  If so, it was), mostly chuckle-producing but the hilarious parts sucker punched to maximum effect.  Anchorman 2 tries so, so hard to make you laugh hysterically every single minute of the film, and most of the jokes are a strange combination of too scripted yet not polished enough.

***

This is a difficult film to review.  First of all, for the first time in a long time I had an unpleasant theater experience (not my local theater!) with the people right behind me talking through significant portions of it.  So it's possible I missed a few good jokes and/or didn't appreciate some as much I should have.  I also love Will Ferrell and perhaps had too high of expectations for this film.  Still, I was disappointed enough that I was determined to watch the original Anchorman again to see how big the differences really were.  I concluded that the differences were substantial.  The original felt much more organic, fresher, smarter, and - the biggest indicator - funnier.  Not to mention, it had a sensible hour-and-a-half running time as opposed to the sequel's two hours.  Anchorman 2 isn't all bad, not by a long shot.  I think they had a great premise, the core is all back and they're really fun (even if they aren't given/give as good of material).  And a second viewing may also improve my opinion.  But this should have been much better.

Sports: NFL Playoff Preview

NFL Playoff Preview

Another wild, crazy, and fun NFL regular season has concluded, and now it's time for the even more enjoyable playoffs (that is, as long as TTSNBN loses again).  After the Super Bowl, I'll do a more comprehensive overview, including a look at how my projections turned out - and I'll also probably include a review of how the Australian Open in tennis went.  For now, I'll make my predictions of who will win each playoff game.  This year, rather than make one set of predictions at the very beginning, I'll predict each game that is scheduled to play before the weekend and conclude with which teams look most likely to make the Super Bowl.

AFC:

San Diego Chargers (9-7) @ Cincinnati Bengals (11-5)
Sunday, 1:05 PM ET

These clubs converge having both won five of their last six games.  They also played each other already this year, with the Bengals winning in San Diego, 17-10.  On the surface, it looks like Cincy is the clear pick here:  not only did they beat the Chargers previously, but they had the better overall record and San Diego barely made the playoffs after barely beating Kansas City's second-stringers.  Still, this team beat both Denver and Kansas City (with its starters playing) in the second half of the year, and Philip Rivers has played quite well after some down years.  Still, Cincy has been blowing teams out at home, and their defense is fearsome.  QB Dalton is a question mark, but in the first round at home, they should win.

Pick:  Bengals - 31; Chargers - 20

Kansas City Chiefs (11-5) @ Indianapolis Colts (11-5)
Saturday, 4:35 PM ET

Once again, these teams have a rematch of an earlier game this season (which the Colts won, 23-7).  While both teams finished 11-5, the Chiefs lost five of their last seven while the Colts won five of their last seven.  After finishing at the bottom of the NFL last year, it seemed the Chiefs had risen to near the top of the league, winning their first nine games.  The Colts, meanwhile, seemed to perhaps overachieve last year, but quietly won the division this year regardless.  The Chiefs are a very solid team, but I saw the Colts-Chiefs game earlier this year and the Colts won it quite convincingly.  Andrew Luck is already one of the NFL's best QBs, while if the Chiefs fall behind by more than 10, I can't see Alex Smith leading a comeback.  Home team should win, again.

Pick:  Colts - 27; Chiefs - 17


NFC:

New Orleans Saints (11-5) @ Philadelphia Eagles (10-6)
Saturday, 8:10 PM ET

For much of the year, it seemed like the Saints had the NFC South locked up - but the Panthers kept winning, and took it from them.  Meanwhile, the Eagles eventually stepped up to the plate and claimed the title in the NFC East, one of the worst divisions in the league this year.  Honestly, I haven't seen either of these teams play much this year, so I don't have much clue beyond their records and team stats.  The Saints are once again a much better at home than on the road (especially in cold cities) - but they also are led by one of the best QB-coach teams in Brees and Sean Payton.  The Eagles pin their hopes on newbie QB Foles and coach Chip Kelly (formerly a college coach).  This should be a very entertaining game either way, but I think the odds are better that the Eagles can ride star RB McCoy to the win while containing the Saints' deadly offense with sacks - and more importantly, cold weather.

Pick:  Eagles - 35; Saints - 24

San Francisco 49ers (12-4) @ Green Bay Packers (8-7-1)
Sunday, 4:40 PM ET

These teams met in week 1 - basically a rematch of last season's playoff game.  Both games were won by San Francisco.  However, now both teams look different than when they last met.  The Packers are just working QB Rodgers back in after almost two months missed due to injury, but they've developed RB Lacy in a strong running game.  The 49ers had some stumbles as well as QB Kaepernick has struggled for consistency.  The difference will likely come down to defense; San Francisco has been strong again this year, while Green Bay has one of the weaker units in the league (not helped by injuries).  This game might be the hardest to watch of the weekend (at least for those of us who prefer offense to defense), but the 49ers will grind out the "upset" win.

Pick:  49ers - 23; Packers - 14


Super Bowl Favorites:

In my preview of the 2013 season, I picked Denver and Seattle to meet in the Super Bowl.  As the #1 seeds, they look primed to get there, but in the last ten years or so, shockingly few top seeds have actually made it to, let alone won, the Super Bowl.  On paper, I'd still pick them as the favorites.  Based on recent trends and intuition, I'd say Indianapolis and San Francisco seem to be the most intriguing clubs from Wild Card weekend.  We'll see!