Movies: Zero Dark Thirty

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow returns to the big-screen with another Oscar nominee in Zero Dark Thirty.  Zero lives up to the hype with an intense, realistic narrative of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and, equally as impressive, a brilliant lead performance from Jessica Chastain as the CIA officer who just wouldn't give up.  Come for Chastain, and brace yourself for the riveting ups and downs (culminating in the SEAL Team Six raid) in the hunt for bin Laden.


This is the kick-off to the 2013 film season, and we start off with an Oscar nominee in Zero Dark Thirty.  Technically, this film was released in 2012, but was only released widely in January so that's why I'm counting it as 2013.  There were a number of factors leading me to see this, besides the fact that it's gotten such good reviews and Oscar nominations.  The subject is an interesting one, and I had missed the director's Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker, from what I can tell a similar film, from a few years ago.  Zero Dark Thirty was directed by Kathryn Bigelow and stars Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, and several actors you'll recognize in smaller roles.

Zero Dark Thirty opens with a dark screen, playing audio clips from emergency calls placed during 9/11.  Then we are taken to 2003, where Maya (Chastain), a young CIA officer, has just been assigned to an unnamed "black site" in Pakistan.  There she witnesses first-hand the repeated interrogation and torture of a key al-Qaeda captive.  Shaken by the methodology at first, Maya is soon latches onto the first link in a chain that she believes could lead her to Osama bin Laden.  Dan (Clarke), the officer who introduced her to work in the field, is sent back to Washington and Maya takes the hunt for bin Laden fully onto her determined shoulders.

Despite an increasingly hostile working environment in Pakistan, and an administration in Washington determined to shut down interrogation techniques that were invaluable to the CIA, the young officer only grows more tenacious and skilled in her daunting mission.  You may recognize some scenes along the way that made the news (including the terrorist attack written about in the book The Triple Agent), and when you finally see bin Laden's compound, an eerie yet satisfying tingle crawls up your spine.

With an ultra-realistic, almost documentary feel, the cast of Zero Dark Thirty had to be good, and fortunately, it is.  First and foremost is Jessica Chastain as Maya, who absolutely knocks it out of the park.  The main topic of the film is the hunt for bin Laden, but parallel to that (and perhaps more important) is the nuanced evolution of Maya, and Chastain truly brings her to life.  From the early torture scenes, where Chastain shows Maya's discomfort yet determination to stick to it, to her frustrations after numerous setbacks, to controlled yet impassioned arguing with her superiors to keep on the hunt, the actress creates one of the best hero/heroines in recent film history.

Chastain is supported by some other good performances, too.  Jason Clarke as Dan, the interrogator/ torturer, has clearly become accustomed to treating captives as sub-human yet he clings to some shreds of normalcy in a believable way.  Kyle Chandler is great as a top bureaucrat, supporting his officers at times but ultimately bending to whatever he feels is best for his own career.  Mark Strong, a villain in so many films, is also very good as a CIA official whose feelings on Maya's mission evolve in the way Chandler's bureaucrat could not.  There are some other notable appearances, but the last I'll mention is Chris Pratt (Andy from Parks&Rec) as a member of the Navy SEALS squad.  It was a bit difficult for me to see Andy, er, Chris as a Navy SEAL, but his presence added a touch of lightness to an otherwise incredibly tense, sometimes brutal finale.

Zero Dark Thirty is a deadly serious film; it does not dramatize the story in the way that Argo often did (not to say either is right or wrong, just different).  At the same time, it is not a dark or depressing film, which is quite an accomplishment.  Yes, there are the torture scenes (water boarding), but they do not set the tone of the film; Zero gives you a glimpse of what it's like, then later offers tough questions about it.  Yes, there are some sudden, terrifying attacks (by both good and bad guys).  But all of this is placed within the context of Maya's journey, and her indomitable spirit buoys the audience.  I would also argue that the violence/action is well balanced to convey its genuine danger and context.  There are even touches of humor here and there, which, importantly, all fits well with the tone of the film (no wink wink, nudge nudge).

***

As I've already mentioned, there are comparisons to be made between Zero Dark Thirty and Argo.  Incredible stories of clandestine American activities in central Asia.  Great tension.  Impressive supporting casts.  However, the main reason why Argo is an A- and Zero Dark Thirty is an A (with potential for A+ if it holds up over time) is Ben Affleck vs. Jessica Chastain.  Chastain gives a Navy SEAL-like performance, while Affleck is more like campus security.  I can't really think of much more to say about the film; it's just really well done.  Perhaps it starts to drag just a little, but in a way that's appropriate in reflecting Maya's long, agonizing mission.  And once the bin Laden raid starts, time ceases to be a factor.  A final note:  between the current favorites for Best Picture Oscar, I favor Lincoln over Zero Dark Thirty, but both are perfectly worthy (I would still choose Life of Pi over either, but it doesn't stand a chance).  Highly recommended.

Movies: 2012 Review

2012 Films in Review

It's time for my favorite post of the year - counting down my top ten of the past year, plus other stuff!  It turned out that my little Academy Awards experiment failed miserably, so I'm just going to tell you who I would vote for :-)  I'll also have the miscellaneous selections as well (worst of the year, films seen on DVD, etc.)  Now for the top ten!

10.  Django Unchained (dir. by Quentin Tarantino; starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, et. al.)

So, I'm cheating this year by having eleven films in my top ten, but it was such an excellent year I think it's appropriate.  Django certainly kept up cult-favorite director Tarantino's standard of high quality, but there is some slippage from 2009's Inglourious Basterds.  Still, an extended ending that I did not enjoy and a somewhat uninspired plot are made up for by a great cast (esp. Sam Jackson) and by indulgent moments of fun and humor that Tarantino usually seems to minimize in such straightforward forms.

10.  Argo (dir. by Ben Affleck; starring Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, et. al.)

Poor Argo; it was released at the very beginning of an extraordinary run of films this fall that perhaps has led to me to underrate it - even the Academy snubbed it by denying Ben Affleck a best director nomination (total injustice).  What I do remember from this film is the great tension, specifically at the beginning and end of the film, the very realistic-feeling portrayal of Iranian society, and - mixed in very successfully - some great Hollywood humor (thanks, Arkin).  Only criticism:  Ben Affleck, please stop casting Ben Affleck as the main character in your films.

9.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (dir. by Peter Jackson; starring Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen,  Richard Armitage, et. al.)

It seemed like money in the bank that The Hobbit would end up as one of the best films of 2012... and probably in another year it would be in my top 5, but not this year.  To me, it's crucial to start by saying that Jackson instantly recaptured the feeling and tone (visual, pacing, etc.) of his LotR trilogy, an essential but by no means easy task.  And the casting of Freeman as Bilbo was simply brilliant, honestly just as appropriate as DDL as Lincoln (and Gollum returns!).  But it does drag with a bit too much extended-edition footage, and the last act showed us again how too much CGI can take you out of the experience.

8.  Skyfall (dir. by Sam Mendes; starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, et. al.)

I saw this again recently, and interestingly, my thoughts on it remain virtually unchanged.  Skyfall is one of the best-made 007 films ever (that's 23 films over 50 years).  It is tightly paced, very well shot (some of the most beautiful scenes in a visually-exceptional series), great performances, and some classic Bond action, and one of the best theme songs in the series.  But... I just can't fall in love with this one, despite loving 007 in general.  I can't put a finger on why that is yet, but to me, Casino Royale still easily retains its title as best 007 ever.

7.  Hope Springs (dir. by David Frankel; starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, and Steve Carrell)

If you had told me at the beginning of 2012 that this film would end up in front of The Hobbit and Skyfall, I would have laughed.  But this quiet little film - totally ignored by the Academy - is really a great one.  Hope Springs's key to success is two-pronged:  a tight focus on its subject, and outstanding performances by the leads, veterans Streep and Jones.  The film shifts effortlessly and naturally between genuine grief and uncomfortable hilarity.  I love Carrell, but he really is just an audience here to two of cinema's finest ever giving it their best.

6.  The Perks of Being a Wallflower (dir. by Stephen Chbosky; starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, et. al.)

One of my personal favorites of the year, this was considered an Academy dark horse but, like Hope Springs, was ignored.  Maybe I'm just a sucker for nostalgic, coming-of-age films - on the other hand, if not done well, they're excruciatingly bad.  This one does have flaws, and near the beginning seems to be headed along a cliched path, but fortunately it veers well away from that.  Ezra Miller is remarkable here, and Watson shows she has post-Hermione potential.  This film is funny, clever, and produces chills up your spine from recalling your own high school experiences (good and bad).

3.  The Avengers (dir. by Joss Whedon; starring Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Tom Hiddleston, et. al.)

Here I have a three-way tie; I simply can't put one ahead of the others when taking everything into consideration.  For this film, I honestly think that Joss Whedon deserved a Best Director nod.  The degree of difficulty putting so many superheroes, so many stars into one coherent film with the pressure of soaring expectations was unbelievable.  But he did it:  he made possibly the most fun superhero film ever (I didn't say the best overall).  Whedon understood and took full advantage of the strengths of not only the actors but also their characters, elevating the film way above its dull plot.

3.  Flight (dir. by Robert Zemeckis; starring Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, John Goodman, et. al.)

The theme of 2012 - exceeding expectations - continues in full force with this film.  Made to look like an action film by the trailers, the scene that everyone knows about happens at the beginning - it's even more impressive than you think - and then it shifts into a very personal, down-to-earth drama.  Denzel is absolutely terrific, giving the best performance I've seen from him.  His character inspires praise and/or sympathy at times - and a minute later, equally deep loathing and contempt.  His nuanced role is supported by the most well-rounded film of the year.

3.  The Dark Knight Rises (dir. by Christopher Nolan; starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, et. al.)

In a way, this might be the most flawed film of the three... but it's also my favorite.  Nolan's Bat trilogy is now among my favorites (Star Wars, LotR, Indiana Jones...) and my anticipation for Rises could not have been any higher.  So inevitably I was a little disappointed on first viewing - but I was also more excited to buy and rewatch it on DVD than the other 2012 films.  The film is certainly an epic - and ultimately, to me, very satisfying - conclusion to the trilogy.  Bane is no Joker, just as The Dark Knight Rises is not simply The Dark Knight with new characters, and it was a great decision not to try.

2.  Lincoln (dir. by Steven Spielberg; starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, et. al.)

Hollywood brought out the big guns for this one.  Director Steven Spielberg (my own favorite).  The best living actor (Daniel Day-Lewis).  And the most celebrated U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln.  The temptation to make a sprawling Civil War/emancipation pic must have been strong - but the story zeroes in on just one month, and the fierce battles are not at Gettysburg but in Congress.  There was Lincoln's greatest challenge and greatest achievement.  Day-Lewis, as I've said, is Lincoln for all intents and purposes, and the film is every bit the triumph it was expected to be.

1.  Life of Pi (dir. by Ang Lee; starring Suraj Sharma and Irrfan Khan)

2012 was filled with soaring adventure films from massive franchises, epic dramas with spectacular performances, and near-perfect little indie gems.  Yet my favorite of them all is this adaptation of a book I first read in high school.  As superb a job as Whedon did with The Avengers, Ang Lee one-ups him in making both a spectacular and faithful film out of a very challenging novel.  Life of Pi is visually brilliant, and it's on that strength (with help from a creative narrative and strong performances) that it represents what I think film does best:  pose massive yet personal challenges to the audience, inspire emotion from despair to relief, and reveal the wonder and awe that life is capable of.  That is why Life of Pi is my #1 choice in an unprecedented (for me) year of greatness in film.


Honorable Mentions:  Brave (Pixar keeps up a very high level of quality, though it falls short of its particularly great recent films like Toy Story 3, Up! and WALL-E); Looper (surprisingly bleak yet very well-done action film showcasing the talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and worth a shot on Netflix); Ted (best comedy of the year that I saw, despite the presence of the abhorred Mark Wahlberg; Seth MacFarlane has a lot of talent and really did well in his film debut).

Worst Film of the Year:  Dark Shadows (I bet you thought some of the trailers/ commercials for this were funny, huh?  Well, so did I... and those were the only good parts of the film.  Clearly a cash-in on the demand for Johnny Depp playing wacko characters, this film is an utter mess that fails both as a horror and as a comedy.  Avoid at all costs.)
Runner-Up:  The Dictator (To call this just a disappointment would be to understate it.  I loved Borat, but this was an incredibly lazily made film and again, all the funny parts are in the trailer.)

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Amazing Spider-Man (I really saw no need for a reboot of this franchise so soon, but I decided to see it after good reviews and, hey, it's a superhero film.  I came out of the theater with the exact same thought:  "why did they bother to make this?"  OK, Emma Stone is a big upgrade from Kirsten Dunst, but I definitely prefer Tobey Maguire to Andrew Garfield, and the tone of the film was all over the place, dabbling in just about every popular new action film technique that's been used in the past decade.  Oh, and the villain sucked and the action got repetitive and boring very quickly.  Useless.)
Runner-Up:  21 Jump Street (Yet another comedy where virtually all the funny parts are in the trailer.  Jonah Hill is surprisingly unfunny here, and while Channing Tatum is enthusiastic, he's still no comedic genius.  It's intentionally over-the-top yet the results are far more baffling than funny.)

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  The Campaign (It's not that this is a bad film.  It has some hilarious parts (especially the Lord's Prayer scene).  But there was so much damn potential here that "pretty good" is not nearly good enough.  Will Ferrell - my favorite current comedian.  Zack Galifianakis - best up-and-comer, IMO.  Politics - endless possibilities.  It ended up just feeling rushed, and I was particularly disappointed in Ferrell's part.  What a shame.)
Runner-Up:  Men In Black 3 (I guess it's a stretch to call this a disappointment, as MIB2 was so bad.  This was pretty good, certainly not nearly as good as the first.  Again, they had potential to do a lot more here, with a phenomenal performance from Josh Brolin as a young agent K.  Tommy Lee Jones' essentially cameo role was an embarrassment, though, and Will Smith never really seemed to get in his old groove.)

Movies I Saw on DVD:  Moonrise Kingdom (quirky and very good, highly recommended.  Would have made my honorable mention, perhaps squeezed into top 10 (12?!?) if I'd seen it in the theater); and a bunch of mediocre-to-bad films that I wisely avoided in theaters, including (from best to worst):  This Means War, Chronicle, Red Tails, Battleship, The Dictator.

(OK, so 2012 had its share of bad/forgettable films... but the quantity and quality of the best still make the year a resounding success.)


Acting Awards:

Best Actor:  Daniel Day-Lewis (I mean... how could I pick someone else?  Probably the best acting performance I've ever seen.)
Runner-Up:  Denzel Washington (Virtually any other year, he wins.  Spectacularly deep, vulnerable, moving performance.  I also want to give a shout-out to the other three nominees - Freeman, Jones, and Brolin - who were just a step below but also phenomenal.)

Best Actress:  Meryl Streep (If the king of actors won that award, it's only fitting that the queen of actresses win this one.  For playing such a variety of characters, Streep slips easily into her incredibly ordinary yet moving character in Hope Spring.)
Runner-Up:  Jennifer Lawrence (To be honest, this selection (for Hunger Games, btw, not Silver Linings Playbook which I haven't seen) is mostly because she had to carry the film.  Based on my choice of films and Hollywood's tendencies, I didn't really see any female leads other than Streep's that really blew me away - although Lawrence, Watson, Hathaway and Rapace were all good.)

Best Supporting Actor:  Tommy Lee Jones (for Lincoln) (In another fiercely competitive field, TLJ takes it by being able to really let loose with his ferociously intelligent and hilarious no-nonsense persona.  Seeing him annihilate the pro-slavery Congressmen was about as satisfying a feeling as you can get in a film, and he also had some important, more nuanced scenes as well.)
Runner-Up:  Samuel L. Jackson (for Django Unchained) (In a film with two other great supporting actors - Christoph Waltz and Leo DiCaprio - SLJ simply stole the show, playing against archetype as brilliantly as TLJ played into his.  Again, fellow nominees Miller, Arkin, and Fassbender deserve shout-outs for their stellar performances as well.)

Best Supporting Actress:  Sally Field (Here's another no-brainer.  Field is capable of such calm, precise, penetrating darts that she even humbles TLJ himself in one scene of Lincoln, but in other scenes she lets her character completely breakdown, screaming at her husband with utter fury and despair.  Remarkable.)
Runner-Up:  Kelly Reilly (In a more interesting category than the lead, Reilly sets herself above the rest by, at times, nearly matching the intensity of the lead (Denzel) and also reining in a potentially corny/ melodramatic part.  Johansson, Dench, and Stone did great work as well in their respective roles.)



Whew!  What a year!  And I'm already diving into 2013, as yesterday I saw Zero Dark Thirty (review to come next week).  I hope you'll enjoy my reviews to come this year, as I look forward to films such as Star Trek: Into Darkness, Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Ender's Game, Anchorman 2, and more!

Movies: Django Unchained

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Django Unchained is the popular director Quentin Tarantino's newest film.  Having blasted Nazis in his last film, Tarantino turns his aim on slavery, depicted as a spaghetti western, with his newest.  An even more star-studded cast than usual make for some colorful characters; although Django himself is a bit of a letdown, Samuel L. Jackson returns to the fold in spectacular fashion.  If you can handle intense scenes of violence and slavery - and don't mind a little sadistic humor - then give it a try.


Before I proceed with my review of Django Unchained, I'd like to turn your attention to an experiment I'm trying this year.  Basically, it's my personal "Academy Awards".  Based only on the films that I've seen this year, I have selected nominees for several categories - what I'd like you, the reader, to do is to vote on each category, and also send in write-in choices if you wish.  You can get to my "ballot" by clicking here.

Django Unchained is the last film I'll see in theaters that was released in 2012 (OK, there may be some technicalities; I intend to see Zero Dark Thirty, which was released in 2012 but only wide release in January so I'm counting it as 2013).  I bid a fond farewell to 2012 films, having been a phenomenal year - but I'll get to that later with my year-in-review post.  Django Unchained is director Quentin Tarantino's latest film so, similar to Spielberg's Lincoln, I was immediately interested.  The premise seemed kind of similar to 2009's Inglourious Basterds, a great film, so with positive reviews coming in (88%) this was a no-brainer.  Django Unchained was directed by Tarantino and stars Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, et. al.

As Tarantino cranks up his trademark soundtrack in the opening scene, the audience watches as a line of slaves, chained together at the ankle, are marched through the wilderness by a pair of white males.  One night, the caravan comes upon a single man riding on a small wagon.  The man, a "dentist", bluntly inspects the slaves and, after some unpleasantries, rides away with one of them.  The "dentist" is actually a bounty hunter named Schultz (Waltz), and he has taken the slave, Django (Foxx), because he was once owned by the Brittle brothers who are Schultz's next target.  After mowing them down, Schultz sees promise in Django and offers to make him a partner for the coming winter's hits.

Schultz bonds with Django on their adventures, and discovers that Django has a wife, Broomhilda (Washington) who is still a slave.  Schultz decides to up his partnership, agreeing to try to help rescue her.  Unfortunately, Broomhilda is held by a plantation owner, Candie (DiCaprio), in Mississippi, deep in "enemy territory."  Schultz and Django must use all of their cunning to make their way to Broomhilda, and Django must keep his hope and his calm in the midst of so much evil being done to Candie's slaves.

Tarantino has once again assembled a fantastic cast, as the stars seem to line up for him (in more ways than one).  Jamie Foxx as Django is the main character, naturally.  He does a very good job, but... I wasn't all that fond of his part.  He gives furious, smoldering stares and does a great job kicking butt when it comes to that, but there's some troubling inconsistency, too.  Django swings a bit too easily from cowering, subdued former slave, to blazingly furious and focused, to detached and cool.  Foxx does each well, but he deserved a more streamlined part.  Christoph Waltz is fantastic once again (he played the main Nazi in Inglouious Basterds, netting the supporting actor Oscar for it), especially in the early going when he does most of the talking.  To be honest, this character is pretty similar to Landa, although he doesn't reach the all-time greatness of that role.  His character - again, due more to the script - becomes much more subdued later in the film.  Waltz is a joy to watch regardless.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the main villain, plantation owner Calvin Candie, and only shows up about halfway through.  He seems to be having a blast being evil for once here, and he shows his character's charm as effectively as his callous brutality.  DiCaprio's Candie benefits from the script where Foxx's Django suffers.  Kerry Washington as Broomhilda is presented as a "main character," but really, she's a plot device, unfortunately.  On the other hand, a supporting role is given to Samuel L. Jackson - a Tarantino veteran - appearing late in the film, and he steals the show.  Accustomed to playing bad-ass characters who, while not saints, generally fight for good, Jackson plays the complete opposite here.  Seeming to be a senile old head slave, in the shadows he reveals an absolutely cruel soul.  Bravo, Mr. Jackson.

Most of the elements of a typical Tarantino film are evident in Django Unchained.  These range from the small, like old-fashioned displays of text in the midst of a scene, to the well-noted, as in the varied use of popular music in the score.  The score, in fact, is one of my favorite parts of this one, being even better/more appropriate, for the most part, than Quentin's other films.  Django also has a good, if often sadistic, sense of humor - and all characters contribute at least in part (there's even a pretend, early-KKK scene that gleefully mocks that organization).  The level of violence is about Tarantino-standard, with both scenes of immense, almost comical bloodshed as well as intimate scenes that are the ones that really make you squirm.  The one Tarantino trademark I felt was not as strong as usual was his specialty of extended, incredibly tense scenes of dialogue.  I don't count the climactic encounter with Candie (I won't spoil the details), since it's more of a monologue.  I guess the lack of these scenes reflect the more straightforward nature of the film, though.

***

I enjoyed Django Unchained quite a bit, but to be honest, I nearly rated this one a B+ instead of an A-. The overall story is much more straightforward than even Inglourious Basterds, several main characters are disappointingly underutilized, and the lack of cleverly tense scenes that I mentioned in the last paragraph.  But I realized I was comparing Django more to Tarantino's other films than to all other films I've seen this year.  Despite a formidable running time, Django rarely drags and is entertaining throughout.  Although Django the character and his wife could have been better developed, there are still Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson making use of great roles.  And although I would have ended the film about twenty minutes earlier than it did (literally, just chop off the last few scenes and then tweak what would then truly be the final scene) due to going a bit overboard on the revenge, most of the stuff prior to those scenes is satisfying.  When deciding whether or not to see this, keep in mind if I haven't made is obvious enough already:  this is a Tarantino film.  LOTS of violence, LOTS of blood - oh, and it deals pretty directly with some of the horrors of slavery.  If you can handle that, and handle the film poking fun of it all, then I recommend you give it a try.

Movies: 2012 Awards

2012 LLL Films Awards

As I am a big fan of film, each year I am interested by the Academy Awards.  And, like most other people, I am usually disappointed by the films/actors that do/do not win.  So, since I have my own blog, why not make my own awards?  But rather than pick all the winners myself, I though that it would be fun to provide a list of nominees from films that I have seen - then let you, the reader, vote for your favorites.  At some point in the future (one week? two weeks? depends on how many responses I get), I will reveal the winners of the... well, if you have a good idea for what I could call the awards, let me know!

Before I reveal my nominees, here are the rules:  of course, please select one nominee from each category.  IN ADDITION:  if there is another, unlisted choice in the category that you like as much or better than the one you voted for, please let me know that as well.  If you wish to make any comments about your choices as well, feel free.  In order to vote, simply leave a comment at the end of the page.  Have fun!


Best Drama:

• Life of Pi
• Lincoln
• Flight
• Argo
• Hope Springs
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Best Action/Adventure Film:

• The Avengers
• The Dark Knight Rises
• Skyfall
• The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
• Django Unchained
• The Hunger Games

Best Comedy:

• The Campaign
• Ted
• 21 Jump Street

Best Actor:

• Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
• Denzel Washington (Flight)
• Martin Freeman (The Hobbit)
• Tommy Lee Jones (Hope Springs)
• Josh Brolin (Men In Black 3)

Best Actress:

• Meryl Streep (Hope Springs)
• Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games)
• Emma Watson (The Perks of Being a Wallflower)
• Anne Hathaway (The Dark Knight Rises)
• Noomi Rapace (Prometheus)

Best Supporting Actor:

• Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)
• Alan Arkin (Argo)
• Samuel L. Jackson (Django Unchained)
• Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wallflower)
• Michael Fassbender (Prometheus)

Best Supporting Actress:

• Sally Field (Lincoln)
• Emma Stone (Amazing Spider-Man)
• Kelly Reilly (Flight)
• Judi Dench (Skyfall)
• Scarlett Johansson (The Avengers)

Best Visual Effects:

• Life of Pi
• The Avengers
• The Dark Knight Rises
• The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
• Prometheus

Sports: 2012 NFL Playoff Preview

2012 NFL Playoff Preview

As I skillfully predicted, the NFL regular season was once again unpredictable.  With the season wrapping up yesterday, it's time to move on to the playoffs where more unpredictable things are sure to occur.  Here's an attempt to guess what might happen, and why I think it'll play out this way.

AFC:

Round 1:
#6 Cincinnati Bengals (10-6) at #3 Houston Texans (12-4):  Houston - 16, Cincinnati - 13

Here we have a rematch of the first round of last year's playoffs, which resulted in a Texans blow out.  I would certainly be surprised see another blow out this time.  Houston, after dominating most of the regular season, lost three of their last four games and dropped to the third seed; meanwhile, Cincinnati fought their way back into the playoffs by winning seven of their last eight games.  Still, the Bengals are a young team and don't possess the firepower needed to get the Texans out of their comfort zone like TTSNBN did.  The Bengals' defense is significantly improved and should keep them in the game, but I see the Texans' running game controlling the tempo enough to pull out a close one.

#5 Indianapolis Colts (11-5) at #4 Baltimore Ravens (10-6):  Indianapolis - 27, Baltimore - 23

Despite winning the AFC North, the Ravens have been mostly a mediocre team this season, certainly regressed from last season.  The steep decline of their defense will especially hurt against the Colts and explosive rookie QB Andrew Luck.  Although the Ravens have had a strong home field edge in the past, they've lost two of their last three at home.  Certainly the Colts have not been a perfect team, benefitting from an easy schedule, and their defense may be at the mercy of a Ravens offense that has at times scored at will and at others ground to a halt.  I see a relatively high-scoring game here, but I already trust the Colts' rookie QB over the Ravens' Flacco who has stagnated the last few years.

Round 2:
#3 Houston Texans at #2 Team That Shall Not Be Named (12-4):  TTSNBN - 38, Houston - 24

Unfortunately, we saw how these teams match up in the regular season, and it's not good.  The Texans' defense, so stellar last year, has fallen back a little, especially in pass defense and that's exactly where TTSNBN kills you.  On the other hand, Houston relies on a steady ground game, which TTSNBN defends reasonably well, while they can't take advantage of TTSNBN's weak pass defense.  TTSNBN does not look quite as formidable as they did last year, and if Houston's defense can hold them to field goals or less early, they have a chance.  But I think it's just a bad matchup for Houston here, they don't have as much experience, and there's always the hope of a nice jinx.

#5 Indianapolis Colts at #1 Denver Broncos (13-3):  Denver - 34, Indianapolis - 17

It's Peyton Manning against his old team - and I'm shocked to see both teams in this position.  The Colts are surely the biggest surprise, going from 2-14 to 11-5.  But although I thought the Broncos could be decent this year, I had no idea that they would get the #1 seed in the AFC.  Quite simply, the Broncos have the most balanced team in the league at the moment.  The only knock on them I have is that after the early season - when they struggled - they really haven't played any tough games.  But the young Colts, playing with a rookie QB in a hostile environment against fearsome pass rushers?  I can't see this game being truly competitive.

Round 3:
#2 TTSNBN at #1 Denver Broncos:  Denver - 31, TTSNBN - 27

I doubt Tom Brady thought he'd be facing Peyton Manning this late in the playoffs again after seeing his old rival miss all of last season with the neck injury.  Making this pick scares me because I don't want to jinx the Broncos... but I think it's the right call.  Home field advantage should make Denver's younger players comfortable, and Peyton is surely hungry to slay TTSNBN again.  Just as Denver has not faced stiff competition recently, TTSNBN has not faced an elite QB since, well, these two teams played in the regular season.  I could really see just about anything happening in this game of the AFC's two best teams, but home field and a more well-rounded team give Denver the edge.


NFC:

Round 1:
#6 Minnesota Vikings (10-6) at #3 Green Bay Packers (11-5):  Green Bay - 28, Minnesota - 17

I got to see this game last weekend, and now to have an encore?  I give the Vikings a lot of credit not just for the effort they put forth to win last week, but also to battle hard just to get to the playoffs over the last few weeks.  Since Minnesota won last week, they obviously could win again, but I don't think so for a few reasons.  First, you've got to think that at some point RB Adrian Peterson is going to have a less-than-super game as the offense has been on his shoulders for months now.  And I don't trust QB Ponder one bit to pick up any slack.  On the other hand, the Packers have elite QB Rodgers, home field, and quite of motivation of their own.  They pull away in the second half, I predict.

#5 Seattle Seahawks (11-5) at #4 Washington Redskins (10-6):  Seattle - 13, Washington - 10

Here we have two of the hottest teams in the league right now, both led by sensational rookie QBs.  If this game was being played in Seattle, I would take the Seahawks comfortably.  But on the road they're not quite as good.  I see a defensive slugfest with a LOT of punting.  Both teams have very good RBs to complement their athletic QBs, but I think the defenses will prevent the big plays and force long, slow marches down the field.  Both these teams have bright futures, and for an "ugly" game, this one should still be entertaining and exciting.  I think Seattle's edge in defense will outweigh Washington's edge in passing offense.

Round 2:
#3 Green Bay Packers at #2 San Francisco 49ers (11-4-1):  Green Bay - 24, San Francisco - 13

This should be an interesting game, certainly different from their week one match.  If Green Bay does get past Minnesota, they should have some nice momentum or at least rhythm, while San Francisco will have had some much-needed rest.  I think the game probably rests on how QB Colin Kaepernick plays - and this being his first playoff experience, I would be surprised to see another huge game from him.  If Green Bay can contain Peterson, then surely they can do the same to RB Gore.  While the 49ers have a great defense, TTSNBN showed that even a big lead is not necessarily safe from a dangerous passing attack.  I think the Packers will have the focus and experience necessary to win this one.

#5 Seattle Seahawks at #1 Atlanta Falcons (13-3):  Atlanta - 20, Seattle - 17

An interesting matchup here.  As surprising as it sounds when you just look at the seeds, Seattle could be the Vegas favorite here, due to Seattle's late-season play and the Falcons' notable playoff woes.  And just like in the first round, if this game was being played in Seattle, I would take them comfortably.  But I like the Falcons here:  they're great at home, tired of losing in the playoffs, mad at being talked down, and a truly different team than what they've been prior to this season.  Matt Ryan has shown great improvement and he has great receiving threats; they even learned how to successfully mix in their weaker running game.  Seattle could very well win, but I think this is a statement game for Atlanta.

Round 3:
#3 Green Bay Packers at #1 Atlanta Falcons:  Green Bay - 35, Atlanta - 28

Despite an important win in round 2, I think Atlanta will fall in the conference championship.  After facing bitter divisional foes and the 49ers' fierce defense, the Falcons' cushy dome and soft defense will seem downright friendly to Rodgers and co.  I highly doubt that this will be low-scoring game, at any rate.  I think maybe it comes down to Green Bay being hungrier than simply advancing in the playoffs - they want and expect another Super Bowl.  And, of course, Matt Ryan is still looking up to Aaron Rodgers in the league QB hierarchy.  Should be an entertaining one, if it comes to these two teams.


Super Bowl:

Denver Broncos vs. Green Bay Packers:  Denver - 30, Green Bay - 21

More and more, it tends to be the elite, or at least clutch, veteran QBs who end up in the Super Bowl.  2007 with Rex Grossman (!) was the last time it didn't happen; since then it's been Brady vs. E. Manning, Roethlisberger vs. Warner, Brees vs. P. Manning, Roethlisberger vs. Rodgers, and Brady vs. E. Manning (with the same happy result).  A Denver-Green Bay finale would give us P. Manning vs. Rodgers, which would certainly continue the trend.  This game would put Peyton back into his natural habitat (a dome), and the Broncos' defense is much better than the Packers'.  Even with all of Denver's advantages, though, I would expect this to be a fun, competitive match.  We'll see!

Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Hobbit entered theaters with enormous expectations and, while not as good as The Lord of the Rings, it proves itself both entertaining and worthy of inclusion in director Peter Jackson's sensational franchise.  In a series of great casting choices, Martin Freeman stands out as one of the best as Bilbo the Hobbit; the dwarves may be average company, but Gandalf is a welcome companion.  Come for the humor, sense of adventure, and Gollum, but prepare yourself for a CGI-fest.


The roller coaster ride of great movie releases starting in late October has swept us into the last few weeks of 2012.  There are still some very interesting films out or yet to come out; I'm not sure how many I'll get to see (e.g.: limited releases).  As for The Hobbit, this was one of my most anticipated films of the year.  You may know that I'm a big fan of several action/adventure franchises, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of my favorites.  After a rocky journey, to say the least, Peter Jackson at last managed to get the precursor to LotR on the big screen - despite being just one book (and a shorter one at that), The Hobbit will be spread out over three lengthy films.  The first installment was directed, of course, by Jackson, and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, and others.

The Hobbit opens with Bilbo, circa start of The Fellowship of the Ring (60 years after The Hobbit) giving the background of his adventure to his nephew, Frodo.  Back in Hobbit time, Gandalf the wizard pays his little friend a visit in the land of Hobbits known as the Shire.  He invites Bilbo along on an adventure, and though Bilbo declines, he receives thirteen uninvited dwarf guests for dinner that night.  Eventually Bilbo decides to join them in retaking the dwarves' old mountain fortress which had been overrun and captured by the dragon Smaug for its immense wealth.

Thus Bilbo starts off on the the first great Hobbit adventure.  He and the dwarves tangle with trolls, crazy hippie wizards, elves, goblins, stone giants, and more.  The main story focuses on the merry band's struggle toward their destination, but along the way elements foreshadowing the events of The Lord of the Rings sprout up, including a first meeting with Gollum and his precious.

Like LotR, The Hobbit benefits from some great casting.  First up is Martin Freeman as Bilbo, who is to The Hobbit what Frodo was to LotR.  A brilliant choice, Freeman is a natural Hobbit with a perfectly understated, hilarious sense of humor.  Freeman is essential in livening up a somewhat slow beginning, and grounding the events of the action-packed finale.  Even among all the other phenomenal casting choices in LotR and The Hobbit, Freeman might already be my favorite.  The other main character is returning star Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey.  I think it goes without saying that McKellen is a tremendous actor, and he truly seems to enjoy playing the character.  Gandalf is a bit more adventurous and risk-taking in The Hobbit than he was in LotR, but he has the same kindness, humor, and wisdom.

Thirteen dwarves share this adventure with Bilbo and Gandalf, and to be honest, I marked them as the "hero," the "granddaddy," the "twins," the "fat one," and the rest kind of blurred together.  Thorin (ie: "the hero") is kind of the Aragorn of The Hobbit, but he's a poor replacement.  Not bad, just not very noteworthy.  The dwarves provide some good humor, but I really saw The Hobbit as Bilbo and Gandalf's journey with the dwarves tagging along rather than the other way around (which is technically how it's supposed to be).  There are some more familiar faces, too, most notably Andy Serkis (well, his digital face) as Gollum.  Although he's limited to one extended scene (which also happens to be perhaps the best in the film), Serkis is at least as good as ever as the slimy, treacherous, two-faced yet pitiable creature.  Also involved are Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (both elves), and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White (even by The Hobbit he's already kind of an asshole).

Just as a baseline to be successful, in my opinion, The Hobbit needed to retain the feel of LotR, and in this it succeeded for the most part.  (For a franchise reboot that did not retain the feel of its predecessors to its detriment, see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).  This is particularly true early on in the Shire - a convenient base to start from since LotR started in the same place.  The Hobbit contains roughly the same mixture of action/adventure and characterization as LotR - if anything, this film scales down the epic and tries to incorporate more character background (kind of strange since it is a prequel, but still).  The quality of the action is probably where The Hobbit suffers the worst in comparison to LotR; there's just too much CGI (no more humans dressed up in Orc costumes) and at times it gets a little ridiculous even for a fantasy movie.  On the other hand, the film has a really good sense of humor, especially early in the film before the action gets rolling (thank you, Freeman).  Finally, it's great to have Howard Shore back on board as composer:  he retains several themes from LotR while adding some new ones which, while they need to grow on me, certainly fit the Tolkien universe just as well.

***

The Hobbit is a very good film; only those who hate the genre in the first place or are already nostalgic for Frodo, Sam and the rest from LotR should disagree.  The biggest point of contention on The Hobbit seems to be the decision to break that one, small book into three expansive films.  First, I'll say that I think Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien world so much that this was not primarily a financial decision.  Second... OK, perhaps An Unexpected Journey was a little bloated.  If I were the editor, I would have cut down on the final extended action sequence and some of the LotR-preview stuff.  But I think I was bothered more by the overuse of CGI than the length of the film.  Seeing this made me appreciate just how much the "human" orcs really engaged me in the action of LotR.  Sadly, some of The Hobbit's action comes off more like a video game (for specifics, compare the main orc bad guy in Fellowship to the one in The Hobbit).  But, like I did for Lincoln, I'm mostly picking nits.  The fact is, Jackson successfully plunged back into his unique Tolkien world without missing a beat.  Is it as good as LotR (at least two of which were A+ in my book)? No... but that's not exactly an insult.  One final thing:  I saw this in 2D (ie: neither 3D nor the 48 FPS version).  The Hobbit trilogy has a strong anchor in Bilbo and Gandalf; I highly recommend the first chapter, and am eager for the next.

Movies: Life of Pi

Score:  ***** out of ***** (A+)

Long Story Short:  Ang Lee faced significant challenges in translating the book to the big screen but, like Joss Whedon with The Avengers earlier this year, succeeded far beyond my expectations.  The film follows the book faithfully and does it great justice with visual flair, both in the best use of 3D to date and the realistic ocean and animals, and performances that support the significant narrative and emotional weight.  Highly recommended - and please, go see this in 3D.


With a break of just a week, the fall film season marches on.  Yesterday I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I will be reviewing next weekend.  However, I finally got to see Life of Pi before that.  As likely many of you know, Life of Pi is an adaptation of the book by Yann Martel.  I read and loved it in high school, and was intrigued when I heard that it was being turned into a film.  At the same time, I was a little dubious about how well it would translate into that medium.  Once I saw the great reviews it was getting, though, my decision was made.  Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Brokeback Mountain) and stars Suraj Sharma and Irfan Khan, both playing the main character Pi at different ages.

If you've read the book, I'll start off by saying that the film is quite faithful to the book (although I haven't read it in some years so I might be forgetting some parts).  For the rest of you, it starts with a novelist in Canada coming to the home of an Indian named Piscene "Pi" Patel.  The novelist has been directed to Pi by someone who told him that Pi had a spectacular tale to tell, one that would "make you believe in God".  So Pi starts off by giving the novelist a background of his life as a child in India, the son of a zoo keeper, owner of an oft-ridiculed name, and sampler of religions.  Then the family is forced to move to Canada.

The zoo animals are packed onto a huge shipping vessel to sell, and the family stays with the ship's crew.  However, a monster storm sinks the ship, with only Pi making it off on a small lifeboat along with several animals from the zoo.  Soon, the inhabitants of the boat are down to two:  Pi, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.  Pi is forced to try to not only survive in the middle of the ocean, but also co-exist with the deadly animal.  I doubt I'm spoiling it for you when I tell you he makes it - but just as important are the ways in which the journey fundamentally changes him.

Life of Pi has a small cast, as you might imagine.  Pi is obviously the main character, with Suraj Sharma getting the biggest part as the Pi on the boat.  He does an excellent job, primarily with expressing vivid emotions of fear and anger in dealing with the tiger, as well as quiet stares that convey everything from despair to yearning.  His performance is essential to anchoring the audience in the story, and he succeeds.  Irfan Khan, the Pi narrating his experiences, also gets a chunk of time, and he was well cast. He shows an inner calmness that reflects the fact that this man, now living peacefully with a family, has endured and learned so much that he can take it all in stride.  The only other notable character/actor is Santosh, Pi's father played by Adil Hussain.  With limited screen time, he effectively portrays a strong, reason-driven man who is strained by Pi's religiousness but loves him deeply.

Life of Pi is only the third film I have seen in 3D.  The first was Avatar; I found the effects to be pretty, but significantly overrated.  Like the film itself, they were just too big and impersonal to leave much impression.  The second film was Prometheus, which was simply because the 3D showtime worked better for my schedule; it added little to nothing to the film.  Life of Pi, on the other hand, was a perfect choice for using 3D; and an acclaimed, innovative director such as Ang Lee was the perfect filmmaker to handle it.  Life of Pi uses the 3D to astounding success in portraying the close quarters danger as well as some dream-like and hallucinatory sequences.  Beyond the 3D, the ocean environment is also incredibly well done (the ship sinking sequence is utterly terrifying); and the animals are surprisingly realistic, particularly the tiger.

What propels Life of Pi into greatness, however, is the third wheel of the film (in addition to effective human performances and visual excellence):  the story as parable.  Now, those who have read the book know the most direct meaning of "parable" here, and it's included in the film.  However, out of what seems to be a fairly simple tale of a boy and a tiger surviving in the middle of the ocean, there is so much that can be taken.  The best part is, exactly what you take from it can be different from audience to audience, and even separate viewings from the same person can evoke different reactions.  To give you a sample of one of the film's themes to me:  with a sense of spirituality (not necessarily a belief in one God or another), life can become a series of stories that take on meaning deeper than the immediate struggles or joys that they entail.

***

Life of Pi is my first five-star rated film (since the start of my blog in summer 2010).  I consider this A+ rating to mean one or more of the following:  the film is simply perfect in just about every way (I can't think of any off the top of my head); the film holds up or even improves on its excellence over time/ repeat viewings (obviously, not a consideration for these reviews); or the film is excellent and also especially appeals to me personally.  Life of Pi falls into this third category; I can certainly understand how others might not like the film as much.  But at the same time, the strength of the visual style and narrative structure, and the performances to a degree, can't be denied.  If you think you'd like to see this film, I strongly recommend that you see this in the 3D at the theater at least once.  Let the visuals suck you into the story and then sweep you away, and open yourself to the ways in which the fantastic story can be reflected in your own life.