Movies: The Lego Movie

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  The Lego Movie brings one of the most popular and ubiquitous children's toy companies to the big screen.  Many have thrown big brand names and big acting names together and expected greatness; using the enthusiasm, creativity and talent of all involved, The Lego Movie actually makes good on this promise.  The cast, led by Chris Pratt and Will Ferrell, is perfect, and everything else from the script to the visuals is exceptional.  Whether you have kids or still are one somewhere in your heart, you should see this movie.


Four movies in the first two months of the year is rather unusual for me, given the kind of movies that typically come out.  But it happened, and they all scored a "B-" or better.  Despite my earlier optimism, I'm unsure of when my next trip to the theater will be.  A few movies look potentially interesting but I'll probably wait to see their aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes before deciding.  Looking to this week, I was not at all impressed when I heard a Lego movie was coming out; I loved playing with Legos as a kid, but it didn't seem like something that would make a good film.  However, after seeing its fantastic score on RT (96% or better), I decided to give it a try.  The Lego Movie was directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller (21 Jump Street) and stars the voices of Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, et. al.

The Lego Movie introduces a world made up entirely of - you guessed it - Legos.  Long ago, an evil Lego named Lord Business (Ferrell) discovers a super weapon called the "Kragle"; years (?) later, all seems to be well in Lego Land, where we meet Emmet (Pratt), an ordinary yet very cheerful construction worker.  Poor Emmet finds something strange at the construction site one day, and the next thing he knows he is being interrogated by Lord Business' lieutenant, Bad Cop (Liam Neeson).  Swooping in to save the day is Wyldstyle (Banks), a Master Builder who rescues him and takes him out of the Lego city.  Wyldstyle and Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a fellow Master Builder, tell Emmet about the evil Lord Business' plans.

Emmet, it turns out, is Lego Land's best hope to defeat Lord Business.  Unfortunately, he seems to be the farthest thing from a "Master Builder".  As Lord Business' forces chase them around Lego Land, Emmet and his friends must find a way to beat the odds and save all from certain doom.

The cast of voice actors for The Lego Movie is brilliant.  And the best of them all is Chris Pratt as Emmet.  Many may know Chris as I do as the lovable lunkhead on Parks and Recreation, and he uses his best naive yet cheerfully earnest voice to bring Emmet to life.  Chris' comic timing and tone of voice is well-honed and he's hilarious here, not to mention a surprisingly compelling lead.  Elizabeth Banks also turns out to be a great choice as Wyldstyle.  The first thing that strikes you is her seductiveness, but in tandem with her character's actions, her voice also effectively conveys a no-nonsense leadership, exasperation with knuckleheads, yet also compassion at times.  Finishing out the big three is Will Ferrell.  You probably know by now how big a fan of his I am, and he already has experience as the bad guy in an animated film (the underrated gem Megamind).  Ferrell is delightfully evil as Lord Business, and his humor is a great complement to Pratt's.  Many villains, animated or otherwise, can be dragged down by stereotypical dialogue, but Ferrell keeps Lord Business fresh throughout the film.

And there are even more big names to go around!  Morgan Freeman voices Emmet's old wise guide (as well as, often, "wise guy"), Vitruvius.  Obviously, Freeman has one of the most distinct and impressive voices in Hollywood - but he really bites into his role and seems to enjoy it, trading in his usual gentle persona for a wisecracker.  Liam Neeson voices Bad Cop, the evil henchman, and we get to hear his Irish accent much more than in most of his other films.  It's probably not too hard to imagine why he's good for this role.  Rounding out the rest are Will Arnett as Batman (cocky and sarcastic), Nick Offerman as a pirate (barely recognizable; a small but fun part), and Alison Brie as Princess Uni-Kitty (bubbly and cute... but with a dark side).  There are also some cameos, which I won't spoil.

The Lego Movie is structurally a standard family film which finds its niche within a unique world while employing both great grown-up humor as well as a solid "life lesson".  Anchoring all three parts is the main character, Emmet.  The film does a brilliant job of introducing him, and the Lego world, in a fun, humorous, and interesting segment.  Once the adventure begins - which the film doesn't delay - the formula of a chosen one journeying to defeat evil is somehow executed with "wink-winks" galore and compelling seriousness at the same time.  Now, the two aren't equal throughout:  the beginning is more laugh heavy before the seriousness becomes the focus toward the end.  But the balance and flow throughout is remarkable.  I credit this to the strength of the screenplay and enthusiasm of the voice cast.  The lesson itself - the importance and value of individual creativity (though teamwork isn't ignored) - might sound obvious for a Lego film, but it's handled exceptionally well and finishes strong.  Oh, and I suppose I should also mention (the other aspects are so good that I tend to forget this) that visually the film is creative and appropriate, using a set of physical "rules" which make sense for a Lego universe; even the water is made of Legos!

***

What can I say?  I was thoroughly impressed with The Lego Movie, despite my earlier doubts, and if it holds up (or even improves) on multiple viewings I could see this getting an "A+".  Fascinating how some of the films that seem to face the biggest challenges to even become watchable - Life of Pi, Gravity, and now The Lego Movie - turn out to be some of the very best films.  This is where I normally give an overview of the good and the bad of a movie, but I honestly can't think of anything bad to say (maybe it's already time to bump this up to an "A+").  The voice cast is perfectly chosen and they all perform wonderfully.  The script is great, balancing often self-aware humor with potentially cheesy (but not in execution) lessons, all on the platform of a pretty typical plot outline.  The pacing is great, and it doesn't carry on too long.  If you have kids, go see this movie now.  If you played with Legos as a kid, go see this movie now.  If neither of those apply to you but you like expertly crafted films with great humor and creativity, go see this movie now.  What are you waiting for?

Movies: The Monuments Men

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Long Story Short:  The Monuments Men offers a rare wide release, dramatic film packed with stars in the middle of winter.  Clooney, serving as director, co-writer, and star, picked an interesting new angle on the thoroughly filmed WWII - the effort to save Europe's art.  The cast is likable of course, and four of them in particular are great.  But the film tries for so many angles on the story that little focus develops until well into the second half.  Worth seeing, but also a missed opportunity in many ways.


The early winter months of 2014, while being utterly terrible in terms of weather, are producing more films that are intriguing than is usual for this time of year.  I think there will be several more movie reviews on the way in the coming weeks.  When I first saw the trailer for this film, back in the fall, it immediately caught my attention as having a star-studded, likable cast and an interesting WWII premise.  A poor score on Rotten Tomatoes (low 30s) wasn't nearly enough to overcome the attractive elements of the film.  The Monuments Men was directed by George Clooney, and stars Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, et. al.

Based on true events, The Monuments Men sets the scene in the early 1940s as the tide of WWII starts to turn.  In the States, Frank Stokes (Clooney), a museum director and lieutenant in the Army, requests that a task force be formed to retrieve, secure and protect the vast trove of art and cultural artifacts in harm's way in Europe.  He gets permission - but leads only a seven-man "unit" comprised of fellow art professionals.  The seven are excited and determined to get to their task, but the going is slow and frustrating as their mission is constantly relegated to second, if not lower, priority.

With such an overwhelming mission going against formidable odds, the team breaks up and spreads across Europe.  They join forces with French resistance, Belgian priests, and others to prevent disastrous cultural destruction by the Nazis.  While they achieve some remarkable successes, there are disappointments too, as well as heartbreaking losses.

Clooney managed to wrangle together a dream team for his WWII film.  Although I mention Clooney as an actor first, I should note that even if he does have the most screen time it isn't by much, and he gives attention to the others pretty equally.  Clooney, as the Monuments Men's team leader, basically plays Clooney:  the charming, slightly mischievous yet calmly in control and solid as a rock lead.  It's always fun to watch that, but I'm not sure I buy it as a good fit for Lt. Museum Director.  The others basically play themselves, too, though.  Matt Damon, the youngster of the group, gets the film's lone, slight romantic bit.  He's here for his gentle earnestness and object of some humor.  Cate Blanchett plays the French contact, a small role that she does well but is poorly written.

Bill Murray and Bob Balaban (you'll probably recognize him) team up, and are the most fun part of the film.  Murray is of course hilarious, but he maybe does the best job acting by putting on his serious face and letting the humor flow naturally from the confidence of his character.  Balaban is also amusing as a prickly professorial type - a good contrast in style.  Goodman and Jean Dujardin (from The Artist) also make a good team, and have some of the film's most poignant moments together.  The last MM, played by Hugh Bonneville, is a bit of a stereotype as Clooney's old, washed-up old friend out for one last adventure.  Beyond this considerable lead cast, there are no other notable roles.

It's funny that I was just talking about the delicate balance war films need to pull off, in my review of Lone Survivor.  The Monuments Men goes for a lot:  message film (importance of art); buddy film (humorous pairings); heist film (tracking certain pieces of art); as well as both generic perception of war (loss of comrades) and personal (effect on home front).  That, as you can imagine, is a lot to cover in one film.  Too much in fact; it does some parts better than others.  It does the buddy parts well.  Although it takes some time to develop, the Murray-Balaban and Goodman-Dujardin combos become the strongest parts of the film - they have the most powerful as well as the funniest scenes.  The heist aspect is decent - again, takes some time to develop - thanks to the uniqueness of the circumstances; on the other hand, the sense of urgency could have been significantly stronger.  Perception of war aspects are somewhat out of place, and should have been modified to instead emphasize the other parts.  Finally, and strangely, the message of art's importance is not well developed.  We are constantly being told how important it is, and what can be sacrificed to protect it, but when it comes down to it it doesn't feel like a huge difference between Clooney and co. racing to save art here, versus Clooney and co. racing to steal money in Ocean's Twelve.

***

There's no point in denying it:  The Monuments Men is a disappointment, given the rich story potential and cast of stars.  The film is a jumble at the start, bouncing from place to place and not providing a good introduction to any of the characters.  As mentioned, it tries to juggle way too many different themes and styles resulting in some (the war-related) being there for the sake of posterity and others (the art theme) being left undeveloped and ineffective.  And most of the stars essentially play themselves, with Clooney and to a lesser degree Damon not providing very natural fits for their characters.  But, it's still a very likable, enjoyable cast all around - particularly the two aforementioned duos.  The beginning might be a mess, but I was surprised how well the film started bringing the characters together in midstream.  Even the story and script somehow become more focused and interesting from about the midpoint on, a tough task.  What this all boils down to is that The Monuments Men is a significantly flawed but very watchable film.  You can skip it in the theater, but give it a try on Netflix/rental.

Sports: Super Bowl, Australian Open

2014 Super Bowl and Australian Open

The Grand Slams of tennis are located around key parts of the calendar for my other two favorite sports, football and basketball.  The French Open and Wimbledon coincide with the NBA Playoffs and Finals, the U.S. Open happens right around the start of the NFL season, and the Australian Open takes place during the NFL Playoffs.  Both of those latter events have now finished up, so let's see how they went!  Stay tuned next week for a review of The Monuments Men.


Australian Open

It was a historic tournament in at least one way:  the temperatures during the first week (and a little into the second) soared into the 100s just about every day.  How (and why) someone could play tennis in those kind of conditions astounds me, but I guess that's why they're professionals.  Beyond the weather, there were also surprising result on both sides of the draw.  Here's a recap of the tourney.

Men:  First of all, it was a shock to see Federer seeded outside the top 5, allowing Ferrer to sneak into the top 3.  Now, the top 4+Federer all made the quarterfinals, but that's where the &*(^ hit the fan.  Federer defeated Murray; not a huge surprise, given Fed's history and Murray coming off a back injury, but still unexpected.  Ferrer lost to Berdych, and, in the biggest shock, #2 seed and two-time defending champion Djokovic lost in five sets to Wawrinka.  In the semis, Nadal showed that he still owns Federer, and Wawrinka bested Berdych in a tough match.  Then the finals:  Wawrinka came out looking spectacular, taking the first set easily.  Nadal injured his back in the second set, but kept playing.  I recorded this match, and honestly started fast forwarding after the injury; somehow Nadal won a set, but the end result was inevitable.  It was the first time since the 2009 U.S. Open that someone other than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or Federer had won a Grand Slam tournament.

Women:  There was very little shake up in the top ranks of the women's game in 2013, and so the top 10 looked pretty much the same for this tourney.  A few top seeds were upset early, but things went pretty smoothly overall - until the 4th round.  That was when former world #1 Ana Ivanovic shocked Serena Williams (I still can't believe it happened); Cibulkova knocked off Sharapova, and several other top 10 players lost as well.  Azarenka, Li Na, and Radwanska remained as the favorites surviving in the quarterfinals.  Azarenka, the most heavily favored, bowed out there in humiliating fashion to Radwanska, while some lower ranked players like Cibulkova and Canadian teen Bouchard managed to advance.  It was Li Na and Cibulkova in the finals, and the Chinese veteran put on one of the most impressive performances on the women's side that I've seen in a long time.  She went for her shots constantly and hit the mark; despite not having a trace of Serena's overwhelming firepower, she just blew Cibulkova off the court (who, I should add, competed hard the whole time).

A look at some of the top players after this tournament:

(1) Rafael Nadal:  a nasty blister on his hand slowed Nadal a bit in Australia, and he struggled against some of the top players.  Still, he dominated Federer again and made the finals.  Considering his extraordinary return from injury last year, he will likely stay #1 most of the year and almost certainly win the French Open for the ninth time.
(2) Novak Djokovic:  the Djoker came into Australia with a nice winning streak, and cruised through the opening rounds.  Unfortunately, he ran into the red-hot Wawrinka in the semis, didn't have his best stuff, and went down in five sets.  As long as he stays focused and hungry (retaking the #1 seed could be a nice goal), Djokovic's fitness and phenomenal return game will make him one of the favorites on every surface.
(3) Stan Wawrinka:  coming out of nowhere is the guy who makes Federer the second best Swiss player in tennis right now.  Wawrinka has been a good but not great player for years; somehow he's boosted himself into the elite ranks - at least for the moment - at the age of 28.  Whether he can maintain this or not might be the most interesting story in tennis this year.
(6) Andy Murray:  from the second half of 2012 through Wimbledon 2013, it seemed like Murray was going to be the new Djokovic - a player having such incredible improvement to lift them to the level of all-time legends Federer and Nadal.  A back injury may or may not have cut that rise short.  He's playing with the confidence he lacked in years prior - but how soon can he get back to the top 3?
(8) Roger Federer:  2013 was the first year that reports of Federer's decline could be backed up by his results.  It was no longer just the other top players who could beat Fed - he was losing to inferior players somewhat consistently as well.  With a new coach and new racket, he hopes to rebound in 2014, and the semifinal showing seemed to bode well.  It may just delay the inevitable a bit longer, though.

(1) Serena Williams:  even at age 32, Serena is dominating the women's game right now.  Although her fourth round loss in Australia raises questions, an even bigger question is who is ready to replace her as the top player.  I don't have the answer.
(2) Victoria Azarenka:  Azarenka had a golden opportunity to win a third straight Australian Open when Serena went down early.  But she choked badly against Radwanska (admittedly a very solid player).  She has great talent and confidence, but are they both good enough to make her the next women's superstar?
(3) Li Na:  although she's now won "just" two Grand Slam tournaments, Li Na is perhaps the most important player in tennis right now - man or woman - as she brings attention to the game to the largest audience in the world, China.  From what I know of her, she's an exemplary representative; she may not win anymore Grand Slams (now 31 years old), but her influence could go on for many more years.
(5) Maria Sharapova:  many believed that Maria would be the first "bombshell" women's player to rise to the top of the women's game.  I give her a lot of credit for how hard she works and competes on the tennis court, but it looks like her ceiling might be "very good" rather than "great".  


Super Bowl

It was another fun year for the NFL.  Sadly, the Steelers did not make the playoffs but at least they improved through the season to give hope for 2014.  But most importantly, TTSNBN was defeated before reaching the Super Bowl!  Looking back at my playoff projections from before the season started, I had some very good and very bad guesses.  My "bold" pick of the Broncos playing the Seahawks in the Super Bowl came true (although I picked Denver to win).  On the other hand, I had Houston (2-14), Washington (3-13) and Atlanta (4-12) making the playoffs - ouch!  But that's a big part of what makes the NFL so interesting to follow:  you never know which expected favorites are going to fold, and which expected cellar dwellers will rise to the top.

The playoffs produced quite a few close, competitive games.  By far the most entertaining was the Colt's crazy comeback win over the Chiefs in the wildcard round.  But two other games that weekend were also quite close, decided by field goals at the end of the game (NO over Philly, SF over GB).  I became rather worried after TTSNBN crushed the Colts in round 2, while the Broncos snuck past the Chargers.  Fortunately, the Broncos ended up dominating TTSNBN in the conference championship - doubly good since I'm a fan of Peyton Manning.  In the NFC, Seattle scored 23 points in each of two home games to defeat New Orleans - an explosive offense - and San Francisco - a smash-mouth team - to reach the Super Bowl.

The trend of wildcard teams getting on a hot streak and going to the Super Bowl hit a wall this year, as we got the strangely rare occurrence of the #1 seeds from both conferences.  The game itself doesn't merit much discussion:  the Seahawks destroyed the Broncos.  I do object to, after the fact, to the many analysts claiming the result was inevitable (despite most saying the Broncos were the favorites beforehand).  Seattle probably did have the better team, but I think the result had more to do with football's "any given Sunday" variability than a truly significant disparity between the teams.

Two great sports tournaments complete - now to turn attention to the NBA and winter Olympics!

Movies: Her

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  Her is the Oscar-nominated, sci-fi romance film of Jonze and Phoenix, acclaimed director and actor, respectively.  While the acting is good (not just Phoenix but also Amy Adams in a small part), and the sci-fi and cultural commentary is intriguing, the central premise - human-computer romance - just doesn't work well.  And its effect on me, personally, was bitterness.  I can see it having a much different impact on other people, but I still don't view it as a must see, let alone an Oscar frontrunner.


Back to the normal reviews this week, and the first movies of 2014 (for a much different kind of film, read about Lone Survivor).  I hope that you enjoyed my 2013 top 10 and awards posts from last week; many of my choices didn't align very closely with the major national critics, but hopefully they gave you some good ideas that you wouldn't hear elsewhere.  Next week I'll have a sports post about the NFL playoffs, including Super Bowl, plus the Australian Open.  I wasn't sure what to think about Her when I saw the first trailer; Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor but tends to be in very strange films (eg: The Master).  Once I finally read about the premise, it sounded interesting, and as an Oscar contender, it seemed reasonable to expect high quality.  Her was directed by Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich) and stars Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson and Amy Adams.

I'll only give a brief plot summary for this film.  It's set in a (seemingly) near future American city, where Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) lives and works as a romantic letter writer.  Technology has advanced to the point that a new OS has been developed - it can accompany the owner everywhere via earpiece and matchbox-style hardware - that has consciousness.  Theodore, lonely due to his introversion and life experiences, quickly grows close to his new OS, named Samantha (voiced by Johansson).  The rest of the film is about this relationship which, as you can imagine, is a little different than that of a normal human-to-human one.

The cast of Her is relatively small but good.  Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, the central role in the film.  Phoenix is a very good actor, of course, and he plays the introverted yet romantic man believably (kind of reminded me of a serious version of Big Bang Theory's Leonard - even in appearance).  Considering that for most of the time he has no other actors to work with, his performance is even more impressive.  But - and this certainly isn't all his fault - Theodore simply isn't all that engaging a character.  Calls for Johansson to get an Oscar nod for her voice part as the "conscious" OS Samantha are a little ridiculous, I think.  She does a good job, but not so well to compensate for the obvious limitations.  Amy Adams is great once again - in a smaller, much less striking role than in American Hustle - as Theodore's friend.  She's the most likable character, and I only wish she had more screen time.  Also involved are Rooney Mara, Twombly's ex who delivers one withering scene (more on this later), and Chris Pratt, hilarious as usual as Twombly's boss.

Her ends up as primarily a romantic film, with significant cultural commentary and sci-fi elements involved as well.  It does an OK job at the first part, and excels at the other two.  All those involved - writer, director, and actors - had quite a challenge to try to pull off a convincing romantic relationship between a human and a bodiless computer.  Phoenix's acting, as noted, is very good, and Johansson "speaks" as you might think such an entity would.  There are also a few scenes of striking (even disturbing) emotion, most notably when Samantha tries to make physical love to Twombly through a (willing, non-prostitute) surrogate.  But I seldom felt a true romantic connection between the two, and the montages of "normal" romantic time together grew wearisome rather quickly.  If anything, the one real-time meeting we see between Twombly and his ex is the most emotional scene in the entire film, one where she eviscerates Twombly so badly (I even felt hurt on his account) it could have - but doesn't - lead to a major change.  On the other hand, the cultural and sci-fi aspects - which basically intertwine - are pretty fascinating.  Twombly is often surrounded by other people, and yet there is a distinct feeling of isolation as everyone seems to be talking only to themselves (rather, to their own OS).  The near-future world is very convincing and believable. A final note, there is a bit of humor in Her - I wouldn't call it "hilarious" as some critics have, but there are some chuckles, mostly produced by Chris Pratt and one of Twombly's video games.

***

Considering its 94% rating on RT and Oscar nomination for best picture, I had high expectations for Her, but I was not as impressed as other critics.  It comes down to the central premise of the film - the romance between human and computer - being a failure, and simply the bitter taste it left me with.  For everything in the film to truly click together, the audience has to believe in Theodore and Samantha as being in love, but it just never got there for me.  It would be one thing if the script seemed to indicate that Theodore thought he loved Samantha but never did - but that's not the case.  Also, while Her is not a downbeat film, I felt kind of cold and empty walking out of the theater.  Many of the films I go to I would not mind seeing again, and some I immediately want to rewatch, but I have no such desire at all with this film.  As usual, it's not all bad, though.  The acting of Phoenix and Adams, and even the voice work of Johansson, keep you engaged (most of the time - it could have been 15 minutes or so shorter).  And the biggest draw is the interesting concept of where human relationships are headed in a world of increasingly sophisticated technology.  Her serves as a definitive warning (perhaps even more so than the director intended), and it's something worth thinking about.  Still, don't bother rushing out to see this; a Netflix viewing is perfectly good, and afterwards you can watch a light-hearted sitcom or something to cheer yourself up again.

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.