The 1-Year Rewind

The 85th Academy Awards are quickly approaching, and it's that time of the year where all sorts of Top 10 lists are being revealed. Because I haven't seen a few of the big films to come out this year yet (Lincoln and Django Unchained are the two biggest examples), I don't feel comfortable producing a Top 10 list for 2012.

However, I always make it a point to watch all the Best Picture nominees for a year, and I recently saw the final one for 2011. So after seeing The Help for the first time a few days ago, I present a brief rundown and personal ranking of the Best Picture nominees for the 84th Academy Awards.

I would love to read your ranking in the comments below.

We'll go in ascending order.

9)  War Horse

I feel weird putting Spielberg at the bottom of any list. And while the worst of Spielberg is better than most, War Horse doesn't ring with the same authenticity and urgency that his other films do. While the film is aesthetically beautiful, the death knell for any film is when you find yourself indifferent toward the characters. Joey could have met the same fate as Boxer from Animal Farm, and I'd still be more upset during Orwell's story.

My rating: 2 stars.



8)  The Help

This is a good film. It's not the most contested claim to make about the film. But the problem seems to be that any descriptor beyond that is probably too much. It's neither earth-shattering nor revelatory material. It has a unique voice, and that's why I believe it received so much acclaim. That, and the performances. Pretty good work from everyone in avoiding the trap of producing two-dimensional characters.

My rating: 3 stars.


7)  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

To be honest, this and The Help are pretty interchangeable on this list. Just too many stronger films for these solid-but-not-quite great films to rank any higher. Many people levied the "contrived" claim against ELaIC, and I think I agree to a small measure. There's nothing organic about the series of events that we encounter. There's more interesting frames in which to tell a 9/11 story. However, I was still overwhelmed by its emotion. I think this may be in part because the reception to many movies involving 9/11 has been lukewarm--to the point where United 93, a terrific movie regardless of label, has been tragically overshadowed. I couldn't help enjoy this movie, but maybe a part of me just wants a social fabric ready to embrace these stories.

My rating: 3 stars.

6)  The Artist

As a cinephile I'm supposed to be head over heels about The Artist. I'm supposed to rejoice at the celebration of cinema and the journey into a bygone era of Hollywood. And I do. The very nature of this movie, as a silent, black-and-white film, appeals to my senses. There's something about the sense of urgency in the acting and editing for silent pictures that cannot be captured by many "talkies."And its story transcends its setting; we see the "out with the old, in with the new" mindset in almost every aspect of our lives. I think that's why the film should quit being pegged as a great film for film lovers and rather simply as a great film.

(And that score... it is the epitome of "stirring.")

My rating: 3 stars.

5)  Moneyball

This may be Brad Pitt's finest performance. Between him and the screenplay, this is a terrific "sports" film. It's really not, though; I even think of it more along the lines of Margin Call or Wall Street than say The Natural or A League of Their Own. I can't stand baseball, and I was mesmerized. It is a joy to watch. The cast takes dialogue by Aaron Sorkin & Steven Zaillian that is ordinarily excellent to a whole new level. Every word seems real, every scene feels right. It's much more a story of two guys going against all odds than it is about a team in the hunt for a pennant. For once, you care more about what happens to our characters off the field than you do on the field.

My rating: 3.5 stars.


***

Now this is where it gets tricky. I had a hard time with the Top 4, although #1 was pretty clear from the get-go. However, I'd say it really had more to do with the battle for #3. I mean, no one really cares who third place is, but I love #4 and #3 so much it was like Sophie's Choice in my mind. I should also make it clear now that these next four films receive my highest rating of 4 stars.

***


4)  The Tree of Life

Pretentious. Muddled. Boring. Artsy-fartsy. These were just some of the nicer adjectives many people (not including critics, who are just as pretentious and unfeeling) used to describe this film. But Terrence Malick's films are treasures. Meditative and transcendent, almost like visual tone poems. If you aren't into movies (and by extension, stories) for characters, then you are missing the point will be left behind during a Malick film. The Tree of Life is arguably his finest and most touching film, although I'd give the nod to The Thin Red Line. It is about nature v. nurture; looking back on life, the universe, and everything; and even dinosaurs. To be fair, that scene may have been the breaking point for many. However, you don't LSD or even plenty of rest to get through it as some have claimed. All you need is is vision.

3)  Midnight in Paris

Many people have been to Paris who have had their romantic notions of the city completely deflated. I have not been to Paris, nor have I ever felt this overwhelming sense of grandeur. Don't get me wrong, I would like to visit it one day (even if that's only because I've only left the country for a few hours to visit Mexico). There's too much history, food, and shopping to be done. But what struck me about this movie was that it is Woody Allen's love letter to the city. If I ever love anything as much as Woody Allen loves Paris, I'd  be the Paula Deen to its butter. Seriously, though, I was completely on the side of Owen Wilson's character. (Like Brad Pitt in Moneyball, is this Wilson's career best?) Suddenly, Paris, je t'aime makes much more sense.

2)  The Descendants

I once pronounced Christopher Nolan the greatest auteur of our generation, but Alexander Payne may very well be the greatest filmmaker of our time. Much like the great writer/directors, Payne's voice is unmistakable. In fact, remember that Paula Deen-butter analogy? That might be me and Payne's movies. I don't know what it is about them, but their humor, sadness, and joy shine through in the most honest sense. What makes his films so different is that these qualities are effortlessly blended all at once. You will laugh out loud and snivel in conjunction. This film is no different. Sideways is one of my Top 10 movies of all time. And The Descendants makes a case for being my favorite Alexander Payne film. So, using some deduction, one might correctly conclude that this film and #1 on this list must also be near or even on that Top 10 list as well.

1)  Hugo

I've talked about movies that are celebrations of cinema, overtures to Paris, or achievements in visual splendor. Well, Hugo has all these things and more. I'll admit that I was only curious going in because it was Martin Scorsese doing 3D and a "children's" story. My contempt for 3D was triumphed only by this curiosity. But during and after the movie, I felt that "magic" that one feels only on the rarest of occasions. For me, this film works on every level. Even the 3D was inspired; if you are going to do 3D films, make them like Hugo. But this is not a children's movie; it's a movie for everyone. Anyone who has ever lived, laughed, and loved. Anyone who has ever seen what the tiniest amount of inspiration, imagination, and determination can produce. And anyone who values the magic of storytelling. I can say without reservation that Hugo earns my absolute recommendation.

***

Well, I set out to do a short little listing and blurb about each. As usual, I got carried away.

What do you think? How would you rank these films? Did the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences screw up their nominees again?(Again, I was only concerned with ranking the nominees for Best Picture of 2011. Many deserving films deserve a spot on this list but were snubbed.)

Let me know what you think!

P.S.  I hope you won't be deterred by any comments. With the exception of 12 Angry Men, I don't think I've ever seen a movie where I felt the need to force its greatness upon you. So by all means, if you hated The Descendants or were in love with The Help, please don't hold back.

Run, don't walk, to Zero Dark Thirty

Every year there is a film that is featured in the awards circuit that I find overrated.  Slumdog Millionaire and Babel come immediately to mind.  This year, I had a nagging suspicion that Zero Dark Thirty may have been that film for me.  This was completely unfounded and surprising, since I enjoyed Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker and believe Jessica Chastain to be one of the most talented actresses of our generation.

However, I'm glad to know that ZDT is in fact one of the year's best and deserving of the many awards it has racked up. (Any Oscar momentum it had from the critics' awards has probably been lost with the recent announcement of the Academy's nominees. Ms. Bigelow is nowhere to be found in the list of Best Directors.) 

It's safe to say this film has also received its fair share of criticism, most of it with regard to factual aspects.  It's hard to know who is right when it comes to these factual criticisms. But as a film, those criticisms don't really come to mind.

The film tells the story of Maya, a CIA officer who spends her entire 12-year career searching for bin Laden (UBL).  So for those who expect the film to center around the raid of the compound, you will be disappointed. But you will also be missing out. The raid is a part of the climax, but it was simultaneously an afterthought for me (if that makes any sense).  The decade-long search that comprises the first two hours of the film is storytelling gold.  In fact, Maya's reaction at the end of the film indicates just how important that journey is. While she is in fact the self-described "motherf**ker who found (UBL)," we see just how much manpower the delicate and nuanced the search required.

A technical, storytelling, and acting feat, the film easily earns a rating of 4 stars (****).

Check it out ASAP.  And if you've seen it, what did you think?

A Few Thoughts for the New Year: Les Mis, Sherlock, Luther, and TV Villains

It seems every time I sit down to write a post, I feel the need to write posts that would pass for college finals.  I realize that while there is an audience for and a merit to these kinds of posts, they create a mental block for me because I don't want to take 3-5 hours to write them. But most importantly, they may be creating a block for you.  While nothing means more to me than you putting time aside to read them, I don't ever want the reading and commenting to ever feel like a burden.

So, here's my first effort to quickly run through some very important things I've encountered out there in the land of entertainment.

First up, Les Miserables.

I should first say that the theatre audience was a good audience.  There was no intermittent clapping. I heard no talking. I saw no cell phones.  Throughout and at the end of "I Dreamed a Dream," you could have heard a pin drop.  It was an almost unparalleled viewing experience.

Now, based on the opinions I had heard going into the movie, I'd be lying if I said I went in with some inevitable expectations of the film.  Among their number:  Russell Crowe was miscast; Amanda Seyfried isn't in fact the worst part of the movie; the sung-through nature of the material doesn't work as well on the big screen. (After all, not every musical can be Jesus Christ Superstar.)

Well, for me, the film really worked.  On all levels.  The cast was phenomenal. INCLUDING RUSSELL CROWE.  Of all the reservations I had that were sculpted by others' opinions, none were more-so than the ones about Russell Crowe's (Javert) performance.  Well, I'm glad you folks were wrong.  And I say that as someone who's dream role is Javert.  This isn't a stage musical.  And while I'm not sure I possess the theatrical background to analyze his performance relative to that setting, I can say for a film adaptation, it works.  So much for me that he gave one of my favorite performances from the film.  He has had a habit lately of doing the same thing in different roles, but this performance was different and had nuances that I thought were perfect for Javert.  His voice sounded completely different from the rest of the cast, but I think an "unrefined" quality (whatever you want to call it) fits Javert like a glove.

Hugh Jackman (Valjean), at least in my mind, had some heavy-lifting ::rimshot:: to do because of the legacy Colm Wilkinson has left.

**Pause here to briefly explain my knowledge of Les Mis.  I've never seen a stage production.  Never saw the 1998 film.  Tried reading the book in the 3rd grade and gave up.  And the only version of the musical I've heard (and own) is the 10th Anniversary Concert.**

I've never heard a version of "Bring Him Home" that worked after hearing Mr. Wilkinson's.  And I just wasn't sure Hugh Jackman had it in him to be Valjean across all the years. Well, I was wrong (and it won't be the last time).  Hugh Jackman gave the performance of his career.  His voice worked for me.  It was refreshing finally to see all the performances in context of the story, especially Valjean.  Any nominations he gets will be earned and well-deserved.

Amanda Seyfried (Cosette) wasn't the end of the world that I thought she'd be. She held her own.  In fact, I'll go as far as to say she did a good job. And let's not even pretend like we didn't know what we were getting with Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen.  (Although Baron Cohen's constant flipping between French and British accents is puzzling.  I thought I convinced myself of why he might have been doing so, but I was probably overanalyzing as I tend to do.)

But there is one star that shines much brighter than the rest.  Anne Hathaway was nothing short of revelatory.  No other superlatives adequately capture what I feel about her performance. Definitely the best performance of the year.  Maybe of the (albeit early) decade.  But without question one of the most moving I've ever seen. There was no sobbing.  But I was in tears from almost the beginning, and whatever further reactions were on tap were halted by the most inescapable broken-hearted feeling.

I had planned a blog post about the merits of actors winning acting awards.  Many people/voters tend to believe there is that quintessential "Oscar scene" that many performances have or in some cases must have.  I tend to believe that while that sort of scene may be inevitable, putting much stock into one takes away from the rest of the performance.  So while "I Dreamed a Dream" is the one they'll show in all the award show clips, her performance isn't a one-scene pony.  Maybe those of you with musical theatre backgrounds can speak to the merits of her performance and whether they are earned or not, but I can only tell you how I felt. And for me she provides nothing short of a master-class.

I could go on and on about the merits of the technical decisions, story choices, etc.  But I'm gonna cut myself off here to avoid a repeat of the gargantuan The Dark Knight Rises post. Suffice it to say: for me, the film was a triumph.

I will say one quick thing about Tom Hooper.  Most of his work from a mise-en-scene standpoint is very consistent.  However, it is very different from that of typical American directors.  Now having re-immersed myself into British television for the first time since The Office with Ricky Gervais was a thing, I see where all of Hooper's decisions come from. (Considering his background, it makes sense.)

Now... about that British Immersion.

Sherlock had been recommended ad nauseum, and I had wanted to check out Luther because of Idris Elba's work on The Wire.  With the recent purchase of a Roku, we arrive at the following equation:

Roku + Amazon Instant Video = Awesome TV and No Productivity

I first went with Sherlock because of the sheer number of recommendations.  Well, this time, the expectations created by you all delivered. Which is saying something given the sort of acclaim it has generated among my friends.  It is the perfect combination of terrific storytelling and writing, tremendous acting, captivating drama, laugh-out-loud humor, and dynamic chemistry. 

People use the word "bromance" to describe Watson and Sherlock, but that does what Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch have given us a huge disservice. Their time together on-screen is essentially writing and acting at its finest.  (See, too, the Christmas party scene from Episode 2.01 "A Scandal in Belgravia.")

Luther is like Sherlock in that while both are very much crime "procedurals," they are more-so character studies. As a matter of fact, every description of Luther I read on Amazon, Wikipedia, etc., called it "psychological crime drama."  Boy howdy, is it!  The pilot completely fascinated me but gave a more grounded presentation of its "Moriarty" supervillain archetype Alice Morgan. 

The story of Sherlock is no mystery. But Luther is about Detective Chief Inspector John Luther for the Serious Crime Unit who is possessed by his work in a manner very similar to Sherlock. While their motivations are very different, their attention to detail is a cut above their contemporaries/colleagues. I couldn't help but make comparisons when I first watched.  But despite all I've said, they are very different characters and shows.

I think one reason Sherlock and Luther work so well for me is that they feature complete devotion to character, are based on very sharp and very smart writing, and feature two very intriguing villains.

In fact, just going off the top of my head, Jim Moriarty and Alice Morgan (despite only having been recent additions to my TV lexicon) belong right at the top of my Top TV Antagonists list. (Hearst from Deadwood is at the summit; I've never wanted to physically harm a fictional character as much as him. Also, Ben Linus from LOST deserves Honorable Mention.)

Before I go, I want to mention the 2012 slate of movies that came out this year.  Admittedly, I have fallen behind this year on staying up-to-date, so I am wary of putting out Top 10 lists of that nature.

But, I will say that Argo so far is my #1 Film of 2012.  Taking the prize for Most Overrated Film of the Year is Looper. Without going into one of my spiels, it simply failed because at the end, I didn't care what happened.  The screenplay worked for the first hour, but it never setup the stakes at the end convincingly enough. 

Finally, my favorite New Film of the Year (aka, the best film from any year that I saw for the first time this year) is Broadcast News.  If I could have back my Movie Ark picks, I'd probably put it on the list.  The film works on every conceivable level and features without a doubt one of the three best screenplays I've experience.  It receives a rare unqualified recommendation from me.

So what did you think of Les Mis?  Is my Russell Crowe assessment just wrong?

Do you watch Sherlock or Luther?  Thoughts, feelings?  Have a favorite moment?  Quote?  Episode?  Thoughts about what's in store for the next seasons? For the record, I rank the Sherlock episodes as
1)  2.01 - "A Scandal in Belgravia"
2)  1.01 - "A Study in Pink"
3)  2.03 - "The Reichenbach Fall"
4)  1.03 - "The Great Game"
5)  2.02 - "The Hounds of Baskerville"
6)  1.02 - "The Blind Banker".

If you aren't on Twitter or haven't seen my "poll," who are your Top 3 TV Antagonists?

Finally, what is your favorite film(s) of 2012?  Any disappointments for you?  (And if you say this blog post, I will find you.)

I hope to bring more to the table this year--sort of an unofficial New Year resolution of mine.  And I hope you will continue to visit and share in the discussion!