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!

The Dark Knight Emerges (***Spoilers ahead!***)

"A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hasn't ended."

Rarely have these words echoed more soundly than after all the events of this past weekend.  We remember those in Aurora who died, some protecting loved ones and even complete strangers.  We denounce those who failed to bring a pedophile to justice.  Batman's last words resonate in our own world at a time when heroes are both emerging and disappearing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I promised myself I would not mention the Penn State scandal because I am just as tired of hearing about it as the rest of you probably are.  Regardless of where you stand on the issues (gun control, due process, NCAA sanctions, etc.), let us take a minute to remember the victims from both these tragic moments.


I was watching the movie Bobby yesterday, and this speech from Robert Kennedy played over the last eight minutes.  I was moved by it because 1) RFK is one of my favorite politicians and 2) I think, like Batman's quote, it rings more true now than ever.


I rarely speak politics, but this may come up later when our discussion of The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) turns toward brief commentary.  [I say discussion because I hope you will comment (unlike on my last post), even if it's simply to add your outrage or agreement.]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let me just tell you where I stand on TDKR right off the bat.

That's right, TDKR gets my highest rating.  See my last post for a reminder of my critique system.  A 4-star movie can still be imperfect.  I can count on one and a half hands the number of perfect films I know. And even if TDKR were on the cusp of being perfect, the very few garbled lines from Sean Conne... er, Bane will keep me from assigning it as such.


It really wasn't a problem for me, despite being half-deaf.  I just need something to offer those who were not impressed by this motion picture.  If this film isn't a master class on acting, then it should be one on screenwriting, cinematography, editing, and self-awareness.


I will not recall the plot (like one of my traditional reviews).  Hopefully, if you're still reading, you've seen my spoiler warning, which serves another purpose in making sure I don't have to bother with the story.  That could take another hour of my time given the film's 165-minute running time.


Alas, the acting will not have to be defended here.  Unless you're Rex Reed, the film critic I am most at odds with both as a film critic and a filmgoer.  Even from those who are disappointed with Christopher Nolan's finale to the Dark Knight trilogy, the acting receives almost universal praise.


So where do most people find fault with this movie?  The screenplay.  "The fault, dear moviegoer, is not in the screenplay, But in yourself, that you are misguided."


Lord knows how much that last paragraph will get me into trouble.  "Pretentious," "arrogant," "off his rocker" they'll say.  But I don't see how anyone who watches the film with their expectations put aside would find this screenplay anything less than pretty good.  Expectations are only natural to have for a film like this and, furthermore, a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan. But I say that, indeed, Mr. Nolan gave us a product consistent with his story, vision, and previous films (including The Dark Knight, another 4-star film that is imperfect).


One criticism is the lack of a "compelling, complicated villain."  While Heath Ledger's Joker is one of cinema's all-time great villains, another villain like him would become tiresome in this film.  He represented chaos and anarchy in the last film.  He was no match for Batman physically.  His effectiveness came from his unpredictability, lack of cause, and mental prowess.  And Batman "won."  Yes, it took Batman pulling a Sydney Carton and eight years of reclusiveness, but the Joker lost.  


So we've seen Batman take on an enemy like that (maybe a second one, if we count Ra's al Ghul and ignore his cause).  What we haven't seen is an enemy that can cripple Batman physically.  We get that in Bane.  He represents the ultimate evil in my mind: evil with a cause.  Or so we think.  Is it just out of "love" for Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul--whatever that means for him?  Or has he brought into The Process... er, League of Shadows? Whatever it is, he's compelled by something bigger than himself.  And that makes for the best of villains.


Another criticism of the writing was that the Nolan's introduced too many new characters and resorted to convention, using flashbacks and what-not. The Nolan's use of flashbacks is both reserved and consistent with Batman Begins. The Dark Knight saw an absence of this technique but that film had the advantage of dealing with a particular, brief, and fairly linear time in the life of Bruce Wayne/Batman.  What BB and TDKR were up against was that their stories covered many different times from the perspective of numerous characters.  And flashbacks can be very rewarding for viewers who pay attention or remember key scenes from the previous two films.  They offer a less boring way to advance or paint our characters (of the utmost importance for my sense of story) while offering emotional payoff to viewers.  (Can we all agree that whoever said "you don't have to see the first two"--this includes Mr. Nolan--sort of missed the mark?)


As for too many new characters, I can only offer the following:  since this story is about BW/Batman, this allows us to get a glimpse into his perspective.  If he's been Howard Hughes-ing for 8 years, what better way for the audience to understand this by having us play catchup along with him.  Also, it's only natural for new players to come into our lives.  Where were you 8 years ago?  Who were you with?  I know for us younger generation, we're in the midst of great change (graduating from all sorts of levels of schooling, trying to enter the workplace, starting new families, etc.).  So maybe some of you are past all that.  Or maybe some of you lead remarkably consistent lives.  Regardless, it happened from BB to TDK, and it happened from TDK to TDKR.  So, even if conventional screenwriting tells us to combine characters when necessary or to avoid flashbacks when possible, I hardly count these examples in TDKR as not having good reason for breaking these rules.


(On a side note:  in my screenwriting class, I was taught to avoid expository dialogue.  While this is a very good rule and the Nolan's violated it a few times in the movie, they sure know how to do it better than most.)


As for character's being inconsistent or their motivations shifting on a dime, that's really not something I can defend with 100% conviction, as it will depend upon each viewer.  In one of the few expectations/predictions I make for movies (and, more rarely, one that proved correct), I had a feeling Catwoman would realize the Bane/Talia plot was too evil, violent, and wrong.  The movie IMO gave us enough glimpses to see just why Selina Kyle had her turnaround.  And if you didn't buy these reasons, how about the fact that she just wanted to help a guy she had a thing for, the same guy whose life she had completely ruined?  Again, the whole issue with character motivations and driving action is usually a contentious point, one that is usually a matter of opinion.


How about the ending (aka, the last hour)?  If you felt it was predictable, I was taught one of the signs of good screenwriting is that the story usually has an ending that feels both unlikely and inevitable.  Again, just a matter of personal preference really.  If you felt things just happened too conveniently, I say that the script did an excellent job of setup/payoff.  We see details, hear dialogue, etc. that presents the information early on and comes about naturally.  [Like the autopilot thing;  it's not like they just said at the end, "Oh, hey, I discovered an autopilot feature you didn't tell me about."  We aren't so dumb to have to be shown everything.  We saw various other scenes where Bruce Wayne/Batman was making preparations or setting up schemes, so it doesn't require a wild leap of logic to assume that the autopilot was fixed.  And (I can't remember) if he did in fact lie about its functionality at the end, wouldn't it make sense for his grand scheme?]  If you felt that the social themes in the movie were lame--the good rich people open orphanages and all is right--, then I'd say that Nolan has gone on record (sorry I don't have a link for this claim) as saying while real-life social parallels may be present, they weren't intentional.  That may come across as a copout, but if true, then Bruce Wayne's legacy more than comes full circle.  It carries on the vision his parents had for Gotham.  It makes him a powerful symbol like the Batman.  For Nolan, the lynchpin of the trilogy comes early in BB.  (Read the link for an explanation.)


If we accept or recognize that scene's importance, then the ending is spot on.  Like Inception, the ambiguity at the end doesn't matter.  In Inception it really doesn't matter if the top keeps spinning. The point is, Cobb doesn't care.  He has let go.  (You see, Leo gets his chance to pull a Rose from Titanic.)  He is finally with his children, the thing he's wanted the most.  It's real enough for him.  Same with Batman.  Batman becomes an incorruptible symbol.  Not just someone to impersonate (hence why they included the scene of the copycat Batmans in TDK).  If someone carries on the symbol, that's fine.  If John Blake decides to become Robin, Nightwing, etc., that's fine, too.  But Bruce Wayne realizes what is important is for people see that true heroes are willing to do whatever it takes in the face of evil or for the love of an ideal or for whatever saccharine message you took away from the movie.


Those are the main criticisms I've read.  I beg of you to please give me some feedback.  Were these responses reasonable?  Terrible?  Any other points about the screenplay I didn't mention?


I focused on the screenplay because I have seen almost no criticisms about acting, technical aspects, etc.  Wally Pfister and Hans Zimmer were both at the top of their games.  The same could be said for Lee Smith (editing), keeping me engaged and coherent for all 165 minutes.  One note:  Wally Pfister will probably be absent from future Christopher Nolan ventures.  This is important because of Christopher Nolan's distinct visual style in his films.


Let us consider for a moment Nolan's place in the history of cinema.  I said after Inception he was our generation's Alfred Hitchcock. After TDKR, I am preaching it. By this, I mean he has his distinct visual style, storytelling methods, filmmaking techniques, familiar casts, and story types.  Most of his films are big on deception, both with regard to characters and the audience.  Sound like Hitchcock?  People like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, and Ridley Scott are all great auteurs, but most of their films (especially their greatest ones, except Eastwood) have come before my generation was born. Tim Burton is really hit or miss for me.  David Fincher has to live with Alien 3 and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, otherwise his resume is right up there.  Quentin Tarantino may be the epitome of present-day auteur and the best dialogue writer of them all, but his films are also hit or miss for many folks. I can't really think of anyone else, so in addition to being my generation's Hitchcock, he is currently our generation's best filmmaker.


Does that make The Dark Knight trilogy the best of our generation?  What about all-time?  It's hard to compare genres, so this is tough.  Let's start with the original Star Wars trilogy.  For my money, The Dark Knight trilogy easily bests this.  The Empire Strikes Back is not the same movie for me that it is for most people.  Talk about a movie that suffers from pacing and expositional dialogue.  Those Dagobah scenes are the cure for insomnia.  The parallel action scenes/ending in Return of the Jedi is one of my all-time favorite movie moments and an obvious influence for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.  And while Star Wars is better than BB, the weaknesses of the second installment do that series in.  What about The Godfather trilogy?  In one of the few tired, borrowed lines I'll offer in this post, Part III really is that detrimental to the trilogy as a whole.  Here's a case where too many new characters becomes cumbersome.  They are to be expected given the time jump from Part II to Part III, though. But they are cumbersome in that we just don't care.  So much is at stake for the Corleone family in Parts I & II; not so much for Part III.


What about the LOTR trilogy?  Fans of the books are divisive about its merits.  That doesn't really concern me here.  It's a important debate, about how books and movie adaptations should function together, if at all. (Plus, what are we to do with the Extended Editions?) What does concern me is this:  the high points in the LOTR trilogy are at times better than the highs for the Dark Knight trilogy, but the low points for the Dark Knight trilogy are for the most part better than the lows for LOTR.  Admittedly, both trilogies offer very few lows.  But since the number of better highs for LOTR don't outnumber the highs in the Dark Knight trilogy by a great number, the standard then becomes which trilogy is better at its worst.  And for me, I can tolerate the Dark Knight trilogy lows more than those in LOTR.  Maybe it's because the story lows are steeped in a more relatable way.  Since story is so important, that's infinitely more weighted than the inconsistency in Gotham from BB to the latter two Dark Knight movies.  And I can't really hold the Rachel Dawes casting discrepancy against the trilogy, since it was in fact an upgrade in acting.  Maggie Gyllenhaal may sound more whiny, but at least she doesn't sound like she's just reciting lines.  So, for me right now, the Dark Knight trilogy is my favorite film trilogy.


A few other thoughts:


*The Stock Exchange scene took on a whole other dimension after hearing about the Aurora shooting.  While the incident admittedly never entered my mind after arriving at the theatre, it's chilling and devastating fallout was ever present during that scene.


As a matter of fact, Lisa Schwarzbaum had a very interesting article about how on-screen violence is becoming very disturbing for her.  I can't say I agree 100%, because like Christopher Nolan said, the movies theatre is a place I love to go, simply for the fact that we are removed, even if only for 80 or 180 minutes, from the world that surrounds us, transported to worlds as far away as other universes and galaxies or as near as our imagination.  I tend to remove myself from real life when I watch a film like this (the moment above aside).  But movies are great because they offer insight into the human condition.  From the depths of despair and evil to the peaks of greatness and heroism, they do in fact require some part of engagement (visceral and intellectual) from us. While she brings up some good points but without going into further detail, I do ultimately think it's a knee-jerk reaction.  What do you think?


*Maybe the ending to TDKR wasn't so original... Exhibit A.


*Sally Ride passed away yesterday. A very important figure for the space program.  I've always been a fan of NASA and space exploration.  So, I wanted to give a quick remembrance to one of the premiere figures for space programs.  Like the ones that give us this.  Or this.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's it.


In an attempt to get this all published today, I may have left out some key points or topics. (Although, unlike my last post, I wrote down about a page and a half of notes to reference while typing this.)  That's inevitable with a post like this.


I thank you for taking the time to read all this. I gave it my all, even if that meant some of the pseudo-political stuff at the beginning, so thank you for bearing with me.  I believe every link posted is important to my post/our discussion; please give them a view.


Whether we are in complete agreement or whether I have offended you to the core or whether we simply disagree, please let me hear from you.  I feel strongly about this movie, but I am not out to change minds or convince people they are wrong.  That's not what I am about.  I just enjoy a good old fashioned movie dialogue. 


P.S.  Tell your friends and invite them to join the conversation.


P.P.S.  I don't think I ever explicitly came out with it, so let me set the record straight: The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight > Batman Begins for me, although I can't say right now how large the gap is between TDKR and TDK.

Prometheus, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and a Few Other Ruminations

Who doesn't love a good movie?

I think Petula Clark said it best:

"When you're alone

And life is making you lonely,

You can always go... to the movies.

[...]

You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares and go

To the movies, things'll be great when you're

At the movies, no finer place for sure,

The movies, everything's waiting for you"

Truth be told, she might not have sung those exact words, but with a couple of handy assumptions (like the ones I'll be making later on), one can infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Clark was in fact referring to the cinema.

Now, I've had the pleasure of seeing four particular movies over the past month. The four share a common theme: excellence. That is, the four movies up for discussion have all received 3.5 star ratings or better from me.

Before I begin, allow me to explain my rating system again.  I have no problems admitting Roger Ebert has been my biggest influence when it comes to film critique.  That is not to say that I seek to agree with him.  Just that his critique style and philosophy is the one that I believe to be the most successful.  (After all, why would we want The Dictator to be compared to Revolutionary Road?)  So keep in mind that there is a sort of relativism in play here.

The four movies are The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Avengers, Star Trek, and Prometheus.  Each one has with its own merits impressed me enough to warrant mention here.  And while I will not be doing official reviews for each film, The Avengers and Star Trek will receive less attention here due to the consensus I believe exists regarding those two films.

I think the thing I enjoyed most about Star Trek (I never saw it in theatres) was the tone of the film.  Star Trek over the years has come across as more earnest, heavyweight, and heavy-handed than unfamiliar viewers may expect.  As a result, I think that's why the Star Trek film franchise has not had the staying power that accompanies Star Wars.  Feel free to disagree; I'm less willing to hold onto this premise than the ones I'll throw out regarding the other movies up for discussion.

Anywho, the tone:  not since Up has a movie made me cry within the first 15 minutes.  What a wallop it packs!  Here we are, thrust straight into the pivotal moment that defines both George & James T. Kirk.  And without this moment, frankly, the film does not work.  For the first (and definitely not the) last in this discussion we encounter my first big point:  plot/story is characters in motion.  I cringe when people talk about the plot of a film as if it's something separate from the characters.  How does that work?  Tell me what Jaws, Casablanca, or even The Dark Knight is about without referring to the characters.  Do that well enough and I'll shut up about this point.

Ultimately, that's why Star Trek works so well for me.  Every plot development stems from honest character actions/reactions.  Don't get me wrong, this in-and-of-itself does not merit 4 stars.  But it's a requirement.  Hence, why The Avengers also deserves a shout-out.

Talk about a movie that puts its characters first.  And what's truly remarkable is the balance Joss Whedon pulls off.  Iron Man, or Robert Downey, Jr., can steal any scene he wants (and he does a few times), yet I never felt that he was our main man.  The same can be said about Thor and the Incredible Hulk and their power.  Given just how powerful these two heroes are, it almost eliminates all the stakes.  I applaud Whedon for bringing in Thor much later and for the Hulk storyline.  If he's just gonna go and smash everything in his way, so what?  That's what we expect.  But it doesn't make for compelling storytelling.

So, Star Trek and The Avengers deserve to take their place alongside the best of such films.  Hats off to two of my generations great storytellers. (And, yes, I realize J. J. didn't write Star Trek.)

Final verdict?

Star Trek  3.5 stars
The Avengers  3 stars

I don't even know where to begin with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  For a movie with a 158 minute running time, I felt like I was just starting to get into it.  In a very good way.  A very deliberate film, there are no wasted moments.  David Fincher was born to direct mysteries/thrillers.

If story starts and ends with characters, then actors play a vital role in the success of a film.  If we accept that premise, then Dragon Tattoo is a huge success.  Rooney Mara deserves all the credit in the world for this performance.  I had previously thought that Michelle Williams in My Week with Marilyn was the only choice for the Best Actress Oscar, but Ms. Mara has made me realize that she is an actress to watch going forward.  Every choice she makes never betrays the character.  I also think that's why the film needs the violence and brutality it has.

At no point are any of the scenes gratuitous.  Yes, they may be uncomfortable for some, but in no way should they be done without.  In fact, without them, the character of Lisbeth Salander comes across as unrealistic and two-dimensional.  If movies are in fact to invoke the senses, which is in turn vital to any visceral experience with watching a movie, then the audience is in the best place to understand the character, which means they are in the best place for understanding the story.

As I said before, David Fincher is born to direct these kinds of films.  Every clue we the audience need is available (like in Se7en).  He plays no cheap tricks, yet he doesn't offer up the clues easily.  If ever there were a movie that required you to be an active audience member, this is it.

Don't even get me started with the technical aspects.  The cinematography is beautiful and the editing... let's just say there's a reason it won the Oscar.  Rarely have I been more confused, horrified, and moved by a movie, all the while loving every minute of it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo  4 stars

(Thanks for bearing with me.)

The moment we've all been waiting for: my explanation for why Prometheus is more than just your average sci-fi movie.  Or is it horror?  I can't ever remember.

I should start off by saying that anyone reading my review of Prometheus should take into account a few things.

1)  Whether or not a movie like this should be analyzed in a vacuum is not really a topic I will tackle head on.
2)  My "review," though, will be from the perspective that the film should not be analyzed in a vacuum; therefore, any disagreements we may have may be at a most fundamental level.
3)  The movie, viewed in such a vacuum, still holds up for me.

(I should also be forthright in my admission that Ridley Scott is one of the few directors that can do no wrong for me.  Such as that is, bias will always be a natural part of my watching his films for the first time. I've since removed my Ridley-colored glasses the best I can.)

Ridley Scott has stated this movie is both a prequel and not a prequel to the Alien franchise he helmed back in 1979.  I have no problems saying that I agree.  I contend that while the Alien universe is the same universe we get in Prometheus, the story is less concerned with making a bridge to the 1979 movie.  And rightfully so.

Otherwise, we're just getting treated to a paint-by-numbers deal, where the screenwriters hands are forced to lead us to only conclusion.  I wouldn't think highly of that sort of movie, and while some hand tying is inherent since Prometheus takes place in the same universe, I am less likely to think of the movie as being a direct ancestor of the earlier franchise.

Ridley Scott has also stated that he intended this to be jumping-off point for his story.  That's why I don't buy the "incoherence" argument against the film.  To describe the film as incomplete or incoherent is an accusation against movie series.  In the same way The Fellowship of the Ring, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back aren't criticized for not offering up a complete account of their characters/story/mythology, so shouldn't we do so of Prometheus.  (Perhaps we demand more of our sci-fi.  Or is it horror?  I can't ever remember.)

And I realize two of those examples are not the first installment of their franchises.  One might argue those films have their own self-contained narrative, but so did Prometheus.  Some of the larger issue questions still burn, but why would we want all the answers now if we know there is more in store?  What good does it do us if we discover Darth Vader is Luke's father at the end of the first movie?  It's more confounding going forward, and offers little in the scope of that movie's story.  Luke doesn't really confront Vader, so playing that card early might fall flat.

As for the "character development" argument, I might offer up the same argument, just tailoring it to how the story is not over.  But then what about their story just for that movie?  Shouldn't we get some insight into who this discovery team is?  As for that, all I can say is:  I got just what I needed for each character.  In the same way most of these survival play out, there is an inherent (albeit insignificant) lack of character development. We get what we need from characters that endure.  In fact, it almost gives us a sense what Shaw is going through:  I've never met these people before in my life.  Who are they?  Can I trust them?  What are they capable of?  Much like with Dragon Tattoo, these choices put us (or maybe just me) in the best place to understand our characters/story.

The movie should get 4 stars just for the opening title sequence alone.  As for what the Engineer scene immediately after it meant, I will go ahead and say it doesn't matter whether its Earth or not.  The point is, these guys have able to create life and to be destroyed.

There were a few other arguments I wanted to tackle but forgot to write them down and lost them in all this typing.

Wait, I do remember one.  How can an android be compatible with your sense of story? Let me start by saying that when films enable us to better understand their characters, that is not required to understanding the story.  Sometimes, the story involves that element of mystery.  Suspense and mystery should arise from characters' actions; we may not always understand why Person #1 killed Person #2 or  why Event B followed from Event A.  This almost sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but there are always exceptions.  Otherwise, we'd all have the formula for making good films.

Anyway, I realize an android like David might pose problems for my "plot is the characters" argument. Think of why he "infects" Dr. Holloway and what that brings about.  It might seem inconsistent with his generally amiable behavior (do androids have behavior?) toward the humans.  However, his ultimate programming was to investigate, and surely we can't expect him to have known the consequences of his action.  And after realizing it, he was just following his programming to further investigate.  (And if you reject that he didn't know what would happen, it is still very much consistent with his "inquisitiveness.")  So, in fact, much of the mystery/suspense that arises throughout the movie arises from very character-based decisions.  However, satisfaction with character development will vary from person to person, so this disagreement just falls in line with such an issue as ice cream flavor preference.  I know that's not an exciting conclusion, and may seem like a cop-out, but I refuse to be swayed by the ideas that accompany universal or absolute truth regarding art.

Maybe I'm just rambling now.  I really meant to tackle the four main arguments against the movie I've heard.  So, I'll just go ahead and get to the point:

Prometheus  3.5 stars

Please feel free to comment.  It's my every intention to elicit feedback with this.  Otherwise, I've wasted two hours.

P.S.  I really want to promote my new favorite TV show, Deadwood.  It's already my 2nd favorite behind LOST, and I've only finished one season.  The writing is sharp (dialogue is almost Shakespearian), the production values are high, and the acting is top-notch.  If you are uncomfortable with HBO shows (particularly profanity), stay away.  Otherwise, treat yourself to one of the best shows I have ever seen.  (Shout-out to Brad Dourif, who deserved an Emmy for Season 1.)

Movie Ark

We are finally here.  The time has come to reveal what films you all have saved for humanity.  Just remember, if a movie isn't here, it's lost forever.  So blame yourself.  And me.  And every other participant.***

I was going to have a bunch of statistics ready for you, but it was taking forever.  These stats will be posted later this week.  But we do have some diversity here; for the most part, we have good tastes.

Let me take some time to personally thank you for participating.  It means a lot, and I hope you have fun with this.  You see, this isn't the end of it.  I plan on doing a few things with this list, although I will admit at this time I'm just not sure what all that will entail.  All I do know is that I do have your next task already.

It seems my architect was wrong with his plans;  unfortunately, we do not have room for five movies.  So, I need your help: which movies are getting kicked off?  You get five weighted votes (see below).  However, movies in bold are immune.  They are the ones that were picked by two or more people, and this was my only way to reward those who selected movies early on in the process.

So, if you would, over the next few weeks, please be thinking of selecting the five movies you think are expendable.  Like the first time around, your selections should be final.  Unlike the first time around, please list your selections in relative order of dismissal (e.g., from the one you'd most like to see gone to the least).

This is supposed to be fun, so if it seems burdensome, just know that there is no legal obligation.  Yet.

Complete List (Alphabetically)

12 Angry Men

(500) Days of Summer

Aladdin

Almost Famous

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Apocalypse Now

Apollo 13

Arsenic and Old Lace

The Avengers

Awakenings

The Awful Truth

Back to the Future

Batman (’89)

Batman Begins

A Beautiful Mind

Beauty and the Beast

Because I Said So

Ben-Hur

Bicycle Thieves

The Bourne Identity

Braveheart

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Calamity Jane

Casablanca

Casino Royale ('06)

Catch Me If You Can

A Christmas Story

Crash (’05)

The Dark Knight

The Departed

The Descendants

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Facing the Giants

Fantasia

Finding Nemo

Fist of Fury (or, The Chinese Connection)

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

The Fountain

French Kiss

The Fugitive

Gladiator

The Godfather: Part I

The Godfather: Part II

Gone with the Wind

Good Will Hunting

The Great Dictator

Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire

The Holiday

Hot Rod

How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (’66)

Hugo

The Illusionist

Inception

Inglourious Basterds

It’s a Wonderful Life

Jeremiah Johnson

Jurassic Park

Kingdom of Heaven

The Last of the Mohicans

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Lion King

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

The Maltese Falcon

A Man for All Seasons

Man on Fire

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (’77)

The Matrix

Melancholia

Monsters, Inc.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Moonraker

The Muppet Christmas Carol

The Muppets

Ocean’s Eleven ('01)

Open Water

Pee-wee’s Big Adventure

Planet Earth

The Prestige

Pride & Prejudice ('05)

The Producers (’68)

The Professional (or, Leon)

Psycho

Rear Window ('54)

Red ('10)

Remember the Titans

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Rounders (’98)

Saving Private Ryan

Schindler’s List

Seven Samurai

The Shawshank Redemption

Sideways

The Silence of the Lambs

Singin’ in the Rain

A Star is Born (’76)

Star Wars: A New Hope

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi

The Sting

Tangled

Taxi Driver

Thirteen Days

Titanic

Tombstone

Tommy Boy

Treasure Planet

The Tree of Life

Twister

Up

The Usual Suspects

V for Vendetta

Watchmen

Wedding Crashers

West Side Story

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape

While You Were Sleeping

Young Frankenstein

You’ve Got Mail

So there you have it.  Try not to be too underwhelmed, distraught, overjoyed, or any other extreme emotion.

*** My original introduction was much more eloquent but is lost forever to the monster that is human memory.

Movie Review: The Adjustment Bureau

“The Adjustment Bureau” a wonderful tangle of fate and love

***½ /**** (3.5 stars out of 4)

“So now I'm goin' back again,

I got to get to her somehow […]

We always did feel the same,

We just saw it from a different point of view,

Tangled up in blue.”

- Bob Dylan, “Tangled Up in Blue”

“The Adjustment Bureau” is like one giant visual representation of Dylan’s song; that is, it is art done right.

We are treated with a wholly poignant film with just enough intellectual teasings. Instead of bogging us down with the details of just how the Bureau works, its members never take themselves too seriously for the most part.

Many have criticized this, insisting that given the film’s short running time, writer/director George Nolfi should have provided more explanation of the story’s sci-fi threads.

I think this is the beauty of the film, though.

We are treated to an easily digestible story dealing with the various implications of both sides of the free will issue. However, we are spared the pseudo-philosophy that bogs down films like “Dark City.”

It’s not that these issues aren’t interesting. But they can get in the way of our characters, which ultimately move the story along. “The Adjustment Bureau” thankfully does not fall victim to this.

Matt Damon stars as David Norris, a rising politician running for the United State Senate. When he loses an early lead, he meets a mysterious woman (Emily Blunt) while rehearsing his concession speech in the hotel bathroom. Their chemistry is immediate, and after sharing a kiss, David is inspired and delivers a very honest speech that is well-received.

One morning, an agent of the Bureau fails to make an “adjustment” on David. Rather than David spilling his coffee and being late for work, David gets a glimpse of the future the Bureau does not want him to have. He meets the mysterious woman again by chance. She introduces herself as Elise and gives David her phone number.

Thus begins the scramble of the Bureau to get things back on track. They tell David he must never see Elise again. When he ignores their requests, they start taking drastic measures to ensure that David and Elise remain apart.

Of course, as David struggles to be with her, Elise feels betrayed by David’s lack of stability in their relationship. One of the Bureau’s agents finally convinces David to move on from Elise, and eleven months later David is running for Senate and Elise is engaged to another.

David finally decides he cannot have a life without her. In the face of overwhelming odds, he decides to forsake the predetermined path and risk everything to be with her.

This sounds like the kind of high-stakes storytelling that produces very moving results but only if the leads are believable. Damon and Blunt hit a homerun with their performances. Nothing ever feels forced, which is important for whatever payoff we get in the end.

I applaud the film’s commitment to telling its story with the tone it does. Some may view it as over-the-top, but the film grounds itself in its emotional core. This is vital.

Even if the film avoided the criticisms of its sci-fi scenario, we would be faced with another serious charge: so what? Because the film places its characters and their story first, we know why it all matters.

“The Adjustment Bureau” is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick ("Total Recall," "Minority Report" and "Blade Runner"), yet it is a film that remains more hopeful than these others. Instead of getting caught up in the trappings of various philosophical conundrums, the film gets tangled in the most human aspect of the film: love. We can’t help but get ourselves tangled up as well.

Running Time: 99 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Critic’s Rating: 3.5 stars (***½)

Bottom Line: Despite grumblings over an underexplained plot, “The Adjustment Bureau” is a well-crafted and an extremely moving piece of art.

Let's Party Like It's 1988

By now, the damage from the 83rd Academy Awards is too much to overcome. I can't even brag about calling Tom Hooper's upset of David Fincher for Best Director because of how poorly the rest of my predictions played out. Granted, I got tripped up by the 3 Horsemen of the Oscar Pool Apocalypse, the short film categories. I went 0-3 this year.

But in my post-show gloom, I decided to ramp up my usual comparative analysis of the present year's ceremony to a past year's ceremony. And boy do I have quite the comparison for this year...

Oddly enough, it's the year I was born: 1988.

(Side note: The 61st Academy Awards saw the introduction of the classic phrase "And the Oscar goes to...")

The King's Speech and Inception both tallied 4 wins this year. In 1988, Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit both garnered 4 wins.

The King's Speech and Rain Man won the same 4 categories! Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay.

Inception and Who Framed Roger Rabbit triumphed in the technical awards (both won awards for sound and visual effects).

Inception and Who Framed Roger Rabbit were the commercial favorites, capturing the adoration of national audiences. (Of course, Rain Man and The King's Speech also eclipsed the $100 million mark at the domestic box office.) Both films are gamechangers in story-telling. The King's Speech and Rain Man were fairly straightforward movies.

Hoffman's character in Rain Man suffers from a restrictive/repetitive behavioral impediment. Colin Firth's character in The King's Speech is no different.

The Social Network and Dangerous Liaisons both won 3 Oscars. Both were nominated for Best Picture, and both won the Best Adapted Screenplay award. Both are tales of sexual seduction; one is set in Pre-Revolution France and the other set around Facebook. Click this now.

Natalie Portman just won her first Best Actress Oscar at the age of 29. Her breakthrough role was at the age of 13, playing a 12 year-old girl with an uncomfortably awkward relationship with a much older man. (Roger Ebert questioned the film's "would-be sexy portrayal of a pre-teenage girl.")

Jodie Foster won her first Best Actress Oscar at the age of 26. Her breakthrough role was at the age of 13, playing a 12 year-old girl with an uncomfortably awkward relationship with much older men. (She played a child prostitute.)

Their Oscar-winning roles involved controversial sexual topics.

Christian Bale and Kevin Kline won Best Supporting Actor Oscars. Both were both middle-aged (36 for Bale and 41 for Kline) and in the middle of very successful acting careers at the time of their wins. Unlike Bale's triumph, Kline's victory was considered an upset.

Hans Zimmer was nominated in both years, for Rain Man and Inception. He lost both times.

A Tim Burton film won the Academy Award for Best Makeup: Beetlejuice (1988) and Alice in Wonderland (2010).

Finally, the 1988 and 2010 winners of Best Foreign Language Film came from Denmark (Pelle the Conqueror and In a Better World).

And you probably thought I was reading too much into all of this...