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...

Movie Review: Morning Glory

“Morning Glory” is a delight

***/**** (3 stars out of 4)

“Morning Glory” is about as charming as they come.

Like most good comedies, the humor arises out of the characters and their action. However, that is not enough to explain why this movie succeeds; there is something to the parts that make the whole work.

When hard-working TV producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is fired from a local news program, her career begins to look as bleak as her hapless love life. Stumbling into a job at "Daybreak" (the last-place national morning news show), Becky decides to revitalize the show by bringing on legendary TV anchor Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford).

Unfortunately, Pomeroy refuses to cover morning show staples like celebrity gossip, weather, fashion and crafts, let alone work with his new co-host, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), a former beauty queen and longtime morning show personality, who is more than happy covering morning "news."

As Mike and Colleen clash, first behind the scenes and then on the air, Becky's blossoming love affair with fellow producer, Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson) begins to unravel. And soon Becky is struggling to save her relationship, her reputation, her job and ultimately, the show itself.

This struggle to keep everything together is the driving force behind the comedy. It makes the humor come alive because it shows us that the characters are grounded in something real. I do not think that this movie would work if, at any point, these characters seemed to be larger than life. If good comedy is to arise from characters, the audience needs to buy in completely.

Rachel McAdams gives a good performance here. She brings it every scene, which is very important for giving the film a consistent emotional barometer. It is also important because she has to go toe-to-toe with Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford is the one anomaly in this movie, though not necessarily in a bad way. I would not say Harrison Ford has an acting range, but there is an expectation that most of us have when we watch him. But this is a different kind of Harrison Ford in “Morning Glory,” one that I am not so sure if I have seen before. (His impersonation of Christian Bale/Batman from “The Dark Knight,” however unintentional it may be, is spot-on.)

McAdams and Ford are at their best in the film’s second half, and not surprisingly, this is where the film really takes off.

It is not just the back-and-forth between McAdams and Ford that helps catapults the film. The other actors, including Matt Malloy as the resident weatherman, all come alive. This is because the script tightens after the first act.

Early on, the movie was very uneven. It was not immediately clear just what type of movie I’d be seeing. The tone was very somber early on, but maybe this was an attempt to up the stakes, so that the later payoff would leave the audience more than satisfied. I will have to say that if this was the case, then it worked perfectly.

This movie is not perfect. I was really excited to see this movie, and the first act was confounding in its unevenness. But the remainder of the movie is wonderful. (In particular, one roller coaster scene sent the audience into some of the loudest laughter I’ve ever heard at the movies.)

Look past Paramount’s attempt to bill it as a romantic comedy, and you will see the film as it really is: a film that is both good comedy and good drama. Thankfully, the characters give rise to both; this is what makes “Morning Glory” one of the better films of the year.

Running Time: 102 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Bottom Line: Although not perfect, the story flows from its characters; as a result, we get one of the most charming films of the year.

Movie Review: Hereafter

“Hereafter” the latest triumph for Eastwood

3 ½ stars out of 4

Clint Eastwood the director has nothing to prove to audiences anymore. Even when his latest film is in unfamiliar territory for both him and his audience, I never once felt the insecurity that would most likely accompany the same material in the hands of less experienced directors.

“Hereafter” is being described as Eastwood’s “French film,” but I am not so quick to deem it as such. Instead, this may be best described as Eastwood’s most “adult” film, if only because of its laconic style. This characteristic combined with the subject matter further reinforces this claim.

To be clear, this film requires the patience of our attention-deficient culture. Some may argue that this is a weakness that ultimately brings down the film, despite its visual strengths and the wonderful acting. To those people I charge the following: you are missing the point.

This film consists of three tightly woven narratives. One involves George (Matt Damon), a man who appears to be an actual psychic, although he has given up this practice. Despite this “retirement,” he is constantly called upon by both strangers and those close to him to do readings. Throughout the film, George maintains that this connection with the dead is a curse, and it is not too hard to see why: it impacts his ability to foster new relationships.

The other two threads involve French television journalist Marie and a young English boy named Marcus. Marie, while abroad, becomes a victim of a destructive tsunami. She appears to be slipping into death, only to be resuscitated. This near-death experience, which Eastwood leaves ambiguous, consumes Marie upon her return to her life as usual.

Marcus has a twin brother, Jason, who is killed trying to escape a violent group of bullies. Marcus is sent to foster care, because the children’s mother is a heroin addict and an alcoholic. The two people he most loves are taken away from him, and Marcus struggles to cope with the reality of his new circumstances.

Although these three narratives are concerned with themes of death, the movie is about life. It deals with life’s possible connection with the spiritual. It also shows how life can connect us all, even through death. Through the roles that death plays in these characters’ lives, we are brought to the singular moment where their lives are intertwined. And this is precisely why I claim that critics of the film are missing the point.

This movie is all about the emotional journey of these characters. In turn, these emotions lead them to make choices that will ultimately bring them and the film to their ultimate yet seemingly inevitable conclusion, despite how coincidental things may seem. (How fitting it is, then, that George’s literary hero is Charles Dickens.)

Maybe it is these coincidences that are our connection to whatever concept, notion, or reality of the hereafter exists in this film. The subway sequence involving Marcus and his hat and the final scene of the movie suggest that I am not too far off in my understanding.

The payoff of this movie depends upon the tedious setup, and that is why I dismiss the aforementioned critical response to the film’s pacing and length. I think any cuts in the film weaken the emotional threads of the movie. And for the conclusion to work (as in any movie), these threads must remain intact.

If my above analysis sounds hokey or confusing, it is because the film is dealing with something so uncertain and divisive; after all, consideration of the idea of an afterlife is no picnic. Despite all of this, skeptics of the hereafter or life after death will find this movie satisfying. This film connects itself to possible “spirituality” and the afterlife without being overtly spiritual.

It is a moving story, regardless of one’s belief about the subject matter. This universality, besides echoing the themes of the movie, is what makes it such a wonderful film. If I am wrong about this, though, at least we are all left believing in one thing at the end: the status of Clint Eastwood as one of America’s finest filmmakers of all time.

Running Time: 129 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

My Rating: 3 ½ stars (***1/2)

Bottom Line: Although the story will tax the patience of an attention-deficient culture, it is a moving story that will satisfy regardless of your belief in the hereafter.

Bond franchise should be shaken, not stirred

James Bond’s license to thrill has been revoked, at least for the time being.

Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson announced back in April that the franchise was being shelved until the financial problems of studio MGM could be resolved. It is thought that the studio is behind on about $3.7 billion in debt.

There is much uncertainty surrounding a timetable for the franchise and the next film itself. There are conflicting reports as to whether production for the next film has been cancelled or merely postponed. There have even been reports that Sam Mendes, who was attached to direct the next film and then dropped out, has had second thoughts about his second thoughts and is still back in the mix to direct the next film.

(Yes, an Oscar-winning director is attached to the franchise.)

Despite the uncertainty, the only thing that is clear to me is that the reboot of the franchise has proven to be hit-or-miss for most people. It seems that the wildly popular “Casino Royale” is everyone’s new favorite, while “Quantum of Solace” left most moviegoers feeling incomplete.

This inconsistency seems to stem from the fact that the reboot was designed to get Bond back to basics, eliminating the increasingly outlandish use of gadgets and various other fantasy elements that were a staple of the early franchise (with the Roger Moore films being the worst offenders). This rebooted Bond is thought to be more in line with the Bond from Ian Fleming’s original novels.

This new, darker Bond was quite a treat for audiences in “Casino Royale,” but after seeing “Quantum of Solace” (which I liked), I couldn’t help but get the feeling I was seeing an extension of the Jason Bourne series. Although that probably has more to do with the story of “Quantum,” the new direction of the rebooted franchise also has its share of the blame.

There are a few elements I believe that are worth bringing back, if only to give some sort of continuity or familiarity with the new films. Still present are the title sequences, the exotic locales, the unique super-villains, and the various vehicles and sports cars. But there are two I would like to see make a return.

First, the franchise needs to see the return of a central nemesis, much like the criminal organization SPECTRE and its Number One Ernst Stavro Blofeld from the earlier movies. Whether there should be an archenemy like Blofeld is less important than an identifiable organization.

Although this may seem out of place with the rebooted franchise, it is entirely consistent with both “Casino” and “Quantum.” At the heart of both films are characters from a mysterious group called Quantum, which seems to function as a new sort of SPECTRE. I can only hope that Quantum continues to make its presence known going forward, given that is has proven to be quite the adversary to Bond in the last two films.

A second thing I would like to see for the future of the franchise is the return of familiar characters that were staples of past movies. Although the reboots have featured characters like M (played by the incomparable Judi Dench) and Felix Leiter, missing is Bond’s relationship with Q and Miss Moneypenny.

I know their relationships in past movies fell into a kind of contrived rhythm but having them around is not the issue. Some of the best moments from the past films included Desmond Llewelyn’s performance as the go-to gadget guy. If the writers can find ways of introducing them and keeping them around in fresh, original ways, then the franchise would be better for it.

Don't tell me you don't miss this guy.

Part of what makes “Casino Royale” such a great Bond movie is the fact that the reboot has put an emphasis on Bond as an emotional character, which was absent from pretty much every film prior to “Casino.” (The most notable exception is “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.) When the plot of a movie is actually driven by characters, then we get a good movie. However, after “Quantum of Solace,” the franchise seems headed for a dark place, probably due to the fact that Bond himself was going down a dark road.

Bond has always had its appeal in escapist fantasy, and reintroducing some of these old elements would help balance the gravitas of the direction the reboot has taken. And, this would only help Bond return to its rightful place as the most successful and enduring film franchise of all time.

Second-Guessing the Oscars

“And the Oscar goes to…” This five-word phrase is all it takes to catapult a movie to the forefront of the film industry. That same phrase is also responsible for one of two things: cementing a film’s legacy among the greats of cinema or leaving a film branded as overrated.

A film’s reputation is affected by one aspect of films that is not immediately clear or measurable: how well a movie stands the test of time. I am not so sure that voters are too concerned with this aspect. However, having the benefit of hindsight, assessing the merits of past winners has become an interesting practice.

One such assessment that is often made is the lament of many who think that “Shakespeare in Love” should never have beaten “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture of 1998. Since I hesitate to make that claim so definitely, I will present a few other moments from Oscar history that left me scratching my head.

Let us start with the 2008 Best Picture race. “Slumdog Millionaire” may be the “worst” (think least deserving) Best Picture winner of the past decade. It is not that “Slumdog” is a flat-out horrible movie. It is just that I have found only a handful of people (both professional critics and average filmgoers) who believe “Slumdog” to be a better movie than “Milk,” “The Dark Knight,” “Gran Torino,” “WALL-E,” and “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”

I could just be making a hasty generalization, but even without my bias toward “Slumdog” as Best Picture, it sure seems as if the Academy dropped the ball for 2008.

1994 is another interesting year. Unlike 2008, the controversy surrounding that year is a result of what has been previously mentioned: the test of time. “Forrest Gump” was the favorite to win the award for Best Picture, which it did. However, time has elevated the status of fellow nominees “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Pulp Fiction” to two of the greatest films of all time. (Although, I’m partial to a fourth nominee, “Quiz Show.”)

In this case, the Academy’s decision did not seem so bad at first. The popularity of both “Shawshank” and “Pulp Fiction” soared after their theatrical runs (although “Pulp Fiction” became one of the highest grossing “indie” films of all time). Only years later did the general public jump onboard with the critical praise that met both films upon their release. Plus, “Forrest Gump” is a very endearing movie that seems to elicit much more merit from audiences than say a “Slumdog.”

It is just a little astonishing, looking back on things, that “Forrest Gump” is the one that carry the tile Best Picture for the year 1994. In a year that brought about two or three of the best films of the past quarter century, “Forrest Gump” has the unfortunate pleasure of being the film that is second-guessed.

A list of grievances could go on and on. “Braveheart” over “Sense and Sensibility” and “Apollo 13” in 1995? “Raging Bull” and “Goodfellas” losing to “Ordinary People” and “Dances with Wolves,” respectively? Let’s not even get started on all the technical and acting categories. How “Citizen Kane” does not sweep the list of technical awards it is up for (Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, etc.) is beyond me.

But for me, the biggest snub of all was Ingrid Bergman’s work on “Casablanca.” She was nominated for an Oscar, but the nomination was for another movie, “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Although Bergman herself considers other performances to be her best, in a 2007 biography she was quoted as saying:

"I feel about ‘Casablanca’ that it has a life of its own. There is something mystical about it. It seems to have filled a need, a need that was there before the film, a need that the film filled.” The same could be said of her performance.

To say hindsight is 20/20 for the Oscars is a little misleading. Voting is a subjective process, people’s opinions change, and my own objections are merely opinion. Over time, though, the Academy’s choices do face a type of scrutiny that is unavoidable whenever awards are concerned. However, it is this dialogue that is indispensable for the arts, particularly movies.