First let's clear up one thing: I did not cry during this film. Okay, I didn't cry a lot. Okay fine, I at least didn't cry quite as much as the young woman behind me, who from the sound of things was in tears from beginning to end. I'm not sure even she understood why she was having this reaction, but I can say that I don't blame her a bit.
That's just the kind of movie Catching Fire is--it takes your emotions and tugs them up through your throat, wraps them around your neck, and then asks you to try and breathe through the choke-hold. This review is itself being delayed for several hours after my initial viewing because I needed that time to process everything I thought about during and after this film, and to figure out how to best put it into words.
With a new director at the helm, Catching Fire could easily have felt choppy or jarringly desperate to stand out from its predecessor (think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), but it just didn't. Francis Lawrence understands the importance of maintaining and escalating the unique tone of the first movie, and his vision is executed beautifully onscreen without feeling like too sharp a departure from the universe established for us in The Hunger Games. Improvements were made in the few places they were needed, and while a few tidbits from the book were omitted, the film was admirably and almost completely true to its source material. The few instances where creative license is taken with scenes or characters feel organic and fit smoothly into the existing plot, and I find myself hard-pressed to think of one that ought to have been changed.
If memory serves I said this about the first film, but it feels doubly true now: looking at the directors, the screenwriters, the performers, I can't find a weak link in the bunch. It's almost as though they've all conspired to turn in some of the best work of their careers in the name of making this movie a success. I fully expected Jennifer Lawrence to be brilliant, as she so reliably is. What I didn't expect was for Jena Malone and Sam Claflin to so skillfully embody their fan-favorite characters. What I didn't expect was for Phillip Seymour-Hoffman to portray an intriguing new gamemaker with a cleverness I haven't seen since Alan Rickman humanized Severus Snape on the big screen. I didn't expect (though I hoped) that Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth would overcome the heartthrob status assigned to them and bring better performances than anticipated, showing that though neither of them will ever outshine J-Law, they are at least entitled to play on the same field. Further praise goes deservedly to Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland for preventing their characters from becoming caricatures, and for bringing some of the most punch-in-the-gut emotional moments of the film.
When I initially read the book series back in late 2010, devouring all three within a week's time, I viewed Catching Fire as a hinge, a bridge between the initial horrors of The Hunger Games and the roaring conclusion of Mockingjay. Seeing the film, however, helped me appreciate the tight narrative it is in its own right. Catching Fire provides the most character development of the three novels, and the film fully rises to that task. One can seen the tone, as well as Katniss herself, travel from fear to anger to violence, inciting the revolution that will make or break the districts of Panem. Francis Lawrence has depicted it just about flawlessly, and the intensity of the film's proverbial call to action makes the audience want to join the rebellion themselves, or at the very least set some shit on fire.
As with many great films, there are a number of little things that really enhance the experience, making the film stand out not just as good, but great. Catching Fire incorporates the musical score from the previous film, using familiar refrains as callbacks to critical events which unfolded in The Hunger Games. It is also careful to re-establish certain visual elements as important, so that we feel re-immersed in Katniss' world rather than like we're being introduced to something brand new. The pacing is fairly remarkable as well-- this film approaches the 2.5 hour mark, and yet it feels smooth and free of those restless moments in which most viewers might feel tempted to check the time.
It is also worth noting just how well this film serves as the middle piece of the puzzle: it hearkens back to The Hunger Games without tediously recapping, and it foreshadows what is to come without forgetting itself as a standalone plot. The final scenes do feel ever so slightly rushed (one of my few complaints about the film) but in them we get a very clear preview of what to expect in Mockingjay, which rumor has it will be split into two parts. Questions of staggering significance lay on the table unanswered, and Katniss herself is in a state of visible turmoil, both anxious and afraid but also enraged and thirsting for revenge. Moviegoers will leave the theater feeling similarly, and eagerly awaiting the final installment.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
2012: The Best and Worst
Here's some thoughts, sneaked in right under the wire here. 2012 had a lot of good things, but my hopes for 2013 are even higher.
Best Movies (in no particular order):
The Hunger Games
I had high hopes for this one from the day I first heard they were adapting the book into a film, and I was not disappointed. The casting was spot on, the big moments shone the way they were intended, and director Gary Ross took things one intriguing step further by using the film to force us to question our own beliefs and practices. Hopefully Catching Fire can continue the trend of success in 2013.
Argo
This is probably the most well-crafted movie I saw this year, and I think that everyone else should see it, at the very least so they can reassure themselves that Ben Affleck deserves the acclaim he's currently receiving.
Silver Linings Playbook
This movie is heart-wrenching, painfully real, and hysterically funny all at the same time. Both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence give performances that are just plain fantastic (believe me, I was surprised about the former too), and the story is one that is incredibly poignant and accessible. If I had to pick a personal favorite among these, this movie is most likely it.
The Amazing Spider-Man
This movie surprised me-- I expected it to be pretty good, having Marc Webb, Emma Stone, and Andrew Garfield (among others) on board, but I didn't expect it to be SO good.
The Dark Knight Rises
I believe I have already expressed my full thoughts (probably to some excess) on this one. But yes, a tremendous ending to a remarkable trilogy of films.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Another book adaptation that far surpassed my expectations. Not only did it adhere to the spirit of the novel in all its teen angst glory, the casting turned out to be brilliant. All three of the lead actors were superb, and it definitely added to the realism of an occasionally melodramatic story.
Pitch Perfect
This is the best cheesy movie I've seen in ages. Not only does it have Anna Kendrick (and believe me, that alone lends it quite a bit of cred), it also has some elements to it that seem to have been forgotten in the movie industry's recent efforts aimed at teenagers. It offers the things that appealed to me initially about Glee, except you know, the music is far more impressive and the plot lines make sense; it also features a protagonist who defies a lot of the unofficial "rules" that make adolescent leading ladies so unbearable to watch lately. Written by Kay Cannon of 30 Rock and SNL, Pitch Perfect doesn't underestimate its audience and has some truly laugh out loud moments as well as a few that will give you goosebumps.
*Note: I haven't seen Zero Dark Thirty yet, as it hasn't been released in my city, but I'm giving it a preemptive honorary spot on this list based on how good I'm anticipating it will be.
Best TV Shows:
Parks and Recreation
Season 5 has been heavily focused on character development, which I think is what may be underwhelming some viewers when compared with Season 4 and its exciting build to Leslie's election. But that's something that I love about this show, and something that if you love these characters, is the kind of payoff you've been waiting for. Tom's maturing and starting his own business; Ann is realizing that it's okay to be alone and get to know yourself; Ben and Leslie are settling into a relationship largely free of its early dramatics; April and Andy are finding their paths; even Ron is embarking upon what just might be a healthy relationship. The gang in Pawnee is growing up, and I can't wait to see what's next.
Game of Thrones
The show's second season lived up to escalating expectations, with penultimate episode "Blackwater" making a lasting impression as one of the more recent achievements in dramatic television, outshining what many films have been able to do with more generous resources. And season three only promises more epic-ness to come.
Happy Endings
The most hilarious show that almost no one is watching (and ABC is making little effort to air). Give this one a chance, and if it doesn't make you laugh out loud at least once, well, there might be something wrong with you.
Best New Shows:
The Mindy Project (FOX)
Go On (NBC)
Best TV Episodes:
How I Met Your Mother, "The Last Page"
This had one of the better head-fakes in HIMYM's history, and especially made up for the streak of lackluster episodes which preceded it. I won't spoil the twist for those who haven't seen it, but it's pretty legendary.
Parks and Recreation, "Halloween Surprise"
BEN AND LESLIE ARE GETTING MARRIED. Also, some other stuff happened.
Grey's Anatomy, "Remember the Time"
RIP Mark Sloan-- I didn't even like you that much, but this episode proved that Grey's still knows how to tug at the strings (and induce ugly-crying to boot), even after all these years.
New Girl, "Injured"
This was the episode that really brought me around on this show, because the showrunners seemed to have finally figured out the magic and potential of the ensemble rather than simply relying on the quirky cuteness of Zooey Deschanel ad infinitum. Season 2 has continued that trend, and I think good things can be expected.
Favorite People*:
Jennifer Lawrence
We can disregard House at the End of the Street as a fluke and just continue drooling over how talented Ms. Lawrence is, right? That's what I've been doing, anyway. Not only did she emerge in popular media playing one of the most badass characters out there at the moment, but she also gave one of the best performances I've seen in years in Silver Linings Playbook, which will probably earn her a second Academy Award nomination (it's a crime if it doesn't). Oh, and she's only 22 years old, so no need to feel bad about your own accomplishments or anything.
The Obamas
Yeah, Barack may not have gotten everything done that he wanted to do (fortunately he's got another 4 years to make it up to us), but Michelle and the girls more than made up for it by being their usual fabulous selves and providing America with more sorely-needed lady role models.
Jon Stewart
Nobody handles the increasingly dismal, frustrating, and sometimes terrifying developments in the news quite like Jon Stewart. He's been perfecting his on-air persona for years, but it's the moments when his genuine concern for this floundering nation that truly set him apart.
Amy Poehler (always)
Do I even have to explain this one anymore? She's hosting the Golden Globes on January 13th; watch that and maybe you'll begin to understand a fraction of what there is to love about this fabulous lady.
Maisie Williams
Well, I'm probably biased because she plays my absolute favorite character on Game of Thrones, but this girl is adorable, and pretty darn talented to boot. Arya gets some even meatier stuff to work with during A Storm of Swords, so I for one am psyched to see what Williams will get to do come Season 3.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Dude was everywhere in 2012, and it looks like that's a trend that will be continuing in the new year. No complaints here, especially if another team-up with Chris Nolan (and I'm not saying it HAS to be Batman related, but that'd be pretty cool...) is on the horizon.
The IKEA Monkey
Not a person, I know, but have you seen this little guy? If there's anything I love more than animals dressed as humans (and fashionable humans at that) and shopping for affordable furniture, I do not know what it is.
Biggest Disappointments:
The Casual Vacancy
The Apocalypse
The 2012 Emmy Awards (the award recipients, not the broadcast itself, though that wasn't great either)
People I'm Sick of Hearing About:
Taylor Swift
One Direction/Justin Bieber/any of their female counterparts
Donald Trump
Tom Cruise
Just...no.
Biggest (Positive) Surprises:
Positive Female Role Models (in media especially)
Katniss Everdeen. Arya Stark. Princess Merida. Michelle Obama. Gabby Douglas. Hilary Clinton. The list could go on, but suffice it to say that ladies rocked in 2012, and I'm fairly certain there's no end in sight.
The Rise of Folk
I actually read a magazine article recently that reference the door that had been opened for bands like the Lumineers and Of Monsters and Men in the "post-Mumford" era. If that's not an indicator of where the trends are headed, I don't know what is.
Saturday Night Live (without all-stars Kristen Wiig and Andy Samberg)
Here's the little secret about this season of SNL that no one's talking about: it's actually been pretty great, all things considered. The old favorites are delivering their usual brilliance, and new faces like Kate McKinnon and Cecily Strong have me persuaded that things in Studio 8H are not as bleak as previously anticipated.
Best Movies (in no particular order):
The Hunger Games
I had high hopes for this one from the day I first heard they were adapting the book into a film, and I was not disappointed. The casting was spot on, the big moments shone the way they were intended, and director Gary Ross took things one intriguing step further by using the film to force us to question our own beliefs and practices. Hopefully Catching Fire can continue the trend of success in 2013.
Argo
This is probably the most well-crafted movie I saw this year, and I think that everyone else should see it, at the very least so they can reassure themselves that Ben Affleck deserves the acclaim he's currently receiving.
Silver Linings Playbook
This movie is heart-wrenching, painfully real, and hysterically funny all at the same time. Both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence give performances that are just plain fantastic (believe me, I was surprised about the former too), and the story is one that is incredibly poignant and accessible. If I had to pick a personal favorite among these, this movie is most likely it.
The Amazing Spider-Man
This movie surprised me-- I expected it to be pretty good, having Marc Webb, Emma Stone, and Andrew Garfield (among others) on board, but I didn't expect it to be SO good.
The Dark Knight Rises
I believe I have already expressed my full thoughts (probably to some excess) on this one. But yes, a tremendous ending to a remarkable trilogy of films.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Another book adaptation that far surpassed my expectations. Not only did it adhere to the spirit of the novel in all its teen angst glory, the casting turned out to be brilliant. All three of the lead actors were superb, and it definitely added to the realism of an occasionally melodramatic story.
Pitch Perfect
This is the best cheesy movie I've seen in ages. Not only does it have Anna Kendrick (and believe me, that alone lends it quite a bit of cred), it also has some elements to it that seem to have been forgotten in the movie industry's recent efforts aimed at teenagers. It offers the things that appealed to me initially about Glee, except you know, the music is far more impressive and the plot lines make sense; it also features a protagonist who defies a lot of the unofficial "rules" that make adolescent leading ladies so unbearable to watch lately. Written by Kay Cannon of 30 Rock and SNL, Pitch Perfect doesn't underestimate its audience and has some truly laugh out loud moments as well as a few that will give you goosebumps.
*Note: I haven't seen Zero Dark Thirty yet, as it hasn't been released in my city, but I'm giving it a preemptive honorary spot on this list based on how good I'm anticipating it will be.
Best TV Shows:
Parks and Recreation
Season 5 has been heavily focused on character development, which I think is what may be underwhelming some viewers when compared with Season 4 and its exciting build to Leslie's election. But that's something that I love about this show, and something that if you love these characters, is the kind of payoff you've been waiting for. Tom's maturing and starting his own business; Ann is realizing that it's okay to be alone and get to know yourself; Ben and Leslie are settling into a relationship largely free of its early dramatics; April and Andy are finding their paths; even Ron is embarking upon what just might be a healthy relationship. The gang in Pawnee is growing up, and I can't wait to see what's next.
Game of Thrones
The show's second season lived up to escalating expectations, with penultimate episode "Blackwater" making a lasting impression as one of the more recent achievements in dramatic television, outshining what many films have been able to do with more generous resources. And season three only promises more epic-ness to come.
Happy Endings
The most hilarious show that almost no one is watching (and ABC is making little effort to air). Give this one a chance, and if it doesn't make you laugh out loud at least once, well, there might be something wrong with you.
Best New Shows:
The Mindy Project (FOX)
Go On (NBC)
Best TV Episodes:
How I Met Your Mother, "The Last Page"
This had one of the better head-fakes in HIMYM's history, and especially made up for the streak of lackluster episodes which preceded it. I won't spoil the twist for those who haven't seen it, but it's pretty legendary.
Parks and Recreation, "Halloween Surprise"
BEN AND LESLIE ARE GETTING MARRIED. Also, some other stuff happened.
Grey's Anatomy, "Remember the Time"
RIP Mark Sloan-- I didn't even like you that much, but this episode proved that Grey's still knows how to tug at the strings (and induce ugly-crying to boot), even after all these years.
New Girl, "Injured"
This was the episode that really brought me around on this show, because the showrunners seemed to have finally figured out the magic and potential of the ensemble rather than simply relying on the quirky cuteness of Zooey Deschanel ad infinitum. Season 2 has continued that trend, and I think good things can be expected.
Favorite People*:
Jennifer Lawrence
We can disregard House at the End of the Street as a fluke and just continue drooling over how talented Ms. Lawrence is, right? That's what I've been doing, anyway. Not only did she emerge in popular media playing one of the most badass characters out there at the moment, but she also gave one of the best performances I've seen in years in Silver Linings Playbook, which will probably earn her a second Academy Award nomination (it's a crime if it doesn't). Oh, and she's only 22 years old, so no need to feel bad about your own accomplishments or anything.
The Obamas
Yeah, Barack may not have gotten everything done that he wanted to do (fortunately he's got another 4 years to make it up to us), but Michelle and the girls more than made up for it by being their usual fabulous selves and providing America with more sorely-needed lady role models.
Jon Stewart
Nobody handles the increasingly dismal, frustrating, and sometimes terrifying developments in the news quite like Jon Stewart. He's been perfecting his on-air persona for years, but it's the moments when his genuine concern for this floundering nation that truly set him apart.
Amy Poehler (always)
Do I even have to explain this one anymore? She's hosting the Golden Globes on January 13th; watch that and maybe you'll begin to understand a fraction of what there is to love about this fabulous lady.
Maisie Williams
Well, I'm probably biased because she plays my absolute favorite character on Game of Thrones, but this girl is adorable, and pretty darn talented to boot. Arya gets some even meatier stuff to work with during A Storm of Swords, so I for one am psyched to see what Williams will get to do come Season 3.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Dude was everywhere in 2012, and it looks like that's a trend that will be continuing in the new year. No complaints here, especially if another team-up with Chris Nolan (and I'm not saying it HAS to be Batman related, but that'd be pretty cool...) is on the horizon.
The IKEA Monkey
Not a person, I know, but have you seen this little guy? If there's anything I love more than animals dressed as humans (and fashionable humans at that) and shopping for affordable furniture, I do not know what it is.
Biggest Disappointments:
The Casual Vacancy
The Apocalypse
The 2012 Emmy Awards (the award recipients, not the broadcast itself, though that wasn't great either)
People I'm Sick of Hearing About:
Taylor Swift
One Direction/Justin Bieber/any of their female counterparts
Donald Trump
Tom Cruise
Just...no.
Biggest (Positive) Surprises:
Positive Female Role Models (in media especially)
Katniss Everdeen. Arya Stark. Princess Merida. Michelle Obama. Gabby Douglas. Hilary Clinton. The list could go on, but suffice it to say that ladies rocked in 2012, and I'm fairly certain there's no end in sight.
The Rise of Folk
I actually read a magazine article recently that reference the door that had been opened for bands like the Lumineers and Of Monsters and Men in the "post-Mumford" era. If that's not an indicator of where the trends are headed, I don't know what is.
Saturday Night Live (without all-stars Kristen Wiig and Andy Samberg)
Here's the little secret about this season of SNL that no one's talking about: it's actually been pretty great, all things considered. The old favorites are delivering their usual brilliance, and new faces like Kate McKinnon and Cecily Strong have me persuaded that things in Studio 8H are not as bleak as previously anticipated.
Labels:
2012,
Amy Poehler,
Argo,
Arya Stark,
comedy,
folk music,
Game of Thrones,
Happy Endings,
Hunger Games,
Jennifer Lawrence,
movies,
Obama,
Parks and Recreation,
Pitch Perfect,
Silver Linings Playbook,
SNL,
TV
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises
Christopher Nolan does not yet have an Academy Award for directing a film. Think about that when you're walking out of the theater after seeing this film tomorrow (or this weekend, or next week), and realize, as I have, what an outrage it will be if he doesn't at least earn a nomination for his work on this Batman trilogy, particularly for creating a third and final installment that closes the series just about perfectly.
A few tidbits right off the bat about what made this film such a wonderful experience for a fan who, like many, has been anticipating its arrival since 2008:
1. Tom Hardy acts just about as well as anyone can with use of about 20% of his face, so definite kudos there. Anne Hathaway is also surprisingly compelling as Cat Woman/Selina Kyle.
2. Other performances that are downright spectacular include those from Joseph Gordon Levitt, Michael Caine, and Matthew Modine (and a note on him: is it pure coincidence that not only is his character as annoyingly stubborn as a certain former president, but Modine even resembles him a bit?).
3. Hans Zimmer's musical score, as in the previous two films, is impeccable. It ties the film together thematically while incorporating critical parts of the previous installments' motifs, which left me with an additional underlying feeling of unity between the stories, something you certainly don't get with most films and their sequels.
4. Maybe it's simply because this film is the most current, but the destruction and fear presented on the screen feels more real--and more frighteningly plausible-- than ever before. It's impossible not to feel on the edge of your seat.
5. There is a, shall we say, patriotic moment just shy of the climax of Bane's reign of terror that is downright eerie. It will literally give you chills (and you will know exactly which part I mean when you've seen the film).
The Dark Knight showed us the horrors that could emerge as a result of one man's thirst for chaos; its sequel takes things a step further by showing us chaos on a truly grand scale, and the unexpected ways in which such chaos can test us. This installment brings us Bane, a super-strong, super-scary (he wears a mask all the time! his voice sounds like a child's nightmare!) mercenary who wants to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's mission to raze Gotham to the ground. The brilliance of this detail in particular is that it brings the trilogy full circle, taking us all the way back to Batman Begins and the original intention behind the League of Shadows, who trained Batman in his fightin' ways. Bane operates in a manner similar to The Joker, at least in philosophy: preying on the already existent fears and tensions between people, which in this film find themselves heavily rooted in politics and the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. Not referencing the explosion of animosity between the 99 and 1 percent would make the film feel less relevant to the modern viewer, something Nolan realizes and makes certain to incorporate seamlessly.
It is also here in the final film of the trilogy that Christian Bale seems to find his footing as Bruce Wayne/Batman at last, balancing between his old arrogance and the anguish that has manifested as a result of the events of The Dark Knight. Wayne is broken, largely due to his lingering guilt over Rachel's death, and doesn't want to play his role as Batman anymore. His eventual return to action is a slow burn to which many factors contribute, making it all the more satisfying to see him finally put the suit back on and take to the streets of Gotham once again. Bale found himself somewhat overshadowed in The Dark Knight by his peers' performances (as well as the superior material they were given to work with), but here he makes Bruce/Batman almost likeable again, and definitely more relatable.
One of the more striking elements of the story (and one of the few I can really discuss without any significant spoilers), is the character study of the men I'll refer to as "the three orphans of Gotham." We have Bruce Wayne, whose story we've heard (and seen) innumerable times; we also have rookie character and police officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who empathizes with Bruce yet retains the idealism Wayne never quite had; and finally, we have Bane, abandoned by just about everyone he loved and resigned to using his physical strength as a means of expressing his pain. Nolan is doing something compelling by having these three juxtaposed so closely together; their individual actions and insights show how different and strangely similar their circumstances have made them, and the heroic (or anti-heroic, in Bane's case) attributes of each seem to highlight those of the other two. It seems yet another fantastic illustration (this trilogy is so very good at these) of how just one nuance in our choices can make us a completely different person than we might otherwise have been. And after all, Batman has always been about choices, hasn't it? I can't think of a better way to really drive this home in the last leg of the story.
Are there are a couple of flaws in this film? Sure. The romance that crops up in this installment feel less than sizzling, and finds itself both ill-timed and poorly executed. Then again, I have yet to find a superhero movie that also deals really well with a realistic romantic relationship--it's often the first thing sacrificed in the name of creating more explosions or introducing additional plot twists. The only other complaint that springs to mind about this film, though, is that some of the fights and action sequences feel a bit drawn out (keep in mind this is from someone who is admittedly not the biggest fan of such things), and again, this is probably due to the need to appeal to the summer blockbuster crowd, not all of whom would be willing to sit through nearly three hours of complex plotting and nuanced references to the previous two films as well as their comic book origins without an explosion or two.
Of course, everyone and their brother is going to inevitably compare this film to its predecessor, which is (arguably) one of the better films ever made. The Dark Knight (2008) was special because it had The Joker, who supplied the film with two critical things: the first was an absolutely unbeatable performance from the late Heath Ledger, the second was a staggering degree of unpredictability. The Dark Knight Rises' plot twists don't hold quite the same shock value as those we saw in the previous film, particularly because so many of the big 'twist' moments have their origins in the comics, which have been around and available for decades (so actually they're not really 'spoilers' at all); even Bane in all his terrifying glory has features you can anticipate once you've seen a scene or two and grasped his M.O. His plan is to introduce anarchy, similar to The Joker, but said plan has a very clear and distinct structure, complete with deadlines; whereas with Ledger's Joker you felt he honestly could do just about anything at any time. So yes, The Dark Knight Rises falls ever so slightly short of our collectively elevated expectations in this sense.
That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make it any less of a cinematic achievement. The Dark Knight Rises does everything a good 'last leg of the trilogy' film should do, and does all of those things very, very well. The Dark Knight's intention was to take you from the foundation laid in Batman Begins and plunge you into a state of uncertainty and emotional investment, raising the stakes significantly by the end of its tale. The task of The Dark Knight Rises, then, is to bring that excitement up to a fever pitch, then bring you back down in time for a cathartic conclusion. Those expecting this film to look exactly like The Dark Knight are expecting the wrong film entirely, and will inevitably be disappointed. For an interesting interpretation of how Christopher Nolan may have structured the trilogy (and how we can see The Dark Knight Rises succeeding in its particular role) I refer you to this article , in which the author explores the mission of each film as part of a kind of triptych of storytelling. He also speculates at length about what will happen in The Dark Knight Rises (the article was written in 2011), getting some things (I won't say which here, don't worry) almost exactly right, which only adds weight to his theory about what Nolan is attempting beneath the already dense surface of these films.
I wouldn't dream of giving away the ending, but suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises ends on a truly satisfying note, one that befits the two preceding films as well as it does the two preceding hours. Several loose ends are tied up (or in some cases, just a bit less loose) in a way that shows the care and craftsmanship that went into this story. The conclusion is beautiful as well as cathartic, and though it feels like a firm rounding out of the tail end of Batman's saga, the door is left open just a crack for some intriguing possibilities down the road.
In other words, exactly as it should be.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man
This film is already taking the box office by storm (remember that despite the odd decision to open it on a Tuesday, its opening weekend is technically not even over yet), which would seem to earn it some credibility in the face of no small amount of skepticism. Fans, critics, and the general public alike (myself among them) wondered why another installment of Spider Man's saga was necessary, particularly so soon after the most recent trilogy's conclusion, and especially given that the new film as pitched seemed like it would retell parts of the legendary tale that we'd already seen on screen. And maybe it was curiosity that drove millions to theaters this week to check out the Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) directed re-boot-- that was definitely part of the motivation for me (that, and a possibly unhealthy love of all things Andrew Garfield). Already people have asked me if the new film is better or worse than the 2002 version, and I have to say, I think that is not the question we should be asking. The real question is, do we need both of these Spider Man films? And the answer, surprisingly, is yes.
Let's recall first the release of the first Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi Spider-Man. It was the spring of 2002, and at least here in the US, the atmosphere was still tense and fearful in the aftermath of September 11th. The film industry seemed almost as lost as we were-- I can't for the life of me recall any truly inspiring or exciting films that came out and took us by storm during the beginning of 2002. But then Spider-Man came along and we were surprised to realize that we were ready to go to the movies again, ready to be inspired and feel that sense of hope some of us had thought we'd lost. And the Spider-Man of 2002 was the perfect film to provide that for us. If we had gone out to the theaters that spring to find a British actor starring in a film that had a lot of confusing nuances about good and evil, its appeal would have been lost on us. I know that for me, as a then-thirteen year old, the reboot's intentions and probably parts of its plot would have sailed right over my head. But Raimi and co. knew what they were doing, and they knew the audience they were doing it for. Spider-Man had a tidy plot with a clear good vs. evil framework; a hero who quickly developed the kind of confidence and swagger (well, at least as much swagger as a nerdy white teenager can have) that we thought we ourselves had lost; not to mention it was set in New York City, which at the time was considered by many the heart of our nation. American flags, a certain degree of solidarity among the city dwellers, and a strong message of perseverance colored and enhanced what might have been an otherwise mediocre film, and its release could not have been more timely.
Here in 2012, only ten years later, we have a different set of expectations for our superhero films. We turned a significant corner with 2008's The Dark Knight, which managed to integrate the age-old ideas behind comic book heroes into a complicated, chaotic, and thoroughly modern world. The success of the film (and the popularity of its villain) illustrated that we were a country and an audience grown darker, and that we wanted our movies to reflect that. I would wager that 2002's Spider-Man released now, with our thick veil of cynicism in place, would not fare as well. There was a degree of almost magic about that film, the idea of accidents and coincidences turning out for the best a core part of its mythology, and back then we needed to see that kind of movie. Now, though, we want a hero who is deeply flawed, who might stumble and fall along the way, who just wants to be normal, whatever that means. The Amazing Spider-Man achieves this, with Andrew Garfield's spot-on combination of awkwardness and brooding, as well as a staunch unwillingness to mask his emotions (or, indeed, his face--he just kept taking off that darn mask!). Garfield's Spider-Man represents this generation so accurately that he feels relateable, almost painfully so. I think the key to understanding why we need both of these films lies in the portrayal: today's teenager would struggle to realistically identify with Maguire's optimistic, almost bright and shiny Peter Parker; nor could the kids of 2002 get on board with Garfield's more contemplative, conflicted incarnation. Just goes to show, I suppose, that a decade can make a world of difference.
The minds behind The Amazing Spider-Man knew, obviously, that they were headed into potentially hostile territory in making this film, and the balance they manage to strike between paying respect to what we've already seen of the story and re-examining or altering the details is highly satisfying. It feels reverent without being over the top, showing that this isn't an attempt to erase what has already been written, but to supplement it with a deeper understanding of how this all came about.
And in the end that's what I loved most about The Amazing Spider-Man: it wasn't your average action-filled, simple plot movie. In fact, I was kind of amazed at how long it took for us to actually arrive at the first significant action sequence. Once you've seen the whole film, however, you find yourself realizing that the depth with which it paints the characters makes you feel that much more connected to them. Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man spends more time simply sitting and thinking than any superhero I think I've ever seen in a film, but for his character it makes so much sense. You'd be disappointed, I think, to see him simply throw himself into being Spider-Man without much consideration for the consequences, after the way his character is introduced and fleshed out. Gwen Stacy is a similarly interesting character, in that we get so much more valuable information about who she is than we ever did with Mary Jane Watson. Gwen cottons on to the danger of dating a superhero right away--she's even the one who points the problem out to Peter! She's also much more autonomous: every time she winds up in danger it's because she's put herself there intentionally with the goal of helping the people she loves. Sure, she does need to be rescued occasionally (I think technically that only happens once in the film) because this is a superhero movie after all, but you definitely aren't left wondering whether she can hold her own. This, I think, is another mark of how far we've come (all political women's rights issues aside)-- the 2012 audience demands a female lead who isn't simply there to look pretty (even though she does, because gosh darn it Emma Stone is adorable).
The film also strives to emphasize that, even given these amazing powers, Peter Parker is never going to be some larger-than-life iconic figure. This is illustrated beautifully in a climactic scene in which Spider-Man is trying to rescue a young boy from a burning vehicle. His words and his expression show real terror, like he knows he has no business being there trying to act the hero. There are also some great scenes with his aunt and uncle that illustrate those relationships in a much more satisfying way than the original film (the fact that in this version Uncle Ben and Aunt May are portrayed by Martin Sheen and Sally Field also helps). Peter's motivations for nearly all of his actions as Spider-Man are also inextricably linked to his deep need to understand and feel connected to his family, first in his search for an old friend of his father's and later in his quest to avenge Uncle Ben's death. This seems to me significantly better motivation than wanting to buy a car to impress a pretty girl.
Overall, this film has an emotional core that I wasn't quite expecting--the cast is small but determined to provide genuine insight into each and every character, and to make sure that when those characters are placed in peril, it's gonna frickin' hurt. It also leaves the door wide open for a sequel that could go in almost any direction and which is sure to be capable of equally heart-wrenching moments--let's not forget that in the comic books Gwen Stacy dies horrifically when Spider-Man fails to save her from the Green Goblin. Given the acting abilities of Stone and Garfield as well as how well this film has invested us in their relationship, I'm already dreading this moment in the inevitable sequel.
Let's recall first the release of the first Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi Spider-Man. It was the spring of 2002, and at least here in the US, the atmosphere was still tense and fearful in the aftermath of September 11th. The film industry seemed almost as lost as we were-- I can't for the life of me recall any truly inspiring or exciting films that came out and took us by storm during the beginning of 2002. But then Spider-Man came along and we were surprised to realize that we were ready to go to the movies again, ready to be inspired and feel that sense of hope some of us had thought we'd lost. And the Spider-Man of 2002 was the perfect film to provide that for us. If we had gone out to the theaters that spring to find a British actor starring in a film that had a lot of confusing nuances about good and evil, its appeal would have been lost on us. I know that for me, as a then-thirteen year old, the reboot's intentions and probably parts of its plot would have sailed right over my head. But Raimi and co. knew what they were doing, and they knew the audience they were doing it for. Spider-Man had a tidy plot with a clear good vs. evil framework; a hero who quickly developed the kind of confidence and swagger (well, at least as much swagger as a nerdy white teenager can have) that we thought we ourselves had lost; not to mention it was set in New York City, which at the time was considered by many the heart of our nation. American flags, a certain degree of solidarity among the city dwellers, and a strong message of perseverance colored and enhanced what might have been an otherwise mediocre film, and its release could not have been more timely.
Here in 2012, only ten years later, we have a different set of expectations for our superhero films. We turned a significant corner with 2008's The Dark Knight, which managed to integrate the age-old ideas behind comic book heroes into a complicated, chaotic, and thoroughly modern world. The success of the film (and the popularity of its villain) illustrated that we were a country and an audience grown darker, and that we wanted our movies to reflect that. I would wager that 2002's Spider-Man released now, with our thick veil of cynicism in place, would not fare as well. There was a degree of almost magic about that film, the idea of accidents and coincidences turning out for the best a core part of its mythology, and back then we needed to see that kind of movie. Now, though, we want a hero who is deeply flawed, who might stumble and fall along the way, who just wants to be normal, whatever that means. The Amazing Spider-Man achieves this, with Andrew Garfield's spot-on combination of awkwardness and brooding, as well as a staunch unwillingness to mask his emotions (or, indeed, his face--he just kept taking off that darn mask!). Garfield's Spider-Man represents this generation so accurately that he feels relateable, almost painfully so. I think the key to understanding why we need both of these films lies in the portrayal: today's teenager would struggle to realistically identify with Maguire's optimistic, almost bright and shiny Peter Parker; nor could the kids of 2002 get on board with Garfield's more contemplative, conflicted incarnation. Just goes to show, I suppose, that a decade can make a world of difference.
The minds behind The Amazing Spider-Man knew, obviously, that they were headed into potentially hostile territory in making this film, and the balance they manage to strike between paying respect to what we've already seen of the story and re-examining or altering the details is highly satisfying. It feels reverent without being over the top, showing that this isn't an attempt to erase what has already been written, but to supplement it with a deeper understanding of how this all came about.
And in the end that's what I loved most about The Amazing Spider-Man: it wasn't your average action-filled, simple plot movie. In fact, I was kind of amazed at how long it took for us to actually arrive at the first significant action sequence. Once you've seen the whole film, however, you find yourself realizing that the depth with which it paints the characters makes you feel that much more connected to them. Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man spends more time simply sitting and thinking than any superhero I think I've ever seen in a film, but for his character it makes so much sense. You'd be disappointed, I think, to see him simply throw himself into being Spider-Man without much consideration for the consequences, after the way his character is introduced and fleshed out. Gwen Stacy is a similarly interesting character, in that we get so much more valuable information about who she is than we ever did with Mary Jane Watson. Gwen cottons on to the danger of dating a superhero right away--she's even the one who points the problem out to Peter! She's also much more autonomous: every time she winds up in danger it's because she's put herself there intentionally with the goal of helping the people she loves. Sure, she does need to be rescued occasionally (I think technically that only happens once in the film) because this is a superhero movie after all, but you definitely aren't left wondering whether she can hold her own. This, I think, is another mark of how far we've come (all political women's rights issues aside)-- the 2012 audience demands a female lead who isn't simply there to look pretty (even though she does, because gosh darn it Emma Stone is adorable).
The film also strives to emphasize that, even given these amazing powers, Peter Parker is never going to be some larger-than-life iconic figure. This is illustrated beautifully in a climactic scene in which Spider-Man is trying to rescue a young boy from a burning vehicle. His words and his expression show real terror, like he knows he has no business being there trying to act the hero. There are also some great scenes with his aunt and uncle that illustrate those relationships in a much more satisfying way than the original film (the fact that in this version Uncle Ben and Aunt May are portrayed by Martin Sheen and Sally Field also helps). Peter's motivations for nearly all of his actions as Spider-Man are also inextricably linked to his deep need to understand and feel connected to his family, first in his search for an old friend of his father's and later in his quest to avenge Uncle Ben's death. This seems to me significantly better motivation than wanting to buy a car to impress a pretty girl.
Overall, this film has an emotional core that I wasn't quite expecting--the cast is small but determined to provide genuine insight into each and every character, and to make sure that when those characters are placed in peril, it's gonna frickin' hurt. It also leaves the door wide open for a sequel that could go in almost any direction and which is sure to be capable of equally heart-wrenching moments--let's not forget that in the comic books Gwen Stacy dies horrifically when Spider-Man fails to save her from the Green Goblin. Given the acting abilities of Stone and Garfield as well as how well this film has invested us in their relationship, I'm already dreading this moment in the inevitable sequel.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Movie Review: The Hunger Games
This is one of the better book-to-film adaptations I’ve seen in a long time, maybe one of my favorite ever, mostly because of the way the material is tackled. The writers who worked on this film (including author of the books Suzanne Collins, something I think really makes a difference) managed a true feat: staying true to the spirit of the book (and a surprising volume of the details) without appearing slavish to any kind of verbatim re-creation. Sure, some of the oft-quoted lines were taken out or edited, but that really didn’t matter in the scheme of things, because The Hunger Games film functions as more than a repetition of Collins’ novel—there is a very real, and very terrifying, message embedded in the film about our own culture, and a haunting quality that stems from the question of how far we really are as a society from an invention like the Hunger Games.
One of the virtues of the novel, and one that was cited early on, is its cinematic potential. In many ways The Hunger Games book unfolds like a film, with a steadily rolling pace and imagery that stands to be even more fully realized on the screen. No adaptation is without its challenges, however, and a concern of mine (and of many others) was whether it would be possible to really convey the parts of the story taking place almost entirely in Katniss’ head, particularly the nuances of her feelings and motivations during several significant moments. First-person narration itself is always a difficult thing to translate to film, and yet the writers manage it with relatively few bumps in the road. Of course, those of us who worried Katniss might be somehow misrepresented or flattened on the silver screen clearly underestimated the considerable talents of Jennifer Lawrence. As someone who re-read the novel very recently, having it as a supplement to her performance was far less necessary than I’d assumed it would be; she plays the role with a palpable commitment and disappears almost entirely into the character, far exceeding my already high expectations.
And Lawrence certainly doesn’t give the only impressive performance. The cast, which sounded somewhat dubious on paper when I first read about it, works surprisingly well both together and individually. Stanley Tucci is fantastic in a role he seems born to play, as charismatic Games personality Caesar Flickerman; Woody Harrelson balances cynicism and comic relief as Katniss and Peeta’s “mentor” Haymitch; and Elizabeth Banks is unrecognizable (in a good way) as Effie Trinket. Additionally, who knew Lenny Kravitz could act? This was the casting decision that seemed the most illogical to me, yet somehow his performance as Cinna was easily one of my favorites. As for the lead trio, while they certainly manage to keep pace with their adult counterparts, it’s hard to not feel a little bad for Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) and Liam Hemsworth (Gale), neither of whom can really hope to compete with Lawrence talent-wise (though Hutcherson improves drastically as the film progresses), although I’m sure their newfound status as international heartthrobs (seriously, you should see some of the stuff on the interwebs about these two) will provide some comfort.
This film also manages some impressive character work, which is an accomplishment with such a large cast and a vast scope of events to cover in 2.5 hours. I like that we see some unexpectedly humanizing moments from a few surprising sources, most notably some of those characters who in the book are cast simply as one-dimensional villains. There is a great moment about a minute into the Hunger Games carnage (and man, can we just appreciate for a second that the brutality was toned down in the interest of ratings?), when Katniss finds herself face to face with another competitor at the edge of the woods. Both girls just kind of stare at each other for a few seconds, both of them knowing they’re “supposed” to take advantage of the opportunity and attempt to slaughter each other, but neither is able to bring herself to do it just yet. They wind up running off their separate ways, and though the other girl later dies without much fanfare, it is interesting to see the internal struggle Katniss is enduring mirrored in the face of a character we’re supposed to be rooting against. There’s also an interesting moment (and one that is an invention of the film) with Cato, who throughout the film is the overwhelmingly brutish, violent competitor who can’t seem to wait to get into the arena and begin slaughtering his fellow tributes. He and Peeta have a struggle, and he goads Katniss to simply shoot them both, as he is fatally wounded already. He then makes a few remarks to the effect that his life has been wasted in preparation for this moment, and there, blood hemorrhaging from his mouth, he looks just as devastatingly human as Katniss or Peeta. In the novel it’s easy to dismiss him as deserving to die (and yeah, he is responsible for a whole mess of other deaths), but including this moment in the film further drives home the idea that even in such a straightforward game, there really is nothing completely black and white.
Of course, one of the necessary virtues of a great book-to-film adaptation is the latter’s ability to present key scenes “exactly how you imagined it” with that little pinch of movie magic to take it to the next level. Several of these instances stand out for me in the film, the first of which is the way the character of Rue and her encounters with Katniss are handled. I’ve read complaints that some viewers felt short-changed by the amount of time spent focusing on this, but I think given the time constraints the filmmakers capture the essence of these scenes perfectly. Rue’s death and Katniss’ subsequent renewed determination comprise a turning point in the novel, and the same is true of the film. The reaping is another scene that truly came across how I pictured it when reading. The tension and the silent salute from District 12 when Katniss walks onto the stage is captured perfectly, as is the entire grim atmosphere of the event. But probably my favorite among these is the climactic moment when the rules of the game are changed for the second time, forcing Katniss and Peeta to the realization that they now have to try and kill each other after spending days working as a team. The plan with the berries is perfectly executed, and the moment right before they plunge into mutually assured destruction is a more powerful representation of their relationship than any prior kissing or cuddling (or cheesy lines)—Peeta’s face especially is just heartbreaking; but perhaps the best thing about this moment is that, despite knowing exactly what was going to happen, I was right on the edge of my seat.
In what is probably my favorite alteration from the text, the film allows us much more insight into what’s going on outside of the arena, particularly from the viewpoint of the “gamemaker” who dictates pretty much everything that happens to the kids thrown into the fight-to-the-death tournament. This adds a layer to the narration that simply couldn’t be provided via Katniss’ first-person narration in the novel, showing us rather than telling us why the Games have become such an integral part of Panem’s culture and exactly who the real puppet masters are. The film’s political aspect is also both intriguing and disturbing: we get to see the reactions in the “outlying” districts (translation: the resource-rich but financially plagued ones) to events going on in the Games, and the escalating rumblings of unrest (those will become very important in the next two films). What this also achieves, and this is something I found myself pondering as the credits rolled, is breaking down that last degree of removal from the story that we as moviegoers often feel. Let me try to clarify: when we watch a film about something particularly disastrous or upsetting, our many psychological protective measures kick in, reminding us that it’s just a story, it’s fiction and has nothing to do with us. But The Hunger Games shoves its reality in the viewer’s face, not in a preachy or over-the-top way, but subtly: you see the vapid audience in the Capitol, watching the Games and eating up every carefully scripted development, and it’s not a far leap to think of the audience at an American Idol finale or the SuperBowl. It’s not a far leap at all to consider our society’s always-increasing desensitization when it comes to violence or the exploitation of other people’s misery, and to think about whether some future incarnation of us (and maybe one not terribly far down the road) actually might thirst so rabidly for a fresh form of entertainment that something like the Hunger Games would slip from that comforting realm of Complete Fiction and into our reality.
I could probably say a few dozen more things about this film (like spotlighting the skillful foreshadowing of what’s to come in the next two films, or my short list of minor complaints, or talking about the musical score), but this review doesn’t need to be any longer than it already is. Suffice it to say I think this is a film that achieves something not many book adaptations (and certainly even fewer young adult adaptations) do, which is presenting a film that works not only as a faithful interpretation of its source material, but as a well-crafted film with a message that is, at times, eerily relevant.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Movie Review: Friends with Kids
Given the sheer volume of romantic comedies rolling out of film studios year after year, crafting an original story that is equal parts genuinely funny and honestly moving is a necessary aspiration for any screenwriter. Jennifer Westfeldt (who already has my respect for taking on writing, directing, AND starring reins for this film) sought to meet that challenge, and she manages to come very, very close.
Friends with Kids is a film about a novel concept, two friends who decide to have the child they both want without all of the romantic nonsense (not to mention the considerable loss of sparks they've witnessed between their married friends), splitting all of the parenting duties right down the middle. It's an idea that, twenty years ago, would have been unheard of, much less celebrated on film, and ordinarily I'd give Westfeldt serious props for that. However, the film is just a little too self-congratulatory in terms of its originality, and there are moments when it seems the script compensates for imperfections by simply throwing back to the premise ("hey, remember how crazy the idea of two friends having a kid is?"). As a viewer I could see the places where the writing, trying its utmost to not fall into predictability, veered a little too far into awkwardness and stilted exchanges instead.
An issue that seems to go hand in hand with this forced notion of originality is the flawed pacing of the film. Friends with Kids front loads a lot of information and introductions right off the bat, and the first twenty minutes or so feel almost rushed. And yet later there are moments that drag, moments that had me glancing at my watch (never a good sign) and wondering if we were going to reach the film's conclusion any time soon. There is no single big chunk or subplot that I would necessarily cut (and maybe that is part of the problem, the front loaded exposition makes a lot of information feel critical), it's more a matter of scenes that go on just a few minutes too long, or exchanges that are drawn out just a bit longer than they need to be. The film's ending is especially problematic, as after a very dragged out thread of Westfeldt's character being in unrequited love with Adam Scott's character, the relationship is resolved in one of the most abrupt, awkward exchanges I've ever seen, one that leaves you wondering whether it's been too long coming or has happened too fast (it's somehow a strange mix of both).
I realize that given all of this it might sound like I didn't enjoy this film, which isn't true. As a writer and an amateur studier of screenwriting, I can't watch a film without looking for these flaws, wondering where the story might be tightened or tweaked. As a moviegoer, though, I left the theater satisfied (and more importantly, completely okay with the $11 I paid to see the film). What really helps the flaws in the script fly under the radar of most viewers is the performances. This movie utilizes the notion of an "all-star cast" in a really interesting way. Scott and Westfeldt, both talented but grievously under-recognized performers, take the lead roles, while superstars like Jon Hamm, Maya Rudolph, and Kristen Wiig fill in the friend circle as background players. This might sound like a poor casting decision on paper, but what it does is really allow the two leads (and especially Adam Scott) to really shine while providing a strong cushion of support. Rudolph's uneven marriage with Bridesmaids' Chris O'Dowd was a surprisingly pleasant highlight, especially in scenes where the other characters' relationships were proving far more tense (Hamm and Wiig are fantastic as the couple who slowly grow to hate each other). Talking about Adam Scott for just a minute more (and hey, we all know I could spend days extolling his virtues as an actor), I think the real feat he accomplishes here is the sympathy he pour into an otherwise flat, asshole character. I hate Jason--he's a pig, he's astoundingly self-absorbed, and I can't stand when a guy calls a girl "doll" not just constantly, but in complete seriousness. However, something in what Scott is doing here really does convey a tiny glimmer of goodness underneath all of that, one that doesn't feel forced.
On the whole, this movie sets itself apart by emphasizing the comedy in romantic comedy. Rather than go for the typical slapstick stuff that might earn a halfhearted laugh, Westfeldt gives us the kind of raunchy humor that, mainly due to films like Bridesmaids, has become acceptable again, especially when paired with a moving story. Friends with Kids might not be the best rom-com out there, but it is impressive in its pushing to the fringes of what this genre can be, something this generation of moviegoers sorely needs and is (contrary to popular opinion) smart enough to appreciate.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Movie Review: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
This is the (almost impossibly) dark horse in the Oscar race for Best Picture this year. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has had its ups and downs in terms of buzz and critical response, and many thought it would slip through awards season under the radar, as it had until the Academy Award announced its 2012 nominations just a few weeks ago. Since then, the film has enjoyed an uptick in people talking about it (of course, the talk has hardly been all flattering), mostly wondering how in the world it made the list of the nine best films of this year.
And now having seen it, I can tell you (with authority I've awarded to myself) that it made that list because it is one of the better movies of this year. It is well-crafted and genuinely heartfelt, and the performances by everyone involved are superb. Of course, it would appear that the majority of moviegoers over at Rotten Tomatoes disagree with me, but I'd like to make the case for disregarding their opinions. This film is easy to fall into and enjoy immensely, there are simply a few things you need to keep in mind, things that the critics have been too quick on the draw to point to as reasons for the film's failure.
First, the film is not about 9/11. That might sound strange, and I'll clarify: it's not about 9/11 in the way you're expecting (and the way some of the ads have made it look). Yes, they address the attacks and their impact, but from a singular perspective (Oskar and his family's), and the event itself is an impetus for the real story, rather than the story itself. The real story here is one about the things and people we lose on our journey through life, and the sometimes difficult-to-see threads which tie us to one another. It's a story about how everyone has a story, even one you might not anticipate on first meeting them, and that those stories can help us understand and co-exist with each other more than just about anything else.
Second, the film is not about autism. Yes, the possibility of Oskar suffering from something on the autism spectrum (and I'd like to be clear that it is never confirmed, in the film nor the book, that he does) is an interesting facet of his character, and one the film chooses to highlight and make accessible rather than making it into a "there's something wrong with the kid" type of film. However, I think Oskar can be read in a variety of ways, and the more important takeaway is how trauma can worm itself into our lives (this is showcased brilliantly in the differences between Oskar and "the renter", both traumatized by past events and both coping with it in unusual ways) and really impact who we are and how we interact with the world. Oskar might have been any other child, a little bit quirky and socially inept but earnest, but it is the terrible thing he has experienced that exacerbates his stranger tendencies and drives his obsession with establishing a connection to his deceased father.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the viewer (most particularly those who've read the novel upon which the film is based) must bear in mind that while this might seem an imperfect adaptation, it really is doing the best it can. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a very complicated novel with (in typical Safran Foer fashion) numerous threads running through its narrative, connecting characters through space and time in unexpected ways. A film adaptation was never going to successfully capture the novel's scope verbatim; rather, it sought (and in my opinion, succeeded) to serve as an interpretation of the book's essence, of painting its message with broad strokes rather than scrambling to include details. Of course, it would have been great if we'd gotten the more fully-realized back story on the renter that the book provides, and yeah, it would have been cool to see even more of Oskar's various travels, but that might have taken away from the film's tone, and its expression of something really pure and human about the way we deal with our ties to other people, and the loss of those connections.
Just about every actor in this movie turns in a phenomenal performance. Thomas Horn carries the admittedly difficult role of Oskar with visible dedication and passion (though his over-eager narration can be a bit much at times), Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks are wonderful as his parents, and Max von Sydow gives the best silent performance not featured in The Artist of the year (his surprise nomination for Best Supporting Actor makes sense after just a few minutes of screen time). Additionally, and on the unfortunate side, this film gives us the second moving, remarkable musical score for which Alexandre Desplat has not been awarded or even nominated (the first, of course, is last summer's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2). In my book there are few composers who really give voice to a film the way Desplat does, and it's about time he started earning more recognition for his work.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Ruined for Life: 5 Fictional Men I Fell in Love with and Never Forgot
Come on ladies, we've all done it. Whatever the medium, whether it was during our giggly pre-teen days or as recently as last week's episode of our favorite show, we have fallen for that perfect imaginary guy, the one who seems to have been designed specifically for you to swoon over. Some of them were chivalrous, a throw-back to some old idealized notion of what it is to be a gentleman; others made us laugh so hard our stomachs hurt; and some were just plain adorable. The one sad factor they all had in common? We'll never, ever get to meet them in real life. Here's to five of my personal favorite men, the ones who have set the bar (in all likelihood) way too high.
1. Jim Halpert
To this day I cannot fathom how Pam Beesly stayed engaged to Roy as long as she did, when this awkward yet charming male specimen was sitting ten feet from her desk every day. For me, the term "adorkable" doesn't originate with Zooey Deschanel but with Jim, who had all the sincerity and none of the confidence, and who was the star of one of my all-time favorite unrequited love stories (never mind that it was later requited and they did, in fact, live happily ever after). It doesn't hurt, either, that John Krasinski is a beautiful, hilarious man who seems every bit as down-to-earth as his character.
But it wasn't just his bumbling romantic ventures that made Jim so appealing to me. He is a genuine optimist, even when things just seem downright crappy. Even in his lowest moments, such as his decision to leave the Scranton office, he has resolved to make the best of it, confessing his feelings to Pam (not with ulterior motive, but just because "...I wanted you to know...once"), and later befriending his new co-workers. And despite his insistence in season one that he didn't want his job at Dunder-Mifflin to become his career, he has grown and embraced his role at the office and has matured perhaps more than any other character on the show.
It also doesn't hurt that he's only gotten cuter every single season.
2. Chandler Bing
I think I always liked Chandler the most because he reminded me the most of myself (that might seem like a weird thing to say, given that I also felt attracted to him, but whatever). He is the self-appointed "funny guy" in any situation, and for a lot of the first episodes of the show the writers seemed to keep him in that box without really exploring what else there was to know about him. But as we later saw, there was a lot more than just sarcasm and jokes under the surface.
Chandler had some considerable baggage (most great characters do), and a lack of confidence that kept him from a committed relationship with anyone likeable. Until season four, of course, when his friendship with Monica escalated into something almost nobody expected, including the two of them. For me this pairing always made more sense than any other combination of people within the famous sextet, including Ross and Rachel. Chandler in particular seemed to really need the strong foundation that he and Monica had as friends in order to let go of his almost innumerable intimacy issues, and what is great about this romance is that neither of their individual characters got lost in the shuffle of the relationship (something again that I think Ross and Rachel were guilty of).
Funny guys have always been my type; generally, if you can make me laugh, it's very hard for me to write you off. But what I loved most about this character was that he had the best maturation of the characters over the course of ten seasons. Chandler always wanted to be the good guy and for the most part he was, the only one who couldn't see it was him.
3. Floyd
First of all, was it ever established whether Floyd has a last name? If it has, I have not been able to track it down. Anyway, for me Floyd will always be Liz Lemon's "one that got away," no matter who she meets or whether she ultimately realizes she's better off alone. The man wanted her to move to Cleveland with him, for goodness' sake!
It might seem strange that this character has managed to stick on my radar despite only appearing in a minor arc in season one and assorted later episodes, in one of which Liz attended his wedding to another woman, but to this day Floyd remains one of my favorite characters in the history of 30 Rock.
For a show that thrives on caricatures for a lot of its humor (Kenneth the page and Jenna Maroney come immediately to mind), it was refreshing to see a love interest for Liz emerge who was so realistically drawn. Floyd was not a heartthrob but instead was dorky-cute and kind of awkward, which of course made him perfect for Liz. He also had some flaws. He was a recovering alcoholic and he definitely had some douche-y moments, particularly after his breakup with Liz, but just like any of us, he was trying to be better. It never felt like there was a balance of power to be shifted in his relationship with Liz; they seemed to be on a level with each other and happy to keep it that way.
Also, Floyd's idea of an awesome date included watching movies at home, eating pizza, and playing card games. He definitely earned a few points in my book for that.
4. Shawn Hunter
Yes, if we're going to pick eligible men from the wonder that was Boy Meets World, Cory probably would've been the safest choice. Heck, even dim-witted Eric or Jack, who came along later, might have been more solid options. But no girl can really resist a charming bad-boy, and as a pre-teen I was no exception. Shawn had it all: he was broody-cute with that hair and those lips, a little bit edgy and damaged, and most importantly, he was one half of one of the greatest bromances to ever grace our television sets.
Shawn might also seem a surprising choice because of his reputation in the early seasons of the show as somewhat promiscuous. While Cory and Topanga seemed destined for forever from the start, Shawn broke his fair share of hearts, and for a long time didn't really seem to care. We got a glimpse at the possibility of a new, deep and sensitive Shawn at the beginning of his romance with Angela (who, by the way, seemed to fall from the sky into their school, despite Shawn's claim that they were friends before), when he decided that he wanted a relationship more like that of his two best friends. Was this a realistic plot line for a high school kid who'd been getting around since hitting puberty? Probably not. But did it make those of us who'd had our doubts about Shawn finally cave and admit we loved him? You bet it did. We liked the idea that we could essentially have the best of both worlds: the vaguely dangerous boy in need of repair and the thinking dude who listened to Vivaldi and loved the same poetry as us. Looking back, this was probably the height of impossibility, but if there was any show that specialized in heightened expectations for life, it was Boy Meets World.
*Also, it should be noted that there is a large community of devoted Boy Meets World appreciation blogs still kicking around the Internet today, almost 12 years after it left the air. It's really kind of impressive.
5. Neville Longbottom
First, it should be stated that I'm not one of those girls who jumped on the bandwagon because Matthew Lewis "got hot." Neville has been on my radar since the first time I read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, when he proved that just because you're not tight with the popular kids, you're not completely useless (especially when there's a sinister plot unraveling inside your school), which was a lesson my ten year old self needed to learn. My heart still smiles when he earns those last ten points for Gryffindor and secures the championship.
I always thought Neville was one of the most compelling characters, maybe because for the first few books we knew so little about him. Harry wrote him off as the nerdy kid, and though he was never really unkind to Neville, he didn't make an effort to get to know him, and as a consequence, neither did we. But a storm of information about Neville began emerging in books four and five, revealing that this awkward, insecure kid was that way for a reason. Neville has parents, but he'd almost be better off if they were dead like Harry's: tortured into insanity, they function almost like small children, unable to speak or recognize their own son. On top of that, Neville grew up with his grandmother, who apparently spent every available opportunity telling him he wasn't good enough. By the time Neville joined Dumbledore's army and showed his determination to fight back against Voldemort despite his limitations, it was clear that Neville might be unimpressive at first sight, but he was not to be underestimated.
Needless to say, I was already pretty enamored with Neville before the explosion of badassery that takes place in the final novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Not only is Neville one of the key leaders of the rebellion at Hogwarts in Harry's absence, he is among the first willing to put his life on the line during battle, and does Harry the not insignificant favor of destroying Voldemort's last horcrux. Neville's bravery in the face of certain doom at the moment when everyone thinks Harry is dead and all hope has been lost cemented him forever in my heart as a hero.
Also, it should be noted that I always thought Matthew Lewis was a cutie, and his was one of the franchise's most spot-on castings.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Oscar Nominations 2012: Surprises and Snubs
This morning's nominations were a mixed bag of the absolutely predictable (my jaw would've hit the floor if The Artist and Hugo weren't swimming in nods) and some pleasant surprises (Rooney Mara, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, to name a few). I think on the whole, though, and based on the films I've seen this year, I'm a little more satisfied with these nominations than I was with the Golden Globes. Even with fewer slots for nominations, it feels like the spectrum of films being included has widened, and a few dark horses sneaked into the race.
Surprises
*Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids: This performance has never screamed "Oscars" to me, but you know what? It should. These awards are supposed to be about rewarding people who perform at the very top of their game, and McCarthy did exactly that. Just because her game happens to be outrageous, gross-out comedy rather than heavy drama doesn't mean she didn't give a hell of a performance. I don't think she has the momentum behind her to take this award from Octavia Spencer, but I would love to see a shocker in this category come Oscar night.
*Jonah Hill in Moneyball: Not necessarily surprising given the critical acclaim that has followed him since the film's release, but I'd like to assert my agreement with this nod. Hill was, for me, one of the few compelling features of Moneyball, a film that on the whole was boring and a little too sure of itself. If we must award this Brad Pitt vehicle, I'd like to see it in the form of an award for Jonah Hill as Supporting Actor.
*Rooney Mara in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: This is the nomination that shocked me probably most of all. Yes, Mara gives an absolutely amazing performance, but it's in a gritty David Fincher film that barely squeaks by with an R-rating, and just doesn't seem to fit with the other nominees. I love that she'll be going up against heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Viola Davis (the two women currently leading the flock) and the long-overdue Michelle Williams, but I don't think she'll win this one. That said, I think it really says something about the Academy and what they're trying to do this year by branching out--and hey, I bet Rooney Mara isn't complaining.
*Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumolo, Best Original Screenplay for Bridesmaids: Another nomination where I'll make the case for not discounting comedy simply because it's comedy. This one was a little more predictable given the significantly smaller number of original scripts in the race compared with the overcrowded Adapted Screenplay race, but it's a fun addition nonetheless.
*Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Best Picture: This film has risen and fallen in terms of buzz all year long. It was an early contender with a lot of festival attention, then the chatter faded as the release was delayed again and again, and now it seems to be back on the map, despite a shutout at the Golden Globes. I haven't seen this one yet, but it is an adaptation of one of my all-time favorite novels, so my hopes are very high.
Snubs
*Ryan Gosling: I was really pulling for Gosling to get a nod for any one of the excellent performances he gave in 2011, but given his dual loss at the Golden Globes, my hopes weren't high. Sure enough, he missed out on both acting categories. The upside, though, is that this will push him to keep striving for better, and hopefully we'll see him in the Oscars race again soon.
*Leonardo DiCaprio: This is one dude who has got to be pissed he got up early to check the nominations. The Best Actor award was supposed to finally be his this year, and he was thwarted again. Can we all just agree that he gets a nomination next year for Great Gatsby, no matter how good or bad it is?
*The Ides of March: Yes, this film slipped into the one category it unquestionably belongs: Best Original Screenplay. But it should have been in the running for Direction and Best Picture as well. I've been championing this film since it's release, and so it was a disappointment to see the Oscar voters leave it out.
*David Fincher: I find it amazing this man doesn't yet have an Academy Award. Maybe he and DiCaprio need to make a movie together to overcome their respective dry spells. Make it happen, Hollywood.
*50/50: Will Reiser's screenplay deserved a nomination, at the very least. I also would have happily accepted a surprise nod for JGL.
Surprises
*Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids: This performance has never screamed "Oscars" to me, but you know what? It should. These awards are supposed to be about rewarding people who perform at the very top of their game, and McCarthy did exactly that. Just because her game happens to be outrageous, gross-out comedy rather than heavy drama doesn't mean she didn't give a hell of a performance. I don't think she has the momentum behind her to take this award from Octavia Spencer, but I would love to see a shocker in this category come Oscar night.
*Jonah Hill in Moneyball: Not necessarily surprising given the critical acclaim that has followed him since the film's release, but I'd like to assert my agreement with this nod. Hill was, for me, one of the few compelling features of Moneyball, a film that on the whole was boring and a little too sure of itself. If we must award this Brad Pitt vehicle, I'd like to see it in the form of an award for Jonah Hill as Supporting Actor.
*Rooney Mara in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: This is the nomination that shocked me probably most of all. Yes, Mara gives an absolutely amazing performance, but it's in a gritty David Fincher film that barely squeaks by with an R-rating, and just doesn't seem to fit with the other nominees. I love that she'll be going up against heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Viola Davis (the two women currently leading the flock) and the long-overdue Michelle Williams, but I don't think she'll win this one. That said, I think it really says something about the Academy and what they're trying to do this year by branching out--and hey, I bet Rooney Mara isn't complaining.
*Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumolo, Best Original Screenplay for Bridesmaids: Another nomination where I'll make the case for not discounting comedy simply because it's comedy. This one was a little more predictable given the significantly smaller number of original scripts in the race compared with the overcrowded Adapted Screenplay race, but it's a fun addition nonetheless.
*Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Best Picture: This film has risen and fallen in terms of buzz all year long. It was an early contender with a lot of festival attention, then the chatter faded as the release was delayed again and again, and now it seems to be back on the map, despite a shutout at the Golden Globes. I haven't seen this one yet, but it is an adaptation of one of my all-time favorite novels, so my hopes are very high.
Snubs
*Ryan Gosling: I was really pulling for Gosling to get a nod for any one of the excellent performances he gave in 2011, but given his dual loss at the Golden Globes, my hopes weren't high. Sure enough, he missed out on both acting categories. The upside, though, is that this will push him to keep striving for better, and hopefully we'll see him in the Oscars race again soon.
*Leonardo DiCaprio: This is one dude who has got to be pissed he got up early to check the nominations. The Best Actor award was supposed to finally be his this year, and he was thwarted again. Can we all just agree that he gets a nomination next year for Great Gatsby, no matter how good or bad it is?
*The Ides of March: Yes, this film slipped into the one category it unquestionably belongs: Best Original Screenplay. But it should have been in the running for Direction and Best Picture as well. I've been championing this film since it's release, and so it was a disappointment to see the Oscar voters leave it out.
*David Fincher: I find it amazing this man doesn't yet have an Academy Award. Maybe he and DiCaprio need to make a movie together to overcome their respective dry spells. Make it happen, Hollywood.
*50/50: Will Reiser's screenplay deserved a nomination, at the very least. I also would have happily accepted a surprise nod for JGL.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Movie Review: The Descendants
If the Oscars (or moviegoers) are looking to take the family tearjerker route this season, The Descendants is an obvious choice. Not only does it star George Clooney who, let's face it, is wonderful in just about everything, but it tells a genuinely compelling and heartfelt story, tragic without veering into melodrama.
The story centers on George Clooney's character Matt, whose wife has slipped into an irreversible coma after an accident, and who must also make a huge decision which will have a life-changing impact on both his career and his family. This of course, is made no easier by his rebellious teenage daughter (played by the surprisingly fabulous Shailene Woodley, who I'll get to in a minute), his rebellious younger daughter, and the small revelation that his wife has been carrying on an affair behind his back. Cue a family journey (both literal and metaphorical) that is at times wacky and a times truly heartbreaking, as Matt and his daughters set out to try and locate his wife's paramour while simultaneously trying to navigate the arrangements surrounding her impending death.
Cynical as it may sound to say, I find that many films or television shows involving someone in a coma (and most especially anything featuring scenes of characters talking to the person in a coma), has about a 95% chance of coming off completely cliche and ridiculous. This film somehow manages to subvert that, and in spectacular fashion. By the time Matt actually makes it to his wife's bedside, there is a tension that has accumulated which can't be relieved in any other manner. The film's final scenes provide an extremely powerful catharsis, which is all the more affecting thanks to a cast of characters who demand a genuine empathy from the very first minutes of the film.
Let's get to the acting, though, because that's what people are really buzzing about when it comes to this film. Clooney is wonderful, multi-faceted and surprisingly convincing as a family man in emotional turmoil. I still think Ryan Gosling gives a better performance in The Ides of March, but having to settle for Clooney as a close second really doesn't feel much like settling at all. Shailene Woodley is the film's biggest surprise, though, not least because her biggest claim to fame prior to this was a starring role in ABCFamily's nonsensical Secret Life of the American Teenager. It is easy to see where she could have defaulted to playing the stereotypical caricature of the wayward daughter, but instead she brings something deeper to the role, something that evokes sympathy and indeed (at least, in my opinion), paints her as the heroine of the film.
On the whole, this film tells a great story of one family, while also exploring the larger theme of what it means to be a descendant, to carry on a legacy and what that means. I think for this reason it is not only likely to earn awards for its stellar individual performances, but for the story itself. The combination of these elements makes it a top contender, in my opinion, for an award for screenwriting as well as a strong candidate for Best Picture of the Year.
Movie Review: My Week with Marilyn
So I might be disgracing lots of ladies my age (and older) by saying this, but I've never really seen Marilyn Monroe as a personal icon, as someone to emulate or even someone all that fantastic, really. My interest in this movie was initially sparked out of a need to see Michelle Williams (whom I consider to be a much more fitting aspirational figure for myself) in her much raved about performance. And I have to say that while Ms. Williams was indeed fantastic, the film did something I wasn't expecting, which was making a woman I've long considered overrated come across as both intriguing and sympathetic.
The thing that really jumps out at me about this movie is the phenomenal cast, full of British icons as well as new faces, all of whom absolutely excel in telling this story, and providing a snapshot of not only Marilyn's life, but the lives of those around her, and exposing the profound impact this one woman was capable of having on them. Michelle Williams certainly adds new dimensions to Marilyn, including a strong awareness of the role playing demanded of her as a celebrity, but her admirer Colin (played by the charming and relative newcomer Eddie Redmayne) stands out as equally, if not more compelling. Yes, his is a typical journey through the marshes of naivete and ensuing heartbreak, but he captures the spirit of it in a very honest, fresh way. Of course, there are many supporting players who fill out the rest of the film, from Dominic Cooper and Emma Watson, whose respective presences are minimal but impactful, to Dame Judy Dench and Kenneth Branagh, who bring their usual level of skill and command of the screen. Overall, this film needs its actors to carry the story, which covers only a brief portion of the tumultuous story of a very complicated woman, and the performers tasked with this have risen to the occasion.
My Week with Marilyn is not the film to watch if you're interested in Ms. Monroe's life story or an expose of the many scandals associated with her. It isn't even, I would suggest, a film to watch if you don't have at least a minimal insight into the sort of person Marilyn Monroe was (or might have been). The infamous instability of the woman at the center of this story is what drives it, and its nuances can be much more appreciated if you approach the film with this condition in mind. And as far as awards season goes, I think this one is a contender, but a bit of a long shot. Sure, I can easily see Michelle Williams winning the Golden Globe for this turn, especially separated as she is from some of the other heavily favored contenders, because this movie somehow got pushed into the 'Musical or Comedy' category. However, I think there might be other better performances out there, and I certainly feel that Williams' performance in last year's Blue Valentine trumped this one by a hundred miles. That said, there is every possibility she might earn a surprise "one year too late" Oscar nod (it's happened before: see Denzel Washington, among others), but for now it's anyone's guess. And the film is not a likely favorite for Best Picture-- a nomination, maybe, even probably, but not a win.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
2011: The Run-Down
Continuing with tradition, I've decided to rehash some of my favorite things in 2011 (mostly in pop culture, admittedly), and take a look back at the year that was.
*Fun fact: While compiling this list, I realized I might be one of the only people in America who earnestly did not pay any attention to coverage of the Royal Wedding.
Favorite Performers:
Ryan Gosling: I think pretty much everyone else on the planet can think of at least one reason why he makes the list, but I’ll try to jog the memory of anyone drawing a blank. First of all, he was everywhere at the movies this year, from Blue Valentine to Crazy Stupid Love to Ides of March to Drive. He’s just plain awesome in 99% of his public appearances, from bringing his dog to Jimmy Fallon’s show for an interview to intervening in a brawl on the streets of New York. Not to mention the unf factor. I mean, seriously, have you LOOKED at the man?
The HP Trio (aka Dan Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson): True, it’s very possible that none of them will really have a career to speak of now that the biggest franchise of their lives has drawn to a close, but even if these three never do anything of note again, all the memories they’ve given us are more than enough to last a lifetime. I know I’m not the only one who enjoyed every minute of growing up alongside them while they brought my favorite stories to life. I’ll miss all the hype and the anticipation of a new HP film every two years, but it’s undeniable that these three absolutely went out on top. So to Daniel, Rupert, and Emma—thanks for a decade of magic.
Amy Poehler: Ms. Poehler has always been both hilarious and extremely innovate (and very underrated-ly so), but she really took 2011 by storm. Parks and Recreation aired its entire flawless 3rd season during 2011, and continued its winning streak in season 4. As if that weren’t enough, Amy also delivered a commencement address at Harvard this spring, in which she imparted her unique brand of wisdom to an audience of young people who genuinely need to live in the same spirit of passion, determination, and kindness that is evident in everything this fantastic woman does.
People I’m Sick of Hearing About:
Anyone with the last name Kardashian (second year in a row, congrats ladies!).
All the batshit crazy Republicans running for President in 2012.
Anyone who is or has been a contestant on Dancing with the Stars.
Best Shows:
Parks and Recreation
How I Met Your Mother
Great Episodes:
Parks and Recreation: “Road Trip” and “The End of the World”
Community: “Remedial Chaos Theory”
Modern Family: “Phil on Wire”
The Office: “Goodbye Michael”
How I Met Your Mother: “Symphony of Illumination”
Top 5 Films:
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two
2. The Ides of March
3. Contagion
4. Bridesmaids/Horrible Bosses (tie)
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Disappointments:
Codes and Keys: Death Cab doesn’t work when Ben Gibbard is happy. There, I said it. This album is boring and repetitive. Additional note: now that he’s divorcing Zooey D, maybe the magic of DC’s initial gloom will return (silver lining, yes?)
America/the American economy: No jobs, no money, no concern from the men in charge; no wonder the 99% have taken to the streets.
Honorable Mentions (no category, but they kept me interested/intrigued/excited throughout the year):
ADELE: Remember the first time you heard Someone Like You? Did you cry in public a little bit, like I did? This woman’s voice is magic. Case closed.
Steve Carrell: Since he didn’t get an Emmy, I’m giving him my equivalent.
The cast of Parks and Recreation (especially Aziz Ansari and Adam Scott): Flawless, and the fact that they didn’t snag a SAG nod for their work as an ensemble is criminal.
Jason Sudeikis: This is rumored to be his last season on SNL, and I’m psyched to see if the career momentum he’s had recently continues.
Alexandre Desplat: If he doesn’t get an Oscar (or at least a nomination) for the DH2 soundtrack, I’m considering it a crime.
Arrested Development: It’s coming back!!!
That's all I've got! Here's hoping that 2012 brings even more laughter, epic moments, and joy (and you know, not that pesky apocalypse). Happy New Year, and thanks for reading!
*Fun fact: While compiling this list, I realized I might be one of the only people in America who earnestly did not pay any attention to coverage of the Royal Wedding.
Favorite Performers:
Ryan Gosling: I think pretty much everyone else on the planet can think of at least one reason why he makes the list, but I’ll try to jog the memory of anyone drawing a blank. First of all, he was everywhere at the movies this year, from Blue Valentine to Crazy Stupid Love to Ides of March to Drive. He’s just plain awesome in 99% of his public appearances, from bringing his dog to Jimmy Fallon’s show for an interview to intervening in a brawl on the streets of New York. Not to mention the unf factor. I mean, seriously, have you LOOKED at the man?
The HP Trio (aka Dan Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson): True, it’s very possible that none of them will really have a career to speak of now that the biggest franchise of their lives has drawn to a close, but even if these three never do anything of note again, all the memories they’ve given us are more than enough to last a lifetime. I know I’m not the only one who enjoyed every minute of growing up alongside them while they brought my favorite stories to life. I’ll miss all the hype and the anticipation of a new HP film every two years, but it’s undeniable that these three absolutely went out on top. So to Daniel, Rupert, and Emma—thanks for a decade of magic.
Amy Poehler: Ms. Poehler has always been both hilarious and extremely innovate (and very underrated-ly so), but she really took 2011 by storm. Parks and Recreation aired its entire flawless 3rd season during 2011, and continued its winning streak in season 4. As if that weren’t enough, Amy also delivered a commencement address at Harvard this spring, in which she imparted her unique brand of wisdom to an audience of young people who genuinely need to live in the same spirit of passion, determination, and kindness that is evident in everything this fantastic woman does.
People I’m Sick of Hearing About:
Anyone with the last name Kardashian (second year in a row, congrats ladies!).
All the batshit crazy Republicans running for President in 2012.
Anyone who is or has been a contestant on Dancing with the Stars.
Best Shows:
Parks and Recreation
How I Met Your Mother
Great Episodes:
Parks and Recreation: “Road Trip” and “The End of the World”
Community: “Remedial Chaos Theory”
Modern Family: “Phil on Wire”
The Office: “Goodbye Michael”
How I Met Your Mother: “Symphony of Illumination”
Top 5 Films:
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two
2. The Ides of March
3. Contagion
4. Bridesmaids/Horrible Bosses (tie)
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Disappointments:
Codes and Keys: Death Cab doesn’t work when Ben Gibbard is happy. There, I said it. This album is boring and repetitive. Additional note: now that he’s divorcing Zooey D, maybe the magic of DC’s initial gloom will return (silver lining, yes?)
America/the American economy: No jobs, no money, no concern from the men in charge; no wonder the 99% have taken to the streets.
Honorable Mentions (no category, but they kept me interested/intrigued/excited throughout the year):
ADELE: Remember the first time you heard Someone Like You? Did you cry in public a little bit, like I did? This woman’s voice is magic. Case closed.
Steve Carrell: Since he didn’t get an Emmy, I’m giving him my equivalent.
The cast of Parks and Recreation (especially Aziz Ansari and Adam Scott): Flawless, and the fact that they didn’t snag a SAG nod for their work as an ensemble is criminal.
Jason Sudeikis: This is rumored to be his last season on SNL, and I’m psyched to see if the career momentum he’s had recently continues.
Alexandre Desplat: If he doesn’t get an Oscar (or at least a nomination) for the DH2 soundtrack, I’m considering it a crime.
Arrested Development: It’s coming back!!!
JK Rowling: Always and always, because none of the magic would’ve been possible without her.
Seth Meyers: Killed it at the White House correspondent’s dinner, head writer at SNL in his 11th year, remains absolutely charming in everything he does.
That's all I've got! Here's hoping that 2012 brings even more laughter, epic moments, and joy (and you know, not that pesky apocalypse). Happy New Year, and thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)































