"50 / 50" is being marketed as a comedy about a guy who has cancer. It's actually much more complex than that, and it's certainly not a straight comedy (more on that shortly). It's difficult for me to form an objective opinion on it right away because I've seen many people close to me battle cancer--some of them beat the disease; others didn't--but I'll do my best.
"50 / 50" is inspired by the true story of a friend of actor Seth Rogen's who battled cancer. Rogen has a chief supporting role in the film (more or less playing himself I guess). He's also one of the producers and was instrumental in getting the film made. The film is the story of Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old guy who lives in Seattle with his girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and works for a public radio station. His life is turned upside down when he finds out he has spinal cancer. From this point on, we watch as he battles the disease and witness the affect it has on his life--most notably in his relationships with others, including Rachael, his best friend Kyle (Rogen), his mother Diane (Angelica Huston) and his 24-year-old therapist Katherine (Anna Kendrick).
While "50 / 50" is marketed as a straight comedy, that is most certainly not the case. It toes a fine line between comedy and drama for much of its length, but as the film progresses and Adam's situation becomes more dire, the comedic aspects are mostly left behind. Writer Will Reiser and director Jonathan Levine make sure that the film never makes fun of cancer or treats Adam's situation lightly, and I think the comedic aspects are actually fairly realistic, at least in terms of Adam's initial reaction and his ways of coping with the disease early on.
The driving factor to the whole film is Gordon-Levitt's performance, which is just about perfect. I can't imagine how hard it would be to tap in to the mindset of a person who believes they are dying and present every emotion in such an authentic way, but he absolutely nails it. We've all heard about the different phases that people go through when something cataclysmic happens in their life, and we see Adam go through this process. It's a role that requires an extraordinary range, much more so than many others, and Gordon-Levitt never misses a beat, whether it's the comedic aspects early on or the increasing despair as the film progresses.
The supporting performances are solid as well. Howard and Huston stand out in particular, especially Huston, who probably only has about ten minutes of screen time but probably gives the best and most heartbreaking performance after Gordon-Levitt. Rogen does his usual crude-but-likeable schtick, but as he's shown occasionally (particularly in "Knocked Up"), he has the ability to hit the right dramatic notes when the situation calls for it. Kendrick has just about nailed the perky, eager-but-naive young professional role down between this film and her Oscar-nominated turn in "Up in the Air." She's good here, but I'd like to see some more range from her. Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer both have scene-stealing performances as two older gentlemen who Adam goes through chemotherapy with.
"50 / 50" is a difficult film to recommend. If you've known someone (or many people) who've battled cancer, it may hit too close to home, as it did for a certain extent to me. But I can say that it's a very well executed comedy-drama. It has some very funny moments, some of which are quite crude, but it's certainly not the straight comedy that it's made out to be by the marketing. It also has one of the year's best performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt. So take that information and do with it what you will.
"50 / 50" is rated R for language throughout, sexual content, and some drug use.
Running time: 99 minutes.
Released domestically on September 30, 2011, by Summit Entertainment.
3 stars out of 4.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Film Review: "Moneyball"
It's hard for me to get a feel for what non-baseball fans will think of "Moneyball." As an avid baseball fan myself, I'm not turned off by a film that deals with detailed baseball statistics and players that the average filmgoer may never have heard of...not least because the film takes place nine years ago, which is a very long time in the sports world. But the film doesn't deal with in depth statistics as much as I expected; rather it focuses on an idea that even the most casual baseball fan can understand: in order to win games, you need to score runs. In order to score runs, you need to get men on base. That's the crux of this story that's one of the year's most entertaining.
The film opens in October 2001 as the Oakland Athletics are eliminated from the American League playoffs by the New York Yankees, who have a payroll of about $70 million more than the As. During the following offseason, the As lose their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, and Jason Isringhausen) to teams that can afford to pay them more. At this point, As general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) begins to realize that since he simply can't outbid the big market franchises like the Yankees and Red Sox, he has to find ways to beat them on the field. Enter Peter Brandt (Jonah Hill), a Yale economics graduate who has developed a statistical program called sabermetrics that evaluates what is ultimately the most crucial stat for a baseball player: the ability to get on base, by whatever means necessary. Together Beane and Brandt begin to implement this program with the As, which leads to them signing a large group of unknown and castoff players. The old school scouts think this will make the team a laughingstock, as does manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who also doesn't relish Beane interfering by suggesting which players he field on gameday.
"Moneyball" is directed by Bennett Miller, who was nominated for an Oscar for "Capote." He and cinematographer Wally Pfister ("Batman Begins," "The Dark Knight," and "Inception," for which he won an Oscar) have created a film that's gorgeous to look at, but this is very much an actors film. Brad Pitt turns in what may be the best performance of his career as Beane. He simply commands every scene, whether its a rare locker room outburst or a quiet, introspective moment where he wonders if this never-before-tried system can actually work, or if he's just as crazy as everyone in the media says he is. Pitt also has some great scenes with Jonah Hill, particularly one where he makes rapidfire player trades over the phone, and another where Beane educates Brandt in the art of cutting players. He also has a few scenes with his ex-wife (Robin Wright) and their daughter (Kerris Dorsey), which, while they do feel a little forced, do help build his character. The same goes for a series of flashbacks detailing Beane's baseball past. Perhaps the film could have done without them, but they do help us to understand the man and his drive a little more. All in all, Pitt is just absolutely captivating and gives an absolutely Oscar-worthy performance.
Hill is also great as Brandt, a fictional character who is a compilation of the various consultants Beane hired as he implemented the sabermetrics system. Hill is obviously known for his comedy, but he plays this role completely straight and gives one of the year's most surprising performances. Hoffman is reliably great as the grumpy Art Howe, though I am beginning to feel like all his performances are quite similar. I'd love to see him stretch himself a bit more, as he certainly did with "Capote," for which he won the Best Actor Oscar. The script from Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List") and Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network") sizzles, but in doesn't have as much of the signature Sorkin dialogue, which for a film of this nature is probably a good thing.
Overall "Moneyball" is just a great, entertaining film. Baseball fans will love it, film fans will love it for the acting, and while the sports movie story has been done to death and is somewhat predictable, even if you don't know how the As 2002 season played out, it's still a great, entertaining time at the movies.
"Moneyball" is rated PG-13 for some strong language.
Running time: 133 minutes.
Released domestically on September 23, 2011, by Columbia Pictures.
3.5 stars out of 4.
The film opens in October 2001 as the Oakland Athletics are eliminated from the American League playoffs by the New York Yankees, who have a payroll of about $70 million more than the As. During the following offseason, the As lose their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, and Jason Isringhausen) to teams that can afford to pay them more. At this point, As general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) begins to realize that since he simply can't outbid the big market franchises like the Yankees and Red Sox, he has to find ways to beat them on the field. Enter Peter Brandt (Jonah Hill), a Yale economics graduate who has developed a statistical program called sabermetrics that evaluates what is ultimately the most crucial stat for a baseball player: the ability to get on base, by whatever means necessary. Together Beane and Brandt begin to implement this program with the As, which leads to them signing a large group of unknown and castoff players. The old school scouts think this will make the team a laughingstock, as does manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who also doesn't relish Beane interfering by suggesting which players he field on gameday.
"Moneyball" is directed by Bennett Miller, who was nominated for an Oscar for "Capote." He and cinematographer Wally Pfister ("Batman Begins," "The Dark Knight," and "Inception," for which he won an Oscar) have created a film that's gorgeous to look at, but this is very much an actors film. Brad Pitt turns in what may be the best performance of his career as Beane. He simply commands every scene, whether its a rare locker room outburst or a quiet, introspective moment where he wonders if this never-before-tried system can actually work, or if he's just as crazy as everyone in the media says he is. Pitt also has some great scenes with Jonah Hill, particularly one where he makes rapidfire player trades over the phone, and another where Beane educates Brandt in the art of cutting players. He also has a few scenes with his ex-wife (Robin Wright) and their daughter (Kerris Dorsey), which, while they do feel a little forced, do help build his character. The same goes for a series of flashbacks detailing Beane's baseball past. Perhaps the film could have done without them, but they do help us to understand the man and his drive a little more. All in all, Pitt is just absolutely captivating and gives an absolutely Oscar-worthy performance.
Hill is also great as Brandt, a fictional character who is a compilation of the various consultants Beane hired as he implemented the sabermetrics system. Hill is obviously known for his comedy, but he plays this role completely straight and gives one of the year's most surprising performances. Hoffman is reliably great as the grumpy Art Howe, though I am beginning to feel like all his performances are quite similar. I'd love to see him stretch himself a bit more, as he certainly did with "Capote," for which he won the Best Actor Oscar. The script from Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List") and Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network") sizzles, but in doesn't have as much of the signature Sorkin dialogue, which for a film of this nature is probably a good thing.
Overall "Moneyball" is just a great, entertaining film. Baseball fans will love it, film fans will love it for the acting, and while the sports movie story has been done to death and is somewhat predictable, even if you don't know how the As 2002 season played out, it's still a great, entertaining time at the movies.
"Moneyball" is rated PG-13 for some strong language.
Running time: 133 minutes.
Released domestically on September 23, 2011, by Columbia Pictures.
3.5 stars out of 4.
Film Review: "Drive"
The marketing for "Drive" would have you believe that it's an action film filled with car chases...maybe not on the order of "The Fast and the Furious" films, but still an action film. And while there are certainly car chases, and there is certainly action--much of it extremely bloody and brutal--"Drive" is most definitely not an action film. It's a artsy, stylized film noir, a sort of cross between the raw action of Steve McQueen's "Bullitt" and the quiet introspection of last year's George Clooney assassin film "The American." It's also one of the best films of the year.
"Drive" opens by introducing us to its nameless protagonist, a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver for criminals, as he evades police on the streets of Los Angeles with a brilliant efficiency behind the wheel. Ryan Gosling plays The Driver, as he is listed in the credits, as a man of few words but an extremely steely nerve. He's really more reminiscent of Clint Eastwood in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" than anyone else. As the film progresses, The Driver meets and becomes attached to his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son, Benicio (Kaden Leos). Irene's husband is in prison, so The Driver helps her out with grocery shopping and fixing her car, all the while growing closer to her and Benicio. The Driver and his mechanic boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) also become involved with a couple of shady business figures (Albert Brooks and Ron Perelman) who want to finance a stock car operation with The Driver behind the wheel. But when Irene's husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) gets out of prison and is quickly assaulted and threatened because of a debt he still owes, The Driver steps in to help him out, which sets off the explosive events of the film's last half.
I should say that I realize this film won't be everyone's cup of tea. I mentioned that it's a highly stylized film noir, and that is particularly evident in the way director Nicolas Winding Refn sets up almost every shot. He is far more concerned with expressions than words, which means dialogue is kept to a minimum. But at least in the scenes between The Driver, Irene, and Benicio, that really makes more sense, as this is a pair of people who clearly don't know each other very well and realize that they're treading in some potentially dangerous territory. Refn and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel also hang onto almost every shot just a bit longer than you would expect, which while slowing the film down, contributes immensely to its stylish, art house feel. Refn is Danish and I don't know what connections he has with Los Angeles, but he uses the city and its environs to absolute pristine effect, whether its a shot of a car moving slowly through the lit up night streets, or a thrilling car chase along the Pacific Coast Highway. Michael Mann has perfected the use of Los Angeles as almost a supporting character in his crime films "Heat" and "Collateral," but Refn's use of the city to influence the tone and style of this film is almost as good.
The acting in the film is top notch as well. The sheer range of emotion we see from Gosling as The Driver is amazing. I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just say that he goes through some pretty remarkable transformations. Mulligan really doesn't have a whole lot to do in terms of dialogue, but she handles the aforementioned awkward quietness quite well, even though her character doesn't have much to say. Cranston adds yet another great supporting performance as he continues to be one of the more entertaining character actors out there, and Perelman's penchant for over-the-top characters is served well here as a shady pizza parlor owner. But the film's biggest gem aside from Gosling is Albert Brooks. He plays shady business man Bernie Rose to such gleeful perfection that he's easily the most entertaining and watchable character in the film. He also brings a surprising complexity to a character that could easily have been interpreted as very one-note. In terms of supporting acting performances so far this year, he's at the top in my opinion.
Overall, "Drive" is just a brilliant film. It's not for everyone and it will probably play better to art house fans than action fans. But the execution here is at its absolute best on all levels and it is, as I said at the outset, one of the year's best films.
"Drive" is rated R for strong brutal bloody violence, language, and some nudity.
Running time: 100 minutes.
Released domestically on September 16, 2011, by Film District.
3.5 stars out of 4.
"Drive" opens by introducing us to its nameless protagonist, a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver for criminals, as he evades police on the streets of Los Angeles with a brilliant efficiency behind the wheel. Ryan Gosling plays The Driver, as he is listed in the credits, as a man of few words but an extremely steely nerve. He's really more reminiscent of Clint Eastwood in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" than anyone else. As the film progresses, The Driver meets and becomes attached to his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son, Benicio (Kaden Leos). Irene's husband is in prison, so The Driver helps her out with grocery shopping and fixing her car, all the while growing closer to her and Benicio. The Driver and his mechanic boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) also become involved with a couple of shady business figures (Albert Brooks and Ron Perelman) who want to finance a stock car operation with The Driver behind the wheel. But when Irene's husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) gets out of prison and is quickly assaulted and threatened because of a debt he still owes, The Driver steps in to help him out, which sets off the explosive events of the film's last half.
I should say that I realize this film won't be everyone's cup of tea. I mentioned that it's a highly stylized film noir, and that is particularly evident in the way director Nicolas Winding Refn sets up almost every shot. He is far more concerned with expressions than words, which means dialogue is kept to a minimum. But at least in the scenes between The Driver, Irene, and Benicio, that really makes more sense, as this is a pair of people who clearly don't know each other very well and realize that they're treading in some potentially dangerous territory. Refn and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel also hang onto almost every shot just a bit longer than you would expect, which while slowing the film down, contributes immensely to its stylish, art house feel. Refn is Danish and I don't know what connections he has with Los Angeles, but he uses the city and its environs to absolute pristine effect, whether its a shot of a car moving slowly through the lit up night streets, or a thrilling car chase along the Pacific Coast Highway. Michael Mann has perfected the use of Los Angeles as almost a supporting character in his crime films "Heat" and "Collateral," but Refn's use of the city to influence the tone and style of this film is almost as good.
The acting in the film is top notch as well. The sheer range of emotion we see from Gosling as The Driver is amazing. I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just say that he goes through some pretty remarkable transformations. Mulligan really doesn't have a whole lot to do in terms of dialogue, but she handles the aforementioned awkward quietness quite well, even though her character doesn't have much to say. Cranston adds yet another great supporting performance as he continues to be one of the more entertaining character actors out there, and Perelman's penchant for over-the-top characters is served well here as a shady pizza parlor owner. But the film's biggest gem aside from Gosling is Albert Brooks. He plays shady business man Bernie Rose to such gleeful perfection that he's easily the most entertaining and watchable character in the film. He also brings a surprising complexity to a character that could easily have been interpreted as very one-note. In terms of supporting acting performances so far this year, he's at the top in my opinion.
Overall, "Drive" is just a brilliant film. It's not for everyone and it will probably play better to art house fans than action fans. But the execution here is at its absolute best on all levels and it is, as I said at the outset, one of the year's best films.
"Drive" is rated R for strong brutal bloody violence, language, and some nudity.
Running time: 100 minutes.
Released domestically on September 16, 2011, by Film District.
3.5 stars out of 4.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Thoughts on Summer 2011
The summer movie season ended a few weeks ago, and it's been almost two months since the last major tentpole release. But as fall begins and Hollywood moves away from explosions and mayhem toward more serious fare, I thought I would take a look back at the last several months.
I should preface this by saying that I didn't get to see nearly as many movies this summer as I'd have liked. Some summer fare that's still on my to-see list includes Will Ferrell's dramatic turn in "Everything Must Go," the relationship dramas "Last Night" and "Beginners," British comedies "Submarine" and "Attack the Block," and studio comedies "Friends With Benefits" and "Crazy Stupid Love." I also haven't yet gotten to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" or "The Help," though I'm hoping to make it to those two soon. So when I say that Summer 2011 was a very poor few months of moviegoing, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. But despite all the big-name sequels and would-be franchise starters, I just didn't get a good vibe from the season overall.
The Bad
I actually don't have much to talk about in terms of bad films from this summer, since generally if a movie is supposed to be bad, I don't bother seeing it. The only genuinely bad movie I saw all summer was "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." Granted, it wasn't as miserably, horridly terrible as the last entry, "Revenge of the Fallen," but it was just another overlong explosion fest with no purpose other than to show emotionless CGI robots beating the pulp out of each other. Fortunately the film saw a $50 million dropoff in its domestic gross from the last entry, and when the 3D upcharges are factored in, roughly 25% less people saw "Dark of the Moon" than "Revenge of the Fallen." That's a victory for quality cinema over crap cinema, but the film's massive international numbers ensure that the franchise will continue. I'll talk more about the explosion of the international box office shortly.
The Mediocre
Another film that falls closer to bad than good for me was "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides." I'm in the extreme minority in that I really enjoy the "Pirates" sequels in addition to the first film, "The Curse of the Black Pearl." But I never had high expectations for this unnecessary fourth entry, and I essentially got what I expected: not much. The same goes for "The Hangover Part II," which was practically a remake of the original...not to mention less funny.
The Good
And now for the high points. I'd say there were four very good films that I saw this summer, with a couple others that were enjoyable, but not necessarily great. I'll start at the top with "Midnight in Paris," which I consider to be the best film I've seen all year so far. Just a great, fun, lighthearted comedy with plenty of Woody Allen wit and some great performances, particularly from Marion Cotillard and Owen Wilson, as well as Rachel McAdams as a stereotypical culturally ignorant American. The more knowledge you have of early twentieth century literature, the more you'll get out of this film. It's an absolute must-see in my opinion and while it's not likely a contender for any major awards (save possible for its screenplay), it could manage quite a few nominations at the end of the year.
Keeping things on the independent circuit, another summer gem was Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life." This is a film that I think takes multiple viewings to fully appreciate it, and I definitely need to give it a second look to really think about everything that's going on, particularly in the film's last twenty minutes. But I definitely appreciated the sheer artistry on screen. Malick's films play almost more like visual poems than traditional narratives, but he's an absolute visual master; the twenty minute creation sequence that takes up the film's entire second reel is one of the most amazing visual sequences I've ever seen put on film. The film also has great performances from Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain as a couple living in small-town America in the 1950s.
Moving to the studio side of things, another film I really loved was J.J. Abrams's Steven Spielberg homage "Super 8." Sure it has some cheesy moments, but then again so did many of Spielberg's beloved '80s films. But the film had a heartwarming story with plenty of drama and suspense, and a host of great performances from mostly unknown child actors. Elle Fanning is Oscar-worthy in this film in my opinion.
And finally we come to the big kahuna of the summer, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2." Yes it's only half of a much larger epic (which I think will be truly amazing when seen in it's entirety once "Part 2" hits home media on November 11). But director David Yates, writer Steve Kloves, stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, and the rest of that enormous cast and crew brought this saga to a truly impressive and satisfying conclusion. I had the chance to see the film at a midnight showing (the only such showing I've been to for a Potter film), and I can say that it was one of the most memorable moviegoing experiences I've ever had. I've seen the film an additional three times too, so I can say that it definitely holds up to repeat viewings without that electric midnight atmosphere.
A couple other entertaining high points for me this summer were "X-Men: First Class" and "Bridesmaids."
Comic Book Overload?
The summer of 2011 saw no less than FOUR comic book-inspired films hit theatres. The only one I saw was the aforementioned "X-Men," but I'm starting to wonder if studios are getting to the bottom of the barrel in terms of characters that are recognizable to the general public. None of the four managed to hit $200 million at the domestic box office, which has got to be disappointing to the studios after the huge successes of the Batman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man franchises. Comic book movies are probably here to stay, but I think there's a huge amount of pressure on next summer's "The Avengers" to perform, since only Iron Man has proven to be a popular character individually from that group. Of course "The Dark Knight Rises" will be a huge success, but with that franchise Warner Bros. has wisely let Christopher Nolan and his writing team do their own thing. Marvel has been much more hands on, and has spent a lot more money, in the development of their Avengers franchise, and now they'll be waiting to see if if all pays off.
Decline of 3D
I'll just say upfront that I absolutely loathe 3D. I think it is a money-making gimmick that adds absolutely nothing to the moviegoing experience; in fact I think that it makes it worse. And this summer, it seemed that the general moviegoing public (at least in the U.S.) is starting to feel the same way...or at the very least they're tired of paying anywhere from $5-15 extra for the experience (those higher numbers are if you include IMAX or some of the other large-format showings). Of all the 3D tentpoles this summer, only "Transformers" made a majority of its domestic cash from 3D showings. All the others did more business in 2D. Yes the format is still hugely popular overseas, which means it will likely continue for at least another few years, but at least it looks like U.S audiences are tiring of the format, which is a huge positive in my opinion.
Growth of the International Box Office
Finally, this summer saw huge gains in overseas box office totals. Many franchises saw their international numbers increase dramatically, including "Fast Five," "Thor," "The Hangover," "Cars," and "Transformers." Big epics like "Harry Potter" and "Pirates" were still overwhelmingly popular as well. This summer also had THREE $1 billion worldwide grossers in "Harry Potter" (now the third highest grossing movie of all-time with $1.325 billion), "Transformers ($1.118 billion, just below "The Return of the King" for fifth all-time), and "Pirates" ($1.039 billion, eighth all-time). Of course all of those were in 3D, which helps to explain the huge dollars, but I think the international markets are finally beginning to catch up with the U.S. in terms of theatres and amenities and just being able to offer a first-rate moviegoing experience. Many of these films were released internationally at the same time as they were in the U.S., or in some cases even earlier. That cuts down on potential piracy issues as well. I fully expect this trend to continue, with at least two candidates for $1 billion lined up for next year in "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."
Well, that's a wrap on my (very lengthy) thoughts on Summer Movie Season 2011. I've already seen a couple of the fall's highly acclaimed films, and I'll work on getting reviews of those ("Drive" and "Moneyball") posted over the next couple days.
I should preface this by saying that I didn't get to see nearly as many movies this summer as I'd have liked. Some summer fare that's still on my to-see list includes Will Ferrell's dramatic turn in "Everything Must Go," the relationship dramas "Last Night" and "Beginners," British comedies "Submarine" and "Attack the Block," and studio comedies "Friends With Benefits" and "Crazy Stupid Love." I also haven't yet gotten to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" or "The Help," though I'm hoping to make it to those two soon. So when I say that Summer 2011 was a very poor few months of moviegoing, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. But despite all the big-name sequels and would-be franchise starters, I just didn't get a good vibe from the season overall.
The Bad
I actually don't have much to talk about in terms of bad films from this summer, since generally if a movie is supposed to be bad, I don't bother seeing it. The only genuinely bad movie I saw all summer was "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." Granted, it wasn't as miserably, horridly terrible as the last entry, "Revenge of the Fallen," but it was just another overlong explosion fest with no purpose other than to show emotionless CGI robots beating the pulp out of each other. Fortunately the film saw a $50 million dropoff in its domestic gross from the last entry, and when the 3D upcharges are factored in, roughly 25% less people saw "Dark of the Moon" than "Revenge of the Fallen." That's a victory for quality cinema over crap cinema, but the film's massive international numbers ensure that the franchise will continue. I'll talk more about the explosion of the international box office shortly.
The Mediocre
Another film that falls closer to bad than good for me was "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides." I'm in the extreme minority in that I really enjoy the "Pirates" sequels in addition to the first film, "The Curse of the Black Pearl." But I never had high expectations for this unnecessary fourth entry, and I essentially got what I expected: not much. The same goes for "The Hangover Part II," which was practically a remake of the original...not to mention less funny.
The Good
And now for the high points. I'd say there were four very good films that I saw this summer, with a couple others that were enjoyable, but not necessarily great. I'll start at the top with "Midnight in Paris," which I consider to be the best film I've seen all year so far. Just a great, fun, lighthearted comedy with plenty of Woody Allen wit and some great performances, particularly from Marion Cotillard and Owen Wilson, as well as Rachel McAdams as a stereotypical culturally ignorant American. The more knowledge you have of early twentieth century literature, the more you'll get out of this film. It's an absolute must-see in my opinion and while it's not likely a contender for any major awards (save possible for its screenplay), it could manage quite a few nominations at the end of the year.
Keeping things on the independent circuit, another summer gem was Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life." This is a film that I think takes multiple viewings to fully appreciate it, and I definitely need to give it a second look to really think about everything that's going on, particularly in the film's last twenty minutes. But I definitely appreciated the sheer artistry on screen. Malick's films play almost more like visual poems than traditional narratives, but he's an absolute visual master; the twenty minute creation sequence that takes up the film's entire second reel is one of the most amazing visual sequences I've ever seen put on film. The film also has great performances from Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain as a couple living in small-town America in the 1950s.
Moving to the studio side of things, another film I really loved was J.J. Abrams's Steven Spielberg homage "Super 8." Sure it has some cheesy moments, but then again so did many of Spielberg's beloved '80s films. But the film had a heartwarming story with plenty of drama and suspense, and a host of great performances from mostly unknown child actors. Elle Fanning is Oscar-worthy in this film in my opinion.
And finally we come to the big kahuna of the summer, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2." Yes it's only half of a much larger epic (which I think will be truly amazing when seen in it's entirety once "Part 2" hits home media on November 11). But director David Yates, writer Steve Kloves, stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, and the rest of that enormous cast and crew brought this saga to a truly impressive and satisfying conclusion. I had the chance to see the film at a midnight showing (the only such showing I've been to for a Potter film), and I can say that it was one of the most memorable moviegoing experiences I've ever had. I've seen the film an additional three times too, so I can say that it definitely holds up to repeat viewings without that electric midnight atmosphere.
A couple other entertaining high points for me this summer were "X-Men: First Class" and "Bridesmaids."
Comic Book Overload?
The summer of 2011 saw no less than FOUR comic book-inspired films hit theatres. The only one I saw was the aforementioned "X-Men," but I'm starting to wonder if studios are getting to the bottom of the barrel in terms of characters that are recognizable to the general public. None of the four managed to hit $200 million at the domestic box office, which has got to be disappointing to the studios after the huge successes of the Batman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man franchises. Comic book movies are probably here to stay, but I think there's a huge amount of pressure on next summer's "The Avengers" to perform, since only Iron Man has proven to be a popular character individually from that group. Of course "The Dark Knight Rises" will be a huge success, but with that franchise Warner Bros. has wisely let Christopher Nolan and his writing team do their own thing. Marvel has been much more hands on, and has spent a lot more money, in the development of their Avengers franchise, and now they'll be waiting to see if if all pays off.
Decline of 3D
I'll just say upfront that I absolutely loathe 3D. I think it is a money-making gimmick that adds absolutely nothing to the moviegoing experience; in fact I think that it makes it worse. And this summer, it seemed that the general moviegoing public (at least in the U.S.) is starting to feel the same way...or at the very least they're tired of paying anywhere from $5-15 extra for the experience (those higher numbers are if you include IMAX or some of the other large-format showings). Of all the 3D tentpoles this summer, only "Transformers" made a majority of its domestic cash from 3D showings. All the others did more business in 2D. Yes the format is still hugely popular overseas, which means it will likely continue for at least another few years, but at least it looks like U.S audiences are tiring of the format, which is a huge positive in my opinion.
Growth of the International Box Office
Finally, this summer saw huge gains in overseas box office totals. Many franchises saw their international numbers increase dramatically, including "Fast Five," "Thor," "The Hangover," "Cars," and "Transformers." Big epics like "Harry Potter" and "Pirates" were still overwhelmingly popular as well. This summer also had THREE $1 billion worldwide grossers in "Harry Potter" (now the third highest grossing movie of all-time with $1.325 billion), "Transformers ($1.118 billion, just below "The Return of the King" for fifth all-time), and "Pirates" ($1.039 billion, eighth all-time). Of course all of those were in 3D, which helps to explain the huge dollars, but I think the international markets are finally beginning to catch up with the U.S. in terms of theatres and amenities and just being able to offer a first-rate moviegoing experience. Many of these films were released internationally at the same time as they were in the U.S., or in some cases even earlier. That cuts down on potential piracy issues as well. I fully expect this trend to continue, with at least two candidates for $1 billion lined up for next year in "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."
Well, that's a wrap on my (very lengthy) thoughts on Summer Movie Season 2011. I've already seen a couple of the fall's highly acclaimed films, and I'll work on getting reviews of those ("Drive" and "Moneyball") posted over the next couple days.
Welcome to The Film Source
This is the official launch of The Film Source, an independent movie news and reviews blog. This site will mainly focus on movie reviews; starting out I will probably just be reviewing new films, but I may begins to mix in reviews of older films as the site progresses. I will also be posting any news items out of Hollywood that I find to be particularly interesting, and I will likely include some editorials as well--ranging from my thoughts on, or interpretations of, individual films to major issues in Hollywood. I will also probably include box office news, and as awards season gets into high gear, my thoughts and predictions on the awards race.
So welcome everyone to The Film Source! I hope you enjoy the site.
So welcome everyone to The Film Source! I hope you enjoy the site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)