"On the Road" Review

On the Road, Jack Kerouac's iconic novel of youthful restlessness and rebellion in post-World War II America, is one of many books on my "need to read" list. But I have had my eye on the long gestating film adaptation since it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival nearly a year ago, and have finally had the opportunity to see it. And while it's quite well done on a technical level, there's also a sense that something is missing. It's rare for literature to translate perfectly to film; the two mediums are simply too different for the same amount of depth to be present on the screen as on the page, and I found that to be the case here.

On the Road is a semi-autobiographical story of Kerouac's youthful years in the late 1940s. He gives himself the pseudonym Sal Paradise and tells of his interactions with various contemporaries, most notably Neal Cassidy, who goes by Dean Moriarty. Sal meets Dean through his friend Carlo Marx (standing in for Allen Ginsburg) and the two of them embark on a multiyear friendship of sorts that takes them back and forth across the country in search of "it," which I took to simply be some version of personal satisfaction or just their own interpretation of the "American dream." Only once is their quest for "it" mentioned, but in talking with others who have read the novel I learned that this pursuit plays a much bigger role in the book than it does in the film. As a viewer I kept this in mind over the course of the film, that Sal and Dean are in search of something even though it's barely mentioned. Without it there really isn't much of a story beyond youthful antics involving copious amounts of drugs and sex, so it's important to see the idea underneath it all even though the script (written by Jose Rivera) doesn't give it much weight.

That being said, the rebelliousness of youth does come through. A comment from Sal about Douglas MacArthur and a scene involving a corrupt police officer the most overt examples, but the themes are even more apparent considering the late 1940s setting. And given that the book was written a decade later, against the backdrop of the Cold War and the specter of McCarthyism, the spirit of rebellion against controlling authority shines through. Unfortunately though, this search for the American dream and rebellion against conservatism is about as deep as the film gets.

But while a lot of the novel's depth is lost in the script, the execution of the film is top notch. Kerouac's love of America bleeds through in almost every frame of their roadtrips, and the alternately sun-dappled and icy cold cinematography takes great advantage of the swath of American landscapes that fill the film. British actor Sam Riley plays Sal, and he looks and sounds eerily like a young Jack Nicholson. Sal is the laid back center of the film, set against Dean's wild and reckless abandon, and Riley carries the role appropriately. But his best moments probably come when he gets to narrate in Kerouac's beautiful prose. A host of actors, some famous and some less so, populate the film as the various characters Sal and Dean meet in the course of their travels. Few are on screen long enough to truly make an impression; some of the brighter spots come from Viggo Mortensen (as Old Bull Lee / William S. Burroughs), Amy Adams, and Steve Buscemi.

The best performances come fron Garrett Hedlund as Dean and, surprisingly, Kristen Stewart as his wife Marylou. This is the first time I've ever seen Stewart truly give a performance. Yes you know it's still her up on the screen, but none of the awkward nervous hair brushing or swaying that seems to define every character she's played is present here. It's a true, honest, emotional performance. And Hedlund is simply great as Moriarty. He captures the character's restless abandon perfectly, but has some wonderful standout emotional scenes as well. His performance here is proof that it doesn't take an emotional outburst or convulsive weeping to take a strong emotional toll.

"On the Road" is rated R for strong sexual content, drug use, and language.
Running time: 124 minutes
Released domestically on December 21, 2012, by IFC Films.
2.5 stars out of 4.

Top Ten Films of 2012

I found 2012 to be a bit of an enigmatic year for films. As the year began it seemed overloaded with promise, with new films from Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Ridley Scott, Wes Anderson, Steven Spielberg, and the Wachowskis, as well as more obscure indie directors such as Andrew Dominik, John Hillcoat, and Rian Johnson. For the franchise-inclined, 2012 also offered the conclusion of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, Peter Jackson’s return to Middle-earth with the first part of his Hobbit trilogy, the culmination of Marvel’s Phase One with The Avengers, a big screen adaptation of teen novel sensation The Hunger Games, and to the great relief of anyone who enjoys quality cinema, the merciful conclusion of the utterly dreadful Twilight Saga.

But as the year wore on, many of these films failed to deliver when compared to the hype surrounding them, or to the quality of their predecessors. My two most anticipated films of the year, The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, both ended up being disappointments. As a lackluster summer progressed into fall, 2012 seemed destined to be another major letdown of a year, following the decidedly subpar 2011. But at the end of September, things took a dramatically positive turn. I saw my first two four star films in nearly two years that month, and while there were occasional bumps along the way, the final four months of the year ultimately delivered four films that were better than any film released in 2011, including one that has already become one of my personal favorites. So while 2012 was probably a slight disappointment overall, it still proved to be a big step up from last year.

I should note that this was a year where my personal opinion differed with much of the critical and commercial majority. While the Academy certainly isn’t known for having broad taste in film, this year only three of the Best Picture nominees made my top ten (though another one received an honorable mention). Amour, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, and Zero Dark Thirty all proved to be disappointing on various levels. On the commercial side, major hits The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Skyfall, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey all offered some good moments, but weren’t nearly complete enough overall to be named among the year’s best.

With that said, here is my opinion on the best films of 2012, beginning with a few honorable mentions—solid films that just didn’t quite make the cut as being among the ten best of the year.

HONORABLE MENTION

(IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Cloud Atlas

Lana and Andy Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer’s adaptation of David Mitchell’s novel is one of the more truly epic films of the last several years. With three writer-directors and two completely distinct film crews telling six separate stories that span six hundred years of human history, it’s also one of the most ambitious. All of the major actors play several different roles; the performances are uniformly solid and the film is absolutely beautiful visually. But it doesn’t present many themes that haven’t been seen before, and the six separate climaxes cause the “ending” to go on for about an hour. But even with its issues, it’s definitely a film fans of unique cinematic visions should see.

Lawless

This adaptation of the novel The Wettest County in the World had been on my radar for the last couple of years, mainly because it’s set in Franklin County, Virginia, just a couple hundred miles from where I’ve lived most of my life. Being a Depression-era gangster story surrounding the illegal moonshine trade helped as well, and while it’s a very solidly executed movie—with a terrifyingly commanding performance from Tom Hardy—it’s one of those movies that falls into the category of “good, but not great.”

Lincoln

“Good but not great” is also how I’d describe Steven Spielberg’s long-gestating Lincoln. But its fall from greatness happens almost exclusively at the film’s climax, where it shifts from being a compelling historical drama to feel-good schmaltz that borders on farce with its blatant historical revisionism. Before that, however, it’s an incredibly well crafted piece of cinema with an already legendary performance from Daniel Day-Lewis. 

Prometheus

One of the year’s most polarizing movies, Ridley Scott’s sci-fi meditation on the origins of humanity—and other far more vicious creatures—began as a prequel to his sci-fi horror classic Alien, and morphed into something far more compelling. Many people complained about the movie’s lack of definitive answers, but for me it was nice to have a film that makes you think about and analyze what happened and what the moviemakers are trying to say. It’s certainly a little rough around the edges, but after seeing the movie three times I’m very solid in my interpretation, though other views are certainly plausible.

Seven Psychopaths

This viciously black comedy from writer-director Martin McDonagh didn’t blow away critics or audiences, but I found it quite funny and original. While it’s not nearly as good (or as deliciously politically incorrect) as McDonagh’s In Bruges, it’s still a very fun little film. Christopher Walken gives his best performance in ten years.

TOP TEN FILMS OF 2012

10. RUST AND BONE

For the first time, a foreign movie made my Top Ten. This French romantic drama from Jacques Audiard is one of the more honest character studies I’ve seen as it focuses on two troubled people who fall in love despite extensive emotional baggage. Marion Cotillard and Matthias Schoenaerts give excellent, heartbreaking performances as the two lovers, but just as strong is the writing (Audiard co-wrote the script with Thomas Bidegain from a story by Craig Davidson) that develops these characters in real, honest ways. I’ve long felt that foreign films tend to present life more realistically, while even the best American films tend to deal too heavily in stereotypes or larger-than-life characterizations. But the style of Rust and Bone almost makes it seem as though you’re watching a documentary looking in on the lives and relationships of these two broken people. I should also note that this is one of the most beautiful-looking films I saw this year…and it was shot digitally. I’m a very strong proponent of physical 35 mm (or 70 mm) film as I think it produces a realistic, lifelike picture that digital simply can’t match. And while watching Rust and Bone I was so struck by the beauty and varied composition of the cinematography that I thought it must have been shot on film, and was surprised when I learned it was not. I’m still an absolute film apologist, but this was the first movie I’ve seen that made me think that, in rare hands, digital cinematography can maybe do some of the same things that film can.

9. SMASHED

 

This little gem of an independent film didn’t receive any type of nationwide push from Sony Classics, but I managed to catch it when it played for a week here in Richmond. And I’m so glad I did. It’s a story about alcoholism, a subject which also received treatment in a couple of higher profile films from this past year. But while Flight treated the subject with overdramatized stereotypes and The Master was about far more than alcohol addiction, Smashed treats it with brutal honesty. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives a terrific performance as Kate, a young married first grade teacher who isn’t above drinking beer in the shower before work or taking shots from a flask in the parking lot of her school. Just as addicted, but much less willing to get help, is her husband Charlie (Aaron Paul), and the film chronicles the ups and downs of their marriage as Kate tries to get help while Charlie struggles to be supportive despite not being willing to give up drinking heavily himself. This is another film that treats human brokenness with unflinching honesty, and while it appears to be going in the same stereotypical direction as other films that have covered the same ground…I don’t want to spoil anything, so I’ll just say that it definitely doesn’t go in the direction that you expect. And it has one of my most absolute favorite endings of the year. This is a true hidden gem that I encourage everyone to seek out once it becomes available in March.

8. THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

This adaptation of the best-selling teen book received strong buzz out of the Toronto Film Festival, but I never got around to seeing it in theatres. Had I written my Top Ten a month ago, once I’d seen all the films I thought I needed to see, it wouldn’t have even made the list. But I never had time to sit down and write my list in  January, and once I saw the street date for this film coming up I decided to hold off so I could see it. And I’m so glad that I did, because this is another film that, while it does tend to deal in clichés, features three extraordinarily well-developed and realistic characters. It’s also one of the most beautifully written films of the year, which is probably not surprising as book author Stephen Chbosky wrote and directed the film himself. And he treats the typical adolescent themes of loneliness, love, sex, depression, and mental illness with such tenderness that it’s impossible not to be moved, even if some moments are a tad sappy. Logan Lerman and Ezra Miller give absolute award-worthy performances as Charlie and Patrick, and Emma Watson is quite good as Sam as well.

7. BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

This gem of an independent film did get a wider push from its distributor and therefore needs less introduction from me. I just found it to be an absolutely beautiful film about the relationship between young Hushpuppy (the revelatory Quvenzhane Wallis), and her father Wink (Dwight Henry, just as good). Much has been discussed about whether this film is meant to be literal or more of a modern fairy tale, and while I took it as a mix of both, either way there’s no denying the message. One scene between Hushpuppy and Wink is one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful of the year, but the whole film is just a wonderful example of the magic of cinematic storytelling.

Side Note: The screening of this film I saw was followed by a question and answer session with producer Michael Gottwald. This was a fascinating “brush with Hollywood” for me, even though the film was made completely outside the Hollywood system. It’s also the only time I’ve ever seen a film receive a standing ovation.

6. MOONRISE KINGDOM

Wes Anderson is one of the most unique cinematic voices working today. His brand of humor, outlandish characters, and general storytelling style are completely unique to himself, such that you can tell almost instantly that you’re watching a Wes Anderson film. I’m not as caught up on his older filmography, but this is probably the best work of his that I’ve seen. It’s the story of two middle-schoolers, Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) who run away together on their remote New England island causing panic in their small town. It’s a story about young love, told as only Wes Anderson could tell it. Edward Norton gives a terrific, award-worthy performance as Scout Master Ward and even Bruce Willis shows he still has some talent. Anderson’s brand of humor isn’t for everyone, but for me, this was the best comedy of the year by far.

5. KILLING THEM SOFTLY

This independent post-modern gangster drama received an unceremonial release on one of the slowest weekends of the year, and was gone from theatres within a month. Apparently the Weinstein brothers were unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to try and market this film as what it is…a subversive commentary on American society, from politicians to businessmen right on down to criminals. On the surface it’s about a heist gone wrong; two small-time criminals (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn, both excellent) rob a poker game and frame a small-time gangster (Ray Liotta) for the job. But things go south, and mob enforcer Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt in a role he was born for) is brought in to clean things up. But while this might sound like the plot of a typical crime thriller, it plays out about as unconventionally as you can imagine. And that’s because writer-director Andrew Dominik (who also helmed the similarly little seen but excellent The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, also with Pitt) is intent on using this story as a metaphor for American society. It’s actually an adaptation of the novel Cogan’s Trade, written in 1974 by George V. Higgins, so the commentary on America circa 2008 comes entirely from Dominik. Most of the characters are largely symbolic, in particular James Gandolfini as washed-up former hitman Mickey, and Richard Jenkins as the nameless driver. This is a must-see film for anyone who loves complex, thought-provoking cinema. Just don’t expect the crime thriller this appears to be on the surface.

4. ARGO

Ben Affleck’s Argo, about the rescue of six escapees from the American embassy in Tehran in 1980, has faced its fair share of controversy over the last several months. This is largely due to it being the most prominent film in this year’s cinematic awards race, as I don’t recall many people complaining about it when it opened in October. And yes, the film does alter history a bit, significantly reducing the involvement of Canada in the operation and drastically increasing the involvement of Hollywood (fun fact: Alan Arkin’s Lester Siegel is a fictional character). Accordingly, it shouldn’t be taken as history, but as a cinematic version of history. And as a political thriller, this film works. It’s a style of film that has certainly been done before, but it’s quite simply a master class in how to deliver a thriller. And that is largely due to Affleck’s direction. Maintaining intensity in a film when the ending is known is an extremely difficult task, but Affleck pulls it off to near perfection. The first time I saw the film I was clinching the armrests of my seat during the climax…and I knew what was about to happen. I’ve now seen the film three times, and it still maintains its intensity; that is the hallmark of truly great filmmaking.

3. THE MASTER

This film from Paul Thomas Anderson was five years in the making. Never one to shy away from tough subjects, Anderson chose with his newest project to tell a story of a religious cult known as The Cause, its charismatic leader Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), his wife (Amy Adams), and the wayward World War II veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix). The relationship between Freddie and Dodd is the heart of the film, and it’s one of the most fascinating cinematic relationships I’ve ever seen. This is largely due to the metaphor that is set up by the film’s title, and which plays out in very clear terms due to Anderson’s writing. But it’s also due to two absolutely titanic performances from two of the most talented actors working today. Not since Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood (also written and directed by Anderson…coincidence? Doubtful) have two actors so completely and utterly commanded the screen as these two do here. This is quite simply a master class in filmmaking: a storyteller at the height of his craft and two actors who completely and totally inhabit their characters.

Side Note: This is the first American film in years to be shot entirely on 70 mm film, the double-wide, high resolution film stock that was widely used for epic mid-twentieth century films such as Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia. Though it’s not presented in widescreen, it’s still an extraordinarily rich film visually. I was fortunate enough to be able to see the film projected on 70 mm film and it was one of the most spectacular visual cinematic experiences I’ve ever had.

2. LOOPER

There’s very little I can say about Looper without spoiling the plot, and this is a film where the less you know, the more you will enjoy the film. So I will just say that this film is brilliant. Completely, utterly brilliant. If you don’t like science-fiction, or if the ins and outs of a narrative involving time travel are not for you, this film won’t be either. But if you do love science-fiction, this is a top-notch entry in the genre. And what makes it even more unique is that it's not a big-budget studio production; it's an independently produced film with a budget a fraction of most sci-fi films. Writer-director Rian Johnson builds his own world and writes his own rules and then executes this film to near perfection, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt give great performances. And Bruce Willis, for the second time this year, shows real talent. Immediately after seeing Looper I wrote that it was the best film made by anyone in the last two years. Ultimately it ended up being the second-best film of its own year, but this is still absolute first-rate cinema. It’s a film that completely, totally pulled me into its world and left me literally jaw-dropped.

1. DJANGO UNCHAINED

Absolute movie magic. A work of pure art. Pure cinematic beauty blended with uncompromisingly savage brutality. A viciously uncompromising yet highly theatrical commentary on America’s shameful past. A razor sharp script filled with instantly memorable, larger-than-life characters. These are just some of the ways to describe Django Unchained, the latest masterpiece from Quentin Tarantino. This film is, quite simply, close to cinematic perfection. It’s an epic western set mostly in the antebellum South—yes, only Tarantino could make a western and have the audacity to not set it in the American West. But this film is, without question, a western. It had me from its old-style opening credits sequence right up to its explosive ending. There is never a dull moment in its two-hour-and-forty-five-minute running time. Whether its one of the many conversations between Django (Jamie Foxx) and Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a monologue from the despicably evil Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), one of many beautiful widescreen vistas, the pitch-perfect soundtrack, or the sickeningly gory mother of all shootouts, this is an absolute textbook example of Quentin Tarantino in his element, telling a story as only he can. This is one of his most blazingly sharp and memorable scripts, and features some of his best characters. DiCaprio plays completely against type and turns in one of his finest performances. Waltz proves that he was born to deliver Tarantino’s lines. Samuel L. Jackson is the epitome of evil as he stares into the camera during one climactic scene. Jamie Foxx is back in top form playing the steely, determined center of this story of romance and revenge. Tarantino continues to be one of the absolute best at finding brilliant character actors to fill even the smallest speaking parts. The production values, from the costumes to the rich plantation homes to the muddy towns of Tennessee and Mississippi are impeccable. The cinematography is beautiful, whether the gorgeous wide shots that could easily be paintings, a shot of torchbearers riding over a hill in the night that gave me goosebumps, or the simple sight of blood splattering onto cotton or grass. Altogether, Django Unchained is without question the best film of the year, a masterpiece from one of the most visionary and original filmmakers working today.

So that's a wrap on 2012, a year that started out badly but definitely ended with a bang. On the surface, 2013 looks pretty dry in terms of cinematic offerings, but I've already seen a film this year that has a great chance of making my Top Ten for this current year. So who know, maybe 2013 will be a surprise success. 

"The Dark Knight Rises" Review--No Spoilers

"The Dark Knight Rises" is a massive film; an epic saga on a scale not seen in an American film since "Avatar." (Note that I'm purely talking scale here. I detest "Avatar" but there's no denying that it's a massive film). Ever since Batman rode into the night at the end of the masterpiece that is "The Dark Knight" I'd been eagerly awaiting director/co-writer/co-producer Christopher Nolan's followup, and when it was revealed that this film would be the definitive conclusion to his "The Dark Knight Trilogy" that made my anticipation even greater. And while there's no doubt that Nolan and company have delivered a film that is much bigger and with much more at stake than the previous two entries, unfortunately the film gets bogged down in a few too many characters, which along with some plot holes (albeit relatively minor ones) and just plain lazy filmmaking decisions place this film a few steps down from the mastery that was its predecessor.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is by far the biggest, most brash superhero movie to ever come along. Yes "The Avengers" was big in terms of its scope, but its lighthearted tone made it feel as if nothing was really at stake. That is far from the case here; not only is this by far the most violent of Nolan's Batman films, but a palpable sense of gloom hangs over much of the film. Despair and tragedy beget more of the same, eventually leading to imagery reminiscent of World War II Nazi ghettos. This is a dark film, but it's because of that darkness that I felt more invested in this film than I ever did during "The Avengers," as the Gotham City of this film is a truly violent, anarchic world.

The performances are generally solid, though there's nothing approaching Heath Ledger's revelatory, Oscar-winning turn as the Joker in "The Dark Knight." I don't think Christian Bale has been given due credit for his performance as Bruce Wayne / Batman in these films. This is a brooding character whose life has been shattered by tragedy numerous times, a man whose commitment to his version of justice has led him to darker and darker places, culminating in his climactic decision at the conclusion of "The Dark Knight." And Bale simply captures every nuance of this character. I will say that he's given more range in this film than he was in the previous film, and his performance both with and without the cape and cowl is fantastic. Michael Caine gives his most emotional performance as Alfred; he is simply a master actor and it shows. Gary Oldman is also reliably solid as the dutiful but world-weary Commissioner Gordon, who now has to carry the weight of his decision to go along with the cover-up of Harvey Dent's crimes at the end of "The Dark Knight." Morgan Freeman is his reliable self, though his Lucius Fox gets fewer playful moments than in the previous two outings.

There are several new additions to the cast, and most fare reasonably well. Tom Hardy has the unenviable task of having to follow up Ledger's maniacal performance as the film's lead villain. I think Nolan and his brother Jonathan (who co-wrote the script with the director) were wise to take the villain in a completely different direction than Ledger's Joker. Bane is a hulking, masked presence, and while the vocal decisions for the character are at least peculiar, Hardy definitely gives the character his all. His eyes are extremely powerful in key scenes, but I would say he doesn't rise to the level of all time great masked performances (Hugo Weaving in "V for Vendetta" comes to mind for me in that realm). Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard also join the cast in roles that may or may not come from the comic source material. Someone with better knowledge of the comics will know whether they are original characters or not, but they both do well. Cotillard is her generally lovely self, though this role demands less of her than her performance in Nolan's previous film, "Inception" (an Oscar-worthy performance from her in my opinion). Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming one of Hollywood's most talented young actors, and his performance as idealistic cop John Blake is simply excellent. The best new arrival, however, is Anne Hathaway as burglar / femme fatale Selina Kyle. I think Hathaway is seriously underrated as an actress (though she does have an Oscar nomination), and she absolutely owns this role. She's brash, confident, and utterly sexy on the surface, but she clearly hides a shady past and that shines through in some of the film's darker moments. Hathaway has some of the most expressive eyes in Hollywood, and the sorrow and doubt in her face in key scenes is palpable. But she also perfectly captures the playfulness of the character, and in many ways is a breath of fresh air in this dark film.

In terms of the direction, Nolan is simply a master craftsman and probably the best working in mainstream Hollywood today. "The Dark Knight Rises" will likely serve as a textbook example of modern epic filmmaking (yes it's epic by today's standards, but "Ben-Hur" or "Lawrence of Arabia" it is not). Nolan takes the time to introduce all the plotlines and characters (both of which are probably a few too many), and truly invests in the story as he builds to the inevitable climax. The film certainly is visually spectacular; Nolan's decision to continue shooting on film (a mix of wide angle 35 mm and 70mm IMAX, which is cropped to widescreen for traditional presentations) gives the film a warmth and lifelikeness that digital cinematography simply can't match. The production values are immaculate, and Hans Zimmer once again provides a thunderous score, complete with a few new themes (Zimmer goes solo on his final Batman outing after collaborating with James Newton Howard on the first two installments).

Now, with all this said, the film does have some flaws. I mentioned the excess of supporting characters and plotlines; these become hard to follow in the film's opening act, though repeat viewings could amend this. However, the film does suffer from a few plot holes and things that just plain don't make sense. I'm willing to overlook small plotholes if the overall film is great (such was the case with "The Dark Knight" which, while I do consider it a masterpiece, is not a perfect film). But the plot holes and unexplained instances here are much more obvious, even to the point that I was getting close to checking out of the film during its first act. There are also some pacing and editing issues that could have used some tightening up in the first act as well. But thankfully, things settle down for the most part as the film progresses.

One other criticism I have concerns the film's tone, and while it may not be completely fair, it's just how I feel. "Batman Begins" was the first comic book-inspired film to truly try and ground things in reality, and Nolan followed it up with "The Dark Knight," which, in terms of tone, I do not consider a comic book film at all. It is simply an epic crime saga populated by a couple of eccentric costumed characters, and its tone is completely, utterly realistic. "The Dark Knight Rises" definitely has an apocalyptic feel, but it also has that sci-fi, comic book sensibility in some instances (not least from the script, which is not nearly as crisp as "The Dark Knight"). Maybe Nolan just wanted each film to have its own tone, and like I said it may not be fair to fault him for that, but after the completely serious tone of "The Dark Knight" I was expecting something similar.

So overall, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a satisfying conclusion to "The Dark Knight Trilogy." Nolan and his team have pulled out all the stops to deliver a truly massive, epic event film. It has more flaws than its predecessor, and is certainly no masterpiece, but it's a solid conclusion to one of film's finest trilogies.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality, and language.
Running time: 164 minutes.
Released domestically on July 20, 2012, by Warner Bros. Pictures.
3.5 stars out of 4.

Capsule Reviews for March and April 2012 Films

I've fallen a little behind on my reviews lately, but with the summer movie season about to kick off this Friday with "The Avengers" I wanted to get caught up on the films I've seen over the last couple months, but haven't reviewed. As the headline indicates, these will be brief reviews as I have six films to cover.


Project X (R, 88 minutes, March 2, 2012, Warner Bros. Pictures)

This "found footage-style" comedy centers on a group of high schoolers who plan the ultimate party to up their social standing at their school. All sorts of mayhem ensues, some of which is very funny, but ultimately this feels like a series of comic vignettes rather than a cohesive whole. The three main characters (played by Thomas Mann, Oliver Cooper, and Jonathan Daniel Brown) don't really evolve or develop over the course of the film, leaving it to function as nothing more than a mildly amusing diversion.  One potential issue with this film is the argument that high school kids will want to emulate the antics of the characters, but I personally think anyone who actually thinks that this scenario could happen in real life without serious consequences is pretty thick in the head. This film is meant as a comic diversion, and that's really all it is. 2 stars out of 4.


Jeff Who Lives at Home (R, 83 minutes, March 9, 2012, Paramount Vantage)

This indie comedy / drama from writer / director brothers Jay and Mark Duplass ("Cyrus," "Baghead," "The Puffy Chair") is a simple little film that isn't all that complex thematically, but is still funny and moving. It centers on thirty-something Jeff (Jason Segel), who still lives with his mother (Susan Sarandon). When she sends him out on search of some wood glue to fix a broken shutter, his life changes over the course of a single day. The story here is barely enough for a full-length feature, as the film runs just over 80 minutes, and there's a subplot involving Sarandon's character that I felt really added nothing thematically. Segel continues to play basically the same character in every film (the one exception being 2009 comedy "I Love You Man"), but Ed Helms really shines here as Jeff's brother Pat. This is easily the best performance I've seen from Helms, and it's one that proves he may have a career outside of "The Office" and the "Hangover" franchise...or even outside of comedy altogether, for that matter. The beautiful Judy Greer, who was excellent in a small role in last year's best film, "The Descendants," is even better here, and I really look forward to seeing more from her. 3 stars out of 4.


Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (PG-13, 107 minutes, March 9, 2012, CBS Films)

This indie drama has been heavily marketed in independent film circles for the last six months or so, and as it features two very talented actors in Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt, I had to give it a shot. I feel like the potential was there for this story (which is based on the book by Paul Torday) to be a good film, and maybe even a great one. Unfortunately, the script from Simon Beaufoy ("Slumdog Millionaire," "127 Hours") isn't particularly written in places, has an unnecessarily subplot involving Islamic extremists, and, above all else, the ending is dreadful. Not the resolution necessarily, but the whole final act, where at least three different possible endings are dangled in front of you, only to have things move on to something else. By the time the resolution finally comes, I was so fed up with the whole thing that I didn't care what happened, and it didn't help that one aspect of the ending felt horribly contrived. McGregor and Blunt do have great chemistry, and I did find myself really caring about the characters, at least up until that final act. Amr Waked gives a great performance as a wealthy sheikh who wants to introduce the Scottish sport of salmon fishing into a river in Yemen. This is a film that could have been good, but ends up getting too bogged down in cheap storytelling. 2 stars out of 4.


21 Jump Street (R, 109 minutes, March 16, 2012, Columbia Pictures)

This big screen adaptation of the 1980s T.V. series starring Johnny Depp did exactly what it needed to with its goofy premise: turned it into a ridiculous comedy. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum star as young police officers who, due to their youthful appearances, go undercover in a local high school in an attempt to break up an emerging drug ring. Unlike "Project X," this film plays like a complete narrative, and the action / comedy elements are much more effective. Hill has always had great comic timing, but Tatum does much better here than in the seemingly endless list of romantic dramas he's been in; perhaps he has a better acting future in comedy. Dave Franco (younger brother of James) gives a great performance as the head of the high school drug ring; Ellie Kemper (Erin from "The Office") is largely wasted in a useless subplot. 3 stars out of 4.


The Cabin in the Woods (R, 95 minutes, April 13, 2012, Lionsgate)

 This deconstructionist horror comedy written by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (who also directed), is particularly difficult to review, because I don't want to spoil any of the film's twists. Suffice to say that what starts out as a relatively standard horror setup (a group of college-aged friends head to a cabin in the middle of nowhere for the weekend) turns into something much more complex. The slasher elements are there, and while the film is never scary, one particular scene involving a mounted wolf's head is incredibly suspenseful. But elements of science fiction and even fantasy are introduced as the story evolved into an increasingly bizarre deconstruction and parody of the entire horror genre. The only recognizable actor among the leads is Chris Hemsworth ("Thor"), but Kristin Connolly does a great job as the main character, and Fran Kranz steals every scene the stereotypical, stoned-out-of-his-mind pothead. This is easily the most quotable film of the year so far, and many of the gems in the dialogue belong to Kranz. I will say that by the end of the film, I was really rooting for the surviving characters to make it out of their situation, and would even go as far as to say I cared about them, which is extremely rare for a horror film. This is a high concept genre film that satirizes and sends up its own genre, so it's hard for me to know who will like it. But if you go into it with an open mind, and understand that you won't be getting what you expect, you'll hopefully have a blast. I know I did. 3 stars out of 4.


The Five-Year Engagement (R, 124 minutes, April 27, 2012, Universal Pictures)

This is a film I feel like I need to see again to fully appreciate. It's the rare film that's stayed with me even several days after seeing it, and I'm not sure yet if the good aspects of the story are just getting the better of me, or if this really is a true gem among romantic comedies that's just not being embraced because it's challenging. The title basically tells what the film is about, so I'll say that I really enjoyed Emily Blunt's performance as always, and while Jason Segel played another version of the same character yet again, it still works. Chris Pratt (NBC's "Parks and Recreation") and Alison Brie (NBC's "Community") steal every scene they're in, and the script from Segel and Nicholas Stoller (who also directed; this is the same team that made "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," a comedy favorite of mine), is generally good, though there are some pacing issues here and there and the ending is a tad cheesy. In fact, this film is at least as much drama as it is comedy, and it doesn't have the same gut-busting level of humor as most Judd Apatow productions, though there are some very funny moments. The challenging aspect of this film is its realism...these two characters are flawed people who make mistakes, and not just cookie-cutter movie plot mistakes that can be washed away. They feel like real, flawed human beings, and I absolutely loved that about them. The theme of this film is that no two people are perfect for each other, in fact probably no two people are even sixty percent perfect for each other. That's not a popular notion in today's world of fairy-tale romances, but the fact of the matter is that it's true. All you have to do is look at the divorce rate, in America and around the world, to see what happens when people place to high of a priority on someone else making them happy. The idea that people can love each other deeply, but still have to get through arguments and differences and changes is not a popular one, particularly among the escapist romantic comedy crowd, but it is a realistic one. In that respect, I think this film is much more challenging than most mainstream romantic comedies, but it's better for it. 3 stars out of 4.

"The Hunger Games" Review

I'm extremely surprised that "The Hunger Games" is as popular as it is, both in its novel and film forms. A big part of me wonders if people even understand what this story is about, because it is extremely dark and the social commentary is quite apparent. The fact that the book is considered a young adult novel, and that a large part of the fanbase seems to be teenagers and even preteens is downright disturbing on some levels, because the actual social and political themes here seem like they would go completely over their heads, leaving them to read the book and watch the film purely for entertainment. Perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to the series's fanbase (The Hunger Games the novel is the first of a trilogy; the film series will likely be at least four parts). But when all I heard leading up to the film's release were comparisons to the insipid dreck that is "Twilight"--complete with yet another teenage love triangle--I was quite surprised by how dark and incisive the story is. The society of this world created by author Suzanne Collins is one where, every year, twenty-four children are rounded up and forced to fight brutally to the death in a gladiatorial match that is compulsory television viewing for the entire population of this post-apocalypic North America known as Panem. This is a society of fascism at its highest order, but more specifically, this is a story about children being forced to slaughter other children for entertainment. So IF it's being read by today's children and viewed the same as the utterly empty and pointless drivel that is "Twilight," that would be just one of many possible sad commentaries on our society.

Okay, with that out of the way, I'll just concentrate on the film itself. I've already alluded to the plot, and given the number of people who have already seen the film during its opening weekend, it's probably pointless for me to outline it any more. The weakest link in the film is definitely the script. Adapted from the novel by Collins, director Gary Ross ("Seabiscuit," "Pleasantville"), and Billy Ray, it features no shortage of clunky dialogue. The developing romance bewteen Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) near the end of the film had me rolling my eyes, and the flashbacks to Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Katniss's suitor back home in District 12 just upped the cheese factor. I don't have a problem with romance in films, or even love triangles, but they have to be handled well, and this one just felt out of place; fortunately they don't dwell on it long. There's also some pretty heavy foreshadowing that takes away from the film's most intense emotional moment, which could have been even more powerful had it been handled with more subtlety. I'm sure there are things that make sense to those who have read the book (I haven't); Katniss's three-fingered salute in particular meant nothing to me, though it's a catalyst for one of the film's most powerful moments. That's not to say that the writing is all bad; much of it is handled quite well. I thought that many of the supporting tributes were characterized rather simplistically, but I was legitimately surprised and pleased by how the climax was handled. Overall the writing was a mixed bag for me; hopefully with the film's success a more competent screenwriter can be hired for the sequels (I've seen rumors that Simon Beaufoy, who won an Oscar for writing "Slumdog Millionaire" and was nominated again for "127 Hours" is being targeted).

Other than the dialogue issues though, the film is excellent. Lawrence is an incredibly talented young actress and she absolutely owns the film; she can do more with a look or a facial expression than many actors can do with several lines. That to me is the mark of a truly great actor and Lawrence (who was deservedly nominated for an Oscar for the indie drama "Winter's Bone," and gave one of the better performances in last year's superhero ensemble "X-Men: First Class") has a very bright future ahead of her. Headlining a franchise as big as this one looks to already be should give her her pick of projects from here on out. The supporting cast is filled with big names and they all do well; Woody Harrelson as Haymitch and Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman stand out in particular, and I'm looking forward to where Donald Sutherland is going to take the character of President Snow, a man I already hate just because I know what he represents in this society. Hutcherson also gives a quality performance, but Hemsworth is barely around enough to matter.

Gary Ross seemed an odd choice as director for this project, but he does a great job. The film only dragged for me during the cave sequence near the end; other than that it moves along nicely and never really feels its nearly two-and-a-half hour length. Ross also does a great job of keeping the tension up, particularly during the Games themselves. His use of the ever tricky "shaky-cam" has been debated, but I think it generally worked, particularly in the action sequences (no doubt the frenetic camera movements helped mask the more brutal aspects of the violence, thus barely preserving the PG-13 rating). I could have done without the shaky-cam during the reaping scene; I guess the idea was to give a sense of documentary-style realism, but it felt odd to me. The overall look of the film is appropriately bleak, and James Newton Howard contributes an excellent, mostly restrained score that greatly adds to the mood of the picture. Some of the effects looked rather cheap (expected I guess given that the budget was only $80 million), but with the amount of money the film has made already, the budget will at least double for the sequels, which should help out in the effects department.

I was surprised by the level of violence; much was made of the fact that the filmmakers were required to deliver a PG-13 rating when the content is probably more deserving of an R. So I definitely wasn't expecting the level of blood and gruesomeness present here; it's about as close to an R as you could possibly get in my opinion, and I've seen less gruesome content (which also wasn't by and against children) earn an R. But what's more disturbing about the violence is that it is children killing other children, and a lot of it is extremely difficult to watch. The savagery is necessary though, to illustrate the brutal nature of this fascistic world; the Hunger Games were created as punishment for an attempted rebellion against the oppressive government seventy-four years prior. But if there's any question as to the story's themes, or the potential of what is to come, a denouement scene involving Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), and in particular the final shot of the film, should leave little doubt.

"The Hunger Games" is rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images--all involving teens.
Running time: 142 minutes.
Released domestically on March 23, 2012, by Lionsgate.
3 stars out of 4.

"John Carter" Review

"John Carter" is the film "Avatar" wishes it could have been. Those familiar with my cinematic opinions know that I'm not at all a fan of the highest grossing film of all time, and while I certainly don't mean to imply that "John Carter" is without flaws, in terms of epic sci-fi action adventure stories, it wipes the floor with that far more successful film. If you like "Avatar" (and it's clear that most of the developed world did), you probably won't like "John Carter," but if you didn't, at least consider that this film is a far better version of a (somewhat) similar story.

I only bring up "Avatar" because the basic conceits of the two films are quite similar: a human finds himself on another world and is drawn into a conflict to defend its people. "John Carter" is based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel A Princess of Mars, the first in a series of eleven sci-fi stories that James Cameron has cited as among the inspirations for "Avatar." George Lucas has also cited them as among the inspirations for the "Star Wars" series, so if you see things here similar to those films, at least know that this story came first.

The film is book-ended with scenes of a young Burroughs (Daryl Sabara), as he investigates the estate of his uncle, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch). The film then flashes back to 1868 where we meet Carter, a Civil War veteran who, through a series of events I won't spoil, finds himself transported to Mars (or "Barsoom," as the natives call it). Due to the weaker gravitational pull and lower atmospheric density, Carter finds himself capable of super-human strength and has the ability to leap great distances, which instantly makes him a coveted weapon to the three different peoples of Mars who are engaged in a brutal civil war of their own. He first meets the Tharks, a race of nine-foot-tall, four-armed, green beings led by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe in a motion capture performance). He also meets the beautiful princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), who is expected to marry the leader of her peoples' enemies, Sab Than (Dominic West), with the hope that this reconciliation will bring peace. But she may also hold the key to Carter's return home.

I said that the film is not without flaws, and that's definitely true. Unlike the extremely predictable "Avatar," "John Carter" is occasionally hard to follow, what with the seemingly endless list of funny-sounding Martian names, different religions, mystical weapons, and dueling cities. The story definitely comes into focus about halfway through, but even after the film was over I still confused the names of the two lead villains, and still don't remember the name of their city (though the fact that it moves across the Martian landscape like a giant hovercraft was pretty cool). The story itself is practically as old as storytelling (a young warrior fights to defend the honor of a princess), but there are enough wrinkles to keep it from being too predictable. There are quite a few convenient moments, particularly in the final act, and some of the dialogue is undeniably clunky. The acting occasionally veers into melodramatic, particularly on the part of Collins, and Kitsch has no shortage of scenery chewing moments. Mark Strong is yet again typecast as emotionless villain Matai Shang; he almost looks bored at having to deliver another one-note performance. He's shown flashes of excellence in earlier roles in "Body of Lies" and "RockNRolla," and was Oscar-worthy in last year's "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," but it really just feels like he's going through the motions here.

So that's the bad; what about the good? The good, and what makes me recommend "John Carter" unequivocally despite its flaws, is the sheer spectacle. Director Andrew Stanton makes his live-action debut with this film, following huge successes with Pixar's "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E," and it's clear that he knows how to tell a story and deliver an immensely entertaining cinematic experience. The story may be as old as time, but as I said, the script (co-written by Stanton, Mark Andrews, and Michael Chabon), threw enough slight curve balls to keep me interested. You definitely care for these characters and what happens to them, which is a testament to the performances. Yes they're somewhat melodramatic in places, but Kitsch, and Collins in particular, do bring enough emotion that you're definitely rooting for them to end up together by the end of the film. I never know how to evaluate motion-capture performances, because it's really impossible to tell how much of the emotion in those characters comes from the actors and how much is rendered by the effects team. But Tars Tarkas is definitely a sympathetic (and quite multidimensional) character, as is fellow Thark Sola (Samantha Morton). The effects work all around is spectacular; the film had a much-reported $250 million budget, but it was definitely put to good use, as these aliens rival those from "District 9" in their realism and are really probably as well-done as the ultimate in motion capture characters, Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings." And while the effects are numerous, they never overwhelm the film, they merely serve it, as the best visual effects should do. There's also a refreshing absence of green screen work, as only a couple scenes looked like they were completely CGI environments, and Stanton is to be commended for using real sets and real locations that are eschewed by so many big-budget directors today.

There's also no shortage of spectacle and Stanton definitely has an acute visual eye for these action sequences, particularly one early in the film which involves Carter leaping through the air between several battling airships. This is also most definitely the goriest Disney film ever made, and though they get by on the "Lord of the Rings Rule" (as long as the blood isn't red, you can get a PG-13; such is the ludicrousness of the MPAA, but that's a topic for another day), but there is no shortage of blue Martian blood, along with much hacking, slashing, impaling, dismemberment, and decapitation. I refuse to see 3D versions of any film, but I've read that this one has received a particularly poor and useless post-conversion (it was shot on film with wide-angle lenses, the best format possible in my opinion but the worst for converting to 3D). So save the extra five dollars and see it in 2D.

Overall, "John Carter" is simply a big, entertaining, sci-fi spectacle. It has some flaws, but unless you get overwhelmed by the strange names and religions, you'll almost certainly have a good time. It's not particularly groundbreaking, but it has action, adventure, romance, and all sorts of alien creatures...in short, exactly what a sci-fi event film should be.

"John Carter" is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.
Running time: 132 minutes.
Released domestically on March 9, 2012, by Walt Disney Pictures.
3 stars out of 4.

Top Ten Films of 2011

In my humble opinion, 2011 was not a great year for movies...I would actually say that it was nothing more than a decent year for movies. Even at this time last year, there just wasn't the same crop of appealing films that there was going into 2010, and even some of those that sounded appealing proved to be disappointments. Of course 2010 was a spectacular year for films, so maybe it was inevitable that there would be a dropoff. But while 2011 may have been a tad disappointing overall, there were some very good films released this year, and even a couple great ones. So, with that, I present my list of the top ten films of 2011.

I will say as a point of clarification that this list simply captures how I feel at this point in time, having now seen every critically acclaimed film that appealed to me released this past year. My feelings on some of these films may change over time...for example, while I have completed top ten lists for each of the last four years (2007-2010), I have gone back and retroactively changed my lists for two of those years, though my number one film has never changed (I also declared a number one film for 2006 despite not having a full top ten). That may be particularly important this year as I had a very hard time deciding which of my top two films was the best, but I'm confident that the film I chose will stand the test of time as my personal favorite of 2011.

And so without further ado, here is my list of the best films of 2011, beginning first with ten honorable mentions. These are films that particularly impressed me this year despite not being among the very best.

HONORABLE MENTION

 (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

The Adjustment Bureau

This sci-fi / fantasy film based on a short story by Philip K. Dick presents a world where a secretive society of people make sure that things happen "according to plan." The story is a bit cheesy, and it's really more fantasy than sci-fi, but stars Matt Damon and Emily Blunt have incredible chemistry, and they're both such talented actors that they make the film work in spite of deficiencies in the story.

Anonymous

This film from director Roland Emmerich presents the theory that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. It's all a bit pulpy, with an abundance of political and sexual intrigue, but when viewed as a piece of historical fiction it's an immensely entertaining film, the likes of which (a lavish, big-budget period drama) that aren't really made anymore. And Ifans gives an absolutely titanic performance.  

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Based on the book by Jonathan Safran Foer, this film tells the story of Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), an eccentric young boy who lost his father on September 11. The ending is a bit cheesy, but overall it's simply an extremely well done emotional drama, and Horn gives a terrific performance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

The final film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's epic series of books is really just the extended climax of what is one four-and-a-half hour feature. But even as a standalone film, it's a spectacular action film with some of the best acting and emotion in the whole series.

The Help

When I reviewed this film back in September, I declared it the best film of the year at that time. My opinion on it has softened a bit since watching it a second time; while the execution is top-notch and there are probably close to ten excellent performances, some aspects of the ending (particularly the secret of Minnie's chocolate pie) feel a bit artificial, and while this film shows hints of the horror that blacks faced in the Jim Crow South, ultimately it feels a bit too sanitized to be considered a truly great achievement.     

Moneyball

This story of how Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) transformed the 2002 Oakland Athletics into contenders is a compelling sports drama. Pitt gives another great performance as he moves further and further away from the more populist action roles that defined his early career, and Jonah Hill is great is his first truly dramatic role. It's a very well-made film, but one that I didn't have a huge emotional reaction to overall.

Rango

This animated western from director Gore Verbinski (the original "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy) is filled with clever humor, fun action, and references to countless classic western films. The animation is spectacular and Johnny Depp is perfectly cast as the voice of the titular chameleon who must save the town of Dirt from an evil land baron (Ned Beatty)

Source Code

This small-scale, cerebral sci-fi thriller was released back in April, and it remains one of the year's most thought-provoking films. Other than Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life," no film this year made me think more about its ending; in fact I was preoccupied with it for days after seeing the film and it wasn't until seeing it a second time that I became convinced I was interpreting it correctly. If you haven't seen this film, seek it out. It's excellent. 

Super 8

This sci-fi drama from director J.J. Abrams is very much in the spirit of such Steven Spielberg classics as "Close Encounters," "E.T.," and "The Goonies." It's the story of a group of kids who discover an alien presence in their town following a terrifying train crash. The child actors--led by Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning--are all terrific and Abrams continues his rise as one of the most prominent young directors out there.

The Tree of Life

No film this year was more anticipated among movie buffs, or discussed more afterwards, than Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life." The simplest way to describe this FAR from simple film is that it's a meditation on life and the nature of the universe. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea and I'm still not entirely sure what happens at the end, but it's a fascinating experience. 

And now for the cream of the crop, the top ten films of 2011:

10. YOUNG ADULT

This excellent black comedy from writer / director Jason Reitman centers on Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron), a thirtysomething woman who returns to her hometown determined to win back her high school sweetheart Buddy (Patrick Wilson). Patton Oswalt gives a surprisingly great performance as a nerdy man-child, but Theron owns this film. It's bitingly funny with moments of sobering reality, and the moment when Mavis lets loose on these people she despises so much is heartbreaking. Put simply, this is an excellent little film with an outstanding lead performance.

9. THE ARTIST

 

 This French-produced, black-and-white silent film is a fun homage to early Hollywood. Jean Dujardin stars as George Valentin, a silent film star who refuses to adapt to the rise of "talkies" and sees his career go down the drain as a result. He's terrific in the role, as is Berenice Bejo as Peppy Miller, a rising young talkie star who takes pity on Valentin. The black-and-white, full frame cinematography is beautiful, taking full advantage of the lavish production design, and Ludovic Bource's score energizes the film completely. 

8. MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE

This art house thriller from first-time writer / director Sean Durkin stars Elizabeth Olsen in her first feature role as Martha, a young woman who, as the film opens, has just escaped from a cult. The film alternates between her time living under charismatic cult leader Patrick (John Hawkes), and her increasing paranoia as she tries to adjust to normal life with her sister (Sarah Polley). Olsen gives an electrifying performance and Hawkes is terrifying despite never raising his voice. Durkin keeps the film extremely atmospheric and it all builds up to an ending that I'm still not entirely sure of. It's not a conventional thriller by any means, but it is an excellent film.

7. THE IDES OF MARCH

Based on the play "Farragut North" by Beau Willamon, this excellent political drama is directed by and co-stars George Clooney as Mike Morris, a presidential candidate in a fight for the democratic nomination. But the film really centers on Stephen Meyer (Ryan Gosling), Morris's junior campaign manager. As the fight for the nomination unfolds, Stephen becomes increasingly embroiled in the dirty underbelly of American politics as the film builds to a showstopping climax. As much as "The Help" is filled with great performances from several leading ladies, "The Ides of March" nearly matches it as Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Evan Rachel Wood are all excellent.

6. 50 / 50

 

This comedy / drama is based on the true story of Will Reiser, a friend of co-star and producer Seth Rogen who battled cancer in his 20s. It may hit a little too close to home for those whose lives have been touched by cancer, but it's an excellent film that seamlessly blends comedy and drama, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives another great performance in the lead role. Angelica Huston is also great in a small role as his mother. If you can handle the subject matter, this is definitely a film worth seeing, one that is both very funny and very sad.

5. SHAME

This devastating portrait of sexual addiction from director Steve McQueen features an electrifying performance from Michael Fassbender as Brandon Sullivan, a thirtysomething New Yorker who is desperately addicted to sexual gratification. Brandon is forced to confront his demons when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) moves in with him, and ultimately finds himself spinning more and more out of control. This is an extremely difficult film to watch, but the artistry on display is masterful. Mulligan is excellent also, and McQueen shows a complete mastery of the very difficult material. This one of the most purely artistic films I've ever seen, and it touches on a very difficult issue that is often covered up in American culture.

4. TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

This excellent thriller is based on the classic novel by John le Carre and tells the story of an investigation into the presence of a Soviet mole at the top levels of Britain's MI6. Gary Oldman is terrific as George Smiley, the former agent who secretly heads up the investigation, and director Tomas Alfredson creates a moody, bleak atmosphere with bleak, grainy cinematography. This is very much a dialogue-driven film, complete with just enough bursts of shocking violence to keep the film moving along at a slow burn, right up until the final reveal.

3. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

Woody Allen has been hit-or-miss lately, but with "Midnight in Paris" he has a definite hit. Owen Wilson plays Gil Pender, a struggling screenwriter vacationing in Paris with his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams). When he goes out late at night in search of inspiration, Gil finds himself transported back in time to Paris in the 1920s, where he meets a host of famous characters including F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody), and Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll in a scene-stealing performance). He also falls in love with the beautiful Adriana (Marion Cotillard). This is definitely a piece of fantasy, but taken in that light it's an effortlessly entertaining film, probably the funniest film of the year. The more you know about literature, the more you'll get out of all of Allen's references, but this is simply one of the year's best, most entertaining films. 

2. DRIVE

This brilliant art house noir from director Nicolas Winding Refn is one of the year's absolute best films, and one of the few that I expect to stand the test of time as a truly great film. It's the story of an unnamed Hollywood stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) who becomes involved with some shady businessmen (Albert Brooks and Ron Perelman), as he slowly falls in love with his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan). This is just an utterly brilliant film, with terrific performances, an electrifying score, and beautiful cinematography. There are some thrilling car chases and several sequences of shockingly brutal violence. As I alluded to in my opening, I struggled for a while in determining which of my top two films was the best, and while I've kept "Drive" at number two that doesn't take away from it at all in my mind. 

1. THE DESCENDANTS

Alexander Payne's "The Descendants" is, flat out, the best, most entertaining film of the year. George Clooney gives the best performance of his career as Matt King, a "backup parent" who is forced to confront increasingly painful truths when his wife falls into a come following a boating accident. Shailene Woodley gives a terrific performance in her first film role as Matt's eldest daughter Alex, a wild child who has to catch up on her growing up and help her father out in dealing with things in the wake of her mother's accident. The supporting roles are filled out with excellent character actors including Matthew Lillard, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges, and Robert Forster. The film is based on a book of the same name by Kaui Hart Hemmings, and Payne and his co-writers Nat Faxon and Jim Taylor have created a series of characters that feel completely and utterly human, and a series of situations that feel completely and utterly realistic. The film blends comedy and drama seamlessly and is both hysterically funny and heartbreakingly sad. The Hawaiian setting allows for some gorgeous cinematography and atmospheric music, and the setting plays crucially into multiple themes in the film. All in all, this is just an excellent film. I've seen it three times now and I can confidently say that "The Descendants" is the best film of 2011.

So that's a wrap on 2011. I'll be posting my reactions to the Oscar nominations, which will be announced on Tuesday morning, and I'll have Oscar predictions in the week leading up to the big show and reactions after. At some point I'll post a list of my most anticipated films of 2012, which will hopefully be a great year for movies and will hopefully feature some films that are as great as "The Descendants" and "Drive."