Worst Movies of 2012

Alright! I've finally sat through enough of 2012's filth to assemble what I believe is a reasonably accurate list for the worst movies of 2012. There were a few critical flops that I didn't get around to seeing, so your list may differ quite a bit from mine. I'll say this, I didn't get a chance to see Piranha 3DD though I liked the first one, I heard the sequel lacked the bite of it's predecessor (sorry, that was a bad pun, but I couldn't help it). I also missed This Means War. I couldn't find a place to rent it and there was no way I was going to buy the DVD. Also didn't get around to seeing That's My Boy, namely because I have just given up on Adam Sandler. There are a few others I didn't get around to checking out, but I feel like I got most of them. So without further ado, here are my picks for the worst movies of 2012.

10. Alex Cross
Tyler Perry's first major break away from comedy... is probably going to end up being his last. I'll be honest, I've never been a fan of Perry's work. He seems like a nice enough guy and it's pretty cool that he has written, directed, and acted in a number of successful comedies. Still, they're just not my kind of films, and neither is this one. Perry was trying hard, I could tell, but he was let down by a miserable script and a director who just phoned in his directorial duties. The only thing that kind of bordered on "so-bad-its-good" was the equally miscast performance of Matthew Fox, who was so over the top that he was, at times, somewhat hilarious. The rest of the movie is just dull and forgettable. On the bright side for Tyler Perry, it doesn't look like the Madea films are going away time soon... so, good for him I guess.

9. Paranormal Activity 4
I've been pretty forgiving toward the not-so-subtle flaws that has plagued this series from the beginning, but I finally drew the line with Part 4. I don't expect much from these movies, so long as each entry delivers a few memorable moments of shocks and suspense. Paranormal Activity 4, however, in addition to falling victim to flat acting, a lame story, and weak ending, just isn't all that scary. Aside for one or two passable scenes, it's just too damn boring to make any real impression. Well, the series was fun while it lasted.

8. The Watch
You would think a film directed by The Lonely Island's Akiva Schaffer and starring Ben Stiller, Jonah Hill, Vince Vaughn, and Richard Ayoade would have a few laughs, wouldn't you? While it did get an occasional chuckle here and there, it was mostly a huge waste of time. The film never found a consistent tone, switching back and forth between crude adult-oriented jokes, juvenile teen boy humor, and uninspired sci-fi action. Even the film's few honest to God laughs were mostly taken from previous and better movies. In short... it blows.

7. House at the End of the Street
Normally I hate to see talented actors starring in terrible movies, but honestly, I don't think Jennifer Lawrence is going to have any trouble sweeping this stinker under the rug. Lawrence does what she can with such a boring character, and while her natural skill brings a touch of credibility to the film, it doesn't save this horror dud from sucking. The premise had some interesting ideas, but the execution was just forgettable and generic as it's uninspired title. No scares, little suspense, and some of the worst dialogue I've heard in years hold back this piece of crap from amounting to anything other than forgettable. Normally, a film like this would have pulled down it's star with it, but like I said, Jennifer Lawrence is going to do just fine. With a well-received role in The Hunger Games (though I personally didn't care much for that one) an Oscar nominated part in Silver Linings Playbook (possibly a win, we'll find out soon), she'll have no problem rebounding from this.

6. The Lorax
Can we please not get any more feature-length Dr. Seuss adaptations? While I'll always say that you can make a good movie out of anything, I've run out of hope in believing that studios will ever actually invest the necessary time and resources into pulling off a decent adaptation. The Lorax is a dumb and annoying cgi family flick that dilutes the message of it's source material to make room for an uninspired story, stock characters, grating humor, and annoying songs. Eeesh... at least some of the animation was nice. Don't bother with this one. If you've got kids who want to see it, read the book to them instead.

5. One For The Money
I'll come out and say it... I'm not a fan of Katherine Heigl. Sure, Knocked Up was good, but the rest of her filmography, namely her numerous romcoms, have ranged from forgettable to flat-out infuriating (in case you were wondering, no I've never been into Grey's Anatomy either). While she's not a terrible actress per se, she lacks a certain personality and has virtually no comic timing. One For The Money might be her worst film ever, with a script and premise that almost borders on sexist when it's not boring you to death. Katherine Heigl is a bounty hunter... no, that doesn't sound like it would be a good movie now does it? The concept is uninspired, the jokes aren't funny, the film isn't exciting... it's just an all around terrible movie. Even if your a fan of Heigl, skip this one.

4. Gone
Like I said about House at the End of the Street, I hate to see talented actors brought down by shitty movies. Amanda Seyfried has shown that she possesses some real acting ability, but keeps getting cast in God awful movies. She does her best in Gone, but even her talent can't salvage much out of this forgettable thriller. I'm having trouble thinking of things to even say about the film, because honestly, it made practically no impression whatsoever. It has an uninspired concept, the mystery isn't all that interesting, and... that's about it. It's a pretty fitting title though, I must admit. One day, you'll watch it, and the next day, your memories of the film will be as the title implies... Gone.

3. Mirror Mirror
It's a nice looking movie, no doubt about that. Director Tarsem Singh has a good eye for visuals. The production and costume designs are quite creative, I'll say that much. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just awful! Julia Roberts is just too reserved to convincingly pull of campy humor, and unfortunately the movie puts a lot of faith in her role. In the long run, I don't know if any actor, no matter how talented, could have pulled off much entertainment value with a script this bad. What could have been an enjoyable camp fest or cute retelling of a classic fairy tale is instead an annoying, infuriating, and God awful snooze-fest. If you haven't seen this one... keep on doing that.

2. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
I admit that Ghost Rider isn't an easy superhero to adapt to film, but come on! The sequel to the only somewhat remembered 2007 film manages the rare feat of being both stupid and boring. The effects are a bit better this time around, but they're still pretty dodgy in most spots. The action is too damned erratic, the characters aren't interesting, and the story is predictable as hell. Even another psychotic performance from Nicolas Cage couldn't save this one... honestly, his shtick has been really wearing thin for a while now. The only positive thing I can say about Ghost Rider 2, is that it's not THE worst movie of 2012. That title goes to the following...

1. The Devil Inside
Wow! What a mess of a film we have here! I will say this, the idea of a horror film that explores the scientific and religious theories behind possession and exorcism is actually an interesting idea. Not to mention, the concept of renegade/underground exorcists is intriguing (mainly in a B-Movie kind of way, but whatever, a good idea is a good idea). Unfortunately, any promise this movie may have possessed (no pun intended) was let down by terrible execution. The actors... crap, the suspense... non-existent, the story... derivative, the ending... AWFUL!!! This film, has what might be the worst, cop out, "screw you" of an ending I've ever seen. Everything up until then was bad, but it was that ending that not only reserved it a spot on my "Worst Of" list but my choice for the worst movie of 2012! It's that bad folks.

So those are the worst movies I saw from 2012. If you haven't seen these movies and are thinking about checking them out... I wouldn't recommend it. Agree or disagree with my list? Leave a comment below and tell me your choices for the worst of 2012.

Top 10 Films Of 2012

Alright, we're halfway through January of 2013, which means I'm two weeks overdue to post my picks for the best movies of 2012. The year has been... actually not that interesting. Don't get me wrong, there were some high points, most of which are included on this countdown. There were also a few duds, which I will cover later on with the Worst of 2012 list. Still, aside from only a handful of films, there weren't a whole lot of excellent films or even disasters really. I guess I should be thankful for the latter, but it doesn't give me a whole lot to talk about (though I've still got a few more to see). Plus, I should mention that I did miss a few of the year's more acclaimed films. Off the top of my head, you won't see The Sessions or Amour on this list because they never made it to a theater in my area, at least none that I knew of. When I do get around to seeing them, I might end up revising this list if I feel like they should have been included. Nonetheless, there were still plenty of solid films to come around and even a few truly great ones. Which movies made my list? Let's take a look!

10. ParaNorman
2012 was a good but not great year for Animated movies I suppose. Disney gave us the enjoyable game-based trip of nostalgia with Wreck It Ralph (which just missed this list by the way), and Pixar saw a modest return to coming off of the underwhelming Cars 2 with Brave (again, good but not Top 10 material). The only truly great animated flick was ParaNorman, a family comedy/horror film that blended creative stop motion models with vivid cgi touches. It had a great cast of characters, some nice tributes to classic horror movies, some truly memorable visuals, and a story that tackled interesting themes like family values, bullying, and social outcasts. I can honestly say it was one of the most interesting and entertaining animated films I've seen in a while, and the 10th best film of 2012.

9. The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson, the incredibly inventive mind behind films like Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, and the always great There Will Be Blood, brought us a new work of art with The Master. A fictionalized retelling of the founding of Scientology, The Master contained a great screenplay and spot-on direction. While not quite as "showy" as say There Will Be Blood or as surprising as Punch Drunk Love, The Master truly shines thanks to the incredible cast including Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and a career best for Joaquin Phoenix, all of whom received well-deserved Oscar nominations. If you missed this one in theaters, I thoroughly recommended checking it out!

8. Cloud Atlas
In an era of declining originality, ambition, and creativity, leave it to the Wachowskis to give us the year's most risky and audacious films in I don't know how long. While I will admit Cloud Atlas doesn't always quite live up to it's sheer ambition, the fact that it works at all, and better yet is damn good movie in it's own right, is nothing short of a miracle. A sci-fi adventure with six loosely connected stories taking place across different times is a pretty lofty flick. When you consider those six stories all feature the same ensemble cast of six actors playing different characters of various races and genders, that's really impressive. It's a great looking movie with stunning makeup, production design, and visuals effects with a compelling story and exciting action. This is one of the best sci-fi movies in years, and while not am immediate critical or financial success, will hopefully be re-evaluated later on as a classic (a la Blade Runner).

7. Skyfall
It's no secret that I am a massive fan of the James Bond films, and entries like Skyfall only serve as a reminder of just why I love the series. Not only was Skyfall the best of the Daniel Craig films, it was one of the finest entries in the series. An emotional character-driven story, great performances, and incredible action scenes... Skyfall was worth the long wait. Is it the best in the series? Still not sure I am going say that quite yet, as there are others that loom pretty high (Goldfinger is going to be a tough one to beat), but I will say it met my expectations toward pretty much everything you could want out of a great action film and a great 007 flick.

6. The Avengers
The greatest superhero film of all time??? Well, not quite, but the fact that the question even comes up is a testament to the film's sheer awesomeness. Marvel's insane experiment to bring comic book continuity to the a universe may have seemed nuts, but The Avengers is proof that it was just crazy enough to work. With five films building up to one of the most anticipated superhero team-ups of all time, expectations were running high... and it met every one of them! A clever script, solid direction, enjoyable characters, great costumes, and bad-ass action made this one of the best popcorn flicks of all time. Now, Marvel is getting ready for Phase 2 of their film universe... can lightening strike twice??? Well... if one of your team members is the God of Thunder, I'd say it's definitely possible.

5. Lincoln
Steven Spielberg's long awaited portrayal of America's 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, at first looked like it was going to be your standard "Oscar Bait-y" biopic. You know, well made and well acted films with predicable and somewhat unoriginal thinking. While Lincoln itself does have the well made and well acted aspects (the acting is actually incredible), it wasn't so much a biopic but rather a complex study of the political and legal system, analyzing the lengths to which such an official must go, be they ethical or not, to accomplish such game-changing motions. The decision to set the story against Lincoln's battle to abolish slavery was a stroke of genius, as was the spot on casting decision of Daniel Day Lewis as the titular president. If the rumors are true, it looks like Lewis will be receiving his third Academy Award in February, and if that is the case... I am totally cool with that. In short, excellent movie, one of Spielberg's best in years.

4. Flight
I really hope that whatever Robert Zemeckis needed to get out of his system by directing all of those underwhelming mo-cop cgi films is gone now, because cinema was desperately lacking his touch in the live action films he had been absent from for so long. The director of classics like Back To The Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit returns in top form, in a compelling story of addiction and alcoholism starring Denzel Washington, in a performance that can be described as no less than excellent! The only thing that kept the film from achieving perfection was a slightly excessive length, but aside from that I don't have many negative things to say about it. It's just that good.

3. The Cabin In The Woods
For the horror genre, 2012 wasn't a particularly good year. There was plenty of crap, a few average but forgettable entries, and only two films I can honestly say that were enjoyable (the other being the good-but-not-great Sinister). It just so happened that the one truly great horror movie of the year, The Cabin In The Woods, would be one of the most creative, innovative, and intelligent horror flicks to come our way in I don't know how long. Blending clever elements of suspense, violence, comedy, and satire... The Cabin In The Woods is arguably the best meta-sendup of the horror genre of all time (not that it had a whole lot of competition). It acknowledges the genre's repetitiveness and cliches, but it does it with a huge smile on it's face, indulging in some of the most creative and over the top horror-influenced filmmaking I've ever seen. It was a strong contender for my number one film, but the next two just barely nudged their way into the top spots.

2. Zero Dark Thirty
When I first heard of the premise for Zero Dark Thirty, I have to admit that I was a bit on the fence. A movie about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden was intriguing, don't get me wrong, but there were a million things that could have possibly gone south with such a potentially controversial subject. And while the movie, as expected, was met with the inevitable protests, I can honestly say that Zero Dark Thirty was better than I could have imagined. Kathryn Bigelow's spot-on direction led to a believable, intriguing, and suspenseful introspective on politics, international relations, and terrorism. Throw in a perfect performance from Jessica Chastain (who I am crossing my fingers will receive her well-deserved Oscar) and you've got a winner.

1. Django Unchained
Leave it to Quentin Tarantino to deliver the most controversial, interesting, provocative, entertaining, and flat out best film of the year. Certainly not one for the faint of heart, Django Unchained is an unflinching and excessively violent tale of racism, slavery, and revenge. Set against the backdrop of the 19th century south in the style of a spaghetti western and complete with all of Tarantino's classic trademarks (shout outs to his favorite movies, brutal violence, buckets of blood, quirky dialogue, and unforgettable characters), Django Unchained is one of his most complex and interesting screenplays. I just don't really know what else I can say, it's got a great script, creative director, and an excellent cast... it's just that damn good. If you haven't seen it yet (and can stomach the brutal content), than this is a one you need to get out and see right away!

So those are my favorite films of 2012. There were a few I had a difficult time leaving off. Argo, for instance, was one I enjoyed very much, but thought it fell just a tad bit short of these ten. Nonetheless, I stand by the list. If you haven't seen any of them, I definitely recommend checking them out. Let's hope 2013 will be even better!

Agree with my list? What were your favorite films of 2012? Leave a comment below!

Les Misérables - Review

It's quite a surprise to think that it's taken this long to finally get a film adaptation of Les Misérables, one of theater's most successful musicals. The musical, of course based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo, saw a thirty-plus year run on Broadway along with productions in Britain, Paris, and all over really. While I have always wanted to see a stage production of Les Miz, it has unfortunately not happened. I would have loved to get the chance to see it, but I never lived in an area near where it was playing. So if your a fan of the play and are wondering how it compares to it's movie counterpart, I cannot answer that as of now. Still, the movie has actually been getting a fair deal of positive buzz, with mostly good reviews, enthusiastic responses from audiences, and eight Oscar nominations. Though I don't personally know that many extreme Les Miz fans, it seems like those said fans have overall reacted quite positively to what they received with this adaptation. There's definitely plenty to work with here to make a good, possibly great movie musical for the ages. With that being said, what did I think of the movie? It's actually pretty good... for the most part.

Set in 19th century France, Les Misérables tells the story of Jean Valjean, who is first introduced as a convicted felon just completing a 19 year prison sentence. Upon receiving his freedom, Valjean struggles to find work and nearly starves to death. Desperate to start a new life, Valjean breaks his parole, forms a new identity, and flees to leaving his previous life behind. He is pursued, however, by Javert (Russell Crowe), the police inspector with a fierce determination to catch Valjean and throw him back into prison for breaking his parole. Meanwhile, Valjean meets up with Fantine (Anne Hathaway), an end-of-her-rope woman turned to prostitution in order to support her young daughter, currently in the care of two corrupt innkeepers. Valjean, seeing this as his chance at redemption, determines himself to help Fantine's little girl, named Cosette. With Valjean still haunted by past and Javert on a relentless hunt to take him in, his freedom and redemption may come at a bigger cost than first realized.

Listen, I know that the stage musical (and likely by extension, this film adaptation), has a large and very enthusiastic fanbase. So, I will preface this review by re-stating what I mentioned above... namely, I did like the movie! Didn't love it, not one of the year's best, and certainly not one of the best musicals ever made, but an overall above average film slightly elevated by some strong elements. Making movies in general is hard, making films based on stage productions or musicals, especially one as "show-y" and bombastic as Les Miz, is an incredible challenge. Plays that are known for giant spectacle or large epic production numbers like (based on what I've heard) Les Miz have certain styles that don't translate particularly well on film. I often think of Andrew Lloyd Weber's adaptation of Phantom of the Opera as a good example. It's a great play, not so much because of subtlety or nuance, but rather because the grand scale, huge special effects, are operatic musical numbers are a blast to watch live. The 2004 film adaptation tried to recreate that same feeling, and while it was a worthy effort, it didn't really work. That sort of bombastic spectacle looks really overblown and often kind of goofy on film. Les Miz, fares a little better on that front, but falls victim to many similar problems. The songs themselves are great, the ideas are interesting, and most of the actors are good, but the ambitious style and abstract storytelling just doesn't translate as well as I hoped.

I'll start off by talking about what I did like... the cast. Hugh Jackman is probably best known as the claw-wielding mutant Wolverine from the X-Men movies. While he is frequently cast in action films, many didn't know that the guy has a background in musical theater. With a few stints on Broadway, the guy has shown he's a legitimate triple threat... a great actor, talented singer, and enjoyable dancer as well. Make no mistake, he was a damn good choice for the role of Valjean. Jackman sells the dramatic scenes are carries musical numbers like the true talent he is. Anne Hathaway's performance as Fantine has received widespread praise as well. Despite only being the film for about fifteen minutes, she sells every minute of her brief role to perfection. When she sings what is arguably the play's most memorable song, "I Dreamed A Dream," the whole sequence is just a close up of Hathaway with no cutaways or anything. Had it not been for her spot on acting, that sequence would not have worked, but Hathaway's voice and range of emotions is just perfect and stands as one of the film's most memorable moments. Short role for sure, but Hathaway is just so perfect, it's one of the film's few truly great qualities.

The rest of the cast is a bit hit and miss, but overall they work. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the scam artists/innkeepers caring for Cosette, providing a fun musical number and some welcome moments of comic relief. Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are also solid as the two lovebirds caught in the turmoil of the 1832 Paris Uprising. Overall I can't really complaint... except for Russell Crowe. This is a real bummer, because Crowe is one hell of an actor who is no stranger to overblown period pieces (like Gladiator for instance). Unfortunately, apparently someone didn't tell him that he had to sing here... because he really can't. While it's not the worst voice I've ever heard, vocals clearly aren't the guy's strong point. It wouldn't be so bad if he only had one or two musical numbers, but since most of the film's dialogue is done melodically, you're constantly subjected to the Crowe's off key numbers. Had it not been for Crowe, I might have rated this film a bit higher. Still aside from the one exception, most of the movie's success came down to the film's cast selling the hell out of their roles. That is what ultimately saves the film from mediocrity.

The rest of the movie also has its ups and downs. One thing I haven't mentioned yet is something I do find quite interesting about the film. That is that is one of the few film musicals to feature live singing. In most movie musicals, actors pre-record their songs in a studio and lip sync to their previously recorded tracks while filming. For Les Miz, the live singing really gave the actors a chance to bring some real emotion to their songs, namely Fantine's aforementioned number. The songs may not work as well as a soundtrack or without the movie to provide context, but for the movie itself, they work. The production design is pretty good, with some impressive sets and artistic designs. The same can be said for the creative costume designs as well. The cinematography and editing, however, is more than a little flawed. For a reason I can't explain, the film has way more dutch angles than was needed. There were some times I was thinking, geez this movie has almost as many as Battlefield Earth (but not quite). There's not a whole lot of rhythm to the editing either (this being a musical, that's kind of a problem). Plus the action and battle scenes toward the end are presented so erratically that they become kind of disorienting and hard to follow. The story itself kind of convoluted as well. I like the basic themes and ideas, and the characters present some intriguing set ups, but the abstract style, while probably effective on stage, just doesn't work as well here. It starts off as Valjean's story of redemption and retribution but then inexplicably becomes about Cosette and Marius along with the 1832 uprising with little explanation or logic. Plus, the film runs at almost three hours. This leads to more than a few noticeable dull moments that really hurt the film's pacing. In the end, it somewhat comes together but there's a lot of flaws along the way.

So Les Misérables... it's good, but not great. There are some really strong performances, some memorable songs, and some real artisitc ambition at play here. There's also some really confusing moments, some not-so-memorable songs, and very flawed pacing. Still, I am glad that I saw it. I think most will find something to enjoy from it too. So I give it a recommendation, but not a particularly enthusiastic one.

My Score: 3 out of 5

The Lorax - Review

Alright... we're over a week into 2013, and as you may have notice, I have not posted my picks of the Top 10 best and worst films of 2012. Why is that? To be honest, at the beginning of every year, this is usually when I'm playing catch up with the films I missed, trying to see as many of them as I can in order to make a reasonably accurate list. While that does mean taking in some good films every so often, (namely the studios' run of Oscar contenders), it usually involves watching the crap that I either missed, forgot about, or skipped... like The Lorax. When I heard that Universal was adapting The Lorax, one of Dr. Seuss's slightly lesser-known works, I actually thought that while it had the chance of working as a feature film, the studio would likely find a way to make it suck (spoiler alert.. the movie sucks). This isn't a huge surprise, as there have been multiple feature length adaptations of various Seuss books (both live action and animated), though not one of them has been any good (excluding the classic animated shorts, many of those are great). It boils down to many factors as to why, one of which is that stretching out a 20 page kids book to a feature length screenplay is incredibly difficult. While I will forever maintain that you can make a good movie out of anything, it takes great care and effort to pull off these kinds of stories... and there in lies the problem. The studio and filmmakers just never put any real effort or care into these stories... relegating the works of one of the most creative and flat-out brilliant kids authors into cheap, shallow, corporate-produced, Hollywood products (you know... the kind of thing this book preached against).

The film opens in the town of Thneed-Ville, a walled off, almost semi-dystopian, city completely made of plastic, with nary a tree or any kind of foliage in sight. In fact, since there's no trees, the town runs completely on synthetic air made by the town's ruling corporation, O'Hare, who sells it to the town's citizens. When the twelve-year-old, Ted (played by Zac Efron), hears his friend and crush Audrey (Taylor Swift) mention her longing to see a real life tree, Ted ventures outside of town limits to try and find one and impress his would-be girlfriend. His only hope is the fabled Once-ler, a man who lives miles away from Thneed-ville, whose surrounding area has now been relegated to a desolate wasteland. The Once-Ler then tells the story of how the land used to be a great forest, full of trees, animals, and fresh air... until it was ruined when he opened a business that quickly grew into a giant corporation and swiftly exploited the area's resources until there was no more. Both Ted and the Once-ler ponder... can the land return to it's once former glory???

One challenge I often encounter with this blog is trying to review a movie from a purely objective standpoint. While I do my best to not let my any personal bias, foreknowledge, or inherent fanboyism influence a review, that is often easier said than done. I mention this all because I happen to think that the book on which this movie is based is one of Dr. Seuss's best works and one of the most important children's books ever written. Okay, I admit that it has it's somewhat preachy undertones and a slightly simplistic and one-sided perspective on the issues of environmentalism and commercialism (I know it's a kids book, but still). That said, it had good concept that touched upon important issues, complete with a rather dark tone that still managed to retain Seuss's trademark rhymes and rhetoric. Not to mention, despite the dramatic subject matter, it still had a cautiously optimistic ending. To adapt such a book into a feature length film would be tricky, but when it comes to feature length movies based on kids books, I honestly think The Lorax was one of the more adapt-able pieces... at the very least,more-so than The Cat in The Hat or The Grinch. The simplistic nature of the message could have been expanded upon, and a good team of filmmakers could have told a compelling story of environmentalism and corporate excess, watered down enough for kids but also giving some substance for the adults. It could have been done well... but it was not.

Okay, so I'll just get this out of the way. How is the movie strictly as an adaptation of the book. In a word... TERRIBLE! While in the book, the Once-Ler's appearance was never revealed (aside from his hands), the movie gives him a face... one of a somewhat baby-faced and sympathetic demeanor (doesn't work). Even the book's main plot, about the Once-Ler's rise to power and subsequent devastation of the forest, is relegated to more of a subplot. Most of the book's content is actually told in a quick, three-minute musical number. Instead, it spends more time focusing on two different stories, one of which is a sort of "bro-mance" between the Lorax and Once-ler (it's weird, don't ask) and the other, I'll get into in a bit. The main character in the movie is actually the aforementioned Ted, who technically was in the book as the boy who listens to the Once-Ler's story. Still, they give him way more screen time, and there in lies the problem. Everything else that made the book so well-known is either gone or severely downplayed. It's an awful adaptation and it really has no reason to be this bad!

Of course, a film can't be strictly judged on how well it follows it's source material. The question of how the film stands on it's own... it still sucks. As I mentioned, the main story focuses more on Ted both subsequently trying to impress his would-be girlfriend Audrey and fighting with Thneed-ville's greedy corporate magnate, Mr O'Hare. The characters are bland, empty, and cliche, and the voice acting is, as predicted, nothing special. The only person who actually got a chuckle or two out of me was Betty White as Ted's eccentric grandmother, but that's Betty White for you, she's always awesome. The rest of the film, is just kind of annoying. The film spends way too much time with the cutesy animals of the forest, which wouldn't be a problem if they weren't annoying as hell. It really does hurt your film's message when the characters that are getting trashed are the one's who get on your nerves the most. It also has a few musical numbers, all of which suck. Honestly, even without the book to go off of, the movie is, at it's best, a below average cgi kids film that's too stupid and irritating to enjoy. The only real positive thing I can say is that some of the animation is nice, namely the design of the forest and Truffula trees. It's nothing amazing but it's at least a reasonably decent looking movie. Other than that, I don't have much to say.

So that's The Lorax... and it sucks. It may seem like I'm being a little harsh, trashing what's essentially an innocent kids movie. But still, despite any bias or strong opinions I may have, I just can't think of anything about this film that I can honestly recommend. It sucks, plain and simple. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.

My Score: 1.5 out of 5!

Django Unchained - Review

When it comes to finding quality movies these days, you've got to wonder if there is a more reliable director than Quentin Tarantino. It's pretty incredible when you think about it, not just that the guy has directed eight awesome movies (yes that includes Death Proof, I don't care what anyone says, Death Proof is a damn good tribute to 70s exploitation films and contains one of the greatest car chase scenes ever filmed), but rather that Tarantino has struck a chord with nearly everyone. Think about it, how many other filmmakers have been able to appeal to not only critics, but audiences everywhere ranging from film snobs, the blockbuster crowd, elitist hipsters, action junkies, and well... pretty much everyone short of the moral vanguards who have objected to the often violent and/or risqué content often found in his flicks. Why is that? Well, one can offer many theories, but what ultimately has made me remain such an enthusiastic fan (other than the fact that he flat out makes good movies) is what seems like a borderline psychotic obsession he has for the art of filmmaking. I would imagine (or at least I would hope) that all filmmakers have an immense passion for this medium, but Tarantino is a guy who has taken this love to the next level. Not only is he a self-proclaimed cinephile, but just by watching the dude's movies or seeing him being interview, it's plenty obvious that this is a guy who doesn't just love movies, but quite frankly, lives off of them. From sunrise to sunset, this is a guy who lives, eats, and breathes movies. That kind of passion and respect for this medium has resulted in one of cinema's most creative and prolific filmmakers who hones the skills of cinematic artists who have come before him and created his own unique voice and style that continues to entertain. So... with all of that said, how is his new film, Django Unchained?

As Quentin Tarantino's first true western, the film opens in 1858, with Django (played by Jamie Foxx), a recently sold slave being transported en route to Texas. His caravan is approached by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a dentist-turned-bounty hunter, who enlists the aid of Django in order to identify his next potential bounty. He promises Django that if he assists him with the bounty, he will receive a share of the profits as well as his freedom. Upon realizing that Django is naturally skilled in the field of bounty hunting, he takes him on as a full fledged partner for the winter bounties. Django only requests that after the season ends, that Schulz assists him in the rescue of his wife Broomhilda, who was sold to a  sadistic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) who infamous for his pitting his slaves in brutal fights to the death. As the two plan their voyage into Candie's estate, nicknamed "Candie Land" (what else?), a land where racism runs rampant, Django and Schultz brace themselves for the horrors they are about to encounter.

Whether or not you approve of Quentin Tarantino's blatant audacity, you have to admit that the guy has serious balls for making a movie like this. Tarantino has often payed tribute to both blaxploitation flicks and spaghetti westerns, but I don't think he's ever done it quite to this extent. Django Unchained includes all of his expected trademarks, including his witty dialogue, established character actors giving eccentric performances, and shout-outs to classic flicks (the most obvious of which is the title and main character being a reference to the 1966 film Django). This one, while not quite reaching the same level of depth as say, Pulp Fiction, nonetheless features some poignant character beats reminiscent of his earlier movie Jackie Brown... along with the gritty violence of Reservoir Dogs and the over-the-top gore of Kill Bill. There has been more than a little controversy surrounding this flick, some regarding the extreme violence, some about the story's themes, and some about the use of the N-Word. I'm not going to get too in-depth with the film's controversial elements, but there is one thing on which I will comment. In this day in age, with race still being a touchy subject, it's almost impossible to make a race-driven movie without attracting some kind of controversy. So, while I acknowledge that it's a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation, there's just been a way-too-common trend of racially-driven films short-changing or sugar coating either it's messages or subject matter (The Help being a recent example). Django Unchained's take on slavery and racism may not be "sensitive" per se, but it definitely takes it seriously and portrays it for what it is... evil, nasty, brutal, disgusting, and flat-out horrific. Slavery an unfortunate stain on American history that many like to pretend never happened... only it did happen, and it was a period that was significantly darker than many probably would like to admit. Django Unchained doesn't skimp on that front, it's brutal and shocking from start to finish.

I would love to know just how Tarantino directs his actors, because this guy has a knack for finding the perfect casts and getting just the right performances. Jamie Foxx has shown on many occasions that he's a talent to be reckoned with, though he hasn't done anything particularly memorable since 2004 (the year of his double-whammy in Ray and Collateral). That all changes here, as he once again brings his top acting chops to the role of Django. He starts off as somewhat reserved, but goes with the flow of his developing character, releasing his anger and hate, as the former slave sets out for revenge, resulting in one of his most dynamic and deeply emotional performances to date. Christoph Waltz reunites with Tarantino after the two collaborated together in Inglorious Basterds (for which Waltz won an Oscar). Waltz, once again, brings his enigmatic talents to another solid role, not only driving the story and bringing some mystery to his character, but also adding some nice touches of comic relief to such a dark film. Both Foxx and Waltz have a good chemistry, and work well enough to keep the audiences invested and wanting to see what will happen next. They're a good duo that I think most will enjoy.

As good as Foxx and Waltz are, there is one performance that managed to rise above pretty much everyone else... and that is Leonardo DiCaprio as the despicable Calvin Candie. It's kind of funny to think that back in 1997, myself and a lot of others couldn't stand the guy after, despite giving a very average performance in Titanic, Leo-mania hit the world. That said, he's really made a name for himself after, in what could have been his 15 minutes, he continued developing his acting chops and choosing damn good roles. I'll admit that I've become a fan, and his performance here is really something to behold. He is arguably the best villain of the year, and DiCaprio just owns every minute he's on screen. He's such a nasty and dick of a villain, and DiCaprio just sells every ounce of the dude's worst qualities. I would like to see all three of these guys come out with Oscar nods, but as far as I'm concerned, if the Academy doesn't recognize DiCaprio for this... then they really need to get with the program. I won't dwell too much on the rest of the cast since that would take forever, though will say that they were all quite good, and that does include one of Samuel L. Jackson's more memorable roles in recent years.

Tarantino is such a master of the craft, that it seems kind of pointless to even mention the guy's direction. What can I say? The guy knows his stuff, inside out. Hell, I imagine the guy could probably direct a movie blindfolded and it would still be cinematic gold. Few directors have a knack for spot on cinematography, action scenes, witty performances, and film pacing. Even with a near 3-hour runtime, the film was so engaging that is just flew by. The action scenes are all damn-near perfect, with some of the best shootouts to hit the cinematic world in I don't know how long. In addition to being flat out thrilling and suspenseful, they're also bloody as hell, with the aforementioned buckets of blood that he's known for dishing out. The camerawork is beautiful, the editing is perfectly timed, the sets look great, the whole movie is just awesome. As I mentioned before, Tarantino just knows how to find that perfect balance of honoring classic films while incorporating his own vision to create a unique and visceral style. I can't really think of anything bad about this movie, only that it may not be for absolutely everyone. The over-the-top violence and edgy subject matter will no doubt be too much for some. For someone whose no stranger to on screen violence, I'll even admit that there were a couple scenes that kind of disturbed even me (I won't spoil which ones, but I think you'll know when you see them). But honestly, the movie is just that freaking great, plain and simple.

In the pantheon of Tarantino's filmography, this may not quite be his best (Pulp Fiction is going to be insanely difficult to top), but it's nonetheless another cinematic gem worthy of his past achievements. The great performances, memorable action, and insanely compelling story make this a very strong contender for best film of 2012. So unless you can't stomach your screen violence, all I can say is that Django Unchained is an absolute must see! Don't wait... go to the theater right now and check it out!

My Score: 5 out of 5!

Hitchcock - Review

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised that it's taken this long to finally get a biopic made about Alfred Hitchcock, not only one of Hollywood's greatest artists but quite frankly one of filmmaking's most important innovators. He was (and still is) often nicknamed the "Master of Suspense." While that is most definitely true, I think even that kind of sells his talents short. You see, Hitchcock didn't only master the art of movie suspense, he pretty much created it, in the sense that he basically discovered the formula to consistently generating an emotional reaction from audiences. While his name has often been synonymous with the horror and thriller genres, the art of suspense isn't exclusive to any one genre, it's just a general concept to keep eyes glued to a screen, be it in a horror film when you're impatiently waiting for that masked killer to strike again, a thriller when a bomb in a building is less than a minute away from detonating, an action film where the hero and villain are fighting for their lives on the edge of cliff, or even a comedy when that clumsy main character just can't impress the parents of his would-be wife. Just about any kind of suspense beat (if it's well-done) is generally executed according to Hitchcock's methods and rules. Not only are his films and techniques being analyzed and studied in film schools across the world, his contributions to the art of film will forever echo across the silver screen. Yeah... as you can probably tell, I'm a HUGE fan of Alfred Hitchcock. So this film was kind of a big deal for me, and it's one for which I had pretty high expectations before seeing. How does it pan out? Let's take a look...

The film starts off at the premiere of Alfred Hitchcock's (played by Anthony Hopkins) 1959 classic, North By Northwest, where soon afterwords he starts searching for inspiration for his next film. When he comes across Robert Bloch's novel, Psycho, a story about a mother-obsessed psychopath (loosely inspired by the real-life murders of serial killer Ed Gein), he immediately decides that this will be his next movie. Despite backlash of the novel's violent content from everyone including the studio, producers, investors, and censors, he insists on making the film, going so far to even fund it out of his own pocket. His only real support is his dedicated wife, Alma Reville (played to perfection by Helen Mirren) who, despite her objections to the source material and a rocky relationship with her husband, stands by him and even assists in the production of the film (as she had done in most of his previous films). As production begins, controversy builds over the film's content and Hitchcock slowly starts loosing his mind attempting to execute such a risky and ambitious project while dealing with the increased stress of the strained relationship between him and Alma.

So despite my biases toward the real Hitchcock, the movie Psycho (which by the way is one of my all-time favorite movies), or horror movies and filmmaking in general, how does the film hold up? From a purely objective standpoint... it's good, but not great. It's got a great cast, solid production design, and includes some interesting tid-bits toward it's the man it's portraying as well as his influence plus some nice little shout-outs to his TV work. There's also a few shout-outs to some notable understated figures in Hollywood (Saul Bass, Bernard Herrmann, and others). It's unfortunately held back by an inconsistent tone, some predictable and formulaic story beats, and a lack of any real profound depth or insight into the Master of Suspense. While there's plenty to enjoy here, there's just no denying that for someone as important and interesting as Hitchcock, there's definitely something missing.

Had it not been for the cast selling the hell out of there roles, I doubt I'd be giving the movie any kind of recommendation. Anthony Hopkins was, by all accounts, a pretty damn awesome choice for the role of Hitch. While he wasn't exactly spot-on in the appearance department compared to the actual Hitchcock, they managed to get him looking fairly close to the real guy. At the very least, Hopkins manages to do a near uncanny impression of Hitchcock, getting his voice and mannerisms (at least how he presented himself on camera) down to a tee. The show-stealer, however, is none other than Helen Mirren as Alma Reville. Mirren always brings her A-game to her films, and this is no exception. She owns nearly every scene in which she appears, and at times even manages to upstage Hopkins (whose no stranger to stealing scenes) in some of the film's key moments. I think an Oscar nomination for Mirren as best supporting actress is all but guaranteed at this point. There are some other important figures and characters portrayed throughout the movie, but the film mainly keeps the focus on Alfred and Alma, so that's all I'm going to go into now. Though I will say that there were no bad performances, most were actually quite good, just not on screen long enough to make any real lasting impression.

The story is a bit of a mixed bag, which I have to admit is pretty disappointing. As I mentioned, for a man as important as Alfred Hitchcock and a movie as important as Psycho, you would really hope for something with a little more substance. What we get is essentially an account of the making of Psycho, and the troubles that entailed with a side story of Alfred and Alma's shaky marriage. The story about Psycho has some interesting moments, at times attempting to dive into the psyche of Hitchcock. There are a couple of scenes where he imagines interacting with Ed Gein (the real-life inspiration for Psycho's Norman Bates). These scenes are genuinely interesting and, along with some subtle hints of Hitchcock's obsessions with some of his actresses, really open up some doors for a creative and compelling character study about something like the psychological impact of the creative process or possibly the lengths of which an artist will go to accomplish one's vision. Unfortunately, in the end, all that is really revealed is that Hitchcock was an eccentric, slightly arrogant, and somewhat stubborn visionary fascinated by subjects like murder, crime, and the human mind's capacity for dark thoughts. To anyone whose seen a Hitchcock film or even two minutes of him being interviewed, that's not much of a revelation. In the end, it really comes down to the love story between Hitch and Alma, which is about as formulaic and predictable as they get. I will admit that's it kind of cool that they made Alma the unsung hero of the film. Hopefully she'll start receiving more credit for her work in her husband's films. Ultimately, the story is engaging enough I suppose, but it never has a solid grasp on it's tone or subject matter. At times it's a quirky comedy and times it borders on a psychological drama, and it just feels a little messy in the end.

Despite it's flaws, Hitchcock is definitely worth seeing. If you've got even a slight interest in Hitchcock's movies or film in general, then you'll probably find something to enjoy. At the very least, it's worth seeing for the great performances between Mirren and Hopkins, both of whom might come away with Oscar nominations. I saw it, I enjoyed it, and I think most will as well.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Flight - Review

Robert Zemeckis has to be one of the most under-appreciated directors working in Hollywood today. Even though the guy has won an Oscar and received acclaim for many of his films, he still rarely gets the credit he truly deserves. With the exception of film buffs, few people would recognize his name despite knowing the guy's filmography. Let's take a look at his work, Romancing The Stone (enjoyable movie), Back To The Future (excellent film), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (another excellent movie), Back to the Future II & III (very fun movies too), Cast Away (very impressive film), and his Oscar winning Forrest Gump (good movie but not his best). I imagine most people reading this have either seen or, at the very least, heard of those flicks yet I doubt many of you knew who was the director. Since Cast Away, however, Zemeckis' films haven't exactly been up to his usual standards, since he primarily left live action work to focus on directing motion capture cgi movies. His previous three directorial efforts, The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol polarized audiences and critics. Personally, I wasn't a huge fan of all three of them. They all had some interesting moments and some impressive bits of animation, but once the novelty of the mo-cap technology wore off, there just wasn't much about them that left any lasting impression. But now, Zemeckis finally returns to live action with the drama Flight starring Denzel Washington. Let's just say that it's great to see Zemeckis back making live action films!

Flight tells the story of Whip Whitaker, an airline pilot who may or may not have a drinking problem. After a night of binge drinking, he takes to the air piloting a flight with 102 passengers en route to Miami. Midway through the flight, the plane's mechanics begin to malfunction and starts to go into a dive. Through a series of crazy maneuvers, Whip miraculously manages to crash land the plane in an open field, saving 96 of the passengers on board. Hailed as a hero, Whip is taken to a hospital for treatment of minor injuries, but celebrations are cut short when his friend Charlie (who works for the airline) and hot-shot attorney, inform him that blood samples were taken at the site of the crash, and Whip's indicated high levels of alcohol. With possible charges of intoxicated flying and manslaughter (for the six people on board that died), Whip faces potential jail time (possibly life if he is found guilty) for the incident. As officials investigate the circumstances of the crash, Whip attempts to turn his life around but continually resorts to drinking to deal with the stress.

Movies with stories about subjects like alcoholism or substance abuse are tricky to pull off. On one hand, it's easy to indulge in cliche or formulaic plots and story beats, resulting in a film that's predictable and kind of dull. The other risk would be the possibility that the film would come off as preachy or proselytizing, something like a feature length DARE video (do they still do DARE in elementary schools? I remember being subjected to that crap for most of my grade school years). Some have managed the subject well (Requiem For A Dream and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are among the better takes), while others, not so much (Reefer Madness anyone). Flight, however, falls into the category of well-done takes on the subject. In addition to being a well-made character study about alcoholism and substance abuse, the film is also a compelling drama, mystery, and thriller that doesn't pull any punches but doesn't try to bombard you with preachy "say no to drugs" messages.

The film mainly scores from it's dynamic cast, led by the always excellent Denzel Washington. While it almost goes without saying these days that he's a great actor, sometimes it's easy to forget just how great of an actor Denzel Washington really is. With a growing list of increasingly stellar performances, it's next to impossible to rank all of his films and it's even harder to try and figure out where Flight fits into the roster, but I can fully say that it at the absolute least ranks among Denzel's finest performances and is all but guaranteed to pick him up yet another Oscar nomination (possibly even a win). While Denzel is no doubt awesome in this, that's hardly much of a surprise. Who did surprise me, however, was the performance of Kelly Reilly in the role of Whip's friend Nicole, a heroin junkie attempting to turn her life around. Despite being an established performer of the stage and screen, I wasn't familiar with most of her work (though I had seen her in the role of Mary Morstan in 2009's Sherlock Holmes), but she made a huge impression in this film. Her committed and deeply emotional performance, plus her natural chemistry with Denzel, was among the best in the film. I'm seriously hoping that the Academy recognizes her talent this year and includes her among the nominee list for Best Supporting Actress. I also have to mention John Goodman as Harling Mays, Whip's personal friend and drug dealer. Goodman is always a hoot to watch, and his goofy and enjoyable presence was a welcome addition here. Not much more to say really, it's a great cast and everyone does a solid job.

While it's the cast that really makes Flight soar (pardon the pun), the rest of the film's elements come together quite nicely. As I mentioned earlier, the film boasts a solid script that doesn't sugar coat it's subject matter but doesn't come off as in-your-face preachy either. The trailer had a fairly uplifting tone and came off like the film would be some kind of feel-good or touchy-feely flick, but in reality that couldn't have been further from the truth. It has a very dark and often depressing tone, really giving way to it's dramatic subject material and psyche of it's main character. It also benefits from Zemeckis' sure hand as a director, who once again steps up to the plate like a boss and does what he does best. Actually, for a director whose known primarily for directing special effects heavy blockbusters, this is one of his smaller and more sensible productions. Still, it's really a testament to a director where he can take a scene where the main character has to decide whether or not he's going to drink again and turn that into a white knuckle suspense trip... not to mention one of the most suspenseful plane crash scenes I've seen in recent memory. The only real complaint I have is that the film is a bit long, and a couple of scenes do tend to drag a bit. Plus, there was a somewhat odd subplot about God and spirituality that doesn't really go anywhere. Still, those are relatively minor complaints. Most of what we have here is pretty damn close to flawless. It's just that good of a film.

So that's Flight, and right now it's a very heavy contender for my favorite film of 2012 (gotta see a few more though before I compile the list). If you're looking for a brilliantly acted and compelling drama, this one should definitely do the trick. If it's still playing near you, check it out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!