2014 in review

Top Ten
1. Gone Girl
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. The Drop
4. Boyhood
5. Selma
6. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
7. Obvious Child
8. Veronica Mars
9. Kingsman: The Secret Service
10. Nightcrawler

Honorable Mentions
Whiplash, Interstellar, Big Hero 6, John Wick, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men: Days of Future Past

Worst of the Year
Sabotage, The Equalizer, This Is Where I Leave You

Movies I Missed
The Rover, Inherent Vice, The Theory of Everything, The Monuments Men, Godzilla, Edge of Tomorrow, American Sniper

2013 Oscar picks

These are more of an "if I got a vote" thing than a "my prediction is" thing...

Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave
Best Director: Alfonso Cuarón for Gravity
Best Actor: Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years a Slave
Best Actress: Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine
Best Supporting Actor: Michael Fassbender for 12 Years a Slave
Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o for 12 Years a Slave
Best Original Screenplay: Woody Allen for Blue Jasmine
Best Adapted Screenplay: Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, and Ethan Hawke for Before Midnight
Best Original Score: William Butler and Owen Pallett for Her
Best Production Design: Judy Becker and Heather Loeffler for American Hustle
Best Cinematography: Roger Deakins for Prisoners
Best Film Editing: Alfonso Cuarón and Mark Sanger for Gravity
Best Visual Effects: Tim Webber, Chris Lawrence, Dave Shirk, and Neil Corbould for Gravity

2013 in review

Top Ten
1. Before Midnight
2. Much Ado About Nothing
3. This Is the End
4. 12 Years a Slave
5. Blue Jasmine
6. The Place Beyond the Pines
7. Prisoners
8. Don Jon
9. Drinking Buddies
10. American Hustle

Honorable Mentions
Thor: The Dark World, Nebraska, Inside Llweyn Davis, Pacific Rim, Frances Ha, The Wolverine, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Worst of the Year
Side Effects, Getaway, World War Z, Man of Steel, Spring Breakers

Movies I Missed
The Great Gatsby, To the Wonder, The Bling Ring, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, The Fifth Estate, The Counselor, Dallas Buyers Club, Saving Mr. Banks, Mud

Man of Steel

2.5/4 stars

After the wise decision to abandon the story arc of 2006’s laborious Superman Returns and give the franchise a true reboot under the supervision of Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, fans had hope that Man of Steel would be the film that finally does for Superman what Nolan and Goyer’s Dark Knight trilogy did for Batman. Seeing Zack Snyder, director of the excellent Watchmen adaptation, at the helm certainly didn’t hurt either. But Man of Steel is at best a partial success in this goal, burdened with an excess of increasingly meaningless action scenes and too little background to hold them together.

The film opens with an extended sequence set in the last days of Krypton, starring Russell Crowe as Superman’s biological father Jor-El and featuring plenty of action scenes of its own. This sequence serves to introduce the origin of Superman himself, as well as antagonist General Zod, and the primary McGuffin. The first thing that struck me was this film’s incredible lack of patience. It’s always providing us with beautiful, interesting things to look at and almost no time to take them in. This Kryptonian prelude manages to feel overwritten and underdeveloped at the same time.

When the movie gets going, it does manage to draw compelling versions of the Superman cast. Henry Cavill plays the title role with all the requisite charm and authority, and Amy Adams’ Lois Lane may be one of the best interpretations of the character yet. There are good supporting performances too, particularly Laurence Fishburne’s intimidating but fatherly Perry White. Two of my favorite television actors, Richard Schiff and Tahmoh Penikett, are also seen, but sorely underutilized. The script also provides plenty of interesting opportunities for dramatic hooks and variations on the known Superman mythos. But the film doesn’t seem to care about any of this back story it introduces, as it pushes aside any chance for real drama or unpredictable complications in favor of more straightforward action sequences. Superman has no time to establish himself as a hero, or have any interaction with most of his supporting cast, because the moment Clark Kent discover the truth about himself, he inadvertently broadcasts his location to General Zod and the rest of the Kryptonian refugees, and from there the action hardly takes a breath.

Michael Shannon’s turn as Zod is another missed opportunity. Shannon is a fantastic actor, capable of playing a rational yet ruthless enemy. But the plot robs him of any real chance to communicate with Superman with anything other than his fists, leaving the stakes of their conflict feeling half-baked. On the occasions when the movie does pause for a dramatic moment, it’s usually a flashback of young Clark being taught some formative lesson by Pa Kent. There’s nothing wrong with these scenes per se, and they’re made no worse by Kevin Costner’s familiar paternal presence, but Goyer hits the same note too many times, and in the process, misses the opportunity to have Clark’s character development more relevant to the people he interacts with in the main story.

Man of Steel has all the ingredients necessary to be the kind of superhero epic that stands beside The Dark Knight or the recent string of quality offerings from Marvel. But it isn’t that movie, nonetheless, because the filmmakers decided they had time for more explosions and special effects, but not enough for good storytelling.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2.5/4 stars

It's not that great to be this Wolverine! ...Okay, sorry about that.

How much I like X-Men Origins: Wolverine (hereafter referred to simply as Wolverine) seems to be largely a function of my expectations at the given moment. Starting from my pessimistic prediction that the film's makers would keep all the badass grittiness of the Wolverine character's backstory and dispose of everything insightful and soulful about it, the film exceeds expectations. On the other hand, measured against the spate of ridiculously good superhero movies to come out recently, Wolverine is fairly lacking. The conclusion that I've come to though, the one I think is important, is that when you put the movie that was made next to the movie that was almost made, the one that could have been made, Wolverine is not a waste of time, but is somewhat disappointing.

This is a movie that succeeds in being both action-packed, and at times very close to introspective. Knowing from both the comic book history and the 2000 film X-Men that the story must end with Wolverine having lost his memory takes something away from the emotional experience of the character, but that's the hand that the film has been dealt. The movie delivers on its premise; it reveals the tragic history of amnesiac berserker of whom we are so fond. It begins with an excellent, and very Watchmen-like opening credit sequence that takes us through the many years that Wolverine and his brother Victor fought together in various wars (he's more than a century old, you know). From there, we see how he became involved with the government wetwork team that would change his life, enhance his powers, and make him the mutant we all know today. It's a good story, and the filmmakers get it mostly right, and tell it with flair.

So what's the problem? It's the little things. Some of the changes between the movie universe and the comic book universe, like changing William Stryker from a radical preacher to a general and the director of the Weapon X program, are wise and serve the storytelling. Others, like the handling of Deadpool, a cult favorite character who becomes one of this film's biggest adversaries, are pointlessly irreverent. People want to see Deadpool, not just his name on somewhat similar monster. And then there's Wolverine's brother, Victor Creed. He's supposed to be Sabretooth, and seems very much like that character. At the same time, maybe he isn't in this universe - he's certainly not the same Sabretooth we met in the 2000 film. And then there's how artlessly the pieces are pasted together to get things to where that movie finds them, with cameos by Cyclops and Professor Xavier that only serve to remind us of how they were ridiculously killed off in the last entry in this series (2006's X-Men: The Last Stand, sorry if you haven't seen it yet). The last quarter or so of the movie (including its manifold credit cookies) are basically a mess.

Wolverine is an enjoyable action movie and an okay superhero movie. But for a comic fan like me (I've read many comics, and stuck with X-Men related titles the longest) it is like the rest of the film series: imperfect in all the most irritating ways.

Let the Right One In

4/4 stars

I'm not really into horror films, particularly most of the ones that come out currently. I've never been particularly interested in a movie that's just supposed to scare me, and never mind making me think or providing anything constructive. That said, I do enjoy being scared by a movie if it's in the right way. For instance, I'm a fan of every movie in which Anthony Hopkins plays Hannibal Lecter. It's a frightening performance, but it's also a real character with depth, philosophy and emotion. There are only six or seven moments where Let the Right One In is trying to be scary, and all of them are scary in the right way.

The premise of Let the Right One In, expressed as well as I am able, is an attempt at a realistic examination of the idea of a vampire. The complications of a vampire's existence, the odd hours, odd habits, and the continual cost in human life are things that go unnoticed if the story is set in a metropolitan center where the rich are eccentric and a few people are expected to disappear now and then. In this film, set in a close-knit suburb of Stockholm with planes of Million Program apartment windows vigilently watching in the night, word travels fast that something is amiss. The movie is visually distinctive, with motifs of blood, pale skin, vast white snow and black sky. The landscape is perfect for the story that is being told; there's a sense of bleakness and claustrophobia that pervades the day in, day out narrative construction. The acting also draws one into the film, even if they're watching without the benefit of understanding the spoken dialogue. Particularly the young actors Hedebrant and Leandersson are engrossing and disturbing in the main roles.

One of the things I like most about the film was the way that realistic violence and horror fantasy violence were played off of each other. While the vampire is monstrous when it attacks, the real impact of the death it causes comes from the scenes in which its human helper hunts on its behalf. Supernatural violence is also juxtaposed with human on human violence when the main character is terrorized by school bullies by day, and the town is victimized by the vampire by night. In both cases the brutality escalates over time with each offense piling on the last. What should we make of the fact that the vampire kills to sustain itself, while human cruelty is often completely lacking in purpose? This exploration of violence, as well as the contrast between the mundane world and the otherworldly force that enters it, are among the more intriguing ideas that are explored here. Let the Right One In is an intricate, masterfully crafted and darkly beautiful film. It is both dramatic and frightening, alternately chilling and fascinating.

Note: The dialogue in Let the Right One In is in Swedish. An English dub exists on the DVD I have sitting next to me, but I have not attempted watching it. The subtitles on the DVD are different (and somewhat noticeably inferior) from the ones I saw in the theatrical version.

Watchmen

3.5/4 stars

Comic book films took some time to make their way from geeky popcorn entertainment to a major part of the mainstream cinematic sensibility, and if the snubbing of The Dark Knight from a well deserved spot in the Best Picture category at the recent Oscars is any indication, they may have some way to go. Still, the fact that movies like it are being made at all is testament to a change in perception, and Watchmen is a landmark achievement to that end. Alan Moore’s graphic novel Watchmen has been acknowledged as a major work in superhero literature for many years, but in addition to the technology necessary to make a successful adaptation, there was also the need for an audience. The movie-going public has seen the superhero parody before, but Watchmen demonstrates that they are finally ready for the superhero deconstruction.

There is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Watchmen is unlike most comic book movies (but not unlike 2005’s V for Vendetta, also originally by Moore) in that it is a true adaptation of a story, not just its characters. The film, like the novel before it, seeks to challenge an audience that is largely accustomed to being simply entertained. At this it is hugely successful. The questioning themes of the novel are faithfully realized: its take on complexities of the superhero genre, its search for a cause for optimism. The major characters are deftly illuminated through flashbacks that always seem to have something more of the story to tell us than merely what is relevant to that particular character. The big screen also enables certain devices that the page does not; in particular, the addition of era-appropriate music (often the same songs that Moore quoted as chapter epigraphs) does tremendous work in creating mood. The opening credits montage, which shows us the various subtle differences in the history of the film’s world and our own, is also outstanding. Where the story is altered from the original, it is actually made cleaner, more symmetric, a rarity in film adaptations.

Many of the performances in Watchmen are virtuoso level, though they work so well together, and are so faithful to the source material that they become somewhat invisible. Patrick Wilson hits all the right notes as Daniel, Malin Akerman brings both allure and a sense of reality to the second Silk Spectre, and Matthew Goode captures the cold moral certainty of Ozymandias. Billy Crudup’s Doctor Manhattan will be long remembered among cinema’s great aliens, characters that looked at humanity from outside with human faces. Rorschach, played by Jackie Earle Haley, is such a perfect deconstruction of the vigilante archetype that I wonder if he will make all future Batman films obsolete (how will we witness Batman’s conviction without recalling Rorschach’s madness?). Jeffrey Dean Morgan is also a revelation as The Comedian; scary, charismatic, compelling.

The place where the film suffers may be its director. I’ve heard stories of Zack Snyder saving the project from lobotomizing studio executives and truly awful early drafts, seen interviews in which he shows a great reverence for the source material, and an enthusiastic vision for the film. What he has done would have required these virtues, as well as great craft and patience. But I’m afraid that Snyder’s affinity for intense and graphic violence has brought an unsavory character to much of the film. Watchmen was a violent graphic novel, to be sure. Praised for being gritty, it challenged its audience by showing them things they would rather not see, made them consider the dark side of their superhero fantasies. The violence in this movie is not grimly realistic however, but joyfully indulgent. The unfettered machismo of 300 has no place in this story, but Snyder remains true to the style that made him successful there. This, along with a problematically meandering ending, is the gnawing fault of an otherwise excellent movie.