The Official Review Thread of 2012

[ksrymy]

Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't be against a Matthew McConaughey Supporting Actor nomination.

With almost all award shows' current penchants for nominating normally non-dramatic stars for rather bland roles (Jonah Hill, Mila Kunis, and Melissa McCarthy) I would not be surprised if McConaughey gets nominated.

[anonymous1980]

MAGIC MIKE
Cast: Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey, Cody Horn, Olivia Munn, Matt Bomer, Joe Manganiello, Gabriel Iglesias, Kevin Nash, Adam Rodriguez, Riley Keough, Betsy Brandt.
Dir: Steven Soderbergh.

This pretty much seals the fact that 2012 is definitely Channing Tatum's year. I was so ready to dismiss him as just another eye candy beefcake for hire in films but after 21 Jump Street and now this, he finally found a worthy place in cinema. This film loosely based around his experiences as a male exotic dancer is actually a pretty solid engaging film. It's director Steven Soderbergh's Boogie Nights, albeit a bit more gentler and lighter. Though Tatum is the star, I do think the highlight of the film is Matthew McConaughey who easily steals every scene he's in with gusto.

Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't be against a Matthew McConaughey Supporting Actor nomination.

Grade: B.

[dws1982]

Savages

If you think that Oliver Stone hasn't done anything worthwhile since Nixon (or something else from the early/mid-90's), then I don't think this is going to convince you any differently. But I think that everything he's made since Nixon has some merit, and some of the films are actually quite good. That said, Savages is easily his most exciting and alive and thematically rich film since Nixon. I think it's a pretty major piece of work--maybe not "perfect" or even "great", but fascinating in a lot of ways. Hope to come up with some in-depth thoughts about this one.

[anonymous1980]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER
Cast: Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper, Anthony Mackie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rufus Sewell, Jimmi Simpson, Marton Csokas.
Dir: Timur Bekmambetov.

This film has some good moments. But they're not enough to compensate the rest of the film which is quite a bit of a mess. It's an inherently goofy premise: Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States is actually a vampire hunter. The film plays it straight like an alternate history. But the director doesn't have the chops to keep the tone consistent and the result is some dull, uninspired moments. The performances are pretty good so it's a pity. There's some unrealized potential there.

Oscar Prospects: Maybe Makeup.

Grade: C.

[Sabin]

The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb)

It actually has a lot in common with (500) Days of Summer in that both films only look like strong entries in the canon, but are really sitcom deep. Were I to make a list of the issues I had with Spider-Man with all of my comic nerd trappings, I'd say they're all addressed in this film and the results couldn't be blander. Andrew Garfield looks more like Peter Parker, but he doesn't have any of the charm and at times isn't very sympathetic. The canvas of Peter Parker's life is widened to include more areas of his life and the span of time is truncated so as to keep him in school where he belongs, and it ends up feeling strangely more impersonal. Oh, sure! Raimi's first film has loads of horrible, horrible moments and ideas: Power Ranger Green Goblin, Macy Gray, etc. There's no defending a lot of it, but there was a voice that's missing this time. What's strange is that it shouldn't be that difficult to convey something more charming with all the elements that Marc Webb has at his disposal here. But it didn't come through.

It should be said though that I'm coming from a place of thinking that Spider-Man is pretty much the greatest character in the history of comic books. Like, ever. And it's because of the origin story. Superman, Batman, Wolverine...none of their origins lend to film very well because...well...whatever turns them into what they are, nothing happens afterwards FOR-EV-ER! Superman comes to Earth as a baby and then, like, two decades go by! Batman's parents get shot and then a decade goes by! Wolverine might be three hundred years old! Nothing they do before they become what they are is that interesting. With Spider-Man, nothing he does after he puts the costume on is nearly as interesting in an origin tale as what happens before! It's inherently compelling drama. He's an orphan, he's a brainiac with a heart of gold, he's funny, he's in love, he falls backwards into powers he didn't ask for, he blames himself for the death of his Uncle Ben, and he evolves into the city's wisecracking guardian, ultimately finding not just balance in life after his grief -- but humor! Forget the invincible boyscout Clark Kent. Forget vigilante billionaire Bruce Wayne. Wolverine is a psychotic murderer. Spider-Man is a hero!

So, the question everybody is asking is do we need to watch the Spider-Man story told again? No, but I'm very much looking forward to it. Even though I did not enjoy The Amazing Spider-Man, for whatever reason glutton for punishment that I am, I like watching Spider-Man on the big screen. I am not recommending The Amazing Spider-Man. I am not telling anybody to go see it. I might not enjoy the next two installments. But I like that I'm getting new ones.

[Sabin]

Ted (Seth MacFarlane)

When one group of your friends want to see Magic Mike and the other want to see Beasts of the Southern Wild, you end up seeing Ted. I now understand how unsatisfactory Presidential candidates are chosen.

Ted is funny. It's very poorly shot. When a plot must take over, it's very dull. But it's also pretty consistently funny throughout. If any part of you likes Family Guy, you'll laugh. And some of me finds Family Guy funny. I happen to very much dislike the pre-cancellation seasons, and only when it came back and ditched its beyond lame Remember the Time...?s for humor that more ingeniously balanced the absurd with the behavioral (especially the latter) did it become something mildly inspired. Ted has a couple of Remember the Time...?s that mostly fall flat, but it also has the sitting on the couch/chatting it up humor that I enjoy if done right. And it mostly is done right here.

I think a large part of the film's success owes to Mark Wahlberg. This performance plays very much into a recent development in his career as a comedic figure, as demonstrated in "Mark Wahlberg Talks to Animals" on SNL. I've been trying to think if there is anything behind this winingly stupid sketch, and why exactly it worked so well. I think it's because Mark Wahlberg may have started his career as a rapper and an underwear model, and he may have graduated into badass roles, but he is also always kind of whining. His voice pitches high in an exasperated tone that always seems like he's on the defensive about something. When he's asked to trade this very real human quality, he comes across as totally wooden. Mark Wahlberg in control of the situation (Shooter, The Italian Job, etc) is very boring. The only time it wasn't to the best of my knowledge was in The Departed, and in that film he was only used in small doses and to strictly comedic effect. I think his creation of the show Entourage only further bring this point home. It's a terrible television show, but it shares a quaint, low-key quality that is very Wahlberg. "Yeah, that's right we had a misunderstanding, but then we talked it out, and it was fine." (Pretty much every episode of Entourage). But I digress...

Never for a second do you question that he would or would not have a Teddy Bear, let alone a bear that can talk. It makes perfect sense in Mark Wahlberg's world because at no point does he act like it's anything out of the ordinary. And taking its cue from Wahblerg, post-initial parent freakout at no point does anybody else in the film acknowledge it either. Were Breckin Mayer the star of the film, I don't think it would have worked. But there is something about Mark Wahlberg that just sells it. Even if he thinks he's in on the joke, I don't know if he really is. If you were to ask him to describe it, I don't know if he would get it right or if it would just become another joke. But there it is. One of life's mysteries.

[anonymous1980]

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan, Embeth Davidtz, Chris Zylka.
Dir: Marc Webb.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Sam Raimi films. (I mean I liked them well enough but I didn't think they were anything outstanding or special) but even I thought a reboot was too soon. That aside, I still went in with an open mind since I really liked the cast (better than the Raimi films). Overall, I say it's a pretty darn good but far from perfect effort. First off, Andrew Garfield makes for a far more appealing Peter Parker/Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire. Another improvement is the fact that Spider-Man looks a bit more organic. I always felt the Raimi ones looked a bit CGi-esque and therefore a little less believable. I think this would be a far bigger hit and far bigger praise if the Raimi films didn't exist.

Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects, Makeup, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing are strong possibilities.

Grade: B.

[Sabin]

Indie double feature day!

Your Sister's Sister (Lynn Shelton)

The way that Shelton makes movies is literally improvisatory. She does not rehearse an outline and dialogue. She gets her actors together and they make it up there on set. She has a rough idea of where it is going. With Humpday her previous feature, the structure of the film led inexorably towards its conclusion which is a very amusing and very logical extension of the macho posturing she is exploring. Some found it a cop-out, but I don't know where else it could have gone...possibly more dangerous territory. With this feature, she is exploring something a little less specific. It's a situation, and nothing terribly thematic is going on. This film is a raucous farce of liaisons, secret adorations, and hidden intentions all withheld, which for me is about as entertaining as anything you can put on-screen. If you've got characters who desperately want to conceal something they're embarrassed about and there are enough balls in the air, I'm a happy camper. And I have no idea how Shelton creates a set relaxing enough for her actors to create moments as honest as these.

And then it goes nowhere like few films I have ever seen. I won't get into the nature of the climax (heh) that takes place near the end of the second act, but everything that follows couldn't be more half-assed. I think that's because like I said earlier, Humpday's premise extends naturally towards three acts, towards characters agreeing to do something and then doing it in the third. Your Sister's Sister leads towards a falling out at the end of the second act, and then...what exactly? You have to write that shit. It's not going to happen on set. I still like this film for the moments created by the leads. Mark Duplass has an expiration date but he hasn't hit it yet. Just as in Humpday, Shelton provides the actor with a grand awkward playground. He has expressions in this film that are sublime. And Rosemarie DeWitt in perhaps the more underdeveloped of the three characters is just stunning. I don't think we can expect any romantic comedies to come out in the near future to be smart enough to utilize her talents, but I desperately want to see one. Emily Blunt is very game, but you can see her trying.

Your Sister's Sister also features a line of dialogue that should be immortalized as worst thing you can ever say to a woman:

"I slept with your sister because I wanted to sleep with you."

And he doesn't get slapped!!!


Safety Not Guaranteed (Colin Trevorrow)

Awful! It plays out like an Aughties Greatest Hits in a blender. Two morose leads alone in the universe on a beach destined for love a la Eternal Sunshine...? Check. A group of eccentrics tracking each other like Huckabees? Check. Climactic pseudo-Sigur Ros music cues from The Life Aquatic? Check. Down the fucking line, this movie is! And I couldn't deal with any of it.

List of offenses: 1) terribly shot and edited; 2) heavy-lifting score oppressive; 3) Mark Duplass cannot play an obsessive man-child; 4) I did not like Duplass' obsessive man-child so I could not get wrapped up in whether or not he's insane or if he's right...because the answer is secret option C) He is annoying!; 5) side-plot with uber-jerk Jeff (the annoying Jake M. Johnson) may make thematic sense but is ultimately ruinous because of the androcentric man-child worldview, and also because it's pretty clear it exists in part to buy time to keep from exploring real ideas in the narrative; 6) he also looks a lot like Mark Ruffalo in Eternal Sunshine...; 7) Aubrey Plaza may be the best cast person in the film, but either she is the most limited actress working today or the director just kept requesting she eye-fuck Duplass' obsessive man-child...

I could go on but really it comes down to this: if you are going to turn a time-travel yarn into a parable for the uncertainty of romantic connection, you cannot annoy the shit out of me with the characters and their contrived situations so much that I expect the writing credits to read "Written by a Virgin."

[anonymous1980]

ROCK OF AGES
Cast: Julianne Hough, Diego Boneta, Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Malin Akerman, Paul Giamatti, Mary J. Blige, Bryan Cranston.
Dir: Adam Shankman.

People who know me know I just love, love, love, love musicals. Indeed, for me, there's nothing quite like a spectacularly choreographed song-and-dance number in the middle of a film. There are few things better than a great musical. This is not one of them. This is jukebox musical on '80s rock songs with a generic plot. Now, a jukebox musical can be great (I mean, Singin' in the Rain is a jukebox musical) if the staging and performance is fresh and imaginative and a cliched, generic plot can be easily overcome by wit, charm and great performances. This movie barely did any of these. It is almost devoid of charm Tom Cruise gives an interesting performance but not enough to completely save it.

Oscar Prospects: None.

Grade: D+

[Big Magilla]

I ove a good horror movie. The problem is most of them these days are such crap I wouldn't waste my time on them, but the original Alien and the better, less horrific Aliens were two of the best. Alien3 and especially Alien: Resurrection, thogh, were sheer torture - not from teh horror as much as the tedium.

The one that really scared me was Hammer's Horror of Dracula which I saw at 14 before I read Bram Stoker's novel or saw the Bela Lugosi version. I thought Van Harker was the hero so when he is killed early on it had the effect on me that Janet Leigh's death in Psycho had on most audiences. I kept the lights on in my bedroom all summer long after that.

[ITALIANO]

Do people truly consider Alien fun? I went opening day in 1979, and found it one of the most unendurable movies I've ever seen. The production design was impressive, and I enjoyed the blue collar aspect of the characters (then a novelty in most movie sci-fi). But from the moment the creature emerged from John Hurt, I knew the filmmakers would show no restraint as far as inflicting gore on the audience. And every remaining scene seemed to consist of characters going, one by one, into rooms, while the camera slowly rotated until the creature appeared and eviscerated them. For me, the movie was like being hooked up to the black box: jolts arrived at regular intervals, and after a while I was in a constant state of anxiety awaiting the next one. I thought the black box was considered torture; how did it get rclassified as entertainment?.

Then you shouldn't see any Italian giallo...

Now my reputation on this board will crumble once for all - but I loved Alien, and found it very entertaining (and I must have been only 11 when I saw it! Scariest movie ever, of course).

[Reza]

Do people truly consider Alien fun? I went opening day in 1979, and found it one of the most unendurable movies I've ever seen. The production design was impressive, and I enjoyed the blue collar aspect of the characters (then a novelty in most movie sci-fi). But from the moment the creature emerged from John Hurt, I knew the filmmakers would show no restraint as far as inflicting gore on the audience. And every remaining scene seemed to consist of characters going, one by one, into rooms, while the camera slowly rotated until the creature appeared and eviscerated them. For me, the movie was like being hooked up to the black box: jolts arrived at regular intervals, and after a while I was in a constant state of anxiety awaiting the next one. I thought the black box was considered torture; how did it get rclassified as entertainment?

Aliens wasn't exactly my kind of movie, either, but at least it had an adventure plot that was more than waiting around to be eaten.

Alien was nothing but a variation of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Niggers / Ten Little Indians / And Then There Were None but dressed up in horror mode with gore and violence thrown into a space setting. Yes, if you are a horror fan, then watching a group of characters being bumped off one by one is fun.

[Mister Tee]

Do people truly consider Alien fun? I went opening day in 1979, and found it one of the most unendurable movies I've ever seen. I thought the black box was considered torture; how did it get rclassified as entertainment?

Aliens wasn't exactly my kind of movie, either, but at least it had an adventure plot that was more than waiting around to be eaten.

Wait...you thought ALIEN was torture, but then you later saw ALIENS. Does that make you a masochist?

Oscars are a tough taskmaster. Six (or was it seven?) nominations made it compulsory.

I did wait for home video, so I could more readily leave the room when necessary.

[rolotomasi99]

Do people truly consider Alien fun? I went opening day in 1979, and found it one of the most unendurable movies I've ever seen. I thought the black box was considered torture; how did it get rclassified as entertainment?

Aliens wasn't exactly my kind of movie, either, but at least it had an adventure plot that was more than waiting around to be eaten.

Wait...you thought ALIEN was torture, but then you later saw ALIENS. Does that make you a masochist?

[rolotomasi99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0

So many questions. A hilarious take on basically what we are talking about right now.