Django Unchained (Jo****1/2)

Quentin Tarantino is on a roll. From the outlandish success of Inglourious Basterds comes Django Unchained, a spaghetti-western style film set in the deep South, where slavery was the economy of the time. While not a perfect film, Tarantino definitely employs all his cinematic tricks to create one of the more visceral and iconic films of the year.

Set a few years before the Civil War, Dr King Shultz (the ever-perfect Christoph Waltz), a bounty hunter, seeks the slave Django (Jamie Foxx in one of his better performances) to help identify a band of outlaws only he would recognize. The two quickly become a team, eventually working their way south to help buy Django's wife from a plantation owner, the eccentric and colorful Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

The film uses subtitles, music, and camera tricks to recreate the looks of spaghetti westerns and blaxsploitation films from the 1970's. This blending of genres, as well as an eclectic soundtrack mixing modern and classical scores, makes Django something we have never seen; a Tarantino-style film with a much more apparent directorial style (if that's even possible from Tarantino).

Technically, the film is a marvel, and the actors are all top notch. DiCaprio breaks away from his long stretch of criminally-burdened characters to play something completely new. While not the absolute best performance of his career (Gilbert Grape, The Aviator), this is something that should cause people to start talking about when he will finally win his first Oscar. Waltz, of course, carries the film in stride and reminds us why we love Tarantino so much for discovering him in the first place. Samuel L Jackson, though, is the true star of the film. Playing an elderly house slave and only appearing in perhaps 1/4th of the film, he undoubtedly steals every scene he shares and demonstrates some of the most manipulative and fiery acting of the year.

The film is brutally violent, and is in no way a film meant for a broad audience. Though nearly 3 hours long, there is never a dull moment in the plot, and the story keeps the audience entertained all the way to the end. Again, not perfect, but remains a gem in this truly remarkable Holiday lineup of great movies!

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (DiCaprio, Waltz, Jackson), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Makeup, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

The Impossible (Jo*****)

There has been no more moving film this year than The Impossible, a true story about one family whose idyllic vacation is transformed into a week of tragedy and unimaginable horror amidst the 2004 tsunami. Yes, this is dark material and the film does not shy away from the bitter truths of the event, but here is a film that is an absolute joy to watch. A testament to the power of cinema and the great talent in the industry, The Impossible is easily one of the year's best. 

With very little setup, we learn about this family. Maria and Henry, two parents raising 3 sons in Japan, have picked the Asian coast to spend their Christmas holiday. The trip, though, is soon interrupted by the sudden wave that completely destroys the resort and separates the family. In one of the film's most horrifying scenes, we see Maria (played by Watts) being swept along by the waves like a rag doll, with debris and glass shards pummeling her body under water as she tries to reach her son. 

Though the family is all alive, they are separated by miles, each eventually ending up at a local hospital overrun with the victims. Maria and her son, Lucas, witness the countless people lost and injured while in the hospital - Maria falling ill due to her severe injuries from the initial wave. Henry (McGregor) has survived with his two youngest sons and stay behind in hopes to locate the rest of their family, alive or dead. 

The film is totally dependent on the cast, and here is the film's true strength. As the father, McGregor brings an unparalleled grief to his role. There is no doubt this is his best performance to date, and easily one of the best male leads of the year. There is one scene where he manages to get hold of a phone to call his family at home, and his sudden outpouring of emotion is so brutally honest and poignant, it is simply heartbreaking. Naomi Watts, one of Hollywood's most talented actresses, has truly outdone herself. Through her eyes, we see absolute terror and the dramatic weight, and her commitment to every single scene makes it hard to remember she is simply acting. Though much of her performance takes place in a hospital bed, she singlehandedly creates the film's heart. Could she be the new Best Actress frontrunner? I have no reason to doubt. And Tom Holland, the oldest son, what a breakthrough! Why this young actor hasn't received more credit for this role, I don't know. Here is a performance that is challenging both physically and emotionally, and he manages to breathlessly navigate the story. 

I have nothing but praise to give this film. I understand some of the criticisms regarding this film focusing on a white family in the midst of an Asian disaster. That makes no difference. This is a story of love, humanity, and passion. The Impossible is definitely a 'do-not-miss!'

(Awards Potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (Watts), Best Actor (McGregor), Best Supporting Actor (Holland), Best Original Screenplay, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Beasts of the Southern Wild (Jo*****)

What a marvelous little film this turned out to be. Released smack - dab in the middle of the year, here is another shining example of the power of cinema and the creativity of films. Despite the numerous rereleases, sequels, and remakes Hollywood is pumping out, Beasts of the Southern Wild is a nearly flawless example of all that is right with cinema today. No recognizable actors, filmmakers, or plot devices, yet here is a movie that is truly a work of art.

Set in an almost apocalyptic New Orleans, a small group of people live in the 'Bathtub,' a makeshift town barricaded from civilization by levees. Here, a community is developed, and we meet Wink and his daughter Hushpuppy. We are not watching this film to follow a story, rather to drink up a setting so vividly captured through film that it virtually tangible. The Bathtub is just a collection of broken down shacks and tents, but to Hushpuppy, her entire world is filled by it. She is not your typical child for a film, with her head full of daydreams of a better world. She is fierce, determined, and molded by her oftentimes brute father. He may not be nurturing in the way we expect of a single parent, but through him, she learns all that is necessary to survive.

The story is difficult to explain, so perhaps it's best to watch it, instead. I can talk about the marvels of the film itself, though- so beautifully filmed and scored, this is a movie with so many rivets and intricacies they could definitely go overlooked. The smallest details of a father teaching his daughter how to fish with her hand, to the preparations Bathtub goes through to prepare for a storm, or Hushpuppy attempting to document her life through cardboard drawings...

And then to the cast, itself. All newcomers to film, the two leads are simply unparalleled in their acting abilities. Dwight Henry as Wink brings such a strong presence to the screen, that even in scenes he is absent from he is never far from the forefront of the story. And Quvenzhane Wallis, the 5 year-old Hushpuppy. Simply put, this girl is a force of nature. Easily one of the strongest child performances I have ever seen and one of the most honest portrayals I have seen all year. Can the Academy bring themselves to nominate a Kindergartner for Leading Actress? It would be a momentous occasion, but how fulfilling a nomination it would be.

I can't fully describe my feelings about Beasts of the Southern Wild. Perhaps there were minor aspects that threw me off or perhaps dwindled too long. All I know is that here is a movie so complete in its concept and so full of passion, that any flaws simply disappear by the time the credits begin to role.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (Wallis), Best Supporting Actor (Henry), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Jo***)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is an unexpected stumble from the gifted Peter Jackson, who's original Middle Earth trilogy managed to win just about every Oscar possible back in 2003. Back at the helm, and divided into yet another trilogy, the quaint Hobbit novel is being transformed into something it is not:  a story massive enough to span three 3-hour films. Just because you have the power to make something, doesn't necessarily make it good. The Hobbit, though, is full of remarkable images, places, and moments, but the sum of their parts is little more than icing on a burnt cake. It might look good, but it's flawed all the way to the center. 

The story begins in present time (or not?) when the elder Bilbo begins writing down the tale 'There And Back Again,' and Jackson cleverly tries to tie in the original trilogy, with an immediate eye-rolling cameo from Elijah Wood (who is not the only returning cast member). We see this is the day of his long expected party from 'Fellowship,' just moments before Gandalf arrives on his carriage. The film does offer lots of nostalgia in that regard, but for a 3 hour movie with its own story to tell, it's clear the writers (the original crew in addition to Guillermo Del Toro) had wiggle room to add what they wished. 

The cast is superb, but it lacks the charisma an charm of the original Fellowship. The 13 dwarves all seem to have their own personality, but there is absolutely NOT enough screen time for each of them, and we only get to know maybe 3 or 4 as characters. The rest are merely fillers. 

Middle Earth is just as we left it: green, lush, but dangerous at every turn. The design of the landscape is no less impressive, as is the technical aspects behind the film - from costumes to makeup. It is clear no detail went unnoticed. Take, for instance, one of the final battle scenes - set in an underground system of caves inhabited by thousands of goblins. Our heroes run through mazes of tunnels and bridges, effortlessly navigating foreign terrain, and the audience is simply overwhelmed by the details put into each shot. It is truly remarkable even to such minute details. 

It must be said about the battle scenes though, more than Lord of the Rings, that the sense of danger is almost always lost. The choreography of each sword swing or punch is so perfectly timed, as are the dwarves narrow escape from certain death time and again. How is it that amid those thousand goblins, the dwarves manage to kill hundreds, while their small group of a dozen escapes unharmed?

And then to the high frame rate… Oh goodness. Of course I had to check out the film at 48 frames a second - its a whole new novelty to the filmgoing experience. I had an idea what to expect, but there is no amount of preparation that can prepare you for the feeling. It is truly jarring for the first few minutes - almost to the point that I considered telling the projectionist that they were playing the film too fast. The image quality is stunning, but the actual movement on screen really does feel like a video game or television show. There is something beautiful about the motion blurs now lost from 24 frames a second, and this new clarity is almost too much. Visual effects become all the more blatant, as do green-screen effects. There were several times throughout the film that it felt like I was watching special effects from 1980's, but there were also times I was amazed at what I was seeing. Do I think this will become the new standard? I can't say for sure, but I sincerely hope not. Seeing a movie like this at 48 frames a second is like getting a sneak peak at the making of a movie - you KNOW you're watching actors running around manmade sets, it takes you out of the experience. 

Overall, what can I say. Perhaps a year or 2 from now when the other films are released, I will have a better grasp of The Hobbit as a whole. It is clear the filmmakers are still clinging to the original trilogy as a crutch-assuming it will aid these films. Howard Shore's score has entire sections pulled from the original film - and usually poorly done. The Hobbit could have been a much more unique and invigorating experience. As of now, I am left somewhat disappointed, confused, and yet still curious for more.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Sound Editing)

Skyfall (Jo*****)

James Bond is undoubtedly the most enduring film series of all time. There is iconic appeal: women, weapons, thrills, it's not hard to understand why people have continued to return time and again. With Skyfall, the series has truly taken off, and though I haven't seen many of the Bond films, this is undoubtedly a great film, regardless of it being the 20th-something installment in the series.

Breathed new life by director Sam Mendes (of Oscar-winning American Beauty) the film takes a grittier approach, dealing less with the high tech gadgetry and fight scenes and focusing more on the man. The approach is similar to all Bond films, I imagine. A mind-boggling opening scene, the establishment of a new villain, and Bond's test in trying to find and conquer said villain.

And what a villain we have. Javier Bardem, another Oscar-winner known for his own take on iconic screen villains, plays Silva, a computer hacker with a homosexual flair and disregard for the law, entirely. Here is an actor at the top of his form, and following the recent Oscar win for Heath Ledger, it seems like even action movies can be recognized for their talent on screen as well as off.

Even Dame Judi Dench shines as 'M,' her recurring character. We spend much more time with her outside of headquarters, exploring her own persona as she travels with Bond. It is a reserved performance, but one that manipulates the audience at every turn and shines as a high point of the film.

Technically, this is one of the most effective films of the year. From art direction (ranging from WWII tunnels converted into government headquarters) to the music (Thomas Newman carries the Bond theme proudly and adds his own beautiful flair), the film comes together at all the right points. And Roger Deakins, of course. Always a nominee, never a winner. With his nomination for this film (I guarantee his nomination, which will be his 10th), he will continue his reign as the greatest living cinematographer in my mind. From the very introduction to Bond (see above) to the climax, which is an action scene shot in virtual darkness in the country until orange flames beautifully silhouette everything in sight, there is no doubt that this is the best-photographed film of the year. There is a clear evolution of color and image throughout the film, and even though it seems likely the Academy will overlook Deakins once again, this film would be a significant achievement for any photographer.

Forget The Dark Knight Rises or any of the other summer action movies from earlier this year. Skyfall ranks not only as the best action film of the year, but easily as one of the year's best, period.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Bardem), Best Supporting Actress (Dench), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects)

Hope Springs (Jo *1/2)

Hope Springs is an alarmingly misguided film. A story about two lovers lost in the midst of a flat marriage, the story follows predictable curves with little originality to become of the years most confused romantic comedies (or dramas?). Here are two stars in the golden years of their careers, yet not even the talent they bring to such a project is able to provide reasonable redemption.

We see a husband. And his wife. She makes his breakfast every morning, while he reads the paper. They have dinner together, he falls asleep in front of the TV, then they part ways to sleep in their own bedrooms for the night. Here is a film that makes observations about what it expects married life is like, yet makes no assertions of its own. We as an audience are not watching a film made by story tellers, rather a film that is content to just sit and watch what the script provides.

On a whim, Kay (Meryl Streep) reads a book about successful marriages and books a therapy weekend with the author (an uninspired Steve Carrell). Finally convincing her husband, Arnold (Tommy Lee Jones) to come with, the film settles into clunky scenes of therapy while we are supposed to find Tommy Lee Jones talking about oral sex amusing. The comedy employed is simply flat, and the dramatic moments are equally stiff.

As with any summer movie starring Meryl Streep, the ending is happy (though I won't spoil anymore here). Streep, fresh off her Oscar win for The Iron Lady, gets a pass here. The actors try their best, but there is nothing in Hope Springs that excited or amused me, even in the slightest. This was one movie I wish I didn't feel obligated to have seen.

(Awards potential: No awards potential)

Moonrise Kindgom (****)

Wes Anderson is undoubtably a visionary filmmaker, one who's style is instantly recognizable with its flat camera setups, dry humor, and quirky music. Moonrise Kindgom provides nothing less - a highly polished and efficient story of young love, family, and adventure.

The story finds us in an Anderson-esque New England setting somewhere in the mid 1900's. A young boy escapes from his 'Khaki Scout' camp in search of a girl he met a year prior. Having only talked through letters and postcards, the two have decided they are in love and set up a plan to run away to Moonrise Kingdom, a place they named and what will become their sanctuary.

This is, of course, trouble for the boy's supervisors and the girl's family, all of whom go searching for the young lovers as they flee on foot. Much of the humor is found in the actual settings and the commitment of the child actors to the seriousness of their roles. We forget these are young people as they disappear behind truly dramatic and oftentimes perfectly-timed performances.

The cast is exemplary, including Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Ed Norton, Tilda Swinton (whose character is simply named 'Social Services'), and Bill Murrary. For such limited release, this is truly a wonderful film through and through. Of course the film will have detractors, and the distinct style of Anderson is one that seems to polarize audiences. In a time when films aim higher and higher in scope, visual effects, and action, here is a small film that aims to be nothing more than the simplest of love stories.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography)

Brave (Jo***)

Disney/Pixar's Brave is a delightful movie for children. Filled with colorful imagery of the Scottish highlands and following an easily-accessible story of acceptance and love, Pixar seems to be missing out on their prime audience: adults who have grown to love the originality of their previous films. While Brave is a wonderfully crafted movie, its ranking alongside its counterparts is almost surely at the very bottom.

The story follows young Princess Merida, a free-spirited girl who refuses to be bethrothed to any of the men from the nearby kingdoms. Though her mother insists it is the tradition of her people, Merida would rather live a playful life without the responsibilities her parents are trying to force on her. When she finally runs away, she encounters a witch in the forest who promises to help Merida's situation and change her mother's mind. This being a children's movie, it is no surprise her mother is transformed into a bear, and the two must figure out a way to right their mistakes.

While I can admire the animation and technical skills behind the making of Brave, I found little I could fully immerse myself in. Coming from a company that has made some of the best films of the past decade (Wall-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story 3, The Incredibles....), this film felt like one from a lesser company. Perhaps if the exact same film had been produced by Dreamworks Animation, for example, I would have found myself more engrossed. I understand how harsh a criticism this seems, but I do believe that in Pixar, the audiences expect something more.

First Cars 2, now Brave, I am concerned that perhaps Pixar is slipping from the top of the animation world in favor of more commercially promising films that appeal to a younger audience. While I sincerely hope Pixar has the potential to reclaim the title of best filmmaking company in the world, word that they are creating more and more sequels (Monsters University), perhaps it is a sad, cold fact that even the mighty can fall. Brave is not a bad film in any regard, but at the same time there is little to remember about it, either...

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score, Best Original Song ('Touch the Sky'))

Anna Karenina (Jo**1/2)

Anna Karenina marks the third collaboration of director Joe Wright and Kiera Knightly, a pairing that made much more reserved and dare I say beautiful films (Pride & Prejudice & Atonement). A film made with bold images and ideas, this is not to say Karenina is not a joy to watch or experience. For once though, Wright has made a film where the border of substance and style has been reached, and perhaps we lost out on much of the humanism that Tolstoy's novel brings.

Set in a turbulent Russian setting, the stage is set for Anna, a lavish woman living with a husband she may not love and a child she cares the world for. Through truly melodramatic form, she meets and falls in love with a young Count, and the two strike up a tragic affair - the type of scenario that only ever ends in tragedy.

Unlike previous adaptations of the work, director Joe Wright attempts to reimagine the story, largely through his staging and set pieces. Nearly all of the film plays out inside a hollowed out theater, with sets and transitions changing within shots. We learn how formal each character's life is - how bound they are to traditions and rules - and the theater aspect truly becomes apparent. It is an interesting concept and creates an experience not unlike watching a great play. The film doesn't attempt to reveal us to the beauty of Russia, instead, it tries to make the screen as close as possible. It is a confusing concept and one that audiences will have to get accustomed to, no doubt.

The highlights of the film are the technical aspects. You can almost assure an Oscar win for the vivid costume design - with dresses billowing out and flowing like water. The progression from scene to scene is remarkable as each new wardrobe for the characters is all the more impressive. The same can be said for the art direction - so innovative in its ideas and execution that it seems so likely to receive awards' attention.

The film reminded me somewhat of another piece of eye candy: Marie Antoinette. A beauty to watch, even on mute - the only difference being that one film truly explores the meaning of being bound by society and wealth, the other chooses a far safer route. There was endless potential for this retelling of the Anna Karenina story, and in the end, I think the film turned out to be a simple misstep.

(Awards potential: Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score)

Lincoln (*****)

What Steven Speilberg creates with 'Lincoln' is nothing short of brilliant. His best work in years, coupled with a refined performance from the great Daniel Day-Lewis, crafts a history lesson as well as a captivating legal story. While the title suggests this is a story about the life of a man, it is moreso a story of the life of a nation, divided by war, struggling with immense issues that only such a war could bring out. Telling the story of a mere month or two during the height of the Civil War, 'Lincoln' aims high and beautifully reaches its target.

Set in January of 1865, the Civil War has already taken its toll on Lincoln. Gray-haired and sullen, Daniel Day-Lewis plays almost against type and captures a man who uses logic and loves telling stories to accent his ideas. The film opens with an intense battle scene, black soldiers fighting alongside whites, and bodies piling up in the rainy puddles of mud turning red from all the death. We then see two black soldiers, talking to an unknown man, discussing the position, pay, and rights they lack, even though they fight alongside white soldiers for the same cause. They speak bluntly with this unknown man, joke with him, stand close and understand his words. The camera pans to the great reveal of Lincoln's silhouette. It's a great scene, sharply written, ending with several of the soldiers proving their wisdom by quoting his recent Gettysburg address.

Abraham Lincoln believes that in order to end the Civil War once and for all, he must make permanent his actions of the Emancipation Proclamation and legally free slaves forever. His stance is met by harsh criticism from not only his colleagues, but his wife (played by Sally Field), who's tenacity both comforts Lincoln but reminds him of the losses he has already faced.

Needing a majority in the House of Representatives to pass the Amendment, we follow the Republican party as they try to win the handful of Democratic votes to win a majority. Many of those in Lincoln's cabinet advise him to drop the matter entirely and focus on ening the war. Lincoln believes this is the ONLY way he can end the war, once and for all.

I admire Speilberg's direction of this film. Lacking his usual cinematic flair we have come to recognize from him, 'Lincoln' instead focuses on the quieter moments. How any President can handle a civil war while coping with the loss of a child seems impossible, but we admire the man all the more for it. Historically the film seems to whitewash certain issues. Aside from a few servants of the Lincoln household, the cast is entriely white, with the only true Abolitionist being Thaddeus Stevens (played by a truly brilliant Tommy Lee Jones). Stevens believes in racial equality totally, but in order to help the Amendment pass, he curiously must remove emotion from it and reason that we are equal 'only under the law.'

'Lincoln' is a beautiful film, photographed in a shadowy darkness that seems foreshadowing of the dark future ahead. We feel the atmosphere of the sets, cold and gloomy - characters walk around the White House draped in blankets and hats to keep warm. The attention to detail is truly astounding, both in the reality of the film and the rich experience it creates for the audience. John Williams perfectly accompanies the film with a somber score - Speilberg and Williams truly have reached a perfect understanding of the sound of movies. The cast never falters, and altogether this is one of the most relevant films of the year.

The film seems to have something for all. It teaches us about a dark time in our country's history, but reminds us that there are heroes from all walks of life. It isn't often that a truly great man also sits in a position of immense power. In 'Lincoln,' we're glad he did.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Day Lewis), Best Supporting Actor (Lee Jones), Best Supporting Actress (Field), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup, Best Editing, Best Original Score)