Flight (Jo*****)

'Flight' is one of those rare movies where I entered with somewhat neutral expectations and left in awe of the power of cinema. The trailer promised nothing more than a plane crash and some pretty realistic special effects. That and Robert Zemekis' triumphant return to live-action cinema (God help us if he makes another animated Holiday movie). Yes, the film is dark, and at times difficult to watch, but Zemekis and Washington take the reins entirely and succeed in creating one of the best movies of the year.

Denzel Washington stars as Whip Whitaker, a man who's morning routine involves lines of coke like it's coffee. His life is unstable, he is divorced, and his well-being seems to come second to the pleasure he finds with his flight crew. On board a morning flight at the film's start we learn so much about his character, simply by his actions in flying a plane. Whip is in no way a character we are meant to warm up to, though he is definitely a man who's confidence could perhaps become inspiring.

Of course, the plane takes an unexpected turn as it descends into a nose-dive. The sequence, no more than 5 or 10 minutes, is perhaps one of the most intense crash scenes I can recall in a movie. The complete absurdity of the situation couples with the sharp detail Zemekis smartly finds in the chaos - creating a tense and gripping sequence.

Crashing the plane just beyond a small church's baptismal pool, Whip survives - saving all but 6 lives on board. His heroic actions, though, are quickly dampened when it is discovered he had been flying with a blood alcohol content above 0.2, and life in prison is suddenly an option.

The film develops into a strong character study, and Washington simply hits it out of the park in his best performance to date. There is never a time he is not fully in control of any scene, and even the most subtle actions or stutters in speech are simply masterful. Any other year an Oscar win would be guaranteed, depending on how winter films fare, this could be an extremely tight race to watch.

John Goodman, likewise, rises to the occasion as Whip's quirky drug dealer. His screen time is limited to no more than 2 or 3 scenes, but here is a character actor in top form. Yes, it's a comedic performance, but Goodman has been around the block several times, and an Oscar nomination would not be out of line. The same goes for relatively unknown Kelly Reilly, who plays a fellow addict Whip befriends. Her story is just as heartbreaking, but her performance rises to the occasion and is equal to her costars.

In terms of comparing 'Flight' to 'Forrest Gump' or 'Cast Away,' Robert Zemekis clearly has a rich cinematic language and is a master of his craft. 'Flight' may not be the most pleasant movie-going experience, but this is a film I cannot wait to see again.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Washington), Best Supporting Actor (Goodman), Best Supporting Actress (Reilly), Best Original Sceenplay, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Original Score)

Argo (Jo*****)

Ben Affleck has almost positively settled into his niche - an accomplished director who is fully capable of great acting and creating solid movies. From 'The Town' to 'Gone Baby Gone' and now 'Argo,' Affleck is a man to watch out for, and certainly comparisons to Robert Redford are no longer blasphemic.

Argo is set in a not too unfamiliar time when Iran was in conflict with America, a time when clashing political beliefs and anger set the world into the seemingly never-ending spiral downward. The film opens on the storming of an American Embassy in Iran by protestors from the street. Seeing this as the opening of the film was simply astounding, and I shivered from the level of sophistication with which the sequence is assembled. From those held hostage, 6 Americans manage to escape and flee to the Canadian Embassy, where they hide for months with no hope of escape. Though they shredded nearly all American paperwork and documents, we see Iranian children busy sifting through the shreds to reassemble the photographs and papers - papers that show they have 6 hostages missing…

And here the film truly shines. Back in the United States, the CIA is busy to think of any way to smuggle these 6 out of the country, but to no avail. Riding bikes several hundred miles to the border is sheer absurdity, and everyone knows it. Ben Affleck stars as Tony Mendez, the agent responsible for getting these people out, using an idea concocted while watching a movie with his son. Under the disguise of a film crew, they will pretend to be location scouts for the science fiction film 'Argo,' and using Canadian passports, will fly out of Tehran in plain sight.

The tension of the film is coupled by truly hilarious moments, mostly from the Hollywood side of the story. John Goodman plays John Chambers, an Oscar-winning makeup artist, who forms a fake production company with director Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Under an increasing time constraint, it is amazing how much Affleck fits into the film without ever overwhelming the audience with too much information.

Yes, the film follows a fairly predictable pattern and the ending is all but assured, but here is a film that audiences truly appreciate. A film that understands the language of movies, and drama, and writing, and with great ease succeeds in being one of the most surprising and entertaining movies of the year.

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

The Sessions (Jo***)

'The Sessions' has been a small film making big impressions on film festivals this year, so it was no surprise that I eagerly sought it out. The film, about a bed-ridden man suffering from polio, follows his journey to lose his virginity through the use of a sex surrogate. Consulting all the while with his priest (of the Catholic Church, no less), the film makes light of a potentially grim subject matter, and succeeds in being a potential heart-warmer, though it mostly just skims the surface of truly fascinating subject matter.

Mark O'Brien (played by a truly dedicated John Hawkes), is an accomplished poet with a college degree and high levels of respect. Though he is a charming and sociable man, we learn of his desires to more fully explore female relationships, as the only women he has known pity him or his condition. O'Brien is a very religious man, and therefore consults with his priest (William H. Macy) for his truthful response to his wish. Macy laughably gives him the 'A.O.K.' and thinks God will give him a free pass. I don't know what Catholic Church O'Brien attends, but this is definitely a church many should consider attending.

Mark then meets Cheryl (Helen Hunt), a character we would immediately assume to be a prostitute, if not for her complete professionalism and suave. Here is a movie where eroticism could have completely taken over, but the act of sex is reduced down to a mere science experiment. Cheryl learns about Mark and his wishes and desires, and in turn Mark discovers that simple kindness and accepting could be all he really needs to be happy.

The film, based on a true story, glamorizes the story into a feel-good romp about a man essentially losing his virginity. The ending is fairly predictable and the short run time lends very little insight into the characters we are seeing. That is not to say the acting is nothing short of superb. John Hawkes is truly dedicated to the performance, and you can see glimmers of Sean Penn or Daniel Day-Lewis in his role. Hawkes recently became a more widely-known actor with his Oscar-nominated appearance in 'Winter's Bone,' but he is truly an accomplished actor regardless. The same should be said for Helen Hunt, who's film appearances following her Oscar win are few and far between. Here she truly shines, and don't be surprised to see both receive Oscar nominations (if nothing else, for the extended nudity throughout the film. Oscar voters love that, you know).

The film is simple, straight-forward, and predictable, but is does succeed on acting merits alone. If nothing else, see it for Hawkes and Hunt. If not, you are at no great loss.

(Awards Potential: Best Actor (Hawkes), Best Supporting Actress (Hunt), Best Adapted Screenplay))

Cloud Atlas (Jo****)

Just when you thought you understood what a movie could be, along comes 'Cloud Atlas,' a dense and precarious film that has so many ideas and images and characters and stories, I don't know if repeated viewings can even decipher the truth behind it all. With no less than 3 directors and actors playing 6 or 7 separate characters, this is a movie unlike any other, endlessly ambitious, and certainly a movie people will remember for some time.

The setting ranges from Colonial America to the far distant future, past the rise of civilization to a point where man has reverted to nature. Discussing plot is simply impossible, as each story is connected with mere thoughts, or actors, or ideas. To think about the meaning behind several characters sharing a shooting star-shaped birthmark is puzzling enough, but to then contemplate how each character's action could potentially effect their counter-character in the future or past is simply unnerving.

Babbling on about this film in cryptic riddles and my own puzzled ideas will be no good for a review, so let me just heap praises on the technical aspects. Titled as one of the most expensive independent movies ever made, 'Cloud Atlas' soars with its sheer beauty in setting and photography. The same goes for the visual effects and makeup - top notch work in the way they work to seamlessly incorporate one actor in to many settings.

Is this a film for everyone? Of course not. People today like their films straight forward and linear in their story. No one wants to be scratching their heads hours after seeing a film, but that is truly the success here. 'Cloud Atlas' creates a dizzying story, but one that sticks with you long after you have finished. Reading the novel upon which it is based may or may not shed some light, I'm not sure. All I can really tell you about this film is that it is one I need to see again, soon. If that isn't some sort of compliment, then perhaps I should just go ahead and recommend it.

(Awards Potential: Best Picture, Best Actor (Hanks), Best Actor (Broadbent), Best Actress (Berry), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Makeup)

The Dark Knight Rises (Jo***)

Jo Says:

At 2 hours and 45 minutes and nearly 5 years in the making, The Dark Knight Rises had all the potential to be one of the best movies this decade, bringing closure to one of the most acclaimed film series and concluding perhaps the best superhero/crime film of all time: The Dark Knight. Of course expectations for this film were undeniably high, perhaps too high to match, but ultimately I can't help but feel that the final Batman installation was flawed from its inception.

Set 8 years after the second film (and absolutely void of any reference to the Joker (luckily)), the film finds Bruce Wayne a recluse along the lines of Howard Hughes, shut in by the loss of his love Rachel as well as the ever-decreasing crime rate in Gotham. Harvey Dent, now honored with his own holiday, is remembered only as the hero Batman and Commissioner Gordon intended. Of course, the arrival of Bane, the new antagonist, brings Batman out of retirement, and it is no surprise what 8 years can do to a body. Literally taking over Gotham and closing its borders, Bane expels Batman and tells Gotham citizens to 'take back their city.' Of course scenes are reminiscent of the Occupy movement from the past year, and Nolan's script undoubtedly attempted to incorporate many current political issues.

Among the many characters introduced are Selina Kyle, a 'cat' burglar who has one too many encounters with Bruce Wayne. Her presence in the film is a mere hindrance, and her allegiance to either side is never quite known. Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Blake, a young cop who is mentored by the aging Commissioner and becomes involved with Bruce Wayne, casually letting slip he even recognizes him as the caped crusader from years past. Miranda Tate rounds out the newcomers as a new corporate head of Wayne Enterprises and a possible love interest for the humbled Bruce.

Without spoiling any of the film's plot, I simply believe too much was crammed into one movie to fulfill the eagerness of the waiting audiences. Christopher Nolan has undoubtedly made one of the best trilogies of all time, but his final installment feels overweighted by plot, characters, information. The excitement and pure entertainment felt by The Dark Knight is almost all gone, exchanged for an increasingly dark and complex plot. Yes, the Joker and Bane are two entirely different villains with different goals, but the two movies as companion pieces simply feel imbalanced.

Bane, as a villain, is terrifying: intense, brute, straight-forward, and intimidating. How much of this is lost, then, when we see Bane cry? Or when we learn his back story? Attempting to create more depth for his character almost works to weaken his screen presence, humanizing him nearly to the point of sympathy. Then again, who is the true villain of this film, and how do we find balance between them? Not to name names, but perhaps this film could have functioned perfectly fine without the inclusion of certain characters who's own back story work merely for shock value and nothing more. How many villains does one superhero movie need?

Technically, the film still upholds the fine standards the rest of the series holds, and there are surely applause-worthy moments, namely our re-introduction to Batman, himself. For such a lengthy movie, though, one would almost wish for more Batman and less Bruce Wayne. Afterall, isn't the movie called The Dark Knight Rises and not "Bruce Wayne Rises?" Hours could be spent discussing each character and plot piece, discerning their purposes and whether or not they are warranted in the film. Maybe instead of leaving me wanting more, the film instead left me wishing 'what if?'

Will this movie be the juggernaut it's predecessor was? The answer is almost undoubtedly no. Only so rarely does a movie come along that works on so many levels as The Dark Knight, and Christopher Nolan should only be so proud to have such an impressive film repertoire. Technically the movie is astounding, but for a fan of the film series that began so many years ago, perhaps Nolan lost sight of the ultimate goal he set out to reach with these films and pushed the envelope one too many times. The film is great, but it is nothing extraordinary.

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actor (Michael Caine), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Editing, Best Original Score)