Top 10 Movies of 2011 (And Then Some)

When I look back on 2011, I believe it will go down as one of my favorite years for film. Sure, there were an abnormally high number of really bad movies that I would never force myself to see but we were also treated to a ton of really strong, quality works that I will remember for years to come. I also had greater access in 2011 to independent, smaller budget films; in the past, there's a good chance I wouldn't have been able to see Drive, 50/50, or The Descendants until they came to DVD. I can only hope that this trend continues moving forward. In addition, 2011 represents the end to a significant franchise (Harry Potter), the return of Kermit the Frog (duh), and one of the better superhero movies not related to Christopher Nolan (X-Men: First Class).

Each year, I compile a full list of every film I have seen from said year and rank them from first to worst. A couple of things about this list:

1.) My rankings are a mix of quality of film and enjoyment. I would never argue that The Muppets is a better film than Tree of Life but when you add "fun" and "extreme likability" into the mix, I prefer the former over the latter.
2.) Grades and rankings change. If you click on the links to my reviews, you may find that the grade is different than it is on this list. Sometimes the longer I am away from having seen a film, the more my perception of it changes. And sometimes I see the film again and my opinion changes. That's the way it goes. If you're looking at this list at some point in the future it is probably significantly different than it was at the date of publication.
3.) I have missed out on a couple of "important" films to this point, including Midnight in Paris and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, so there's an outside chance my top 10 will change before it's all said and done. I've seen approximately 78 films this year. Couldn't get to them all. Sue me.

So, without further adieu, I present to you my End of Year Rankings for 2011. Enjoy.

THE TOP TEN
1. Drive - Left as much if not more of an indelible mark upon me as any film this year. I loved it. I love the simplistic script, the synthesized soundtrack, and of course, the magnificent central character, Driver. Gosling freaking kills it in this role and embodies every aspect of his character's deceptively multi-faceted persona. For lack of a better term, Drive is just cool, one or two tiny missteps away from a true masterpiece. A+

2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - Everything I could have hoped for in a finale. It brought so many moments to life in just the right ways and serves as a perfect cap to an outstanding series of films. In the future, I'll consider Part I and Part II one big movie (like I do with The Lord of the Rings) and I think that's a darn good movie. But this installment is where the real meat and potatoes comes into play and where the series makes its biggest impact. A+

3. 50/50 - I had the good fortune of seeing 50/50 about six weeks before it opened in theaters. I laughed, I cried, and I came away so impressed that I went back to see it on opening weekend. This is a crowning achievement in filmmaking from top to bottom. When I look back on 2011, I believe 50/50 will be the first film that comes to mind. A+

4. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - I'm pretty sure I mentioned this film more than any other film in 2011 with the possible exception of Harry Potter. I was borderline obsessed with it, so much so that I penned 1,500 words about it when I realized I wouldn't be able to see it until a month after its release. Intelligent, complex, and tense, TTSS gives new meaning to the term "slow burn" and yet it's incredibly engrossing. A

5. The Descendants - When I walked out of my screening for The Descendants, I thought I had just seen the eventual Best Picture winner. I've cooled off of that feeling a bit since then but even still, this is an outstanding film. It is at times difficult to watch as it operates within an often dreary atmosphere and yet director Alexander Payne manages to find humor at just the right times to prevent his movie from becoming depressing. A

6. The Muppets - To call The Muppets a success would be the understatement of the year. It embodies all of the nostalgic goodness of the original Muppet entries while offering a few new angles that make this a decisively refreshing experience. The music is incredible and it is unquestionably the most fun I had in a movie theater this year (and maybe significantly longer). A

7. Hugo - Scorsese's ode to the pioneers of filmmaking. Beautiful, exquisitely directed (duh), and extremely personal. It bums me out that this film brought in so few viewers but if you get a chance to check it out, I encourage you to do so. A

8. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - This is the most surprising film of the year for me. As a fan of the previous Mission: Impossible installments, I expected to enjoy this movie and then forget about it until it popped up on TNT in three years. Instead, I was treated to one of the more intelligent, pulse-pounding action movies in recent memory. So. Much. FUN. A

9. Tree of Life - I debated on where to put Tree of Life on this list. I could have gone as high as second or as low as ten. My opinion on what I think this movie is really about changes on a daily basis but there's absolutely no denying the fact that is a remarkably well-made film. More than any other movie this year, this is one that you simply have to see for yourself before you form an opinion. It is also one of the most beautiful films I have EVER seen. A

10. Super 8 - This was the best movie from the first half of the year in my opinion. It contains a fantastic story, some seriously good special effects, and surprisingly good acting across the board. The combination of Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams plays out more beautifully than I could have imagined and every moment of Super 8 reeks of these two great filmmakers. A

THE BOTTOM TEN
I Am Number Four - Between Beastly (which made my Top 15 Worst Movies I Didn't See in 2011 list) and this one, it's safe to say the shine has worn off Alex Pettyfer's star. Number Four had a cool concept  but it never gets off the ground, due in large part to Pettyfer's lack of acting ability. 

The Change-Up - I knew going in that this would be a train wreck but even that term isn't quite enough to describe this. Everyone loves a comedy that delivers zero laughs, right? D

Green Lantern - BY FAR the worst movie I saw in a theater this year. All the signs were there but the summer blockbuster/superhero nerd inside got the best of me. So there I sat at a midnight screening, being treated to one of the most painful cinematic experiences of my life. D

Another Earth - I saw a number of top 10 lists that mentioned this movie. And strangely enough, I kinda get that. If you can get past all of the screw-ups related to the sci-fi portion of the plot, I can see how someone could dig Another Earth. I could not get past that stuff, however. Rubbish. D

Killer Elite D
The Sitter D
J. Edgar D

Scream 4 - Awful. Just awful. All Scream 4 did was remind me of why I don't watch scary movies.  D

Priest - Here's the thing: of the five movies I just listed, if you forced me at gun point to watch one of them again, I would choose Priest. It is so bad and mixes so many horrible cliches with a host of embarrassing performances that it almost becomes funny. It's one of those bad movies. And I think at this point we have to wonder if Paul Bettany is in some sort of financial trouble. F

In Time - Unquestionably the worst movie of the year. F

EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN

Grade: A
Crazy, Stupid, Love - Undoubtedly a flawed film but as I said in my initial review, the flaws just make this seem all the more realistic. These are real humans at work within CSL and all of them exhibit strengths and weaknesses throughout the movie. In addition, this movie served as a reminder to me that Ryan Gosling is an incredible actor. Easily the best date movie since 500 Days of Summer.

Warrior - Great sports action but more importantly, a compelling human interest story. If you're a Movie Crier, just know that big tears are a' comin' if you rent this one. 
Take Shelter

Grade: A-

The Help - Tough to keep this one out of the top 10. Great performances all around, including one of the best by a leading lady in several years. Viola Davis should be given the Oscar right now.

X-Men: First Class - I think First Class holds up against the best of the comic book/superhero genre (Nolan's Batman films aside, of course). Really fun, good action, and a superb cast led by Michael Fassbender, who had one of my favorite performances of the year.

Midnight in Paris
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Pearl Jam 20

Source Code - If you're a filmmaker and you're trying to catch my attention, creating a smart, original piece of sci-fi is probably the easiest way to make that happen. Between Source Code and 2009's Moon, Duncan Jones is rapidly becoming one of my favorite directors.

Attack the Block - One off the cooler blends of sci-fi and horror that I've seen in a while. I'm not sure I understood 25% of the dialogue but that's alright, it was still a blast.

Bridesmaids - My pick for Best Comedy of the Year (in a decidedly unfunny year), this made superstars out of both Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy. Hilarious and so wrong.

Captain America - Not quite up to the caliber of X-Men but still a likable and lively superhero flick. I also really enjoyed the sort-of antiquated patriotism of the main character which, obviously, fit the storyline.

Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop - I wouldn't say this was an entirely insightful documentary but as a longtime Conan fan, it was very interesting to get a behind-the-scenes look at his life and career. Great subject matter.

Horrible Bosses - A close runner-up to Bridesmaids for Best Comedy. The Bateman-Sudiekis-Day lineup is quite strong but the supporting work of Jennifer Aniston and Colin Farrel really sold this one for me. 

The Adventures of Tintin - A much more worthy successor to the Indiana Jones legacy than Shia LaBeouf will ever be. What Tintin lacks in plot it makes up for in pure fun and excitement. 

Cave of Forgotten Dreams - If you haven't heard of this one, it's definitely worth looking into. It is shot with what amounts to a handheld camcorder inside a cave in France that contains the oldest known human drawings. Cave is as stripped down as it gets but it is nonetheless fascinating.

Grade: B+

The Adjustment Bureau - 2011 was somewhat of a throw-back year. Between the values of Captain America, the resurgence of the Muppets, and even the early Spielbergian feel to Super 8, we were treated to a heavy dose of an old school mentality. Adjustment Bureau set the tone for that trend early in 2011 with a decisively retro narrative that I really enjoyed. It's not a movie I want to see over and over again, but it is nonetheless a touching romance and a solid piece of sci-fi.

Moneyball - My pick for Most Overrated Film of the Year. Not that it's bad in any way, I just don't think it's worthy of the Best Picture nomination it is almost certain to receive. At the end of the day, it's still a film about a baseball team that didn't win a World Series title and builds a major storyline around whether or not said team will win its 19th consecutive game. 

The Guard - A quality dark comedy headlined by one outstanding performance (Brendan Gleeson) that for me, overshadows the merits of the film as a whole. 

Fast Five - A film that serves as an illustration of the top quality the 2011 movie calendar brought to the table: fun. That's what the Fast franchise is and Fast Five is the best of the group (by a fair margin). If you plan on checking this one out at some point, let me help you out: if at anytime you begin saying to yourself, "that could NEVER happen", just go ahead and stop watching. This movie isn't for you.

War Horse - Another film I don't think is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. War Horse definitely has its merits and it gets better as it goes but it just doesn't do it for me. Then again, I don't like horses. So...

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Possibly David Fincher's first misstep. Far too much choppiness  in the early stages makes for an unbalanced experience. 

The Debt - Not a seamless blend between past and present but The Debt developed a compelling story and presented us with two solid performances by Helen Mirren and Jessica Chastain. Chastain had an outstanding year with her work in The Help and Tree of Life drawing a lot of attention but for me, this was her best portrayal. 

Blackthorn - It's easy to sell me on a film about an aging Butch Cassidy; the Butch and Sundance legend is one of my all-time favorites. But add in Sam Shepard, one of the better actors of his generation, as Butch and you've got yourself a fan. Really good movie that no one will see.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - Good follow-up to one of the more enjoyable films of 2009 but not quite up to par in my mind. Always fun to watch Robert Downey Jr. work, though. 

Kung Fu Panda 2 - Outside of Tintin, this is the only animated film that was really worth seeing in 2011. I dig the first Kung Fu Panda and adding Gary Oldman's voice to the cast wasn't a half-bad idea. And visually speaking, this is a beautiful film.

Thor - Would have found a place much higher on my list without the superfluous and painfully cliche characters played by Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings. I don't understand the purpose of putting high-profile actresses into these damsel in distress roles if you're not going to give them ANYTHING to work with. I also found the villain, Loki, to be a bit dull. I'm concerned about his presence in The Avengers this summer.

A Better Life
Young Adult

The Ides of March - I struggled with what to write about Ides more than any other film on this list. There are some outstanding performances at work here but the overall story, while fine, is more than a little bland. There's just nothing new here and that leaves it punch less in my book.

Dolphin Tale - A perfectly acceptable family film. Yes it is full of cliches and yes the child actors are occasionally terrible, but there's a worthwhile story to be told here and it's presented in a harmless, somewhat touching way. 

B

The Beaver - The best performance from Mel Gibson in a long, long time. That's not really hard to do, of course, since Gibson has basically been out of the business for the last decade, but it's still a nice reminder of what the guy is capable of when he's not, you know, making anti-Semitic statements and drinking like a member of the Jersey Shore cast. 

We Bought a Zoo - Much like Dolphin Tale, there's nothing wrong with Zoo as a family-film. I just wanted more from a Cameron Crowe production. Matt Damon, though, is great and there are a few truly special moments hidden away here and there.

Contagion - Perhaps the most telling thing I can say about this movie is that I saw it only a three months ago and yet I remember almost nothing about it. I was bored through most of it. 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Hands down, best special effects I saw this year. Andy Serkis deserves some sort of Oscar for the genuine life he gave to the apes in this movie. Just spectacular in that department. But for me, everything else about Apes is a let-down. It's basically a B-movie with great effects. Worth seeing once for the visuals alone but that was enough for me.

Unknown - I always like Liam Neeson's brand of action. He simultaneously manages to come across as if he doesn't take his roles too seriously and yet he's busting his butt to make your experience enjoyable. Unknown isn't up to par compared to Taken (which I unabashedly love) but it has some fun twists and turns and it's always nice to see Neeson beating the crap out of European tough guys.

The Mechanic - You could probably sell me on this movie belonging higher up the list. If nothing else, this is one of Jason Statham's better films and one that has more value from a storytelling perspective than his typical endeavor.

Cedar Rapids - I don't know why Cedar didn't work for me. There was just something about it that kept me at bay. I found it to be fairly humorous, I just didn't buy into it the way many respected critics did.

Beginners - Like several other films that find themselves in the middle of my list, I think Beginners is overshadowed by a single performance. Christopher Plummer is incredible as an aging widower who comes out of the closet just before he is diagnosed with terminal cancer. This is the only performance that is a lock to receive a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nod and it will be totally deserved. But beyond Plummer's work and an adorable dog that Ewan McGregor hangs out with, I didn't find much within this movie to get excited about. And I was wholly annoyed by Melanie Laurent's character. 

The Thing - My pick for Best Horror Movie of the Year even if it is by default. John Carpenter's 1982 version is a classic and while this vision doesn't quite compare, it's also far from an embarrassment. 

The Lincoln Lawyer - I didn't think it was possible to watch a Matthew McConaughey movie and enjoy it but Lincoln Lawyer worked for me. Possibly even more shocking, McConaughey wasn't the worst actor in the cast! In fact, it wasn't even close. Ryan Phillippe's performance was so wooden and cliche-riddled that he actually made McConaughey look good. Way to go, Ryan!

Puss in Boots

Arthur - I've never been a big fan of Russell Brand but I didn't think this was nearly as bad as people made it out to be. Sure, all the laughs were cheap but it made me laugh nonetheless and that's all I wanted from it.

Grade: B-

Cars 2 - Without question, the most disappointing film of the year. As a Pixar junkie, I anticipate each picture from that company as much if not more than just about any other film year in and year out. I still won't go so far as to call Cars 2 a bad movie but man, what a flop compared to what we've become accustomed to.

The Green Hornet - I enjoyed this one the first time I saw it. But then it popped up on HBO or Starz or something and I watched it again. Not so enjoyable the second time around. 

Gnomeo and Juliet - Yet another example of "acceptable family fare" that doesn't impress otherwise. I did, however, dig the Elton John-heavy soundtrack. Can't go wrong there.

Battle: Los Angeles - I still don't understand the absolute hatred thrown at this movie. No, it isn't great and yes, it's full of alien/action movie cliches. But I found it to be far from the "worst movie" candidate it was made out to be. 

Just Go With It - I refuse to see this again because I actually kind-of-sort-of enjoyed it the first time around and judging by the HORRIBLE reviews it has received, I was clearly wrong to not hate it. I don't want to be proven wrong. Perhaps by exceedingly low expectations allowed me to look past the issues. I don't know.

Cowboys and Aliens - What a waste. So much talent both on screen and off of it and yet C&A never finds its stride or gains any momentum. Probably would have been better served if it had stuck with the Western theme and left the aliens out altogether. I would pay to see a Western starring Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford and directed by Jon Favreau.

Paul - The first 45 minutes of this movie are solid and entertaining. The back half...not so much. I appreciate the concept but the execution is sloppy. 

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - Unfortunately, this movie made a crapload of cash which will undoubtedly lead to more sequels. I'm tired of Jack Sparrow now, however. Pirates came across as a cash grab and delivered almost nothing new. 

Blitz - The perfect movie for a late night Netflix viewing. Lots of energy, short runtime, multiple chase scenes. 

The Company Men - This is the classic "B-" movie: I can't really think of anything to say about it, good or bad. It just "is." 

Grade: C+
Real Steel

Super - There have been so many vigilante movies over the last few years that I think we've reached a point where a filmmaker will have to really reinvent the genre to get me excited about this concept again. I thought Super lacked any sort of flow and I wasn't impressed by the script.

The Hangover Part 2 - Because, as everyone knows, the secret to making a great sequel is to put the exact same cast in the exact same situations and have them do the exact same things. Embarrassing.

Tower Heist - With a decent director at the helm, I think Tower Heist probably turns out alright. Unfortunately, Brett Ratner was in charge and he makes films that are the cinematic equivalent to a midday bowel movement. 

Rango - There's a great deal of love out there for Rango and I get that. I was hung up on some of its bigger issues and couldn't get past them and even the good moments weren't enough to make me want to sit through it again. 

Rio - Boring. It's just boring. I felt like it would never end. I can't imagine a child enjoying this beyond the pretty colors.

Higher Ground

Happythankyoumoreplease - There's some promise within this movie and you can bet that writer/director/star Josh Radnor (of How I Met Your Mother fame) will get another chance to make a film. But there are too many plot holes for my tastes and Radnor's character becomes annoying quickly.

Grade: C

Hanna - Similar to Rango, a number of people have Hanna ranked somewhere in their top ten. As an artistic action film, I guess I get that. But I hated this movie and virtually everything about it. HATED it.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - This is the tale of two movies. The first 90 minutes is what passes for Michael Bay's attempt at creating a "serious" plot. And it stands as one of the worst movies EVER in the history of film. But in the back half, Bay returns to what he knows best: explosions, gun play, and special effects. And that movie is pretty darn good as far as plotless action movies go. I have no idea what to do with that. I would totally watch that second movie again. I would never, ever, ever subject myself to the first 90ish minutes again. In fact, I expect President Obama to pass some sort of law that prevents the military from using those 90 minutes as a tool for torture. Brett Ratner thinks that first movie is a piece of crap. 

The Three Musketeers
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Apollo 18

Our Idiot Brother - Loved Paul Rudd in this movie and thought everything else was rotten. I really did not like any of the characters outside of Rudd's. 

Friends with Benefits - I did not laugh. I did not like the characters. I did not care whether or not the characters I did not like would get together. The only good thing about this movie was Woody Harrelson, who killed me in his limited screen time. Otherwise, no thanks. 

30 Minutes or Less - When Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari were on screen together, I enjoyed 30 Minutes. Everything else, though, came across as pointless filler. 

Suckerpunch - If you told me Suckerpunch was the worst film of the year, I wouldn't argue with you. It's just a train wreck on almost every level. I think at this point we have to really be concerned about director Zack Snyder's vision for Superman in next year's Man of Steel. 

No Strings Attached - This is pretty much the exact same movie as Friends with Benefits. The only difference is that Woody Harrelson is not involved, which is always a poor choice.

Grade: C-
Immortals

Bad Teacher - There's a lot not to like about this one. But the biggest issue for me is how morally bankrupt and completely reprehensible Cameron Diaz's character is from top to bottom. I could not, on any level, root for her character to succeed. 

The Way

Larry Crowne - You have to try REALLY hard to make Tom Hanks unappealing. Mission accomplished, Larry Crowne! A truly painful movie. 

Limitless - Hate the story, hate the characters, hate that Robert De Niro looks desperate in his role. Hate it. 

The Eagle - Of all the bad movies on this list, this is the one that I hope you'll take the time to click the link and read the review for. There are so many miserable things I want to say about The Eagle if only I had the time. Channing Tatum plays a Roman soldier. That's really all you need to know. 

Review: "Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows"

I would wager that the worst part about making a hit movie is the follow-up. As a writer, director, or actor, you spend months or even years putting together the best film you can (unless you’re Nicolas Cage, in which case you just show up and lackadaisically hope for the best), hoping to create a movie you’re proud of and that finds an audience. Then it happens and you enjoy it for about a week, until you realize that now you have to figure out a way to follow a $300 million hit. In an era in which at least half of the top-grossing films are the year are sequels or reboots, the pressing to return to the lab and pop out a follow-up must be extreme. It is within this pressure cooker-like atmosphere that so many films stumble and succumb to sequelitis, an affliction that takes down many a film before they even get out of the gates. Going in, I wondered if A Game of Shadows could safely navigate around the pitfalls of sequeling (if you’re keeping track at home, that’s two made-up words already) and come out a companion to an original film I liked quite a lot. The result was a mixed bag.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) has seen better days. As his obsession with exposing the diabolical plot of the well-respected Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) threatens to overwhelm him, his former partner, Doctor James Watson (Jude Law), gets married, leaving Holmes feeling quite alone. But when he learns that Moriarty intends to murder Watson, Holmes hastily throws together a plan that sends Watson’s wife, Mary (), into hiding and brings the dynamic duo together for one last case. While unraveling an immense and complex tapestry that takes them all across a Europe that is on the brink of war, Holmes discovers that Moriarty’s schemes go deeper than even he could have ever imagined and he soon finds himself drawn into a game he isn’t entirely sure he can win.

I loved the first Sherlock Holmes and it shocked me to learn that there are a large number of people who do not share my love. I’m not saying these naysayers are wrong; I’m just saying that everyone I know personally is a fan of the film and it took me by surprise to look back at the reviews and see that many critics, both professionals and amateurs, that I trust really don’t care for Sherlock in the least. I found it to be a wildly entertaining film chock full of fun, easy wit, and a unique charm. It doesn’t hurt that RDJ is one of my very favorite actors but I think his interpretation of Holmes is fantastic and fresh. A Game of Shadows jumps right back into this fun, expansive world director Guy Ritchie built in the first film and this fact is both its biggest strength and greatest weakness.

When making a sequel, I think the toughest thing to do is determine what elements of the first film will be incorporated and what will be left alone. You don’t want to create an exact replica of what worked the first time around (see: The Hangover Part II) but you also don’t want to stray too far from what made the first film a success (see: Ocean’s 12). This is where A Game of Shadows stumbles. The cool slow-motion action sequences that worked so well in Sherlock, for example, are used again here, only this time they’re obviously less unique and therefore seem a bit reheated. There’s no questioning the skill behind the camera that goes into creating these scenes; it’s just that we’ve seen it done before now and this time around it seems somewhat lazy. Likewise, the whole “inner monologue played out on the screen” bit comes across as tired this time around and while Ritchie uses it well as the film progresses, the early instances are mediocre. At the same time, the dialogue is not nearly as witty and well-versed as it was in Sherlock Holmes and the plot is less enticing than I would have liked. Ritchie seems to struggle with deciding what to recreate and what to make new.

This doesn’t mean that A Game of Shadows is without merit. The dynamic that exists between RDJ and Law is worth the price of admission in and of itself. They have a genuine chemistry that displays itself time and time again throughout the film. Each outlandish sequence and plot twist is as enjoyable as they were in the first film and Ritchie again shows off an ability to create funny moments in the midst of would-be tense situations. Harris, too, provides a more than competent adversary for Holmes. If you know anything about the Holmes story within Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books, you know that Moriarty was Holmes’ equal intellectually and that equality plays out nicely within A Game of Shadows, though I personally like Holmes more when he’s fighting to disprove the supernatural rather than matching wits with a mere mortal. And as you would expect, the film’s reveal, the final moments in which Holmes brings all of his questionable choices together to illuminate his master plan, is compelling.

All of this makes A Game of Shadows a quality film that is inferior to its predecessor. If you enjoyed the first film as I did, you will most likely enjoy this one as well. Just be prepared for a few sequelitis-related missteps and a somewhat less enthralling narrative.

Grade: B+

Top 10 Performances of 2011

Every year, I find that the toughest end-of-year post for me to write is this one. Picking the worst movies I didn't see is pretty easy (coming up with something to write about each of them without cursing can be difficult) and my top 10 list usually comes down to figuring out the last movie to make the list. But judging performances is much more difficult. So many great films have more than one excellent performance, more than one actor who strikes a chord with me and deserves special mention. When I sat down to lay out the framework of this list, I wrote down 30 names. 30 names that had to be whittled down to 10. I've made my picks but if the years past are any indication, I'll probably want to come back and change a selection or two in a few months. But for now, please enjoy my 10 Favorite Performances of 2011 and be sure to tell me some of your own.

(NOTE: The key to this list is "favorite" not "best." Those two words will blend together a bit at times but it needs to be stated up front. There are a number of great performances from this year that are undoubtedly better than some of those listed here but these are the ones that I personally loved.)

Honorable Mention #1
The Cast of Crazy, Stupid, Love
I couldn't differentiate between the respective work done by Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Stone (et al). And I think that's what makes the film work; none of these characters really stand up on their own without the others. Carell yet again brings genuine heart to his role, Gosling displays a different element to his acting repertoire, and Stone is insanely charming. Loved them all.

Honorable Mention #2
Michael Stuhlbarg - Rene Tabard, Hugo
The only reason I left Stuhlberg off the list is because his character only graces the screen for about eight minutes total. Still, in the midst of an outstanding cast, it is Stuhlberg's work that stuck with me. For me, his character, a film preservationist and historian, represents Scorsese on-screen and his love for the cinema bleeds through in each of his limited scenes.

10. Joel Edgerton - Brendan Conlon, Warrior
Most people who saw Warrior would list Edgerton behind Tom Hardy and Nick Nolte as the best part of the movie. Nolte plays the drunk very well and Hardy brings the appropriate anger and detachment to his role, but without Edgerton's quiet desperation, this film becomes just another sports movie. I found his portrayal to be sobering and genuine and I thought he nailed the spirit of the underdog.

9. Anna Kendrick - Katherine, 50/50
Somewhere off in an alternate universe, there's an Anna Kendrick who cashed in her Twilight chips to star in a litany of embarrassingly bad rom-coms and craptastic teenager fare. Thankfully, the Anna Kendrick in this universe made the brilliant choice to exit the Twilight scene and take on movies like Up in the Air and 50/50. She has become one of my favorite actresses and her turn as a therapist in this movie was perfect for the narrative, providing Joseph Gordon-Levitt (more on him in a moment) with an excellent sounding board and a compassionate friend. Their awkward will-they-or-won't-they romance, too, is a real treat.

8. Tom Cruise - Ethan Hunt, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have to say it again: whatever you have against Cruise personally, you cannot deny that the dude brings it every single time. I'm not sure there's any action flick actor who wants his film to be good the way Cruise does. In Ghost Protocol, he goes all out in every scene and creates a presence for himself that he hasn't had in many years. I loved this movie but I think it comes up a bit short with many other quality actors in Cruise's place. Put simply, this is a boss action performance and I'm glad to have Cruise back at the top of his game.

7. Alan Rickman - Severus Snape, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
This one is sort of a cumulative mention. Over the course of the last 10 years of Harry Potter films, fans of the series were treated to a number of quality performances by some of the best actors in the business. None of them, in my mind, had as difficult a task as Rickman. Snape has to be a bad guy without really becoming a villain and his motives seemingly change so many times throughout the films, you can understand why Rickman was hesitant about accepting the role in the first place. Deathly Hallows 2 is Rickman's moment in the sun, his chance to shine and he comes through wonderfully. The scene in which Snape reveals, as it were, the truths about his relationship with Harry is exactly what I wanted it to be and I don't think it could have been nearly as impactful without 10 years of outstanding work from Rickman.

6. Shailene Woodley - Alexandra King, The Descendants
This is the performance that surprised me the most this year and it wasn't even close. If you would have told me at the beginning of the year that the girl from The Secret Life of the American Teenager, a show so bad that even my wife (who loves ALL high school-related dramas) couldn't watch two episodes, would make this list, I would have named you a liar and had you flogged. And now I would regret that action because you were right, friend who could see the future. Alexandra is foul-mouthed, ill-tempered, and embittered but she also displays genuine love for her father and sister. Putting that mix together and making it work is a tall order but Woodley does all of that and more. And her ability to hang with George Clooney throughout a number of one-on-one scenes is what takes this performance over the top. I can't wait to see what sort of future Woodley has ahead of her.

5. Michael Fassbender - Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto, X-Men: First Class
Perhaps this is a bit of an odd pick considering this is, after all, a superhero movie. But as has been proven time and time again, a superhero (or in this case, a group of superheroes) is only as good as the villain he battles. If Fassbender's performance in First Class is any indication, the X-Men better pick up their collective game in future installments of this series. The undercurrent of rage that runs through every action Magneto makes gives new life to a character that had already been done pretty stinking well by Ian McKellen. What I love about Fassbender is that no matter what his role, he forces the audience to pay attention to him. That's a valuable asset in any film but it's an unexpected and especially nice touch in a popcorn, comic book movie.

4. Viola Davis - Aibileen Clark, The Help
There's not a lot for me to say about Davis' work in this movie other than the following: for me, this is the best performance by a lead actress that I've seen in years. This is a strong and powerful portrayal that at times gave me chills. Just a beautiful job by Davis.

3. Joseph Gordon-Levitt - Adam, 50/50
I think future generations will look back at the collective, "Meh" our various award shows gave JGL's performance in 50/50 and wonder what exactly our problem was. I really don't understand it. I found his work to be so real, so genuine that at times I almost forgot I was watching a work of fiction, not a very well-cut documentary. JGL brought humanity to a truly demanding role (a 28 year-old cancer patient) and managed to make the audience both laugh and cry, occasionally at the same time. Throughout the film you can tell that Adam is just barely holding it together and that makes his eventual breakdown all the more powerful. I loved this movie and his performance and the fact that it's getting virtually no love makes me want to break things.

2. Gary Oldman - George Smiley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
There's a scene in TTSS in which Smiley is sitting in a dark room with his protege, Peter. He's had a couple of drinks and he begins telling Peter about the time he met Karla, the leader of the Soviet Union. And then he turns to this empty chair and begins talking to it as if Karla was in the room. He even offers the invisible man a cigarette. And it's the best scene in a terrific movie. That's how good Gary Oldman is. Here's this aging spy, surrounded by the furnishings of a crappy hotel room filled with smoke, talking to an empty chair and I was absolutely riveted. Can we please get this man an Oscar nomination now?

1. Ryan Gosling - Driver, Drive
Going in, I really didn't think Gosling had what it takes to pull off a good tough guy. He's just too pretty. Well I was wrong. In fact, it's almost impossible to describe how awesome Gosling is in this role. If I had one 2011 movie character to back me up in a fight (super powers aside), it would be Driver. Everything about him is both cool and terrifying. The determined manner in which he takes on a dangerous task, the driving gloves that he only puts on when he means business, and that satin jacket...this guy is a boss and there's no way around it. Gosling is able to convey SO MUCH about his character, his feelings, his intention, while speaking only a few, measured words and that Driver becomes this sort of quiet menace who no one really wants to mess with. It's not like Gosling was some unknown actor before Drive but his performance here served as an eye-opening experience for me, a demonstration as to just what this guy is capable of. It is a masterful performance and one that will stick with me for years to come.

Top 10 Movies of 2011

There's been a ton of blogosphere discussion over the last few weeks as to whether 2011 was good or bad for film. The box office definitely works in favor of the "bad" side of the argument as ticket sales plummeted to their lowest level in 15 years. The Academy Awards, too, seem to indicate a down year as we're likely to see less than the maximum ten films nominated for Best Picture and many of the acting award slots will be handed out almost by default (outside of the Best Actor race, which is thick). For me, though, 2011 was a deceptively strong year. From week to week, it was somewhat rough; I can't remember a year that held more, "I don't want to see any of these movies" weekends than this one did. But at the same time, most of the films I did see managed, at the very least, to provide acceptable entertainment and a number of this year's entries were quite good. I had real trouble deciding which films to put into the Top 10, an issue I don't usually have. I saw a lot of movies this year, I had a lot of fun in theaters, and I only had to see one movie in 3D. In my book, that equals a good year. Please enjoy my Top 10 Films of 2011.

Honorable Mention

Crazy, Stupid, Love - Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

Warrior and The Help deserve special mention as films that just missed consideration in my top 10 list. Both were exceptional films and Warrior is one I plan on seeing numerous times. But Crazy, Stupid, Love is the one that hurts to exclude. It is undoubtedly a flawed film but as I said in my initial review, the flaws just make this seem all the more realistic. These are real humans at work within CSL and all of them exhibit strengths and weaknesses throughout the movie. In addition, this movie served as a reminder to me that Ryan Gosling is an incredible actor (more on him in a moment). This is easily the best date movie since 500 Days of Summer.

10. Super 8 - Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler

This was the best movie from the first half of the year in my opinion. It contains a fantastic story, some seriously good special effects, and surprisingly good acting across the board. The combination of Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams plays out more beautifully than I could have imagined and every moment of Super 8 wreaks of these two great filmmakers. Elements of Cloverfield, E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me are at play here and they all blend together seamlessly.


9. Tree of Life - Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken
I debated on where to put Tree of Life on this list. I could have gone as high as second or as low as ten. My opinion on what I think this movie is really about changes on a daily basis but there's absolutely no denying the fact that is a remarkably well-made film. There was a great differing of opinion regarding Tree of Life that waged all year. I've seen it on the top of many "best of" lists but it also occupied a spot on some "worst of" entries. But more than any other movie this year, this is one that you simply have to see for yourself before you form an opinion. The performances are all great, of course, but for me, Tree of Life is all about Terrence Malick. This is clearly a very personal film and one that probably hits closer to home in more ways than I could ever understand. It is also one of the most beautiful films I have EVER seen.

8. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner
This is the most surprising film of the year for me. As a fan of the previous Mission: Impossible installments, I expected to enjoy this movie and then forget about it until it popped up on TNT in three years. Instead, I was treated to one of the more intelligent, pulse-pounding action movies in recent memory. I'm pretty easy to please when it comes to action flicks (as my love for the Fast and Furious movies will attest) but this is an entirely different animal. Ghost Protocol also reintroduces the world to Cruise, who never really went away but certainly needed a hit. If you haven't seen this film yet and you're not sure how you feel about Cruise, action flicks, or anything else, just trust me and go see it now while it's still in theaters. So. Much. FUN.

7. Hugo - Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace-Moretz, Ben Kingsley
Probably the most complex kid's movie ever, Hugo grabbed hold of me from the very beginning. I loved it and I was fully invested in the narrative involving Hugo's quest to unlock the secret of his father's automaton. When the story shifted and becomes more and more Martin Scorsese's ode to the pioneers of film, my affection only deepened. Hugo is beautiful, exquisitely directed (duh), and extremely personal. It bums me out that this film so few viewers but if you get a chance to check it out, I encourage you to do so.

6. The Muppets - Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper
I so badly wanted this movie to be good that I was actually nervous for the week leading up to its release. I loved the Muppets as a kid and still make a point of watching The Muppet Christmas Carol every year. "Life is just better with the Muppets", I've always said. To call The Muppets a success would be the understatement of the year. It embodies all of the nostalgic goodness of the original Muppet entries while offering a few new angles that make this a decisively refreshing experience. The music is incredible and it is unquestionably the most fun I had in a movie theater this year (and maybe significantly longer).

5. The Descendants - George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Judy Greer
When I walked out of my screening for The Descendants, I thought I had just seen the eventual Best Picture winner. I've cooled off of that feeling a bit since then but even still, this is an outstanding film. It is at times difficult to watch as it operates within an often dreary atmosphere and yet director Alexander Payne manages to find humor at just the right times to prevent his movie from becoming depressing. Clooney provides yet another Oscar-caliber performance but the real story is Woodley. In multiple scenes, she goes toe-to-toe with Clooney, a member of Hollywood's royalty, and holds her own. Without her performance, I think The Descendants still nets Clooney a Best Actor nomination but the film itself would fall flat.

4. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Gary Oldman, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth
I'm pretty sure I mentioned this film more than any other film in 2011 with the possible exception of Harry Potter. I was borderline obsessed with it, so much so that I penned 1,500 words about it when I realized I wouldn't be able to see it until a month after its release. I built TTSS up in my mind so much that I didn't think it could possibly live up to expectations...and then it totally did. Intelligent, complex, and tense, TTSS gives new meaning to the term "slow burn" and yet it is incredibly engrossing. The cast is amazing, headlined by the Great Chameleon, Gary Oldman. An absolute must-see for any Oldman fan and (I really hope) the film that finally gets the man an Oscar nomination.

3. 50/50 - Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick
I had the good fortune of seeing 50/50 about six weeks before it opened in theaters. I laughed, I cried, and I came away so impressed that I went back to see it on opening weekend. This is a crowning achievement in filmmaking from top to bottom. JGL is perfect in his role as a cancer-stricken 28 year-old and Rogen shows exactly what he's capable of in the right director's hands. More importantly, though, 50/50 is able to both explore a very tough subject and laugh at the disease itself. It is never insensitive but neither is it pious as it manages to strike the perfect balance. Obviously I have two more films to go but when I look back on 2011, I believe 50/50 will be the first film that comes to mind.

2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Look, I'm biased and I know it. All cards on the table, this film would have had to have been TERRIBLE to miss out on making this list. I admit it. Even still, Deathly Hallows II was everything I could have hoped for in a finale. It brought so many moments to life in just the right ways and serves as a perfect cap to an outstanding series of films. In the future, I'll consider Part I and Part II one big movie (like I do with The Lord of the Rings) and I think that's a darn good movie. But this installment is where the real meat and potatoes comes into play and where the series makes its biggest impact.

1. Drive - Ryan Gosling, Carey Milligan, Albert Brooks
It shocks me to my very core that Drive has been shut out of contention for most major awards. This is exactly the type of film that I would expect committee members to love and yet it has been overlooked over and over again. At the same time, it is an absolute thrill that this film found a fairly significant audience. It's an example of what can happen when Hollywood gives us a chance to embrace this sort of indie film. This is not a movie for everyone due to its stripped-down dialogue and hyper-violence but if you can get past those potential stumbling blocks, it's a phenomenal film. Drive left as much if not more of an indelible mark upon me as any film this year. I loved it. I love the simplistic script, the synthesized soundtrack, and of course, the magnificent central character, Driver. Gosling freaking kills it in this role and embodies every aspect of his character's deceptively multi-faceted persona. For lack of a better term, Drive is just cool, one or two tiny missteps away from a true masterpiece.

The 15 Worst Movies I Didn't See in 2011

For the last few years, I have done a post similar to the one you're about to read; it's one of my favorite things to write each year. The concept is based upon a simple principle: I'm good at avoiding bad movies. Someday (read: "never") I'll be paid to write about movies and when that happens, I guess I'll have to accept that this will mean watching a ton of horrible films. But until that time, I'll continue to stay away from the worst-of-the-worst (unless, of course, it involves a superhero, a post-apocalyptic vision of the future, or buddy-comedy shenanigans, all of which I can't resist) and pen this end-of-the-year column. A couple of rules. 1.) I exclude horror movies because I dislike the genre as a whole and it's too easy to pick on Shark Night 3D. 2.) I exclude small films like I Melt with You and Atlas Shrugged because, as bad as those films undoubtedly are, no one cares about them and they're not fun to write about.

Usually this list is ten entries long. 2011, however, was an odd year. We were treated to a number of seriously entertaining films and a large group of quality indie films broke made a significant impact on the industry as a whole. But 2011 also provided an abnormally large number of truly horrible films that you couldn't pay me to see. (Note: if someone would like to pay me to see these movies, you could totally pay me to see these movies.) So I had to cheat a little in order to ensure that none of these films missed out on the attention they so rightly deserve. I present to you The 15 Worst Films I Didn't See in 2011. Enjoy.

Honorable Mention Quick Hits:
Passion Play - Mickey Rourke, Megan Fox, Bill Murray 
Megan Fox as a stripper with angel wings attached to her back. That is all I need say, right?

Sanctum - Rhys Wakefield, Richard Roxburgh, Ioan Gruffudd
Because anytime you can make a 3D adventure about euthanasia, you have to do it.

The Dilemma - Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Winona Ryder
The entire film is built around the internal conflict a man feels over whether or not he should tell his best friend that his friend's wife is cheating on him. Yes, you should. BOOM. Dilemma over.

Conan the Barbarian - Jason Momoa, Ron Perlman, Rose McGowan
The beginning and end of the Momoa bandwagon.

Your Highness - Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman
Who doesn't want to watch a stoner comedy set in a fictitious Medieval kingdom that simultaneously destroys all the good a Best Actress Oscar did for Portman's career? Wait, no one wants to see that? Gotcha.

15. Johnny English Reborn - Rowan Atkinson, Rosamund Pike, Dominic West
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 38%
Domestic Gross: $8.3m
There are few things worse in this world than a sequel to a movie that comes out half a decade or more after an original film that didn't make any money. (The exception to this rule will be the Serenity sequel should it ever come into existence.) For once, though, you can blame Europe instead of America for the dumbing down of the world because while neither of the Johnny English films have managed to break even domestically, they make bank overseas. In my Weekend Movie Guide which corresponded to the opening of Reborn, I attempted to make a deal with Europe that would prevent any more of these films from ever seeing the light of day over here. I have yet to hear back from them.

14. Drive Angry - Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 45%
Domestic Gross: $10.7m
I'd like to give you one of my tips for avoiding bad movies: if you see a trailer for a given movie and, at any point, Nicolas Cage pops his head into the frame, the movie is going to be awful. It's just science. Drive Angry is classic 21st century Cage and I mean that in the worst way possible. This was also a tremendous failure at the box office, drawing in only about half of its $50 million budget worldwide. Ouch. Last but not least, let's have a brief look at the films of Patrick Lussier, director of Drive Angry: Dracula 2000, White Noise 2, My Bloody Valentine, and this. I'm sensing a trend...

13. Abduction - Taylor Lautner, Lily Collins, Sigourney Weaver, Alfred Molina
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 4%
Domestic Gross: $28m
You know who cannot possibly be taken seriously as an action star? Taylor Lautner. Just listen to that kid's voice and try to be intimidated. It's not happening. The concept is decent enough that you can see why quality actors like Molina and Weaver signed on for this project but wow, this thing went south in a hurry. Also worth special mention: Abduction gets credit for having one of the worst trailers of the year as it completely gives away the "plot" within the first 30 seconds. Bravo. The only good thing about this movie is that American audiences didn't go to see it, suggesting that we're probably done with Lautner when The Twilight Saga finally ends.

12. Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son - Martin Lawrence, Brandon T. Jackson
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 5%
Domestic Gross: $37.9m
"Man, you know what this world needs? Another Big Momma's House movie. Those were the best!" This is a sentence that no one has ever said. For what it is, the first Big Momma movie wasn't bad. The sequel was atrocious. I have no idea how this movie got the green light especially since no one even knows who Martin Lawrence is anymore. Please enjoy this quote from Kam Williams' (loop21.com) positive review, one of the few the Internet has to offer: "What's funnier than a black dude in drag? How about two black dudes in drag?" Enough said.

11. The Smurfs - Neil Patrick Harris, Katy Perry, Hank Azaria, Jayma Mays
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 23%
Domestic Gross: $142.6m
I don't want to be that guy but I guess I'm going to have to be: the cartoon Smurfs was awful. There, I said it. When the trailer for this movie started circulating I wondered aloud, "Who even liked the Smurfs as a kid?" The answer was just about everyone, shockingly enough. They always annoyed me. I don't think I ever watched Smurfs unless I was visiting my grandparents who only had four TV channels and the other options were morning news programs. Therefore, a 103-minute live action version seems a bit like torture. Unfortunately, it made so much money that we'll be treated to a second round of torture in 2013. As an aside, it hurts my soul that Jim Schembri of The Age said in his review that, "The Smurfs will likely be the best, most enjoyable kid film of 2011." No, sir, it will not.

10. Beastly - Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Hudgens, Mary-Kate Olsen, Neil Patrick Harris
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 19%
Domestic Gross: $27.8m
I'm still a little surprised that my wife didn't attempt to drag me to this one. She loves anything involving high school dramas, a subject that makes me want to die. All I really need to know about this movie is that Pettyfer and Hudgens are both miserable actors and that a high school version of Beauty and the Beast is really unnecessary. Apparently NPH gives a solid performance but when you're in two of the fifteen worst movies of the year, should I really care that your performance(s) is good? No.

9. Something Borrowed - Ginnifer Goodwin, John Krasinski, Kate Hudson
IMDB score: 5.6 
Domestic Gross: $39m
Here's the best story that popped up while writing this piece: Originally I had Something Borrowed ranked further up the list, somewhere in the 12-15 range. But then I looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes and found that it doesn't exist on the site. I searched for the title and when it wasn't there I went to the pages of each individual star of this movie. Something Borrowed is nowhere to be found. This is a website that lists pretty much every movie that has been made over the last decade (or more) but as far as they're concerned, Something Borrowed never happened. I'm sure this is just some sort of error and it will be corrected by the time of this publishing but for me, that was the icing on the cake and it demanded a bump up the list.

8. Season of the Witch - Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman, Claire Foy
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 10%
Domestic Gross: $24.8m
The chances of a movie being a real stinker rise dramatically when its release date gets moved around. Originally slated for a March, 2010 release, it was then moved to an unspecified late 2010 date, and then dumped unceremoniously into the first week of January, also known as "The Bone Yard", the place where movies go to die. I can picture studio executives watching Season of the Witch and nervously looking around the room at each other, wondering which one of them would be fired. If there's anything we can depend on Cage for these days, it's that he'll do his best to make sure every movie he's in is comically bad.

7. Zookeeper - Kevin James, Rosario Dawson, Leslie Bibb
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 14%
Domestic Gross: $80.3m
I've never understood the Kevin James fascination. Hitch is a decent enough movie but after that, what is his major contribution to film? Paul Blart? Grown Ups? Am I missing something here? Loads of people go to see his movies but I don't think I've ever enjoyed one of them. The idea of watching a Kevin James in a movie in which he converses with a gorilla about the merits of TGIFridays...I just don't get it.

6. Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil - Hayden Panettiere, Glenn Close, Patrick Warburton
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 11%
Domestic Gross: $10.1m
This is the third and final sequel to a film that opened at least five years after the original (Hoodwinked debuted in 2005). So if someone in Hollywood is reading this post, clearly this strategy is a serious risk. More importantly, the animation displayed in this movie's trailer is embarrassingly bad. It's blocky and unclear, as if it was recovered from a vault, locked away in 1965. But what really makes Hoodwinked such an easy pick for this list is the title which contains not one, but two word plays. One would probably have been enough to draw my ire but two...well, two is just asking for it. I openly rooted for this movie's failure and seeing as how its worldwide take was only about half of it's $30 million budget, I think I won.

5. I Don't Know How She Does It - Sarah Jessica Parker, Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 18%
Domestic Gross: $9.6m
You could smell the simmering pot of cliches contained within this one from a mile away. Apparently even the "Girls Night Out" crowd picked up on that aroma considering how poorly IDKHSDI performed at the box office. And if Sarah Jessica Parker can't bring in that crowd, then really, what good is she?

4. New Year's Eve - Ashton Kutcher, Zac Efron, Jessica Biel
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 7%
Domestic Gross: $29.3m
I'd like to take a moment to explain to director Garry Marshall why nobody went to see his movie. Even if it hadn't been a semi-sequel to Valentine's Day, one of the worst reviewed films of 2010, and even if the trailer didn't peg it as the biggest pointless money grab of the year, people might have still gone to see your film, Garry, if not for the awful cast. A list of names involved with this movie: Ashton Kutcher. Zac Efron. Jessica Biel. Lea Michele. Halle Berry. Robert De Niro. Sarah Jessica Parker. Abigail Breslin. Michelle Pfeiffer. Common. Jon Bon Jovi. Katherine Heigl. Hilary Swank. Sofia Vergara. Do you see where I'm going here? Once upon a time some of those names could have brought in an audience. But not in 2011. Heigl and Efron are the closest to current movie stardom but even their values are rapidly diminishing. Add in that abortion of a trailer and you've got the making for a tremendous flop. Please stop making movies, Garry.

3. Jack and Jill - Adam Sandler, Al Pacino, Katie Holmes
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 4%
Domestic Gross: $71m
It makes me sad that Adam Sandler had a hand in no less than three movies on this list (Zookeeper, Jack and Jill, and our number one selection). Once upon a time I loved the guy. Now I wish he would go the Sean Connery route and stop making movies altogether. Jack and Jill received exactly three fresh reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Two of them were of the, "It's not good but I laughed a few times" variety. The other is a rousing endorsement from Mr. Michael A. Smith of Mediamikes.com. Looking in on Smith's reviews, I see he did not like Drive or Tree of Life. So to sum up: Jack and Jill - YES, Drive/Tree of Life - NO. Alright then. The only good thing about this movie is that it was dumbed down enough to get a PG rating and therefore qualify as an actual kid's movie. I don't know why that matters to me but some reason it seems slightly important.

2. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I - Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 26%
Domestic Gross: $268.8m
I've never included one of the Twilight films on my "Worst Of.." lists before, partly because there are usually ten movies that seem worse and partly because it's almost too easy, cliche even, to bash on Twilight. It's low hanging fruit. That changed this year because of the first trailer which is EASILY the worst of the year. The first time I saw it, I literally thought I was seeing a preview for the newest Scary Movie. I'm not joking. It was not until Taylor Lautner appeared on screen that I realized this was an actual movie, not a rip off. The fact that the studio behind Twilight looked at this trailer and thought, "Yes, that's exactly what we want to convey to our potential audience" confirms every negative feeling I've ever had toward this franchise. Add in the birth scene which has been known to cause seizures and you've got yourself a wretched movie.

1. Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star - Nick Swardson, Don Johnson, Christina Ricci
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 0%
Domestic Gross: $2.5m
When I started making this list, Bucky Larson was the first movie that came to mind. In fact, for a while, I contemplated skipping the list altogether and writing a diatribe about how appalling this movie really seems to be. There is so much I'd like to say about this movie but in order to keep this brief, I'm just going to list my three favorite things concerning the Bucky Larson phenomenon.

1.) Despite a HEAVY advertising campaign, it topped out at 1,500 theaters (Jack and Jill went out to 3,400+ theaters) and was down to about seven theaters within a week. With this limited run, it couldn't even recoup its exceptionally meager $10 million budget.

2.) I trashed Bucky Larson so frequently and with such venom that at one point, I was followed by The official Twitter feed of the movie. It's funny enough that I mentioned this heap of crap enough times to garner a follow but here's the kicker: whoever is in charge of the Bucky Larson Twitter feed started sending mean-spirited comments in response to my trashing of the movie! Hilarious.

3.) But most importantly, Bucky Larson revived my faith in the American moviegoer. No one, and I mean NO ONE, went to see this movie. Collectively, America watched the trailer and said, "That has to be the worst movie ever made" and everyone left it to sit alone in its own filth. Well done, America. I've never been prouder.

Review: "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

I was hooked on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy from my first viewing of the trailer. Everything about it, from the gritty film print to the unmistakable voice of John Hurt down the pulsating background music, was exhilarating. Oh, and then there’s Gary Oldman. No actor draws me in quite like Oldman and Oldman in a rare starring role is even more appealing. I looked forward to TTSS more than any other film of 2011 (outside of Harry Potter) and built it up so much in my mind that there was no way it could ever live up to my expectations. Or so I thought.

In the midst of the Cold War, the head of MI6, Control (John Hurt), becomes aware of a mole within his organization. The operation to unearth the spy goes terribly wrong, however, and Control is forced to resign along with George Smiley (Oldman), a member of “The Circus” (MI6’s inner circle) and Control’s man through and through. A year later, Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy), a field agent who was previously under Control’s authority, comes out of hiding and brings with him the renewed belief that one of the members of The Circus is indeed a traitor. With nowhere else to turn, Smiley is brought on board to investigate the claims and root out the mole. As he delves into the work of The Circus and a particular operation known as Witchcraft, Smiley finds himself caught up in an increasingly complex web of lies and cover-ups that threaten to bring the world to the brink of yet another war.

TTSS is the anti-Bourne, the anti-Bauer, and certainly the anti-Bond. I thoroughly enjoy those characters and their respective franchises but this is an entirely different sort of spy film. You could almost believe that TTSS is based on a true story. It is a real espionage thriller and one that stands up against the best of the genre. This is the definition of a slow burn with a narrative that moves at a snail’s pace. But that isn’t to say that it is boring or that it lacks in drama. While there are no fiery explosions, no nuclear threats, and very few shootings, it is still taut and riveting, the type of film that has you on the edge of your seat without you even realizing it. TTSS builds its tension through its masterful storytelling that mixes in timely flashbacks while constantly moving the narrative forward. This is a layered, deep, and complicated film but director Tomas Alfredson and his team of writers never make a misstep or allow the film to become overly convoluted. This is a thinking man’s spy thriller, a film for adults, but it isn’t so complex that you can’t follow along, a fact that I truly appreciate. Every scene and every line of dialogue is carefully crafted and nothing goes to waste, the mark of a great film. In essence, this is really about as good as it gets from a storytelling standpoint.

For all the good of the story, however, TTSS would fail without a killer cast. Fortunately, Alfredson assembled an impeccable and diverse group of actors who fit their characters beautifully. You know what you’re getting from reliable veterans like Oldman, Hurt, and Firth (I’m not sure when exactly Firth went from a ho-hum likeable guy in romantic comedies to a tour de force in meaningful films like this but I dig the change) but Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch provide a bit of youthful exuberance to balance out the reserved nature of the older stars. Cumberbatch in particular is a spectacular addition. His character, Peter Guillam, is sort of the audience’s representative, as his sense of wide-eyed bewilderment at the grimy reality of espionage adds yet another element to the mix at work within TTSS. Every member of the cast comes through with flying colors, each delivering a powerful performance.

But at the end of the day, this is Oldman’s show and he makes the absolute most of it. Smiley basically doesn’t speak for the first 20 minutes of the film and even after that his words are limited, calculated. And yet the entire time, Oldman commands attention. He is quietly calm in all situations and gives the impression that you had better listen closely to everything he says. So much information is conveyed without words and so much of the film’s success depends on Smiley’s ability to create a real presence. Even when he doesn’t have the answer to the riddle set before him, Smiley displays a keen understanding of the world he is working within and for me, that sense of, “this guy knows what he’s doing” only adds to Oldman’s on-screen power. It’s not just that Smiley knows what needs to be done; it’s that he knows what the cost will be to get it done. This is an incredibly challenging and understated role and one that I think a number of very talented actors would struggle with. Instead, Oldman revels in the difficulty, giving a flawlessperformance. Deliberating over Oldman’s best role is like picking which of Michael Jordan’s six championships is his best (it’s the third one, by the way) but Oldman’s work in TTSS should be held up as a work of art, a masterful portrayal that should not be overlooked in February.

Grade: A

Review: "We Bought a Zoo"

I think making a family-friendly movie that is also significant is one of the harder tasks a filmmaker can undertake. Making a film that appeals to a wide range of demographics is difficult enough but when you factor in the need to entertain both six and sixty year-olds, you’ve got a tough task ahead of you. This is why Pixar succeeds every year (2011 excluded) whereas Dreamworks is hit or miss, why I’ll see The Muppets a hundred times but will never again take in Bedtime Stories. We Bought a Zoo illustrates these difficulties in some spectacular and truly frustrating ways.

Our protagonist is Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon), an adventure writer who recently became a widower. His daughter, six year-old Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), has handled the loss well but Benjamin is constantly at odds with his son, 14 year-old Dylan (Colin Ford). When Dylan finally gets himself expelled from school, Benjamin decides it’s time for a change and after an exhausting search for a new house, he finally finds the perfect home. The only problem is that the property comes along with a small zoo, including 47 species of animals and a crew of employees. Despite the obstacles and the advice of his brother (Thomas Haden Church), Benjamin opts to buy the zoo and takes his children off on an adventure that will bring more drama than he could ever dream of along with the healing he and his family so badly need.

I’m a huge fan of writer/director Cameron Crowe and I readily look forward to anything and everything that he does. This outing certainly won’t change that feeling but it isn’t one of his better works. Simply put, We Bought a Zoo wants desperately to be both family-friendly and cinematically relevant and that mix just doesn’t blend seamlessly. Crowe’s usual brand of fresh, casual, and well-versed dialogue is muddled with predictable clichés. It often borders on becoming cheesy and it is almost always cloying, working extra-hard to force a connection that isn’t always there. There are a number of scenes which are just fine in terms of post-Christmas feelgoodery but fall flat in terms of really mattering. This uneven mix seems to negatively affect some characters and actors more than others. Ford and John Michael Higgins (as a zoo inspector) both jump back and forth between good and bad scenes and Elle Fanning, who was so good in this summer’s Super 8, doesn’t have any feel for her character whatsoever. I think she’s supposed to be the teenage version of the manic pixie dream girl but instead she just comes off as an idiot. Add in a will-they-won’t-they romantic relationship between Benjamin and his head zookeeper, Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), that would have been better off left on the cutting room floor and you get a cliché-riddled narrative that doesn’t do much to inspire.

When We Bought a Zoo excels is when it gets real. Damon gives a subtle, craftsman-like performance and does an outstanding job of conveying an awful lot about his character in unspoken ways. You genuinely feel for Benjamin and it is the genuine sympathy that Damon elicits that serves as an example of what could have been had the film gone in a different direction. Interactions between Benjamin and Dylan and Benjamin and Kelly in the second act are powerful, filled with emotion that is wholly appropriate for the situation. There’s a story arc involving Benjamin’s relationship with an aging tiger that hits home on a number of levels. The flip side of this is that these moments are much more tense and dramatic than the family-fun exhibited throughout the rest of the film and if Crowe had continued to expound upon these plot points, there’s no way We Bought a Zoo would succeed with the kiddos.

It should be noted that none of this film’s issues are deal breakers. It is funny, entertaining, and totally acceptable family film that never allows its flaws to become cringe-worthy or painful. In essence, it is Dolphin Tale and there’s nothing wrong with Dolphin Tale. But with Crowe, Damon, and a potentially impactful subject matter involved, it could have been better than it is.

Grade: B 

In Home Viewings Review: "30 Minutes or Less"

Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) is a pizza delivery guy with exceedingly low ambitions, one of those guys who doesn't really enjoy what he's doing but doesn't have the drive to change it. With his best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) not speaking to him and his semi-girlfriend moving, things can't get much worse in Nick's mind. That soon changes, however, when he takes a late-night delivery run to a construction site and finds himself confronted by Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson), two would-be thieves in gorilla masks. In order to obtain the money needed to get a business idea off the ground, Dwayne and Travis strap a home-made bomb to Nick's chest and force him to rob a bank. Frantic, Nick enlists the help of Chet and the pair stumble through a series of obstacles on the way to pulling off a heist and subsequent money exchange.

There were reasons to think that 30 Minutes or Less would be a solid comedy. The reunion of Eisenberg with director Ruben Fleischer was one reason. Their compilation in Zombieland was nothing short of hilarious and that film itself ranks exceptionally high on the re-watchability scale. Then there is the inclusion of Aziz, one of the single funniest humans on the planet. (If you need references on that statement, look no further than his brilliant portrayal on Park and Recreation or his most recent stand-up album which might be one of the best ever). The concept itself has appeal and potential as a perfect way to spend an evening. Where 30 Minutes succeeds is when these three elements come together: the best portions of the concept come alive when it is just Eisenberg and Ansari working together and running through crazy situations. One stretch in particular that sees the pair buy all the necessary equipment for a heist followed by the robbery itself is quite humorous and serves as a taste of what could have been.

But here's why Zombieland works while 30 Minutes falls flat: Woody Harrelson and Emma Stone (not to mention an unnamed cameo in case anyone out there hasn't seen the movie). The supporting characters at play in Zombieland are fantastic, whereas this time around Fleischer surrounds his leads with McBride, Swardson, and Michael Pena, a threesome that is rarely funny in my book. (McBride has his moments but generally speaking, he is at his best when he's the eighth-billed actor. Examples: Tropic Thunder and Up in the Air.) To make matters worse, Fleischer insists on developing a pointless storyline involving Dwayne and Travis that brings absolutely nothing to the movie other than lengthening the runtime. Every moment within 30 Minutes that is spent away from Nick and Chet is at best lackluster and at worst barely watchable. It's quite clear that Fleischer and his team of writers couldn't draw enough out of the main plotline to fill 83 minutes so they turned to the side plots that do nothing but distract from the central figures. As a result, the Dwayne and Travis narrative comes across as nothing more than filler. And let's be honest: if you need filler for an 83 minute movie, your movie isn't very good.

Grade: C

Review: "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol"

NOTE: If you have the opportunity to view Ghost Protocol in an IMAX setting, I encourage you to do so. It is the type of experience that could prove to be a game-changer for the industry. 

Say what you will about Tom Cruise (and there’s an awful lot that could be said). For me, his name has always been synonymous with, “entertaining.” For all his shortcomings, including his inability/refusal to incorporate appropriate accents and his wackadoo personal life, he makes wholly entertaining movies. From Top Gun to Knight and Day, he has put together a three decade-long career that is chock full of thrilling excitement. You can’t always say that his films are good but very rarely can you deny the man his ability to enthrall the masses. Ghost Protocol, then, serves as a return to form and a pronouncement to the man’s detractors that Tom Cruise is still a force to be reckoned with.

At the outset, we find Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) locked away in a Russian prison. Within minutes (really seconds), however, his old pal Benji (Simon Pegg) and newcomer Jane (Paula Patton) have busted him out in order for Hunt to resume his duties at IMF. He and his team immediately take on a new assignment that unfortunately goes quite bad, resulting in their being framed for the bombing of the Kremlin. Having been disavowed by the US government, the trio, along with the help of William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an analyst with a mysterious past, is forced to go on the run, one step ahead of Russian operatives who would see them brought to justice. In an effort to both clear their names and, you know, save the world and all, Hunt and his comrades pursue Alex Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), a nuclear extremist bent on destroying civilization as we know it, using a variety of elaborate and frantic methods in a host of exotic locations.

As an action movie junkie, I have a healthy respect for two of the previous three Mission: Impossible films. The first M:Iis the prototypical mid-‘90s action flick, smarter than what we were treated to in the ‘80s but not quite intelligent enough to fit our standards in a post-Inception world. M:I2 is a heap of rubbish, plain and simple. From a plot standpoint, M:I3 is the best of the group and it’s a movie I quite like though I believe I am in the minority. Even still, the Mission: Impossible franchise has long been just another set of action movies that blends together with a host of other acceptable-to-above-average entertaining exhibitions in special effects.

Ghost Protocolis different, however. MUCH different. This is the very rare sequel to a sequel to a sequel that is by far and without question, the best of the group (see also: Fast Five). No longer can this series be relegated to the overcrowded ranks of “fun-but-forgettable” action flicks. Ghost Protocol is a clever cross between Bourne and Bond with a touch of cool intelligence that is reminiscent of Ocean’s 11. This is a much smarter film than the average action movie, much of which should be attributed to director Brad Bird (Incredibles). “Smart” should not be confused with “complex” or “real”; Ghost Protocol has more than its fair share of plot points that could be blasted for inaccuracies and absurd stunts that could never, ever happen. But these potential issues are presented in such an overwhelmingly appealing way that it seems foolish to quibble when it’s so much easier to just get on board. The gadgets and technologies used by the team are better than anything James Bond ever had at his disposal and each item is used splendidly. In essence, this is a popcorn blockbuster with a Pixar brain, which turns out to be just as glorious as it sounds.

From the opening shot, Ghost Protocol moves a mile a minute and delivers some of the most ambitious action sequences of the year. The impact of this movie goes deeper than the outlandish stunts, however. It would be easy to film what will undoubtedly be an awesome scene and leave it at that. But Bird and his crew take these shots to a whole new level with impeccable technical work. The cinematography and shot selection are about as good as you can ask for in a blockbuster. Some of the camera work, especially the scenes in Dubai, is absolutely stunning. Likewise, the sound mix is perfect, adding to the impact of each gun shot, car crash, and punch to the jaw. These elements serve to put the audience into the heart of the action and give the impression that Bird cared about creating a great film not just a passable popcorn flick.

The supporting cast around Cruise rounds into form nicely, coming together to make up Hunt’s best team yet. Pegg’s brand of comedic relief is predictable but nonetheless enjoyable and he displays a little more grit than he has in the past. Patton is a welcome addition and she brings real value to her role, the rare female action hero who actually carries her weight. This is what I think Zoe Saldana is supposed to be and I look forward to seeing more of her in the future. And then, of course, there’s Renner who plays slightly against type and, while he’s certainly not reinventing the wheel, he displays enough quiet power behind his character’s lack of confidence to make his role work very well.

But Ghost Protocol goes nowhere without a strong lead and Cruise is more than up to the challenge. I have always been a serious fan of the man and I feel like he’s gotten an unfair shake over the last half-decade or so. What I have always appreciated about Cruise is his earnest desire to make his movies great (whether he succeeds or not). A buddy of mine hit the nail on the head regarding Cruise when he said that he always tries really hard. Every movie, every scene, every shot, Cruise strives to make it the best he’s ever done. I think he truly cares about his films in a way that most movie stars do not. Ghost Protocol is no exception as Cruise goes after every scene like it’s the one that will bring home an Oscar. For me, it is this commitment to the moment that sells Ghost Protocol as more than just a run-of-the-mill action movie and makes it one of the most deliciously appealing, wonderfully entertaining, and decidedly multi-dimensional films of the year.

Grade: A

The Collected Works: Cameron Crowe

Whenever anyone asks me who my favorite underrated director is (this has happened all of twice), I always respond with the same answer: Cameron Crowe. Underrated might be the wrong word but the point is, if you asked 25 film buffs to make a list of the top ten directors in the industry today, Crowe probably doesn't even come up. And I think that's wrong, especially if you made the list exclusive to writer-directors. He has an incredible ability to create characters that are inherently easy to invest in and therefore, he is able to connect with his audience in whatever setting he chooses to work in. Crowe is also, of course, a soundtrack marvel, the rare filmmaker who not only knows music but also knows how to use music. And that last part is the key. Crowe always gets credit for picking great songs but the reason those songs are so great is because they fit the film, the scene, the moment. He does this better than anyone else. Crowe loves music and he loves film, two things I happen to love myself. (If he ever makes a sports movie and combines my three pastimes, my head will probably explode upon viewing the first trailer.) With We Bought a Zoo opening this weekend (Crowe's first non-documentary since 2004), I thought it prudent to take a brief look back at the director's career and consider the merits (and faults) of each of his films (excluding documentary features).

6. Vanilla Sky (2001) - Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz
I just rewatched this film for the first time in about a decade and I have to say, it's not nearly as bad as I remembered. It isn't good, you understand, but I've been pegging it as "terrible" whereas in reality, it's only "below average." Vanilla Sky has some promising concepts at its core and I actually think Cruise delivers an earnest, quality performance. It is so overly complex, however, that it quickly becomes convoluted and tiresome. I can understand why Crowe took on the project and why he would want to stretch himself. But the film seems unsure of itself and I think that's indicative of Crowe's feelings. In a post-Inception world, there's a place for Vanilla Sky but it simply couldn't work (at least in this configuration) in 2001.

5. Say Anything (1989) - John Cusack, Ione Skye, John Mahoney
I saw this movie for the first time only a year or so ago and therefore my opinion of it is probably somewhat lower than those who experienced it as teenagers. I don't think it's one of Crowe's better films but it is one of the better performances by Cusack. His boombox-over-the-head scene is iconic, of course, but it is his disaffected, directionless persona that makes Say Anything work. His "plans for the future" diatribe is one of my favorite scenes from the '80s.

4. Singles (1992) - Campbell Scott, Kyra Sedgwick, Bridget Fonda, Matt Dillon
Like Say Anything, I was late to the party on Singles. In fact, I just watched it for the first time all the way through a few days ago. The feeling I get from this film is that it is a personal project trying not to be a personal project. Crowe was living in the Seattle area at the time of its filming and wanted to do something about the burgeoning grunge music scene. Personally, I would watch a movie about a fictitious band or group of bands coming together in early '90s Seattle but maybe I'm alone in that. Anyway, the interconnected story lines of several twentysomethings are woven together nicely and the occasional fauxumentary interviews that pop up from time to time are enjoyable. Pulling Eddie Vedder into the mix was a nice touch, too.

3. Jerry Maguire (1996) - Tom Cruise, Renee Zellweger, Cuba Gooding Jr.
It bothers me that it has become accepted, even expected, to bash on Jerry Maguire. Yes, it has been cheapened over the years by constant replays on TNT and yes, its more iconic lines have been spoofed a thousand times. But that's because it's a good movie. Crappy movies don't get replayed over and over or quoted in lame sitcoms. To me, the backlash against Jerry Maguire is like dissing a quality rock band because their song gets picked up on top 40 radio. It's not their fault that the song gets driven into the ground. I will always argue that if you woke up from a 15-year long coma and had never heard anyone say, "Show me the money", you'd really dig Jerry Maguire. This is one of Cruise's better roles and perhaps the only time Zellweger hasn't made me want to punch a puppy.

2. Elizabethtown (2005) - Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst, Susan Sarandon
The difference between the dislike directed at Jerry Maguire and that aimed at Elizabethtown is that I understand it this time around. Elizabethtown is not for everyone; it moves at a snail's pace and if truth be told, it doesn't cover just a whole lot of ground. But that's what I love about it. Elizabethtown is primarily about self-discovery and sometimes self-discovery isn't a roller coaster of excitement and a whirlwind of activities. It also serves as Crowe's ode to the American road and it delves deep into the father-son relationship, a topic that goes uncovered in most of his other works. I will say that I think Bloom was a poor choice; it's not that he's bad so much as he just doesn't quite fit the character. But Dunst is near-perfect and the soundtrack is SPECTACULAR.

1. Almost Famous (2000) - Patrick Fugit, Kate Hudson, Billy Crudup
Just about anytime someone asks me to recommend a movie they might have missed somewhere along the line, I answer with Almost Famous. It is easily one of my ten favorite films of all-time and one of the few that I will hold up as a masterpiece. Based on Crowe's own experiences as a teenage journalist for Rolling Stone, Almost Famous is an exceptionally well-crafted film filled to the brim with powerhouse performances, exquisite dialogue, and brilliant music. Crowe put together a perfect cast and got the absolute best out of each member, especially Crudup (Russell Hammond is one of my favorite characters ever) and Hudson (go watch Something Borrowed and marvel at how Crowe managed to get that woman an Oscar nomination). Almost Famous isn't underrated, it is criminally underrated. This scene is just one of the many wonderful sequences contained within.

"War Horse" Review

Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of animals. I enjoy a good dog movie as much as the next guy and I think zoos are just swell. It may come as a surprise then to learn that I don’t care much for horses. I’ve just never understood their appeal. As such, horse movies haven’t historically been a favorite genre of mine. I enjoyed The Black Stallion as a kid but if I’m being honest, I think I liked that one because it had a scene or two involving a cobra and I was really into cobras at the time. But I’ve never been able to muster up much excitement for Seabiscuit, Secretariat, Hidalgo or any other horse-related movie you might name. I imagined, however, that War Horse would put these feelings to the test because if any storyteller could make me give a rip about horses, it would probably be Steven Spielberg. But were my imaginings proven true? Yes and no.

War Horse tells the story of World War I through the experiences of a very special horse. We open with an introduction to Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) and his beloved horse, Joey (worst horse name ever). After Albert’s father, Ted (Peter Mullan), foolishly purchases Joey, Albert trains the horse and teaches him to pull a plow despite not being the sort of work horse the family so desperately needs. The two are inseparable until the day comes that Ted is short on the rent and has to sell Joey to a British cavalry officer (Tom Hiddleston) who swears to take care of Joey and bring him back when the war is over. But war is an ugly affair, of course, and soon Joey sets off on a years-long journey that will see him change hands a half-dozen times and come close to death a hundred more while bringing him closer to being reunited with Albert than either man or beast could ever imagine.

What I enjoyed most about War Horse is exactly what I would have expected to be my least favorite part: the horse. Spielberg does a magnificent job of creating and honing the film’s tone to emphasize the horse properly without allowing that narrative to become tiresome. What I mean is, I think it is very easy in an animal-focused film to focus on said animal so much that it becomes difficult for the audience to relate. Instead, Spielberg uses the horse to shine a light on the lives of the people he comes in contact with and in doing so, allows for more opportunities for the audience to get invested (this works to varying degrees but more on that in a moment). As Joey moves from place to place, we are introduced to a litany of characters, most of whom are caught in some sad state of affairs, and all of whom are impacted in one way or another by the horse. It is a very intriguing and unique concept and one that Spielberg works well within.

As War Horse progresses, it gets stronger and hits its stride when Joey comes into the possession of a sickly French girl (Celine Buckens) and her grandfather (Niels Arestrup). Buckens is a real delight and her character plays well to the whimsy of the film’s lighter moments, providing one last breath of fresh air before War Horse truly delves into the darkness that is war. But while Joey finds himself in more and more dire situations, the film itself comes together nicely and it seemed to me that at this point, Spielberg found a comfortable groove that is missing in the early goings. In the third act we are treated to a series of scenes that reek of Spielberg in the very best sense of the word and display the true heart of the film. One sequence in particular, in which a British soldier and a German soldier meet on the field between their foxholes to come to Joey’s aid, is one that, in my mind, belongs on the Spielberg highlight reel. Indeed, there is an awful lot to like about War Horse in the final two acts.

What I did not enjoy about this film was that blasted first act. Early on, it is unclear whether War Horse intends to be a family-friendly, holiday movie or a hard-hitting war drama. In one scene a goose is chasing an unwanted guest through the Narracott’s yard and in the next we’re hit hard with the sobering reality of life below the poverty line. Later, Spielberg blunts the brutality of war in order to secure a PG-13 rating (which I understand) and then follows that up with the non-explicit but no less depressing execution of two young soldiers. In addition, I didn’t care for the shot selection in the first act, a shocking criticism considering I don’t believe I have ever questioned Spielberg’s work with the camera before. His persistent close-up of the plow as Joey pulls, for example, comes across as cheap and distracting and left me scratching my head. But perhaps the film’s biggest issue in the early stages is the performance of Irvine. I wouldn’t go so far as to say his portrayal is unwatchable but that terminology wouldn’t be too far off. Irvine had very little cinematic experience coming into War Horse and like the film, he gets better as he goes. But if I’m being completely honest, his work in the first act made me cringe more than once. I thought he was terrible.

All told, what you have with War Horse is a good film that is being treated as a great film because of its final act. If the audience in my theater is any indication, this is a film that has the power to invoke real emotion, enough to make you forget the lackluster first third. I won’t argue that Spielberg didn’t know how to blend the family-oriented portions of this film with the harsher realities of war contained in other parts but I would say that he tried too hard to reach out to everyone rather than focusing in on a target audience. A PG family film would have brought a ton of cash and an R-rated serious look at war through the eyes of the horse would have undoubtedly garnered serious award consideration. And hey, it’s entirely possible that he’ll be able to get both by splitting the difference; that combination just didn’t quite work for me.  It did, however, make me kind-of-sort-of care about a horse and that is somewhat of an achievement in and of itself. 

Grade: B

In Home Viewings Review: "The Change-Up"

Dave (Jason Bateman) and Mitch (Ryan Reynolds) live very different lives. Between the demands of his wife (Leslie Mann), his children, and soul-crushing job, Dave doesn't have enough hours in the day. Mitch, on the other hand, spends his time playing video games, smoking pot, and sleeping with a variety of women while waiting for his acting career to take off. On a rare night spent hanging out with one another, the two friends end up peeing in a fountain together (because, you know, that happens) and voicing a mutual desire to have the other's life. Of course, when they wake up, they have switched bodies, granting the hastily-made wish from the night before. But as they each go through a litany of shenanigans, they soon discover that their own lives weren't so bad after all.

I'd like to take a moment and list for you, dear readers, the reasons why I saw The Change-Up.

1.) I was bored (always a good start);
2.) I wanted to watch something that wasn't too serious, too time-consuming, or too intelligent. Usually in these situations I end up renting a bad action movie or a lame comedy;
3.) (And I swear this is the truth.) I've given out a ton of positive reviews lately. When I've seen so many good movies in a row and I start to feel like I'm becoming Peter Travers, I often feel the need to watch something terrible just so I can rail against it and feel better about myself.

That's the recipe for watching a crapfest like The Change-Up (and by the way, if that wasn't your recipe for seeing this movie, if you actually wanted to see it, we need to talk). It was essentially a personal challenge to see if I could make it through the are-you-serious-it's-that-long??? 112 minute runtime and a chance to use all my favorite negative adjectives, like "excruciating" and "painful." Mission accomplished. This movie is, to put it nicely, completely and totally worthless. I laughed only a handful of times and even those moments were semi-awful. The characters are miserable and while director David Dobkin would like you to invest in their transitions, they start off so low and unappealing that I found it impossible to care whether or not they'd get their lives together within the runtime (again, 112 minutes; that's only 9 minutes less than Star Wars). In addition, haven't we all had enough with the body switching plotline? I'd be fine if Hollywood retired this concept forever; it's tired.

My biggest issue with The Change-Up, however, is in its need to tie the whole mess up with a nice and neat, "everyone learned their lesson and became better people" bow. This is a conclusion that simply does not fit the tone of the movie. One of the things that made The Hangover so successful (besides being, you know, actually funny) is that the characters don't suddenly become great people because of the events of their night out. Sure, Stu comes back with a spine and Phil softens up a bit but there's no "moral of the story" ending because that doesn't fit the film. The Change-Up goes the exact opposite route, tacking on a conclusion that goes against the grain of the movie. As a result, the movie seems like a PG-13 movie that was raunchy-ed up to get an R-rating, which is one of my biggest pet peeves. Either go full bore into that realm or stay out of it altogether. Of course, nothing could have made The Change-Up worth seeing but it could have at least been tolerable. As it is, however, this is an abysmal movie that will certainly wind up on more than a few "worst of the year" lists.

Grade: D

In Home Viewings Review: "Beginners"

Growing up, Oliver Fields (Ewan McGregor) always felt there was something off about his parents' relationship. His father, Hal (Christopher Plummer), showed great affection for his family but was very distant and that left his mother (Mary Page Keller) often feeling alone. Stuck in the middle, Oliver internalized the lessons learned at home and as a thirtysomething in 2003, he lives a guarded life filled with broken relationships that he never really invested in. His way of living begins to change however, when Hal informs him that not only is he gay, but that he has been stricken with terminal cancer. Beginners spends its time cutting back and forth between Oliver's final interactions with Hal and the start of his relationship with Anna (Melanie Laurent), a French actress who immediately puts his new outlook to the test.

I confess I was not all that interested in Beginners when it debuted earlier this summer. Despite its positive reception, the subject matter isn't within my general level of interest. But as Award Season draws closer, I often find myself playing catch-up on this sort of film when it becomes clear that it will be a player when nominations start rolling out. What brought me to Beginners is the esteemed performance of the impeccable Christopher Plummer, a role that will almost certainly warrant a Best Supporting Actor nod (and you'd have to say he's the favorite to win at this point). Always a commanding figure in each of his films, this is perhaps the best and certainly the most vulnerable. Plummer plays Hal with a double portion of charm that is only somewhat dampened by an ever-present undercurrent of shame for the distance he kept between himself and his family and the life he feels he wasted. His demeanor is happy-go-lucky and lively but his eyes convey a sense of pain and sorrow and it is this combination that makes his portrayal seem so genuine. This is a landmark performance for Plummer and one for which he deserves any and all attention that comes his way.

The rest of Beginners, however, fails to measure up to Plummer's work. Simply put, I couldn't stand to watch any of the other characters. McGregor's wary loner with childhood scars is adequate but he is routinely overshadowed by Plummer. I'm not sure if the blame for that should fall on McGregor or if he was given little to work with but in their shared scenes, I felt Plummer ran circles around him. Meanwhile, Laurent's take on the manic pixie dream girl (maybe this phenomenon doesn't work in French) annoyed the fire out of me, beginning with the early scenes in which she only communicates by writing out questions and answers on a pad of paper. I guess this is supposed to be charming but it didn't work for me. Then there's Hal's young lover Andy (Goran Visnjic), who may or may not have been retarded but I'm not sure. I truly did not understand this character. Likewise, the non-linear storyline was distracting for me and it kept Beginners from ever getting into a solid groove and even when it was working within its element, it was all a bit too boring for me. As a result, I never could invest in the characters or their interactions and the overall product suffers mightily from these shortcomings.

Grade: B

Just Let Me See Your Movie!

Before I went to bed last night, I headed over to Moviefone to have a look at Friday's midday schedule. I have a busy weekend ahead of me, you see, and the only opportunity I would have to make it to the theater would be the first showings of the day. To say that I was excited to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy would be an understatement. The prospect of Gary Oldman in a rare leading role, and one that promised to provide serious award consideration, has been bounding around in my mind grapes and I've been looking forward to this film for the better part of the year. I based my work schedule around seeing this film, for goodness sake, and if that seems sad, well...so be it. But to my surprise, Moviefone (and really the entire movie industry) let me down. TTSS wasn't showing at any of the theaters I frequent, nor was it available at the arthouse theaters in Dallas. What the what?!, I thought to myself. I Googled the subject and found a release schedule from Focus Features, the studio behind TTSS, and discovered that the film was only opening on four US screens this weekend, all of which are, of course, in Los Angeles or New York. To make this injustice even worse, the release schedule informed me that TTSS would not be available near me until the 23rd and even then, only at a single arthouse theater 45 miles away. Considering the advertising campaign TTSS has received for the last six months, this move is unbelievably short sited and goes to prove a deeper issue within the movie industry as a whole.

Let's rewind a few months, back to the September release of Drive. Nothing about Drive suggested that it should receive a wide release, at least as far as the typical distributor rules go. It's a hyper-violent, artsy-action mix backed by a synth-pop soundtrack, made by a foreign director (Nicolas Winding Refn) who has no mainstream credits to his name, and starring an actor (Ryan Gosling) who is certainly well-respected but hardly the type of guy who draws the average moviegoer. It also happens to be a near-masterpiece and the best movie of the year in my book (thus far, anyway). And remarkably, Drive was given a nation-wide release that didn't require interested viewers to make a trek to an out-of-the-way arthouse theater or wait until it came to DVD (or steal it off the Internet). And guess what: people went to see it. Despite it's challenging subject matter, Drive pulled in a hearty $34 million domestically (and another $30 million overseas). While that number may not seem like a huge breakthrough, remember that this film cost $15 million to make and was shown on only 2,900 screens (compare that to 4,375 screens for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2). That's a wildly successful release. Likewise, 50/50, another indie film that I absolutely loved and that received a wide-release, pulled in $34 million domestically while showing on 2,479 screens and working from a budget of only $8 million. So in summary: both of these movies were independent films, both received a reasonable release, both made a considerable amount of money, and both were available in a theater three miles from my office, allowing me to see them in the middle of a slow day. 

Now compare those numbers to those of Take Shelter. If you haven't heard of Take Shelter, don't worry, it's not your fault. Starring Michael Shannon (one of the kings of obscure, challenging roles), Take Shelter focuses on a family man who has hallucinations about an apocalyptic world event and begins building a shelter to protect his family, though it is unclear whether he wishes to protect them from the coming events or from himself. Mark Harris of Entertainment Weekly (more on him in a moment) said of Michael Shannon's performance, "...the more people see this movie, the more votes he gets. It's that simple." That's a powerful statement coming from a leader in the critical community. The problem is, no one is going to see this movie. To date, it has earned $1.5 million (against a $5 million budget) through its release on a whopping 91 screens. Right now, the most important time for an independent film like this, it is available on 55 screens.  No one has seen this movie and when it comes time for "educated voters" to make their lists of nominees for Best Actor, you can bet most of them will not have seen Michael Shannon's portrayal. And maybe more importantly, even if they have been given the opportunity to see Take Shelter, I haven't and neither have you. So even if Shannon or the film itself gets nominated for an Oscar, why would any average moviegoer care to root for it when most have never heard of it, let alone been given the chance to see it?

In a recent column for Grantland, Harris listed out the likely candidates for a Best Picture nomination (a list that includes a couple of independent films but is, overall, dominated by bigger features) and asked his readers to Tweet in their picks for which other films deserved to be included on the list. Today he released the results and unsurprisingly, the list was topped by Drive, a film that, by traditional Hollywood standards, should never have been given a wide-release. Moreover, every other film on the list (including 50/50 and Take Shelter) was an independent film. 

I highlight this because it illustrates two trends. 1.) In spite of what Hollywood big wigs would have us believe, viewers are willing to see smaller films; and 2.) Hollywood is doing a crappy job of giving their viewers what they want. This industry is fixated, even obsessed, with online piracy as well as preserving the box office and DVD rental/sales returns. To make this happen, the studios have gone to extremes to limit the viability of On Demand and streaming services while consistently raising ticket prices, effectively pricing-out a number of would-be customers. (Side note: I recently held a Family Movie Night event for the participants of my youth sports program. You would be SHOCKED at the number of kids/parents who came up to me afterward and informed me that they'd never been to a movie before because they couldn't afford it.) At the same time, studios have dictated what the average moviegoer can and cannot see, and have thereby cut out a fairly significant profit margin based solely on a single assumption: that viewers are too stupid, too unsophisticated, to buy into indie films. 

That's exactly what is playing out with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Universal/Focus Features is telling you and I that because this is a slow-burn of a film that will feature far more dense dialogue than it will action sequences, we won't get it and therefore, won't like it. In doing so, Universal has not only ensured that their film will not turn a profit on these shores (a $31 million budget can't possibly be recovered with a 40 screen release), they've also relegated moviegoers to the host of horrible, stupid selections that await us at the local theater. I do not want to see New Year's Eve because I'm not a moron and I do not want to see The Sitter because I'm not stoned but these are my choices in terms of new releases since both TTSS and Young Adult are only being given the "limited release" treatment. Don't get me wrong, I love mainstream, big budget, popcorn films and my record as a proponent of comic book movies and dumb comedies speaks for itself. But I am proof that there are in fact moviegoers out there (and recent box office numbers suggest there are a lot of them) who can thoroughly enjoy both Drive and Captain America, both 50/50 and Super 8, both Tree of Life and X-Men: First Class. Yet despite the trends suggesting that viewers are ready and willing to take on smaller films and despite the fact that I live in the fifth-largest media market in the country (let that sink in for a moment), Hollywood continues to look down upon the average moviegoer and deprive middle America of the opportunity to avoid Twilight or Jack and Jill. It is a crappy, elitist, short-sited mentality that is costing Hollywood money, films cross-country notoriety, and moviegoers themselves a chance to see some outstanding films. Something needs to change and never should that be more obvious than this coming Sunday when we see New Year's Eve top $40 million despite its atrocious reviews. We didn't have a choice, Hollywood, and the blame falls squarely on you. 

In Home Viewings Review: "Another Earth"

Rhoda Williams (Brit Marling) is an exceptionally intelligent 17 year-old with a very bright future ahead of her. On the same night that she is out celebrating her acceptance into MIT, a new planet is discovered that scientists deem identical to earth (cleverly named "Earth 2"). While driving home drunk, Rhoda looks up into the sky to get a look at this new planet and smashes into another car, instantly killing the wife and child of Yale music professor John Burroughs (William Mapother) who goes into a coma. Four years later, Rhoda is released from prison and finds herself drawn to John who never saw her face or read her name during the trial. Posing as a cleaning woman, she works her way into John's life, hoping to find the courage to confess her crime and thereby clear her conscience. Simultaneously, earth and earth 2 are drawing closer to one another (more on this later) and it is learned that the planets are exact copies: anyone who exists on earth also exists on earth 2 and theoretically, their events of their lives would be the same leading up to the moment of mutual discovery. Displeased with the direction of her life, Rhoda enters and wins a contest to be among the first to travel to the new planet (more on this later as well), an opportunity she sees as a chance to start over. But as her relationship with John deepens, she must decide not only whether or not to leave for the new world but also if she can confess her identity to the man she took everything from.

Somewhere inside Another Earth there exists a worthwhile indie drama that has a bit of promise. Marling, who also wrote the film, has genuine appeal and you can see why she's become a hot name around Hollywood. This is an actress who could really be something in a few years, provided she finds the right projects. There's no reason she couldn't fill some of the roles going to Felicity Jones or pick up the scraps from Jennifer Lawrence's table. Likewise, I think director Mike Cahill (also co-writer) shows some talent behind the camera and a knack for finding the right shot for the situation, heightening the drama in the already tense atmosphere of his film. Both of them will go on to bigger and better things...

...which is good because Another Earth is a convoluted mess. The problem with this type of indie drama is the hook; in order to set your film apart from a glutted market of similar films, only a few of which receive any kind of mass marketing, you have to come up with something different that brings attention. If you're a studio executive and Mike Cahill is pitching this film to you (which I know is not the way it works for these films but go along with me), you're saying something to the effect of, "Okay, so you've got a messed up relationship between two opposites who are brought together by tragedy. That's great. But tell me, why am I going to see your movie instead of Like Crazy or Away We Go? Oh, there's a subplot involving a second earth that's (inexplicably) getting closer and closer to our own planet? Bingo!" The end result is essentially a sci-fi concept film and as I've said before, concept films, even artsy ones like this, rarely work. Science fiction is tough enough to get right (and that's coming from a huge sci-fi nerd) and it's even tougher when you've got an inexperienced hand guiding the ship. Cahill and Marling pay little attention to the details surrounding their sci-fi subplot and as a result, these sloppy elements are almost all I could focus on.

Don't get me wrong; there are a number issues with this film that have nothing to do with the haphazard hook. Every actor outside of Marling and Mapother ranges in talent from, "extra who was given a couple of lines" to "professional actor who should probably start looking for another profession." None of these supporting players are given much screen time (mercifully) but when they are...ouch. All of the characters are extremely shallow, making their transitions seem insignificant. And the storyline itself is so slow and unclear that I actually had to go online and search forums in order to piece together the film's intent.

But none of these issues hold a candle to the sheer idiocy of the subplot. I pride myself on my ability to not hold movies to the laws of reality. It's a movie; things are going to happen that could never happen in real life and honestly, that's the way we all want it more often than not. All I ask of a film is that it either A.) Stay within the realm of "reasonably realistic enough to pretend I don't notice the inaccuracies" or B.) Outs itself in the beginning as a film that should in no way shape or form be taken seriously. But I would maintain it is impossible to sit through Another Earth without asking some real questions. For example, in the beginning earth 2 is a tiny blue dot in the far distance but by the end of the film, the planet is a giant colossus dominating the skyline both day and night. No reason is given for this change nor does it ever seem to bother the inhabitants of either planet that they are headed for, you know, a catastrophic collision. This made me more than a little crazy. Another major issue comes along with the whole, "win a seat on the first trip to earth 2" which is organized by a Richard Branson-like billionaire. So, basically, we're to believe that a new planet is rapidly invading our orbit and not only does NASA not make a trip of their own, they're totally cool with renting out their equipment to a rebel businessman. Even a cursory line about this being the "first commercial trip" to earth 2 would have sufficed but apparently this never occurred to anyone involved with the making of the film. These (and many others) are stupid mistakes that only come along when a filmmaker doesn't know how to handle a given topic or doesn't care enough to try and make the subplot blend with the main theme. And if the people behind a film don't care enough to make their film work, then why should anyone else care enough to see it?

Grade: D

In Home Viewings Review - "Cave of Forgotten Dreams"

In 1994, three speleologists stumbled upon a remarkable find in the south of France. Sealed perfectly by a centuries-old rockslide and hidden entirely was a deep cave (known as the Chauvet Cave) that contained perhaps the greatest collection of prehistoric drawings. The cave was filled with ancient prints of wildlife as well as a large number of animal tracks and bones, some belonging to species that have long since become extinct. Most remarkable of all, everything within the cave was perfectly preserved through the many thousands of years and looks so fresh that upon their discovery, many scholars believed they must be fakes. Given unprecedented access, filmmaker Werner Herzog took his camera and a small film crew into the cave to document the wonder of this place and share it with the world.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams is as visually compelling as a film could possibly be given that it was shot with a simple handheld camera. The world inside the Chauvet Cave is, quite honestly, beyond description. It is incredible, almost surreal, to look at the images Herzog shows us and realize that they date back as far as 35,000 years. These are the oldest known human drawings and yet they look like they could have been sketched yesterday. The magnificent detail these paintings display is mindboggling; many of the beasts (cave bears, ibex, and other animals) are drawn with eight legs instead of four but by sweeping a torch across the wall, the image gives the appearance of movement. And the complexity of the paintings (including some abstract works) is remarkable, providing a glimpse into the time period that previously had been unknown. I found myself wondering, at least in passing, about the lives of these artists, their people, and their culture.

Forgotten Dreams is a simple, straightforward film and that is both its strength and its weakness. Herzog allows the cave to tell its story. There is very little production value within the film; what you see within the cave is basically what you get for the movie. Herzog provides a few interviews with some of the lucky few who have worked inside the Chauvet Cave and assorted experts who provide a look into the lives of those who would have lived in the area around such a cave. But beyond these brief dalliances, what you get for 90 minutes is the cave, the cave, and some more of the cave. For the most part, this focus works well but I admit there were a few moments wherein my attention drifted. (My ADD was bound to kick in at some time.) When this happened, however, Herzog's ability to highlight the beauty and mystery of the cave's interior brought me right back to the action (as it were). And while it was completely Herzog's choice, the use of the small camera and the crew that didn't always have a place to duck out of shot serves to create the illusion that the audience is actually in the cave themselves instead of just watching the world unfold on a screen. All of this makes Forgotten Dreams an awesome example of my favorite type of documentary; that being the sort that sheds a bright light on a fascinating and previously little-known universe that is wholly deserving of more attention.

Grade: A-

Review: "Hugo"

Recently I had a conversation with a friend who noted that his enjoyment level with a film is often influenced by those he’s attending said film with. If his fellow moviegoers are having a good time, he’s more inclined to follow suit; if they’re less than enthusiastic, so is he. I haven’t found that to be the case for me personally, except when it comes to comedies; I’m probably more inclined to laugh hysterically when my cohorts are doing the same. I guess the whole “laughter is contagious” thing is true. But otherwise, I pretty much go my own way and my level of enjoyment is based on my personal experience. However, there have been times when I’ve had a moment of realization wherein I suddenly become aware that no one else in the theater is as into whatever we’re watching as I am. So it is with Hugo. While I became more and more enamored with Martin Scorsese’s beautifully crafted ode to film, it became abundantly clear that my friends and the rest of the audience were less than impressed. In some ways, this general disinterest from those around me may have made my appreciation for Hugo even deeper; I almost felt I needed to get up in front of the crowd and defend the film and point out its many merits. Since I did not deliver my speech at that time, I’m afraid we’re going to have to cover it in this space.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) has lived an unfortunate life. When his father (Jude Law) dies in a fire, he is snatched up by his uncle Claude(Ray Winstone), a drunkard who forces him to quit school in order to take up a job repairing the clocks within the Paris train station (and thereby allowing Claude to spend his time at the bottom of a bottle). After Claude disappears, Hugo finds himself living all alone within the walls of the depot, always mindful of staying out of the sight of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). In his limited spare time, Hugo uses the skills his superior mechanical skills working on the repair of an automaton his father found in a museum attic shortly before his death, a machine he believes will deliver a message from his father. To make it work, Hugo begins stealing gears and parts from a small store and soon draws the ire of its proprietor, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley). Georges allows him to work off his debt by repairing things in the shop and soon this job leads to a friendship with Georges’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), who happens to own a key that fits the automaton perfectly. But instead of a message from his father, the automaton draws a picture that traces back to Georges and leads Hugo and Isabelle on a journey of great discovery.

To boil the plentiful elements and concepts contained within Hugo into a few paragraphs is a tough task. It is a tremendously complex film with a wide range of plots and purposes that don’t always interact in the most straightforward way. It is all at once a poignant family film, a coming of age film, an adventure epic, and an extremely personal homage. The mix of genres is a strong indicator as to why Hugo is having such a hard time finding an audience. Its rating and the inclusion of the 3D component make it an obvious draw for families but the truth is, this is not a film kiddos are going to enjoy. (Case in point: the young boy sitting behind me who spent the entire second half of the film telling his mother in a not-so-quiet voice that he wanted to go home.) This is the rare “children’s movie” that’s actually made for adults, designed to make us remember how magical everything could be when we were younger. So, basically, Scorsese’s take on a family movie.

 Hugo is a deep and nuanced film that draws you in a little more with each passing scene. It starts slow (too slow, honestly) but builds consistently to the climax that, for me at least, delivered tenfold on the promises made throughout the runtime. As the movie progresses, Scorsese seems to be asking the audience to invest in Hugo’s struggles, a call to action I had no problem responding to. Butterfield provides a quality performance that peaks at the right times and his relative lack of experience is tempered quite well by Moretz, who always displays a maturity beyond her years. Their dynamic works well and Scorsese does an excellent job of relying on his young stars just enough to draw the audience’s attention but not so much as to put too much pressure upon them. The supporting actors, particularly Kingsley and Michael Stuhlbarg, all play their parts with subtle flair and each does a great job of highlighting the main characters. The surrounding storylines, while a bit distracting in the early going, come together with precision to expand the film’s narrative and

But where Hugo truly excels is when it delves into the world of the early cinema. A forgotten filmmaker, Georges has retreated within himself and locked away the many painful memories that came from his post-war exile. It falls to Hugo and Isabelle, along with the help of a film expert (played exquisitely by Stuhlbarg) to reawaken Georges’ love of film. Scorsese uses this piece of storytelling to unveil his own admiration for the early films and the further he takes Hugo into this realm, the more enamored with his work I became. It is a supremely well-made, beautifully shot film (as all Scorsese films are) that is nearly overpowering in its personal nature. You get the impression that Scorsese loves this film and wants you to love it as well. I only wish more viewers would join me in reciprocating that love.

Grade: A

Review - "The Muppets"

I live my life by a simple creed that has worked fairly well for me over the years: anything that involves the Muppets is better than it would be without the Muppets. It’s just that simple. If you have a concept, whether it is a film, TV show, or life plan, just add Kermit and I would say your concept will be bettered by a solid 21 percent. Case in point: Muppet Babies: better than regular babies. Babies cry, sleep, and poop all day (says the guy who’s a little bit afraid of babies); Muppet Babies, on the other hand, sing, dance, and create glorious imaginary dreamscapes in which they take the form of Star Warscharacters. This is a no brainer. Needless to say, I’m a big fan of the Muppets. I don’t trust people who don’t like the Muppets because, honestly, how is that possible? Like, what happened in your life that you’ve now become incapable of being entertained by a singing frog and a menopausal pig? This seems un-American. I mean, if you don’t like the Muppets, I’d expect you’re also not such a big fan of apple pie, baseball, and, you know, constitutionalized freedoms. You’re dead to me, person who doesn’t like the Muppets. Please go away. *Waits* I mean it. *Waits* Okay, now that we’ve rid ourselves of those joy-stealers, on with the review of what will surely by my favorite movie of the year.

Walter and Gary (Jason Segel) are as close as brothers can be despite their obvious differences. Gary is a near lummox of a man while Walter is a Muppet. (How these two came to be brothers is never explained and I, for one, love this fact.) Growing up, Walter is obsessed with the Muppets and whenever things get tough, Gary always cheers up his little brother by watching the famous TV show with him. When Gary plans a trip to Los Angeles with his fiancée Mary (Amy Adams), he invites Walter along for a tour of the Muppet Studios. But when they get to their destination, Walter finds the studios to be in severe disrepair and completely devoid of Muppets. To make matters worse, he overhears a conversation involving oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) describing his plot to take over the studio and tear it to the ground. Distraught, Walter and Gary track down Kermit the Frog to warn him of the studio’s impending doom. With limited funds available, the trio must get the old band back together in order to put together a Muppet telethon to save the studio.

From start to finish, The Muppets is about as much fun as you could possibly ask for in a movie. Segel’s script (along with the help of Nick Stoller) is a delightfully nostalgic piece of work that not only pays homage to the Muppet way of old but revels in it, making the decidedly retro feel of the film’s humor seem like a breath of fresh air. I love sarcasm as much as the next guy but to come across a movie that is genuinely funny without becoming snarky or mean-spirited in the slightest is a rarity these days. At the same time, the vast majority of the bits and jokes aren’t near as easy as I thought they might be. Instead, when confronted with low-hanging fruit, the dialogue takes the road less traveled to the betterment of the film as a whole. Very little within The Muppets is what you would call witty but that doesn’t mean it isn’t smart; it is just straightforward comedy that should appeal to both adults and children without any problem.

The story itself is a simple one as the tale of getting the Muppets back together and putting on one big show takes up the majority of the film’s narrative and isn’t in and of itself exceedingly original. But as a Muppet fan, it is a narrative that I greatly appreciated and I would imagine that’s exactly how Segel felt as he wrote it. I would love for the Muppets to get back together and become relevant again and that’s an overriding theme throughout the movie. Segel and director Jason Bobin know that this is somewhat of a last chance for the Muppets as a whole; if this movie succeeds, we’ll soon be talking about sequels and a rejuvenation of the Muppet brand; if it fails, Kermit and the gang will be reduced to nothing more than a fond memory that may never again capture the imagination of a generation. This leads to a sort of self-awareness, making The Muppetsalmost a movie within a movie and that element is one that brought me absolute joy and leads to a number of hilarious moments that had me and the entire audience cackling.

In addition, there’s an extreme liveliness to The Muppets that I would say bests anything done in the previous Muppet films. As Kermit gets the group back together, we get to see the Muppets at their worst: Fozzy is playing in a cover band (called The Moopets) in Reno, Gonzo has put away the childishness of youth and become a toilet businessman, and Animal is no longer allowed to drum because it triggers his rage. It’s cool to see the Muppets in a different setting than we’re used to and it makes their final production all the more special. And speaking of the music, each and every number, from the delightful “Man or Muppet” to the shocking-but-hilarious rap song to the inevitable but no less satisfying singing of “The Rainbow Connection”, are all exquisite. Bret McKenzie (from Flight of the Conchords) did a masterful job of constructing smart, entertaining songs that both progress the film and stand alone as fun and addicting tunes that will almost certainly pop up on my iPod from time to time.

The finished product plays as a Pixar-like version of the Muppets with a little bit of Flight of the Conchords mixed in for good measure (this ingredient should come as no surprise since both Bobin and McKenzie made their names through that show). The Muppets is riotous, uproarious fun and thoroughly refreshing and balances the perfect amount of heart and comedy. It is, in many ways, a passion project and that excitement oozes through in every wonderfully constructed scene. It stands as my favorite film of the year thus far and holds up against any non-animated family film of the last decade (or more).

Grade: A

In Home Viewings - "Terri"

Terri (Jacob Wysocki) has been dealt a rough hand. A heavy-set teenager with more than a touch of social anxiety, Terri finds school to be a hellhole where he goes unnoticed (when he’s lucky). His home life is not much better. He doesn’t know where either of his parents are and he lives with his uncle (Creed Batton) who is slipping further and further into dementia. When he gets in trouble for firing back at one of his many mockers, the school’s principal, Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly), sees a kid who desperately needs a friend. He sets up weekly meetings with Terri and attempts to take the boy under his wing. But the many years of loneliness have taken a toll on Terri and despite the influence of Mr. Fitzgerald, transitioning into a fully functioning member of high school society proves more difficult than originally thought.

There is serious promise to be found within Terri. Up-and-coming director Azazel Jacobs has a firm handle on his subject matter and he works hard to show Terri for the good hearted boy that he is. It is a very simple and understated film (more on this in a minute) as Jacobs lets his protagonist move at his own pace. You can see why so many respected critics have identified Jacobs as a name to watch in the future. Wysocki himself gives an honest performance and displays solid chops for a kid who has almost no acting experience. He makes it easy to identify with Terri and that brings about a sense of natural empathy that is essential to the film’s success. Likewise, Reilly is a perfect choice for the would-be-cool principal who tries extremely hard to be relevant and accessible to his students but can’t quite make it work. The relationship between Terri and Fitzgerald is poignant and heartfelt and without question their shared scenes are the best of the film.

When Terridiverts from its main storyline, however, it tends to bog down. What starts out as sympathy for Terri eventually turns into near depression as his narrative struggles to find an upswing. His interactions with his friends Chad (Bridger Zadina) and Heather (Olivia Crocicchia) are tenuous and never fully realize the potential they have together resulting in a choppy feel that I never could quite shake. Jacobs adds very little in the way of production value, too, and while I can appreciate that sort of simplicity, in this case a pronounced soundtrack and the like would have added to the experience. I found myself growing bored with Terri and had a hard time staying invested when Terri and Fitzgerald weren’t on screen together. That’s a real shame because I really wanted to care about Terri’s relationships with Chad, Heather, and his uncle but Jacobs story didn’t quite give me enough reason to get there. With a little more focus, Terri would be a touching and possibly even uplifting coming-of-age vision based around the Terri-Fitzgerald dynamic. Instead, it becomes too dull and convoluted for my tastes and limited my ability to stay connected.

Grade: C+

Review - "Tower Heist"

Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller) is the type of employee that you want running your business. A tireless worker, Josh has pulled himself up from the ground floor to become the assistant manager of the prestigious Tower apartment building in New York. Josh knows everything there is to know about each and every one of the tenants and he serves as a trusted advisor for all of his employees. His most prominent tenant is billionaire Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), a proud New Yorker who Josh has developed a friendship with. But when Shaw is indicted for fraud and accused of bilking his clients out of hundreds of millions of dollars, Josh is forced to tell his employees that their pensions accounted for some of the stolen funds. With desperation seeping in, Josh learns that Shaw has a $20 million “security blanket” tucked away somewhere and becomes convinced that it’s hidden inside The Tower. Josh puts together a rag-tag team that includes his brother-in-law (Casey Affleck), a DeVry drop out (Michael Pena), a former stock broker (Matthew Broderick), and a small time crook (Eddie Murphy) and formulates a plan to reclaim the cash and provide justice for those who Shaw wronged.

There are moments within Tower Heist in which you almost (ALMOST) find cause to get on board and enjoy the ride. Stiller gives a quality, understated performance that probably deserves a little more attention than it’s going to receive. He gives Josh a little more authenticity than I expected and that serves his character well. Likewise, you can never go wrong with Affleck, who always manages to steal just about any scene he’s in. The plot is timely and interesting and that shines through from time to time, illustrating why the very talented cast signed on in the first place. And there is an undeniably fun energy that runs through Tower Heist which continually tries (unsuccessfully) to keep the movie’s pulse high while encouraging the audience to get involved with the storyline.

Unfortunately, that’s where the positives stop. In fact, for my money, Tower Heist is the true definition of sloppy filmmaking. But then again, what else should I expect from director Bret Ratner? Throughout his time in Hollywood, Ratner has spent far more time making a fool of himself than he’s ever spent actually working on his craft. He’s a guy who enjoys being famous far more than he does making movies. None of his movies are particularly good and most of them are downright awful and despite the fact that he usually works within the action-comedy genre, he’s still unable to figure out how to carve out any sort of a positive niche for himself within said genre. Even Michael Bay has perfected the special effects shot, creating occasional moments of visual brilliance in each of his films and giving audiences a reason to come back for more despite the fact that he has no understanding of dialogue, plotlines, or casting. Ratner can’t even do that; instead, all of his movies are a hodge-podge of haphazard stupidity.

Every aspect of Tower Heist reeks of indifference and laziness. Plot holes abound, ridiculous actions are accepted as totally reasonable, and the dialogue is often to the level of a fourth grader. Basically, Ratner doesn’t know how to effectively tell his story and so any part of it that you might enjoy is painted over by absurdities and general stupidity. He routinely traps his actors in corners that they can’t get out of and thereby wastes their talents. Murphy in particular seems like he’s stuck in glass box acting out his greatest hits from his former glory years, almost like a caricature of himself. Is he funny? I guess, but not in the laugh-out-loud way that he’s trying to be. That doesn’t stop with Murphy, however. There are shockingly few truly humorous moments within Tower Heist and that leaves it feeling overly long and even dull at times. It’s as if Ratner was under orders to shoot, edit, and ship this movie in 30 days and paid no attention to little details like, you know, a cohesive storyline and jokes that actually make the audience laugh. All of this makes Tower Heist a disappointing, waste of time.

Grade: C+