Men In Black 3

Jemaine Clement and Josh Brolin were both pretty good in this. There were fun bits here and there, but nothing too memorable.

Ted (2012)

Meh...all I was hoping for was that it would be funny and it wasn't.

Take This Waltz (2012)

A very very astute film about the perils of a long-term relationship. And full-frontal nudity to boot!

To Rome With Love (2012)

Better than I expected, though not great.  2 1/2 stars. 

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

This was fun and fairly well-made.  Reminded me a little of "Happy Accidents," in a good way.  Also, admitted I have a crush on Aubrey Plaza.

Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World (2012)

One of my all time favorite movies is Don McKellar's 1998(9) Canadian Apocalyptic Comic-Drama, "Last Night."  When I first saw the trailer for Lorene Scafaria's "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World," I couldn't help but note the strange similarities between scenes in the trailer and McKellar's film.  The opening scene of the trailer features a Radio DJ uttering the line "We'll be bringing you our countdown to the end of days along with all your Classic Rock favorites," which instantly made me think of the DJ in "Last Night" opening the movie with "Coming up on the last night on the planet and you're listening to CKRT, the Top 500 Songs of All Time, with you right until the end."

The next scene in the trailer is of Steve Carell walking into a semi-abandoned office building, pointlessly going to work, which made me think of David Cronenberg's fate in McKellar's film.  Cut to the scene in the trailer with the celebratory friendly gathering, in which the charming, but depressed leading man is being pressured by his friends to "hook-up" and avoid "dying alone."  Then there's a distraught girl directly outside our lead's apartment, she needs help.  Together, the two set of on a journey trying to help one another (in Mckellar's film, the lead only wants to help her).  This stuff was all in the trailer.  To be fair to the movie though, there are plenty of differences between the films, foremost among them being the fact this movie is much more of a "road movie" than "Last Night" is.   

So going into the movie, you have to believe me when I say that I tried very very hard to remain objective while viewing "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World."  And to it's credit, for much of the movie, I was enjoying myself, for the most part.   Keira Knightly was pretty bad in the movie, especially when she cried.  Usually when people cry in real life, they're either in pain or trying to manipulate someone.  When she cried in the movie I didn't believe she was in pain, nor did I find her convincing enough to be manipulated by her.

I was really hoping to like this movie more, if for no other reason than that I like Steve Carell and want him to make good movies.  That being said, I liked him in it, but overall I thought the movie was a 2 1/2 star effort.

As far as remaining objective went, I felt like I was doing a pretty good job until the last 15 minutes or so.  The ending of the movie, while not the exact same, bore enough of a similarity to send me fuming from the theater as the credits rolled.

On a side note, how much do I love "Last Night?"  When I was programming for the Austin film series, Cinema41, the first movie I chose was "Last Night," and we even finagled Don Mckellar himself and Cinematographer Doug Koch for a Skype Q&A.  Here is the Q&A in it's entirety.

 

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

In Roger Ebert's 2001 review of the Ryan Phillippe movie "Antitrust" he begins by discussing the concept of "The Goofy Meter," a hypothetical needle that regulates the level of goofiness in a given movie.  Throughout the years since, my friend Daniel & I have semi-regularly referenced the Goofy Meter, whenever a movie somehow registers a "Too Goofy" in our minds. 

For me, "Moonrise Kingdom" is the first Wes Anderson movie to sway the Goofy Meter.  It happens in the third act, pretty much from the point that lightning becomes involved.  From that point on, the movie just seems to derail a bit.  On paper, the narrative wraps up nicely, but as a viewer, it all just seemed too goofy.  Fortunately the first 2/3rds of the movie is strange and interesting enough to merit a mild recommendation.  The first-love courtship of two quirky 12 year-olds in the 1960's is the centerpiece of Anderson's strange world.  The film does a great job of articulating the ultra-seriousness and over-romanticizing of youth and contrasts it well with Bill Murray and Francis McDormand's crumbling marriage. 

In typical Anderson fashion, the film is very detail oriented and in some cases too eccentric.  The two young leads are interesting to watch; their wooden disenchanted performances would seem out of place in any other movie other than Anderson's.  Also, Edward Norton is really good in it.

Dark Shadows (2012)

I'm not going to lie, I was really hoping to enjoy this.  I haven't enjoyed a Tim Burton film since, oh I don't know, "Corpse Bride."  Prior to that, "Mars Attacks."  Even though Burton has basically become a parody of himself, there was a part of me that was rooting for him in this one.  In the end, the real problem with "Dark Shadows" is that there are just way too many ingredients in the pie and not enough room in the pan.  To be honest, it's just one big mess.

Bernie (2012)

Always been a Linklater fan although he's had a few misses over the years.  He's an interesting filmmaker.  Jack Black & Shirley MacLaine are both very good in this.  A lot of the times whenever a comedic actor takes on a dramatic role there's usually a lot buzz calling for Oscar noms and such, but I doubt that will happen with Black's performance, but it is quite good.

The use of the real residents of Carthage, TX in the movie provides an inspired mix of documentary and narrative.  On a side note, Matthew McConaughey is not very good in this, but he did remind me of my former boss, complete with the same hair, huge glasses, jacket, tie, and even the gut.

Cabin In The Woods (2012)

I'm sure you've been there before; you're thoroughly enjoying a clever movie and then the credits roll, the lights come up, and the people behind you open their big dumb mouths.  "I would of rather watched 'Spongebob," the person behind me said to his friends as "The Cabin In The Woods" ended.  Now I have nothing against our yellow spongy friend, nor do I really have anything against others opinions about art, I mean it's all subjective.  That being said though, it is daunting sometimes when someone has such an opposing viewpoint to yours when you both just experienced the exact same thing.

I don't watch a lot of modern Horror films, so to be fair I'm not exactly in-tune with what the modern Horror fan likes.  My big criticism of modern Horror is that it tends to lack any sense of fun or originality, two things "The Cabin in the Woods" has no shortage of.  Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard's satire of Horror tropes is both fun and original, but unfortunately for some, it's not very scary.  Once again, I suspect that expectations will play a big part in how much you enjoy "Cabin in the Woods."   

The Avengers (2012)

This was basically what I expected.  Every Marvel movie since "Iron Man" has been fun, smart, and competently made.  The one thing that they really haven't got a lot of credit for is how funny they are.  Even the worst of them, "Iron Man 2," was really funny (intentionally or not). 

Anyway, this was a lot of fun.  I'm not going to lie though, after a decade of superhero films, I'm pretty burnt out.

Beyond The Black Rainbow (2012)

This took a fully 30 minutes to really get going, but I thought it was an interesting ride in the end.  The aesthetic is great, both visually and musically.  For some I imagine it will be a case of style over substance, but I wouldn't mind watching it again.

Casa De Mi Padre (2012)

This was a lot of fun.  I appreciated that it wasn't necessarily a straight-forward Comedy, there's subtle bits of Drama mixed in.  I have a feeling it will age very well.

21 Jump Street (2012)

There was something about the way the proposed "21 Jump Street" movie originated that seemed different than most "reboots," specifically the spearheading of it by Jonah Hill. Much in the same way Jason Segal took the reigns of the Muppet franchise, Hill's affection for the 1980's Johnny Depp-fueled FOX TV Cop drama is evident in the movie adaptation, which is in a lot of ways nothing like the original. For starters, it's a straight-up Comedy which actively satirizes the sillier aspects of the show, particularly the idea of grown men passing as high school students.

The early buzz on this movie was surprisingly positive. Everyone I knew who had seen it prior to me had told me that it was very funny. In some ways, I wish I would have not had my expectations raised by the hype. Not because it ruined my experience, but just because it would of made it even better.

The movie is very funny and really well done. The genre satire is effective, the subtle self-referential jokes worked, and even the action sequences are decent. Surprisingly, even Channing Tatum is good in the movie and he's been terrible in the last two things I've seen him in, "Haywire" and "SNL." The cameos are fun as well. The only thing I really didn't like about it was the horrible CGI. My biggest pet-peeve with CGI isn't just that it's horrible, but I really hate when it replaces things that really don't need to be CGI'ed, for example, exploding limos.

We Need To Talk About Kevin (2012)

"We Need To Talk About Kevin" is a film made up of memories and dreams. The narrative is fragmented, the spaces and times shift with the length of Tilda Swinton's hair. She is Eva, the mother of Kevin, and wife of Franklin (John C. Reilly). Kevin may or may not be evil and Eva may or may not be crazy, but they are linked together from birth, whether they want to be or not, and the film does a good job of maintaining a certain amount ambiguity in it's depiction of their relationship. The audience spends much of the movie piecing together not only the story, but the realities that the characters perceive.

"Kevin" is one of those movies whose plot is actually quite simple, but it unfolds in an intentionally deceptive way. Some audience members will be turned off by that, and some will telegraph the resolution well in advance, but that's the point. The pieces are all there, the movie is just putting them together. As a result though, some people might find the ending underwhelming, but if there's one thing I've learned from watching movies, it's that most of the time the best ending is the most obvious.

I liked the movie a lot, even in spite of the nearly year-long hype I had for it. It is perhaps a little too stylish, but I have a feeling that it will age well, and upon future viewings, the style will not be so distracting.

--Popkoff

Wanderlust (2012)

Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston play a young married couple who ditch their lives in New York and move to a hippie commune in the country when Rudd suddenly finds himself without a job. The movie is directed by David Wain and it toes the line between mainstream fare and the surreal absurdity he and his cronies (Michael Showalter, Michael Ian Black) are known for. Ken Marino ("Children's Hospital") wrote it and has a supportive role as Rudd's obnoxious successful brother.

The first act of the movie is very economical and uses the quick beats of the narrative to it's advantage, especially in the sequence illustrating the cross-country car ride Rudd and Aniston undertake while moving to Atlanta. The first 2/3rds of the movie in general is very solid, the last act feels a little long, but it has a nice resolution.

The cast is filled with great players all-around and some of them are really swinging for the fences here, namely Aniston, Alan Alda, and the great Justin Theroux (who is virtually unrecognizable in the film). It might also go without saying, but Rudd is really in his element here, and has a few scenes that are absolutely classic and rest solely on his shoulders.

Overall, "Wanderlust" was a fun time at the movies.

--Popkoff

In Defense of The Oscars.

Well the Oscars are over and the post-show criticisms are in. Like the Oscars themselves, there is nothing new under the sun criticism-wise, at least not in the media coverage. With every passing year though I notice a lot more apathy and sarcastic criticism of the ceremony within my circle of movie-nerd friends. With the avalanche of Facebook status updates filled with baiting-opinions presented as facts overloading my news-feed this past week I felt unbelievably lame for looking forward to and actually enjoying the Oscars. So what is it that makes our opinions so different? We are all around the same age, share similar tastes, and above all, have an appreciation for the art of film-making.


Some of the common complaints I hear are that the ceremony is too predicable, too long, and too boring. It's just one big self-congratulatory celebrity love-fest and that it doesn't really matter because it doesn't really represent the "best" movies of the year. It's all hype, and above all, the aspect of the ceremony that really gets their goat is that the Academy never picks the right films (i.e. the ones they want to win). Fair enough.


Here are my thoughts on the subject. In a lot of ways I think the Oscars are like the Superbowl for film-nerds, a whole years worth of build up, speculation, and over-analyzing resulting in a winner that is usually unsatisfactory for most of the fans. The winner is usually predictable, the coverage is extra long, and depending on the competitiveness of the teams, the game can be boring.


Unlike the Oscars though, people love the Superbowl. No one is made to feel lame for watching it and those few souls who actually do hate it are probably the kind of miserable assholes who complain about everything (trolls). Despite usually being a huge disappointment, every year, people still look forward to the Superbowl, hell, they even look forward to the freaking commercials. To hear certain detractors spin it, you would the Oscars were being mercilessly labored through by the audience, with each additional commercial adding an extra excruciating 30-45 seconds of wasted time to the viewer's life. Despite the fact that the ceremony is rich with tradition, only comes once a year, and is a celebration of the medium that they love most, these folks seem to be hellbent on undermining the importance of it.


Ah yes, the importance of it. Are the Oscars as important as the Academy wants you to believe? No, but they are not meaningless either. I'm not sure if you've observed a casual film-goer recently, but I have had plenty of exposure to them working at the theater. Here are a couple of my insights into the mind of the average (age 15-25) film-goer: A) If it wasn't made in the last 5 years, it might as well never have existed, and B) a lot of people (especially young people) never consider exactly how movies are made or where they come from. A lot of the kids that worked at the theater with me seemed to think that movies were just new stories being churned out to them every week, no thought given to the idea that people make movies and that's there's an artistry and craftsmanship to it.


This is where The Oscars come in to play, maybe not for young people who don't even watch basic television anymore, much less award shows, but for let's say, society in general. For many reasons the modern movie industry seems to think of themselves as a business first and an art-form second (actually it's probably more like forth or fifth). As a society we're encouraged to think of movies as merely entertainment and not, you know, the greatest form of idea conveyance and documentation in our history. I know that last statement is a lightning rod for a lot of people who champion the written word, but I mean no offense. I'm not saying movies as a medium are necessarily better than literature, but rather, that it has the potential to be. It's a fascinating, magical storytelling medium and an incredible form of historical documentation that is treated like frivolous amusement by most people, but...not at the Oscars.


The "Road to the Oscars" is possibly the only time of year that mainstream media coverage acknowledges that there is more to the movies than box office results, that there is something to be said for art and, you know, films being good. For one night out of the year, there is a ceremony that takes movies seriously, that not only accounts for the technical aspects of the craftsmanship, but also reminds us that movies are part of our history, culture, and that yes, they are important. Even though, to me, it seems like a small gesture in the grand scheme of things, to many people it's perceived as this gaudy, lavish, and undeserved celebrity circle-jerk. For many, the idea that people in the film industry get any recognition, much less awards for their work when they've already received so much money as compensation is uncalled-for.


Yes, actors make a lot of money (although a lot of technical award winners involved in the process make much less and do deserve recognition), but comparatively to what some of these movies make, it's a fraction of the profits and in a lot of cases they are very much responsible for the revenue of the film (Johnny Depp in "The Pirates of the Caribbean" films springs to mind). Plus, I'm not sure if you've notice, but there's not much money at the box office in "good" movies these days. The reason I bring that up is because actors (and studios for that matter) need motivation to make films that might not necessarily make a lot of money, and the potential of an Academy Award is not a bad goal.


So what else? Oh yeah, the Oscars doesn't really represent the "best" movies of the year. Well, no shit, it's hard to please everyone when you're picking only one thing. That being said, look at the musical equivalent, The Grammys. The Grammy nominees over the last 20+ years have represented some of the most generic, unimaginative, and unauthentic examples of music imaginable; the most radio-friendly bullshit you can find.. If it sold, it's gold as far as the Grammys are concerned. Juxtapose that with the Oscars who since the mid-1990's have seemingly made a conscience effort to include lesser known films. They regularly get shit for nominating films that "no one's ever heard of" from one segment of the population and get even more shit for not nominating "Drive" from another segment. So yeah, "The Artist" might not have been the "best" film of 2011, but if the Oscars were like the Grammys, they would of picked "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" instead, so you're welcome.


In conclusion, the Oscars are far from perfect, in fact they're kind of a mess these days. So many people complain about them that the producers have repeated tweaked the formula, experimented with new "modern" ideas, and shifted back and forth between tradition and what they think people want. It never seems to please anyone. So why defend the Oscars?? Maybe because no one else ever does? Nah, I just love movies and I love the idea of the Oscars. I want it to be better and I'm going to keep watching hoping for those little pieces of spontaneous moments and emotion that make it work. I sometimes think about the 1996 Awards, a year in-which much was made about "the year of the Indie film," and I think about how little I care about the Best Picture nominees from that year (with the exception of "Fargo") now. The thing I remember from that show was the Cuba Gooding Jr. acceptance speech, which everyone remembers. It was the kind of moment that only the Oscars could produce.

Haywire (2012)

Well first of all, from this point forward I am going to make a conscious effort to avoid IMDB message boards. I'd like to attribute this decision to Steven Soderbergh's "Haywire." I really enjoyed watching this last night; it was my first visit to the Gaslamp 15. Then this morning I scoped out the message boards to what others thoughts were and there was just so much negative nonsensical trolling going about the believability of the action, the performance of the first-time actress, Gina Carano, and "women-lib" movies that I just had to make this decision, no more.

"Haywire" is basically a spy-gone-rogue action film that Steven Soderbergh puts his stamp on. The narrative structure is mixed up a bit to keep things interesting, the music is jazzy and chilled, and several obligatory scenes are either cut short or eliminated altogether. The colors and tone of the film are reminiscent of the "Bourne" Trilogy, but unlike those films whose close-up shaky-cam style sometimes robbed the audience of clear, fluid action, the action in "Haywire" are all shot in medium to long shots. The fight scenes are particularly good and more than make up for some spotty acting here and there from Channing Tatum and Carano. The rest of the cast was very good, made up of Michael Fassbender, Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, and surprisingly, Bill Paxton.



Soderbergh apparently made the film because of how impressed he was with real-life cage fighter, Carano, I can see that. Overall, I was very impressed with her performance. As my girlfriend pointed out, she's got some work to be done on line deliver, but we both believed her character was real. I want to see more of her; I actually wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to "Haywire," however unlikely that is.

--Popkoff