Star Trek : Into Darkness- Abrams sees the light

I had forgotten just how much I missed going to European cinemas. After returning home to England after what has been far too long of a separation, I knew that before I left London, I would have to see a film in one of the famed Leicester square cinemas, which have been the venues for many UK and European premieres over the years. And so it was that I grabbed a friend and sat excitedly to watch the latest installment of the Star Trek reboot at the beautiful Empire Cinema.

The Empire Cinema : My Mecca

Let me start this review by saying that my Star Trek knowledge is limited to watching ten minutes of Star Trek: The Next Generation with Patrick Stewart, because I couldn't find the remote once, and thus this review unfortunately, is not coming from a trekkie of any kind. But it didn't take long for me to realise that my lack of trekkie love might render me more qualified than I had previously thought, as from the very beginning it is clear that the film is shot please everyone- newcomers and oldies alike.


Abrams chose to reintroduce the franchise in his first installment (Star Trek), by setting his story around how our favourite intergalactic explorers come together in the first place, and while this was interesting, it always seemed to me that there lacked a certain sort of chemistry between the cast as a whole. This second installment however, catches up with the crew of the Enterprise slightly later on, and follows the trials of Captain Kirk, Spock and the gang as they try to hunt down the delightfully ruthless Khan.  the real-life time elapsed between films seems to have given the cast a better idea of how to work together and create meaningful synergy, as well as be comfortable in their own roles.

Abrams too, seems more at home directing this second installment, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you have great directing, great acting and a great story line  you're watching a fantastic movie. From beginning to end, Star Trek is action packed, thrilling, compelling, and amusing, all at the same time. Chris Pine as Captain Kirk is no William Shatner, but builds on the reckless nature of Kirk to create a character that is deliriously cocky, conflicted ,irresponsible and yet extremely likable. Pine's Kirk is the perfect foil to the oh-so-robotic Spock (played by Zach Quinto), and the film's best moments come when their ultimate bromance is examined. But the plaudits cannot stop there, with Simon Pegg deserving an honourable mention as Scotty, even if his Scottish accent is a bit weird.

The real show stealer though is Khan, who Benedict Cumberland (SHERLOCK!) seems more or less born to play. Cumberland's cold, unfeeling, and yet somehow passionate delivery was extremely well done- each word coming from The Empire's out-of-this-world sound system shaking my right down to the pits of my stomach.

I'm pretty sure you've realised I could talk about this film for days, and I think that is its greatest credit. At the end of the day, Star Trek: Into Darkness is a true adventure and Abrams capitalises, filling us with awe and excitement, and wrapping up his achievement with that classic star trek theme song, wondrously re-wrought by Michael Giacchino. By the time I was on my way home, gleefully whistling that classic theme, I found myself looking up at the stars, praying that maybe someday we'll once again boldly go where no man has gone before.

Mud: Why were my summer childhood adventures so boring?

I walked out of my final college exam to realise that summer had indeed started, but it definitely didn't feel like it. Gone are the summer days where I had nothing I needed to do and I could do anything I wanted. I sometimes look back at those days and wish I could have done more with them. But the reality is that you can never go back to those days, albeit watching those summer coming-of-age tales are normally a pretty good way to harness some nostalgia, and so it was that I sought out the latest Matthew McConaughey vehicle, Mud.


Set in the Mississippi river area of Arkansas, Mud follows the story of a boy named Ellis and his friend Neckbone as they try to help a fugitive named Mud.  From the first time I heard this premise I was skeptical, I mean it sounds really like an interpretation of Huckleberry Finn, but the beauty in Arkansas native Jeff Nichols directing is that the film seems to fully acknowledge this and build upon it, going places that Huckleberry Finn never thought to go. Mud is not a slave running away from the sort of bondage that befouled this country two hundred years ago, although both characters run from the law. Instead, Mud seems to be running away from certain truths about his own life, and it is here that the movie is such a compelling coming of age tale.

We watch as Ellis finds his perspectives on love, marriage, and even his family's way of life as river-dwelling fishermen challenged time and time again, and actor Tyle Sheridan , who plays Ellis, manages to produce an incredibly stirring performance. In fact, I'd have to look really hard to find a major role in this film that wasn't played to perfection as Reese Witherspoon and Michael Shannon put in equally solid performances.

Matthew McConaughey is fantastic as Mud, a character with just enough spunk and weirdness as to bring out that slightly crazy, edgy, and comedic acting that makes McConaughey so effective. There's a sort of grit that emanates from the man that is perfectly replicated in all other aspects of the movie, including its setting. It seems that Nichols has made the river-dwelling way of life as much a character in this film as anyone else. It is on, by, and through the river that so much of the film's plot moves forward.

 Mud's destiny in particular , seems to be tied to the river's ebb and flow with the plot, and we can't help but hope that he succeeds, making one final escape from all life's problems and those of the river, out to sea.

Iron Man 3: Cool your jets and enjoy

Well it's almost summer, and the for at least the second year in a row we've been presented with another entry from Marvel in the third installment of the Iron Man films, which most would argue have been the flagship attractions of the Avengers franchise. Before I begin this review, I would like to offer sincere apologies in advance to any of my comic-reading friends- I am no expert in the Marvel universe and thus my humble opinion is simply that of a layman and you can take it as you will.

Iron Man 3 catches up with Tony Stark not too long after his adventures with his Avenger buddies and apparently the experience has been too much for him, leaving him to a life of bad dreams and panic attacks. Apart from that though, life probably couldn't be better for our hero, especially since his girlfriend Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) runs Stark Industries and he gets to stay at home and tinker with his suits all day. Of course, all this comes to a screeching halt in the face of a terrorist named The Mandarin, who "teaches" the U.S. lessons by blowing up innocent people around the world.

In order to talk about Iron Man 3, I think we first have to honest with ourselves about the nature of the Avengers series. Let's face it, none of these movies have particularly amazing storylines, because truth be told, unless you are Christopher Nolan it's pretty hard to surprise anyone in this genre anymore. Fortunately for us, moviemakers realised a while ago that there are only so many ways to save the world that won't bore us to death, and so movies like Ironman and Avengers are ripe with action but also with a much more important element in humour. The Ironman series is and has always has been completely tied to Robert Downey Jr's ability to be like that one slightly jerkish friend you have and keep around because he delivers hilarious insights every once in awhile. Iron Man 3 is no different, and the Robert Downey Jr. show continues, aiding in any lacking moments with much needed injections of sarcasm and wit that only he can deliver. At this point in the series, Robert Downey Jr seems so natural in this role, perhaps because the Tony Starks' story of resurrection and redemption mirrors his own. In any case, as much as I've gotten used to Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man in the past few years, I'm not quite sure if I still find myself as much as a believer in the whole Avengers deal.


Throughout Iron Man 3, Tony Stark finds himself outnumbered, outgunned and hopeless, mostly as a result of his own former transgressions. The attempted character development and Tony's panic attacks are cute enough, but it's rather hard to explain to the comic book ignoramus in me why he doesn't just call up his avenger buddies to come help him when he's in serious trouble. But like I said previously, all this griping is just further proof that story really doesn't matter that much when it comes to these movies.

When I got my ticket for Iron Man 3, I expected laughs, some action, and some Gwyneth Paltrow, and that's exactly what I received. Sure, I still can't take Don Cheadle seriously in an action role,  and there has yet to be an Iron Man movie where the villain doesn't at some point use Stark's technology for bad (you'd think it wouldn't be so easy for others to use it) , but Iron Man 3 is still better than Iron Man 2 and for that I'll count my blessings.


Note on the traditional post-credit sneak peak: Really not so much of a sneak peak as an extra forty second scene that is pretty forgettable. It really is ok to leave and not stay the extra ten minutes-  hell you might even beat the traffic out.

It's a Disaster: Funny till the very end of it all.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if I look forward to watching adverts more than the actual movie sometimes when I go to the cinema. There are those adverts that make you bristle with anticipation (I think I almost cried during the latest Man of Steel teaser),  but there are others that generate a great deal less of a good response. I have already wrongly dismissed one movie in the past year  on the basis of its commercial in Django Unchained, and it seems I have done so yet again with the new black comedy It's a Disaster.

It's a Disaster is all set around a traditional couples brunch in the middle of what appears to be a very lazy saturday afternoon. Glenn, played by the delightfully awkward David Cross (Tobias from Arrested Development) , and Tracy (Julia Stiles) have recently begun dating and Tracy has decided to introduce her new beau to her friends. Unfortunately, it appears there could not have been a worse occasion to do this, with tension and an imminent breakup threatening to derail the dinner party long before an apocalyptic scenario unfolds.

From the very beginning , the movie is set for some laughs- the opening shot being an old black and white photo of a seemingly wonderful beach, only for the camera to zoom out and reveal a bomb exploding in the ocean.


The film itself follows more or less the same approach, teasing you with normal scenarios and then turning them around on you spectacularly, meaning for some really funny moments. Truth be told, I've always been someone who can appreciate dark comedies, but I think even the most blithe of us all can appreciate the film's well thought out formula. This sort of comedy only works, I think, when everyone in the cast is capable of being funny, and director Todd Berger ensures this happens by giving everyone in the movie a role based on different stereotypical response to crises. Hence an hour and a half of laughing at a conspiracy theorist, a take-charge man, an in-denial woman and your expected "screw it all let's get high" crew, all try and coexist with the knowledge that they may only have a few hours to live. It all works really well, and the great thing is that movie doesn't even need to try that hard to be funny because the scenarios already are. In fact, the only thing that could really ruin a movie like this would be bad dialogue, but the writing is witty and sharp all the way through, resulting in one of the best endings to a film I've seen in awhile.


It's a Disaster is a funny, smirking sort of Dark Comedy, that would probably make you laugh even  in the midst of a real-life apocalyptic scenario. Perhaps its greatest strength is its ability to constantly quash its own predictability and offer up sumptuous surprises, which is no easy feat for any film and makes this money well spent.

The Place Beyond the Pines: An emotional powerhouse of unstable ambition

The relationship between a boy and his father is a peculiar notion that frequently asks the age-old question, does the apple fall from the tree? Rebutting the perturbing idiom, director Derek Cianfrance’s film “The Place Beyond the Pines” tracks the journey of four men, stunt motorcyclist Luke Glanton (Ryan Gosling), police officer Avery (Bradley Cooper), and their respective sons, Jason (Dane DeHaan) and AJ (Emory Cohen).

Narratively executed in three isolated, yet inter-connected tales, the film’s front-running story, Gosling’s, packs an emotional punch that sets the bar too high to follow. Luke, a stunt motorcyclist for a traveling carnival, learns that he knocked up former fling Romina (Eva Mendes) on his previous tour. Growing up without a father, Luke attempts to raise the boy and reconnect with Romina, a difficult task made worse by her current boyfriend. Desperate for money, and coaxed on by fellow motorcycle fanatic Robin (Ben Mendelsohn), Luke begins robbing banks to support his family.

The emotional depth of Gosling’s story let alone his and everyone else’s performance, creates an emotional momentum that is almost unsuccessfully carried on by the film’s trailing acts. Picking up now with Cooper, a police officer struggling with corruption in his profession, the overall film takes an odd misdirection that seems to come way out of left field. While the events of the second act feature a terrific villainous performance by Ray Liotta, and an outstanding enactment by Cooper, proving an incredible range of versatility, the relationships between characters begin to fell more contrived and superficial. Even more so, when fifteen years later we meet Cooper’s son AJ, the typical substance-abusing "daddy doesn’t spend time with me" kid.

While the character of AJ, co-pilot of our third and final story, seems artificial, Jason, Luke’s son and our other protagonist, redelivers the emotional stride that his father established in the beginning of the film. In a haunting manner, the rippling effects of the father’s sins come alive in this act, delivering an emotional finale summed up in one single shot of the film.

Despite hindrance by the over ambitious attempt at telling three tales in one, “The Place Beyond the Pines” is a tragic film worthy of much praise. A testament to Cianfrance’s ability to shock his audience, the film is an absolute must see for those curious about moral ambiguity, placing cops and robbers on a similar grounding, and psychologically unpacking the tantalizing expression, “like father like son.”

Ryan McCabe is a student majoring in Film and T.V. at NYU.  As a student finding his way in the film business at one of the nation's best film institutions, Ryan brings a unique perspective to this blog and recently voiced the roles of Peter Godwin and Theron Campion In Ellen Kushner and Neal Gaeman's  audio book The Fall of Kings. 

Netflix Review: Safety not guaranteed

Probably one of the best games I like to play with my friends is that of hypotheticals.  I really can’t explain just how enjoyable it is to watch each other struggle as we ask ridiculous questions such as “who delivers the eulogy at your funeral?”, or the inevitable last person on earth questions.  It is thus no surprise that I greatly enjoyed Safety Not Guaranteed, a film whose premise could probably fit well within our game.

Wanted: a partner to travel with me back in time, ready for danger and knowing that safety is not guaranteed. The above is the gist of the personal ad placed in a regional newspaper that engages a journalist (Jake Johnson) and his interns.  It turns out that this ad is not a joke, and that loner Kenneth (Mark Duplass- pete from The League) really does believe that he will be time-traveling. Of course nobody believes this guy, and the piece is intended to be a nice bit of comedic fluff for the newspaper.  Chief journalist Jake , has clearly used the situation to try and meet up with a former flame and so his wonderfully sarcastic, cynical intern is sent to investigate this weird so-called time-traveler, by posing as someone interested in his ad.  Naturally, the dude is an absolute nut, but it’s ok mostly because Mark Duplass is just that right amount of crazy to be humourous while gently reminding you of the singing homeless people you sometimes run into on the street; the pain and loneliness of their existence having long ago pushed them over some unseen line.

What makes this movie work is that it’s charming and is light and funny in every regard. It’s not a serious dramatic movie, but yet is capable of moments of supreme clarity, all the while not pretending to be anything that it’s not. The film is pretty predictable in some regards  and yet feels a bit too simple- as though it could be replicated as some sort of made-for-tv-hallmark-special.  Luckily for us, the writing and jokes are extremely well written and very well-delivered. Duplass’ craziness is so well emoted- so well controlled, that I almost forgot that he is the same guy I watch in The League. His chosen time-traveling companion is also a delight- her deadpan humour fitting well in the dynamic of the film, with its jaunty but real approach fitting her on-screen persona rather well.

Safety Not Guaranteed is a great Sunday afternoon movie, a little independent movie that has no grand assumptions about it identity, but holds true to its promise, delivering powerful messages without making you feel burdened. In fact, it got me thinking about what I would do if I traveled back in time, and what I would fix. I’m not quite sure what that would be yet, but I know I have no regrets for having watched a truly wonderful film. 

42: "Good" can't be good enough for a great man

I love baseball movies and yet I hate watching baseball. Don't get me wrong, going to games and relaxing, eating peanuts with your friends and family and occasionally paying attention to any juicy bits of action is really nice,  but we're only a couple weeks in and I'm already sick of seeing a million identical diving catches on SportsCenter's top plays. But somehow, I have never quite had that problem with films about baseball, and so I was excited about the latest entry into the baseball film category- a biopic about the great Jackie Robinson.

For those of you who don't know (i.e. you were cryogenically frozen for the past sixty years) , Jackie Robinson was the first black man to ever play in baseball's major league. One of the best to ever play the game, Robinson became the catalyst for the diversification of America's pastime, serving as a hero to a whole new generation of black sport stars who would change the landscape of sports to what we know today. Robinson's struggle to be seen as an equal in a league that didn't want him , seemed to me to be fodder for a guaranteed home run (yes the baseball puns will be abound in this one), and I came into the theatre not questioning whether it would be good, but great.

Right off the bat, something about the presentation of the movie seemed a little off. Biopics tend to be all over the place in terms of how they introduce their subjects, and at what part in their lives we find them. Unfortunately, the way the beginning of 42 is handled, it felt more like I was watching a Ken Burns PBS Special on the Jackie Robinson Era. While the background on the era was appreciated, it seemed to take away the majesty that one often finds so often in baseball movies. In the following scene we we're taken to the pivotal moment where Dodgers owner Branch Rickley decides he wants to sign a black baseball player. Not only are the acted reactions to this announcement worthy of a middle school christmas program, but surely the screenwriter could have included a lot of the background information from the beginning in the dialogue. I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure Rickley's staff had more to say than a muffled "you can't do that". I mean at least try something like "you can't do that, there's never been a negro in the major league... that's why we have the negro league". Boom. In thirty seconds worth of effort, the writing could have been that much better, and an out of place opening sequence need not have been shot at all.

Thankfully, the storytelling seems to go a lot better. The fact that much of 42 takes place when Jackie is signed to the Dodgers' feeder team and works his way up turns out to be a brilliant move, as it gives us time to get to know the central characters before some of Jackie's biggest trials are met. Harrison Ford is expectedly good as Rickley, although I don't think he is ever given enough material to really satisfy his justification for wanting to sign a black player in the first place. The acting by Chadwick Boseman as Robinson is sturdy, but by no means anything to contact the annals of history about. He is certainly no Jamie Foxx in Ray, or Sean Penn in Milk, but that's ok, because that's not the sort of movie 42 is.

42 is not daring or particularly life-changing, but it's not mediocre or irreverent either. In fact, I think it's only real problem as a movie is that it is perhaps a bit too focused on being accurate without using some of the historical tools at its disposal. Directors have long used the sanctity of America's pastime to produce philosophical forays into the American experience and there is perhaps no better launch pad to talk about the evolution of race-relations in the States than the story of Jackie Robinson. 42 never shies away from this, and does a fair job of showing some of what Robinson had to deal with, but it fails to drape its hero in the godlike fashion that we expect from great baseball movies and that he deserves. In fictional characters like Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez (The Sandlot) to Roy Hobbs (The Natural), we're given a myriad of figures who are rather human and commit godlike deeds as we watch in awe. Somehow, 42 has managed to take an extraordinary man who commands respect like a deity in his sport,  and made his accomplishments seem somehow less awe-inspiring, even though both your natural knowledge of the subject and the context of the film repeatedly tell you otherwise.

Baseball, in a classic sense, is all about the mythology, the superstition, the fear of being struck out and gunning for a homer all the same. But 42 seems to miss these elements, and in the end a promising hit turns out to be just another pop-fly, caught and quickly forgotten; everything that Jackie Robinson and his legacy are not.

A tribute to Roger Ebert

I scanned my facebook newsfeed this afternoon, and was delivered a small shock of sorts. Roger Ebert, the renowned movie critic and one of my heroes was dead. I knew this not from any "Rest in Peace" statuses (though there were many later), but rather from the simple changing of a profile picture by one of my friends. My friend Jake had the good fortune to meet Ebert at a book signing in Chicago a while ago, and the picture says it all; the grin on my friend's face matching the old gentleman's beside him. Ebert's smile of course wasn't nearly as voluntary as my friend Jake's - a malicious cancer that led to the removal of  his thyroid  in 2006 saw to that, but his eyes in the picture reveal a wit undimmed and a spirit stronger than ever.

The great Roger Ebert

I'm afraid it was this older and more frail Roger Ebert that I really knew of. Like most college students my age, I had been far too young to appreciate  Siskel and Ebert at the Movies, and living in England and Belgium with basic cable prevented me from watching any of his later T.V. shows as great as they were. Considering this and the fact that I never met the guy, one could question my having dedicated an entire blogpost to my thoughts on this man, but I would beg to differ. 

The Roger Ebert I knew of was a man who could no longer speak, but whose writing soared to heights that are only worthy of those forever remembered. As I became more and more interested in movies in high school,  it became a regular occurrence for me to look at one of his reviews soon after watching a movie I had enjoyed. There was something comforting about knowing Ebert agreed with you about a movie, and a weird sense of accomplishment when he didn't. Most of the time we agreed, and I would marvel at the work of a man who seemed able to take everything I had felt about a movie and make it into a coherent, funny and insightful review. Ebert could be erudite and showcase his knowledge of film without being too lofty or condescending, but never degraded himself to those two word quotes fit for airing on commercials five weeks before a film's release, that are clearly given on the way to some studio-sponsored free buffet. 

Above all, what made Roger Ebert so special to me, was that he was so much more than a movie critic. Whilst I loved hearing about how good or bad movies were, I read his reviews to try and piece together different parts of what was a truly fascinating man. Ebert, it seems, possessed an almost Forrest-Gumpian knack for being involved with all things Chicago. It was he after all, according to Oprah Winfrey, who convinced the icon to go into syndication in the first place. Towards the end, Ebert would entertain us, his fans, with tales of strange local bars, drunken interviews with classic movie stars, and his many views on life, all of which were always an amazing read. His opinions on things always came across as being so very genuine, all the while accompanied with devastating sarcasm and an incredible sense of humour. 

Ebert's determination to keep writing both for fun and for reviews even after the loss of his speech, is probably the greatest testament I can give to someone who has truly changed the way people think about movies. The man whose reviews and various publications I have followed for a few years now died today as one of the greatest critics and writers of his generation, and I am proud to have known of him if only for a short time of his life. 

Roger, it seems I hardly knew you, but know that your words have inspired me beyond measure to believe that one small, pudgy man can leave the footprint of a giant. 

Spring Breakers: "Better not bring yo' kids"

Every once in a while there arrive moments in life where you stop and wonder whether you are laughing because something is funny, or whether you are simply laughing to get through the weirdness of it all. For me, quite a few instances come to mind; a bad encounter with Mexican food in Florida among them, but it looks as though I will have to add Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers to that list as well.

I'm not quite sure what it was I was expecting when I went to go see this movie- perhaps a farce starring ex-Disney channel princesses having a Hangover-type experience whilst on holiday ,but that was not what I got. The movie seems to start out that way, as we are introduced to a sleepy college somewhere in Kentucky that is rapidly clearing out for spring break. Faith, the appropiately named supposedly-religious girl played by Selena Gomez, is planning to go down to Florida with her childhood friends, who for whatever reason have chosen quite a different moral path. The problem, it turns out is that they have no money, and thus no real way to get down there. Criminal activity ensues as the girls rob a chicken place to get money and then go down to Florida where upon renting scooters and snorting cocaine (how much money did these girls steal?)  things obviously go wrong.

credit to Eric Moyer for this gem

The thing that makes this film so interesting is the aura it gives at different times. Enter a world of neon lights and neon bikinis, of weird techno sequences not unlike those in Drive playing throughout some of the crucial moments in the film. Korine somehow manages to take a disney-channel original movie setup and make it dirty and grisly, forcing us to laugh even when maybe it isn't that funny. Korine seems to delight in beach party sequences that show wouldn't-want-your-mother-to-walk-in-and-see-you-watching-this-nudity, a dramatic emotional scene and the restatement (three or four times) of some saccharine line about wanting the best ever spring break. In fact, it's so over the top that at points the format can be maddening, but the people in the movie know this and run away with it.

James Franco is at his best as rapper/gangster Alien, the metal-grilled "friend" the girls make on the trip. If this is a tale about the distortion of innocence, Alien is a strange pied-piper figure leading our girls to lower levels of human depravity, every now and then spitting creepily delivered mini-poems and haiku that make you laugh because of the ridiculousness of the situations. In what is soon to be an iconic scene, Franco manages to turn his sung rendition of Britney Spears' Everytime into a surprisingly dark song.

Franco's "Everytime" scene

Franco is probably the only reason the movie works , and a lot of the other characters don't seem to make much sense or really fulfill any real purpose. In the end, only Alien pulls together the neon lights and twisted themes to make us feel like we've watched anything at all, and it's a shame he's not in the first half an hour of the movie. Spring Breakers was definitely a much better film than it could have been- it's a smart, funny, self-aware satire, that seems to want to hanker back to an eighties-film with its sequences.

Oz the Great and Powerful:

Even when I was a little boy, I always knew what sort of children's movies my parents would or wouldn't like. It had to be intelligent, witty and have the balls enough to send some rather dirty jokes right over the heads of kids to the parents to reward them for the hefty price tag that comes when you take your whole family to a multiplex. After I saw Oz the Great and Powerful, I was very confused indeed. I wasn't quite sure what type of kid's movie I had seen and the following is a list of reasons why.

The Acting : Oz  is an origin tale of the "wonderful wizard" we encounter in the classic Wizard of Oz.  Oz starts out as a scheming womanizer known as Oscar Diggs, with no real magical talent who dreams of greatness but doesn't seem willing to do the work to get it. At the same time, our hero is constantly needled by a desire to do the right thing, which of course doesn't happen until the end of the movie. Poor James Franco is probably more confused than we are the whole time. Every once in a while he gets a look on his face that tells us he really is uncomfortable in such a clean children's movie. At times I could almost hear the "that's what she said" jokes going off in his head to counter all of the ridiculously over-saccharine elements of the script. Acknowledging the ridiculousness of the film, Franco gives us some good chuckles every once in a while but ultimately cannot give this movie any real help. While I am happy Johnny Depp passed up on this one (do we really want a repeat of his Michael Jackson-like Wonka?), I can't help but think that Robert Downey Jr. would have been the perfect man for this role had he not turned it down himself. I would have thought that a Zach Braff and James Franco pairing would be an extremely funny pairing, but in the end Braff just isn't given anything to work with. Some briefly funny moments at the beginning of the film are great, but they stop there, and somehow the makers of this movie didn't see comedic potential in Braff voicing a flying monkey? Just scandalous. Mila Kunis seems to do relatively well at the start of the movie, but in the end her turn as Theodora, the eventual Wicked Witch, just doesn't seem to make much sense. When her character is a good witch , she's also somewhat of a jealous crazy girl, so when she turns evil the character development never happens. Word on the street is that this lack of making sense has her in the running for a razzie . The only people that seem to commit well to the movie  are Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, and even they are turning coals of dialogue into diamonds. 

Special Effects: In the original classic Wizard of Oz, the change to colour upon arrival in Oz is one of the most iconic moments in the history of film-making  Thus I expected Oz to pull out all the visual stops when they opted to do the same thing and start out the movie in black and white. Unfortunately, after a year of seeing movies like Life of Pi, Oz's decent special effects and created world did not inspire any awe at all. It almost seemed like a mockery of the classic colour change to show the land of Oz so half-heartedly and no child born on this side of the millennium will bat an eyelid at the computer generated characters. 

 Dialogue: Don't misunderstand me, Oz is a children's film- I understand. Nearly all of my childhood  favourites (still my favourites) have some incredibly cheesy themes and lines. Lines like "I do, I do, I do believe in fairies" are just part of the gig. But at least most of them had the decency to tell me all about their hopes and dreams in a song instead of delivering it unconvincingly in the middle of an otherwise serious conversation. Part of what makes the original Wizard of Oz cool is that there are those ridiculous songs in it, and apart from one weird "munchkin song", which brought back politically incorrect echoes of the oompa-loompa songs in the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, there was no effort in Oz to harden the mushy message. Some may claim that the age of sing-along children's movies are over, but as Tangled shows, movies that focus in only on the kiddy- viewers can still do very well with those sing-along elements. 

Maybe fifteen years ago I would have enjoyed this movie. But I like to think that kids around the world are smarter than this muddled attempt at a promising premise.Despite a final third that is actually quite enjoyable, Oz will never be iconic in any shape or form, tossed aside a day after mummy buys it along with such movies as The Ant Bully, and The Land Before Time 6 (or 7,8,9 etc.). To make matters worse, box-office reports have been stellar and they're making a sequel! At least franchises like Ice Age started out somewhat seriously before dumbing down its content value and robbing families blind. 

Side Effects: Questionably bad title. Great movie.

A couple weeks ago, a friend expressed his desire to watch a movie with me because he thought it would be a very different experience. I think he was expecting to see me show up to a cinema with notebook and pen in hand to jot down notes for my reviews, but I very rarely write down anything at all when preparing to write one. I do however, do some brainstorming in my head- working out different approaches to each film.  Normally I'm spot on in the first hour of the movie in what I expect I'll say, that was until a couple weeks ago when I saw Steven Soderbergh's latest work entitled Side Effects.

In fact, such was the complex nature of this drama, complete with plot twists bold enough to shock even the most jaded of moviegoers, that it is actually hard to even describe what this film is about without giving away parts of the film that are extremely important.  I guess the most inoffensive summary I can give you is that Side Effects is a drama about a troubled young woman named  Emily (Rooney Mara) who experiences some ridiculously disturbing results after she takes a drug prescribed by her new psychiatrist (Jude Law) to combat her depression. Such a summary actually well describes my initial attitudes towards the film about a quarter of the way through its viewing. Here, I thought, was a rather stark social commentary about our medical system and the cronyism involved between doctors and the drug industry. It was perfect fodder for a great review; I would talk about the quality of the movie and then segue into some meaningful paragraph about the commercialization of medicinal products. Hell, one of Side Effects' leads Catherine Zeta-Jones even suffers from bipolar disorder. A great film about a pertinent issue inspiring a great review. But it was not to be, and the film's sharp turn in direction is something that I could have only expected from someone like Soderbergh, whose CV includes some of my all-time favourites.

Side Effects may soon be added to that list of Soderbergh gems, with literally every aspect of the film working extremely well. I've never been much for the whole maniacally crazy routine, but Rooney Mara was probably as good in this film as I've ever seen her. There is a classic Hitchcock-femme-fatale quality about her facial expressions that makes it all the more effective when she zips from emotion to emotion throughout the film. Mara can be angry, vulnerable, sincere, then snide all at different times during a two-minute conversation without it ever seeming forced or over-dramatic. Jude Law also puts in a great performance, which coincidentally is the first leading role he's had in a while that actually lets him use his natural English accent. As an Englishman myself, I may be biased, but I'm pretty sure the droves of women who worship these actors won't mind if they use their real accents. How much more badass would Idris Elba's character in Prometheus have been if he had been allowed to let that East London slang come through? Fortunately, with Side Effects that is not a question we have to ponder, and besides his usual amount of charm, Law adds a dose of his dramatic flair as as the psychiatrist. 

They originally wanted to hire Blake Lively as the lead...madness

The real cornerstones of this film are the direction and screenplay, which seem like such a breath of fresh air. The plot twists never seem mechanical, the suspense never dulls and more importantly Soderbergh never feels the need to spoon feed everything to you. There are clues along the away that can tip-off the most observant of viewers, but the resolutions to so many of the film's questions don't get answered until they absolutely have to be. This makes Side Effects a great movie to watch with a bunch of friends because everyone will react in different ways based on how many of those clues they have picked up. Any of us that have watched The Walking Dead this season (slight spoiler alert ahead) know that balancing plot twists with unstable characters is no easy task, and I think I appreciate Soderbergh's subtleties even more as a result. 

We all know that 2012 was one of the best years for movies ever, but now it almost seems like Hollywood is hungover from all the past year's revelries and successes. There are plenty of movies to get excited about in 2013, but these past couple months have been rather event-less apart from Warm Bodies. Personally, I left the Christmas season feeling rather drained from having seen and reviewed so many awesome movies, but Side Effects is just the dose of aspirin I needed and the best film of 2013 I've seen so far.

Guncotton's Oscar Predictions 2013

So I've put off my Oscar predictions as long as humanly possible, but since they are today I feel like I might as well do them now. The reasons for my delay are numerous, but probably the biggest reason why I wanted to hold off was simply that I hadn't seen enough of the contenders. Every year I find I have seen most of the contenders, only for one frustratingly-independent-and-thus-hard-to-find movie in every category to screw me. This year, after having watched more movies than ever before because of this blog, I still wasn't completely ready, but thanks to the internet, Netflix and their posting of Five Broken Cameras (a nominee for Best Documentary), this is the first time I will have seen everything.

Best Visual Effects: I figured I would start with something pretty easy and largely not controversial, and if you were one of the two main groups that flocked to go see Ang Lee's Life of Pi (Asians and fans of the book), then you will completely understand what I am about to say. I hate 3D. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when I went to go see a movie and was extremely excited to go through almost two hours with some strange plastic object annoying my nose, watching something that was just as enjoyable without the lovely wallet-dent of fifteen bucks. However, Life of Pi is the only movie I have seen in 3D that  has ever fully justified its use to me. Ang Lee produces moments gasp-inducing beauty and wonder that were fantastic to behold not once but all of the three occasions I saw it. Looking at the other nominees on the list: Prometheus, The Hobbit, The Avengers and Snow White and the Huntsman-it's a shoo in.



Who should win: Life of Pi

Who will win: Life of Pi




Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay): And of all of a sudden things get very difficult indeed. 2012 was the best movie year ever and possessed a unique balance of both adapted screenplays and new original work. The problem for me is that the Adapted Screenplay division of the Best Writing award is probably as stacked as it has ever been. Argo, Lincoln, Life of Pi, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Silver Linings Playbook are all up for this one, and coincidentally are all up for best picture, making this a potential indicator of the night's biggest prize.For me, the award is a close decision between Argo, Life of Pi and Lincoln. When I first saw Argo, its writing was probably what impressed me the most- the steady flow of smart, crisp and quick dialogue pushing the drama along in a way that I never would have imagined from a Ben Affleck film. But the actual task of the adaptation of Argo's story is not quite as impressive for me, as the real-life story of a CIA agent rescuing foreign service officers from Iran by posing as a movie crew, is something that cries out to be made into a movie- the material is all there.  One film that had the hardest task was definitely Life of Pi, with writer David Magee bringing to life a format of storytelling that can at times be confusing even in the book the movie is based on. Such was the nature of the book, that people claimed it to be "unfilmable", but such is the nature of the Oscars that it will probably lose out to Spielberg's Lincoln. In many ways, Lincoln is everything the Oscars want for a sweep of the night's awards. A movie about one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen, dealing with one of the greatest conflicts this nation has ever seen. But Lincoln, is also one of Spielberg's smartest ever films, zipping along in a snappiness that reminds you of an Aaron Sorkin work. It'll be a close one, but even if Lincoln loses on the night's biggest prizes, it will pull this one out.

Who should win: Life of Pi

Who will probably win: Lincoln


Best Writing (Original Screenplay): This one is slightly less difficult in that less of the movies in this category are up for Best Picture awards. Amour, Django, Moonrise Kingdom, Flight and Zero Dark Thirty are the nominees, and they represent a wide selection of genres and sorts of movies. Django, while being one of my favourite movies of the year definitely won't win and probably shouldn't. It is a great movie for sure, but nothing really about it's writing was anything out of the ordinary for a Quentin Tarantino film (other than the fact the story is actually shot sequentially), and since the Oscars have been less than nice to his films in the past, there is no reason to suspect they will now. Moonrise Kingdom, represents a summer love affair with the critical community that has now been largely forgotten after so many other fine girls walked into our lives. While being a quirky, refreshingly bizarre film, it's more likely to become a cult classic than an Oscar win for Original Screenplay. Amour and Flight represent fantastic dramas of the melancholy kind, but are better defined for the ability of their stars (Emmanuelle Riva and Denzel Washington respectively) to bring the writing to life than the writing itself. Zero Dark Thirty's Oscar appeal has taken a hit because of qualms about the torture scenes shown in it, but American squeamishness about tactics that eventually resulted in wild celebrations around the country aside, it is both a deserving and predictable winner, with writing and dialogue that checks all the boxes of a political drama based on the greatest manhunt of our time.

Who should win: Zero Dark Thirty

Who will win: Zero Dark Thirty

Sound Mixing/ Sound Editing: I thought I would lump these two awards together and keep it short because quite frankly, nobody cares. Sound editing refers to the actual process of recording sound effects and creating other random and music elements that exist in the background. Sound Mixing is when all those things are (wait for it) mixed together along with dialogue, and levels are adjusted to create the right balances for the final cut. I would expect Zero Dark Thirty to win Sound Editing just because of its torture scenes alone (sounds that stayed with me), not to mentioned the careful application of different sound elements before and after the film's climax. Sound mixing is a harder one, but I think it may be one of the few Oscars Les Mis actually will win, with the combination of so many more elements (singing to name one) that will tip the scales in its favour.




Sound Editing nominees: Argo, Life of Pi, Django, Skyfall, Zero Dark Thirty

Who will win : Zero Dark Thirty

Sound Mixing nominees:  Argo, Les Mis, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Skyfall

Who will win : Les Mis.


Short Film (Live Action): The nominees for this award  this year have all been rather good with Asad, Buzkashi Boys, Curfew, Henry and Death of a Shadow all being interesting to watch. However for me, Asad, the story of a young boy dealing with some pretty tough choices in Somalia is the likely winner even though Buzkashi Boys, the story of two boys living in Afghanistan, is also rather powerful. However because of the similarity The Academy will see between it and full length features of the past such as The Kite Runner, Buzkashi Boys will most likely get screwed, just as is the case for Henry, whose similarity to this year's Amour will hurt it.

Who will win: Asad.  

Short Film (Animated): The animated short films are always some of my favourites to watch as they often have really interesting story-lines  most of the time with very little to no dialogue at all. This year's nominees are no different but there are two very clear front runners in Paperman (which has become a bit of an internet sensation) and Head over Heels. Paperman is Walt Disney's entry this year, showing the black and white story of two office workers whose getting together is aided by paper. While the premise is a little weird,  there is no one else in the category that can even touch it save Head over heels- a similarly romantic piece (albeit with more depth) about the emotional distance between an older married couple. Paperman is the clear favourite but the Oscars like surprises, especially up against mega-giants like Disney.

Who should win: Head over Heels

Who will win: Paperman



Production Design: I'm not ashamed to say I had to look up what this award even was. In a nutshell it's the overall visual design and feel of the movie, through sets, costumes- the whole enchilada. Given its attention to detail and the complexity of the time it's in Lincoln will probably outpace Les Mis on this one easily.

Who should and will win: Lincoln


Best Original Song: If there was one award that could sum up the apparent ambivalence of the critical community towards Les Mis it is probably this one. "Suddenly", a piece added to an already long (but awesome) musical just for the sake of winning an award, has been completely out-staged by the introduction song to Skyfall. There's not a person on earth that doesn't think Adele won't win, and she doesn't stuff will go down.

Winner (period): Skyfall


Musical Score: For such an epic film  John Williams score to Lincoln was extremely underwhelming. In fact. I would probably go as far to say that it sucked, but I love his other music far too much. Thus with no other real contenders in the field, Life of Pi will probably win this one, although even its score wasn't that amazing.

Who should and will win: Life of Pi


Foreign Language Film: Another one not even up for discussion. Typically when a foreign film is in the discussion for a lot of other Oscars, the one it'll probably win is this one. Amour for the win.


Winner (by a landslide): Amour


Film Editing: This one's a toughie but I'll play it safe and go with Argo. One of the better aspects of the film are the crisp transitions that add to the building drama and tension.

Who should and will win: Argo


Documentary Short: This is category is one of my favourites, mostly just because the documentaries shown are always pretty powerful. This year's presumptive favourites are no different, my favourite being Mondays at Racine- a film about women fighting cancer who meet at a beauty salon. Another big contender is Inocente, a film about a homeless immigrant that seemed to give everyone pause for thought when I saw it in the cinema.

Who should win: Inocente

Who will win: Mondays at Racine


Documentary Feature: This one is probably the reason I have waiting so long to make my predictions. It's one thing to watch all of the shorts because they're not that long and luckily for me were shown at my local cinema. It is another to try and find some of these documentaries, but luckily the internet is a wonderful place. In my mind there really is no competition and "Five Broken Cameras" really should win. Director Ernad Burnat, is a Palestinian living in a small village in the West Bank and his film chronicles the struggles his people encounter with encroaching Israeli settlements. Burnat gets his first camera to film his son's birth in 2005, but ends up using it to film the conflict over a few years. Every now and then one of Burnat's cameras get broken, most of the time because Israeli soldiers don't want him filming. Edited and put together by his friend, Israeli director Guy Davidi, Burnat's documentary is extremely powerful.

Random tidbit: Burnat and his family were actually detained at LAX this past week en-route to the Oscars because airport security didn't believe such a regular looking Palestinian guy had been nominated for an academy award.

Who should and will win: Five Broken Cameras


Directing: This one really could be a crapshoot, but there are ways to find a winner out of Lincoln, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour, Life of Pi, and Silver Linings Playbook...or not. In any case Steven Spielberg has only won Best Director when the movie has won Best Picture once- for Schindler's List. Even perhaps more interesting is that he has never won Best Director when one of his stars has won Best Actor, meaning that if Lincoln wins Best Actor and Best Picture, then it would be highly unlikely for him to win Best Director as well. Ang Lee did an extraordinary job with Life of Pi, but again is unlikely to win both Best Picture and Best Director. The dark houses, mainly David O. Russell (Silver Linings) and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts) have legitimate chances to spring a surprise, with Zeitlin leading the charge in that sense with the little movie that could. I

Who I really want to win: Benh Zeitlin (Beasts)

Who could win:  Ang Lee

Wish you were here: Ben Affleck (Argo)

Who will win: Steven Spielberg



Costume Design: I'll throw Les Mis a bone.


Cinematography: This one is a pretty foregone conclusion and accurately describes one of my rules of the night: give the visual awards to Life of Pi when Argo isn't nominated.

Who should and will win: Life of Pi


Animated Feature Film: We've been longing for an introspective look at the video game world forever, and we got it in the tale of a video game character that wants to be something more. Popular appeal may hurt it but I feel it is a much better movie than Brave, which I consider a bit of a miss for Pixar.

Who should win : Wreck it Ralph

Who will win: Wreck it Ralph


Best Supporting Actress : And to think I was beginning to roar through these. Amy Adams was pretty darn good in The Master, although because it is the one out of these that I saw most recently I could be biased. Jacki Weaver was good in Silver Linings Playbook, but I didn't walk away from the theatre thinking she had produced a better performance than anyone else in the movie, which is also a tribute to the wealth of acting in it. Sally Fields, did a fantastic job, even if Mrs. Lincoln annoyed the hell out of me. The clear winner in this one though will by Anne Hathaway, whose turn as Fantine is probably the only thing everyone in the world agrees was absolutely scintillating in Les Mis.


Who should and will win: Anne Hathaway


Best Supporting Actor: This award is probably more about who isn't being talked about to win than who will win. Alan Arkin by far was and is the best person to win this award, however his acting style isn't one that normally wins academy awards. For this reason alone, Tommy Lee Jones will probably win for Lincoln, as his role was the more dramatic- giving him tons of impassioned speeches and soundbites that ultimately trump the golden line "Arrgoo F*** yourself".

Who should win: Alan Arkin

Who will win: Tommy Lee Jones



Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence must know this is her award to lose and she represents a breed that is rare among actresses, being both a critical  and box office love-child. However we all know the Oscars have a habit of giving lifetime achievement awards to people and it is in this regard that my feminine namesake, Emmanuelle Riva could very possibly win. However, my favourite nominee has to be Quvanzhae Wallis, star of Beasts of the Southern Wild, and arguably responsible for the film's entire critical success  Unfortunately for her, a nomination probably is as much as the Academy will give her this time round, much like Jennifer Lawrence's nomination for Winters Bone a couple years ago.
I think I'll start the surprises.


Shock winner : Emmanuelle Riva


Best Actor: A really tough year to be a leading man. Any of the nominees would have won in previous years, but this one is obvious.

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis


Best Picture: So this is where I see the night's biggest upset, in perhaps one of the biggest crapshoots ever at the Oscars. I'll spare you my justifications and just give you my predictions:

Sore loser: Lincoln

Winner: Argo, followed by wild celebrations and proof once and for all that Ben Affleck actually did help Matt Damon write Good Will Hunting.

Netflix Streamer: First Position

I remember that when Billy Elliot came out I was deemed far too young to see it. At barely seven years of age, there is no way I would have understood all of the issues eschewed in the film, nevermind the fact that I would have learnt a whole new world of swear words. Even so, everyone saw the adverts and knew the story of a boy who chooses to secretly pursue ballet, right under the nose of his uber masculine father. Even though I didn't see the film until I was much older, the iconic shots of little Jamie Bell dancing his socks off in the streets of north England had a profound effect on me. As it turned out, I chose sports and music as my artistic and physical outlets. When it came to gymnastics and dance I was as stiff as a cardboard box, and although my dancing has improved (my caribbean blood finally manifested itself age 11), I still can barely touch my toes, let alone point them. Thus, as I sat down to watch Bess Kargman's 2011 documentary First Position, I did so almost reluctantly, not willing to be reminded of my former shortcomings.

First Position is a documentary that looks at the world of dance by examining the journey of a number of aspiring dancers of differing ages as they prepare and compete for a chance at their dreams in the Youth America Grand Prix. Upon reading a similar summary given to me by Netflix's info, I was anticipating some sort of extended version of the TLC show Dance Moms, complete with needless drama about choreography and the mind-numbing politics of the studio. But First Position is not that sort of beast, and shows us a world that many of us have had no exposure to, in an upbeat and yet honest way. Kargman does this through her examination of her carefully chosen participants. We are introduced to six dancers with very differing backgrounds and challenges who compete with one certainty in common: that failure could shatter their dreams.

Some of the participants have stories that we automatically latch onto without hesitation. We meet Joan, a boy from Columbia, practicing and living thousands of miles away from his family all for a shot at a scholarship to a ballet school. Yet another inspiring ballet dancer we meet is Aran, an American "navy brat" living as an ex-pat in Italy whose composure and determination is far beyond that of the typical kid his age. However, the real crowning jewel of this documentary is the now semi-famous Michaela DePrince, who grew up as an orphan in the midst of the Sierra Leonean Civil War. She talks of her earliest memories in such a horrifyingly inhumane environment so matter-of-factly that what she says throughout the documentary hits home better than anything any of the other kids do. In fact, because of the strength of Michaela and Joan's respective stories, I almost felt bad for the other kids highlighted in the documentary. Afterall, it's not their fault they have led relatively normal lives, but the camera (and Kargman) seems to love Michaela and Joan more and more as time goes on.

What's best about the whole affair is that Kargman's documentary doesn't gloss over much, and the nature of what is discussed means that it doesn't need to be over-dramatized.  It's the casual way First Position is shot that gets you in the end, whether it's Aran showing us his latest foot torture/ stretcher apparatus among his toys ("you do a ton of these and then five more when you can't do anymore"), or Michaela's adoptive mother painfully bemoaning ballet's racist perception of her daughter. There are failures and setbacks, injuries and financial burdens, but they all pale in comparison to the joy and happiness both the dancers and we feel during a performance.

Every now and then, Kargman interrupts our following of each featured dancer and provides us with quick testimonials about the key parts of a dancing lifestyle. We hear from so many judges, parents and coaches that it is impossible not to appreciate how many people's lives revolve around competitions like these. The magnitude of the time commitments alone are boggling, but First Position answers the inevitable "why?", with pirouettes and arabesques to say "why not?". Why shouldn't Aran's mother drive him to receive lessons over three hours away?  Why shouldn't Joan's mother have such faith as to pour much of the family's money into her son , even though male ballet defies Columbian cultural norms? Kargman, however is no Spielberg, and the film goes to great lengths to remind us these kids are already one in a million for making it this far and still might not make the big time.  Still, it's hard not to wonder that if these kids are doing all this and achieving so much at a young age, what are the majority of us doing with our lives?

Paige's Pages: A Teenage Girl's Thoughts of the Movies of 2012

2012 came and went like a dream, leaving only the perfume of Honey Boo Boo, Ridiculously Photogenic Guy, and Grumpy Cat, as well as a trail of movies, in its wake.

The highest grossing films of 2012 (thanks, Wikipedia <3) were, in this order:

The Avengers

Skyfall

The Dark Knight Rises

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Ice Age: Continental Drift

Breaking Dawn Part 2

The Amazing Spider-Man

Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted (aka Polka Dot Afro Circus)

The Hunger Games

Men in Black 3

            Notice something? All sequels or adaptations. But that’s not news to you or me; the trend of unoriginality has been going for years now. Out of these movies, I saw two: The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit. I actually saw about a third or so of The Hunger Games too, but I skipped around so much I don’t think I actually have anything coherent to say about it other than this: Lenny Kravitz dayumm.

            The Dark Knight Rises was solid but, in my opinion, the weakest in Nolan’s trilogy. Anne Hathaway as sexy? To me, she has this wholesome air about her that makes her beautiful and lovely, but not hot or sexy (damn the Princess Diaries for doing this to me). I loved Bane’s monologues—when I could understand his garbled voice. Joseph Gordon-Levitt? As (SPOILER ALERRRT) Robin? YES. Nothing, however, will top Batman Begins for me— a movie I watch so often in middle school, in my basement alone, that my parents actually got concerned.

            The Hobbit was also a great movie, but without the crispness, finesse, and air of seriousness that pervaded Lord of the Rings. Perhaps this is due to the new frames-per-minute format? Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo, Richard Armitage was swoon-worthy as Thorin Oakenshield, Rivendell was as jealousy-making as ever, but nothing too much happened— whatever, I just can’t wait to see Legolas in the sequel.

            The first movie I saw in 2012 was The Devil Inside. My friend Mackenzie, lover of abnormal psych, insisted upon it. I’ll watch almost anything about exorcisms, but the film abruptly cut to black at the end and flashed a link on the screen, rendering the movie essentially an hour-and-a-half-long advertisement for a promotional tie-in website. I was not impressed. 2012 in film was not off to a great start.

            However, come February, one of my favorite movies of the year came out: The Woman in Black. A gothic ghost story set in Edwardian England, the film boasted Daniel Radcliffe in his first post-Potter appearance. The atmosphere, the story, and the freshness of the movie were deeply satisfying.

            In late spring, my friend Kate and I ditched the end-of-the-year Bacchanalian festivities to catch a flick that had caught her eye: The Cabin in the Woods. GO AND SEE THIS MOVIE. Funny, sharp, terrifying, and mind-blowing, this was the best way to end my freshman year of college: with a true piece of modern art. And, we weren’t hungover the next day.

Two other movies I loved from the second half of the year were on the expected side: Lincoln (Tommy Lee Jones!! Daniel Day-Lewis!!) and Life of Pi. May all of the Oscars go to them.

I have some pleas for the plethora of movie executives reading this blog. They are simple and not too extravagant, I think.

1)   Stop with the godforsaken Snow White movies. It was not the best move to take the most boring fairy tale in the classic canon and turn it into both a candy-coated failure and a Kristen “Grumpy Cat” Stewart vehicle. Also, trying to convince anyone that Charlize Theron is not the fairest one of all is sort of a joke.

2)   Please don’t make Channing Tatum fall in love with a woman named Paige in a movie again. I didn’t see The Vow, but seeing those trailers and imagining his wooden delivery of “Paige, I love you!” was a little too close to home.

3)   Speaking of Channing Tatum, please don’t let older women make comments in the theater during his movies. Seeing Magic Mike with my friends was rendered painful by post-menopausal women meowing and shouting un-repeatable things at the movie screen.

4)   Most importantly: DON’T take awesome concepts and make bad movies. I repeat: DO NOT DO THIS. Critics ravaged W.E., about Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII, a relationship I wanted to see made into a smart movie, not one made by the singer Madonna. The Raven was panned, but who didn’t want to see John Cusack as Poe solving crimes based on his stories?

Despite my complaints here, though, I feel lucky for the movies of the past year; they are a varied and solid bunch. There are still so many I want to see: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Anna Karenina, Skyfall, Silver Linings Playbook, Les Miserables… anyone up for a movie marathon?